Tweet
Hmmm. Is it true that America’s Central Intelligence Agency pretty much invented, trained and funded al-Qaeda back in the days of Charlie Wilson’s secret war on Afghanistan? Or is that just another urban legend?
According to BBC News, “…Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. [bin Laden] received security training from the CIA itself.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm. And apparently Bin Laden received approximately three billion dollars in venture capital start-up funds from the CIA.
How come the CIA never gave three billion dollars to me? Ain’t I more deserving and lovable than OBL? Humph.
Is it really true that there was NO al-Qaeda in Iraq until good old Shock and Awe gave birth to it — as a deadly branch off the CIA-created al-Qaeda tree? Or is that just another urban legend?
According to Reuters, the CIA recently stated that as of June 2011 there are currently still 1,000 al-Qaeda operatives now in Iraq — even after eight long years of deadly warfare, possibly a million people killed and over a trillion dollars spent. http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/idINIndia-57605920110609
But how many al-Qaeda operatives were there in Iraq before Shock and Awe and the CIA and Paul Bremer worked their magic? There were ZERO al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq before 2003, according to recent Pentagon reports released to CNN. Zero, zilch, nada. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-13/us/alqaeda.saddam_1_qaeda-targets-of-iraqi-state-iraqi-state-terror-operations?_s=PM:US We spent over a trillion dollars to put al-Qaeda into Iraq? Why that’s approximately three million per operative! Good job, CIA.
Then last spring Americans started hearing rumors that the “rebels” in Libya were not only CIA-created but also comprised of Al-Qaeda-connected operatives as well. Or is that just another urban legend too?
According to a recent article in Global Research, “Some 1500 jihadists from Afghanistan trained by the CIA were dispatched to fight with the ‘pro-democracy’ rebels under the helm of ‘former’ Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26351
According to Pepe Escobar of the Asian Times, Abdel Hakim Belhadj is a known al-Qaeda asset. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs0DPb8d-Yg
And now we are getting intimations that the CIA and al-Qaeda are working together in Syria too. According to Global Research, ibid., “The Libyan model of rebel forces integrated by the Islamic brigades together with NATO special forces is slated to be applied in Syria, where Islamist fighters supported by Western and Israeli intelligence have already been deployed.” The CIA and al-Qaeda are now bonding in Syria too? Or perhaps that is just another urban legend?
We have also been told that al-Qaeda was responsible for the the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Or is that another urban legend as well.
According to an FBI wanted poster, OBL has never been sought in connection with the bombing of the World Trade Center http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden. And Osama himself denied any connection to this terrible disaster until four years after the fact, perhaps hoping to buzz up his sagging terrorist image in the press? So that he wouldn’t have to just sit all alone in his lonely hidey-hole in Abbottabad, watching past promo triumphs of himself from back in the day.
According to an interview with al-Qaeda’s top guy dated September 28, 2001, OBL had stated, “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.” http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html
Are we actually supposed to believe Osama? Hell no. But that’s what he said. And if al-Qaeda really was responsible for 9-11, you would at least expect them to be doing a chicken dance. And you would definitely expect an apology from the CIA for being a parent to these nasty kids.
But let’s assume that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9-11 (and not Dick Cheney — who actually did have means, motive and opportunity). If so, then the CIA is still on the hook.
According to an article from ThinkProgress.org, “Former Clinton and Bush White House top counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke alleges in an interview for a radio documentary commemorating the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that then-CIA director George Tenet and other top CIA officials withheld intelligence on two al Qaeda operatives living in the United States that ended up taking part in the attacks.” http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/12/294748/clarke-cia-withheld-intel-cover-up/
We have been told again and again and again that al-Qaeda members are the BAD GUYS. Yet here, apparently, is America’s own CIA, intimately linked and tied to these Bad Guys again and again and again. And some fairly cogent proof has been offered again and again and again that these rumors are true. And yet NO ONE in America seems to questioning what is going on here? Huh?
In honor of the sad tenth anniversary of 9-11, as patriotic America citizens who love our country and resent like Hell having had it attacked — in light of these circumstances, do we not OWE it to ourselves and our fallen fellow citizens to freaking investigate and AUDIT the CIA — and its alleged incestuous relations with al-Qaeda, aka The Bad Guys?
Isn’t that the least we can do?
Or was 9-11 just another urban legend as well?
PS: And what would be the CIA’s motivation for lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas all these times (at the cost of millions of lives, including many of our own)? Here are two clues:
Today’s quote from my Franklin Planner sez, “There’s enough in the world for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” Greed. Greed appears to be the top motivator for the CIA — not love of country.
And here’s a headline from an article by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges that pretty much spells out the CIA’s “modus operandi” in black and white (or at least in pixels): “America to the World: We want Everything — If You Stand in the Way we’ll Kill You.” http://www.alternet.org/story/152304/america_to_the_world%3A_we_want_everything_–_if_you_stand_in_the_way_we%27ll_kill_you?page=entire
Actually it’s not we Americans who are saying that. 99.9% of us don’t in any way benefit from any of this pillaging and killing. Only corporatists benefit — corporatists and their enforcer, the CIA. The rest of us appear to be merely zombies, cats-paws, victims and suckers. http://www.cracked.com/article_19402_6-mind-blowing-ways-zombies-vampires-explain-america_p2.html
10 Comments
Jane, you ask some great questions and connect some dots to a slowly developing picture of this country’s second Pearl Harbor. We must keep pressing for answers. We owe it to ourselves and all of those who mourn the passing of the dead.
The CIA has been involved in some horrific stuff, including torture, as we now know. I am not sure there is anything horrible that they have not done. I have long been troubled by their connection to al Qaeda.
Keep up the great work.
Recommended.
Rec’d as well. To those who might doubt the CIA love affair with AQ, it ain’t no stretch. Just look at the evidence, some of which is presented clearly in this post. Shit, when the Ba’ath Party assumed power in 1963, that was CIA. Noriega was CIA. The Shah and SAVAK? CIA. Ngo Dinh Diem, CIA. Duvalier, Trujillo, Somoza, Mobutu, Suharto, CIA. Banzer in Bolivia. Castel Branco in Brazil. D’Aubuisson in El Salvador. Rios Montt in Guatemala, Lon Nol in Cambodia, Savimbi in Angola, Dhlakama in Mozambique, all CIA. And that’s just a few of the monsters the CIA has supported. AQ is just another in a long list.
The CIA is the living embodiment of American moral nihilism. As Ed Herman once said:
” … the operative principles dictating U.S. support and hostility in the Third World have been business criteria first, military convenience second, and any humanistic considerations third and thus effectively irrelevant. In fact, they are less than irrelevant — they are in conflict with the first two criteria, and therefore … humanizing forces [become] ‘threats’.
Excellent, fine diary! I wonder if the GAO has done a report on the use of the name “al-Qaeda.” The BBC documentary “Power of Nightmares” shows how bin Laden never used the name “al-Qaeda” prior to 9/11. He began using the name after 9/11 only because the U.S. government constantly referred to the 9/11 hijackers as “al-Qaeda,” which generically means “the base” in Arabic. The name was created by the FBI in 1998 when one of its informants began using the name “al-Qaeda” to generically refer to bin Laden’s “military base” in Afghanistan. The informant was a former ally of bin Laden and a star witness in a 1998 prosecution of terrorists for the Africa embassy bombings. Arabic speakers in the Arab world must laugh at how we refer to a terrorist group generically as “The Base.”
Whenever people use the name “al-Qaeda” they need to define what they mean by “al-Qaeda.” For me, al-Qaeda means 9/11 and a tiny Islamic cult in Afghanistan no bigger than the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas. It doesn’t mean “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” “al-Qaeda in Yemen,” “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” or (my favorite) an “al-Qaeda affiliate,” none of which were ever directed or funded by bin Laden. I bet our government INVENTED those names, too. Unfortunately, both the lefty and conservative media use the word “al-Qaeda” like it means something related to 9/11. I once talked with the reporter Dahr Jamail who spent time in Iraq during the occupation and he didn’t seem the slightest bit skeptical about using the “al-Qaeda” name when reporting on bombings in the Middle East. Weird. His employer, Al Jazeera, also uses the name loosely to describe the perpetrators of bombings without any additional evidence about them. So, Americans continue to falsely assume that terrorism in the Middle East is related to 9/11. I think a responsible investigation will prove it isn’t related at all.
Abdel Hakim Belhadj of the LIFG is not Al Qaeda or an AQ asset. They fought in the same battles but that is all. It’s a serious mistake to follow the lead of the state department and put all islamic militants in the same AQ category so they can label them enemies later.
I say this as being totally against involvement by the US, France, UK, Nato or the Saudis attacking Libya.
The CIA or the US is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Egypt. They are salafists. They are not AQ.
correlation is not causation. Al Qaeda is very specific group. They are fighting western occupation of Muslim holy lands. The kill their own if they collaborate with the US or if they are not good Sunni muslims.
The US has aligned with the Mujahideen, and the Taliban, not AQ.
Your description of the AQ designator is spot on. The US government even retroactively included an Algerians Islamic group who fought France when they occupied them. They were called the GIA.
The CIA lies about 9-11 as well as anything else.
The 9-11 lie is one of the best right up there with al keda BS.
Architects & Engineers – Solving the Mystery of WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=youtu.be
This is a great short video featuring Ed Asner from the old The Mary Tyler Moore Show in its opening.
Jane,
If you are monitoring your blog here at the lake, would you please disclose your thoughts about the ambush by suicide bomber of the CIA station head in Afghanistan a couple of years ago by a doctor who was reported to have been a double agent working for al Qaeda and the CIA?
IIRC, he was detained and tortured in a Jordanian prison where he agreed to work for the CIA. He returned to the Afghanistan-Pakistan area where he supposedly rejoined AQ and began supplying information to the CIA regarding the locations and plans of certain individuals. Then he requested a meeting with the station head that was scheduled to take place at a military base. When he arrived, he was waived through security and when he entered the room where she was together with other members of her team, he pulled the plug and blew-up everyone.
Thanks for all the input and new information. It amazes me how well-read many Americans are — and also how even the MSM carries all these CIA atrocity stories right out there on Google — yet no one seems to do anything about putting a muzzle on the CIA.
Sure tortured doctors in AF-Pak can blow themselves up in protest of CIA actions, but the average American citizen? Whose money is all being spent by these psychopaths? Yawn.