Thursday, March 25, 2010

Elicitation Techniques For The Intelligence Professional


Elicitation: "Acquisition of information from a person or group in a manner that does not disclose the intent of the interview or conversation. A technique of human source intelligence collection, generally overt, unless the collector is other than he or she purports to be."You don't hear much about elicitation. An element of intel operations tradecraft, many consider it the seedier side of HUMINT(or, as the business guys call it, "primary source") intelligence in the corporate world.

The best introduction to this world, in my opinion, is John Nolan's excellent book
Confidential (which you can now buy in paperback).

Another useful product came across my desk the other day, however. One of my students
(Thanks, Nimalan!) forwarded the very interesting slide presentation at the bottom of this post by Stephan Hernan who appears to be an independent analyst working health, science, and communications technology issues.

Whether you are curious about elicitation generally or are more interested in the counterintel implications of these techniques, I recommend the slide show:




John Nolan's excellent book Confidential

Amazon.com Review

People say the darnedest things. They tell you how much money they make, how well their company did in the last quarter, what it'll take to undercut their latest bid on a government project or to undermine their marketing efforts. All you have to do is ask.

John Nolan, a 22-year veteran of international espionage who is currently involved in corporate intelligence-gathering, shows you how to ask, what to ask, when to ask, and whom to ask. The methods can be as simple as deliberately making a misstatement--"The toothpaste division sure missed its projections this quarter"--and getting someone who knows better to correct you, in the process supplying you with the information you want about his company's inner workings. Or they can be as complicated as patiently and doggedly piecing together tiny scraps of information from a number of sources. Whichever you resort to, Nolan shows a conversational method for ensuring that the person dispensing the information doesn't even remember he or she gave it out. No, it's not hypnotism; it's starting and ending a conversation with generalities, and discussing specifics only in the middle, the part of a chat that most people won't recall.

Confidential could be useful to anyone who needs information about a rival, or who needs to protect his or her own company's secrets. Nolan illustrates his points with examples from business (how Johnson & Johnson gathered intelligence that protected its Tylenol franchise from a rival product) as well as fiction (Appendix A is dedicated to the techniques used by Sherlock Holmes to elicit information). The result is an entertaining book that may take your business to a more intelligent level. --Lou Schuler --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review

"Confidential is must-reading for those who should be guarding shareholders' information assets." -- Lewis W. Lehr, former chariman of the board and chief executive officer, 3M

An easily understood and highly readable field manual that guides professionals in mastering the art of intelligence collecting. --
Tom Parker, principal, business intelligence, NIPSCO

Remarkably thorough, engagingly written and above all, useful the day one starts to read it. --
George A Dennis, Director of Competitor Intelligence, Bellcore

Product Description

Whether you know it or not, your business competes in an environment in which many Fortune 500 companies are recruiting ex--CIA officers--specialists with training in elicitation, intelligence collection and analysis, and counterintelligence. It is a world where small businesses are becoming increasingly more sophisticated at digging up information about their competitors--and are using it to beat the big players at their own game.

Welcome to the era of Business Intelligence, where staying one move ahead of the competition requires uncovering their secrets and using them to your advantage.

In Confidential, John Nolan, a former federal intelligence officer and a preeminent expert in the field of Business Intelligence, reveals how your company can gather the intelligence it needs to beat the competition, while keeping your own valuable secrets under wraps. Providing the basics of Business Intelligence, including such invaluable techniques as data elicitation and sourcing as well as higher-level intelligence gathering and counterintelligence tactics for more sophisticated corporate policy makers, Confidential reveals:

How a well-planned conversation can be your most valuable information gathering tool

Who will most likely tell you what you want to know--and who is supposedly unsusceptible

How to discover the people who know what you need to know, both inside your company and outside, inside your industry, and beyond

How studying your customers and the leaders and decision-makers in their industries can enhance your competitive intelligence in significant ways

Why trade shows present an unparalleled opportunity for intelligence--what to look for, how to obtain it

Which countermeasures will ensure that neither you nor your employees become the unwitting sources of leaks

How to translate information into action that will directly affect your company's profits

Whether you're looking to find out the design and price of a competitor's upcoming product line, or uncover the dangers of entering a new market, this comprehensive, practical handbook offers effective strategies that anyone from senior-level executives to middle managers can utilize to protect themselves and outwit the competition.

About the Author

John Nolan, founder of Phoenix Consulting Group, a Business Intelligence solutions firm, spent twenty-two years in intelligence collection and counterintelligence special operations in the United States, Asia, and Europe. He is well known in the mainstream business community for his development of integrated solutions to industrial and economic espionage, trade secrets, and other information issues. He is frequently featured in national and international media such as Forbes, George, and CNN. He can be reached via email at jnolan @intellpros.com.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.


If people listened to themselves more often, they would talk a lot less.
--Courtois' Rule

For over thirty years, I've been collecting information for intelligence consumers--both federal as well as commercial. For the past ten years, I've run a company that specializes in collecting hard-to-find information that can be turned into competitive intelligence and then to competitive advantage. For much of that time, we've also provided courses in intelligence skills and techniques to business professionals who work for most of the largest--and many of the medium-sized--companies in the world.

How do we do this? We do it legally and ethically. We don't steal information, bribe people, bug their conference rooms and executive suites, or hack into their computers. We don't misrepresent ourselves, conduct ruse interviews, or have specially molded masks to impersonate others. We really don't need to. In America, where a great deal of our work is done--working for one firm against another irrespective of national pedigree or ownership--we encounter what we call a "target-rich environment."

This target-rich environment gets its name from the comments of a former adversary, a former Soviet intelligence officer who defected to the United States in the late 1980s. We became acquainted a year or so later and have maintained a fairly cordial relationship now that we no longer have professional constraints. He worked against the United States while I worked against his former homeland. Every once in a while, he and I get together to tell each other lies about how successful we were.

On one of these evenings a few years ago, he told me that he'd just finished a great book that really captured the essence of the East-West intelligence competition. Oddly, he said that it was written by a former U.S. Navy pilot. I had no clue what a pilot could have known about our old business. My colleague went on to tell me that the pilot recounted some of his experiences over North Vietnam. The U.S. pilots would take off for missions over the North, and large numbers of North Vietnamese aircraft would rise to meet them. The navy pilot described the aircraft as inferior Soviet export models, flown by inexperienced and undertrained North Vietnamese pilots. Rather than viewing the environment as hostile and threatening, the navy pilot commented that he and his colleagues viewed it as a "target-rich environment."
My former Soviet adversary then said that that really captured the essence of how we competed, he and I. While I worked against a xenophobic and suspicious people who were extremely hard to meet, he had free rein in the United States against an open, trusting people that never really met a stranger. For him, the United States was--and remains--a target-rich environment.
I must admit that our experience bears that out.

In our efforts on behalf of clients to collect useful information that helps them make decisions that impact their financial and technical performance, we follow a standard that requires us to identify ourselves by our true names, and by our company. We do that in every contact with a source or potential source of information.

It maybe be helpful to share a statistic with you--one that we began compiling in 1992 and that has remained fairly consistent since that time. Each time our researchers, our diggers as we call them, contact a source--whether a new one or an old one--they fill out a form that describes the person, their information, and their reactions to the approach. It's their reactions that I'd like to share with you.

Let's say we call one hundred people. We say exactly the same thing to each of them. For example, "Hello, my name is John Nolan, from Phoenix Consulting Group, in Huntsville, Alabama. I'm working on a project involving X, Y, and Z and wonder if this is a good time to speak with you." Depending on how cynical you are, you may or may not be surprised that fifty people out of that one hundred will say, "Sure, this is as good a time as any" or "Could you call back in an hour after I've had a chance to clear my desk?"

The other fifty are somewhat less cooperative. Most of these remaining fifty will ask at least one, but usually two, questions. The first usually is "Before I talk to you, what's this about?" Our answer is fairly standard as well: "We're a research firm in Huntsville, Alabama, and we're working on a project on behalf of a client." The second question is a little more focused: "Well, who's your client." Our response is consistent as well: "Sorry, I can't tell you. You see, we have confidentiality agreements in place with every one of our clients and they prevent us from being able to disclose the name of our client."

You would think that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would respond, "Hey, if you can't tell me who your client is, there's no way I'm going to talk to you." Indeed, fifteen out of that remaining fifty hang up at that point. Fifteen. The remaining thirty-five people say something like "Oh, yeah. I've gotta put up with confidentiality agreements at my place too. I understand. So, what can I do for you?" That means eighty-five people out of a hundred agree to talk to us. That's just the starting point. It's what they say afterward, knowing what they've just learned about us and our reasons for calling, that sometimes amazes us.

We'll be spending the first part of this book showing you the ways we keep those conversations going--and enjoy repeat calls to the same people in subsequent projects as well. As you adopt these methods, you'll be joining the thousands of intelligence professionals--government and nongovernment alike--whose approaches to information collection have changed radically and for the better because of the way they've added elicitation to their tool kit.

--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Cheneyism with a CRUEL Face: Obama's New Imperial Presidency


Call me a cynic, but I was hardly surprised to learn that the "change" regime is threatening to veto the 2010 intelligence authorization bill "over a provision that would force the administration to widen the circle of lawmakers who are informed about covert operations and other sensitive activities," The Washington Post reported.

Never mind that churlish congressional Democrats, like their corporatist Republican colleagues across the aisle, would crush each other in a stampede to see who'd be first in handing the Executive Branch whatever it wants.

Under the proposed bills (S. 1494 and H.R. 2701), the White House would have to inform all members of both House and Senate intelligence committees of the "main features" of covert operations disclosed to the all-too-pliable "Gang of Eight." Whether this would include specific disclosure to Congress of CIA or Pentagon "black programs," identified in budget authorizations only by code words or cryptonyms, is unknown.

Comprised of the Speaker and minority leader of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairman and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, this "Gang"--torture and aggressive war enablers all--have earned a place in the dock alongside Executive Branch criminals--for their facilitation of every law-breaking, constitution-shredding practice of the Bush and now, Obama governments.

According to the Post and other published reports, in a letter sent to "senior members" of the intelligence panels March 15, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R. Orszag affirmed that "Gang of Eight notifications are made in only 'the most limited of circumstances' affecting 'vital interests' of the United States, arguing that the new requirement would 'undermine the president's authority and responsibility to protect sensitive national security information'."

"Sensitive" as in criminal operations designed to advance the geopolitical agenda of America's multinational corporations, particularly the giant energy, weapons and financial conglomerates who rule the roost.

Orszag is a close confidant of Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary and CEO at the criminal financial enterprise known as Citigroup. In a series of extraordinary reports, Narco News investigative journalist Al Giordano described how Citigroup "has been caught time and time again in narco-money laundering trails in our América and across the globe."

In December 2008, Reuters reported that a group of investors filed a lawsuit against the firm, charging Citigroup executives, including Rubin, with selling shares at inflated prices whilst concealing the firm's risks. Both Orszag and Rubin were "senior fellows" at the neoliberal Brookings Institution where Orszag directed The Hamilton Project before joining the "change" regime as OMB Director.

The deal killer according to Orszag comprise several items "of serious concern to the Intelligence Community (IC)." If implemented by Congress "the President's senior advisors" would then recommend the bill be vetoed. These include: "the Congressional notification provisions, GAO provisions, and provisions regarding the amounts authorized for the National Intelligence Program."

According to Secrecy News security analyst Steven Aftergood, the "dispute over an increased role for GAO in intelligence oversight is particularly illustrative of the disparate and conflicting interests of the legislative and executive branches."

The answer to Aftergood's rhetorical question, whether the "status quo is good enough?" when it comes to increased oversight, given Executive Branch malfeasance in crafting make believe intelligence during the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, would inevitably be "no."

Recall the oft-quoted statement by the former Director of the British intelligence agency MI6, Richard Dearlove, who infamously told the Blair regime in the leaked Downing Street Memo that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed (by the U.S.) around the policy."

A million dead Iraqis later, Dearlove's grim assessment still stands.

Indeed, following a script written by Bushist war and torture enablers John Yoo, Jay Bybee and David Addington, Orszag alleges that "allowing GAO to conduct intelligence oversight ... would fundamentally change the statutory framework for oversight of the IC through the intelligence oversight committees and alter the long-standing relationship and information flow between the IC and intelligence committee members and staff."

In other words, despite fundamentally restrictive and opaque methods deployed by the Executive Branch to conceal covert operations, including blatantly illegal programs barred by U.S. and international law, Salon's Glenn Greenwald notes that so-called "Gang of Eight" briefings are a "sham process."

According to Greenwald, the current rigged game "allowed the administration to claim that it 'briefed' select Congressional leaders on illegal conduct, but did so in a way that ensured there could be no meaningful action or oversight, because those individuals were barred from taking notes or even consulting their staff and, worse, because the full Intelligence Committees were kept in the dark and thus could do nothing even in the face of clear abuses."

As readily apparent, particularly where Bush's torture and warrantless wiretapping programs were concerned, the former, and now current, administration can claim they had "informed" congressional leaders of secret administration policies. Never mind that the allegedly "co-equal" branch of government, Congress, can do nothing to stop these dubious programs; not to worry, our "representatives" are "in the loop"!

Regardless of whether or not these programs violated the law--under international treaty obligations and U.S. law in the case of torture or the protection of Americans' First and Fourth Amendment rights with respect to illegal spying--the administration has simply declared that abiding by any statutory requirements vis-à-vis Congress's lawful oversight of the Executive Branch are simply null and void.

"Team B" Nation

The Obama administration, like their Bushist predecessors, have also declared that Federal Courts are also off-limits when it comes to reeling in abuses by the "unitary executive," a novel constitutional theory promulgated by the ultrarightist Federalist Society and wholly embraced by the current government.

In the wake of 1970s revelations of widespread spying and other abuses against the American people by successive administrations--COINTELPRO (FBI), Operation CHAOS (CIA), Project MINARET (NSA)--Congress briefly asserted its prerogatives to rein-in the Executive Branch by creating the FISA court (a rubber-stamp to be sure) that on paper at least if not in practice, would oversee the surveillance activities of the secret state.

Push-back wasn't long in coming, however. With the rise of the Reagan administration, neoconservative corporate toadies such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others asserted that the hypermilitarized American capitalist state was "under siege" by a "resurgent" Soviet Union (already in the throes of collapse) and that the intelligence agencies had been "gutted" by "overzealous" civil liberties "extremists."

As investigative journalist Robert Parry has pointed out, under former CIA Director and future President George H.W. Bush, the "Team B" concept for ginning-up intelligence gained favor in the corridors of power.

Scary assessments of Soviet power and U.S. weakness also fueled Ronald Reagan's campaign in 1980, and after his election, the Team B hard-liners had the keys to power. As Reagan and his vice presidential running mate, George H.W. Bush, prepared to take office, the hard-liners wrote Reagan's transition team report, which suggested that the CIA analytical division was not simply obtuse in its supposed failure to perceive Soviet ascendancy, but treasonous. (Robert Parry, "Why U.S. Intelligence Failed," Consortium News, October 22, 2003)

Gone were the secret, though brutally frank assessments, made by security and intelligence analysts across government as revealed by Daniel Ellsberg's 1971 leaking of the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. Such appraisals as Parry averred were now considered "treasonous," indeed, were grounds for witchhunts and purges of intelligence officials who didn't toe the neocon party line during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

With the lies of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations exposed by Ellsberg and his colleagues, and the basis for the American invasion of Southeast Asia revealed for what it was, a monumental fraud, elite managers were thrown into crisis.

As a transcript of President Nixon's June 14, 1971 Oval Office tape disclosed, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman described the situation thusly: "To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing: You can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment; and the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it's wrong, and the President can be wrong."

Haldeman's bleak assessment has now become the basis for the capitalist state's descent into presidential dictatorship; after all, as the "democratically elected" leader of the "free world," one must enforce, by all means necessary "the implicit infallibility of presidents."

A decade after Pentagon Papers' revelations, the ascendance of Reagan regime neocons laid the ideological foundations for the assault on America's republican form of governance, by many of the same players who are now permanent embeds, in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Presidential Dictatorship

Subverting the long-standing notion of "judicial supremacy" articulated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, that the Court is the "final arbiter" of what is and what is not the law, Bushist doctrine (firmly embraced by Obama "change" mavens) asserts that the "unitary executive" has full license to overrule, indeed bypass Congress and the Courts, based on the thinnest of reeds: that the President can interpret the Constitution and even violate long-established laws and treaties in his role as "Commander-in-Chief."

This was made clear most recently when the Federal District Court in San Francisco dismissed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's landmark Hepting v. AT&T and Jewel v. NSA lawsuits.

Currently, the Obama administration is challenging the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals April 2009 ruling that the ACLU's lawsuit against the CIA's illegal torture flights, facilitated by a Boeing Corporation subsidiary, in Mohamed et. al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. can go forward. Like Bush's Justice Department, the Obama administration is arguing that the suit cannot go to court, thereby denying CIA torture victims a measure of justice, on grounds that privileged "state secrets" would be disclosed.

EFF filed an appeal with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco March 19, citing the dangerous precedent set by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled in January that "that because so many people have been impacted by the widespread surveillance, no individual person has a 'particularized injury'."

In other words, precisely because illegal driftnet spying, data mining and national security indexing of "U.S. persons" are so pervasive, mere background noise as the secret state's noose tightens around all our necks, citizens and legal residents alike will no longer be afforded a legal remedy to challenge specious national security claims made by Executive Branch repressors.

EFF's Legal Director Cindy Cohn writes: "This ruling is not only wrong--the NSA's interception of your private emails with your doctor, spouse or child is an individual harm to you regardless of whether it also happened to other people too--but also extremely dangerous because it would have the courts blind themselves to massive violations of the law and the Constitution on the grounds that they impact too many people."

Not that congressional grifters in either capitalist political party, "liberal" Democrats or "conservative" Republicans give a damn about our rights, as they amply demonstrated when they passed the scurrilous FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA).

That onerous piece of legislative flotsam legalized Bush regime warrantless wiretapping whilst providing the giant telecommunications firms and Internet service providers with retroactive immunity for their profitable role as partners alongside America's secret state.

Recall that feckless Senator and now President, Barack Obama, who might have said he "opposed FAA before he supported it," has embraced, indeed expanded every single illegal maneuver--from aggressive war to wholesale spying--as his Bushist counterparts. One might even say, if "only Nixon could go to China," then only an Obama (covered by his "progressive" acolytes) could enlarge the repressive writ of the intelligence agencies!

As Federal Computer Week reported March 17, the public-private enterprise fueling domestic repression known as "fusion centers" are expanding rapidly as a result of cold, hard cash pumped into the system by the federal government.

According to FCW journalist Patrick Marshall, "DHS and the Justice Department have driven the development of fusion centers." Both departments have provided a "variety of resources, including personnel and grants" that have seen such data mining centers balloon from 38 in 2006 to some 72 currently in operation nationwide, with more on the horizon.

But as the ACLU revealed in two incisive reports in 2007 and 2008, the "types of information they seek for analysis has also broadened over time to include not just criminal intelligence, but public and private sector data, and participation in these centers has grown to include not just law enforcement, but other government entities, the military and even select members of the private sector."

According to the civil liberties' watchdog, their proliferation "raise very serious privacy issues at a time when new technology, government powers and zeal in the 'war on terrorism' are combining to threaten Americans' privacy at an unprecedented level." Indeed, the ACLU reported in September 2009 that fusion centers have been caught spying on antiwar, environmental and religious groups and will, under Obama, now receive access to classified military intelligence.

That Congress will roll-over and accede to administration demands over the issue of intelligence oversight is a foregone conclusion. One would expect nothing less from the best Congress money can buy! But these legislative vampires are now planning to take things a step further.

Arizona Senator and failed presidential candidate, John McCain, introduced the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 (S. 3081) in the Senate on March 4.

McCain, and co-sponsors Scott Brown (R-MA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), James Inhofe (R-OK), George LeMieux (R-FL), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD), David Vitter (R-LA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS) are crafting legislation that Glenn Greenwald has described as "the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act."

Greenwald writes that the bill literally "empowers the President to imprison anyone he wants in his sole discretion by simply decreeing them a Terrorist suspect--including American citizens arrested on U.S. soil."

The bill mandates that all such individuals "be placed in military custody," and explicitly states that they "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

As The Atlantic's national security correspondent Marc Ambinder writes, although the bill is being treated by the "national security community" as a "standard proposal" and a simple response "to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt," a closer reading reveals that it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on "suspected activity."

Welcome to the Orwellian world of permanent crime.... It can't happen here? It already has.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Le Renseignement de théâtre israélien se réorganise


Renseignement de théâtre

La semaine dernière, l’état-major israélien organisait une cérémonie à l’occasion de l’entrée en service du nouveau Combat Collection Corps (CCC) qui vient succéder au Field Intelligence Corps (Haman). Commandée par le Brigadier-Genéral Eli Polak, cette unité qui dependant organiquement du renseignement militaire israélien (Aman) au même titre que le Sayeret Matkal ou l’unité 8200, est chargée des opérations de renseignement de théâtre, de la désignation d’objectifs et de missions « ISR» (Intelligence, Surveillance Reconnaissance) aux frontières du pays. Le Combat Collection Corps s’appuie sur trois bataillons (Shachaf, Nitzan, Nesher), ainsi que sur la Field Intelligence School. La nouvelle organisation doit permettre à l’unité de développement ses moyens de collecte de renseignement et d’accroitre ses capacités opérationnelles.

Le CCC va ainsi élargir son périmètre d’action avec l’acquisition de renseignements notamment au profit des unités du Génie qui jusqu’à présent n’étaient pas du domaine du Field Intelligence Corps. Le Bataillon Shahaf est en charge de la zone de commandement Nord (frontière syrienne et libanaise) tandis que le bataillon Nitzan dépend du commandement central , surveille la frontière jordanienne et appuie les opérations en Cisjordanie. Enfin, le bataillon Nesher affecté au commandement Sud est chargé de la bande de Gaza etde la frontière égyptienne. Depuis l’opération Plomb durci, ce bataillon met en œuvre des tourelles téléopérées baptisées Roeh Yoreh. En décembre, dernier, l’un de ces systèmes a été employé pour stopper une tentative d’infiltration dans le nord de la bande de Gaza.

La Field Intelligence School, a elle récemment été transférée sur la base militaire de Sayarim afin de disposer notamment d’un champ de tir et d’accroitre le nombre de session de formations à la mise en œuvre des systèmes téléopéréz. Un mouvement qui s’inscrit dans le plan de l’état-major, de grouper autour de Shizafon/Sayarim les principaux centres de formation.

Friday, March 5, 2010

NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11

Hesiod, "Works and Days....."

~ ~ ~

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. For a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down.

In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance.

WTC7 Measurement FAQ [PDF]


Friday, February 26, 2010

LOOK OUT FOR WOMEN.....the CIA-MOSSAD Diversion


....links the large number of women in the Dubai passport caper to the story that Al-Qaeda (the CIA and Mossad) has been training western women to attack various targets....


The assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai was on 19 January 2010.

On 23 January 2010, the UK's Daily Telegraph, the voice of MI6, promoted the idea that if we read or heard about British looking women involved in acts of terrorism, we should assume that these women were Al Qaeda.

On 15 February 2010 it was revealed by the Dubai police that a number of white women had been involved in the Dubai assassination.


According to The Daily Telegraph (the voice of MI6), on 23 January 2010:

The women, who may have a 'non Arab' appearance and be travelling on Western passports, have been prepared for their missions by the .... group responsible for the operation to blow up an airliner over the United States on Christmas Day...

US law enforcement agents have been told to be on the lookout for females ... who may attempt to enter the country.

At least two are believed to be connected to al-Qaeda...



Richard Clarke, a former chief White House counter terrorism adviser, said: "They have trained women.

"There are others who ... may not be men."

Security sources said that it was "inevitable" that al-Qaeda would eventually turn to using women with a western appearance...



So, MI6 apparently feared that the Dubai police would discover that certain women were linked to the Dubai assassination.

But MI6 wanted us to think these women were agents of al Qaeda.....or Al-CIAda/MOSSAD.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

The 9/11 Truth movement



It has been about 6 months now since I wrote my first post here about the 9/11 Truth movement. Following this initial article, I posted another one trying to encourage my readers to go and dig for the facts by themselves. Hoping to encourage independent research, I have now posted some 9/11 links on this blog, and an RSS feed from 911Truth.org. So far, the reactions to the new "truther" orientation of the blog have been rather restrained. My sense is that some of you knew about all this all along, and some are politely refraining for expressing their disapproval for what they probably see as a useless exercise in "conspiracy theories". Fair enough. Having myself spent eight years being a "9/11 agnostic" I certainly can relate to the incredulity of those who believe that while the US government has plenty of ugly deeds on its conscience, the idea that 9/11 was some kind of "inside job" is really "too much".

Today, I would like to spell out here what exactly brought me around and made me into a committed "truther". The second thing I would like to do, is to give some "shortcuts" to those who are "on the fence" or confused about this entire topic.

Let's begin by the one thing which really opened my eyes. For this, I need to first identify the reasons for my previous 9/11 agnosticism.Basically - I believed that the US government could not have pulled off such a major operation as the covert installation of hundreds of tons of explosives inside WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 without this somehow becoming public. Likewise, I did not believe that having used at least three planes (2 in NY and the one which crashed in Shanksville) the putative "conspirators" would have chosen a rather convoluted "no plane" to strike the Pentagon. Finally , I did believe very strongly that the USA "had it coming" for decades already and that an organization like al-Qaeda had clearly warned the USA that it would retaliate for the perceived occupation of Saudi Arabia by "infidels" and for the US support Israel. So I applied Occam's Razor and decided that there is no need to seek some really complex and convoluted solution when the simple and straightforward explanation made sense and seemed to be supported by all the facts.

This reasoning looked all fine and dandy to me until I came to a truly momentous realization: the "official theory" did not explain one major fact: there is absolutely no way that the planes could have brought down the three buildings in New York. Not only that, but the way the buildings fell simply cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse induced by fire.

Let me stress something crucial here: one need not have an explanation for HOW something happened if this something is observed and irrefutably established. Or, put in another way - the fact that somebody cannot explain a phenomenon is not a logical basis to dismiss or deny the phenomenon itself.

Let's take for example the following fact: the US government - through NIST - officially recognized the fact that the WTC7 building fell at a free-fall speed for 2,5 seconds (for a detailed discussion of this please check out the video which I posted here). Do those 2,5 seconds really matter? Hell yes!! What this means is that the US government admits that for 2,5 seconds WTC7 fell without any kind of resistance to slow it down and this, therefore, means that there was nothing under the collapsing section. So this begs an obvious question: since we now know that there was nothing under the collapsing section and since we also know that there was a steel frame building there seconds before the collapse - what happened in between those two events? There is only one possible answer to this question: the steel-framed section of the building which would have normally slowed down the collapsing section of the building was removed a) extremely rapidly b) symmetrically. There is only one technology which can do that: explosives.

The above is simply not a matter of opinion. This is a fact. Likewise, it is a fact that fires could not have removed a section of WTC7 the way it was observed. At this point, we are faced with two basic and mutually exclusive options:

a) to deny the reality of indisputably established facts
b) to accept the compelling logic of Conan Dolye's Sherlock Holmes who said: “When you have eliminated the impossible (in this case - fires causing the observed collapse - VS), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Furthermore, we also know that WTC1 and WTC2 could not have collapsed as a result of the combined effects of the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires (anyone doubting that should watch 9/11 Blueprint for Truth - a presentation by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization which now counts over 1000 members).

Unlike the case of WTC7 for which we do have a de-facto government admission that only explosives could have cause the observed collapse, the case of WTC1 and WTC2 not yet elicited any kind of oblique admission by the US government. What Uncle Sam did was even more basic: its latest report officially analyzes the events leading up to the collapse, but does not look at anything which happened once the collapse was initiated. In other words - the government does not even have an explanation, theory or even hypothesis of what could have triggered the type of collapse which was actually observed by millions, if not billions, of people.

So let's now put it the simple and direct way: the ONLY explanation for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 is a controlled demolition by pre-planted explosives. This is not "one of the" theories - it is the ONLY theory (a theory is an explanation which makes it possible to explain that which is observed). I need to repeat this again: the US government has already admitted that WTC7 did collapse at free fall speed for 2,5 seconds and the US government has simply no explanation at all for the any of the building collapses which happened on 9/11.

Since all the WTC center building were highly secure (especially WTC7 which had all the following organizations as tenants: DoD, CIA, FBI, IRS, USSS and many others) is unthinkable that any entity not affiliated with the US government could have covertly introduced hundreds of tons of high-explosives in these buildings, and most definitely not "al-Qaeda". Again, we need to turn to the compelling logic of Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible (in this case - a non-US government entity bringing in tons of explosives into WTC1/WTC2/WTC7 without being caught - VS), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

That's it.

That is all it takes to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an "inside job".

There is no need to explain all the seemingly unexplainable events which happened on that day, nor is there any need to explain HOW what we know happened was actually organized and executed. When a crime is committed, the forensic experts can establish that, say a murder was committed with a knife before the police investigators establish who did it, why or how. Put it differently, the fact that the police cannot establish motive, means and opportunity or charge a suspect beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that no murder happened.

This is why the all the numerous members of the 9/11 Truth movement all agree on one key demand: a new, independent and free, investigation into the events of 9/11 (conversely, those who oppose such an investigation are accessories to a clear case of obstruction of justice!).

What about the Pentagon?!

Here I need to caution any newcomers to the 9/11 Truth movement: the fact is that the 9/11 Truth movement is deeply divided on this issue. Many "truthers" are absolutely convinced that no plane ever hit the Pentagon, while many others are equally sure that only a plane could have caused the damage which was observed. The debate on this topic is so heated that both sides sometimes resort to exactly the same tactics as the other: dismissing eyewitnesses are "notorious unreliable" and accusing each other of being government plants, disinformation agents.

Let me candidly share my own view on this with you: I have seen many pictures of the damage on the Pentagon and I cannot imagine that an aircraft would simply vanish the way this one seemed to have vaporized itself. Not only that, but I think that a plane hitting a building at full speed would cause much more structural damage then what is actually seen on the photos. However, and this is a big however, I am not an expert on air crashes. Not only that, but the idea that whoever would have used 3 planes in NY would suddenly decide not to use one at the Pentagon makes no sense to me whatsoever. Nor do the "alternative" theories such as a cruise missile strike or a "bombing flyover" of the Pentagon by a mysteriously disappearing aircraft. On this issue I personally still remain a total 'agnostic' and I am quite willing to be convinced either way.

I am aware of the fact that some 9/11 truthers are constantly warning the rest of us that there is a real risk that the US government is deliberately muddying up the waters around the Pentagon attack to commit as many truthers as possible to a "no-plane" theory only to better ridicule us all by eventually releasing an indisputable video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon (and we know that they have many such unreleased videos). I think that this warning should be taken very seriously by all.

But let's come back here to Occam's Razor. Here is how Wikipedia sums it up: "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question". In practical terms for the 9/11 Truth movement this translates into a fundamental principle: we do not need to refer to whatever happened at the Pentagon to prove that 9/11 was in inside job.

The official narrative (it does not even deserve to be called a "theory") so full of holes that even a fully empowered independent investigation would have a very hard time making sense of it all. There are literally dozens of issues which should be investigated: the damage to the Pentagon, of course, but also the real fate of United 93 (was it shot down?), the impossible phone calls made from the aircraft, the lack of debris in Shanksville, the close connections of the supposed hijackers to the CIA and FBI, the role of "high-fiving" Israelis and the so-called "Israeli students" spy network, the financing of the alleged hijackers by the Pakistani ISI (whose head was in DC on 9/11), etc. These are all valid topics worthy of careful analysis, but they are not needed to establish that 9/11 was in inside job.

The big news of 2009 was the publication by a group of prestigious scientists in the Open Chemical Physics Journal of a of a peer-reviewed article entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" which established that the dust from the WTC buildings which was collected in NY is full of not only of residue of explosives, but even from unexploded materials (see also Jim Hoffman's paper"Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust"). Not only had a "smoking gun" been found, a "loaded gun" had been found too. This was, of course, terrific news for the 9/11 Truth movement, a monumental achievement for the scientists involved in the research and publication of this seminal paper. But establishing that explosives have now been found is not needed to make the case that 9/11 was in inside job.

Why is this so important? Because any discussion about HOW 9/11 was done can turn into a refutation of WHAT was done that day. For example, the explosives expert Ron Craig has regularly attacked Richard Cage with the following fallacy: since he - Ron Craig - would not have been able to bring down the WTC buildings with regular explosives without a number of phenomena which were not observed on 9/11 and since he - Ron Craig - knows of no other explosives which could have brought these buildings down the way they were seen to collapse, it follow therefore that explosives could not have been used and the cause of the collapse itself and all the phenomena seen and heard that day could only have been a gravity induced collapse. Ron Craig is basically saying this: "since I cannot explain it - it did not happen".

So here is what is so crucial: the 9/11 Truth movement should never accept to be placed in the position of having to explain what kind of explosives were used, how they were placed, how they were detonated, how they were brought into the buildings, or how they were manufactured. Our position should be crystal clear: we know that the buildings were brought down with explosives, we think that we have some solid evidence about at least some of explosives which were used, we even have a very good idea of how they might have been brought in, but none of that is central to our thesis: that 9/11 was in inside job. What the 9/11 Truth movement needs to reply to the Ron Craigs out there is: we have proven that the buildings were brought down with explosives and since you claim to be an explosives expert we don't you find out how exactly this was done instead of denying the facts?!

The main point is this: the way those who are sill 9/11 "agnostics" must focus their internal debate about what happened on 9/11 is exactly the same as those who have joined the ranks of the "truthers" must focus the debate when talking to sceptics: First, only stick to those few but crucial facts which are sufficient to prove that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives as demonstrating this is enough to prove the fundamental thesis of the entire 9/11 Truth movement that 9/11 was an 'inside job". Second - refer all other outstanding issues to a future independent 9/11 investigation. This way, we can transform each challenging question thrown at us into yet another reason for a new investigation.

This pretty much sums up the conclusions to which I have come. I am open to other opinions and to criticisms, and I am not in any way claiming that what I wrote above is THE truth about 9/11. It is simply an outline of where I am at this moment in time. My goal in posting all this is to "compare notes" with others in a similar situation and to encourage the doubting agnostics to take a second, hard, look at the facts. Lastly, my hope is that some newcomers (such as myself) might steer clear of some of the logical traps and pitfalls which are placed ahead of them by the proponents of the official narrative.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Who ever control West Asia controls the world

The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist Militancy

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/11intel.htm


The Great Game -Renewed. Lord Curzon famously stated ” who ever control West Asia controls the world”. In his view this entailed the exercise of a predominant influence over the destinies of Persia and Afghanistan- a role he reserved for British India. Today we have many nations desperate to aquire that role? NATO and ISAF led by the USA, fighting Al-Qaeda and the Pakhtuns (Taliban); Even Russia and China not ignoring their strategic interests in the area ;and of course the traditional rivals India and Pakistan always ready to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan.This article –and a few others to follow- will look at the issues at stake today - primarily from Pakistan’s point of view.But first an over view of the make up and strategic importance of Central Asia.

The Demo-Graphy Of Central Asia. Once upon a time not so long ago the worlds biggest Empire possessed unimaginable land, wealth and potential. However, lacking the vision to manage what it possessed; it chose the wrong friends and made the wrong enemies resulting in an inevitable humiliation at the hands of a ‘despicable band of holy warriors’. China which should have been it’s biggest helper lifted not a finger to assist; and India which should have been it’s biggest friend shed not a single tear -in fact jumped on to the opposing band wagon with glee.

The monolith fell, and instead of the USSR we suddenly had fifteen sovereign states. In this series of articles we are concerned with only six of them now termed as the Central Asian Republics. They literally had independence thrust upon them –for none of them had lifted even a finger in any show of protest against USSR rule, or showed any solidarity with the coup of Boris Yeltsin. Yet after the events of Dec 1991 they had no choice except to be independent!

Central Asia can be termed ‘central’ as well as ‘a single region’ for more reasons then one. First it comprises most -but not all the territory - of what was formerly known as Turkistan, also as ‘inner Asia’, because of it being a land locked part of Asia; Second culturally and politically it lies in between many distinct civilizations –Roman Christianity to the west; Slavic Christianity and Communistic to the North; Chinese to the East and Islamic to the South. Third demographically and economically too it lies some where in the center –all have high rates of fertility and a high percentages of population engaged in agriculture, low per capita incomes and low rates of labor productivity as well as life expectancy. Fourth all of them have experienced Russian colonial rule and therefore have similar inefficient and corrupt post colonial government structures.

The political structures are highly centralized and based on feudally empowered ruling local elites working with the masters; while the economic structures are based on the classic definition of economic exploitation, in that the colonies were producers and suppliers of cheap agricultural as well as mineral raw material –with the additional imposition of the communistic pattern of organization in that the masters fixed what and how much had to be produced by each region. This also resulted in some startling discrepancies; in that some regions despite their primitive base gained remarkably advanced technological infrastructures and equipment–including nuclear and space technology!

Last but not least like the colonial experience every where else; despite Russian attempts to eradicate their Islamic values, in all these regions, Islam remains deeply embedded in their social and political psyche.This gives rise to ideas of regional and global Islamic unity. Although again - like else where in the Muslim world - what exactly this means remains unclear!

Endless border disputes –again like the legacies left by colonial powers else where- are a source of constant internal friction preventing any unity for common welfare and development. All of Uzbekistan’s borders for instance are in dispute with its neighbors!
The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist Militancy
The Mineral Wealth Of Central Asia. -Azerbaijan situated on the Caucasian Isthmus between Armenia and the Caspian Sea, is a major oil producing country. Turkmenistan (488,000 sq. mi) has enormous oil, gas, coal and other natural resources and directly adjoins Afghanistan to the south. Uzbekistan (172,000 sq. mi) also has vast resources in oil, gas, coal, copper and gold; and is a big cotton producer. It too adjoins Afghanistan. Tajikistan (55,000 sq. mi) also has a frontier with Afghanistan, and, has very rich deposits of oil, gas, coal, lead, zinc, uranium, radium etc. Kyrgyzstan Adjoining Tajikistan has a relatively well-developed industrial and agro-industrial base. It has a border with China to its east. Kazakhstan (1,000 000 sq. mi) has absolutely vast reserves of coal, oil, gas, manganese, copper, bauxite, gold, uranium and many other minerals. It is highly developed both agriculturally as well as industrially. Possessing much of the former Soviet aerospace and defense industries, it also has common borders with both Russia and China.

Historically too the region has always been valued for it oil potential alone. The two great World War I oil fields were in Texas and the Caspian Sea region of Imperial Russia. In WW II also Adolph Hitler launched Operation Blau to capture the Caspian Sea oil fields.
The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist Militancy
The Strategic Importance Of Afghanistan/Pakistan. In order to appreciate the strategic importance of Afghanistan /Pakistan, we have to first realize that any power which possess the major route for transit of trade revolving round Central Asia’s vast oil, gas and mineral resources will gain immensely in wealth, power and prestige. With this in mind let us have a look at all the likely routes out of the area:

1.The Routes Through The Caspian Sea. These are the most desirable route from the point of view of the EU.They are also the shortest routes out of the area and some have been operational since WW1.More over they allow for the possibility of the trans-shipment to Africa and SE Asia. This route empowers Europe. The more important sub-routes are:

Kazakhstan through Russia to Novorossiysk (Route 1) Built in 1997 by the Caspian Sea Consortium this route helps maintain Russian control of oil shipment from the region.

Old Russian Line from Baku To Novorossiysk (Route 2) .This historic line Chechnya to Novorossiysk was closed because of the Chechens’ continuing struggle. Russia has recently completed a bypass around Chechnya and reactivated the pipeline.

A Wider Northern By-Pass(Route 3).Russia has proposed exporting oil north to join its existing pipeline system at Novorossiysk .This development would remove the pipeline further from Chechnya and help maintain regular flow of Caspian Sea and Kazakh oil.

The Tran Caucasus Route. (Route 4). The Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC) built an initial line from Baku through Georgia to the Georgian port of Supsa on the Black Sea. It is pumping a limited amount of oil since l999.This is relatively inexpensive option, but the oil still has to move from Supsa by oil tanker through the Black Sea and the Bosporus. Turkey controls the traffic between the Black and Mediterranean Seas and does not want increased oil tanker traffic through the straits because of environmental concerns. Russia objects to this route because none of the pipeline passes through Russia. Further, this pipeline runs through domains of many fractious mountain tribes.
Pipe Line To Turkish Mediterranean Port Of Ceyhan (Route 5).The AIOC is considering this line. The route runs through Azerbaijan and Armenia, whose war over Nagorno-Karabakh is at a stalemate. Thus, the Baku-Armenia-Ceyhan route is not a near-term option. Should this conflict be settled, the route also passes through the Kurdish part of Turkey where a suppressed insurrection still simmers.
Clinton Alternative To Route 4.The Clinton administration tried to promote a pipeline route from Baku to Tbilisi to Supsa (Route 4) and then underwater from Supsa to Turkey where it would cut across Kurdish Turkey to Ceyhan. An underwater pipeline from Turkmenistan across the Caspian Sea to Baku would back this pipeline. This expensive option required regional political acceptance and Oil Company backing—neither of which the Clinton administration could obtain.

Since development of any of the above routes empowers Russia and Europe, development seems to be against long term US strategic interests. Even though pipe lines have existed in the area for long, the geopolitical and logistical nightmare involved in constructing and operating Tran Caucasian pipelines through Azerbaijan and Georgia are emphasized as formidable! Turkey (a key U.S. ally in the region) remains determined to restrict any use of the Bosphorus as a route for oil to Europe citing pollution! The possibility of such a route being affected by an outbreak of hostilities between Greece and Turkey is pointed out as a further obstacle.

Finally any European attempts at developing its own sphere of influence in Central Asia have been ruled out by two American initiatives. First, as we shall see later in this series of articles US has instigated Islamic insurgency in Chechnya. Second it engineered the dis -integration of the former Republic of Yugoslavia and carried out bombardment of Belgrade. This effectively established mutually contentious client states in the area, while also preventing the use of small sea/river tankers into Europe via the Danube, at least for the time being.

2.The China Route (Route 9). China itself as well as the Pacific Rim is potentially huge markets. The pipe line would run from western Kazakhstan through China to the Pacific serving Chinese, Japanese and Korean markets (Route 9). It requires an enormous outlay of $10 to $14 billion. The Chinese have signed a memorandum of understanding to build a shorter $3.5-billion pipeline that would stop in China proper. It empowers China.
3.The Iranian Routes (Route 7). Iran’s preferred route is a pipeline south from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf (Route 7). It is the shortest, cheapest and easiest route to an open port. Iran has an extended pipeline system in place, and Turkmenistan opened a gas pipeline into Iran in December 1997. The United States opposes this pipeline and tries to enforce sanctions, but other nations’ oil firms ignore the sanctions and cut oil deals with Iran. US firms continue lobbying in Washington, DC, for improved relations with Iran. It empowers Iran.
4.The Afghanistan-Pakistan Route (Route 8). The pipe line would run from Central Asia through Herat /Kandahar in Afghanistan, on to Quetta and Gwadar/Karachi ports in Pakistan. The pipe line is relatively cheap at $1.9 billion. More over this is the only route supported by a deep water port at Gwadar allowing for bulk transportation of both Oil and minerals through super tankers. Presently the US remains opposed to development of Gwadar because of fears it would provide the Chinese a shorter approach to the Gulf. The US is therefore busy in attempts to establish hegemony in the region through exploitation of Afghanistan –Pakistan friction and China-India rivalry.USA would prefer this route over all others provided it can establish firm grip on the area to prevent any Chinese influence .This is because it is the only exit the US has a chance of controlling; also it is a route which does not empower Europe, USSR, China or Iran.The route empowers Pakistan a nation the US aims at controlling.
The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist Militancy
Pakistan-Afghanistan Friction. This dates back to 1893 with the British creation of The “Durand line” as a buffer between the Czars and the British Empire. After the British departure Kabul refused to recognize Pakistan, challenging the legitimacy of its borders. India jumped in to encourage Afghan claims - supported by its ally the USSR. Despite the tension in the Frontier Pakistan’s founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah had already pulled out troops from the Pashtun areas, confident that Pakistan had the allegiance of the tribes. Subsequent events were to prove him correct.

Even though by 1956-57 Indian and USSR interference had created a full-blown ‘Afghan Problem’ for Pakistan,till as late as the early 70’s no military presence would be needed. Aslam Khattak then first First Secretary and later Ambassador in Kabul started a proposal for a Pakistan-Afghan confederation.The response was encouraging . Following a visit by the President and PM of Pakistan to Kabul,both sides agreed to work for a confederation in which the two regions would be autonomous in all matters , except for defence, foreign policy, foreign trade and communications. The Prime Minister’s office would rotate between the two,while King Zahir Shah would be the constitutional monarch of The Republic. Even the Americans agreed to help in a big way,and actually got into post-confederation details.

But Daud on a return visit to Pakistan was fired at while inspecting a shipyard at Karachi.The bullet ricocheted off a ship to hit Aslam Khattak instead. Ghaffar Khan was released from prison and sent to Kabul, to help remove resultant mis-understanding.He agreed to help provided a referendum was held on the issue of One Unit.Pakistani President Mirza agreed to do so.Even the American Ambassador in Karachi also assured Ghaffar Khan through the American Ambassador in Kabul that the referendum would be held. But it wasn’t. And great chance to change the course of history was thus missed.

Yet Pakistan never faced a threatening military posture from Afghanistan till the mid-70s. This pattern stayed in place even during the two wars with India (1965 and 1971).

The Birth of Militancy Inside Afghanistan/Pakistan. In 1973 Prince Daud staged a Soviet assisted coup to oust King Zahir Shah. The Daud regime not only raised the issue of Pashtunistan (Afghans claims to Pakistan provinces of NWFP and Baluchistan), but also for the first time moved the Afghan army closer to the borders. More importantly KHAD the Afghan Intelligence agency (aided and abetted by the Russian KGB and Indian RAW as all three were allied in those days) used several Pakistani tribal leaders (Sardars) to start as uprising in the tribal areas of Baluchistan and parts of NWFP.

Z.A. Bhutto’s government retaliated by supporting the disenchanted elements within Afghanistan. These included Burhanuddin Rabbani, Ahmad Shah Masud and Gulbadin Hikmatyar. Thus relations in the 1970s began with each country supporting the other’s dissidents on a purely nationalistic agenda on a quid pro quo basis; and till the mid-70’s Pakistan army was busy fighting a bitter insurgency in the province of Baluchistan – with the help of it’s ‘Militants’ within Afghanistan. There was no question of an Islamic Jehadi motivational base for either; as ‘enemies’ of both sides were Muslim. As we shall see this was to come much later when the CIA would conceive the theory of turning ‘Afghan militants’ into ‘Islamic militants’ for use against the ‘USSR’.

The Birth of Islamic (Wahabi) Radical Militancy. We have noted the birth of Afghan militancy following a pro-Soviet coup in Afghanistan and attempts at destabilization of Baluchistan. A natural consequence should have been the involvement of the USA and CIA on the Pakistani side in a communistic vs. free world conflict as was the norms of the time; more so as both sides were Muslims. Yet two development on the inter –national stage were to give it an irretrievable ‘Wahabi’ lusture which US supported militancy carries to this day. The first was the vast growth in Saudi wealth due to sharp rise in oil prices. The second was the castration of CIA as a result of post Watergate repercussions!

Saudi Wealth. In 1973, rise in oil prices brought great wealth to Saudi Arabia. Between 1973 to 1979 over $70 billion of this was used for furthering Wahabi Islamist purposes. Private Saudi citizens donated additional billions to private charities such as the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which built 575 new mosques in Indonesia alone. The King Faisal mosque in Islamabad –and its seminary- was also funded by Saudi money. Alex Alexiev calls this “the largest world wide religious campaign ever mounted”. It was this large scale preaching of Wahabism (an exclusively Saudi brand of mistrust of infidels as unfit to survive, branding of rival Muslim sects as apostates to be killed, and emphasis on a violent exterminative jihad against all others who count as infidels as a means of gaining paradise) which laid the groundwork for the defamation of Islam and the spread of terrorist groups in the name of Islam world wide.

The Castration Of CIA. It started with FBI, and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward discovering what seemed to be CIA fingerprints in the Watergate burglary. The agency was not involved, but it’s refusal to cooperate in unveiling Nixon’s obstruction of justice led directly to the firing of its director, Richard Helms, who was replaced by William E. Colby. In the preliminary congressional inquiries staffers had stumbled upon a number of domestic operations by the CIA. Colby acquiesced in unmasking these and soon assembled a list of CIA sins which ran into 693 typed pages – these later became famous as the “Family Jewels.”

The crown jewel in the lot was a program known as Operation Chaos involving CIA surveillance of antiwar protesters - the program being disclosed to the New York Times by Colby himself. This marked a turning point in public attitudes toward spying.
Overnight in public eyes the CIA became, a shadowy, sinister organization. President Ford called former CIA Director Helms into the Oval Office for advice. Helms reminded Ford that “The CIA is the president’s creature,” and defended Operation Chaos, to which Ford replied, “I plan no witch hunt, but in this environment I don’t know if I can control it.”

Starting in 1976 a witch hunt lasting five years did ensue! Democratic Senator Frank Church of Idaho, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence, castrated the free worlds best intelligence agency; famously depicting it as a “rogue elephant.”

The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist MilitancyThe Safari Club- An Alternate Super Intelligence Agency. In September 1 1976, a group of countries got together and established a newly formed secret cabal of intelligence agencies called the Safari Club. It included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran. The club was a brain child of Alexandre de Marenches, head of the French external intelligence service SDECE.It was likely formed with the connivance of CIA to compensate for it’s paralysis after Watergate - as a means of circumventing US Congress which had tied down the CIA! Acutely conscious of the Soviet threat these countries had decided that if the US could not do anything to counter it, they would!

The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist MilitancyMillions were spent to create an operational capability. But much more was required to be done to create its financial arm. The group needed a network of banks to help manage and conceal the enormous transactions needed to finance its intelligence operations. Saudi Intelligence Minister Kamal Adham was given the task to create one.

With the blessing of CIA director George Bush Sr, he would transformed the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a small Pakistani merchant bank, founded in 1972 by a Pakistani partner of Adham (Agha Hasan Abedi); into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying additional banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money transfer and whitening network in history.

The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist MilitancyThe Rise Of BCCI.Adham, and other intelligence heads worked with Abedi to contrive “a plan that seemed too good to be true. The bank (BCCI) would solicit the business of every major intelligence – and therefore terrorist, rebel, and underground - organization in the free world. The intelligence collected - and links forged in the process - would be shared with these ‘friends’ of BCCI.” CIA operative Raymond Close worked closely with Adham during the Congressional inquiry years to help identify and tap “into CIA’s hordes of misfits and malcontents to help man a 1,500-strong group of assassins and enforcers.” Soon, BCCI became the fastest growing bank in the world. Time magazine would later describe BCCI as not just a bank, but also “a global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad. Operating primarily out of the bank’s offices in Karachi, Pakistan; the 1,500-employee network has used sophisticated spy equipment and techniques, along with bribery, extortion, kidnapping and even, by some accounts, murder. It stops at almost nothing to further the bank’s aims the world over.”

Saudi Prince Mohammed al-Faisal also set up Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt (FIBE) as part of the banking empire. The “Blind Sheikh,” Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman was one of its founding members. Growth of Islamic banking would directly help the growth of the Islamist movements, and allow the Saudis to pressure poorer Islamic nations, like Egypt, to shift their policies to the right. FIBE worked closely with BCCI. Investigators would later find that BCCI held $589 million in “unrecorded deposits,” $245 million of which were placed with FIBE! BCCI at a later stage was also ‘discovered’ to be deeply implicated in illegal arms and narcotics trade .But all this was to happen way in the future, when CIA wanted to get back into the driving seat!

The Activities Of Safari Club. Thus was the Safari Club established .It funded – off the books - covert operations for a ‘ghost’ CIA made up of fired agents close to ex-CIA Director George Bush Sr. and Theodore Shackley. Shackley would remain at the center of this “private, shadow spy organization within the CIA” until he was fired in 1979; when the Safari Club was exposed due to the Iranian revolution-Iran being one of the members ! It must be noted here that this “Super Spy Club” inevitably gave a front seat to Saudi, Arab and Iranian ‘Islamist’ interests. The club seems to have remained active till about 1982 when de Marenches stepped down from being head of French intelligence .By this time the issue of the witch hunt of CIA within the USA also seems to have been resolved, and the CIA was keen to get back into the driving seat. Yet as we shall see next ;the then junior officers –as they rose in rank- would continue to retain their Islamic imprint ,as they shaped Americas -and the CIA’s- future policies.

During the initial period the Safari Club played a secret role in political dramas of many countries mostly Islamic and in Africa or the Middle East. Its first operation: A rebellion in Zaire was put down by Moroccan and Egyptian troops, using French air support.It then turned to deal with the Soviet infiltrations in Ethopia, Somalia and Djibouti and Peoples republic of Yemen. It also acted to repel Libyan aggression against Chad and Sudan. It also played a role in the US-Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. Through out 1970-80 huge amounts of Saudi money backed by Safari Club covert activity helped countries like Syria,Jordan,North Yemen, Angola, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Uganda, Mali, Nigeria, Ziare, Guinea, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Philippines –and some reports suggest even South Vietnam; survive Russian backed Libyan or leftist in roads. In most countries Saudi ‘Wahabi Jehadi’ proselytizing inevitably accompanied the cash.

The Safari Club and the ‘rogue CIA’ also played a major role in supporting Pakistani ISI backed Afghani militants.Pakistani operation was remarkably successful and by 1977 the Afghan government of Sardar Daud was willing to settle all outstanding issues in exchange for a lifting of the ban on the National Awami Party and a commitment towards provincial autonomy for Pashtuns.This was also the period in which Moro operations in the Philippines achieved their most outstanding success.

Planning For A Russian Vietnam: 1977-1982. During the period 1977 to 1982 a major re-orientation of US policy is apparent specially in the mid-east and SE Asia.To what extant the Safari Club influenced the shape of things must remain a field of conjecture;yet the circumstantial evidence is pretty clear that the Carter administration had “no clear policy” due to internal divisions and confusion – and also that Saudi(Muslim) influence was considerable through elements of the ‘rouge CIA’ which was beginning to emerge out of the shadows to merge into the main stream re-activated CIA.

Setting The Stage. In the year 1977-79 a number of remarkable events (mentioned below) took place affecting our region. An analysis of these helps us to understand how the original concept of a defensive and deterrent Islamic Jehad was shaped into one of Americas most potent intelligence assets – global Islamic(Wahabi) militancy or Islamic Terrorism:
In The USA Zbigniew Brzezinski took over as President Carter’s National Security Adviser. He established the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) for weakening the Soviet Union through Islamic militancy .By December 1978; he formalized his theory around the idea of turning the Muslim world into ‘an arc of crises. It was based on the ideas of British expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocated the balkanization of the entire Muslim near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an “arc of crisis” and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

BCCI Even Buys The CIA’s Bank! The same year The Safari Club made a bid to buy CIA’s bank! A group fronted by Kamal Adham, bought First American Bank shares. It was the biggest bank in the Washington, D.C. - and since long the CIA’s principal banker. In 1981, the Federal Reserve after asking CIA for the mandatory clearance allows the sale! The CIA held back what it knew, including the fact that Adham was Saudi intelligence minister. But Adhami and his group were acting on behalf of BCCI.Thus by 1982 BCCI becomes (illegally) the owner of CIA’s bank. The CIA did not inform the Treasury Department about this link till as late as 1985.In fact CIA continued using both BCCI and First American. The Safari Club and its financial arm the BCCI were fully in place –even within USA by 1982!

The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist MilitancyBrzezinski’s Islamic Militant Policy Implemented In Pakistan. In Pakistan on 5 July 1977 Pakistan’s socialist minded Prime Minister Z.A.Bhutto - an advocate of the policy of independence from US domination through a combination of ‘Islamic socialism’ and a pro-China foreign policy ; as well as the architect of Muslim unity(held first Islamic summit at Lahore) and Pakistan’s nuclear program - was eliminated in a coup by General Zia –ul-Haq .Zia had already proved his worth as an American ally in Jordan , where he massacred the PLA to save the Jordanian throne for the Americans.

Apparently the US stopped all economic and military aid to Pakistan as a result of the coup .But in actual fact aid continued flowing in a big way for the militants and their Islamisation process through the Safari club and the rouge CIA; and planning was soon expedited to draw in and kill the Russian bear in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan Daud suspected of having gone ‘soft’ on Pakistan was removed through a pro-Soviet coup on April 1978.This served as the ideal start point for implementing Brzezinski’s policy. Aid to Pakistan was resumed .The CIA commenced beaming of radio propaganda into Afghanistan, and a program and started for turning the Afghan mujahideen into radical Wahabi Islamic fighters. Zia proved invaluable at this stage.

He allowed a free hand to the CIA approved Wahabi Islamic doctrine to gain a firm foothold in Pakistan. Passing pro-Islamic legislation, he allowed FIB (Faisal Islamic bank) to start Islamic banking systems, and created Islamic courts. Most importantly, he imposed a new religious tax which was used to create tens of thousands of madrassas, or religious boarding schools, where “Islamic text books’ printed in USA and approved by CIA were taught. These schools would be used to train and indoctrinate a large portion of future Islamic militants using courses developed in the USA.

“Radical Islamist ideology began to permeate the military and the influence of the most extreme groups crept into the army,” writes journalist Kathy Gannon in her book I is for Infidel. The BBC later commented that Zia’s “Islamization” policies created a “culture of jihad” within Pakistan that continues until present day. Mean ISI took over to continue the field work and launched a massive campaign of terrorism, assassinating hundreds of teachers and civil servants in Afghanistan.”

For Iran, in November 1978 former Under Secretary of State George Ball was appointed as advisor to President Carter! This is most amazing for he was known to hold the view that the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran in favor of the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Later during his exile The Shah would note with bitter hind sight,”It should have been clear to me that the Americans wanted me out. What else was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call George Ball as advisor on Iran?”

For Al-Qaeda around 1978-79(the details are fuzzy) Osama Bin Laden visited the US and Britain -or both -ostensibly for the treatment of his son Abdul Rahman born with hydrocephalus. However the required treatment-an operation - was never carried out. More likely he went there to get his final briefs first hand!The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist Militancy

1979-The Bear Trap Is Sprung. Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in France on January 16, 1979.By February Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is deposed and Ayatollah Khomeini took over as Iran’s new leader. At first the US was taken aback by the new fundamentalist Islamic government, and Brzezinski contemplated a military coup to stop Khomeini.The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist Militancy

In March, there was a major revolt in Herat province. Russian Intelligence noted that it had support from outside-particularly Iran. This convinced Brzezinski that Khomeini was fiercely anti-communist, and he soon decided that Iran’s new government can become part of his “arc of crises. The US embassy remained open, and more US officials come to Iran to begin tentative talks. The CIA started working (re-working) with Iranian intelligence to destabilize the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan.

By April 1979, US officials start having their first meetings in Pakistan with opponents of the Afghan government. Robert Gates –a junior officer then , but later to become CIA Director - recalls that in one such meeting on March 30, 1979, Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wondered aloud whether there is “value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’”

In May a CIA special envoy also meets these Afghan mujaheddin leaders at Peshawar. All of them have been carefully selected by the Pakistani ISI. One of them is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a drug dealer, and brutal warlord. His extreme ruthlessness is considered a plus. Over the next 10 years over half of all US aid to the mujaheddin will go to his faction. In June /August there are further large scale army mutinies within Afghanistan.

The New ‘Great Game’:Part 1-Birth of Radical Islamist Militancy According to the official US version CIA aid to the Mujaheddin began after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan. How ever President Carter had formally approved covert aid in July. And as Brzezinski’s confessed later on: “that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention”. Charles Cogan, who later headed the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan, will call Carter’s approval on 6th July a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” In fact, this is not correct because the’ Safari Club’ along with the ‘rouge CIA’ had been aiding the rebels since well before 1978.

Haizullah Amin over throws Daud in a military coup in October 1979, and invites the Soviets.

In early November 1979, Brzezinski had secretly met with Iranian Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, as well as Iran’s foreign minister and defense minister, in Algiers. But shortly before the meeting, the US agrees to allow the Shah, dying with cancer, to come to the US for medical treatment. Khomeini is enraged, and on November 4, just three days after the Algeria meeting begins, students take over the US embassy in Teheran. Brzezinski’s (Safari Club’s?) attempts to create an alliance with Khomeni’s Iran collapse.

On December 8 1979 The Soviets invaded Afghanistan; surprisingly on December 26 Russian troops turn against the invitee and kill him! Later declassified high-level Russian documents show that the Russian leadership believed Amin to have had secret contacts with the US embassy and was probably a US agent; and that because of this “the right wing Muslim opposition” has “practically established their control in many provinces… using foreign support.” They therefore installed a communist regime led by Babrak Karmal which was openly hostile to Pakistan. The Russians will later be proved correct when in a 1998 interview, Brzezinski, revealed that earlier in the year Carter authorized the CIA to destabilize the government, provoking the Russians to invade and later topple Amin’s government! It seems Russia had been invited into Afghanistan by a Khomeini cultivated US agent – even though Iran was no more a part of the team!

Brzezinski wrote a memo to President Jimmy Carter after the Soviet invasion suggesting that success in Afghanistan could give the Soviets access to the Indian Ocean. He advised that US should continue aid to the Afghan Mujaheddin. He also added, “This means more money as well as arms shipments to the rebels and some technical advice.” He concludes the memo with, “[W]e must both reassure Pakistan and encourage it to help the rebels. This will require a review of our policy toward Pakistan, more guarantees to it, more arms aid, and alas, a decision that our security problem toward Pakistan cannot be dictated by our nonproliferation policy.” Carter accepted Brzezinski’s advice. Pakistan would be rewarded to become a nuclear power in exchange for help in implementing Brzezinski doctrine of Islamic Militancy!

Over the next decade CIA and Saudi Arabia would channel a huge amount of money through ISI, (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the Mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians, forcing the USSR into a decade-long war which it could ill afford. It was as Brzezinski insisted, a war that brought about “The demoralization and finally the collapse of the Soviet Empire”. In my next article I shall show how this covert operation involving ‘radical Islamist militants’ was developed and implemented by CIA.