Trump, Afghanistan, and 9/11

President Donald Trump, led by his generals, will continue America’s longest war in Afghanistan. On this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the history of the war and the effort by the CIA, aided by Pakistani intelligence, to manufacture both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Prior to 9/11, the US did business with the Taliban and considered them a suitable partner for a pipeline deal. After 9/11, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States, but the Bush administration refused, preferring instead to invade and create the longest war. If we take Trump’s airstrikes in Syria and Iraq as a gauge, the escalation in Afghanistan will result in thousands more dead innocent civilians, every single one illegal under US and international law.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video

Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio

Show Notes

Taliban closes Laden case

Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban

Afghanistan: Soviet invasion and civil war

US Supports Taliban Rise to Power

Taliban Arise in Afghanistan; Quickly Co-opted by ISI

Enron Gives Taliban Millions in Bribes in Effort to Get Afghan Pipeline Built

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and UAE Officially Recognize Taliban Government

Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

War on Afghanistan is Illegal

Afghanistan War Has Cost Trillions of Dollars

UN condemns targeting of civilians, infrastructure as airstrikes hit Syria’s Raqqa

Deaths In Other Nations Since WW II Due To Us Interventions

Newsbud Exclusive-Trump’s Afghan War: Based on Neocon Lies.

Standing before a podium at the Fort Myer military base in Arlington, Virginia, President Donald Trump addressed an audience of soldiers on August 21. Trump said the consequences of an exit from Afghanistan “are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11th.”

In order to believe this, facts must be put aside and the official version of events be unquestioningly accepted. There is no evidence the attack of September 11 was “planned and directed from Afghanistan.” Then Secretary of State Colin Powell said two weeks after the attack he would “in the near future… to put out… a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [Osama bin Laden] to this attack.”

However, the following day during a press conference in the Rose Garden with President Bush, Powell said the American people would not be permitted to see the evidence. He added the United States had irrefutable proof of bin Laden’s complicity, but “most of it is classified.” Powell’s remark was an effort to conceal the fact the Bush administration had no evidence Osama bin Laden planned and orchestrated the attack from a cave in Afghanistan. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh cited officials from the CIA and the Justice Department as saying there was no solid evidence of this.

In 1998, following the US embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, the Taliban government offered to turn over bin Laden, but the Bush administration refused. Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister, told Al Jazeera his government had made several proposals to the United States to turn over the Saudi to stand trial.

“Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC]," Muttawakil said. “But the US showed no interest in it. They kept demanding we hand him over, but we had no relations with the US, no agreement of any sort. They did not recognize our government.”

After the Taliban made the proposals through the US embassy in Pakistan and an informal Taliban office at the UN in New York, the CIA station chief in Pakistan, Robert Grenier, dismissed the offer as a ploy. In mid-September 2001, Grenier had a secret meeting with Mullah Akhter Mohammed Osmani, considered the second-most powerful figure in the Taliban at the time, at a five-star hotel in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. He said if the Taliban were serious about avoiding a US invasion, they would turn over bin Laden immediately for prosecution. Alternatively, as CIA Director George Tenet put it, the Taliban could “administer justice themselves, in a way that clearly [takes] him off the table,” in other words, the CIA wanted the Taliban to assassinate bin Laden.

The ultimatum was rejected by Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Following this, during a second meeting at a villa in Baluchistan, Grenier said Osmani should overthrow Omar and get rid of Osama bin Laden. This was also rejected. Osmani was later killed by a smart bomb during an attack by the US Air Force in Helmand Province.

The reclusive Omar had previously attempted to establish a dialogue with the United States. In response to an inquiry on bin Laden’s alleged terror activities prior to the September 11 attack, a cable sent by the United States to Omar stated: “We have detailed and solid evidence that Osama bin Laden has been engaged and is still engaged in planning, organizing, and funding acts of international terror.” The US did not provide supporting evidence to back up the accusation and this resulted in the Afghan supreme court acquitting bin Laden in October 1998.

A few months earlier, in August 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The US insisted the al-Shifa factory in Khartoum “was actually a disguised chemical weapons factory” that produced VX nerve gas. British engineer Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant’s construction between 1992 and 1996, told reporters he never saw any evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The attack violated numerous articles of the Hague Conventions.

Moreover, the owner of the Shifa factory gave interviews in which he “emphatically denied that the plant was used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and there was never persuasive evidence to contradict his assertion. At the same time, members of the administration retreated from claims they made earlier that Osama bin Laden had what [Defense Secretary William] Cohen called ‘a financial interest in contributing to this particular facility.’ It turned out that no direct financial relationship between bin Laden and the plant could be established,” writes Richard Bernstein in his book, Out of the Blue: A Narrative of September 11, 2001.

The factory was Sudan's largest commercial manufacturer of prescription drugs for both medical and veterinary purposes, producing 50 percent of the country's supply. “Probably the most important was an anti-diarrhea remedy. They also made drugs against TB and they brought in the basic stock for antibiotics,” Carnaffin explained. It was estimated the destruction of the plant resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Sudanese. [READ MORE]

*If you are a Newsbud Community Member, you must log in to view full content.

**If you are not yet a Newsbud Community Member, just click on "SUBSCRIBE" to view subscription enrollment options.

Mexico’s Bin Laden: The Capture of Chapo Guzman Provides Illusory Victory in the Narcowar

Comparisons between Chapo Guzmán and Osama Bin Laden Are Valid, But For Horrible Reasons

By Danny Benavides

The End of an Era has been declared, loudly proclaimed in headlines throughout the world. Chicago’s “Most Wanted,” the “No. 1 drug kingpin” finally (re)captured in his own backyard. Joaquín Archivaldo Guzmán Loera (alias “El Chapo”), the world’s most notorious druglord, was brought down without a single bullet fired.

The entire ordeal unfolded as if the drama was pulled straight from a Hollywood script. Indeed, this novella could have been aptly titled “Got Shorty.” Yet, few of us with an eye on the U.S.-Mexico Narcowar expected “The Mexican Osama bin Laden” to go down so quietly. Chapo had a reputation for being ruthless and savvy, and vowed never to be taken alive (or so the story goes). A remarkably choreographed, months-long joint operation involving multiple agencies of the United States and Mexico could be credited for capturing the feared and revered Sinaloa Cartel capo alive.

Once the dust settles, however, is the elimination of symbolic figureheads of Mexico’s narcoinsurgency the solution to “Saving Mexico?” Once the curtains are drawn closed on this narco-terror theater, what substantive progress can be claimed in the Mexican Drug War? Has Peña Nieto vanquished “Mexico’s bin Laden?”

The Dominoes Begin to Fall

The path to Chapo was laid one stone at a time, beginning in earnest in January of 2013. That month, immediate family, in-laws, extended relatives, and associates of Chapo Guzmán were added to the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) sanctions list prohibiting them from conducting business with American banks and companies. In the months following, Mexican authorities apprehended both Chapo’s father-in-law and brother-in-law, and as a result, a network of targets belonging to the Sinaloa Cartel began to materialize.

In November of 2013, U.S. Marshalls arrested Serafín Zambada Ortiz — the 23-year old son of Chapo’s right-hand lieutenant Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada García — at a pedestrian border crossing in Nogales, Arizona as he traveled with his wife.

The next month, rival cartel members of the Beltrán Leyva Organization (BLO) and Los Zetas ambushed and gunned down Jesús Gregorio Villanueva Rodríguez (alias “El R5″) — a Sinaloa Cartel leader of its “Gente Nueva” paramilitary wing and plaza boss controlling territory in the Mexican state of Sonora. Members of the rival groups were said to have been tipped off about a forthcoming ambush by “Gente Nueva” and retaliated.

The following week, the Mexican military killed another chief of a team of sicarios (hitmen) operating under the order of Mayo Zambada. Gonzalo Inzunza Inzunza (alias “El Macho Prieto”) was cut down by gunfire from an attack helicopter during pursuit of a narco-convoy led by Inzunza.

At the end of December, Interpol arrested yet another lieutenant of the Sinaloa Cartel — the flamboyant, social media narco-celebrity leader of the sicarios known as “Los Ántrax.” José Rodrigo Aréchiga Gamboa (alias “El Chino Ántrax”) was taken into custody while transiting through the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam.

The big break came earlier this month. In separate operations, Mexican Federal Police arrested a dozen operatives of the Sinaloa Cartel, including a plaza boss for Aguascalientes (near Mexico City) named Daniel Fernández Domínguez (alias “El Pelacas”), another sicario leader named Joel Enrique Romero Sandoval (alias “El 19″), Mayo’s security chief and Culiacán plaza boss Jesus Peña Gonzalez (alias “El 20″), Apolonio Romero Sandoval (alias “El 30″), Cristo Omar Romero Sandoval (alias “El Cristo”), Omar Guillermo Cuen Lugo (alias “El Compa Omar”), Mario Miguel Pérez Urrea (alias “El Pitaya”), Jesús Andrés Corrales Aztorga (alias “El Bimbo”), and others.

Targeting Chapo

Mexican authorities used information obtained from the dozens of cell phones seized from the Sinaloa Cartel members to discover the number to Chapo Guzmán’s satellite phone which he switched on only while communicating with his inner circle.  Mexican intelligence learned that Chapo and Mayo were making plans to attend a family gathering in the Sinaloan capital of Culiacán, so they suspected it was only a matter of time before Chapo reached out to his confidants.

Amid this multi-agency operation, even a U.S. drone was deployed to gather Imagery Intelligence (IMINT) with the full authorization of Mexico’s military. It flew missions during the end of January and beginning of February, but no information has surfaced to indicate that this drone was sent to kill.

Last week, Mexican forces conducted raids of every Chapo-owned property they knew of, and nearly caught Guzmán at the home of his ex-wife. Its steel-reinforced doors provided Chapo the extra couple of minutes he needed to evade authorities by using a trapdoored bathtub that opened into a tunnel system dug beneath the house which connected to other Chapo hideouts in the area.

With several Mexican and American agencies in hot pursuit, Chapo can be said to have had a “lapse of operational security” and made a call with the satellite phone that had previously been wiretapped — thus, providing triangulated geolocation information to the Mexican authorities.

Chapo’s Abbottabad Moment

An extensive Mexico-U.S. joint operation involving Mexico’s SEDENA (Defense Department), SEMAR (Marines), and CISEN (Intelligence) paired with a supporting cast of U.S. DEA, ICE, DHS, and U.S. Marshals was underway and making significant gains. Although the involvement of other agencies has not yet been confirmed, it would not come as a surprise to discover that the NSA and/or CIA may have had a hand in the operation as well. If the DEA’s Special Operations Division pushed beyond the boundaries of lawful surveillance and engaged in some type of “parallel construction” during the hunt for Chapo, then perhaps this entire narrative is moot.

Just before dawn, at around 6:40 in the morning on Saturday, February 22, 2014, Mexican Marina (Marines) swarmed the Miramar Inn, a modest hotel overlooking the Pacific Ocean in a touristy resort district of Mazatlán, Sinaloa. The Mexican Marina, backed up by two helicopters, rammed open the door to room 401, catching Chapo Guzmán shirtless, red-eyed, and off-guard. Reports following the breaking news claimed that Chapo had reached for an AK-47 kept by the bedside, but had rifles of the Marina in his face before he could get his finger on the trigger. He was apprehended — 13 years after his now-legendary escape from the Puente Grande maximum security prison in Jalisco state (his second prison break in fact) — without a single shot fired. Certainly not the hail-of-bullets glory The Chapo Mythology would have us expect.

Guzmán was arrested along with a bodyguard named Carlos Manuel Hoo Ramirez, his wife Emma Coronel Aispuro, and another female companion. According to the official statement from the Mexican government, the operation lasted less than 8 minutes. By the time people nearby realized what was happening, Chapo was already being lifted to Mexico City.  Before he had even landed, the facade of Miramar Inn had become a tourist attraction itself.

Narco-Terror Theater and Public Relations

In Mexico, politicians are often distrusted even more than narcos. Government and police corruption is so common, it’s almost expected. Many observers of the Mexican Drug War have long suspected that Chapo’s Sinaloa Cartel had made some sort of secret pact with officials in critical positions within Mexico’s government, Federal Police, and local police. Former El Paso DEA Intelligence Division chief Phil Jordan recently claimed during an interview on Univisión that Chapo himself donated significant sums to the presidential campaign of Enrique Peña Nieto. Jordan wondered aloud about the impetus for Chapo’s capture and whether the kingpin negotiated the terms of his arrest. Investigative journalist Anabel Hernández, who has made the chronicling of Mexico’s narcotraffickers the focus of her work, has also expressed many questions about the capture of Chapo against the backdrop of documents released recently supporting theories of an alleged DEA-Sinaloa Cartel agreement.

Despite being in the crosshairs of authorities on both sides of the border, pop-folklore and narco-corridos sing praises to Chapo Guzmán as a Robin Hood of Sinaloa — the man who kept the peace and provided protection to the community from those other cartels. With good reason, some Mexican citizens remain skeptical of the actual impact Chapo’s capture will bring. Many fear that the splintering factions of various cartels can ignite more violence as turf wars erupt. Even a U.S. Marshal remarked that Chapo’s arrest hardly spells the end for the cartel he commanded. Chapo’s replacements were lined up well in advance to provide continuity to the cartel’s operations. Additionally, there are also rivals who will vie for influence to fill the power vacuum and seek strategic and tactical advantage amid the ensuing chaos.

Yesterday, in fact, a narcomanta (publicly displayed banner with messages from cartel groups) was reported just outside of Mexico City. Signed by a rival from the Gulf Cartel, the message warns that the CDG is coming to “clean the plaza.” Sporadic, if limited, cartel turf wars and infighting are the typical results from the takedown of a kingpin.

Furthermore, Mexico has been down this road before many times. Chapo Guzmán is merely the latest cartel capo in a long series that have been captured or killed. In July of last year, Mexican marines arrested Zetas leader Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales (alias “Z-40″) less than a year after taking command, following the death of top capo Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano (alias “El Lazca”). A month before Lazca’s demise, Mexican Marines also caught Gulf Cartel leader Jorge Eduardo Costilla Sánchez (alias “El Coss”). Mexico’s military and police forces have been arresting and killing narcos for generations, yet the trafficking, kidnapping, extortion, torture, murder, and violations continue with appalling frequency.

Osama and “El Chapo”

Many comparisons have been drawn between Chapo Guzmán and Osama Bin Laden in the press issued in the days following Chapo’s arrest. They were both criminals who ruled by terror, seemingly eluding the world’s most sophisticated intelligence agencies and robust surveillance programs for years. They were responsible for countless deaths, limitless suffering, but still managed to gather followers and footsoldiers to expand their operational capabilities. They made it to the top of various “most wanted” lists, commanded large bounties, reaped enormous wealth through their criminal empires, and lived lives wrapped in mystery and mythology. Their exploits are beclouded by conspiracy, and rumors surround the special relationship that each man is said to have maintained with corrupted government officials and insiders. Additionally — and quite coincidentally — they both were tracked by intelligence agencies via their use of satellite phones that were being wiretapped. These comparisons, while mostly rather superficial, are also missing the point.

After all, if any narco invited comparisons to Osama bin Laden, it would have to be Nazario Moreno González (alias “El Más Loco” or “The Craziest One”). Moreno González led the notorious cartel La Familia Michoacana (LFM) after the capture of the group’s founder Carlos Rosales Mendoza. Under his command, LFM members embraced a twisted form of evangelical Christianity and claimed to operate under a pious ethical code while also trafficking crystal meth and decapitating and dismembering rivals.

Tales of Moreno González’s philanthropy in the state of Michoacán persist, and some still believe he may have survived an intense shootout with Mexican Federal Police in 2010 and is secretly leading LFM’s offshoot cartel Los Caballeros Templarios (Knights Templar).  In present day Michoacán, the Templarios have been dealt major blows by armed vigilante groups known as autodefensas (self-defense squads) that have emerged in southwest Mexico in response to the cartel’s violent, extortionist exploitation.  The legacy of “El Más Loco” more closely resembles Bin Laden’s violent, ruthless zealotry than does the business acumen exhibited by Chapo Guzmán.

Chapo and Bin Laden led violent campaigns that did not and do not depend on top-down command-and-control. Taking either one of them out of the picture only creates fissures within the existing organized crime group, but the operational capability persists even after a figurehead like Chapo or Bin Laden is captured or killed. Indeed, they may inspire their operatives, but their roles are largely symbolic. That symbolic quality is more valuable politically than is any substantive drug law overhaul or immigration reform — two critical issues at the heart of the narcowar.

Take note, for instance, the manner in which Chapo Guzmán was led out before the cameras after his arrest: a Mexican Marine seen applying a Vulcan nerve grip on the back of his neck, head down and cuffed (see video here). Then contrast that with the way captured Zetas leader Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales (alias “Z-40″) performed his perp walk: unrestrained, strutting at a cool pace alongside Mexican Marines (see video here).

When Z-40 was arrested, Mexican officials stated that the decision to refrain from hand-cuffing him was to show a more humane treatment of captured criminals. If that is true, then certainly the only reason Chapo was placed on display in that manner was to serve as an example of the potency of Peña Nieto’s administration. In the words of Michael Vigil, a former Senior Executive with the DEA, Chapo is “a human trophy… the crown jewel of the new presidential administration,” offered up to insist that Mexico is not yet a failed state.

After last month’s much-ridiculed Time magazine cover story about Peña Nieto, the timing of Chapo’s takedown was not only convenient, it was desperately needed.  The only people convinced of the success of Peña Nieto’s administration either don’t live in Mexico or don’t read news about Mexico. The vigilante uprising in Michoacán, for example, presents an enormous challenge to the Mexican government. U.S.-Mexico intelligence sharing, training, special forces deployments, and drone surveillance has increased in recent years to address Mexico’s security crisis (the captures of Zetas leader Z-40 and the Sinaloa Cartel’s Chapo demonstrate the extent of that increase). No doubt President Barack Obama and Enrique Peña Nieto had much more to discuss than economic cooperation and monarch butterflies during last week’s “Three Amigos Summit” in Mexico.

There’s the rub. While people around the world rejoice at the takedown of Chapo Guzmán, some wonder whether this spectacle was the result of political calculation primarily. Now, of course, the United States and Mexico will fight a legal battle for custody of Public Enemy No. 1, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera. Mexican authorities argue that Chapo has yet to serve the remainder of his sentence, and are holding him in a cell at Altiplano maximum security prison outside of Mexico City (his former prison, before being transferred to Puente Grande and escaping). U.S. officials will expend all available resources to extradite Chapo to face the American justice system, whether in Chicago, Texas, New York, or another location where he’s been indicted.

Mexico has historically kept cartel capos imprisoned in-country, but the release of Guadalajara Cartel godfather Rafael Caro Quintero from a Jalisco state prison — due to a technicality — in August of last year has raised ire, doubts and mistrust between the governments of the U.S. and Mexico. Chapo Guzmán is regarded as a major prize, and it appears Peña Nieto wants to keep this trophy for himself. The capture of Chapo is excellent PR and a triumph for Mexico’s government, but without reexamination of the root causes that allow cartels to flourish, it is an omen for its citizens caught in the crossfire of the narcowar.

# # # #

*This article was originally published here @ Traces of Reality.

De-Manufacturing Consent- “El Chapo & Bin Laden: PR, Propaganda & the Politics of Violence”

Guillermo Jimenez Presents Danny Benavides

On this edition of De-Manufacturing Consent Guillermo is joined by Danny Benavides, Contributing Editor of We discuss the capture of Sinaloa Cartel leader and "Public Enemy No. 1," Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, and go over Danny's latest article, "Mexico’s Bin Laden: The Capture of Chapo Guzman Provides Illusory Victory in the Narcowar."
How was the "world's most powerful" drug kingpin taken alive without firing a single shot? What does this actually mean for the Cartel de Sinaloa, the reality on the ground in Mexico, or the war on drugs as a whole? Is El Chapo really "Mexico's Bin Laden"?

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):



Desperate Attempts to Save the Myth of the War on Terror

Capture of Abu Anas al-Liby Highlights Real Masters of Terrorism

With the true nature of the proxy war in Syria being revealed more and more every day, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the United States and its allies to maintain the fraud that is the War on Terror.

The failed raid in Somalia and the capture of Abu Anas al-Liby in the Libyan capital Tripoli caught the attention of the media but will not save the false narrative. We just need to take a closer look at the background of al-Liby to understand how ridiculous the idea of a so-called ‘War on Terror’ is.

Washington’s supposed arch-enemy al-Liby is a senior member of al-Qaeda as well as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and has longstanding ties with Osama bin Laden. Most media outlets date the start of his terrorist career in the 1990s when he became involved with “al-Qaeda”. But in fact Abu Anas al-Liby was already a terrorist in the 1980s when he fought alongside bin Laden in Afghanistan and was badly injured in the battle of Jalalabad in 1989.[1] Of course at this time al-Liby and bin Laden were still freedom fighters and waged jihad on behalf of Washington. [Read more...]

Podcast Show #113: The TWA 800 Crash & The ‘Unholy Alliance’ of FBI and Mob

The Boiling Frogs Show Presents Peter Lance

BFP Podcast Logo

Peter Lance, an author and former investigative reporter for ABC’s 20/20, joins us to discuss the unholy alliance’ of FBI and mob, and the FBI’s advance warning of a plot to bring down a commercial airliner on American soil just weeks before the 1996 TWA 800 crash. He presents us with the chronology, investigative results and evidence obtained by him, including previously confidential government documents, showing that the FBI knew of Osama bin Laden’s ‘chief bomb maker’s’ plan to bring down a plane in 1996, and that Ramzi Yousef planned to derail his own terror trial with the bombing.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):


This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs

Corbett Report- Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B, Protected Terrorists & Stifled Investigations

Sibel Edmonds of joins us for the second part of our series on Gladio B, the NATO-directed effort to radicalize, enable and protect Islamic terrorists to further their own geopolitical ends. This time we discuss recent events, like the US Embassy bombing in Ankara and the catch-and-release of Osama Bin Laden’s son-in-law in Turkey, before going back to the 1990s for more on the roots of the Gladio B operation and its tie-in to stories like that of Yasin al-Qadi. We shine a light on the FBI agents who were working on shutting down terrorist finance networks, and how they were shut down by elements of the State Department and the CIA. We also answer comments and questions from listeners of our first conversation.

Listen to the Podcast Here.

To listen to the first part of this series, CLICK HERE.


Turkey: Embassy bombers cling to Cold War ideology

Turkey refused to extradite bin Laden’s son-in-law to US

Turkey detains, frees Laden spokesman Abu Ghaith

Angry FBI agents joked about al Qaeda mole at HQ

9/11 and Cyberterrorism

Answers in Absolute for ‘Why 9/11?’

Why ‘some’ Still Question, Seek Answer(s) & Accountability

whyFor ‘some’ reason I have been receiving more than a few ‘eye-rolling’ responses when I mention our theme for the month leading up to September 11- the tenth year. You and I know where the conscious but mostly subconscious eye-rolling and in some cases eye-aversion reactions come from. A very few bold ones are courageous enough to actually put this reaction into words. They ask ‘why can’t some people just let it go?’ They comment, ‘enough already with this 9/11 subject!’ Many of these same people are actually very outspoken and active in combating civil liberties related issues and abuses such as NSA Illegal Domestic Wiretapping, Rendition and Torture, FBI National Security Letters, TSA’s outrageous abuses …and the long list goes on. However, for ‘some’ reason they see ‘this 9/11 thing’ as a pointless nuisance, and wonder why some people don’t give up and keep bringing ‘it’ up. After all, the majority of these people consider 9/11 as ‘case closed,’ and a few regard it as a ‘cold case.’

 I am not going to get into the ‘some’ reasons for this post; although, I have plenty to say on the subject. Instead, for the purpose of this piece, and for those audiences, I am going to answer the ‘whys.’ Why ‘some’ still question and seek answer(s) and accountability on 9/11.

Why 9/11? Because ‘they’ claim that’s what gives them the right to override our Constitution and all other laws guaranteeing our liberties and privacy.

Why 9/11? Because that’s what ‘they’ claim as justification for every one of our many wars.

Why 9/11? Because that’s what ‘they’ say is the reason for us having to be violated, humiliated, groped and fondled for the ‘privilege’ of travel. [Read more...]

The Polish Bin-Laden Revelation: Uninformed, Naïve, or Just Plain Calculated?

polishYesterday, after I finished reading McClatchy’s ‘juicy story’ based on some Ex-Polish spy’s recent ‘revelations,’ I kept going back and forth between several theories to explain the ‘real factors and purposes’ behind this entire nonsense. Of course, in coming up with my possible ‘possibilities’ I kept the paper’s own dictated agenda (factor) constant (not among the variables) making my approach semi-scientific. After all, we are talking US mainstream media, the ‘always constant’ when it comes to establishment-dictated narratives. That left me with the source, possible factors influencing or completely shaping the source’s revelations, and most importantly, the benefactors-who may be benefited from this so-called revelation and how.

Now, here is the link, some highlights from McClatchy’s juicy story, and a few comments from me (All emphasis are mine):

CIA balked at chance to kill bin Laden in ’99- Polish ex-spy says

In late 1999, two years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, a group of Afghan agents loyal to an anti-Taliban guerrilla leader proposed assassinating Osama bin Laden. All they wanted was the $5 million reward the Clinton administration had offered for bin Laden’s capture, says a former Polish spy who was the Afghans’ go-between on the plot. The CIA rejected the plan, however, saying, "We do not have a license to kill."

First, I thought McClatchy was being cute-an attempt to be sarcastic and humorous. Later, a few sentences down the junk piece, I realized they were actually serious. For God’s sake someone please tell me: since when, from day one of its inception, this evil agency has murdered, butchered, illegally assassinated, bombed … based on having a license to do so? Let me put it differently, as far as the establishment (those who gave birth to this terror organization and have sustained its evil existence) goes, the license with no ifs or buts, and one with no expiration date, has always been there. So what license are they referring to in this junk-story? Congressional mandate/blessing? I don’t know of any ‘formally’ granted congressional blessing for all the terror work this agency has been carrying out for over half a century. And of course, there are no constitutional, international laws, human rights bodies … that has the power or right to issue or withhold a ‘Killing License’ to this terror agency. Are they talking about the Commander in Chief? If so, when it comes to hierarchy, the establishment and its agency, our ever-present and constant shadow government, has always come first. [Read more...]

Podcast Show #71

The Boiling Frogs Presents Rick Rozoff

BFP Podcast Logo

This is Part 6 of our interview series on the New World Order. You can listen to the previous interviews in this series here: Part I, Part II, Part III , Part IV, and Part 5.

Investigative journalist and NATO expert Rick Rozoff joins us to discuss the eighteen-year-old project of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Wolfowitz and their cabal to destroy the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States and create a chain of buffer states around Russia, enclosing it with NATO member states and partners. He provides us with analyses and implications of the invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S. and NATO, and the duo’s expansion into Central Asia where Russian, Chinese and Iranian interests converge. Mr. Rozoff talks about the Central Asia chessboard and how the region may be transformed into a battleground of conflicting 21st century geopolitical interests, the role of Islamic extremism and how it is used by the West on this grand chess board, Mujahideen and Al Qaeda’s partnership with US-NATO in the Balkans, Caucasus and Central Asia operations, the real mission of Afghanistan’s NATO-trained 7,000 troops as guardians of the oil and gas pipeline connecting Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India- the TAPI pipeline & more!

Rick RozoffRick Rozoff is an investigative journalist based in Chicago and has been an active opponent of war, militarism and intervention for over 40 years. He manages the Stop NATO e-mail list , and is the editor of Stop NATO, a website on the threat of international militarization, especially on the globalization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Mr. Rozoff has a graduate degree in European literature.

Listen to the preview Here

Here is our guest Rick Rozoff unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .


Transcript: BFP Interview with Paul Thompson-Part 1

BFPPodcastThe following is the transcript for our podcast interview with Paul Thompson. We would like to thank Nicholas Filippelli for transcribing this informative interview. You can listen to the interview here: The Boiling Frogs Presents Paul Thompson-Part I

Peter B Collins: Our guest today is Paul Thompson, he is the author of the Terror Timeline, he is an alumnus, a graduate of Stanford university, and he has been researching 9/11 and related issues for many years. Paul Thompson, welcome to the Boiling Frogs.

Paul Thomspon: Hey, thanks for having me.

PC: I just wanted to mention as we delve into the complex issues of the events of September 11, 2001, that there were 2 key bits that prompted me to become skeptical or curious, and follow your lead in many respects to question the official story and seek the truth about 9/11. The first was when a friend who was a medical doctor and a private pilot came to me and talked to me about the disconnect between the Federal Aviation Agency and NORAD on 9/11. We may get into those details but, suffice to say, it was a sad comedy of errors and it piqued my interest. But it wasn't until I saw the timelines that were developed by people like you, and there was some others who did similar work, that really showed the glaring inconsistencies in the official narrative and led to ask questions about the role of some of the individuals in the Bush administration, and the level of honesty, or of lack of it that we have had to encounter, including the way 9/11 Commission was used to "firm up", the myth that had been launched right after the 9/11 attacks. Now, Paul Thompson, in recent weeks Richard Clarke, who was a key counterterrorism advisor to George W. Bush in the Bush White House, was the subject of an interview that was actually conducted a couple of years ago, but was broadcast on a public television station in Colorado. And it includes some very interesting new allegations from Clarke, essentially that he was kept in the dark on one specific piece of information regarding two of the individuals who were later alleged to have been hijackers on 9/11. Why don't you recap for our listeners what Clarke said, and why it makes news about these issues. [Read more...]

Podcast Show #56

The Boiling Frogs Presents Paul Thompson-Part III

BFP Podcast Logo

This is Part 3 of our three-part one-of-a-kind interview series with author and researcher Paul Thompson. For additional background information please visit the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project at HistoryCommons.Org.

Paul Thompson joins us to discuss one of the most blacked-out and censored aspects of Al-Qaeda-CIA connections: The partnership and alliance between the CIA and Al Qaeda and their joint operations in Central Asia, Balkans and Caucasus throughout the 1990’s. Mr. Thompson talks about Al-Qaeda’s Balkans operations, running training camps, money-laundering, and drug running networks in the region, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and his residence in Bulgaria in order to help manage the Al Qaeda effort in nearby Bosnia, the Al Qaeda cells in Chechnya and Azerbaijan, BCCI and more!

ptPaul Thompson is the author of the Terror Timeline, a compilation of over 5,000 reports and articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. His research in the field has garnered over 100 radio and TV interviews. Mr. Thompson holds a psychology degree from Stanford University obtained in 1990. For the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project visit HistoryCommons.Org

Here is our guest Paul Thompson unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

9/11: A Hot Case in an Igloo

The Anatomy of a Still-Open Hot Case

iglooA cold case is any criminal investigation by a law enforcement agency that has not been solved, and has been closed from further regular investigation. First, before anything else, and certainly before becoming a ‘cold case,’ a case must be ‘investigated.’ By investigated I mean a real investigation involving real investigative techniques and an investigative process performed by real investigators. If after real investigations by real investigators the case remains unsolved, then the case can be justifiably put aside as a cold case.

On the other hand, by this very same definition, a criminal ‘hot case’ that has not gone through a proper investigation by real investigators remains a ‘hot case.’ Whether that hot case is shoved into a cold case file or not does not make it technically a ‘cold case.’ The never-investigated mass murder on September 11, 2001, a case never assigned to real and independent investigators, with many witnesses never-interviewed, with many suspects never-pursued, with many questions left unanswered, and with many leads never-followed, remains a ‘hot case.’ The self-serving classifications and redactions, the many cover ups, and the burial of the case and related files in government-created massive igloos, do not make 9/11 a cold case. [Read more...]

Oh George! You got some ‘splainin‘ to do!

Who at Alex Station knew what in August-September 2001?

By Kevin Fenton

tenetRecent allegations made by former counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke against former CIA Director George Tenet and two other former CIA managers, Cofer Black and Richard Blee, have thrown one of the key unanswered questions of 9/11 into sharp relief. What happened at Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, after an officer there discovered that two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, had entered the US?

The officer, Margaret Gillespie, says she made the discovery on August 21 and the record indicates she began to notify the FBI and other government agencies on this day. However, while a substantial amount of information has been made public about how the news circulated around the FBI, almost nothing is known of how Alec Station dealt with it.

In an interview recently broadcast as a trailer for the forthcoming audio documentary “Who Is Rich Blee?” Clarke alleged that the CIA had deliberately withheld from him information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi—in particular the news that Almihdhar had a US visa—for over twenty months before 9/11. Clarke also highlighted the importance of the information, saying it was more important than, for example, any of the key pieces of intelligence discussed at a controversial meeting with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001.

According to a statement recently released by Tenet, Black and Blee, neither Tenet nor any other senior CIA official was told of the visa or of travel to the US by Alhazmi and Almihdhar before 9/11. This was also the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion, although this conclusion was hedged. If this is true, then one appropriate question would be: why not? [Read more...]

Zacarias Moussaoui: What We Don’t Know Might Hurt Us

A Significant Stimulus for the Reform that Never Came

By Kevin Fenton


 Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the numerous “20th hijackers,” was arrested ten years ago next Tuesday, outside the Residence Inn in Eagan, Minnesota. The arrest was one of the first events in a case that gave the FBI a chance to blow open the 9/11 plot, but resulted in abject humiliation for the bureau when its headquarters’ string of errors was exposed in the press.

The Moussaoui case is a poster boy for the state of our knowledge about the attacks: we have some of the details, but know some are missing. Also, two key questions remain unanswered. This despite the wealth of information that came out at the trial and the fact that Moussaoui, although largely ignored by the 9/11 Commission’s final report—partly due to the forthcoming trial—was a major topic of the Justice Department inspector general’s report into the FBI’s pre-attack failings.

mouThese are the bare bones of the case: Moussaoui had been a known extremist for years prior to his arrest. Before the bureau first heard his name on August 15, he had been under surveillance by French and British intelligence and the CIA, although the agency would claim it only knew him under an alias. He was sent to the US for flight training by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, possibly to participate in 9/11, possibly to participate in a follow-up operation. However, he was a poor student and dropped out of basic flight school before obtaining a licence and went to learn about flying a Boeing 747, which aroused suspicion.

When the FBI was brought in, the Minneapolis agents realized he was dangerous and arrested him on an immigration violation—despite being told not to do so by headquarters. This was the first of many times the Minneapolis field office and FBI headquarters clashed over the case. Essentially, even though they did not know he was linked to al-Qaeda, the local agents understood the risk Moussaoui posed—one even speculated he would fly a large airliner into the World Trade Center—and they wanted a warrant to search his belongings to get information that would lead to his accomplices. On the other hand, headquarters seemed to think they were alarmist and there was nothing to the case. They kept throwing up roadblocks. [Read more...]