What is Digg?761 Comments
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -54/+129"It doesn't matter if this is buried on Digg. Becase we'll spam it for the next week anyways."
Fixed. - kevin51901, on 10/12/2007, -51/+103My little brother was killed in Iraq March 31, 2003...army specialist Brandon Rowe, first casualty 101st airborne. I was serving in the air force at the time. We are a patriotic family. Having lost my brother to the war, I would never subscribe to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job without powerful evidence. I found the evidence was not only powerful, but completely overwhelming. I am now convinced that figures in our government planned and carried out 9/11. If I can arrive at this conclusion, 9/11 truthers must have some powerful questions about the event. Look at the evidence and support Rosie.
- Neo911, on 10/12/2007, -37/+83I saw this when it was 3 minutes old. It had 352 hits and wasn't on the front page. 352 hits in 3 minutes. Keep censoring us... you will be held accountable.
- MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -15/+57You Tube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csosIvCXEmY - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -24/+65@hdtvdust
ZZOMG!!!!!
jk
It's not "My" cause. All I've ever said is that a real investigation has never been done.
When you talk to the 911 families you hear the same thing over and over.
"They didn't answer our questions."
Get over it.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE DISINFORMATION SHILLS HERE. THEY ARE WORSE THAN USED CAR SALESMEN...... - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -14/+51according to NIST
there was no molten steel
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse
i guess they didn't see this pic
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg
or this one
http://www.investigate911.com/911moltensteel222222.JPG
Or the testimony from the people who were working on the pile ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ - bagelred, on 10/12/2007, -17/+52Well I just heard the rant on prisonplanet. Not quite as good as I thought but still effective.
The ten minute rant was mostly about Iran and whether the U.S./U.k. are provoking this. that was pretty good. Then it shifted to 9/11 late in discussion. And Rosie basically tells audience that the media is controlled, search outside media for news, research WTC7, no fire ever destroyed a building, and they should have physicists on the show.
Not bad at all. I just thought the 9/11 part would get more play and more detailed discussion. But still great considering its on network television. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+51http://digg.com/search?section=news&s=wtc+7
- greenfirefly11, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38What I don't understand is how an article that was submitted 20 hours ago and only has 80 diggs can make it to the front page.
But an article with over 220 diggs in less than an hour and a half doesn't make it to the front page.
I read the How Digg Works page but couldn't find anything about this.. I'm not accusing anyone of censoring, I'm just wondering how that works..? - SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -34/+61You're right, the 9/11 truth is not going away.
No matter how many crackpot conspiracy theories are proposed, the true story that terrorists did it will never go away. - arugulord, on 10/12/2007, -16/+43"Conspiracy theory" is just an applied negative, a rhetorical term to dismiss something without presenting any real argument. There's no such thing as "run over by a truck" theory, or "dieing from liver cancer" theory, because it's preposterous, it either is or it isn't. It's similar to Mike Meyer's SNL skit where he would make a statement then say "...not!" to hijack it's real meaning. By taking the word "conspiracy" then immediately applying the word "theory" automatically denigrates it. That said, arguing that a lack of transparent, open, inclusive and democratic involvement in analyzing the events surrounding 9/11 is just "conspiracy theory", is the debate equivalent of a rhetorical cop-out. Which is why the corporate media apologists do it, since there really are serious questions that haven't been answered about 9/11, even now 5 years after the horrible incident.
- TERMDEFINED, on 10/12/2007, -67/+93For anybody that is just tuning in to this whole 9/11 conspiracy. Know that the 9/11 truthers are the majority and we are Conspiracy Factualists. All of the facts are on our side and we will NEVER stop saying 9/11 was an inside job! until these evil people are tried for crimes against humanity! WE ARE THE MAJORITY!
- smelthead, on 10/12/2007, -12/+38Hell this might just get Ron Paul elected after all!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a BJ. He was impeached for lying under oath.
- Danthebreadguy, on 10/12/2007, -29/+52I was not a fan of her either but I believe she is putting her career on the line.She also is getting to over 20-30 million viewers,It beats the Fox channel Oh sorry I mean the white house channel. The more info that is out there I say It can not hurt.
- TheGreatOwl, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34I wonder if Rosie will change her tune on gun controll after figuring out how criminal our public servants have become.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26My approach on the apparent inconsistencies and mysteries surrounding the events of 9/11 is an agnostic one: I don't know. There is a middle ground in all this. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to wonder why some very unlikely things occurred on that day and why certain things have been left under examined. But then, nobody has any business dismissing it all out of hand. There are some big questions that haven't been addressed yet. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy here, but I would like a few more answers than what the crippled 9/11 commission provided.
- spoiled1, on 10/12/2007, -15/+37hmmmmm ... this story made to the front page 44 minutes ago, and when you look at the recently made popular stories within an hour, you don't see this one. Digg under martial law!!!!!!!!
- spoiled1, on 10/12/2007, -21/+42It's on the front page now after 291 diggs!
- Diggs4Info, on 10/12/2007, -47/+68No one can stop the mob of 40+ year old pissed off women this will create, Infowarriors of the 1st degree. Rosie is a hero, bring on the chain reaction that can stave off another war wooooot!
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -28/+49***** This Story Has Been Buried ******
ROFLMAO!!!!!
It ain't goin' away ......... - bagelred, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31Does anyone have a link to the actual rant? not her blog, but her rant on the view? youtube link?
- somebigguy, on 10/12/2007, -24/+44Great news, for more info, check out these videos:
BBC Reports the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it collapsed, the same building 7 Rosie is talking about:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=200
Press For Truth:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=165
911 Mysteries:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=183
Terrorstorm:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=151 - rwk28, on 10/12/2007, -17/+37Stop your crying this is our way of fighting the main stream media.If you already made up your mind on 9/11 why bother reading these article's go watch wrestling and CNN,stop wasting your time reading things that matter.
- worldinmyeyes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Just more Digg censorship. Don't give me the bs about their alogorithms.
700+ diggs and how many burries? Nope can't have people discussing the MOST IMPORTANT EVENT in decades. An event that continues to drive the US domestic and international policy.
Any non-govt controlled alternatives to Digg out there? - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+30my claim is straight from NIST itself ..
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Ron Paul supports an indipendant 911 investigation.
Ron Paul for prez ! - knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25My fellow Citizens of the United States of America,
Commissioned and Non-commissioned Officers of the United States Armed Forces,
Elected and Appointed Officials of the United States Government:
You are with the Constitution of the United States of America, or you are with the terrorists! - COMPACTION, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30They protected the taliban before too.
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31Excerpt from the Speech that Incited the American Revolution
March 23, 1775 at the assembled Virginia House of Burgesses
By Patrick Henry
... it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. ...
... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21What's the record for the most Diggs after a story has been buried. This has got to be coming close.
- Neo911, on 10/12/2007, -21/+39Rosie my name is John Feal.A Commack alumni,class of 84.I graduated with Tim your brother,and my sister patty graduated with you. While I applaud your comments and stand behind you,I now expect you to at least act upon them,and back up your words with actions.To better serve the truth movement and 9/11 responder community you need to use your influence,star power and philanthropy skills in helping those sick,injured and dying from the lies and denial of our government on 9/11,the days before and the crucial ones after that has caused more deaths because of corruption and bad politics .I am a 9/11 responder severely injured during the clean up at ground zero .I have taking my own pain and suffering to help those less fortunate,so when a mega star opens their mouth I can only hope they deliver. I know you donated in the beginning like great New Yorkers did,but now more then ever we still need help.For anyone reading,go to my web site fealgoodfoundation.com,or email directly feal13@aol.com and help me help the heroes of yesterday.If I can overcome 11 weeks in the hospital,loose half a foot and now getting ready to donate a kidney then you with so much to give can make a difference in these brave souls lifes.God bless.John Feal 9/11 responder/advocate/president and founder of the fealgood foundation. - Submitted for John Feal
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -18/+35Someone explain this to me
and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
Tower 2 fell in 9 seconds. 9 seconds !!! if the building had falling in a vacuum it would have taken 9.2 seconds. Please explain to me how it fell faster than the speed of gravity. I would love to know. - spoiled1, on 10/12/2007, -31/+48And even after 275+ diggs, it hasn't made to the front page yet, digg under martial law.
- dominavi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Wow, search Digg for "Rosie," funny how this article NEVER comes up. Even though it had several hundred hits within just several minutes.
- 911Hijacker, on 10/12/2007, -121/+138Now is the time for all to come to the aid of their country.
9/11 Truth is not going away. - smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -19/+35@Roger
your a paid debunker and not a good one at that. Thermate was used. Thermate is thermite with the addition of sulfur. It enables a higher temp.This cuts and is the precursor before the charges are detonated. There is video evidence of this and Steven Jones has a physical sample.
http://www.freewebs.com/911Truther
http://911scholars.org/ - knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21this is a memorable event.
this story was put on the front page around 300 diggs,
was taken off the front page around 350 diggs,
and now it is at 740 diggs - more than doubled *after* being taken off front page!
the truth is coming out! the murderers will be hung! - Numarx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18We get to hear about Anna Nicole Smith rotting corpse pussy for the last few weeks, but once a 9/11 story pops up LETS BURY IT! Woot Go DIGG!
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -14/+30even NIST doesn't support the pancake collapse anymore
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). - paulymac, on 10/12/2007, -20/+36WTC7 = CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
http://www.wtc7.net - Airforcefalco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18You know how many people were involved with the Manhattan Project? They were able to keep it a secret.
- r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21This is weird, didn't Rosie get flamed just a few days ago on digg for this same thing?
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17The second video is "no longer available" on YouTube. Hmm. Wonder why?
- STONECRUSHER420, on 10/12/2007, -17/+32This is huge and it's gonna get bigger!!!!!!!!!!!!
- iviasterlambo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21VOTE RON PAUL 2008
- tynos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19FBI Says There Is No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden To 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060611155014535
FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
Courtesy of The Muckraker Report
June 6, 2006 Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), brought our attention to the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) The question was raised, "Why doesn't Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?"
The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for "wanting" Bin Laden by saying, "In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world."
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, "How this was possible?" Tomb continued, "Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11." I asked, "How does that work?" Tomb continued, "The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11."
It shouldn't take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have any hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to "smoke him out of his cave?" The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to "root out" Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Next is the Bin Laden "confession" video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, "There was no doubt of bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered."[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the "confession video" and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the "9/11 confession video" release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be "a devastating declaration" of Bin Laden's guilt. "We’re going to get him," said President Bush. "Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to me."
In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that "the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified." Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, "The tape's release is central to informing people in the outside world who don't believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks." Shelby went on to say "I don't know how they can be in denial after they see this tape." Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn't convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?
The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden "confession video", to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic.
So why doesn't the FBI view the "confession video" as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden "confession video" not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11." This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government's account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government's 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government's 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?
Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no "hard evidence" connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?
"No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11." Think about it.
Footnotes
[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May 31, 2006]
[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b12132001_bt630-01.html, [Accessed June 5, 2006]
[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed June 5, 2006]
[4] CNN, "Bin Laden on tape: Attacks Benefited Islam greatly", December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape, [Accessed June 5, 2006]
…………
http://www.teamliberty.net/id290.html
FACT: Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11
FACT: Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11
August 20, 2006 – …the neo con Republicans are seizing every media opportunity to shout that any vote for a candidate seeking office in the U.S. Congress who isn’t lockstep with the neo con war-mongering agenda is an invitation for a terror attack in the United States. Just in case you haven’t noticed, the neo con controlled Republican Party talking points for this election cycle are the same talking points used in 2002 and 2004. The summary of these points is that the neo cons will protect America from terrorists and keep the people safe while the Democrats will put America at risk and potentially endanger American lives. It’s called fear mongering.
Yet talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, and at the end of the day the fact remains: the neo con leadership has yet to indict Osama bin Laden for his reported role in the tragic events of September 11, 2001. While the neo con is sure talking a great game, they seem to have grave difficultly finishing anything. Having not indicted Osama bin Laden for the crimes of 9/11 is a clear indication that the neo con is either incompetent or covering up information regarding what really happened on 9/11 – information that it fears could demolish any lingering public support for its policies and agendas.
For Americans that question the government’s account of 9/11, this lack of indictment is yet another awkward misfit stumbling among a crowd of government inconsistencies that makes maintaining even partial subscription to the neo con rhetoric regarding 9/11 happenings and the War on Terror, logically impossible. How can any critical-thinking American continue to believe the government lines on bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, terrorism, and terrorist plots when it has yet to legally produce the evidence required to gain a federal indictment of Osama bin Laden? After all, the evidence threshold for gaining a federal indictment is much lower than for gaining a conviction. Yet for reasons that remain obscure from the public record, the U.S. government, under full neo con control, has not gained such an indictment of Osama bin Laden. For rightful doubters of what the U.S. government and the mainstream media have been and continue to report about the bazaar War on Terror, this lack of indictment only fuels suspicion of the U.S. government.
Of course, there remains the blind neo con supporter running amuck in America. You can spot them out on our nation’s highways and byways. They are the bionic fools driving around with the “W” The President stickers on the rear windows and bumpers of their vehicles. Most do not even realize that Osama bin Laden has not been indicted for his alleged involvement in planning 9/11, and the truth is, few would dare to care. For them, it’s more comfortable to leave the barbed, neo con hook entrenched in their political throats rather than endure the pain of extraction. These Americans are the “trust the government” types. Had they lived in the thirteen colonies during the American Revolution, they would have had “G” The King branded on their horse’s ass. Without a doubt – they would have been Tories, King’s Men, Royalists, and Loyalists. Attempting to gain explanation from these people regarding why their fearless leaders have failed to bring charges against Osama bin Laden for his alleged role in 9/11 yet continue to run around America screaming, “The Terrorists are Coming, The Terrorist are Coming” is to attempt to repeatedly force a square peg in a round hole – not recommended if you hope to maintain sanity.
This lack of indictment is simply inexcusable and unacceptable, yet the media continues to allow the neo con to shrill without holding it accountable for its peculiar detachment from the founder and leader of Al-Qaeda. It just does not add up.
Stranger yet is the fact the United States Department of Justice is obviously avoiding answering the direct question, why hasn’t Osama bin Laden been indicted for his involvement in 9/11, while the neo con talking heads continue to revamp and ramp up their Election 2006 rhetoric as if the case on Osama bin Laden was already closed. Not buying the hype though, the Muckraker Report has made many attempts via e-mail, phone conversations, and direct mail to get the DOJ Public Affairs Office to go on the record and explain why Osama bin Laden has not been indicted for 9/11. It is obvious that by its lack of response to what should be a fairly easy question to answer, the DOJ Public Affairs Office is withholding information that clearly should be in the public domain – particularly since so much of the neo con agenda hinges on Americans believing the entire 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda story.
On June 14, 2006 the Muckraker Report spoke with Arthur Schwartz, Staff Assistant with the DOJ Public Affairs Office. Schwartz fielded these questions over the phone:
1. Is the DOJ currently seeking an indictment by a federal grand jury of Osama bin Laden in connection with the events of September 11, 2001?
2. According to the FBI, Osama bin Laden is wanted by the U.S. government in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. Why, as of June 14, 2006, is Osama bin Laden not wanted by the U.S. government in connection with the events of September 11, 2001?
3. Why doesn’t the FBI or DOJ have enough hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11? Does the DOJ not want Osama bin Laden in connection with the events of 9/11?
4. On December 13, 2001, the Department of Defense released what has now become known as the “Osama bin Laden 9/11 confession video” within the mainstream media. How is it that this video isn’t sufficient “evidence” to gain an indictment by a federal grand jury – connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11?
5. Does the DOJ have reason to believe that the so-called “confession video” is authentic?
6. Does the DOJ have reason to believe that the “confession video” is a fake?
7. Does the DOJ have any hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11?
After reading these questions to Schwartz during our phone conversation, Schwartz asked that the Muckraker Report e-mail the questions to Arthur.Schwartz@usdoj.gov, which is exactly what the Muckraker Report did at 2:21:17 PM on June 14, 2006. Since that time, the Muckraker Report has sent e-mail and called Schwartz on numerous occasions seeking answers to these valid and important questions. I have personally spoken with Schwartz on at least three different occasions since June 14, 2006, seeking status of the DOJ answers. Schwartz contends that he passed the questions onto “others” but refuses to give contact information that identifies exactly who these “others” are and when they might get around to doing their jobs by answering these questions – after all, they’re Public Affairs! Once Schwartz refused to divulge the name[s] of the government employee[s] that are reportedly working on finding answers to the questions asked by the Muckraker Report, it became clear that the United States Department of Justice is unwilling to voluntarily answer these questions.
Not to be deterred, on August 15, 2006, the Muckraker Report called the DOJ Public Affairs to start anew, but this time, I decided to only ask one question, “Why has Osama bin Laden not been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with his alleged masterminding of 9/11?” I spoke to a government employee that identified himself as Matt Lebaron. I asked if he could get back to me as soon as possible because I have been waiting over 60 days for an answer, from his office, to this simple question.
Five days have passed, and still no call from Matt Lebaron.
It’s time for the people to get some answers or suffer the consequences. Time is running out. We either return the power to the people or suffer under the emerging totalitarianism that is spreading across our nation and being accepted by people that are no longer fit to be called Americans.
…….
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088
C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: July 4, 2006
New York Times
WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year…
The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."
…The decision to close the unit was first reported Monday by National Public Radio.
………..
http://prisonplanet.com/who_is_osama_bin_laden.html
Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted at globalresearch.ca 12 September 2001
Original Link http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that "Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects". CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan ``multiple attacks with little or no warning.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks "an act of war" and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". Former CIA Director James Woolsey pointed his finger at "state sponsorship," implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, "I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution."
Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra has approved the launching of "punitive actions" directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: "When we reasonably determine our attackers' bases and camps, we must pulverize them -- minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage" -- and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror's national hosts".
The following text outlines the history of Osama Bin Laden and the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign policy during the Cold War and its aftermath.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1
In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:
With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3
The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:
In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:
Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5
Pakistan's Intelligence Apparatus
Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.
In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6
CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7
Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.
With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". 8 The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. 9
Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:
'Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course.10
The Golden Crescent Drug Triangle
The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. 11 In this regard, Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 percent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979... to 1.2 million by 1985 -- a much steeper rise than in any other nation":12
CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests ... U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies `because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.' In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. `Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,'... `I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout.... There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'13
In the Wake of the Cold War
In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three quarters of the World's opium representing multibillion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion dollars) represents approximately one third of the Worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $500 billion.14
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics-- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons.15 Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes.
The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 16.
Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union.
Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also "handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions..." 17
And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.
Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI" 18
In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan's ISI. 19
In other words, backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.
No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant derogation of women's rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment".20
The War in Chechnya
With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress's Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. 21 The summit, was attended by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war". 22
Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin.
The two main Chechen rebel armies (respectively led by Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab) estimated at 35,000 strong were supported by Pakistan's ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and training the Chechen rebel army:
[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defense General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf, (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev.23
Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In 1997-98, according to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo... through several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia" 24
Basayev's organisation has also been involved in a number of rackets including narcotics, illegal tapping and sabotage of Russia's oil pipelines, kidnapping, prostitution, trade in counterfeit dollars and the smuggling of nuclear materials (See Mafia linked to Albania's collapsed pyramids, 25 Alongside the extensive laundering of drug money, the proceeds of various illicit activities have been funneled towards the recruitment of mercenaries and the purchase of weapons.
During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander "Al Khattab" who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev's return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab's posting to Chechnya had been "arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya".26
Concluding Remarks
Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist.
While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations.
In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad --featured by the Bush Administration as "a threat to America"-- is blamed for the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organizations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
Hugh Davies, International: `Informers' point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers, The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998.
See Fred Halliday, "The Un-great game: the Country that lost the Cold War, Afghanistan, New Republic, 25 March 1996):
Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999.
Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992.
Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995.
Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998.
Ibid.
Dipankar Banerjee; Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry, India Abroad, 2 December 1994.
Ibid
See Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford university Press, New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in International Press Services, 22 August 1995.
Alfred McCoy, Drug fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive; 1 August 1997.
Ibid
Ibid.
Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a changing World, Technical document no 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations Publication, Vienna 1999, p 49-51, And Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000.
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, op cit, p 49-51, see also Richard Lapper, op. cit.
International Press Services, 22 August 1995.
Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November- December, 1999, p. 22.
Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998)
Tim McGirk, Kabul learns to live with its bearded conquerors, The Independent, London, 6 November1996.
See K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals, India Abroad, 3 November 1995.
Levon Sevunts, Who's calling the shots?: Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 23 The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999..
Ibid
Ibid.
See Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000.
The European, 13 February 1997, See also Itar-Tass, 4-5 January 2000.
BBC, 29 September 1999).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html - knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -26/+41oh, God, you are so right!
hell hath no fury! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+33Those who cry CONSPIRACY fail at physics, and life.
- 911Hijacker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22http://www.patriotsquestion911.com
? -
Show 51 - 100 of 743 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
