CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

 

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history — and still gave him a hand.

BY SHANE HARRIS AND MATTHEW M. AID | AUGUST 26, 2013

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America’s military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen,Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

“The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons’ use — even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Top CIA officials, including the Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, a close friend of President Ronald Reagan, were told about the location of Iraqi chemical weapons assembly plants; that Iraq was desperately trying to make enough mustard agent to keep up with frontline demand from its forces; that Iraq was about to buy equipment from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds and bombs; and that Iraq could also use nerve agents on Iranian troops and possibly civilians.

Officials were also warned that Iran might launch retaliatory attacks against U.S. interests in the Middle East, including terrorist strikes, if it believed the United States was complicit in Iraq’s chemical warfare campaign.

“As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings,” the CIA reported in a top secret document in November 1983. “Tehran would take such evidence to the U.N. and charge U.S. complicity in violating international law.”

At the time, the military attaché’s office was following Iraqi preparations for the offensive using satellite reconnaissance imagery, Francona told Foreign Policy. According to a former CIA official, the images showed Iraqi movements of chemical materials to artillery batteries opposite Iranian positions prior to each offensive.

Francona, an experienced Middle East hand and Arabic linguist who served in the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he first became aware of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1984, while serving as air attaché in Amman, Jordan. The information he saw clearly showed that the Iraqis had used Tabun nerve agent (also known as “GA”) against Iranian forces in southern Iraq.

The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. “If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border,” the CIA said in a top secret document.

But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.

The CIA noted in one document that the use of nerve agent “could have a significant impact on Iran’s human wave tactics, forcing Iran to give up that strategy.” Those tactics, which involved Iranian forces swarming against conventionally armed Iraqi positions, had proved decisive in some battles. In March 1984, the CIA reported that Iraq had “begun using nerve agents on the Al Basrah front and likely will be able to employ it in militarily significant quantities by late this fall.”

The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties “will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the” agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975. The Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the production and use of such arms, wasn’t passed until 1997, years after the incidents in question.

The initial wave of Iraqi attacks, in 1983, used mustard agent. While generally not fatal, mustard causes severe blistering of the skin and mucus membranes, which can lead to potentially fatal infections, and can cause blindness and upper respiratory disease, while increasing the risk of cancer. The United States wasn’t yet providing battlefield intelligence to Iraq when mustard was used. But it also did nothing to assist Iran in its attempts to bring proof of illegal Iraqi chemical attacks to light. Nor did the administration inform the United Nations. The CIA determined that Iran had the capability to bomb the weapons assembly facilities, if only it could find them. The CIA believed it knew the locations.

Hard evidence of the Iraqi chemical attacks came to light in 1984. But that did little to deter Hussein from using the lethal agents, including in strikes against his own people. For as much as the CIA knew about Hussein’s use of chemical weapons, officials resisted providing Iraq with intelligence throughout much of the war. The Defense Department had proposed an intelligence-sharing program with the Iraqis in 1986. But according to Francona, it was nixed because the CIA and the State Department viewed Saddam Hussein as “anathema” and his officials as “thugs.”

The situation changed in 1987. CIA reconnaissance satellites picked up clear indications that the Iranians were concentrating large numbers of troops and equipment east of the city of Basrah, according to Francona, who was then serving with the Defense Intelligence Agency. What concerned DIA analysts the most was that the satellite imagery showed that the Iranians had discovered a gaping hole in the Iraqi lines southeast of Basrah. The seam had opened up at the junction between the Iraqi III Corps, deployed east of the city, and the Iraqi VII Corps, which was deployed to the southeast of the city in and around the hotly contested Fao Peninsula.

The satellites detected Iranian engineering and bridging units being secretly moved to deployment areas opposite the gap in the Iraqi lines, indicating that this was going to be where the main force of the annual Iranian spring offensive was going to fall, Francona said.

In late 1987, the DIA analysts in Francona’s shop in Washington wrote a Top Secret Codeword report partially entitled “At The Gates of Basrah,” warning that the Iranian 1988 spring offensive was going to be bigger than all previous spring offensives, and this offensive stood a very good chance of breaking through the Iraqi lines and capturing Basrah. The report warned that if Basrah fell, the Iraqi military would collapse and Iran would win the war.

President Reagan read the report and, according to Francona, wrote a note in the margin addressed to Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci: “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.”

Subsequently, a decision was made at the top level of the U.S. government (almost certainly requiring the approval of the National Security Council and the CIA). The DIA was authorized to give the Iraqi intelligence services as much detailed information as was available about the deployments and movements of all Iranian combat units. That included satellite imagery and perhaps some sanitized electronic intelligence. There was a particular focus on the area east of the city of Basrah where the DIA was convinced the next big Iranian offensive would come. The agency also provided data on the locations of key Iranian logistics facilities, and the strength and capabilities of the Iranian air force and air defense system. Francona described much of the information as “targeting packages” suitable for use by the Iraqi air force to destroy these targets.

The sarin attacks then followed.

The nerve agent causes dizziness, respiratory distress, and muscle convulsions, and can lead to death. CIA analysts could not precisely determine the Iranian casualty figures because they lacked access to Iranian officials and documents. But the agency gauged the number of dead as somewhere between “hundreds” and “thousands” in each of the four cases where chemical weapons were used prior to a military offensive. According to the CIA, two-thirds of all chemical weapons ever used by Iraq during its war with Iran were fired or dropped in the last 18 months of the war.

By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein’s military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq.

A month later, the Iraqis used aerial bombs and artillery shells filled with sarin against Iranian troop concentrations on the Fao Peninsula southeast of Basrah, helping the Iraqi forces win a major victory and recapture the entire peninsula. The success of the Fao Peninsula offensive also prevented the Iranians from launching their much-anticipated offensive to capture Basrah. According to Francona, Washington was very pleased with the result because the Iranians never got a chance to launch their offensive.

The level of insight into Iraq’s chemical weapons program stands in marked contrast to the flawed assessments, provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies about Iraq’s program prior to the United States’ invasion in 2003. Back then, American intelligence had better access to the region and could send officials out to assess the damage.

Francona visited the Fao Peninsula shortly after it had been captured by the Iraqis. He found the battlefield littered with hundreds of used injectors once filled with atropine, the drug commonly used to treat sarin’s lethal effects. Francona scooped up a few of the injectors and brought them back to Baghdad — proof that the Iraqis had used sarin on the Fao Peninsula.

In the ensuing months, Francona reported, the Iraqis used sarin in massive quantities three more times in conjunction with massed artillery fire and smoke to disguise the use of nerve agents. Each offensive was hugely successful, in large part because of the increasingly sophisticated use of mass quantities of nerve agents. The last of these attacks, called the Blessed Ramadan Offensive, was launched by the Iraqis in April 1988 and involved the largest use of sarin nerve agent employed by the Iraqis to date. For a quarter-century, no chemical attack came close to the scale of Saddam’s unconventional assaults. Until, perhaps, the strikes last week outside of Damascus.

Advertisements

RIP Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Director of the Original Star Wars Program

“Jesus came to comfort the afflicted,  I came to afflict the comfortable”

Bob Bowman

Dr. Bob Bowman, a real Patriot and tireless warrior for Truth, died today at his home in Florida. Our condolences go out to “Maggie” his wonderful wife and all of his children.

We will all dearly miss Bob’s courageous statements regarding the horrible lies surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. He and his wife drove cross country some years ago to rally support for a New Investigation and when he was here in Marin County I arranged to have him speak on the local Cable TV network, North Bay Reports where he was keenly appreciated. He was here in the Bay Area again about two years ago and hosted a lecture on our terrible “situation.” Even while he was battling cancer he continued to fight for the Truth about 9/11.

The upcoming event September 11th at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, California will be dedicated to Bob.
http://911blogger.com/node/11340

Patriots Question 9/11
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development (STAR WARS) under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.

Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:

“Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise—including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots—have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.

Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response.

We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now—not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books—so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed.

We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media.”

Video 9/11/04: “A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…

Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder.” http://video.go

Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
“We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.” http://www.911truth.org/article

Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn’t seem to be very forthcoming with answers.”

Website: http://www.thepatriots.us

Patriots Question 9/11
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Mega-List of 9/11 Suspicious Circumstances and Flaws in the Official Story

by user Three_Letter_Agency

I will preface this all with saying, I do not intend for any bullet point list to effectively prove an inside job. Instead, this list will serve as evidence for the necessity of an independent Citizens Investigation into 9/11. The totality of circumstances are too great to ignore.

Continuity of Government.

I have to start with the Continuity of Government. Verification here, CBSWikipedia here. Essentially a secret government was legally established on 9/11 and has been operating ever since.

Building 7

Watch a compilation of Building 7 collapsing from different angles here

Compare the fires of building 7 to other major skyscraper fires that did not result in a collapse (Thanks /u/classh0le)

Fishy Timeline

More sections are in the comments. Here I would like to link to some writing I have done regarding the nature and prevalencey of psychopathy, and the history of abuses by covert institutions, to provide important context for 9/11.

Flaws in the 9/11 Commission Report

Geopolitics

Whistleblowers

The Hijackers

Operation Able Danger

  • Operation Able Danger identified Atta and 3 other hijackers in the year 2000
  • “The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it “was not historically significant.” This astounding conclusion–in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings–raises serious challenges to the commission’s credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.” — Former FBI Director Louis Freeh in the Wall Street Journal, 11/17/05
  • Able Danger Key Facts: The Pentagon “ordered five key witnesses not to testify”, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter
  • According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and those of four others, Able Danger had identified 2 of 3 Al Qaeda cells active in the 9/11 attacks… including September 11 attacks leader Mohamed Atta [wiki]
  • Speaking on behalf of Lt. Col. Shaffer, attorney Mark Zaid testified “The copies that would have been in the possession of the U.S. Army were apparently destroyed by March 2001. The copies within Lt Col Shaffer’s files were destroyed by the DIA in approximately Spring 2004.” [wiki]

Important Quotes

  • Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2005 at a Congressional Hearing: “Mr. Secretary: according to the Comptroller General of the United States, there are serious financial management problems at the Pentagon, to which Mr. Cooper alluded. Fiscal Year 1999: $2.3 trillion missing. Fiscal Year 2000, $1.1 trillion missing. And DoD is the number one reason why the government can’t balance its checkbook.”
  • Airforce General Richard Meyers “The goal has never been to get bin Laden.”- Interview with CNN
  • “I truly am not that concerned about him.”- George Bush in regards to bin Laden, 2002
  • “We have not uncovered a single piece of paper that mentioned any aspect of the 9/11 plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind.”- FBI Director Robert Mueller, LA Times 2002
  • “It is an obscene comparison – you know I am not sure I like it – but you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tyres around people’s necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck,” he said. “Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.”- Dan Rather on the pressure for journalists to conform to the official story on 9/11, The Guardian 2002
  • “I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring.”- FBI agent Coleen Rowley in a memo to the Director. The memo linked goes in to lots of details
  • “Though he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses… In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.” – Paul Sperry discussing the 9/11 commision chairman
  • “As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.”- Max Cleland
  • “The two questions that the congress will not ask, because republicans wont allow it, is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama Bin Laden cornered why didn’t they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions these questions would have been asked years ago.” – Senator Patrick Leahy
  • “You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.” – 9/11 report commissioner Bob Kerrey
  • “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act … Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed…”- Osama Bin Laden, September 28, 2001 (/u/dosdog)
  • “[W]e oftentimes find ourselves operating in some very difficult places. The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.” During this speech he also emphasizes the importance of the Caspian Basin. “I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It’s almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight,” –Dick Cheney, speaking at Cato Institute conference in 1998, as head of Haliburton
  • “I am troubled by what appears to me to be a persistent effort by the FBI to conceal from the American people information concerning possible Saudi support of the Sept. 11 attacks,” Florida’s former governor Bob Graham
  • “I saw put-call numbers higher than I’ve ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets,” John Kinnucan, a principal of Broadband Research, a telecommunications research firm, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “When one sees this type of activity, the first thing one does is ask oneself, ‘What is the explanation? What are people worried about?'” (/u/minimesa)
  • “This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life… This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.”- Bloomberg’s Dylan Ratigan speaking on Good Morning America (/u/minimesa)

MISC

History of Bin Laden/Al Qaeda

  • US Security officials rejected key information on bin laden by Sudan (theres a theme here with investigating bin laden before 9/11 isnt there)
  • “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden’s organisation would turn its attention to the west.” – Robin Cook, former UK Foreign Secretary
  • The CIA created and armed the Mujahideen with 7.5 billion in 1979 and the Saudis matched them dollar for dollar
  • Bin Ladens MAK, precursor to Al Qaeda, received funding from the ISI (which received funding from the CIA)
  • Bin Ladens tunnel complex, which he would later use after 9/11, was financed by the CIA
  • “The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist.” Their negotiations concluded as such: “”We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, ‘Let him.'”- Washington Post 2001
  • Clinton declined to charge bin laden with a crime in 94 even though he had been clearly linked to the WTC bombings.
  • MI6 paid large sums to al qaeda in Libya to assassinate gadhaffi in 96. Gadaffi issued an INTERPOL arrest warrant for bin Laden in 98, US and UK downplayed it, likely because they had recently funded the libya cell. 5 months later, al qaeda bombed US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya
  • Al Qaeda and the US fought on the same side of the war in Kosovo and Bosnia. They recently repeated the process with Libya and Syria
  • According to the official story, bin Laden turned against the US after they occupied military bases in Saudi Arabia. This doesnt make sense, because: Scott Armstrong, at the time the top investigative reporter for the Washington Post, stated that the United States and Saudi Arabia had jointly conspired to covertly build $200 billion worth of military installations between the years 1979 and 1992. Steve Coll, eminent Bin Laden biographer, states that the Binladen group received a multitude of these contracts, with the knowing intent to support to house US military personal during wars that may threaten Saudi territory. This was occuring at the same time that Osama was tight with his family and using Binladen group assets to build bases in Afghanistan. Of course he was aware of the business dealings between the company.
  • Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, on Larry King Live: “In the mid-’80s, if you remember, we and the United – Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn’t it ironic?”
  • And then there is the fascinating story of Egyptian Ali Muhammed, only tangentially related but thoroughly interesting nonetheless. He was a part of the fundamentalist military unit that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. In 1984, he was hired by the CIA, though they claim that their relationship was short-lived. He would soon join the military and become a member of the Green Berets, and serve as a drill sergeant at Fort Bragg while providing clandestine training to jihadists such as Mahmud Abaouhalima, convicted perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
  • He would take a short leave from his military duties and travel to Afghanistan in 1988 to assist the Mujahideen, returning just months later.
  • In the early 1990’s he would return to Afghanistan and began training jihadists with the skills he had learned at Fort Bragg. According to former FBI special agent Jack Cloonan, in an interview with PBS, his first training session included Osama bin Laden, as well as Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al Qaeda.
  • Former Directors of Counter-terrorism at the National Security Council have alleged that Muhammed took maps and training materials from Fort Bragg and used them to write the Al Qaeda terrorist training manual.
  • His superior at Fort Bragg, Lt. Col. Robert Anderson, has stated that “I think you or I would have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery, than an Egyptian major in the unit that assassinated Sadat would have getting a visa, getting to California, getting into the Army and getting assigned to a Special Forces unit. That just doesn’t happen.”
  • Elsewhere he stated that “It was unthinkable that an ordinary American GI would go unpunished after fighting in a foreign war,” and that he assumed that Muhammed was sponsored by the CIA.

Suspicious Circumstances

Some thoughts

Leaving all consideration to physical evidence behind, ignoring the ideas that the towers were brought down by bombs or thermite, the faults with official collapse explanations etc, the facts are undeniable: The Bush administration, FBI, CIA and more actively allowed the attacks to happen. I think most people can recognize that even if they don’t consider themselves to be conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, people aren’t letting the implications sink in: If they let it happen before, they will let it happen again. And the next round of patriot acts and NDAAs will not be nearly as nice.

I propose that we make this our focus, as the evidence truly is empirical, and the consequences are the exact same as controlled demolition. People are also much more open to the idea.

Themes present in the evidence:

  • The Bush administration and intelligence agencies repeatedly ignored warnings, and went as far as to sabotage investigations that might have uncovered the plot.
  • Various institutions and powerful people had tremendous motive to start wars and enact controlling legislation, and they have been shamelessly talking about it for decades.
  • There is lots of evidence of insider knowledge that the attacks would take place on 9/11
  • Evidence, both physical and information, were actively destroyed in the aftermath of the attacks.
  • The 9/11 commission was a complete farce
  • The narrative of bin Laden and the martyrdom-obsessed hijackers is a fabrication
  • There were multiple strong financial motives behind the attacks, as well as it as a convenient means to destroy evidence of corruption.

If you click ‘source’ at the bottom of the post and each comment (it might require Reddit Enhancement Suite) then the format for copying and pasting is available so everyone can easily use this information across reddit.

If this post isn’t put in the sidebar (and it really should) it will at least be put in the sidebar of /r/conspiracybestof, which is brand new and doesn’t have many subscribers so please join us. There is already some great info there for people new to conspiracies.

I don’t want to be overly dramatic or paranoid or anything, but it won’t hurt to put on public record: After my Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Michael Hastings’ Death got 2k upvotes on r/bestof, I received a threat from a random reddit account saying “You have been noticed. You won’t like the way your life is headed if you continue.” So I want to state for the record that I love life and am in no way depressed, I don’t drink and drive, and I don’t do anything illegal on the internet, not even torrenting. If you are reading this, NSA/CIA etc, I am a complete pacifist and have no intention of resorting to violence in any circumstances, I am only exercising my right to free speech as enumerated in the bill of rights.

Thanks for everyones input in this thread and the last, and for helping me collect this information. Feel free to add to it at any time.

Please use the information in this thread in any manner you see fit.

If you’re a fan of my work, I have a lot of content up at my website thepeopleshistory.net so check it out.

More in comments here: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1korgs/the_official_megalist…

Updated: http://www.thepeopleshistory.net/2013/08/the-mega-list-of-holes-in-offic…

Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years In Prison For WikiLeaks Disclosures

FORT MEADE, Md. — Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday for handing WikiLeaks a massive cache of sensitive government documents detailing the inner workings of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manning, 25, was not allowed to make a statement when his sentence was handed down by military judge Col. Denise Lind. Guards quickly hustled him out of the courtroom, while at least half a dozen spectators shouted their support.

“We’ll keep fighting for you, Bradley,” one exclaimed.

Manning was also dishonorably discharged and demoted from the rank of private first class to private. He was ordered to forfeit all pay and benefits.

Manning was convicted on July 30 on 19 counts, including six Espionage Act violations, for his role in the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history. The charges carried a maximum sentence of 90 years, and the prosecution had requested Manning serve 60. His sentencing brings to a close a three-year saga in which he endured nine months in solitary confinement and saw himself transformed into a symbol of one individual’s potential in the Internet age to roil the world’s sole superpower.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/bradley-manning-sentenced_n_3787492.html

 

Glenn Greenwald’s partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

 

Hastings ‘Unauthorized Cremation’ Mega-Rumor False, Family Says

 

By  on Aug 13, 2013

False-300x198

 

According to a member of Michael Hastings’s family, a widely circulated story that the investigative journalist’s body was cremated by authorities without the family’s permission is flat-out untrue.

The story that the cremation was unauthorized—further stoking credible suspicions aroused by Hastings’s strange death in a fiery one-car crash, complete with a dramatic explosion– has raged across the Internet for weeks.

A recent count showed 475,000 results for “Hastings cremated” and 357,000 for “Hastings cremation.” The top results all reported that the family did not want the cremation. The clear implication was that this was proof of a cover-up – that “the authorities” had rushed to dispose of the body in a way that would make further inquiries, such as an autopsy, impossible.

But a family member told WhoWhatWhy, “It was our wish to have Michael’s remains cremated.” In fact, this family member said the cremation came about at the family’s specific request—and only after an autopsy and toxicology tests, whose results are pending.

In light of this simple, clarifying statement, it’s worth asking: How do blatantly counter-factual rumors and untruths get traction in the cybersphere?

Often, as in this case, they start with legitimate suspicions: just before his death Hastings told associates he was working on a blockbuster story involving the “NSA.” Building on these suspicions, a reporter makes an ambiguous statement that sounds like a shocking revelation — but is actually the result of a leap of faith, an unwarranted assumption by the reporter…which turns out to be incorrect.

Here is a local television reporter for a commercial station in San Diego, Kim Dvorak:

“A close family friend did confirm that Michael’s body was sent home in an urn, meaning he was cremated and it wasn’t the request of the family….in fact the family wanted Michael’s body to go home.”

Soon, the story was everywhere—including on almost all of the websites that generate heavy traffic by catering to those who hunger for a steady diet of stories hostile to the government, no matter their veracity.

***

When we contacted Dvorak by email to ask where she got the “unauthorized cremation” claim, she replied:

I will not be sharing sources for privacy reasons. I will point you to Elise Jordan’s CNN interview where she had plenty of opportunities to deny details reported on San Diego 6 (we are affiliated with CNN).

The problem with this disingenuous reply is that Elise Jordan (Hastings’s widow) was not asked about the cremation by the program’s host, Piers Morgan. The short interview segment did not include discussion of any details of the crash or aftermath, beyond Jordan’s statement that she accepted the crash as an accident and that her husband was always working on multiple intriguing stories at any one time. While this assertion may well be premature, it is not so surprising given the sort of pressures on family members to demonstrate restraint in such circumstances. (From several sources, WhoWhatWhy understands that the family and friends remain curious, like the public, and open to further information that may shed light on the incident.)

Meanwhile, another person Dvorak interviewed fits the description she used in her original report, of “a close family friend.”  That’s Joe Biggs, a retired staff sergeant who was close with Hastings and who did in fact speak to her about the cremation.

In a telephone interview, Biggs told us that he was the source of Dvorak’s reporting, but not her mis-reporting. “That lady asked me about being at the memorial service. I said it was the first one I’ve been at without a body. I meant we didn’t have closure….I said that if I were killed, I would never want to be cremated. Somehow all this got mixed up… She took that to be that the body is missing and family didn’t know where it is. Then this whole thing spun out of control.

“I saw the video of her on the news talking about it… That made me sick to my stomach… I finally got hold of her, and she said she’d retract it, and I don’t know if she did.” (She has not.)

Biggs said that as soon as he saw Dvorak’s report, he contacted everyone he could think of to tell them that his comments had been badly distorted to create the appearance he was alleging a conspiracy.

Matt Farwell, who often worked with Hastings as his writing partner and who is finishing Hastings’s final story for Rolling Stone, is furious with Dvorak, whom he called “a fucking disgrace—and that’s on the record.” Farwell says he fired off an angry email to Dvorak, decrying her reports.

As for the crash itself, he agrees it should be investigated.

“It’s being looked at closely— and unless it’s good solid stuff like the video and [the WhoWhatWhy] piece from the guy whose girlfriend has the pizzeria; unless it’s good solid shoe leather journalism—it’s not helping anyone. It makes the LAPD and the feds go into closed-off mode and makes people not want to say anything.”

***

Many people have taken Dvorak’s work seriously simply because they were pleased to see a “mainstream” local television station carrying the kind of conspiracy-tinged reports she has done.

Indeed, Dvorak has become something of a cult hero on the Internet. As one popular post on Reddit puts it: “Kimberly Dvorak is essentially the only journalist doing work on the ground with the Michael Hastings death. We ***NEED*** to support her. This is her twitter. Spread this far and wide.”

It’s not at all clear Dvorak deserves the title of “journalist.” Her twitter page identifies her not as a television reporter but as “Examiner National Homeland Security Correspondent”—a reference to the Examiner network of conservative-oriented websites. Most of her work has been essays with an editorial tone for conservative or right-wing sites, marked by a clear animus toward the Obama administration, and by alarmist content about “illegal aliens” and other perceived threats.

***

The larger lesson here is one about the state of news today. The media/online world seems increasingly divided between those who are too quick to accept official claims—and those whose default posture is that everything is a plot to cover up the truth. It’s hard to find real journalists—whose work can be trusted because they approach a story with an open mind, a commitment to digging out the facts, and a willingness to report whatever they find.

There are enough truly troubling things about the Michael Hastings story not to have legitimate inquiries sidetracked by a red herring. As Matt Farwell pointed out, instead of advancing a real investigation, such shoddy “reporting” has the exact opposite effect.