Former Representative Charlie Wilson passed away on Wednesday. Those who saw the movie or read the book about him are aware that "Goodtime Charlie" came up with the idea to arm the Afghan Arab mujahadeen against the Soviets, which eventually brought down the evil empire.Wilson gave fame to the Stinger missile and later the term 'blowback' when former Afghan fighters like Usama bin Laden and Abdurajak Janjalanil, founder of the Abu Sayyaf Group, became notorious Islamic terrorists.
In the book "Charlie Wilson's War" there is a mention of Abu Sayyaf on page 515 recounting the former Afghan insurgent leader's open praise for Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. Philippine intelligence operatives who had penetrated Abu Sayyaf believed Yousef was working for Iraq, the same Ramzi Yousef who, with his uncle KSM, helped get Janjalanil's Philippines terrorist base started. Yes, the same KSM soon coming to New York.
Some may have forgotten that shortly before the Iraq invasion Philippines authorities expelled an Iraqi diplomat for making cell phone calls to members of Abu Sayyaf, who had killed a US soldier. Some of this was covered by Deroy Murdock years ago, to almost zero fanfare.
Meanwhile, it's now February 2010 and the miracle of Pan Am 103 bomber Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi continues. Recall he was the guy released from a Scottish prison last year on humanitarian grounds because he had only weeks to live, who returned to Libya to a hero's welcome.Somehow this former low-level airport worker had a Swiss bank account (who doesn't) yet this release seemed to surprise everyone, including the Captain Renault branch of the US government.
In reality everyone figured there was some kind of quid pro quo regarding oil rights or arms sales to Gaddaffi but things are rarely uncomplicated. The same western officials who acted surprised about the release acted similarly in 2003 when Libya's nuclear program was found.
And what of that mysterious suicide in a Libyan prison of the man who claimed Iraq was in cahoots with bin Laden (then said they weren't). No prob--the left has already put this puzzle together, which features Bush and Cheney going in front of the World Court then sentenced to Gitmo, but that view ignores the nuanced connections between Saddam and Mohammar. For instance:
Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Iraq. He surrendered to U.S. Marines in Baghdad on April 18, 2003.It's crazy how Libya has gotten a pass in this whole Global War on Terror stuff despite being one of the biggest state sponsors of terror in the world through the 90s. The fact that crazy colonel Gaddaffi is still around while his former brother in Baghdad is sleeping with the desert is perhaps a testimony to his superior people skills, or superior bargaining chips.
13 comments:
The problem is Mr Megrahi and Libya had nothing to do with Lockerbie and the case against him was invented by the CIA, who together with an Iranian gentleman (names known) blew up their own aircraft to ensure the second worst president in US history was elected.
Some say that, and I don't have the knowledge to completely discount it out of hand. Just wondering why so many western parties were in on the conspiracy, but I guess that's part of believing such a thing.
The problem is, such an excuse denies the culpability of the Libyans and their state sponsorship of terror and ties to Saddam Hussein (who was one of the world's chief sponsors of terror), which are beyond dispute.
There was no culpability on the pont of the Libyans, Mr McCloud.
No culpability for what Charles, Lockerbie or terrorism in general? My statement was broad and connected to history and their later payout of millions to the victims.
As far as Lockerbie is concerned, there is no culpability on the part of the Libyans whatsoever.
It is generally agreed that the case against Mr Megrahi was weak and conspiracy charges were dropped against Fhimah, Only half a clue is unquestionable. Mr Megrahi was at Luqaa Airport on 21 December 1988.
Question the investigator, Mr Maquise, about the rest of the so-called evidence and you'll be treated to a blast of irrelevant hot air. Question the other one, Mr Henderson and you will be threatened with death. Lockerbie was carried out by the CIA with the necessary assistance of a single Iranian to allow Iran its one and one only revenge attack for the downing of the Airbus, IR-655.
I could lecture for hours on Libya's misdeeds, (I do not like the phrase state sponsored terrorism, which is rather inaccurate) but they did not UT-772, backed the ANC and funded a dozen other producers of little explosions here and there.
You seem pretty sure. Tell me again why the CIA would team up with Iran for a revenge attack for Iran Air 655. That doesn't seem to make sense unless these were rogue agents operating outside Webster's authority.
In your first post you said the bombing was done to elect "the second worse president", evidently meaning Bush 41. Problem is, the event occurred 21 December 1988--AFTER the 88 election was complete. How did that get him elected? Besides, Dukakis had no chance anyway.
I do not know anything abut the organisation of the CIA, and read as little as possible, as most of the stuff we get is filtered through their various filters.
There is a whole industry of relevations about the CIA, which are nothing more than carefully planted lies.
To the best of my knowledge I have never met or talked to anybody from the CIA, and I don't want to.
Virtually all my stuff is from the public domain, as to create its fictions the CIA has to allow many real bits of truth have to come out.
Again the rationale for Lockerbie is that HW Bush did not want his attempt on the Presidency to fall foul of Iranian operations, and Iran was incensed by IR-655. Government officials in Iran said that the country would take its revenge in its own time.
So the CIA was tasked (a) to give the Iranians their "one and one only revenge", (b) to clear up the mess afterwards, blaming Libya in the process.
My story is complicated and circumstantial, but very straightforward, but the CIA is capable of carrying out very complicated plots.
My theory has taken years (20) to develop and I never began from the premiss that the CIA was guilty. I only worked that out about two years ago.
I know the names of some of the participants and of the Iranian, whom I believe to be dead, killed by his fellow countrymen no less.
When I can get a respectable publication, say the WP or NYT or BBC or Guardian to take it, I will give them my material. But I'm not going to release it as a blog for anyone to tear at with no qualifications.
Charles, are you suggesting pappy Bush ordered the attack, through Bill Webster, while in transition to the presidency (after the nov election) to somehow buy off the Iranians so they wouldn't shoot something down after the inauguration? Pretty wild theory, and it's hard to believe there's anything from open sources to prove it.
Besides, you gave away your game by saying 'second worst'. I suppose W is in the top spot.
Your first paragraph roughly summarises my view of Lockerbie; Mr Webster features in it very little, though I know the name. Other people like Mr Richard Clarke or the pseudonym "Dominic Brandone" are more central.
I didn't follow your last sentence.
Three ideas pages 199-200 of "See No Evil";
Johnston D (1989) The Tragedy of Flight 103 (page 68);
The final sentences of the AAIB report into N739PA, Pan Am 103, Appendix 7.
You must account for at least these three facts unless you can talk about Lockerbie.
Sorry.
Here's where I'm willing to go on this, Charles. Notice in the post I didn't solely blame Libya for the attack, just commented on the relative condition of Meghrahi and their past involvement with Saddam and others. Gaddafi is dirty, or he wouldn't have paid.
So it makes sense to think the PFLP-GC could have been involved. It makes sense to think Bush41 turned the focus on Libya after Saddam began to get his sights set on Kuwait, since they needed Syria and Iran to stay out of the way. Nobody wants to take on Iran. It makes sense that Libya was scapegoated and that the perp has a Swiss bank account. In that respect it makes sense he's now out of jail.
Saying that rogue CIA agents were involved with the PLO-Iran to kill 270 people is one thing--saying they did it for pappy Bush is another. So before we can discuss any more on this you'll have to answer my question--who was the worst president?
Here's where I'm willing to go on this, Charles.
Dear Mr McCloud,
==At the moment I think you are quite serious, and I thank you for that.
Notice in the post I didn't solely blame Libya for the attack, just commented on the relative condition of Megrahi and their past involvement with Saddam and others.
== I know you didn't blame Mr Megrahi alone. But you have to get it out of your head there is any connection between Mr M and Saddam, Iran, PFLP GC, PPSF, the IRA, and half a dozen organisations, you've never even thought of.
== In my scenario, Mr M was a Libyan businessman whose travels fitted a US organisational agenda.
Gaddafi is dirty, or he wouldn't have paid.
== Colonel Gadaffy paid, because it was the only way to get the US off his back. He paid 80 times over for the US citizens who died on UT-772. I don't think you will have known that.
So it makes sense to think the PFLP-GC could have been involved.
== This was an early CIA attribution (a lie) that even today such luminaries as Dr Swire believe today. An early CIA plot
It makes sense to think Bush41 turned the focus on Libya after Saddam began to get his sights set on Kuwait, since they needed Syria and Iran to stay out of the way.
== You story is too complex and at the same time insufficient.
Nobody wants to take on Iran.
== Now (a) why, and (b) you seem to concede Iran is at the root of this problem. I don't want excuses, I want to come to a truthful conclusion.
It makes sense that Libya was scapegoated and that the perp has a Swiss bank account. In that respect it makes sense he's now out of jail.
== The latest info about Mr M's bank account is just another lie. You must not believe what you are being told, until you can prove its truth for itself, probably because official sources deny or disregard it.
Saying that rogue CIA agents were involved with the PLO-Iran to kill 270 people is one thing--saying they did it for pappy Bush is another. So before we can discuss any more on this you'll have to answer my question--who was the worst president?
== I thought that would be harder - Bush II.
I have created an email for you at:
c73599310@gmx.com
if you wish to talk further. Send me an email, please.
Charles Norrie
//I do not know anything abut the organisation of the CIA, and read as little as possible...//
Herein lies the crux of the matter.
I only wish the CIA were half as competent as some people give them credit for.
Unbelieveable.
LA, yes, some believe in the super competent govt theory. Until a liberal gets in office, then all the bad stuff belongs to rogue right wing operators embedded from the prev repub admin. ;-)
Charles, your admission of at least some Bush derangement skews your argument since it's 100 percent certain neither you nor I are in possession of ALL the relevant material pursuant to the truth. As you admitted--you are operating from open sources. And you know well that whatever Baer wrote in his book has to be cleared first by Langley. If they were involved in any manner there's no way they let him release any cats.
Post a Comment