It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

[Who Killed John O'neil] History of Terrorism, al Qaeda connection to CIA

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
www.uploading.com...

Contents of Rar archive are interviews with John O'Neill and documentary
about his life and FBI:
6,867,823 interview_hi.wmv
12,882,411 manwhoknew1_hi.wmv
17,462,697 manwhoknew2_hi.wmv
10,396,311 manwhoknew3_hi.wmv
19,872,873 manwhoknew4_hi.wmv
15,456,439 manwhoknew5_hi.wmv
1,833,883 manwhoknew6_hi.wmv
21,170,531 manwhoknew7_hi.wmv
14,028,772 manwhoknew8_hi.wmv
4,784,824 manwhoknew9_hi.wmv

www.pbs.org...

Could a mod edit this into the first post?




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zren
Could a mod edit this into the first post?



Nah, let's keep it here that will enocurage those who want to know to read the whole thread. Looks just fine as it is.




posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
First off, I've been a lurker here for a few months now, and after seeing this video, I had to post something I noticed.

Here's a rough quote from the movie.


Around ~30 minutes into the movie.


Ramzi Yousef...was sentenced to death by Manhattan federal court, on September 11th, 1996.

These arabs sure have an affinity for anniversaries.


5 years later, the September 11th attacks occured.

5 years later after that, is tomorrow.

Not trying to jump the gun, and I'm sure many people have thought the same thing I have. I just had to post that 'coincidence' because it really struck me, especially after hearing all the talks about dates and anniversaries that are used by Muslims as significant dates.


I really loved this movie, and I also liked the characters being portrayed as different personalities of people, so as to refute or reinforce the views that different people might have in the world. I think this allows for this film to be more openly viewed by many people.


Great work, and I thank you ATS for providing a very engaging community.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Awesome post, I'm watching Cheney turn BRIGHT RED on Meet the Press right now.
I started a thread questioning why the President, Mayor, Governor, etc, would have the wreath ceremony today and not tomorrow, ON the anniversary.. anyways dont want to jack this thread, but gforce811 might not be jumping the gun.

props to zren and tyrauber
people need to know this.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Last night on ABC they aired a docudrama, "The Path to 9/11" not an actual documentation, but a fictional twist as their own verson of events. Well I was watching it, and payed attention to how John P. O'Neill was portrayed in the film. Honestly, I am confident they have that part factual.

His son might be key on this issue, and I stand behind that much at least. It probably is not some thing he should be contacted about, obviously.

How ever if any of those who were involved in the film topic of this thread are still reading this (hopefully). This person, John's son, may have been the last person to speak with his father in a recorded manner. Could that/those conversation/s have had recorded info of value. I have no idea, perhaps acustic if nothing else.

Point is, I felt that was an important piece of this puzzle, has any one else watched that, and had simular feelings?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The recent fertlizer risk, with the terrorist or suspect known as Omar (Kyam?) I didn't get to wite it down fast enough, and I dont remember his last name correctly.

Any way, this guy claims his family is ISI, and that they have spoken with his other reletives and or himself. Was on the news, and I couldn't find any thing on the net yet.

Found something;

Al-Muhajiroun- In one instance the relatives of a student from Crawley, Sussex, went to Pakistan to search terrorist training camps for Omar Kyam, who had left his home to travel to Pakistan to train as a terrorist. Mr Kyam’s uncle stated “he and boys like him are being given a rifle and told martyrdom is a good thing and sent on a suicide mission to places like Kashmir…The men responsible for sending them don’t care what happens to these boys. Many families who have lost sons are afraid to speak out because they worry about reprisals against them
Source of details




[edit on 18-9-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I found this one advisor,


Link
Musharraf claims that Omar Saeed Sheikh was a British intelligence agent. Of course, Musharraf would say something like that, as it takes the heat off his own country for some of the things that Omar Sheikh has allegedly done, all supposedly on behalf of Pakistani military intelligence. On the other hand, Musharraf’s story fits...

Some other links from google news...
Op Ed News


Gulf Times
Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf has disclosed that Omar Sheikh, who kidnapped and murdered American journalist Daniel Pearl and is now facing death penalty, was actually the British secret Agency MI6’s agent...

There's quite a bit of it going around in the news because of Musharraf's new book, apparently it's going to be called in for evidence in the Pearl Case. We should keep an eye on this case, it's knee deep in 9-11.
Google News Links

I just can't believe the video this thread started with hasn't gotten more attention, I guess mainstream is hoping by ignoring it will go away but I have to say it is probably one of the best conspiracy videos I've seen put together in a long time.
Watch Me



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I have tried to watch this video but the echoing bothers me...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Echoing? Not sure what you mean unless you haven't made it past the first couple of minutes, it gets better, a hell of a lot better.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Al Qaeda was started and funded by the CIA to fight the Mujihadeen war in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 80s.
Israeli troops trained these Mujihadeen in Pakistan, after the war with the Soviets was won the army was "disband", but all it did was evolve into the Taliban.

Personally I've come to the conclusion that Al-Qaeda is just a psy-op.
Al-Qaeda was the name of the server Osama Bin Forgotten used to contact his CIA friends when we was doing logistics for them in Afghanistan. Plus, it means something like, "crappy toilet" in arabic. Would Osama really name his top secret terrorist orginization after potty humor?

Either way, Ol' Osama was Al-CIA-Duh sponsored from day 1.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Great White Cheney
Al-Qaeda was the name of the server Osama Bin Forgotten used to contact his CIA friends when we was doing logistics for them in Afghanistan. Plus, it means something like, "crappy toilet" in arabic. Would Osama really name his top secret terrorist orginization after potty humor?


Actually, Al-Qaeda means "the base", as in, "the database" that held the names of the Mujihadeen fighters that the C.I.A. (through Pakistan) trained and funded durring the Soviet/Afghan war.

[edit on 10/22/06 by redmage]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet
The CIA created, and control Al Qaeda, great excuse to wage bogus war on terror. Bin Laden works for the CIA

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

www.msnbc.com...

www.fromthewilderness.com...

emperors-clothes.com...

www.scoop.co.nz...

www.tvnewslies.org...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

If you actually go back and look at the CIA's support of the insurgency in Afghanistan, in the 1980s, you'd see that the CIA, as an organisation, had little to no direct or even indirect contact with either Osama bin Laden or the group, Al Qaeda, that bin Laden and his ragtag band of foreign fighters created.

Rather it was the Pakistani ISI who were at the forefront of dealing with the various prominent insurgent groups.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum
Rather it was the Pakistani ISI who were at the forefront of dealing with the various prominent insurgent groups.


Yes. Yes, they were, but there was and is significant support, training, and influence provided by the US Central Intellegence Agency to further their efforts.

Directly, or indirectly, there's been a "helping hand" throughout Many years to "ensure" certain goals and or objectives were met. No?

www.saag.org...

Good point, nonetheless.


[edit on 10/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum
If you actually go back and look at the CIA's support of the insurgency in Afghanistan, in the 1980s, you'd see that the CIA, as an organisation, had little to no direct or even indirect contact ...


I was with you untill the "or even indirect" comment. That's where you may need to brush up on your history. There was a lot of indirect contact with funding, arming, and training provided by the U.S. Government/C.I.A. through the Pakistani ISI. Congressman Charlie Wilson (R) handled/assured funding and was even able to swing deals garnering Israeli support (of all people/places!) for the Mujahideen. C.I.A. opperative Gust Avrakotos handled much of the footwork, including various weapons deals, as well.

If your sticking point was, "the CIA, as an organisation...", to that I would say the C.I.A. "as an organization" is at heart a "clandestine organization" who considers its most successful missions the ones in which they take (or are given) no credit.


You may also want to check out the name and/or official doccuments relating to Tim Osman.

Or, if your point was "in the 1980s, you'd see that the CIA, as an organisation, had little to no direct or even indirect contact with either Osama bin Laden or the group, Al Qaeda", their contact with bin Laden was officially documented in the mid 80's but "Al Qaeda" did not exist (by that name/form) till the mid to late 90's when we needed a "official name" for the group in order to attempt to hunt/prosecute them under existing anti-organized crime laws. We created/chose the name "Al Qaeda" (in reference to the database of Mujahideen fighters) for that purpose; it wasn't a name that bin Laden created (or even used) to signify himself or his followers then.

[edit on 10/29/06 by redmage]



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
That was the precise point I made - there's little to no evidence of direct or even indirect contact between the CIA and bin Laden's group of foreign fighters. In fact, as you'd probably know, the CIA only began to take serious interest in "Al Qaeda" in the closing stages of the Afghan War. Hell, CIA officers/operators rarely, if ever, ventured into Afghanistan to meet with insurgent leaders or gather intelligence on the Soviet military.

As for the myth (a myth wrapped up in the juvenile 9/11 conspiracy theory rubbish) that it was the CIA that attributed the "Al Qaeda" label to Osama bin Laden's terrorist group, Osama Bin Laden, himself, explained the origin of the term, Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaida (القاعدة, translit: al-Qā`ida; "the foundation", "the base") in his videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in late October 2001:

The name 'al Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
You still seem to be mixing your facts up.


Originally posted by Egotosum
there's little to no evidence of direct or even indirect contact between the CIA and bin Laden's group of foreign fighters.


There's plenty of evidence regarding indirect contact by way of the Pakistani ISI. That's how the majority of funding, training techniques, and weapons were funneled to the Afghan fighters (of which bin Laden was a "member/participant")


Originally posted by Egotosum
In fact, as you'd probably know, the CIA only began to take serious interest in "Al Qaeda" in the closing stages of the Afghan War.


Incorrect, "Al Qaeda" did not exist untill the late 90's. However, The C.I.A. did take serious interest in the "Afghani freedom fighters" from the begining of the Soviet/Afghan war.


Originally posted by Egotosum
Hell, CIA officers/operators rarely, if ever, ventured into Afghanistan to meet with insurgent leaders or gather intelligence on the Soviet military.


Debatable but likely, thus the multitude of indirect contact through the Pakistani ISI and Brittish intelligence. The direct C.I.A. contact that I've researched occurred in the Afghan/Pakistani border regions where Mujahideen fighters took refuge from Soviet forces. As this area is kind of an "inbetween"; your statement of "ventured into Afghanistan" may technically hold true (depending on where you consider the true border to be, although even the locals often have a hard time defining it). However your point is somewhat irrelevant as it still does not negate the multitude of support and indirect contact provided by the C.I.A. and U.S. gov.


Originally posted by Egotosum
As for the myth that it was the CIA that attributed the "Al Qaeda" label to Osama bin Laden's terrorist group...


I never stated that the C.I.A. directly named them "Al Qaeda"; however, the name "Al Qaeda" was chosen/decided upon by the U.S. gov. in order to be able to hunt/prosecute the group under existing anti-organized crime laws (since the group had "no flag" or specific country which they represented). The name "Al Qaeda" (trans. "The Base") was created in direct reference to the "data-base" (of names) of the Afghani/Mujahideen fighters involved in the Soviet/Afghan conflict.

Sidenote: Last year we traced the first public appearance of the name "Al Qaeda" to 08/28/98 in reference to the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. As it stands, this is the first public reference to the term "Al Qaeda" that we've found. The CNN article uses the term "Al Qaeda" to describe bin Laden's group, however, they never directly quote Odeh using the term. An important distinction in my opinion. Odeh's lawyer is only directly quoted using the term "the organization", not "Al Qaeda". The only direct reference using the term "Al Queda" is attributed to "U.S. officials" with the statements:


Source
Odeh told the FBI that he had trained in a number of camps affiliated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist group allegedly led by bin Laden, U.S. officials told CNN.


and:


Odeh also told the FBI that he believed al Qaeda had carried out the Nairobi bombing and another blast at the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.



Further, since you like Wiki as a reference, I'll point you to the lines below the selection you selectively chose to quote:


Source
Robin Cook, former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom and member of the House of Commons representative, claimed that "Al-Qaeda" states "literally ‘the database' and was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."


And:


An alternate theory, presented in the BBC film series "The Power of Nightmares" states that the name and concept of al-Qaeda was first used by the U.S. Department of Justice in January of 2001 at the New York City trial of four men accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. By alleging Osama bin Laden's leadership of said organization, it became possible to charge bin Laden in absentia with the crime using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act also known as the RICO statutes.


Personally, I believe it's a combination of both of these theories, and I'd take the word (and credability) of Robin Cook (a "former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom and member of the House of Commons representative") over that of a "bin Laden quote", in an Al Jazeera journalist's interview, anyday.

Although, if you find bin Laden/Al Jazeera to be more credible than a qualified Brittish official that is your choice.

However, I'd point out that in the first quote that you chose to use, bin Laden only states that they "used to call the training camp al Qaeda", not the organization itself.

[edit on 10/29/06 by redmage]



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Well, according to Steve Coll (Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA,
Afghanistan and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001)
, who's as you know a bit of an authority on Al Qaeda, "CIA archives contain no record
of any direct contact between a CIA officer and bin Laden during the 1980s", (pg. 87).

Steve Coll goes on to say that the CIA only became aware of bin Laden's work with Afghan rebels in Pakistan
and Afghanistan later in the 1980s but did not meet with him even then, according to the aforementioned
record searches and interviews.

I wouldn't consider the handing off of US/Saudi-purchased weaponary, by the ISI, and the
funding of training, to Afghan insurgents as even indirect contact in the traditional sense.
Would you?

As for whether or not the name "Al Qaeda" was coined by Western intelligence agencies,
i'll take bin Laden's word for it. After all, he was the principal founder
of the organistaion. As Coll points out, "...bin Laden and his extremist allies, close to
Hekmatyar, folded the office into bin Laden's nascent al Qaeda, which he had formally
established the year before (1988)..."



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

who's as you know a bit of an authority on Al Qaeda, "CIA archives contain no record
of any direct contact between a CIA officer and bin Laden during the 1980s"


During the 80s yes, but in the 70s, he came to the USA to gather support in arms and funding with the name of Tim Osman, the name gaved by the CIA... here's a picture with Brzezinski...

Picture



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

who's as you know a bit of an authority on Al Qaeda, "CIA archives contain no record
of any direct contact between a CIA officer and bin Laden during the 1980s"


During the 80s yes, but in the 70s, he came to the USA to gather support in arms and funding with the name of Tim Osman, the name gaved by the CIA... here's a picture with Brzezinski...

Picture

Is there an actual source to back that claim up?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join