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.

 

Pakistan's Nukes: John Kerry Knew Long Ago

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
In the 1980s the US sold arms to Iran illegally to secure the release of hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Some of the proceeds of the arms sales were diverted as aid to the contra rebels in Nicaragua.

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) owned by Agha Hasan Abedi of Pakistan was chosen to handle the funds from the Iran-contra arms deal chiefly through Adnan Kashoggi.

When a plane carrying the arms supply got shot down and the American pilot taken prisoner, the matter became public. The national security advisor, Admiral Poindexter, and Colonel Oliver North were put on trial and were initially convicted and subsequently acquitted on a technicality.

BCCIs collapse in 1991 caused a political storm. The banks involvement in the US banking system, through a take-over of the First American Bank, became the subject of a Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee investigation chaired by none other than Senator John Kerry the presumed democratic nominee for the US presidency in 2004.

The investigative report from the Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee found that BCCI was involved in the sale of nuclear technologies and had indulged in various criminal activities such as drug trade, illegal arms deals, and money laundering.

The report also said that BCCI had cultivated many prominent US personalities among them, former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford, directors of CIA, Richard Helms and William Casey and former president Jimmy Carter.

Since Agha Hasan Abedi was close to the Pakistani ISI and leadership, information on the involvement of so many leading US personalities in the BCCI deals would have given the Pakistani leadership an extremely powerful leverage on the US establishment.

The Kerry committee specifically referred to BCCIs involvement in the sale of nuclear technologies The committee also said: It was not just BCCIs deception that permitted its involvement in the U.S. banking system. Also needed was BCCIs use of political influence-peddling and the revolving door in Washington. The BCCI affair was given a quiet burial presumably because the CIA and many prominent personalities were involved.

It is an open secret that the US knew about the Pakistani nuclear weapons program: BCCI owned by the Pakistani, Agha Hasan Abedi, was chosen by the CIA to put through the Iran-contra arms deal.

Given the close interaction of the CIA and BCCI which handled the banking transactions relating to the Pakistani nuclear program and the Iran-contra arms deals, could the CIA or the Senate sub-committee chaired by Senator Kerry have been completely ignorant at that stage about Pakistan-Iran nuclear proliferation?

I think not, the thing that makes this worse is the fact that Kerry had this knowledge and then tried to gut the funding for intelligence in 1995 - with friends like this who needs enemy's.

APPENDICES,
Matters For Further Investigation, Kerry Committee - December 1992,

The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.

Have you forgotten the Kerry committee?

Iran/contra Digital National Archive

All about BCCI and the Kerry Committee (BCCI)

The Strange Saga of BCCI


[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Phoenix]




posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Don't forget to mention that many of the people involved in the Iran/Contra scandal were promoted to top positions by the Bush administration...

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Thats nice to know but.......the subject is Kerrys knowledge of Pakistans nuclear shenanigans and Kerrys desire to cut funds from the CIA, NSA etc.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
This Bush Administration is the only one in US history to have:

- A President with an arrest sheet
- Appointments of Convicted Felons

Is it that you don't know or refuse to acknowledge?



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
This Bush Administration is the only one in US history to have:

- A President with an arrest sheet
- Appointments of Convicted Felons

Is it that you don't know or refuse to acknowledge?


I do know you are about as far left and anti-bush as anyone here on the board.

I also know that certain others that were in drug running, later to be impeached.

I know Kerry is a traitor to this country if I've ever seen one

But all of that belongs in another post on those subjects, If anyone is ignoring an issue its the posters that have no actual comment on the subject of this post - that being the case I will consider the serious nature of the subject to be aknowledged as fact from the left leaning members of this board.

If ya'll want to discuss Bush please start your own thread!



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
With this baseless, factless speculation. P & S is suppose to be about reasoned/supported debate.

You make highly suspect posts and then want the board to acknowledge them as erudite, researched findings?
From your cut & paste, on "thread", you or specifically the author, has made the quantum leap of making Senator Kerry culpable for Iran Contra? Some how circumventing the exact aforementioned blame of having the Reagan/Bush administrations responsible for 32 convicted felons from that episode?

Kerry is a traitor ? Huh? Sad, real sad son



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
I know Kerry is a traitor to this country if I've ever seen one


Perhaps that is what we need. A 'traitor' to the current administration.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
So you're trying to justify support for Bush with this?

Need I remind you that we went to Iraq under FALSE pretenses. NO WMD have been found. NONE. They lied. Plain and simple. YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THAT WITH REASON.

I don't care we we destroyed satan while in Iraq, the fact that a lie was used to invade Iraq negates ANY good doing that may be done there now.

Not to mention all the other crimes that have been commited by this administration...



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
First of all TWO of the links are records from Kerrys own committee's and can hardly be called baseless at all.

Second of all for anyone who can read english they will infer that the Iran/Contra affair led up to Kerrys discovery of BCCI finacial dealings which were the subject of his later sub-committee hearings where he did in FACT find out about BCCI's financing of the Pakistani nuclear proliferation.
With solid facts to back up this post it is right where it belongs - IN P & S.

Now would someone like to give a lucid argument against these facts and leave your emotional responses for the PIT.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
So you're trying to justify support for Bush with this?

Need I remind you that we went to Iraq under FALSE pretenses. NO WMD have been found. NONE. They lied. Plain and simple. YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THAT WITH REASON.


My question is who voted the US to become the global police? Who are they to scream that countries with nukes are evil when the US itself probably has more nukes then the rest of the world combined?

You want to play the part of Mother Terisa go down to the Congo and stop the rape and canibilism of children. Why not? Oh sorry, no oil or desireable location that can be achieved by that! Good will my ass!



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

My question is who voted the US to become the global police? Who are they to scream that countries with nukes are evil when the US itself probably has more nukes then the rest of the world combined?

You want to play the part of Mother Terisa go down to the Congo and stop the rape and canibilism of children. Why not? Oh sorry, no oil or desireable location that can be achieved by that! Good will my ass!


Exactly. About 3 million people have died in the war in the Congo, yet you NEVER hear about that. Where's our goodwill for the people that are getting eaten over there?

The Iraq war did nothing but pull man power from what we should have been doing in the first place. Looking for members of Al-Qeada.

Remember when Osama was the name Bush said every other word? Then all of a sudden, it was Saddam and Osama was NO WHERE to be found in Bush's speeches.

Yet people continue to justify this administrations actions. How, I have no idea...



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I have proven that this was known about in 1992 and irregardless what prior administations did or did not do - its an upleasent fact that for 8 years the democrats did nothing but mollycoddle other countries that were known proliferators.
At least Bush has taken action by making this public after catching Libya red-handed importing Pakistani nuclear tech, causing Libya to capitulate with-out a fight and severely slowing down the underground trade in proliferation - I wish he would do more but what he has done is 100% more than the democrats, Kerry included - thats a fact.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
I have proven that this was known about in 1992 and irregardless what prior administations did or did not do - its an upleasent fact that for 8 years the democrats did nothing but mollycoddle other countries that were known proliferators.
At least Bush has taken action by making this public after catching Libya red-handed importing Pakistani nuclear tech, causing Libya to capitulate with-out a fight and severely slowing down the underground trade in proliferation - I wish he would do more but what he has done is 100% more than the democrats, Kerry included - thats a fact.


So, Bush gets credit for taking action by making it public? Yet he can hire these same felons to top levels of government, and that's.....ok?

What exactly have the republicans done? How are republicans better than democrats all of a sudden? Why don't you try and explain the inherent goodness of republicans to me...



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
So, Bush gets credit for taking action by making it public? Yet he can hire these same felons to top levels of government, and that's.....ok?

What exactly have the republicans done? How are republicans better than democrats all of a sudden? Why don't you try and explain the inherent goodness of republicans to me...

Why can't democrats stick to the subject when the going gets rough- instead they always resort to changing the subject or worse start name calling.

Thorfinn Skullsplitter if you want to start a discussion about Bush all you have to do is start your own thread - now back to the subject please explain Kerrys actions in light of the info in my post - will you?



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I can explain Kerry's actions. He's a corrupt, well-fed, greedy, white politician. I don't defend Kerry, but I don't see how one can try and justify ones actions by digging up the actions of another. If Kerry wasn't a canidate, would you even care? I doubt it...

By the by, I am not a democrat either, because both parties are equally screwed...



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
They can't defend Kerry so they don't try. They try to rip on Bush with the same rhetoric time and time again.

People really believe that Democrats are more for the people than Republicans. The fact of the matter is that neither side is for the people. The Democrats scare me more because they lie more. They say one thing and then do another. The Republicans do some messed up stuff but at least you can see it coming. They don't care about playing both fields as much since they are "straight shooter".

I will watch this post hoping to see how Democrats can explain these actions by Kerry. I also wonder if they can explain how Kerry has taken both sides on almost every major issue, throughout his career, at hand in this election. Of course this will all go back to bashing Bush rather than explaining Democratic actions.

I like how Kerry is now saying that world leaders are telling him how he needs to win to restore order in the US. Funny thing is that he can't provide names. That's the oldest trick in the book. It's very convenient for him to say "well, I can't tell you who said it cause they made me promise." Is Kerry so dumb that he couldn't see the trap this put him in? If he gives the names then he breaks the trust of who spoke with him. If he doesn't give the names then it has to be assumed he lied. You can't take his claims for proof no matter how real they may sound unless you have actual proof of what was said to him. He shouldn't have even mentioned this since he can't prove it.

Man, we need a third party with some actual power.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Mandalorianwarrior]



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
I can explain Kerry's actions. He's a corrupt, well-fed, greedy, white politician. I don't defend Kerry, but I don't see how one can try and justify ones actions by digging up the actions of another. If Kerry wasn't a canidate, would you even care? I doubt it...

By the by, I am not a democrat either, because both parties are equally screwed...


I don't see what race has to do with this, but I will heartily agree with your following comments.

Sorry I did'nt mean to mistake an Independant from a Democrat its hard to tell the difference.

And to answer your last question, yes if I had known sooner about Kerrys actions I would be posting about it anyway.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I will watch this post hoping to see how Democrats can explain these actions by Kerry. I also wonder if they can explain how Kerry has taken both sides on almost every major issue, throughout his career, at hand in this election. Of course this will all go back to bashing Bush rather than explaining Democratic actions.

Mandalorianwarrior, thanks for your reasoned response.
This is getting interesting for me to see the as yet lack of responce to the main subject by the more liberal brethern- maybe there is no defence for Kerry.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
No problem
I'm glad to see that not everyone on this site is afraid to question Kerry and/or the Democrats. Thanks for asking a good question.

This site is great but it's so obvious that the majority of people on here are blindly (I'm sure some are not so blind) following the Democratic party. If you post anything against the Democrats you will get called names, insulted and the topic will change to how Bush is Satan and wants to eat the hearts of our children. Nevermind that the best way to take care of terrorism is to take the fight to the terrorists back yard rather than our own. It really is sad to see people say things like how you must be a moron for not believing as they believe.

This site is all about having an open mind. That includes if you question something that a self-proclaimed open minded person believes in politically. Being open minded has to go both ways and I still don't understand the insults I see in here on a daily basis. A lot of them come from some Democrats who claim to be so much more open minded than the "stupid bastard" Republicans. Of course the Republicans do the same thing so I don't mean to blame this only on the Democrats. Everyone does this from time to time.

OK, I'll shut up so people can answer the intial question asked. I tend to get off course and hopefully my posts wont direct anyone away from the original task at hand.

Had to edit to add that, yes it is very interesting to see the lack of response so far. I do not think there is an answer for Kerry. A lot of Democrats and people against Bush seem to feel that they have to prove Kerry is a good thing since he's their only shot to get Bush out. The Democrats should have been able to do much better than Kerry. Just cause you don't like Bush doesn't mean Kerry is a good thing. Bush is no saint but I'd take him any day over Kerry.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Mandalorianwarrior]



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The only reason I stopped in was to comment on the hyperbole of your statements.
When it comes time for you to serve your country, you'll adopt a diffrent perspective than you have now - that we're obligated to be the world's policemen.
In 1992 to present day, Pakistan has been under no obligation to restrict their arms developments.
Sovereign states are just that - sovereign to their own management.
Rouge states are a different ballgame; but even then you're trying to dictate another sovereign states' right to self defense.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join