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.

 

BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

page: 6
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 





Its pretty hard not to just type **** you and take the warn.


I do not understand what you wrote here so you will have to explain.

Regarding the "intel" thing you mention, I don't think anyone here is claiming to have access to these kinds of resources neither have in anyway. It is merely your perception.

You may be surprised to know that there more than a few ATSers who are exceptionally well read and have spent years on reflecting on news items, reading specialist journals, are multilingual and read the foreign press and use their inherent brain power to analyse the info in front of them. Some even have post graduate degrees in the fields they comment on.

So you see, when you make your unsubstantiated and incoherent opinions known it is only through the good will of members that we take the trouble to respond. In the end you are entitled to voice your opinions but you haven't got a right to suggest that I am claiming to have some kind of 'intel' when I haven't or ever claimed to have. It is just substantiated commentary.

[edit on 013131p://pm3106 by masonwatcher]




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The Afghan freedom fighters had a goal they had a common purpose once the Russians left Afghanistan many of them went home. There beliefs lead then to believe there job was done.Then there was people like Osamma Bin Laden his goal was never to free the Afghans from Russian oppression his goal was to spread his brand of Islam through the world. For a while the two different goals had a common purpose. (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).Now however there only purpose is is to destroy western culture and lets not forget Saudi Arabia he doesn't like the royal family there anymore either.Partly because Ossama knows they try to spread Islam and supports terrorism but are unwilling to make a stand. Little does he realize they cant they have to look impartial even thought they are not.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Then there was people like Osama Bin Laden his goal was never to free the Afghans from Russian oppression his goal was to spread his brand of Islam through the world.


Osama Bin Laden was small fry stuck in Afghanistan once the war was over. He derived a mission from the Bosnian war when the US encouraged some mujahideen to come over and hunt down Serbian Chetniks until the EU objected to their presence.

What really fired up Osama Bin Laden is the presence of US and allied troops in the holy lands in Saudi Arabia. This is his primary concern.

[edit on 033131p://pm3149 by masonwatcher]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Despite claims otherwise, bin Laden's ongoing activities and funding sources have now been well tracked by investigators, journalists, oreign intelligences, etc.

Far from being just a rich kid seeking adventure he studied economics and business administration and with that knowledge and his convictions was selected to handle the finances by the people who bankrolled the major terrorist activities culminating in 9/11.

Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, banker to the Saudi royal family was a primary money facilitator. As far back as the mid-90s, French, British and US intelligence believed bin Mahfouz had erected a banking system to benefit bin Laden. Bin Mahfouz's Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation was also a front for other groups including Makhtab al-Khidamat, Hamas and Abu-Sayyaf.

This has been documented in a few books that bin Mahfouz has been able to suppress distribution for in Britain and elsewhere. One that got through in the US "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed" is a an enlightening look at the hidden world on Middle East terrorism financing.

There is an excellent timeline for OBL from the late 70s onward with citations at this open source historical site. A couple interesting excerpts included.




www.historycommons.org...


2000: $250 Million Bank Transfer Suggests Links Between Bin Laden, His Family, and Pakistani

A transfer of 241 million euros (over $250 million) is made to Pakistan in this year from a Swiss bank account belonging jointly to Osama bin Laden and a Pakistani. The Pakistani is Akberali Moawalla, a former business partner and an acquaintance of Osama’s brother Yeslam bin Laden. This Deutsche Bank joint account belongs to a company called Cambridge, which is a subsidiary of the Saudi Binladin Group, the bin Laden family company. After French investigators will discover records of this money transfer in late 2004, a French judge will authorize widening a probe into the financial network surrounding the bin Laden family. [Reuters, 12/26/2004; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 6/6/2005]

The discovery of this sizable joint bank account will contradict the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, which will claim that bin Laden inherited far less than is commonly reported and never had a fortune in the hundreds of millions of dollars. [Agence France-Presse, 7/26/2004]

...

June 2001: Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad Complete Merger

Two major terrorist organizations, al-Qaeda and the Egypt-based Islamic Jihad, formally merged into one. This completes a merging process that had been going on for years (see August 11-20, 1988, December 1, 1996-June 1997, and February 22, 1998). The technical name of the new entity is Qaeda al-Jihad, though it is widely called al-Qaeda. Bin Laden remains in charge, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Islamic Jihad, remains second in command. [New Yorker, 9/9/2002]



Mike



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 





Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, banker to the Saudi royal family was a primary money facilitator. As far back as the mid-90s, French, British and US intelligence believed bin Mahfouz had erected a banking system to benefit bin Laden. Bin Mahfouz's Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation was also a front for other groups including Makhtab al-Khidamat, Hamas and Abu-Sayyaf.


Interesting how you weave such rich tapestry of disparate groups stretching from Palestine to Suadi Arabia and to the Philippines.

Listen carefully, Hamas are the enemy of Israel and have no relations to AQ despite your wishful dreams. Abu-Sayyaf are secessionists that have been fighting the Philippine government for decades.

Maktab al Khidmat also known as 'the Afghan Bureau' was a militia formed during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, was based in the US and financed by Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission report designated it as an ally of the US in the past. en.wikipedia.org...

Bin Mahfouz's Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) is Mr. Money Bags and had made substantial donations to both bin Laden and the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets.

Interestingly enough, bin Mahfouz's Muwafaq owned 20% of BCCI, the notorious bank for the international security services and with its own phalanx of hitmen. This same bank was also the financial clearing house of certain secretive government orgs in the US and facilitator for the Iran Contra Affair.


-- The Iran-contra affair may be only part of a broader and previously undisclosed pattern of illegal activities by intelligence agencies during the tenure of Ronald Reagan and his CIA chief William Casey. Sources close to the unfolding investigation of the Bank of Credit & Commerce International told TIME that U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, maintained secret accounts with the globe-girdling financial empire, which has been accused of laundering billions of dollars in drug money, financing illegal arms deals and engaging in other crimes.

The discovery of the CIA's dealings with B.C.C.I. raises a deeply disturbing question: Did the agency hijack the foreign policy of the U.S. and in the process involve itself in one of the most audacious criminal enterprises in history?www.time.com...


The articles you refer to are all speculative and reliant on suppositions by the writers. the 9/11 Commission mentioned in passing the wealth of the bin Laden family but solidly investigated former US allies. Finances coming from theses sources were transferred through Pakistan to Afghanistan and has been reported on since the early eighties in the context of financing for the mujahideen.

The fact is that you throw a whole load of Muslim names in your commentary, tie in Israeli interests by associating Hamas, (which had not yet been created by Israel) in to the deceptive mix and then invent your own pro-Israeli reinvention of history.

I think I have just outed a disinformationalist.




[edit on 043131p://pm3124 by masonwatcher]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


Well, let me put it more bluntly:

I had sources that matched others sources within the thread, cited them and illustrated my point, and you stated I don't know very much in a condescending manner.

That is the definition of ignorance to a T.

Then you come back with your little believe it or not spiel as if to imply I'm not well read.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The fact is that you throw a whole load of Muslim names in your commentary, tie in Israeli interests by associating Hamas, (which had not yet been created by Israel) in to the deceptive mix and then invent your own pro-Israeli reinvention of history.

I think I have just outed a disinformationalist.

Indeed you have.

Take a look at how much time this guy mmiichael spends defending the government's official 9/11 version of events. He'll post dozens of times in a thread, quoting 911Myths.com or Popular Mechanics. Either that or he'll just make stuff up as he goes, without any attribution at all.

And then he calls himself a journalist. Given the state of MSM journalism, it sounds about right.

I challenge anyone who hasn't already done so to read '1984.' Osama bin Laden = Emmanual Goldstein = global bogeyman and perpetual war. 9/11 = The Reichstag Fire. And the way things are going, I gotta agree with the most knowledgeable author Jim Marrs -- America is quickly becoming The Fourth Reich.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher

The articles you refer to are all speculative and reliant on suppositions by the writers. the 9/11 Commission mentioned in passing the wealth of the bin Laden family but solidly investigated former US allies. Finances coming from theses sources were transferred through Pakistan to Afghanistan and has been reported on since the early eighties in the context of financing for the mujahideen.

The fact is that you throw a whole load of Muslim names in your commentary, tie in Israeli interests by associating Hamas, (which had not yet been created by Israel) in to the deceptive mix and then invent your own pro-Israeli reinvention of history.

I think I have just outed a disinformationalist.




I relay summarized information from sources that have researched their chosen subjects systematically and provided citations. Some things may yet be proven to be linkage by association, but there is an effort to put together a version of events based on facts.

You, on the other hand, make unqualified pronouncements, cherry-picking whatever anecdotal information suits your purposes supplying no validation beyond your word. And your word has been demonstrably false on more than one occasion.

Though you fancy all roads lead to American and Israeli perfidy, evidence, documentation, reliable testimony has shown a very different picture.

There are people in the Muslim world actively complicit in multiple acts of financing and facilitating overt mass murder, usually in the name of terrorism. To try and deny this and constantly attempt to shift blame to your chosen villains is ludicrous.

It's hard to determine what is intended as disinformation and what is just pure self-delusion.


Mike



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rob37n
The West is at war with Al Qaeda, the West has always been at way with Al Qaeda.


Seeing as Al Qaeda means 'the base' (the database) and was originally just a list of people we got to help us in our fight against the Russians in Afghanistan how do you come to that conclusion?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 





You, on the other hand, make unqualified pronouncements, cherry-picking whatever anecdotal information suits your purposes supplying no validation beyond your word. And your word has been demonstrably false on more than one occasion.


My comments are my own and my assertions are backed up by my links which are also further back up by references. Just look at the rebuttal to your above comment.

Cherry picking is exactly what you do, you cherry picked a bunch of Muslim names, made unsubstantiated claims and referenced speculative news articles that highlight possibilities and not facts.

More damningly, you included Hamas with your questionable assertions about AQ at a time when Hamas was not in existence or were at the early stage of running health clinics.

As for your allegations of I making false words, it is merely a slander to be expected when one is an anti-zionist. You, however, made thorough falsehoods with your earlier comment. You made allegations that hinged upon names you threw together that actually turned out to be allies of the US in an earlier war or have nothing to do with AQ. You were manufacturing a lie and hoped no one would challenge your apparent expertise.

I invite anyone to comb through my earlier comment, visit the links and disprove my assertions.

[edit on 063131p://pm3154 by masonwatcher]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
damningly, you included Hamas with your questionable assertions about AQ at a time when Hamas was not in existence or where at the early stage of running health clinics.



I don't include Hamas out of whim, rather I rely on substantiated documentation provided by someone who has spent years researching the financing of terrorism and has published their works on the subject.

In fact a salient portion of the book I cited, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" is quoted here, and does name Hamas specifically.

I suggest a read through although I expect it will be summarily dismissed as Zionist disinformation.



www.frontpagemag.com...

[The State Department sharply criticized Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses in its annual report published last week. Nothing, however, is being said about Saudi Arabia's continuous funding of the spread of Wahhabism around the world. Wahhabism remains the major source of Islamist ideology and Saudi Arabia has never stopped funding its expansion. The Saudis don't like to hear about that, however, and so the Administration is keeping mum.

In an attempt to prevent exposure of how they fund terrorism, the Saudis have been suing those who attempt focus light on their crime in British courts. And they have been successful. Current detailed information on the Saudis' funding of international Islamist terrorism is extremely difficult to come by. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, however, is making up for that deficit in her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. The updated paperback has just been published in the midst of a legal battle to uphold the First Amendment, so that the US media can also report about the ongoing Saudi funds for terror, without fearing expensive libel lawsuits. The following is an excerpt from Funding Evil -- The Editors]


“Bin Mahfouz is the former owner of the largest Saudi bank, the National Commercial Bank (NCB), and he established and funded a charity called the Muwafaq Foundation. According to government officials in the U.S. and elsewhere (as documented in chapter 2), the NCB served as the major pipeline for terror financing. However, it has not been put on the official U.S. terrorist list. Neither has the Muwafaq Foundation, despite having been identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as providing logistical and financial support to al-Qaeda, HAMAS, and the Abu Sayyaf organizations.

Bin Mahfouz himself has been accused of being involved in illegal activities in the past. A press release by New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau on July 1, 1992, announced the indictment of “Sheik Khalid Bin Mahfouz, the chief operating officer of The National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia” for his involvement with BCCI, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Morgenthau pointed out that the significance of the indictment against bin Mahfouz is that “BCCI in 1986 needed additional capital to sustain and expand its operations. Mahfouz’s name and money gave BCCI that capital.” As a result, “Mahfouz became a principal shareholder and director in the BCCI Group.”

However, Morgenthau noted that “Mafouz’s investment in BCCI later was secretly withdrawn, which resulted in a gross misstatement of the true financial picture of the bank. The scheme resulted in larger losses for depositors and others when BCCI’s worldwide Ponzi scheme finally collapsed.” Morgenthau actually described the BCCI scam as a “rent-a-sheikh” scheme. Bin Mahfouz denied all allegations but paid a fine of $225 million, and as part of the settlement with the government he was barred from any further activities in the American banking system. (Of course, just because he paid a $225 million fine does not necessarily mean that he actually did any of the things with BCCI of which he was—perhaps wrongly—accused.) In addition, his bank, the NCB, was forced to close its branches in New York and London as part of the same settlement.

The Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve, in a subsequent indictment on July 8, 1992, stated that “Mahfouz operated NCB with what he characterizes as an ‘absolute authority.’” This statement seems inconsistent with bin Mahfouz’s claim that he did not know what was going on at the National Commercial Bank, and therefore had no knowledge that the NCB was used to funnel money to terrorist organizations.

Although the U.S. government did not list bin Mahfouz’s Muwafaq Foundation on its terrorist list, in a press conference held on October 12, 2001, when Yasin al-Qadi was added to the Designated Terrorist List, he was described as “head of the Saudi-based Muwafaq Foundation, which transferred millions to Mr. bin Laden.” In addition, a letter dated November 2001 from the Department of the Treasury to the attorney general of Switzerland stated the following: “The Muwafaq Foundation provided logistical and financial support for a mujahidin battalion in Bosnia. The Foundation also operated in Sudan, Somalia, and Pakistan, among other places. A number of individuals employed by or otherwise associated with the Muwafaq Foundation have connections to various terrorist organizations. . . .

The Muwafaq Foundation also provided support to Hamas and the Abu Sayyaf Organization in the Philippines.” The letter went on to say that “the Muwafaq Foundation also employed or served as cover for Islamic extremists connected with the military activities of Makhtab Al-Khidamat (MK) [which was absorbed in al-Qaeda and was designated as a terrorist organization]. . . . A number of NGO’s, formerly associated with the MK, including Muwafaq, also merged with al-Qaeda.”.

Khalid bin Mahfouz, who established the Muwafaq Foundation in 1991, claims on his Web site that the foundation “was wound up between 1996 and 1998.” However, according to the Guardian, the Muwafaq was possibly still active in the offshore haven of Jersey in September 2001; as before, the foundation’s lawyers denied that it funded terrorism. But, according to the Treasury Department’s letter, the pattern of activity displayed by Muwafaq fit the pattern of other “relief” organizations that worked in concert with terrorist groups “and give[s] rise to a reasonable basis to believe that they have facilitated terrorist activities.”

The 9/11 Commission Report, though it does not mention Khalid bin Mahfouz by name, refers to the “Golden Chain,” a “financial support network . . . put together mainly by financiers in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states,” which was responsible for Osama bin Laden’s “strong financial position in Afghanistan” from 1996 to 1998. According to a court document cited as a source in commission’s report, a list of the members of the Golden Chain was found in the spring of 2002 in Bosnia during a raid on the offices of Benevolence International Foundation, a Saudi charity that funded terrorism. According to the Wall Street Journal, “the Golden Chain list was confirmed by U.S. officials and translated from Arabic by the Justice Department, and among the names listed are “billionaire bankers Saleh Kamel and Khalid bin Mahfouz.”

No one has taken proceedings against bin Mahfouz all the way to a final hearing to prove his much-denied connections with terrorism. A lot of people, many with access to high-level intelligence, have made serious allegations, but due to national security concerns they are not making all the evidence generally available. Thus, bin Mahfouz continues to protect himself by threatening libel lawsuits. But, given the number of reports and investigations that point the finger at him, one wonders why he has not been placed on the U.S. list of terrorists. Will the U.S. government add all those mentioned on the Golden Chain list, including bin Mahfouz, to its terror list? Judging by the 9/11 Commission’s precedent—probably not. This leaves me and others who are trying to expose those that fund Islamist terror organizations to face the threat of costly legal action in British courts by Khalid bin Mahfouz and his associates.

On October 19, 2004, Khalid bin Mahfouz commenced legal proceedings against me for libel in a British court. Despite the enormous cost involved, I have decided to take it upon myself to challenge Khalid bin Mahfouz and provide the UK court with evidence that Khalid bin Mahfouz, the Muwafaq Foundation, and the NCB have in fact supported al-Qaeda and HAMAS.

My challenge of bin Mahfouz carries even greater repercussions since Prince Turki, the Saudi ambassador to London, is alleged to have said recently that it’s important that bin Mahfouz win because he “represents all of us [Saudi Arabia and the Royal Family].”


M



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose

Originally posted by Rob37n
The West is at war with Al Qaeda, the West has always been at war with Al Qaeda.


Seeing as Al Qaeda means 'the base' (the database) and was originally just a list of people we got to help us in our fight against the Russians in Afghanistan how do you come to that conclusion?

It's a joke. He's using a play on words based on the endless wars in the novel 1984.

The "proles" (uneducated populace) in 1984 are so brainwashed, the government has to continually remind them who the "enemy" is.

Like I've been saying, the invincible global bogeyman Osama bin Laden is Emmanual Goldstein from 1984.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Listen carefully, Hamas are the enemy of Israel and have no relations to AQ despite your wishful dreams. Abu-Sayyaf are secessionists that have been fighting the Philippine government for decades.


Of course, it would make no sense for hamas and al queda to be tied together. I mean one is the enemy of Israel and one is the enemy of the united states. It just wouldn't make sense for them to colaborate.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


Hes right to some extent anyway part of the trail i fear is rumors but there is little doubt Saudi Arabia finances terrorism. The State department is aware of the fact and the Saudi government goes to great lenghts to hide the fact that they finance terrorism. I speculate very little proof only circumstatial eveidence to support that the royal family actually sent Ossama to Afganistan to provide baking in the first place. One his family is very influential in Saudi Arabie.Next he did have access to the saudi royal family.Heres a shocker for people met bush senior at a dinner.

Ossama im sure was still getting financing untill he bit the hand that feeds him so to speak May 2003 attacks in Riyadh by Al Qaeda caused a house cleaning of sorts. They went through and killed all al Qaeda supporters in saidi got to admire there justice system sometimes.

Although many U.S. government officials began to laud Saudi Arabia's counterterrorism efforts publicly in the years after the Riyadh attack, Treasury officials continued to heavily criticize Riyadh's handling of terrorist-financing-related issues. In a widely quoted September 11, 2007, appearance on ABC, Treasury undersecretary Stuart Levey stated: "If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country [for terrorism], it would be Saudi Arabia." Levey also criticized the Saudis for failing to prosecute terrorist financiers and called on Saudi officials to treat the financing of terrorism as real terrorism. Former Treasury secretary Henry Paulson had offered similar sentiments in a speech several months earlier, cautioning that although the Saudis are "very effective at dealing with terrorists within the kingdom," the Saudis "need to do a better job holding people accountable who finance terrorism around the world."



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by masonwatcher
damningly, you included Hamas with your questionable assertions about AQ at a time when Hamas was not in existence or where at the early stage of running health clinics.

I don't include Hamas out of whim, rather I rely on substantiated documentation provided by someone who has spent years researching the financing of terrorism and has published their works on the subject.

In fact a salient portion of the book I cited, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" is quoted here, and does name Hamas specifically.

This is typical "substantiated documentation" from mmiichael -- the "American Center for Democracy" is just another front group for the lying, murderous neocons. In other words, the same guys who brought you 9/11, "WMDs" in Iraq and endless wars in the middle east:


The Manhattan-based American Center for Democracy (ACD) says on its website that it "monitors and exposes the enemies of freedom and their modus operandi, and explores pragmatic ways to counteract their methods." Its objective, says ACD, is to "supplement government efforts to defend democratic institutions from the global threat of radical Islam and terrorism." The ACD was founded in 2003 by Rachel Ehrenfeld and includes the Center for the Study of Corruption and the Rule of Law (CSC), which Ehrenfeld founded in 2001. Ehrenfeld is a controversial writer associated with a number of neoconservative outfits like the American Enterprise Institute. Her work, which often focuses on terrorism financing, has been criticized for having an overt bias toward U.S. and Israeli interests and for being sensationalist (see, for example, Michael Massing Replies to Rachel Ehrenfeld, "Evil Money," New York Review of Books, March 4, 1993).



Originally posted by mmiichael
I suggest a read through although I expect it will be summarily dismissed as Zionist disinformation.

www.frontpagemag.com...

When you post overt Zionist disinfo BS that's written by a thinly disguised neocon criminal cabal that's associated with the American Enterprise Institute, don't be surprised when you're called on it.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Facinating to observe your iinsistance in associating Hamas with groups that are blamed for 9/11 by the US.

The fact is that Israel is heavily armed and the Palestinians are supported morally and financially across the board by the Muslim world. Because someone who financed AQ, while under the auspices of the US, also financed Hamas is neither here nor there.

There is a reason why the US ignores Saudi financial activities to the eternal chagrin of zionists, Saudi Arabia is a staunch US ally. I suspect it will be only a matter of time when US policy makers will view Israel as a bane and Saudi a boon hence the insistence of pro-Israelis and zionists constantly fingering Saudi.

Osama bin Laden went feral when the US stationed soldiers on Saudi. Nothing more nothing less. He and his fundamentalist buddies are bad news and they allowed Bush his neocons and zionists to facilitate the second invasion of Iraq. These same dogs are now baying for Iran.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


No offence, you are not the moderator between mmiichael and I. While you may be convinced by his convoluted explanations and dodgy references, I am not. I have just proven his incorrect connections between Hamas and the people that attacked the WTC. This connection is imperative for pro-Israelis because it puts their personal agenda in the US fold of the War on Terror.

Rightfully the War on Terror should entail the end of Israeli terror and the arrest of Israeli war criminals, settlers and agents of foreign influence in the US.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


mmiichael provided a link, History Commons, which is really a fancy blog relating to history written by a bunch of blokes who call themselves matt, Paul, KJF, blackmax.

The site owners describe History Commons as;


The History Commons contains summaries of 14,395 events, which are published on the website in the format of dynamic timelines. These timelines can be filtered by investigative project, topic, or entity (e.g., a person, organization, or corporation). You can even generate a “scalable context” timeline for any event in the History Commons database simply by clicking the date of the timeline entry. You can search for events by using the search box at the top right-hand corner, or by browsing through the list of projects.

www.historycommons.org...


This is unsubstantiated evidence and hearsay at best.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Khalid bin Mahfouz through legal threats has intimidated a number of authors and publishers in close to 40 cases involving 11 books and articles in which he was mentioned. Adept at what many researchers claim is indirect financing of terrorism via circuitous routes including Islamic charities, his name seems to pop up wherever there is questionable vast scale Middle East based financing. Notably he paid out nearly a quarter of a billion dollars as part of the settlement for the BCCI banking scam, though he personally admitted to no wrongdoing.

A major cover-up has been inadvertently facilitated by archaic libel laws if the British legal system. Authors, publishers, and distributors face potentially ruinous lawsuits with material when they attempt to track the byzantine financing of terrorist organizations.

At least in the US, freedom of speech has built in guarantees. In 2008,
New York Gov. David Patterson signed into law the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, protecting the First Amendment rights of persons who report factually about terrorism. The Act provides immunity to authors who are successfully sued for defamation in countries that do not have the same free-speech rights that are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

More below


www.campus-watch.org...

Last spring, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, a powerful Saudi businessman and banker to the Saudi royal family who is based in Jeddah, sued the publisher over the book's depiction of his family as financiers of terrorism. In English libel law, the burden of proof falls on the defendant, and bin Mahfouz had won judgments in several other cases. Rather than challenging the accusations, the press agreed in August to destroy the remaining 2,300 warehoused copies of the book. It also paid bin Mahfouz an undisclosed sum for damages and legal fees, issued a written apology and, to the anger of librarians, asked libraries that refused to insert an errata slip to remove the book from their shelves.

The case is fanning widespread concern that English libel law is stifling writers far beyond the borders of the United Kingdom. Today, any book bought online in England, even one published exclusively in another country, can ostensibly be subject to English libel law. As a result, publishers and booksellers are increasingly concerned about "libel tourism": foreigners suing other foreigners in England or elsewhere, and using those judgments to intimidate authors in other countries, including the United States. Last year, the Association of American Publishers, Amazon.com, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and others filed an amicus brief in New York, arguing that such litigation "constitutes a clear threat to the ability of the U.S. press to vigorously investigate and publish news and information about the most crucial issues before the U.S. public." In early September, Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, invited one of the co-authors of "Alms for Jihad" to discuss the book in a private meeting with intelligence workers and staffers from the Department of Homeland Security. Cambridge's settlement is "basically a book-burning," Wolf said in a telephone interview. "I think it will have a chilling effect."

[...]

In all those cases, bin Mahfouz said he and his family had never knowingly underwritten terrorism. In each case, defendants have paid settlements before trial. Under English law, bin Mahfouz has never had to appear in open court to disprove the accusations against him. "This guy has run roughshod over publishers and authors," said Judy Platt, director of the Association of American Publishers' Freedom to Read program. "Every time someone says something he doesn't like, he takes them to court."

"Alms for Jihad" was written by two experts on Sudan: J. Millard Burr, a retired State Department officer, and Robert O. Collins, an emeritus history professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It follows Saudi money through Islamic charitable organizations in Sudan, Southeast Asia, the Balkans and Chechnya, showing how some of it ended up financing terrorism. Though a tangential figure in the 350-page book, bin Mahfouz objected to 11 passages. He "amounts to nothing more ... than a grand footnote" in a larger story, Collins said.

Another point of contention is bin Mahfouz's role in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which the Manhattan district attorney charged in 1992 with bank fraud, bribery, the illegal shipping of arms and other offenses. In the errata slip sent to libraries, Cambridge says that contrary to what was reported in "Alms for Jihad," bin Mahfouz himself "was never alleged to have been involved in embezzlement, money laundering or the various other criminal offenses alleged against the B.C.C.I.," and that he "paid no personal fine." According to the Manhattan district attorney's office, in 1993 bin Mahfouz paid a $225 million settlement for various charges — primarily related to the withdrawal of his investment — as part of the larger B.C.C.I. settlement, though he admitted no wrongdoing.

The Cambridge settlement also involves a document called the "Golden Chain," a list of 20 wealthy Saudi donors, including the bin Mahfouz family, that was found in a 2002 raid on the Sarajevo offices of an Islamic charity. In "Alms for Jihad," the authors say the document was a list of Qaeda financiers, an assertion also made in several other news accounts. Bin Mahfouz's lawyers counter that he himself was never included on the list; that even according to United States prosecutors, the list was of donors to the mujahedeen, not to Al Qaeda; and that the document was deemed inadmissible as evidence in cases in England and America, where judges in both places ruled it was not proof of support for Al Qaeda."


M



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 





A major cover-up has been inadvertently facilitated by archaic libel laws if the British legal system. Authors, publishers, and distributors face potentially ruinous lawsuits with material when they attempt to track the byzantine financing of terrorist organizations.


I don't think libel laws would prevent the police or the security services from taking action.

Libel laws prevent falsehoods being said of individuals who have the resources to defend themselves. It also stops pro-Israelis from maligning in this particular matter and I think this is good.

Of course these journalist and writers can publish and be damned and allow the courts to establish the truth. I am sure their publishers would be happy to foot the bill.

Describing UK libel laws as archaic is your description and has no basis in reality. The UK is a modern and developed country.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join