Wikileaks Reveals Pakistan ISI Aids "Terrorists"

One step closer to revealing the link between the ISI and the events of 911.
So if you are not following the narrative. Pakistan is an ally with the US in the war on terror and receives generous funding for that purpose. The top intelligence agency in Pakistan is the ISI. It appears the ISI has been proven to be funding, training, and arming our enemies. The very same enemies that kill civilians and kill American soldiers in Afghanistan! The ISI is rumored to be a wing of the American CIA funded and directed. For the deniers it is hard for them to believe that we would attack ourselves on 911. Yet here we are in 2010 and it appears we are attacking our own soldiers in Afghanistan!

From The Guardian:

Allegations in the war logs that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence has been covertly supporting the Taliban kicked off a political storm tonight as the White House said the situation was "unacceptable" and described militant safe havens in Pakistan as "intolerable".

More than 180 intelligence files in the war logs, most of which cannot be confirmed, detail accusations that Pakistan's premier spy agency has been supplying, arming and training the insurgency since at least 2004.

Now to our long time 911 truth community this comes as no surprise. Remember that the funding for lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was supplied by General Mahmud Ahmed the head of the ISI.

From Wiki:

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official, told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohamed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars—believed to be excess funds from the operation—back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this.[15]

The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."

More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed resigned from his position. It was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta [13]

The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought General Mahmud Ahmed's removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohamed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the insistance of General Mahmud."[16] Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Mahmud Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, one of the terrorists who flew a hijacked Boeing commercial airliner into the World Trade Center. General Mahmud Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."[17]

U.S. investigators later said that this was a confusion with Mustafa al-Hawsawi, also known as Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, who is currently held in Guantanamo Bay.[18]

The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that there "are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."[19]

Sheikh rose to prominence with the 2002 killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who at the time was in Pakistan investigating connections between the ISI and Islamic militant groups. In Pakistan, Sheikh was sentenced to death for killing Pearl, however his complicity in the execution and the reasons behind it are in dispute.

From Prison Planet:

Both al-Qaeda and the Taliban are CIA assets. The Taliban emerged from madrassas established by the Pakistani government along the Afghanistan border and funded by the U.S., Britain, and the Saudis. The creation of the Taliban was “actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA,” according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia, a fact affirmed by Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.

“Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western. Between 1995 and 1997, US support was even more driven because of its backing for the Unocal [pipeline] project,” writes Ahmed Rashid, a long-time expert on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Yea we knew that...

ISI funded Atta..

And I think I recall reading Bush Sr. was meeting with the head of ISI that morning or night before...

From The Times of India:

LOS ANGELES: The CIA has paid millions of dollars to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) since 9/11, accounting for as much as one-third of the foreign spy agency's annual budget, says a media report.

The ISI also collected "tens of millions of dollars through a classified CIA programme", which pays for the capture or killing of wanted militants, the Los Angeles Times reported on Monday citing current and former US officials.

Wikileaks founder is "annoyed" by 9/11 conspiracy theories

Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, was asked about conspiracy theories by Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell, who writes:

"His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...#

Yep. Good to see someone documented this. One step closer maybe...

reply to post by Six Sigma


I don't blame him I am annoyed by them too.

When you look at the facts, some of which I outlined above, a distinct and obvious pattern emerges. A pattern you can choose to ignore if you wish. However it is obvious to me this was a resource grab and a MIC spending bonanza from the beginning. 9/11 was the pretext, the illusion of an enemy to justify these wars that Julian Assange is so deeply concerned about.

I admire his mission and hope he is not the controlled opposition.

Good thread,op! S&F for ya. The Afgan files just creates a clear picture about just what the war really is all about.The US and NATO are there for a war of conquest.

I heard about this in the documentary "Who killed John O'Neil" three years ago..

From History Commons:

Around 8:00 a.m., on September 11, 2001, ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) and Representative Porter Goss (R-FL), a 10-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine operations wing. Also present at the meeting are Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and the Pakistani ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi, as well as other officials and aides. (Goss, Kyl, and Graham had just met with Pakistani President Pervez Mushrraf in Pakistan two weeks earlier (see August 28-30, 2001)). [Salon, 9/14/2001; Washington Post, 5/18/2002] Graham and Goss will later co-head the joint House-Senate investigation into the 9/11 attacks, which will focus on Saudi government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, but will say almost nothing about possible Pakistani government connections to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks (see August 1-3, 2003 and December 11, 2002). [Washington Post, 7/11/2002] Note that Senator Graham should have been aware of a report made to his staff the previous month (see Early August 2001) that one of Mahmood’s subordinates had told a US undercover agent that the WTC would be destroyed. Some evidence suggests that Mahmood ordered that $100,000 be sent to hijacker Mohamed Atta (see October 7, 2001).
Pakistan's Demands - Graham will later say of the meeting: “We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan.” The New York Times will report that bin Laden is specifically discussed. [Vero Beach Press Journal, 9/12/2001; Salon, 9/14/2001; New York Times, 6/3/2002] The US wants more support from Pakistan in its efforts to capture bin Laden. However, Mahmood says that unless the US lifts economic sanctions imposed on Pakistan and improves relations, Pakistan will not oppose the Taliban nor provide intelligence and military support to get bin Laden. He says, “If you need our help, you need to address our problems and lift US sanctions.” He also encourages the US to engage the Taliban diplomatically to get them to change, instead of isolating them. Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid will later comment, “It was absurd for Mahmood to insist now that the Americans engage with the Taliban, when [Pakistan’s] own influence over them was declining and al-Qaeda’s increasing.”
Meeting Interrupted by 9/11 Attacks - Zamir Akram, an accompanying Pakistani diplomat, leaves the room for a break. While outside, he sees a group of Congressional aides gathered around a television set. As Akram walks up to the TV, he sees the second plane crashing into the World Trade Center. He immediately runs back to the meeting to the tell the others. But even as he gets there, a congressional aide comes in to say that Capitol Hill is being evacuated. The aide says, “There is a plane headed this way.” Mahmood and the rest of the Pakistani delegation immediately leave and attempt to return to the Pakistani embassy. But they are stuck in traffic for three hours before they get there. [Rashid, 2008, pp. 26-27]

reply to post by Leo Strauss


We already knew that the Taliban were supported by ISI, they had a big influence in the setting up of the group and form a ideological and strategic perspective. allot of people in Pakistan supported the initial support of the ISI and it is reasonable to assume that elements within the ISI are still providing support to the Taliban. The Taliban we are seeing now are vastly different to the Taliban we saw in form the early 1990’s to 2001 they don’t even have the same leadership.

The ISI however is not a wing of the CIA, they are a foreign intelligence agency who are operationally independent of the CIA. The ISI and CIA will very likely have some very strong links, and it is true that America provides Pakistan with defence funding and technical support, they do not however have absolute power of the ISI. The higher you go in the Pakistani chain of command the more unpopular the Taliban become, I recall Pakistani security forces conducting anti insurgency operations around the Afghan border and the Taliban have conducted operations against Pakistani targets. I therefore suspect this support is coming from rouge elements in ISI and not the leadership or leading politicians

I also noticed in the article form the Guardian that the ISI have been encouraging attacks against Indian targets, this is probably one of the most inflammatory claims i have came across thus far. Pakistan have also been blamed by some in Indian intelligence for being behind the Mumbai attacks and relations between the two states remain strained.

Borrack Obama is not a war president, he never fought for his country and he doesn't know how to lead it, it takes more than a college degree to run the greatest countey in the world, we need a president who has experienced first hand the hardships of war, someone like Joe Biden (facepalm)

Borrack Obama is not a war president, he never fought for his country and he doesn't know how to lead it, it takes more than a college degree to run the greatest countey in the world, we need a president who has experienced first hand the hardships of war, someone like Jhon Mccain (facepalm)

[edit on 27-7-2010 by 2121311Star791]