This doesn't clarify what you mean by "prove it all".

You take youtube's word for it, don't ya?

fake al qaeda

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fakealqaeda.php

 

The Ex Head of the UBL kill team says the American persepective on the war IS ALL WRONG. Go back to sleep....nothing to see here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwGrI7nJkNE

 

al qaeda terror group benefit from libya weapons

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-terror-group-benefit-libya-weapons/story?id=14923795#.Tsw7drLhdcc

 

libya-al qaeda flag flown above benghazi courthouse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html

 

cia fights memoir of 9/11 by ex-FBI agent in terror fight

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us/26agent.html?pagewanted=all

 

terrorist or CIA agent

http://rt.com/usa/news/terrorist-cia-mumbai-attack/

 

afghanistan, the CIA, bin laden and the taliban

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

 

al qaeda links

http://tvnewslies.org/html/al_qaeda_links.html

 

How the West deals with their “enemies” – killing them without trial

Three sons of the Arab world are no more. All three were one time “friends” of the West, two were in fact former CIA agents. Of the 3 only Osama was declared a “terrorist” while Saddam and Gaddafi were “dictators”. Whatever the West referred to them – they were enemies of the West – they faced their fate because they dared to go against the West.

Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and now Muammar Gaddafi died unarmed after being captured alive not resisting and holed up underground for safety from the very people they had once trusted. Least described the three were no doubt eccentric enigmas and while handfuls of natives may rejoice at their demise time will reveal just how worse off their countries will be without them.

How the West got rid of Saddam

Lets not forget that Iraq has been under sanctions since 1990 – that have cost the lives of over 1million people. But, pre-Saddam was definitely far better than post-Saddam and Iraqi people are beginning to realize their folly a little too late. Incidentally it took 7 months to capture Saddam while it took 8 months to capture Gaddafi. Both leaders possessed USD750,000 when captured. The capture of Osama almost a decade after his attack on America ironically suited the West for in 10 years they have managed to bag nations on the excuse of a war on terror!

It was on the pretext of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction that US and Coalition forces invaded Iraq. The Iraqi people were promised liberation from Saddam and freedom in the western context. Saddam was caught hiding in a hole close to his home town of Tikrit. His tooth was forcibly removed to check his DNA. He faced a farcical trial and was hung. For the people that celebrated the death and end of Saddam life was supposed to be hunky dory – unfortunately that became an anticlimax. Slowly they are beginning to realize that life under Saddam was after all far better. There was drinking water, electricity ….today while electronic devices are rampant there is no electricity and water is scarce as the West have not repaired any of the infrastructure that they destroyed accept cater to their needs only. There are militants everywhere – all armed and killing each other watched by coalition forces that do nothing to protect the civilians. The Iraqi Liberation Council have almost all fled the country and most live in foreign nations as rewards for their role in getting rid of Saddam.

To get rid of Saddam the West has killed over 1m Iraqi people and injured, wounded and physically handicapped thousands more including coalition forces who are today mentally suffering as a result of obeying orders to kill innocent civilians. Saddam was captured in December 2003. What is interesting to note is how Saddam could have grown such a long beard in just 7 months! Saddam’s court trial in 2004 was not broadcast live – so much for media freedom. His lawyers had been denied access and had even received death threats. Saddam’s next appearance was a year later with pictures disclosed of Saddam in underpants. These and other pictures were given by US military to humiliate a onetime powerful leader. Another example of how the West has contravened Saddam’s right as a prisoner and violated the Geneva Convention.

A thing or two that the world need to be reminded is that Saddam was placed in power by the US. Saddam was the US ally in the Middle East. It was the US who baited Saddam to invade Kuwait to justify the US invasion of Iraq. Yet, there remain doubts whether the captured Saddam is actually Saddam Hussein and whether the real Saddam has been set free and now living in Belarus! Strangely enough the execution was timed with US elections similar to Gaddafi’s capture which will definitely have Obama’s rating skyrocket!

Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that Saddam’s folly came in thinking Iraq belonged to him and his family and much of the dissent amongst the people was a result of the manner that his sons and family were running the country & this is an important lesson for all other leaders of the world to take note of. In contrast, Gaddafi certainly gave the people of Libya not choosing to distribute the wealth amongst his family alone but his folly was to think that Libya was his. The people of Libya will soon regret there in appreciation for Gaddafi’s type of leadership because soon the people of Libya will end up having to pay for every service they take and all of the free services given by Gaddafi will be things of the past. Giving up all the free services for “freedom” that the West promises is going to cost Libyans who will see their country nosedive into extreme poverty and end up a nation with armed rebels soon fighting each other for supremacy with the west choosing to supply arms to keep chaos alive so that they can remain long enough to “restore peace” which they will delay until they rid the country of its wealth like they are doing to Iraq, Afghanistan & to all the other nations that are earmarked to be targeted starting with Syria, Iran and next will be Asia.

The malpractices and follies of leaders that the West abhors have supplied the excuses for foreign intervention to use as sufficient grounds that the people of these countries need to be freed. This is a good lesson for Asian leaders in particular to be watchful of. With Middle East and Africa now in possession of the West it is only a matter of time that Asia will become the next target and the West will not need many excuses to rally people to go against Asian Governments even if they are elected ones!

How the West got rid of Osama

In the case of Osama bin Laden – he was not a leader of a country but he was certainly a leader able to tap the Muslim world and channel rage against the West. Coincidentally, he too was once an agent of the West and until his death he and the Bush family were partners in several continental businesses. Osama’s organization was the Al Qaeda – many wonder whether it was organized with US approval since Al Qaeda has helped the US secure nations globally on the pretext of “war on terrorism”! Al Qaeda has become such an invisible network that makes it easier for the West to attack nations.

The capture of Osama was no less sensational than that of Saddam and Gaddafi. The question that the West avoids answering is the legality of killing Saddam, Osama and Gaddafi?

US Special Forces entered a compound in Pakistan on 1 May 2011 and killed an unarmed Osama bin Laden an operation watched by the US President and Secretary of State. Under both US and international law killing an unarmed person without resistance is illegal more importantly US laws prohibits “political assassinations” and it was on foreign soil where Pakistan was totally unaware that US forces were about to kill Osama. Watching the murder takes place gives a whole new dimension to political assassinations. Where was congressional authorization to attack on foreign soil? Osama should have been brought before an international tribunal & questioned on his orders to kill – but supposing he denies all allegations, supposing he gives out dirty secrets that would embarrass foreign governments, supposing he was just following higher orders – undoubtedly, we can well understand why it was necessary for the US to get rid of Osama knowing his previous connections to the US.

Similarly, the decision to attack Libya was a decision made without any aggression shown by Libya. As such NATO has no right according to its Charter to attack unless attacked. It is wrong for an American President to initiate an attack on a nation that does not threaten it. It is despicable to give orders to destroy that country’s entire civilian infrastructure as has been done in Yugoslavia, Iraq & now Libya.

Gaddafi was seen dragged and humiliated and shot dead – that is not how a one time leader should have been treated. If US and NATO and even the NTC or rebels accuse Gaddafi – he should have faced an international trial and he should have been questioned – isn’t that the way the West tells the rest of the world to do things?

It is shameful for the UN to agree to pass resolutions against nations that justifies the presence of US and NATO troops and continued bombing campaigns that not only kills thousands but destroys the nation’s cultural heritage and ruins the environment and economy as well. This is setting a dangerous precedent and is threatening the sovereignty of nations and it must stop.

The West is ever to boast of “gentlemanly politics” and ever ready to accuse Asia, Africa and Middle East of flouting human rights, fundamental rights NS what not. All of the conflicts that have taken place during the past few decades have been as a result of covert operations contrived by the West in a game plan that is meant to economically disrupt nations, draw them into purchasing arms and ammunition from the West, become slaves to loans that ends up committing generations to repay those loans and facilitating the presence of foreign nations in an excuse to usher peace, rebuilding & reconstruction. This is the farce that exists and this is the farce that must stop.

No foreign leader today has any moral right to be waving accusing fingers at any of the leaders of Africa, Middle East or Asia – it is they who have brought these nations to such despicable levels. The “dictators’ “terrorists” that the West refer to were all one time agents of the West and it is an eye-opener for all other agents of the West that they are likely to face the same fate. They may enjoy the riches and privileges that the West may put into their secret bank accounts in return for installing western agenda but they will face the same fate of Osama, Saddam, Mubarak and now Gaddafi.

Lets view things realistically. The world was pretty much aware of the manner Saddam, Osama and Gaddafi treated those that challenged their authority. That was why we have all come to accept them as “dictators” bordering tyrants.

However, how much of such traits are we aware of amongst the leaders of the West. Given the authority to carry out aerial missile attacks on unarmed civilians, approving strategic targets that are nothing but civilian infrastructure whereby knowingly killing innocent civilians, patients in hospitals and children in schools has to surely be no less evil than how dictators have treated those that defected? So where do we really draw the line? Is it ok for gentlemen in suits to carry out such acts but not others?

The irony is while the people of the West have the ability to comprehend the realities of the world they continue to be fooled by listening only to the mainstream media that fools them into thinking their leaders do not have blood on their hands for ordering the deaths of millions of innocent people in Africa, Middle East and soon Asia.

- Asian Tribune -

 

CIA- no al-qaeda ever existed BBC documentary the power of nightmares

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

 

last word on terrorism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG0s7CwZ5JY

 

Iran/contra: 20 Years Later and What It Means

It's the 20th anniversary of the Iran-contra scandal. Two decades ago, the public learned about the bizarre, Byzantine and (arguably) unconstitutional actions of high officials in the post-Watergate years. But many Americans did not absorb the key lesson: the Iran/contra vets were not to be trusted. Consequently, most of those officials went on to prosperous careers, with some even becoming part of the squad that has landed the United States in the current hellish mess in Iraq.

Before tying the then to the now, let's revisit the basic narrative. When Congress, by fair vote, decided in the 1980s that the United States should not assist the contras fighting the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua, the Reagan White House concocted several imaginative ways to pull an end-run around democracy. This mainly entailed outsourcing the job to a small band of private sector covert operators and to foreign governments, which were privately requested or pressured by the Reaganites to support the secret contra support operation. The "Iran" side of the scandal came from President Ronald Reagan's covert efforts to sell weapons to Iran to obtain the release of American hostages held by terrorist groups supposedly under the control of Tehran--at a time when the White House was publicly declaring it would not negotiate with terrorists. The two clandestine projects merged when cash generated from the weapons transactions with Iran was diverted to the contra operation.

Conservatives for years--make that decades--have argued there was nothing really criminal about the Iran/contra affair and that it was merely a political dispute between the pro-contras Republicans in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress. Yet at the time the architects of these schemes worried they were breaking laws and placing Reagan in jeopardy of being impeached. Look at how the National Security Archive, a nonprofit outfit that gathers national security records, summarizes a memo documenting a key White House meeting on the clandestine contras program:

At a pivotal meeting of the highest officials in the Reagan Administration [on June 25, 1984], the President and Vice President [George H.W. Bush] and their top aides discuss how to sustain the Contra war in the face of mounting Congressional opposition. The discussion focuses on asking third countries to fund and maintain the effort, circumventing Congressional power to curtail the CIA's paramilitary operations. In a remarkable passage, Secretary of State George P. Shultz warns the president that White House adviser James Baker has said that "if we go out and try to get money from third countries, it is an impeachable offense." But Vice President George Bush argues the contrary: "How can anyone object to the US encouraging third parties to provide help to the anti-Sandinistas…? The only problem that might come up is if the United States were to promise to give these third parties something in return so that some people could interpret this as some kind of exchange." Later, Bush participated in arranging a quid pro quo deal with Honduras in which the U.S. did provide substantial overt and covert aid to the Honduran military in return for Honduran support of the Contra war effort.

The Iran arms-for-hostage-deal was also illegal--or so Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger thought. At a December 7, 1985 White House meeting, Weinberger argued the Iran missile deal was wrong and criminal, according to his notes of the session. Weinberger pointed out to Reagan that selling missiles to Iran would violate a U.S. embargo on arms sales to Iran and that even the president of the United States could not break this law. Nor, Weinberger added, would it be legal to use Israel as a cutout, as was under consideration. Both Secretary of State George Shultz and White House chief of staff Donald Regan, who were each present, agreed that a secret weapons deal with Iran would be against the law. Reagan, though, insisted on proceeding, noting he could answer a charge of illegality but not the charge that he had "passed up a chance to free hostages." Weinberger then quipped, "Visiting hours are Thursdays"--meaning the deal could land someone in jail. After the meeting, Regan told Weinberger he would try to talk Reagan out of the deal. He failed to do so.

Soon both the clandestine contras program and the secret Iran deal were underway, with the relevant agencies--most notably, the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department--providing back-up and National Security Council officers Robert McFarlane, John Poindexter and Oliver North overseeing operations. In supporting the contras project, the CIA worked with individuals it suspected of being involved in drug-dealing, according to a subsequent CIA inspector general's investigation.

The skullduggery began to unravel in the fall of 1986. On October 5, 1986, a C-123 aircraft ferrying supplies to the contras was shot down by the Sandinistas, and an American named Eugene Hasenfus was captured. He told the Nicaraguans that his flight was part of a CIA-approved operation. Days later, Reagan said of the Hasenfus operation, "There was no government connection with that at all." He was not telling the truth. Shortly after that, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams testified in Congress that the administration had arranged for no foreign donations--"not a dime"--to the contras--even though he had arranged for a $10 million contribution to the rebels from the Sultan of Brunei.

On November 3, 1986, a Lebanese weekly revealed that the previous May National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane had secretly flown to Tehran. McFarlane's covert mission had been part of the arms-for-hostages deal--which now stood exposed. On November 25, Attorney General Edwin Meese held a press conference and disclosed that funds from the arms sales to Iran had been diverted to the contras support program. (I happened to be watching that press conference with Abbie Hoffman, the former Yippie, who exclaimed, "I couldn't make this stuff up.")

A full-scale scandal was born. Investigations were convened. The Reagan presidency was hobbled. But impeachment never became an issue--in part because Democratic congressional investigators removed it from the table at the start of their inquiries. White House partisans threw up a defense of spin and obfuscation that turned the affair into a political muddle. (That is, mission accomplished.) Oliver North became a hero to conservatives. Bush the Elder, who lied about his involvement in Iran/contra (saying he had been "out of the loop," though noting in a private diary that he had been one of the few officials in-the-know), was elected president in 1988.

The investigations continued. Abrams, McFarlane (who botched a suicide attempt), and a CIA officer named Alan Fiers pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress. Two other CIA officers--Clair George and Duane Clarridge--were indicted on perjury-related charges. Former General Richard Secord and Albert Hakim, who managed the secret contra supply operation, pleaded guilty to minor charges. North and Poindexter were convicted of various counts, but their convictions were overturned on legal technicalities. Weinberger was indicted for illegally withholding his notes from special counsel Lawrence Walsh.

The affair came to an ignominious finale on Christmas Eve, 1992. George H.W. Bush, who had been defeated by Bill Clinton seven weeks earlier, issued pardons for Weinberger, Abrams, McFarlane, Clarridge, George and Fiers. Only Thomas Cline, a former CIA officer and partner of Secord and Hakim, who was found guilty of tax charges, ended up going to jail due to the Iran/contra scandal.

But history never ends. Twenty years later, Abrams is deputy national security adviser for global democracy in the George W. Bush administration. A fellow who admitted that he had not told Congress the truth and who had abetted a secret war mounted by a rebel force with an atrocious human rights record now is supposed to promote democracy abroad. Other Iran/contra figures are leading players today. Here's a partial list from the National Security Archive:

* Richard Cheney - now the vice president, he played a prominent part as a member of the joint congressional Iran-Contra inquiry of 1986, taking the position that Congress deserved major blame for asserting itself unjustifiably onto presidential turf. He later pointed to the committees' Minority Report as an important statement on the proper roles of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

* David Addington - now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, and by numerous press accounts a stanch advocate of expanded presidential power, Addington was a congressional staffer during the joint select committee hearings in 1986 who worked closely with Cheney.

* John Bolton - the controversial U.N. ambassador whose recess appointment by President Bush is now in jeopardy was a senior Justice Department official who participated in meetings with Attorney General Edwin Meese on how to handle the burgeoning Iran-Contra political and legal scandal in late November 1986. There is little indication of his precise role at the time.

* Robert M. Gates - President Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, Gates nearly saw his career go up in flames over charges that he knew more about Iran-Contra while it was underway than he admitted once the scandal broke. He was forced to give up his bid to head the CIA in early 1987 because of suspicions about his role but managed to attain the position when he was re-nominated in 1991.

* Manuchehr Ghorbanifar - the quintessential middleman, who helped broker the arms deals involving the United States, Israel and Iran ostensibly to bring about the release of American hostages being held in Lebanon, Ghorbanifar was almost universally discredited for misrepresenting all sides' goals and interests. Even before the Iran deals got underway, the CIA had ruled Ghorbanifar off-limits for purveying bad information to U.S. intelligence. Yet, in 2006 his name has resurfaced as an important source for the Pentagon on current Iranian affairs, again over CIA objections.

* Michael Ledeen - a neo-conservative who is vocal on the subject of regime change in Iran, Ledeen helped bring together the main players in what developed into the Iran arms-for-hostages deals in 1985 before being relegated to a bit part. He reportedly reprised his role shortly after 9/11, introducing Ghorbanifar to Pentagon officials interested in exploring contacts inside Iran.

* Edwin Meese - currently a member of the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, he was Ronald Reagan's controversial attorney general who spearheaded an internal administration probe into the Iran-Contra connection in November 1986 that was widely criticized as a political exercise in protecting the president rather than a genuine inquiry by the nation's top law enforcement officer.

* John Negroponte - the career diplomat who worked quietly to boost the U.S. military and intelligence presence in Central America as ambassador to Honduras, he also participated in efforts to get the Honduran government to support the Contras after Congress banned direct U.S. aid to the rebels. Negroponte's profile has risen spectacularly with his appointments as ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and director of national intelligence in 2005.

Another Iran/contra veteran has dramatically returned to the scene recently: Daniel Ortega. On November 7, as the Bush White House prepared itself for congressional elections that would be widely seen as a repudiation of its war in Iraq, the morning newspapers carried the news that Ortega, the Sandinista leader whom the Reagan administration had targeted, had won a presidential election in Nicaragua. The old contras backers now running the Bush administration had to watch their old nemesis (not that Ortega was ever much of a threat) regain power, as their hold on power was slipping. The arc of history is indeed long.

As for the current relevance of Iran/contra, one could argue that the affair taught Reaganites and neocons a lesson, the wrong lesson: you can get away with it. Though the operations ended up being exposed and the Iran deal crashed and burned, the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration did create enough pressure on Nicaragua and forced the expulsion of the Sandinista government in a 1990 election. Perhaps more important for this crowd, no one involved in the shady activity was held accountable. Bush the First was elected. Abrams and other scandal vets were rewarded with prominent posts in the next Republican administration--that of Bush the Younger. The Reaganites had lied to Congress and the public about Iran/contra and ultimately escaped retribution.

This sordid episode hardly served as a warning--either for the Iran/contra alumni who would lead the United States into the debacle in Iraq or for voters who would support an administration staffed with people who twenty years earlier had made their bones in a scandal involving war and truth. One can hope, though, that the disingenuous, reality-defying engineers of the current disaster will be too old or too discredited to return to power two decades from now.

 

mohammad mosaddeq and the 1953 coup in iran

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/

 

bush admits that majority of 9/11 hyjackers were saudis

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/01/16/bush-admits-majority-of-911-hijackers-were-saudis/

the break down was 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates (UAE).

“There’s a lot of really good people here [in Saudi Arabia]. Look, you can’t deny the fact that some, a majority, of the terrorists came from Saudi, but you should not condemn an entire society based upon the actions of a handful of killers.” and that's exactly what we did to afghanistan!!!

Over the four years between these two polls, the number of people who believed Bush’s lie about Iraq dropped from 70 percent to 33 percent. The anger, betrayal and embarrassment felt by the 37 percent of Americans — roughly 111 million people — who came to the realization that they had been lied to by their president is now and will forever be the defining element of George Bush’s legacy. In our country’s short history, no disinformation campaign by our government has been costlier in American blood and treasure.