I wonder why the FBI thinks there might be terror attacks in malls? Mmm? Maybe because they are planting "informants" in the muslim community who try to encourage them to do exactly that?
From Cryptogon. and The Washington Post.
December 5th, 2010
Before the sun rose, the informant donned a white Islamic robe. A tiny camera was sewn into a button, and a microphone was buried in a device attached to his keys.
“This is Farouk al-Aziz, code name Oracle,” he said into the keys as he sat in his parked car in this quiet community south of Los Angeles. “It’s November 13th, 4:30 a.m. And we’re hot.”
The undercover FBI informant – a convicted forger named Craig Monteilh – then drove off for 5 a.m. prayers at the Islamic Center of Irvine, where he says he spied on dozens of worshipers in a quest for potential terrorists.
…
Worshipers said Monteilh gravitated to Ahmadullah Sais Niazi, an Afghan-born Arabic-language instructor who was a regular at Friday prayers.
In May 2007, Monteilh said he recorded a conversation about jihad during a car ride with Niazi and another man. Monteilh said he suggested an operation to blow up buildings and Niazi agreed. An FBI agent later cited that and other taped conversations between the two in court as evidence that Niazi was a threat.
A few days later, Ayloush got an anguished phone call from Niazi and the other man in the car.
“They said Farouk had told them he had access to weapons and that they should blow up a mall,” Ayloush recalled. “They were convinced this man was a terrorist.”
Ayloush reported the FBI’s own informant to the FBI. He said agents interviewed Niazi, who gave them the same account, but the agency took no action against Monteilh.
Showing posts with label phony war on terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label phony war on terror. Show all posts
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
UK's MI6 'blamed for bringing in Taliban imposter' for talks
From Afghanistan News.
Britain's external intelligence agency MI6 is said to have brought in the fake Taliban commander touted as key to resolving the conflict in Afghanistan.
According to The Telegraph, the British intelligence service is said to have spent a year nurturing and paying a man claiming to be Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders of the Taliban.
They are said to have paid him at least 100,000 dollars and flown him to meetings with Afghan officials in an attempt to broker a deal between the government and the insurgents.
Eventually an Afghan who knew the real Mansour revealed their mistake but the man was allowed to return to Pakistan, reports said. (ANI)
Britain's external intelligence agency MI6 is said to have brought in the fake Taliban commander touted as key to resolving the conflict in Afghanistan.
According to The Telegraph, the British intelligence service is said to have spent a year nurturing and paying a man claiming to be Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders of the Taliban.
They are said to have paid him at least 100,000 dollars and flown him to meetings with Afghan officials in an attempt to broker a deal between the government and the insurgents.
Eventually an Afghan who knew the real Mansour revealed their mistake but the man was allowed to return to Pakistan, reports said. (ANI)
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor
Oh what have we here? No mention however in the Pentagon-loyal New York Times that our military or intelligence agencies could have also had a hand in the creation of this phony adversary and bargaining partner.
From The New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.
But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.
“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”
I wonder how many other "terror adversaries" are also imposters? Probably most of them. War is a racket. See below.
See Also: The New York Times Continues To Use The Dubious "Zabiullah Mujahid" As Convenient Source For Anti-Wikileaks Propaganda
See Also: The Terrorist Leaders Who Die, And Are Captured, And Die Again
See Also: New York Times Admits Mumbai Terror Plotter Was U.S. Intelligence Asset
See Also: Afghans Believe US Is Funding Taliban
See Also: Al-Qaeda Mastermind Invited To Pentagon After 9/11
See Also: With Incredible Gall FBI Admits Osama Bin Laden Photo Made to Look Like War Critic Spanish MP
See Also: Former CIA Officials Admit TO Faking Bin Laden Video
See Also: The Strange Tale Of Azzam the American
See Also: Times Square Bomber Had Pakistani Army, U.S. Embassy Connections
See Also: Nato contractors 'attacking own vehicles' in Pakistan
From The New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.
But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.
“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”
I wonder how many other "terror adversaries" are also imposters? Probably most of them. War is a racket. See below.
See Also: The New York Times Continues To Use The Dubious "Zabiullah Mujahid" As Convenient Source For Anti-Wikileaks Propaganda
See Also: The Terrorist Leaders Who Die, And Are Captured, And Die Again
See Also: New York Times Admits Mumbai Terror Plotter Was U.S. Intelligence Asset
See Also: Afghans Believe US Is Funding Taliban
See Also: Al-Qaeda Mastermind Invited To Pentagon After 9/11
See Also: With Incredible Gall FBI Admits Osama Bin Laden Photo Made to Look Like War Critic Spanish MP
See Also: Former CIA Officials Admit TO Faking Bin Laden Video
See Also: The Strange Tale Of Azzam the American
See Also: Times Square Bomber Had Pakistani Army, U.S. Embassy Connections
See Also: Nato contractors 'attacking own vehicles' in Pakistan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)