• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISI connection

Links are good. But not if they point to someone who simply makes assertions as though they were proven facts, like "Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker" and "Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers...". Saying that "Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers" isn't true, either.
 
MikeW said:
Links are good. But not if they point to someone who simply makes assertions as though they were proven facts, like "Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker" and "Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers...". Saying that "Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers" isn't true, either.
Click to expand...


Right, thats my cue to exit this thread. It was meant to be CHF and I only.

MikeW if you are the guy responsible for 911myths.com then your muddying water attempts on this are well known. You start off by telling people not to read the section, then conclude by saying that it doesn't prove anything even if the ISI did sanction this money transfer.
 
Aphelion said:
Right, thats my cue to exit this thread. It was meant to be CHF and I only.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but then this is a public forum. It might be wise to say in a thread if it's supposed to be two people only. But now I know, I'll leave you to it. Although not without commenting on this:

MikeW if you are the guy responsible for 911myths.com then your muddying water attempts on this are well known. You start off by telling people not to read the section, then conclude by saying that it doesn't prove anything even if the ISI did sanction this money transfer.
Click to expand...
Tell people not to read the section? Let's see what I actually wrote:

This is a lengthy, complicated claim, perhaps the most involved we’ve ever covered on this site. And so if you’re expecting simple answers, then it’s best to move on: you won’t find them here. But if you’re interested in hearing some of the information that’s often left out when the “Atta and the ISI” story is retold, then keep reading.
Click to expand...
Not quite what you were implying, is it? It's almost as though you were deliberately being deceptive to avoid dealing with the real points I raised...
 
And even if Sheikh funded Atta, and Ahmad ordered this, and he did so as a matter of ISI policy, and the US pressured Pakistan to have Ahmad removed, that still doesn’t show they were covering up a “CIA link”. In fact it can be argued it’s just as, if not more likely to be the US quietly trying to ensure that Pakistan was more likely to cooperate in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Are you for real MikeW?
 
So there are radical islamist elements within the ISI? Duh!
 
Hierosis said:
Then why have the CIA and the MOSSAD worked with them for decades and not tried to root out that problem?
Click to expand...

Same reason why they tolerate the Saudis turning a blind eye to radical islamists and Wahabbi funding.

They want their guys in power (ie. Musharaff in Pakistan) and will tolerate the cost.

Ugly, stupid geopolitics.
 
CHF said:
Same reason why they tolerate the Saudis turning a blind eye to radical islamists and Wahabbi funding.

They want their guys in power (ie. Musharaff in Pakistan) and will tolerate the cost.

Ugly, stupid geopolitics.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a guy like Musharaff is easily replaced by another strongman if necessary. My point is that we are turning a blind eye to the terrorism that flows through Pakistan. My question is, why doesn't this enrage everyone?
 
Hierosis said:
Yes, but a guy like Musharaff is easily replaced by another strongman if necessary. My point is that we are turning a blind eye to the terrorism that flows through Pakistan. My question is, why doesn't this enrage everyone?
Click to expand...


I imagine it has been driving the NATO commanders in Afghanistan up the wall for a good number of years. The problem is, short of invading Pakistan (a country with nuclear weapons) there's really nothing anyone can do about it that won't make matters worse.

At least at the moment the Pakistani Government is officially an ally.

-Gumboot
 
Firestone said:
You have examples of the Mossad working with ISI?
Click to expand...

Sure. The MOSSAD and the ISI helped train most of the original Afghan resistance in the 80's (most of whom moved on to Al Queda). Also, in Iran-Contra Ollie North and his posse would funnel weapons to the MOSSAD. Sometimes the MOSSAD dealt directly with the Iranian government, but to shield themselves they often had the ISI act as the middle man. You have read about this right?
 
Hierosis said:
Sure. The MOSSAD and the ISI helped train most of the original Afghan resistance in the 80's (most of whom moved on to Al Queda). Also, in Iran-Contra Ollie North and his posse would funnel weapons to the MOSSAD. Sometimes the MOSSAD dealt directly with the Iranian government, but to shield themselves they often had the ISI act as the middle man. You have read about this right?
Click to expand...
No, but I'm sure you can provide me with credible sources.
 
Hierosis said:
Sure. The MOSSAD and the ISI helped train most of the original Afghan resistance in the 80's (most of whom moved on to Al Queda).
Click to expand...


Actually I've never ever heard of MOSSAD being involved in Afghanistan. The USA, Pakistan, UK, and Saudi Arabia were. But not Israel.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom