By Art Keller, May 14, 2010 Friday, May 14, 2010 - 10:52 AM Share
This footage may not be used or reproduced without the permission of the author
and the AfPak Channel. Please contact Tiedemann@newamerica.net with
inquiries.
Attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad claims
he received explosives training in Waziristan, Pakistan, the heartland of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP),
a militant group closely allied with al-Qaeda. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has publicly
stated that Shahzad was both directed and financed by the TTP. Yet
Shahzad's alleged militant pedigree reconciles very poorly with the ineptitude
of his attempted attack, which raises more questions about his background than
it answers.
Was Shahzad simply
a poor bomb-making student/incompetent jihadist?
Was the training he
received unsuited for conducting attacks in the U.S. context?
Despite claims of a
six month sojourn in Waziristan, did he
really get any bomb-training?
One place to look for answers is the improvised explosive device Shahzad
cobbled together. The FBI's criminal
complaint against Shahzad describes an IED constructed of 153 M-88
firecrackers, three propane tanks, two five-gallon cans of gasoline, bags of
fertilizer, and two alarm clocks connected to wires.
A demolition and pyrotechnic expert with 23
years of experience, Matt
Kutcher, deconstructs Shahzad's device in an interview:
First, gasoline has to
be aspirated (thoroughly mixed with air) before it becomes even a low-grade
explosive. One example would be to wrap the gas can with detonation cord to
rupture the vessel, and then use a bursting charge to disburse the gas. Shahzad's
device had no mechanism to reliably do that. Second, propane tanks for the U.S. market,
i.e. those readily available at most hardware stores, now have a regulating
float valve built into them. When you turn on a modern propane tank that is not
mated to an appropriate connection, i.e. the intake valve of a barbecue grill,
the back-up safety system of that float regulator ensures no propane comes out.
Third, the fertilizer Shahzad used was not suitable for use as an explosive. Finally,
as for using M-88 firecrackers for a detonator, the idea is a joke: you could
have put a bottle rocket up the tailpipe of Shahzad's SUV and gotten about the
same ineffectual results that Shahzad got.
By way of contrast, a look at an al-Qaeda propaganda
video for sale in the local bazaar of Wana, South
Waziristan, is instructive. The bulk of the action in the video is of
Pashtun fighters, likely the local Taliban allies of the al-Qaeda filmmakers,
carrying out various attacks. But the quieter interludes of the video include
scenes of a bombmaker meticulously assembling IEDs. The deadly craftsman
carefully cuts and packs military-grade high explosives into canisters, pauses
to check the reliability of the firing circuit with an ohmmeter, and then
continues to layer the devices with heavy-duty nuts and bolts to provide a hail
of lethal shrapnel. No crude "alarm clock" detonators are in sight, but rather
a serious detonation rig hooked to electronic control circuits, the better to
release the explosive fury at precisely the right instant. While the level of
technology in the IED under construction is primitive compared to the U.S.'s "smart"
munitions, it is clearly still an order of magnitude better than the dysfunctional
IED Shahzad constructed.
Kutcher quickly knocks down the notion that
Shahzad may have been forced to make a crude device only because the
military-grade explosives typically used by the Taliban and al-Qaeda were not
available in the U.S.
"A better device could easily have been constructed with a single trip to any
Wal-Mart. The explosive components of an ANFO bomb, (ammonium nitrate
fertilizer combined with fuel oil or diesel) are readily available, easy to put
together, and much, much more lethal than what Shahzad attempted to detonate," Kutcher
said. Indeed, the Taliban's bombmakers are very familiar with the use of ANFOs:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai banned
the possession of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in Afghanistan in February 2010, after
Taliban militants used ANFO in a series of bomb attacks.
Kutcher commented, "I cannot imagine Shahzad had
even rudimentary training, particularly when I compare his IED to the real
devastation that Taliban bombers regularly inflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I could teach someone to
build a better device with a single hour of training in my own workshop."
The total ineffectiveness of Shahzad's attempt
implies that, even assuming Shahzad did have some level of contact with the TTP,
that he received little, if any, practical training in the construction of
IEDs. Alternatively, it suggests that if he did receive such training, he did
not quite grasp the fundamentals of bombmaking, and was singularly unable to
retain and implement the lessons imparted to him.
Shahzad
seems not to be the heir of the 1993
World Trade Center bombers, but rather the intellectual brother of failed 'shoe
bomber' Richard Reid and failed 'Christmas underwear bomber' Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab. Reid, Abdulmutallab, and Shahzad all intended to carry out
attacks which, coupled with contact with either al-Qaeda or Taliban militants,
theoretically could have transformed lethal intent into lethal action, yet
somehow failed to do so.
What,
then, divides the "successful" bombers produced by al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan,
and elsewhere, from the unsuccessful trio of Reid, Abdulmutallab, and Shahzad?
One
possible reason for the serial failures of Reid, Abdulmutallab, and Shahzad may
be the lack of direct supporting infrastructure during the execution of
attacks. "Successful" bombers involved in terror attacks, suicide or otherwise,
frequently use bombs constructed by highly
skilled bombmakers to be "idiot proof," requiring a low level of skill from
the emplacer, and often use a separate trigger man as well. In the particular case of suicide bombers, the
would-be 'martyrs' usually have handlers by their sides in the days and hours
before an attack. The handlers talk the bombers through the attack and bolster
the bomber's fervor, all while guiding the bomber away from simple tactical
mistakes. This close support prevents a nascent attack from fading into a
fizzle born of cold feet, or easily avoidable missteps.
Direct "professional" support and supervision in the execution stage not always
necessary, however, as suggested by the lethal "7/7" London subway bombings in
2005, carried out by four self-radicalized Muslim youths with limited training
(although two of
the bombers had
traveled to Pakistan prior to the attacks, an investigation by the British government
concluded there was no direct al-Qaeda involvement). Working
as a group, the 7/7 bombers managed to puzzle
out the construction of home-made but deadly organic peroxide IEDs, and
provided mutual ideological/emotional support necessary to see such attacks
through to their tragic conclusions.
The
failures of Reid, Abdulmutallab, and Shahzad hint that, without the existence
of a support cell to help train, indoctrinate, and guide a 'lone' bomber all
the way through the execution phase of an explosive attack, the threat posed by
lone bombers, even those who have been in contact with either al-Qaeda or the
Taliban, will be hit or miss at best. Direct support of a group of like-minded individuals, 'professional' or not, may be the missing ingredients that allowed the 7/7
bombers to succeed where Reid, Abdulmutallab, and Shahzad could not, despite
their contact with militant groups.
This
is not to say that the self-radicalized solo actor does not pose a danger. The grim success
of the firearm-based attack of Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood,
Texas, killing 13 and wounding 29, suggests that even an unsupported individual
can pose a grave threat, if he avoids the complexities involved in effectively
constructing and detonating an IED and sticks to the simplicity, reliability,
and ready availability of guns.
Much
of the furor surrounding Shahzad has arisen because his attempt allegedly
represents the first foray of the TTP into 'external operations,' terrorist
strikes conducted outside Afghanistan
and Pakistan on U.S. soil. While
a concerted campaign by the TTP to put major resources into 'external operations'
would represent a genuinely alarming trend, little about Shahzad's attempt credibly
suggests it was the opening shot in such a volley. TTP spokesman Azam Tariq was
quick
to disavow Shahzad's attack, even as he claimed the TTP has agents in Europe and
the U.S.
poised to strike. Master TTP bomber Qari Hussain did claim the bombing for the Taliban,
but he also described it with grossly exaggerated rhetoric as a "jaw-breaking
blow to Satan U.S.A."
Aside from the somewhat schizophrenic claims of the TTP's leadership, no concrete
evidence has yet surfaced to suggest that Shahzad's solo trip to Pakistan was part of a larger wave of Western
recruits deliberately enticed to Pakistan to get militant training,
and then return to their homelands to conduct terror attacks.
Despite
the wide availability of information on explosives on the Internet, there still
appears to be a gap between reading about explosives or receiving elementary
training on them, and the ability of a single person to integrate that
knowledge into an "operation" that results in a successful bomb attack. Regarding the real level of threat posed by
would-be bombers like Faisal Shahzad, who had demonstrably weak practical
knowledge of explosives, demolition expert Matt Kutcher remarked, "Yes, one of
these single guys could add A+B+C together and do something that could hurt a
lot of people, but without having an idea of how explosives really work, they'd
probably have to get lucky to do it."
Faisal
Shahzad appears to be just the latest in a series of dilettante jihadis,
self-radicalized would-be bombers, long on the intent to cause harm, perhaps,
but short on the ability to do it.
Art Keller is a former case officer
for the Central Intelligence Agency. He participated in counterterrorism
operations against al-Qaeda in the FATA of Pakistan in 2006.
A very informative and interesting article. Wish FP had more articles/postings like this and less intellectual posturing from academics. Maybe consider hiring more retired intel officers? They're usually just as smart as the academics and have the experience to back it up. This is the kind of concrete analysis I think many readers are looking for. Thoroughly enjoyed this. Keep it comin' FP
It is scary for the US govt and media, since they would like to be able to pin this on Taliban or Pakistan, but alas it was a f'ed up US citizen angry at drone strikes and probably general US foreign policy.
Read Micahel Scheuer's work on the subject: US needs a less interventionist FP
So what are you trying to say? Steve Coll's article did not rule out a Pakistani connection at all. And while I have a great deal of respect for Coll and refer to him for insight on AfPak, he is not an intelligence officer, he's a columnist for the New Yorker. The Taliban has always been classified as a group with "local" ambitions and not global, as is the case with al-Qaeda. Why, after all this time (since 2001), when we knew the Taliban harbored al-Qaeda and it would have presumably served our interest in destroying the Taliban if we had shown they had global ambitions prior to this attempt, would we just now manufacture intelligence to tie the TTP into this? It makes no sense. You don't believe anything that's said in the TTP videos? Shahzad's frequent visits to Pakistan are of no significance? Or even his own statements? Where do you draw the line in your warped reality?
Anyone can dismiss established intel by 1) pointing out the lack of declassified intel as a evidence to the contrary or 2) by simply dismissing the credibility of the source as so many conspiracy theorists retreat to. At what point does this BS dance get old. If you don't believe any sources, which ones do you believe? I could sit here all day and say I'm skeptical of everything, but then how do we know anything? Sir Mixxalot, you will never be at CIA headquarters or in the oval office to hear a briefing. And lord knows you conspiracy theorists/skeptics (to be very nice) are all too cowardly to ever get intel on the ground, so where do draw the line? I guess its just courage at home in front of the monitor where you can safely deny the credibility & legitimacy of everyone other than those you handpick to somewhat affirm your narrative. But guess, Steve Coll doesn't do that for you pal.
Were we just lucky that the Times Square Bomber and before him the Underpants Bomber did not succeed? Well, here's what I think. Some people in the psyops department of our intelligence services are always trolling for guys like this, mentally unstable Muslime guyes with an identity crisis. Both the bombers and the Fort Hood Shooter fit this description. Once they hook such a person, they send him to a recruiting station in North Waziristan, or Yemen as the case may be, where he is indoctrinated for a few months using intensive brainwashing techniques. Then they send him back to the U.S. to create an incident. The Fort Hood Shooter “succeeded” in killing a bunch of people; since then the other two would-be terrorists have succeeded only in making fools of themselves, and of course, making the Homeland Security service, FBI, etc. look good. “We are making progress in the War on Terror, there is no more Al Qaeda, the Senior Leadership is hibernating deep underground” (six feet, in the case of bin Laden?) “we have reduced them to pitiful clowns” - but now there is instead the Pakistani Taliban, the Tehrik-i-Taliban, to carry on as our enemy in the War on Terror, so what’s the difference? All three recent incidents served to keep the pot simmering, keep terrorism in the news. Now just putting a firecracker in some pathetic patsy’s underpants or a few of them with some propane tanks and an alarm clock in a car is enough to make headlines for a week.
Here is a recent quote from David Ray Griffin, the scholarly leader of the 9/11 truth movement. “Whereas it is widely recognized that the US–led war in Afghanistan is illegal under international law because it was never authorized by the UN Security Council, most Americans believe that it is morally justified as a response to the 9/11 attacks, and many believe it is still justified as a necessary means to prevent another attack originating from that region. My lecture will present evidence showing that both of these beliefs are untrue, and that the 9/11 Truth Movement and more traditional Peace and Anti–War groups should be able to combine forces to oppose this illegal and immoral war.”
Before the “ranting and raving” recently done by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the U.N so disparagingly spoken of in the mainstream media, Ahmedinejad wrote a letter to UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon asking for the United Nations to investigate 9/11. I join Mr. Ahmedinejad in this call for an investigation of 9/11. I have looked at the scientific evidence, there’s no doubt in my mind those World Trade Center buildings were blown up - anyone can see it for himself at ae911truth.org. If the Obama Administration prevents such an investigation, then let’s have a U.N. investigation instead. If the U.S. government has nothing to hide, then it will strengthen itself by having an honest and open investigation into 9/11. But I’m afraid Ahmedinejad is right about the hegemonic plans of the Anglo-American-Israeli alliance, and all these incidents since the end of the Cold War have essentially been pretexts for military actions in Muslim countries. Ahmedinejad has a right to be heard at the United Nations, and those who walk out on him look to me like contemptible hypocrites and cowards. Walking out is not the alleged Obama policy of engagement with the Muslim world.
The 9/11 truther movement was debunked years ago. US intelligence agencies are not omnipotent or omniscient. The idea that they could successfully pull off an operation in which they create terrorists attacks in the interest of stoking public fear is stupid. There would be to many people involved and someone would blow the whistle. Either because it is wrong, or for money that the media would pay for such a story. Conspiracy theories are very interresting. It is easy to take facts and actuall events and rationalize them into fitting into whichever narrative you are pursuing at the time. The one rule to use is this, the likelyhood of a conspiracy succeesing is directly linked to the amount of people involved. The more people required to execute or who come in contact with a plot more likely it is to be discovered.
The last thing I would like to point out is how exactly did the underwera bomber, Times Square car bomb, or Fort Hood shootings make the FBI or Homeland Security look good. Thesewere all considered failures on their parts. The Fort Hood shooting was not prevented at all and the other to would have been devestating if not for bomber incompetence. That alone proves that this is not a plot by US intel agencies. It made US intel look as incompetent as the bombers themselves.
Ahmedinejad does not constitute the Muslim world. Engagement with the Muslim world does not necessarily entail listening to a dictatorial loon, holocaust denier, and the president of the biggest contributor to state sponsored terrorism. The reason David Ray Griffin continues to float his "inside job" theory is because unfortunately there are enough (gullible) "skeptics & TRUTH seekers--haha" like yourself to make him feel like he has an audience and that he's a leader of a important movement. In short, he's found a way to make someone give a crap about his ideas.
If the US had manufactured intelligence in order carry out the most elaborate, sophisticated, and secretive plot in human history, why would we take the biggest risk to threaten our reputation and credibility to invade a country as geopolitically insignificant as Afghanistan? (As a side note, it's pretty hilarious that the same people who say George W Bush is stupid also claim that his administration is responsible for pulling off the biggest conspiracy in human history in less than a year into his term). I'm sure you're going to float something to suggest we're surrounding Iran or maybe you'll even go for some buffer zone theory against Russia. But the fact is, Afghanistan is not valuable at all in comparison to other countries in the region and trying to wage a COIN campaign in such an environment has been draining on the US, both in blood & treasure.
Bottom line: grow up.
I'm used to this response. Anyone who looks at the evidence knows the government account is completely full of holes and that the three WTC buildings were blown up. The whole world knows this, except the the populations of countries whose media is controlled by the Anglo-American-Israeli alliance, principally the American people, of course. But even they are starting to wake up. As old Abe said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." And when enough people wake up, political change starts to happen. We have scientific truth on our side and we cannot be stopped. Within a couple of months, Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth will be speaking on the Chinese equivalent of 60 minutes. This program may have up to a billion viewers. Can one billion Chinese be wrong? Everybody knows 9/11 was an inside job - not only Ahmedinejad, but the Chinese, the Russians, most Europeans - everybody.
To answer some of your questions:
First, there does not have to be a valid strategic reason for the Afghanistan war. The people who are running things just want war, they want gigantic military budgets, they want power, they want to carry on their crooked activities, such as running drugs, under the cover of state secrecy. 9/11 was a pretext for military adventures in Muslim countries. The primary interest was probably Iraq's oil - the neocons were trying to pin 9/11 on Saddam from day one - but Afghanistan has its own strategic value, and then again it is also the world's primary producer of opium. Cheney's Halliburton and thousands of defence contractors, large and small, have made hundreds of billions off of these wars.
As to Bush being too stupid to pull something like this off: who says Bush did it? Bush really is intellectually limited - IQ of maybe 90 I would guess - and is also a completely amoral psychopath. It was Poppy Bush, as psychopathic as his son but far more intelligent, who pulled the strings to get Dubya elected, together with the dynamic duo of Cheney and Rumsfeld were the leaders of the plot. All three of them have been in government since before the Kennedy assassination. All Dubya had to do was keep his dumb mouth shut. That is the only thing he does well.
EW - your comment lacks historical grounding. The PNAC documents, authored by Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc., lays out exactly that the US has been searching for a reason to enter the middle east via occupations for years, all it needed was a "New Pearl Harbor" type event from which the US people would unwaveringly support. No one for certain can say it was "Bush" who did it, but the scientific community, which includes architects and engineers of the highest caliber, are chomping at the bit to have Shyam Sunder and John Gross investigated in front of the world. Science doesn't lie, but both these guys did.
David Ray Griffin's earnest research is dwarfed by the evidence of Building 7's controlled demolition. It's just a matter of time before the levees of corporate and institutional gatekeeping break here in the US from keeping the scientific debate out of the the public forum.
You say "grow up" to anyone seeking a real investigation into 9/11 and building 7's collapse...why? What are you scared of if there is nothing to hide?
Come on man, are we the beacon on the hill? Folks in the states know more about American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and baseball stats than how many people were killed in Iraq (more than 700,000 - Johns Hopkins U./Lancet Survey, 2006). Why do you think that is? Its because our mainstream media is gone, toast, leaving our neighbors to squabble about left v. right issues which take the focus away from the banking/military elite which has run America into the ground, and probably facilitated 9/11. It didn't have to be "The US gov't" - but the odds are certainly greater of complicity within military ranks at the top and Cheney himself compared to Hani Hanjours chances of hitting the Pentagon at 500 MPH even though he couldn't fly a CESSNA and was rated a "very poor pilot."
If anybody is interested in evidence instead of the usual fact-free bloviating, just visit ae911truth.org and find out for yourself. Our membership currently numbers 1196 certified architects and engineers who are calling for an honest, open investigation of 9/11. Or, just for starters, take a look at this video of the collapse of WTC Building 7. Larry Silverstein said "pull it" and that's exactly what was done. Who are you going to believe, the government or your lying eyes?
Here's a good video on the collapse of WTC7 for anyone who is interested in facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHxQ6yzU1qo
As I said, science is on the side of 9/11 truth and we cannot be stopped. "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi.
There is great book by Matt Taibbi, a Rolling Stone columnist out there called:
The Great Derangement: A terrifying true story of war, politicas, and religion at the twilight of the America Empire
The book points out how the American people are essentially going insane no matter what side of the isle or political dogma you ascribe to. He devotes a section of it to the 9/11 truther movement in which he interviews many of the prominent 9/11 activists and spokesmen. Suffice it say they do not come off as the most stable individuals. Its a great read.
A healthy dose of skeptisism is essential in these sorts of things, however you must know when you are buying BS or not. The majority of the 9/11 truther "evidence" is exactly that. For instance the idea that the US military flew a plane around the Pentagon and dropped parts, that had been recovered from a previous crash, onto lawn of the pentagon is rediculous on many levels. The first of which who dropped the parts out? Probably 2 or 3 Air Force enlisted. What happened to them? Well the government probably relocated them to a remote base or killed them. What about their families and friends? The Government probably killed them to.
I could go on. The one thing everyone needs to grasp is that the Government and US Intel is to incompetent and large to pull this off.
To Lal Qila: You clearly believe that the US Government is incompetent from what I have seen of your posts. Do you think they could pull this off with any kind of discretion let alone success?
Please have Matt Taibbi interview Richard Gage and any of the 1,200 architects and engineers of ae911truth.org, if you believe him to Taibbi to be such a speaker of the truth. The scientific community of America supports a new investigation of 9/11 based on what is possible and not possible in terms of Building 7 coming down. Building 7 was blown to kingdom come, and the towers were brought down at near freefall speed identical to controlled demolitions. THIS is old news to Europeans and others who have not been polarized by a corporate media.
You present "the idea that a US military plane flew around the Pentagon and dropped off parts" yet I have never once heard anyone in the truth movement - "leaders" and all - discuss this. And I know many of them: college professors, NYC based professional journalists, firemen, high school teachers, engineers and yes, even a few closet elected officials. They support a REAL investigation into the attacks, not the coverup that was the Zelikow/Kean investigation. Please, spare us your lack of depth and knowledge on this subject.
To think that 19 rag tag Saudis (15 of 19 were) pulled it off alone, with building 7 coming down in its own footprint in freefall speed, despite the blinking warnings our intel received, is a myth, which thankfully the wheels are falling off on. Bin Laden's family flown out of US airspace with FBI clearance (ny times covered it); 100k wired from Pakistan's ISI chief to M. Atta; the mere fact that the Cheney/Bush team fought to have any investigation is criminal enough. And the one they sanctioned, severely limited in its subpoena power and funding ($3 million original allocation!) was not an investigation - Phil Zelikow is independent of the White House?
The big terror groups have largely given up on planinng big spectacular attacks, deciding to focus on a steady stream of small ones. Attacks like this, only can kill a few dozen people if they do succeed. Other than symbolical damage, America could suffer dozens, maybe hundreds, of these per year, with no great impact. The number of deaths involved are less than criminal activity, or accidents. Whats with this stupid idea that we need to stop every little thing thats related to political terrorism? No, we cant stop every attack, so what? That doesnt make them win. That just makes an immeasurably small bump in the number of unnatural deaths that year. If Faisal had just gone plain crazy, or was a career criminal, we would have already forgotten. Somehow, being a "terrorist," instead of a "lunatic", or a "criminal", makes him a national concern?
I think that is an excellent point. As with the Fort Hood shooting why should we give terrorists the satisfaction of these nickel and dime attacks. Label them as criminal activity and marginalize it from there.
With Shahzad transforming to terrorist after his last visit to Pakistan, there is NO doubt about his Pakistani connection.
With Obama continuing Bush pandering of Pakistan, US can never learn lessons from history.
Let us examine some facts:
1. Pakistan’s democratic government facilitated relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996 even though US had strenuously opposed it.
2. As Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in 2004, Pakistani Army was the midwife of Taliban. UN report on Bhutto killing released on 4/15/10 confirmed this fact when it noted that "The PAKISTANI MILITARY ORGANIZED AND SUPPORTED THE TALIBAN TO TAKE CONTROL OF AFGHANISTAN IN 1996“. So in a way, Pakistani government was in charge of Afghanistan when 9/11 attacks were carried out and hence Pakistani government was responsible for those attacks.
3. Pakistani ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad had asked Omar Sheikh (the kidnapper of Daniel Pearl) to send $100,000 from a Dubai bank account to Mohammed Atta (the lead 9/11 hijacker) one year before those attacks. Mohammad Atta used that $100,000 for flight training, living expenses and to purchase flight tickets on the day of 9/11 attacks in US and returned unspent $25,000 back to same Dubai account. Musharraf was forced to retire ISI director General Mahmud Ahmad after Wall Street Journal exposed General Ahmad as the chief financier of 9/11 attacks. Pakistani ISI was heavily involved in planning of 9/11 attacks as corroborated by former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham. 9/11 attacks was Pakistan's revenge for US refusing to deliver F-16 jet fighters in 1990s after Pakistan had already paid for them.
4. Ex-CIA official Bruce Riedel said in an interview on 1/29/2009 that ''In Pakistan, the jihadist Frankenstein monster that was created by the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence service, is now increasingly turning on its creators. It's trying to take over the laboratory.'' Pakistani Army and Intelligence Service (ISI) chose to create this ‘jihadist Frankenstein monster’ with full blessings and financing by Pakistan’s democratic governments in 1990s.
5. Declassified DIA Washington D.C., "IIR (intelligence Information Report) Pakistan Involvement in Afghanistan," dated November 7, 1996 states how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," and also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary combat“.
6. Declassified U.S. Department of State, Cable "Pakistan Support for Taliban" from Islamabad dated Sept. 26, 2000 states that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." In response Washington orders the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to immediately confront Pakistani officials on the issue and to advise Islamabad that the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors. [The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased.
7. Witness how Musharraf fooled Bush by pretending to join US fight against terrorism while sheltering Mullah Mohammed Omar’s QST terror network in Baluchistan and Haqqani’s HQN terror network in Waziristan, while milking Uncle Sam in the process.
8. ‘Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year‘ as General McChrystal narrated in his August, 2009 report to President Obama. But US can not even use its drones to destroy QST that is causing daily deaths of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan since 2002!
With an ally like Pakistan, US is doomed to suffer never-ending terror threat for all time to come.
It is scary for the US govt and media, since they would like to be able to pin this on Taliban or Pakistan, but alas it was a f'ed up US citizen angry at drone strikes and probably general US foreign policy.
Read Micahel Scheuer's work on the subject: US needs a less interventionist FP
Who are the Asian Tigers, the terrorist group and not the East Asian economies?
And since when apparently Islamic radicals have started to choose very secular sounding names for their outfits, or are Asian Tigers a creation of one of our usual "friendly" countries?
Thanks for sharing, were we just lucky that the Times Square Bomber and before him the Underpants Bomber did not succeed? Well, here's what I think. Some people in the psyops department of our current political news intelligence services are always trolling for guys like this, mentally unstable Muslime guyes with an identity crisis.
As commented "This is not to say that the self-radicalized solo actor does not pose a danger. The grim success of the firearm-based attack of Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 and wounding 29, suggests that even an world top news stories unsupported individual can pose a grave threat, if he avoids the complexities involved in effectively constructing and detonating an IED and sticks to the simplicity, reliability, and ready availability of guns. "
(23)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE