Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Sheikh Khalid Yasin on 9/11 controlled demolition


From "Khalid Yasin: The New Voice of Islam?" on "Nine's Sunday"

SARAH FERGUSON: And he’s waded right into one of the most divisive issues between the Muslim community and the Federal Government — September 11.

 SHEIK KHALID YASIN: There has been no evidence that has surfaced, no bona fide irrevocable, irrefutable evidence that had been surfaced that showed that there is a group called al-Qa’ida that did the September 11 bombings. I’m of the opinion there was a rogue operation that took place. Now, to go beyond that would say I would have to have some evidence, which I don’t.

 SARAH FERGUSON: But he does go beyond it.

 SHEIK KHALID YASIN: An operation that took place with the complicity of some very sophisticated entities other than some Middle Eastern guys on an airplane or being orchestrated by someone in a cave in Iraq. 

SARAH FERGUSON: What do you mean by “sophisticated entities”?

 SHEIK KHALID YASIN: Sophisticated entities means entities who themselves were governmentally instructed, equipped, motivated. We now know that the way that the World Trade Center fell the way that those buildings fell — they fell from internal explosive charges, the same way it’s done in a construction site.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

96% of British Muslims reject official story of 9/11

Global Research, December 29, 2016

A recent poll reveals that a maximum of 4% of British Muslims believe the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks. This is one of the strongest rejections of that story ever recorded. The sponsors of the poll have done their best to link these poll results to extremism and terrorism, but the data offer no support for this interpretation.  
The poll was released as both a set of data and an interpretative report on December 2, 2016. [1] The sponsor of the poll was British think tank, Policy Exchange, which had the polling company ICM carry out the survey. Policy Exchange, regarded as a highly influential institution, is known for its relationship to the Conservative Party. The current Chair of its Board of Trustees is well known neo-conservative, David Frum. Policy Exchange has been described by a representative of the Muslim Council of Britain as an “anti-Muslim organization,” a useful observation for readers puzzled by the think tank’s interpretation of the poll.
The question in the poll that most directly addresses the events of September 11, 2001 is: “Who do you think was responsible for 9/11?” Five possible responses are listed, with results as follows (Report, p. 75; data set, p. 802):
Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists4%
Jews7%
The American Government31%
Other6%
Don’t know52%

The belief that Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks is an essential component of belief in the official narrative of 9/11. If only 4% regard Al-Qaeda as responsible, then no more than 4% accept the official narrative.
The authors of the interpretive report on the poll (among whom, sadly, is Labour MP, Khalid Mahmood) attempt to make British Muslim respondents look isolated and peculiar for their views on 9/11. But, of course, Muslim populations have been critical of the official account of 9/11 for years.
In 2008 WorldPublicOpinion.org polled over 16,000 people in 17 countries, five of which had a majority Muslim population. Of the total Muslim population represented in the survey (399.6 million people in 2008), only 21.2% assigned guilt to Al-Qaeda. [2]
In 2011 the Pew Research Group surveyed eight Muslim populations. Of the total Muslim population represented (588.2 million in 2011), 17% assigned guilt to Arabs (see endnote 2).
In short, a very modest percentage of Muslims around the world has accepted the official story. Knowing this makes the recent results for British Muslims look less peculiar. It is true, however, that these recent results show an even greater scepticism than usual among Muslims, and this is fascinating given the location of this Muslim population in the midst of a country where both government and mainstream media routinely recite the official story.
The interpreters of the recent poll support their aim of making British Muslims look peculiar by contrasting their responses to those of a control group included in the ICM survey. This group of about 2000 UK citizens, intended to represent the British population as whole, responded to the above question as follows (Report, p. 76; data set, final page):
Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists71%
Jews1%
The American Government10%
Other2%
Don’t know16%
The contrast between 71% and 4% fingering “Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists” is, indeed, dramatic. But what Policy Exchange does not tell us is that, if British Muslims are not representative of world opinion, neither is this control group.
The 2008 17-country survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org indicated that only 39% of the total population represented in the survey (2543.2 million people in 2008) said that Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. These results contrast sharply with ICM’s control group. They also let us know that in 2008 a maximum of 39% of the surveyed population, which I believe to have been representative of the population of the world as a whole, supported the official narrative of 9/11 (see endnote 2).
Determined to make British Muslims look not only peculiar but dangerous, Policy Exchange has even engaged in practices that are clearly deceptive in its poll and in its discussion of the poll results.
Anti-Semitism
The authors of the poll report say that some Muslim respondents, within the focus groups held in various locations in the UK, repeated the erroneous claim that no Jews died in the Twin Towers. The authors comment that this is an example of a “belief in conspiracies rooted in anti-Semitic tropes” and they explain that this claim is meant to be a sign that Jews “had foreknowledge of the attack–and were therefore implicated in the crime” (Report, p. 77)
The attempt to criminalize 9/11 dissent, in the UK and elsewhere, has depended in large part on the idea that everyone who questions the official narrative of 9/11 says “the Jews did it.” This allows 9/11 dissent to be regarded as a form of anti-Semitism and attacked by states with all relevant legal apparatus. The notion that 9/11 dissenters are racists plays into the criminalization effort much better, for example, than the notion that 9/11 dissenters are troubled by violations of the laws of physics in the official narrative.
The authors are correct when they say that the claim that no Jews died in the Towers is false. But they do not attempt to quantify this result. How many Muslims referred to this claim? In the only relevant part of the survey that is quantified respondents chose the US government as responsible for the attacks far more often than they chose “Jews.”
And what, precisely, does “Jews” mean in this poll? This option is one of five offered to respondents. Muslims did not choose the wording of this option: the designers of the poll did. To whom is the term pointing? The state of Israel? A group of high-ranking neo-conservative state officials in the US? Jewish teenagers in Montreal? We are not told.
The 2008 poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org asked an open-ended question (“Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?”) and established its categories on the basis of responses given. It ended up with a category called “Israel.” This option has the virtue of clarity–it also has the virtue of plausibility, given the evidence of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks. [3] But perhaps “Jews” is useful for Policy Exchange precisely because it is not clear? Its generality and vagueness are useful for making the charge of anti-Semitism. Our suspicions about Policy Exchange’s motives are strengthened when we find that the Policy Exchange interpreters use the expression “the Jews” repeatedly in their discussion of poll results. That is, they say 7% of British Muslims blame the 9/11 events on “the Jews” (Report, pp. 9, 75, 77, 86). In this way they imply that the blame is cast on all Jews, on Jews as a collectivity. This is straight misrepresentation. The question in the poll says nothing about “the Jews.”
Conspiracy theory and extremism
In the poll British Muslims were asked this question (data set, p. 767):
From time to time we all come across so-called ‘conspiracy theories,’ which supposedly explain events in a different way to commonly held beliefs. You may have seen or heard about conspiracy theories about, for example, the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Conspiracy theories are started by extremists trying to dupe Muslims into support for their views.
(Further sub-questions then ask about other aspects of belief in “conspiracy theories.”)
Now, the so-called War on Terror utilizes several powerful and slippery terms. “Conspiracy theory” and “extremism” are two of them. Both of these terms are used in the poll, yet neither of them is defined. This shows the extent to which the poll violates basic principles of public polling and veers into propaganda and entrapment.
About the only things clear in the above question are that “conspiracy theories,” whatever they may be, are bad; that extremism, whatever it may be, is also bad; and that conspiracy theories may be connected to extremism. So it is not surprising that many respondents chose to steer clear of these menacing notions: 40% agreed with the statement that extremists dupe Muslims into conspiracy theories.
How frustrated the Policy Exchange interpreters must have been when, having achieved this result, they found that their most despised “conspiracy theory,” the one about 9/11, was strongly supported by respondents! Unwilling to consider the possibility that many Muslims support the claim of US government responsibility because they think it is the hypothesis best supported by evidence, and determined to draw links between 9/11 dissent and “extremism,” the Policy Exchange authors say (Report, p. 80):
In considering the importance of this apparent readiness to see the world through a lens of conspiracy, it is worth noting how far these theories cast Muslims as the victims of nefarious intrigue. This is crucial given the extent to which radical Islamist groups feed on narratives that place a sense of Muslim victimhood at their core. Groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS portray the world as divided between Islam and ‘unbelievers’, with ‘the West’ held up as the primary manifestation of the latter. In that context, they insist that Muslims face an existential threat from the West, which demands a response – and it is this narrative, which is used to justify acts of violence and terrorism across the globe.
The argument seems to go like this: Muslim terrorist groups undertake violent acts because they think Muslims are under deadly assault from the West; the belief that Muslims are under assault is not rational but is an example of victim mentality and political paranoia; the delusional 9/11 “conspiracy theory” supports this irrational belief that Muslims are under assault from the West; therefore, the 9/11 conspiracy theory supports violence and terrorism.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the international political scene has been dominated since 9/11 by a series of extremely violent assaults by the United States and its allies on Muslim countries. Muslims killed, wounded and left homeless are in the millions. Moreover, we know perfectly well that those attacked have been “the victims of nefarious intrigue.” Is Policy Exchange really unaware of the Downing Street memo, for example, which shows high-level members of the British government, including the Prime Minister, meeting to make a secret plan to support what they acknowledge is an illegal assault on Iraq?
And if the belief that Muslims are under attack is a true belief, what is irrational or immoral about saying that this demands a response from Muslims? There is no reason the response need be violent, and British Muslims clearly do not want it to be violent. The survey actually shows that British Muslims are less sympathetic to terrorism and political violence than the control group representing the general population (Report, p. 8). In other words, this 2016 poll shows that British Muslims reject both terrorism and the official story of 9/11 and see no contradiction in this double rejection.
The real goals of Policy Exchange and those in the British government that the think tank supports begin to become clear when we ponder the wording employed in the conspiracy theory question:
Conspiracy theories are started by extremists trying to dupe Muslims into support for their views.
Who are these extremists? The question implies they are not Muslims. Are they members of the 9/11 truth movement? Given that 9/11 dissent is the only “conspiracy theory” given prominence in this poll, who else could be meant?
If it seems absurd that this non-violent social movement should be called “extremist,” we must remember that for some years now the criminalization of 9/11 dissent has been a goal of high-level actors in the British government. Many of us living outside the UK first became aware of this when we listened to then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech to the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2014. In that speech he referred with a show of indignation to the claims “that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged.” He said that these ideas were connected to “extremism” and that his government intended to take on all forms of extremism, including “non-violent extremism.”
Mr. Cameron continued to pursue this theme after his UN speech. In a July 2015 speech on extremism in Birmingham, for example, he repeated his 9/11 and 7/7 examples and said that in taking on extremism the government would need to “take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories.” He reiterated his determination to “tackle both parts of the creed – the non-violent and violent.”
The decision to target “non-violent extremism” had, in fact, already been British government strategy for some years, having been made part of the controversial “Prevent” strategy for countering terrorism. But Cameron was intent on integrating “conspiracy theories” into this target.
There is little doubt that Policy Exchange, which openly supports the Prevent strategy in its discussion of the recent poll (Report, p. 10), wishes both to keep British Muslims on a tight leash and to discredit the global 9/11 truth movement.
Yet, in the face of these aims, the poll responses stubbornly remain. They indicate that British Muslims are aware of major empirical claims made by the 9/11 truth movement (see focus group quotations, Report, p. 76) and they also indicate that respondents distrust mainstream media (Report, pp. 80 ff.).
Here is an interpretation of the poll that is at odds with the Policy Exchange interpretation: the official narrative of 9/11, which has been a minority position among the world’s people for years, is in increasing trouble, fed by growing scepticism toward mainstream media, increasing influence from the movement for 9/11 dissent, and a courageous willingness– demonstrated in this poll by British Muslims–to think independently of Western mainstream ideologues and propagandists.
Notes
[1] “What Muslims Want:” A survey of British Muslims by ICM on behalf of Policy Exchange. London: Policy Exchange, Dec. 2, 2016.  
Unsettled Belonging: A survey of Britain’s Muslim communities. London: Policy Exchange, Dec. 2, 2016.
[2] All figures relating to the 2008 and 2011 polls have been arrived at by using data from the polls themselves in combination with country population data for 2008 and 2011 from the Population Reference Bureau.
[3] Examples of Israeli foreknowledge are referenced on pp. 151-153 of my book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy (Clarity Press, 2014). Another well-known example is the warning received two hours in advance of the attacks by employees of the Israeli instant messaging company, Odigo. See “Odigo says workers were warned of attack,” Haaretz, Sept. 26, 2001; “Odigo clarifies attack messages,” Haaretz, Sept. 28, 2001; “Instant messages to Israel warned of WTC attack,” Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2001; “Agents following suspects’ lengthy electronic trail–web of connections used to plan attack,” Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2001.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Imam Musa shreds Hannity

People who speak truth to power sometimes have to speak truth to stupidity.

This old episode is newly relevant since Hannity is a huge Trump fan, just like he was a huge Bush fan.



"Bin Laden is YOUR homeboy, Hannity!"

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Saudi paper: U.S. carried out 9/11 attacks


While the families of 9/11 victims called for the declassification of evidence that members of the Saudi monarchy helped fund the attacks, a Saudi newspaper turned the table, blaming the United States for the worst terrorist massacre on its soil.  

Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, writing in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat on April 28, charged that the U.S. carried out the 9/11 attacks while placing blame on others, beginning with al-Qaida and the Taliban, then shifting to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and now Saudi Arabia.    

“The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes,” Shammari wrote.  


Shammari said the effort to release evidence of purported Saudi involvement in 9/11 is part of standard U.S. policy of using archival documents as leverage against various countries.  

“Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country,” he wrote.  

He charged that the Americans decided not to remove Saddam in the 1990s because they preferred to keep him as a bargaining chip with Gulf states.  

The article was published on the eve of visit President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia in April. At the time, Congress was debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which would allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages.  

Sign WND’s petition urging Congress to demand the release of all 28 secret pages on the Saudi role in 9/11  

Also in April 2016, the New York Times reported a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot.  

As WND reported in April, Saudi Arabia is threatening to sell off $750 billion in U.S. assets if Congress passes the legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue.  

The Saudi financial threat is renewing a push to declassify 28 pages of the 838-page congressional report about the 9/11 attacks. The critical pages are locked in a secure basement room at the Capitol. A co-chair of the 9/11 inquiry, former Forida Sen. Bob Graham, claims the classified pages show a link that goes all the way to the top of the Saudi government. Graham charges the Saudi government’s funding of terrorist groups continues to this day.  

In his article, Shammari said there’s “proof” that the U.S. government carried out 9/11.  

“September 11 is one of (the) winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos agree unanimously that what happened in the (Twin) Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S.  

Echoing the charges of “9/11 truthers,” Shammari said, “Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings.  

“Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse.”  

He said the U.S. used 9/11 to “launch a new age of global armament” and charged “the “nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy.”  

After World War II, he wrote, the U.S. created the Cold War, then, when it ended, “began to see Muslims as their new enemy.”  

“This will never end until it accomplishes the goals it has set for itself,” Shammari said of the U.S.  

“So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives.”    http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/saudi-paper-u-s-carried-out-911-attacks/#qL2LZuC1r1xlmx3m.99

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Indian anti-corruption official: state “orchestrated” Islamist terror Mumbai atrocities enabled by intelligence operations of India, Pakistan and the United States



A senior Indian police officer and anti-corruption investigator last month accused the Indian government of orchestrating the Mumbai terror attacks which occurred nearly seven years ago, according to an Indian government official. 

 R. V. S. Mani, a former undersecretary in India’s home ministry now in the urban development ministry, testified in July that a senior police officer who investigated the 2004 ‘encounter killings’ of four Indian Muslims in Gujarat by the Ahmedabad Police Crime Branch, had told him that the 2008 Mumbai attacks were “set up” by the Indian government. 

The police officer, Satish Verma — currently Principal at the Police Training College in Junagadh — is well-known for his secondment to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s elite anti-corruption law enforcement agency, to lead the probe into the 2004 ‘encounter killings.’


Sunday, May 3, 2015

Top Iranian General says US leaders planned and executed 9/11



Politico.com

The commander of Iran’s ground forces said that American officials planned and executed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to justify military intervention in the region.

 “These wars and these threats stem from a comprehensive American strategy. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Americans felt that a new force was beginning to materialize, namely the union between Sunnis and Shiites,” said Ahmad Reza Pourdastan in an interview with Iran’s Arabic-language Al-Alam state news network.

“The basis of this force was the blessed Islamic Revolution in Iran. This force is Islam, or the Islamic world. In order to prevent this force from materializing, the Americans did many things,” Pourdastan said, according to a translation of his remarks by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

“The first thing they did was to plan and carry out the events of 9/11, in order to justify their presence in Western Asia, with the goal of ruling it,” he said… (full article)

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Mother of Boston Bomber Breaks Silence: 'It was all fabricated by the CIA'

LiveLeak.com

April 16, 2015 - Members of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's family tell TIME they tried in vain to dismiss his defense lawyers.

Throughout the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 21-year-old who was convicted last week of bombing the Boston Marathon in 2013, his family resisted the urge to speak out publicly in his defense. Tsarnaev’s defense team had advised them not to grant interviews, they say, as it could risk his chances at trial. But when the jury issued its guilty verdict on April 8, convicting him on 17 counts that could each carry the death penalty, some of his relatives decided to go public with their outrage.On the evening of April 14, three members of the Tsarnaev family met at a cafĂ© in the city of Grozny, close to their ancestral home in southern Russia, and told a TIME reporter how the trial had torn their family apart, how helpless they felt against what they see as an American conspiracy against them and, above all, how they still hope to convince Tsarnaev to fire his legal team and seek to overturn the verdict on appeal.“It would be so much easier if he had actually committed these crimes,” says his aunt Maret Tsarnaeva. “Then we could swallow this pain and accept it.”

 But two years after the bombing that killed three people and wounded hundreds near the race’s finish line on April 15, 2013, they still refuse to admit Tsarnaev’s guilt. From their homes in Chechnya and Dagestan, two predominantly Muslim regions of Russia, some of his family members have tried to convince Tsarnaev to fire his court-appointed lawyer, Judy Clarke, who has taken a surprising approach to his defense.

 In one of her first arguments before the jury after entering a not-guilty plea, Clarke said that her client is indeed responsible for the “senseless, horrific, misguided acts.” But in committing these crimes, she argued that he was acting under the direction of his older brother Tamerlan, who was killed in a shootout with authorities soon after the bombing.

 This line of defense has outraged many of Tsarnaev’s relatives, who have tried to convince him to dismiss Clarke and ask for a lawyer who will argue his innocence. “Why do we even need defense attorneys if they just tell the jury he is guilty?” his aunt asks. “What’s the point?”

Like many observers of the case in Russia, the Tsarnaev family has claimed — without providing any meaningful evidence — that the bombing was part of a U.S. government conspiracy intended to test the American public’s reaction to a terrorist threat and the imposition of martial law in a U.S. city. “This was all fabricated by the American special services,” Said-Hussein Tsarnaev, the convicted bomber’s uncle, tells TIME. A panel of 12 jurors in Boston reached the verdict after weeks of testimony from some 90 witnesses and 11 hours of deliberations spread over two days.

Tsarnaev’s mother, Zubeidat, made similar claims of a conspiracy soon after his arrest, but she seems to have come around since then to the strategy that her son’s lawyers have taken at trial. As a result, the family appears to have suffered a rancorous split. While the brothers’ paternal relatives, who spoke to TIME on Wednesday, have demanded a new legal team, their mother has refused to call for Clarke’s dismissal. “The mother won’t let us do it,” says Hava Tsarnaeva, the brothers’ great-aunt in Chechnya. “She won’t listen to reason.”

Their only real means of pressuring her is through Tsarnaev’s father, Anzor, a native of Chechnya who now lives in neighboring Dagestan. But he seems to have taken his wife’s side on the quality of their son’s defense. “As frightening as it is to admit, Anzor has been his wife’s zombie all his life, from the first day they met,” says his sister Maret.

In their desperation to reach Tsarnaev during the trial, his paternal relatives have tried sending letters, arranging phone calls and even encouraging a friend to go to the Boston courtroom and cry out to Tsarnaev during a hearing. But all of these efforts failed to reach him, they say, let alone convince him to fire his lawyers.

Their focus now has turned to outside help, primarily from rights activists and international institutions, though these efforts also have little chance of success. On Wednesday, they met with a leading rights activist in Chechnya, Heda Saratova, in the hope of filing an appeal in the case to the European Court of Human Rights. Saratova informed them that the U.S. is not a party to the court’s founding treaty, and therefore does not accept its jurisdiction.

On hearing the news, Maret Tsarnaeva, the aunt, let out a laugh through her tears. “So I guess the U.S. has really proven its exceptionalism in this case,” she says, bitterly. “It’s a closed circle.” And it leaves his family no choice but to wait for April 21, when the sentencing phase of the trial will consider whether Tsarnaev should face the death penalty or spend the rest of his life in prison.