Part Two Synopsis: In the second part of this interview, James Corbett starts out mentioning a couple recent news reports to provide a starting point. First, he points out a story regarding the recent US Embassy bombing in Ankara, Turkey from the Times of Israel where they describe the bombers as leftist radicals who "didn't get the memo" that the Cold War ended. Sibel Edmonds responds to this by saying that whenever Turkish media or the Turkish government use the word "leftist", that's kind of a code word for Russia, who has been demonized specifically for their aid to Assad in Syria. She then directs the conversation to another recent event, the arrest of Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Suleyman Abu Ghaith. Reputed to be one of the top five al-Qaeda leaders and number two spokesperson, the rumor was that he had been located in Iran. But Edmonds reminds us that Iran has never had any relations with al-Qaeda. She refers to certain geographical areas that have activity, but not state sanction, they are kind of a "no-man's land" where al-Qaeda has operated, specifically Baluchistan. This region of Baluchistan has also been very important for the United States, like Xinjiang mentioned in Part One, we really don't hear to much in the media, but there is quite a lot of terror activity. But while rumors circulated for years about Abu Ghaith and Zawahiri being imprisoned in Iran, he officially resurfaced in February of this year with his arrest in Turkey, where he had been "hiding" in a penthouse suite of a 5 star hotel just blocks from the Presidential Palace. Supposedly notified about this development by the CIA, he was held and interrogated, but the Turkish police could find no evidence he had done anything to Turkey, so initially they refused to extradite him and the CIA was OK with this! At this point, Corbett interjects that this is the same CIA that has no problem kidnapping other terror suspects, flying them to other countries to be tortured, but not bin Laden's son-in-law!
Edmonds points out that this is similar to the pattern established with Yassin al-Qadi, associated with the Ptech scandal. Just after 9/11, he left the US and spent 6-8 months in Albania, then went to Turkey. The US asked for him to be extradited because he was on their terror blacklist connected with 9/11, but Turkey refused because they had no evidence he had done anything wrong to them. He currently resides in the UK and has cleared himself from terror blacklists there, as well as in Switzerland and the EU. Corbett points out how the US originally tried to prosecute him during the late 90's with the FBI investigation called Operation Vulgar Betrayal. Edmonds relates how both Robert Wright and John Vincent, FBI agents connected with this case, are now members of her organization National Security Whistle Blowers Coalition (NSWBC). She explains how the US government (CIA, State Department and White House) forced this investigation that Wright and Vincent were spearheading to shut down. In fact, as a direct result from this pressure, the FBI said the 9/11 Commission was not allowed to interview Wright! Vincent went directly to the 9/11 Commission to present their investigation that would have lead to 9/11.
This investigation had been centered in Chicago, which Edmonds points out she keeps mentioning Chicago because where Gladio B is concerned, a lot of the operational and logistics were done from Chicago. She describes it as the "easiest" city for money laundering. The United States actually has an office in the Pentagon for Gladio operations. It isn't called Gladio B, but it is a designated section in the Pentagon, the physical office also dealt with the previous Gladio operations. Starting a few days after 9/11 when she was hired by the FBI, Edmonds goes into the tasks she was assigned tracking terror suspects, meeting a quota of how many terror arrests they could publicize, yet Qadi was not detained prior to his departure in October 2001. But a lot of Qadi's operations spill over to white collar crime investigations in Chicago. Because Edmonds was asked by FBI agent Joel Roberts to translate documents pertaining to these investigations as well as crimes involving the Chicago network of Abdullah Çatlı, who was covered in Part One, she was in a unique position to connect the dots with the Operation Vulgar Betrayal investigation.
Getting back to Qadi's Albanian connection, Edmonds explains that the biggest focus of the Gladio B operatives from the early to late 90's was the Balkans. This includes not only Qadi and Çatlı's networks, but also the Fethullah Gulen network discussed in Part One. At this time, many Albanians coming into Chicago were some of the "most ferocious and strongest" mafia operators in the US. Even Italians wouldn't mess with these guys. The FBI set up major arrests that would consistently be thwarted because the State Department would tell them these guys had diplomatic immunity! Why did they do this? Time magazine's 2002 person of the year, FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley believes that it's because there were too many moles in the FBI, that the CIA had penetrated the FBI on behalf of the State Department. The CIA-State Department would "tip off informants" in cases known to the NSWBC of impending sting operations by the FBI. This was really the big underlying problem that Edmonds had to deal with during her employment as an FBI translator. It was not the bureaucratic nobody Mike Feghali that she mentions in her book, it was the CIA-State Department moles within the FBI.
After her termination from the FBI, Edmonds put the pieces of the puzzle together with her NSWBC organization. She knew the 9/11 Commission was "bull" because of all the facts that were intentionally omitted from their report. Time person of the year Colleen Rowley was not even going to be interviewed by the Commission. Rowley, Wright, Vincent; these were all agents 20+ years on the force. Edmonds then went to the media to protest this oversight. She was able to tell her story to the Commission through a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) so that no operatives identities would be compromised. All of these agents she mentioned, as well as Tony Shaffer of Operation Able Danger went on record saying there was a huge 9/11 cover-up! While this may seem like a clear case of Bush administration malfeasance to many, Edmonds clarifies that many of these investigations were stymied during the late 90's, which would implicate the Clinton administration as well.
It is this last point that Americans find especially hard to digest because we are conditioned to think along the lines of a black hat/white hat mentality. It's so much easier to be partisan rather than dig deeper to find the darker truth that intersects across party lines. The classic example is the story of Watergate and how it was covered by Bob Woodward and the Washington Post. That story seems pretty clear-cut, but if they really got Watergate, why didn't they get Iran/contra? Or did they really get Watergate? It seems from Sibel Edmonds perspective that when you really get the story, the way Gary Webb did with Iran/contra, you don't become a multi-millionaire entrenched in the system like Woodward, you get marginalized like Webb. Corbett concurs, noting that the Watergate burglary was purposely screwed up and Woodward had the story handed to him on a silver platter.
Corbett wraps up Part Two addressing some viewers questions. Were the Gladio B transition plans in existence before Susurluk? Edmonds says yes, pointing out how our relationship with the Mujahadeen started in the 1980's in Afghanistan. These religious relationships existed, but were on the periphery and not the focal point of Operation Gladio. They were operating through CIA and British intelligence, but it was not until after Susurluk that it became part of NATO and Gladio operations. Another question: how do we know Grossman and Dickerson being pulled from Turkey was connected with Susurluk? While so much is classified where proof is concerned, Edmonds was part of an FBI investigation directly focused on Grossman. While his high profile job was the #3 guy (at the time she investigated him at FBI) at the State Department, his real job was always with NATO/Gladio operations. Same thing with Dickerson: NATO got him out of US into Brussels. FBI Counter-Intelligence has established this; their file on Grey Wolves (Turkish paramilitary) was turned to Gladio B. That's why these operations had to be stopped by the State Department and Pentagon: it steps on their operations through NATO! The final question concerns Ergenekon trials in Turkey: are they a US backed operation to replace secular government with more compliant capitalists? Edmonds says yes, 100%, the Turkish military "can't even pee" without permission from the United States. It's that way everywhere, even Iran, why did the Shah fall? The US felt it was time, he was "fair game". (Edmonds hates the Shah BTW, he tortured her father!) So what is happening in Turkey is all with a US green light. Edmonds concludes Part Two by saying the worst, self-destructive element of the 9/11 Truth movement is this divisiveness over LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) vs. MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). She doesn't know how much is caused by planted elements or just naturally misguided viewpoints. But we must stop the semantics. You've got to get rid of the old conditioning, the black hat/white hat mentality, and do your own research!
Yassin al-Qadi, Ptech investor, al-Qaeda financier
Part Two Analysis: Lots of new characters and relationships revealed in this part! There's a lot that's familiar to me through my previous research, but some that I hadn't heard yet. Working backwards, I had not heard about Ergenekon, wouldn't even know how to spell it if not for the diligent research of Wombaticus Rex at Rigorous Intuition (RI) who provided this link detailing this part of Turkish history and how it relates to Operation Gladio. The RI forum discussion is worth following on this topic. My contribution so far has been finding out about the Grey Wolves referred to in the Q and A section of this interview. I thought it sounded familiar. Turns out this is the organization that Mehmet Ali Agca was part of. That's the guy who tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1981. Grey Wolves, according to this link on their history, were ideologically neo-fascist. This goes against the rumor at the time that Agca was working with Bulgarian Communists at the behest of the Soviet Union. Who was responsible for this phoney rumor? That would be Michael Ledeen, of P2, Iran/contra and Niger forgery infamy.
If I could ask Sibel Edmonds one question in regard to this part of the interview, I would ask what is the name the Pentagon gave their designated section she refers to as Gladio B? We know these "stay-behind" armies existed, page 7 of the link above states the State Department finally admitted the existence in 2006. Finding out what the official name is could help researchers like me immensely! I'm sure Sibel knows what it is, but I'm not sure if the States Secret gag order prevents her from disclosing the exact name on the grounds of "national security", of course.
There are two sections of this interview that I believe deserve deeper analysis: Ptech and Able Danger. I put a couple links into the synopsis on Yassin al-Qadi and Ptech. In addition to the investigation Edmonds refers to that Robert Wright and John Vincent were conducting for the FBI, there was a whistleblower who really helped shine the light on this scandal named Indira Singh. History Commons has neatly condensed the beginnings of her story:
In October 2001, Ptech insiders attempted to warn the FBI that suspected terrorist financier Yassin al-Qadi had funded Ptech (see Shortly After October 12, 2001). Then Indira Singh, an employee at JP Morgan Chase bank, develops her own suspicions about Ptech after her bank assigned her to investigate Ptech for a potential business deal. In May 2002, she speaks with the FBI about her concerns. Weeks later, she learns the FBI still has not told any other government agencies about the potential Ptech security threat. She later will recall, “the language, the kind of language law enforcement, counterterrorism, and the FBI agents themselves were using basically indicated to me that absolutely no investigation was going on, that it was totally at a standstill, at which point my hair stood on end.” She contacts a Boston CBS television station, WBZ-TV, and a reporter for the station named Joe Bergantino begins investigating Ptech. [Boston Globe, 12/7/2002; National Public Radio, 12/8/2002; WBZ 4 (Boston), 12/9/2002] Around the same time, a former government official with contacts in the Bush administration tells officials at the National Security Council about the Ptech allegations. By late August, Operation Greenquest then opens its own Ptech investigation. The FBI then tries “to muscle its way back into the probe once it [becomes] clear that [Greenquest is] taking the case seriously.” [Newsweek, 12/6/2002; WBZ 4 (Boston), 12/9/2002] Beginning in late November, US agents begin calling Ptech officials and asking them if they have ties to money laundering, thus tipping them off. Ptech will also be notified when a December raid will be occurring before it happens. [Associated Press, 1/3/2003] WBZ-TV prepared a story on Ptech, but withheld it from the public for more than three months after receiving “calls from federal law enforcement agencies, some at the highest levels.” The station claims the government launched its Ptech probe in August 2002, after they “got wind of our investigation” and “asked us to hold the story so they could come out and do their raid and look like they’re ahead of the game.” [Boston Globe, 12/7/2002; WBZ 4 (Boston), 12/9/2002]
Entity Tags: Operation Greenquest, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Ptech Inc., National Security Council, Indira Singh
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
How much damage could Ptech have potentially done? In an interview with From the Wilderness, Singh gives a pretty dark indication by answering a scary question:
FTW: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings, you mentioned - it's on page 139 of transcript - that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.
Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that.
FTW: And that relationship had been going on mediated by Ptech for 2 years prior to 9/11. You elsewhere say that the Secret Service is among the government entities that had a contract with Ptech. Mike Ruppert's thesis in Crossing the Rubicon, as you know, is that the software that was running information between FAA & NORAD was superseded by a parallel, subsuming, version of itself that was being run by the Secret Service on state of the art parallel equipment in the PEOC with a nucleus of Secret Service personnel around Cheney. In your view, might it have been the case that Cheney was using Ptech to surveil the function of the people in FAA & NORAD who wanted to do their jobs on 9/11, and then intervene to turn off the legitimate response?
Indira Singh: Is it possible from a software point of view? Absolutely it's possible. Did he (Cheney) have such a capability? I don't know. But that's the ideal risk scenario - to have an overarching view of what's going on in data. That's exactly what I wanted for JP Morgan. You know what's ironic about this - I wanted to take my operational risk blueprint which is for an operational event going wrong and I wanted to make it generic for extreme event risk to surveil across intelligence networks. What you're describing is something that I said, 'boy if we had this in place maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.' When I was going down to DARPA and getting these guys excited about creating an extreme event risk blueprint to do this, I'm thinking of doing exactly what you're saying Cheney might have already had!
As disturbing as the revelations of Ptech are, I think the information regarding Able Danger could be even more explosive in the context of what Edmonds is talking about regarding our "black hat/white hat" mentality. When I first found out about Able Danger in 2005, I wrote about it on Democratic Underground, quoting from a Daily Kos entry to buttress my point:
Able Danger is a Pandora's Box that will blow up in the RW's face.
This may very well be the case. But what if it isn't? Should that prevent a proper investigation from bringing all guilty parties, be they Democrat or Republican, to justice? Absolutely not. On this point, I am in complete agreement with Sibel Edmonds, as I wrote in my post on wedge issues in December. We need to move beyond the Cartesian Dualism of binary logic to understand that until we unlearn this conditioning, we're never going to pull the curtain away from these wizards, because we'll be too afraid to see that some of the faces on the other side will be ones we thought were wearing "white hats" the whole time. I think it's an appropriate time to quote Edward Murrow to understand where our real responsibility lies:
"We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular... We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom where ever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
Stop being Good Republicans. Stop being Good Democrats. Start being Good Americans.
"Good night, and good luck".
To be continued with Part Three!
The more I learn about these events, the more ridiculous the public discourse sounds. All talk about drones, embassy bombings, deficits and national debt become increasingly cartoonish. Politics is simply a varnish over the true global machinations, designed to distract and divide us while the real seats of power play out their chess game. A politician simply gives us a face and a name to champion or blame. If Mitt Romney had won office, would the drone program be progressing any differently? Would the Benghazi attack have been handled any differently? I don't think so. The only important things in politics are the things that both parties don't challenge, such as the Federal Reserve Bank, the war on drugs, and the dire need for whatever military engagement we happen to be prosecuting at any given moment. The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats are the wedge issues, which are essentially any social program or policy. Both parties are unable to articulate a challenge to the root causes of global problems because they are both funded and controlled by entities which profit from those root causes. So are the Reps and Dems the same? No, I don't think so. What I have come to believe is that the only fundamental difference between them is opposing philosophies as to how best to subdue and control the population. Republicans seem to feel that people will allow themselves to be squeezed into oblivion if they're simply kept poor and religious enough, where Democrats seem to feel that people need to be lulled into complacency by keeping them just well enough fed and housed that they don't form an angry mob. Neither party really cares about the Constitution or ordinary people but just like sports teams, they have hypnotized their followers into passionate loyalty. Taking the time to trace the events of Gladio helps to redirect public discourse to a focus on what banks and their shadow government agencies are doing. It does frighten me though, to watch movements such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street spring up in reaction to the perverse and corrupt back-room alliance between banks and government, only to see them morphed into anti-government versus pro-government polarities. The Tea Party wants lower taxes and guns, and Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of aimless hippies who want a government handout. Both are now irrelevant in the public mind, having been twisted and appropriated by the corporate media to be used as another black hat/white hat dichotomy - ALWAYS TO BE SPOKEN OF IN REFERENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT, NOT CORPORATIONS. Meanwhile, I hear only whispers about the HSBC conviction, the revolution in Iceland, and Elizabeth Warren's crusade against corrupt banking. I sincerely hope that these whispers amplify.
Damn, Abbie! When it comes to food for thought, you bring a full course dinner. What you say about public discourse reminds me of something George Carlin said, not in his stand-up, but in an interview: "The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins. And everyone else is marginalized and made to seem either to be communists, or some sort of a disloyal person; or 'kook' - there's a word - and now its 'conspiracy', see. They've made that something that should not be even entertained for a minute! That powerful people might get together and have a plan! 'Doesn't happen! You're a kook! You're a conspiracy buff'!"
I think the reason is simple: once you really begin to examine the roots of conspiracy, you are moving beyond wedge issues and challenging the root causes that keep the populace subdued. I don't think it's idle talk on your part to say they've "hypnotized" their followers, mind control has been on the government agenda since at least the 1940's; search Operation Paperclip, Bluebird, Artichoke and most famously, MK-ULTRA. Why do they do this? They FEAR us. They fear the rejection of the black hat/white hat dichotomy will one day reach the proverbial 100th monkey and then their day of reckoning will arrive.
What needs to happen for that day to occur? Change the way money works. You're absolutely right to single out the Federal Reserve, which many in the Tea Party protested against, and corporate personhood/media, which Occupy Wall Street protested against. You may be right that as movements, TP and OWS have become irrelevant in their current incarnations. My hope is that people who were inspired by the promise of those movements will, in their search for truth, learn to look beyond the conditioning of binary logic and find common cause with the "other side". I remember an article I read about Tea Party and Occupy protesters bonding as they stood outside the latest Bilderberg conference. That kind of alliance needs to find its 100th monkey, if there is to be any hope that "we the people" actually have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
It's astounding how convoluted the history of this is - I am amazed by your research and by your ability to synopsize so much material. Very intriguing!
Thanks Tanya! I'm just taking it one interview at a time, just amazed at how many relationships Edmonds has tracked on the map. Part Three is on the way!
So... insiders were into 9/11 in advance... no surprise about that.
So what to make of the events in NYC on 9/11? Did the plot involve blowing up the WTC or was that a consequence of planes slamming into the towers?
Were the hijackings the LIHOP or even MIHOP and did it involve the complete destruction of the WTC? Why was that necessary?
The continuing debate... is about CD or no CD... but could that be a diversion? The important thing would be to develop details about the insider knowledge and what they were up to. No?
SanderO, I've always felt the collapse of WTC7 is the giveaway that CD happened on 9/11. That's how I FEEL but I have no PROOF. But I've also felt that the absence of proof is indicative of the larger design to let it happen, give al-Qaeda the blame, and pretend al-Qaeda was never the Mujahadeen and never, EVER had any connection with the CIA or any part of our government black ops. That's because they got rid of the physical evidence, i.e. the WTC wreckage so fast! Where did they ship it? Follow the money and you'll see it goes back to the A.Q. Khan network, the same milieu within which Operation Gladio works its magic. I think I wrote a blog post on this years ago, I'll have to check my archives.
But bottom line, the MIHOP/LIHOP debate is a diversion, CD or not, we are confusing tactics with strategy, and the strategy through which 9/11 unfolded was a false-flag operation. That's the only label that really matters to me.
Post a Comment