Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Top al Qaeda Operative, Luai Sakra, 'worked for the CIA'


Monday, August 15, 2005
Top al Qaeda operative, Sakra, 'worked for the CIA'.

Ercan Gun, at zaman.com 15 Agust 2005, reports on the
Syrian 'Al Qaeda Militant' Luai Sakra who was arrested
for organizing the double bomb attacks in Istanbul on
15-23 November 2003.
Sakra 'has confessed to Turkish police that he
provided the attackers of 9 11 with passports'.

Sakra 'claims that he knew Muhammad Ata'.

Sakra 'claims he drinks alcohol and does not pray'.

Sarka reportedly said: “I was one of the people who
knew the perpetrators of September 11, and knew the
time and plan before the attacks. I also participated
in the preparations for the attacks to WTI and
Pentagon. I provided money and passports.”

Reportedly, some of the passports, which Sakra claimed
to have provided himself, were found in the ruins of



Ercan Gun, on 15 August 2005 at zaman.com, wonders if
Al-Qaeda is a Secret Service operation?

Sakra has been interrogated for 4 days at the Istanbul
Anti-Terror Department Headquarters. Reportedly this
has provided some important information.

According to Ercan Gun, Turkish intelligence
specialists now believe:

1. Al-Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation.

2. Al Qaeda is linked to a strategy of tension.

Operation Gladio ; Turkey, terror bombs, the CIA and

3. Sakra, the fifth most senior man in al-Qaeda, was
offered employment by the CIA. The CIA gave him a
large sum of money.

The CIA claimed it eventually lost contact with him.

Reportedly, in 2000 the CIA asked the Turkish security
service MIT to capture Sakra. MIT caught Sakra in
Turkey and interrogated him.

At a different period of time, Sakra was sought and
caught by Syria's al-Mukhabarat. Syria too offered him
employment. Sakra eventually became a triple agent for
the secret services.


A ‘Strange’ Al Qaeda Leader: “I Don’t Pray, I Drink

Source:Sakra's Confession

ANKARA - Luai Sakra, one of the 5 most important key
figures in Al Qaeda, was captured last week by Turkish
Police. Israel police was almost spoiling all
operation, Turkish officials say. Sakra, who has been
interrogated in Istanbul Police Department Anti Terror
Office for 4 days has made many interesting
confessions. He noted that he knew Muhammad Ata,
planner of the attacks on the WTI and Pentagon. Sakra
claimed that he has organized terrorist activities for
Jihad but he said that he drinks alcohol and does not

* Al Qaeda Militant Luai Sakra, arrested for
organizing the double bomb attacks in Istanbul on
15-23 November, has claimed to have played a role in
the September 11 attacks to World Trade Center (WTI)
in New York.

* Sakra claimed that he helped the militants who
involved the 9/11 Attacks. Sarka said: “I provided
them passport and other things.”

* Sarka said: “I was one of the people who knew the
perpetrators of September 11, and knew the time and
plan before the attacks. I also participated in the
preparations for the attacks to WTI and Pentagon. I
provided money and passports.”
* Some of the passports, which Sakra claimed to have
provided himself, were strangely found in the ruins of


* Sakra: “I do not pray. I drink alcohol and like very
much drinking”

* Turkish police asked Sakra whether he like to pray
after the operation. But he rejected the offer and
said “I do not pray. I do not like praying”.

* “I do drink alcohol and I prefer like whisky and
wine” Sakra added.

* Remarkable anecdotes have emerged between Sakra and
the police during his interrogation. The Security
Directorate officials told Sakra that he might perform
his religious practices to have a better dialogue with
him and to gain his confidence. "I do not pray. I also
drink alcohol," Sakra told officials. Officials said
Adnan Ersoz and Harun Ilhan, who were detained for
connections to the Istanbul attacks, had perfomed
their religious practices. The police said such an
attitude at the top-level of al-Qaeda was confusing.
Security officials noted the al-Qaeda militant has
been undergoing psychological therapy and said the
following about Sakra: "He has an intellect of a
genius. He might develop plans according to momentary
situation. There were medicines on him for his illness
when he was arrested. He is still undergoing therapy
either for manic-depression or panic attacks. He has
no university degree but there are doctors and
engineers among his siblings. He says he is of

* Sakra also confessed that he knew the London attack
before the assaults happened.

* Sakra however claims that he knew nothing about the
Egypt bombings. Luai Sakra, who is said to be one of
the 5 most important members of Al Qaeda, said that he
had no connection with the attacks in Sharm Al Sheikh,
where 88 people were killed.

* Turkey on the other hand is not happy with the
Israeli terrorism warnings before the operation.
Turkish officials argue that Israel used the secret
intelligence Turkey provided to warn the public.
“However, it may had spoiled all the operation, and
all the militants might escape” one of the security
man said. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul also
said “what is Israel made is a shame”. Israel had
warned its citizens not to visit Turkey last week
because of the Al Qaeda risk.

* Sakra was detained after forged passports were
discovered in a flat. Turkish police continues the

* Confessions of Sakra, who was interrogated at the
Istanbul Anti-Terror Directorate, have not been turned
into an official statement. Sakra's conversations with
police were written down as an official report signed
by officials participating in his interrogation, but
Sakra is using his right of silence.

JTW with Zaman and Hurriyet
14 August 2005

Monday, March 13, 2006

On Fascism and the Dissociative Academic Rhetoric of Noam Chomsky

On Fascism and the Dissociative Academic Rhetoric of
Noam Chomsky,
by Alex Constantine

The Noams vs The Brussell Sprouts

Noam Chomsky's influence is pervasive - and somewhat
divisive, a garrulous wedge that has split
progressives into two adversarial camps. To see it
clearly, if you haven't already, pick up a copy of Z
Magazine, an organ that routinely features the wisdom
of Noam Chomsky and his fellow acaedmic-intellectual
commentators. We will hereafter refer to this crowd as
"The Noams." (Some may note that Z Magazine has
signally corrupt funding sources, but never mind that
now. It is the content of the magazine that concerns
us here.) The work of the other camp is represented by
Mae Brussell, the late anti-fascist researcher. (She
took no suspect financial aid, some will point out,
but never mind that now.) This camp we will call "The
Brussell Sprouts."

Now, The Noams have been beating up on The Sprouts,
discreditng and ridiculing and censoring them for
years. With deep disdain in his voice, Dr. Chomsky has
denounced The Sprouts as
short-sighted, naive conspiracy mongers. He will not
stoop to discussing the murder of John Fitzgerald
Kennedy because, he told a trusting sudience once,
"Kennedy wasn't important." Why not?

"He's just another dead president."

This sort of reasoning is carried to every issue
addressed by The Noams. Some topics are not worth
discussing, and domestic political murders are chief
among them.

And then there are the Nazis.

The Brussell Sprouts point to Otto von Bolschwing -
the powerful SS officer who settled in central
California after the war and connected up with Ronald
Reagan and Richard Nixon and a clique of right-wing
industrialists - a mover and shaker in ODDESSA, and
ask "WHY?" The Noams find discussion of Nazi
murderers taken aboard by the CIA and military a
distasteful subject, and ask, "WHO CARES?"

Tying this fascist underworld to the murder of John
Kennedy (and Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, et
al) is positively forbidden by The Noams. They will
sneer at you.

The Sprouts, who have been mugged by The Noams in the
unlit backalleys of the progressive media, believe
that political murders are not too trivial to discuss.
Perhaps, they reason, the assassination of John F.
Kennedy in broad daylinght, before a nation of
spectators, was not so insignificant after all. The
Sprouts have the temerity to disagree with the Noams.
The former camp suggests that this murder, and many
others, may even matter.

John Kennedy may be "just another dead president," but
his killers altered history. They are still with us.
They are in control of the "system" that Dr. Chomsky
inveighs against.

Was Martin King "just another dead n*gg*r?" Did the
"system" kill him? No. The government killed him -
does justice cry out for more from the dissociative
Left than "system" bashing and the belittlement of
documented "theories?"

Chomsky does not represent The Sprouts, who fear and
loathe him. Well, they don't really fear him ...

The Noam cult, as I say, sniffs at the naive work of
the Sprouts, and has written them off as "theorists."
The Noams are concerned with loftier issues than the
deaths of Kennedy and King. So lofty, in fact, that
the discussion is kept at the level of abstraction,
usually. What is bloodshed in Dallas when a Noam has
his diamond-like mind wrapped
around media memes and assumptions, imperialism in the
Middle East, Israel, and the proles' mistaken abstract
perceptions of world events...

There are distinct differences between the two camps,
who often talk past each other, when you get down to

The Sprouts flail at fascism, run down details, and
name names. The Noams wrinkle their noses at the word
"fascism," which is viewed as a pending threat, not a
serious domestic issue at present, and seldom is a
name ever actually named.

One side is facing reality, the other is dissociating,
running away ... but making a good show of it by
engaging in high-brow prattle that makes them feel
like intelligent people.

The Sprouts aren't so concerned with feeling
intelligent and making a good impression.

I am a Sprout. I once asked Chomsky to help me address
child abuse. He suggested that I am "trouble." Told me
to never write him again. So I dealt for three years
with organized child abuse. Along the way, I managed
to have a few pedophiles arrested, informed the public
of important cases, wrote a book, and even forced a
pedophile police chief in North Carolina to step down.

Chomsky went on to make humorous speeches about
imperialism and the propaganda of the New York Times.
He refused to talk about organized child abuse, as he
did the murder of John Kennedy, and for that there is
a circle in Hell with his name on it.

If agitating to stop child rape and abuse makes me
"trouble," then what is Noam Chomsky, who seems to me
of even less importance than "just another dead
president," and speaks in an effete twang that reveals
him to be pathologically stuffy.

What is an "Intellectual" if he is one of them? I
certainly don't want to be one. Sprouts will stick
with "smart people with the courage to face and resist

The Noams will, believe it or not, eventually slide
into the sink hole of history. They were creepy types
who placed their image before the cause of social
justice, and engaged in empty, high-toned whining when
there were serious issues to address directly, the
killing of John Kennedy and Martin King and organized
child abuse among them.

May The Sprouts thrive and prosper. We don't cringe
and censor and whine. We kick fascist ass like no one

Ian Masters' "Truth Package" - Censored by the CIA

KPFK Listener Forum


Ian Masters' "Truth Package" - Censored by the CIA

Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:06




Bob Baer, a "former" CIA case officer interviewed by

Ian Masters this morning, admits in the interview

below that his book - offered as a KPFK fund-raising

premium - was heavily censored by the CIA. Yet Masters

calls it a "truth" package. It's CIA from cover to

cover. Some "truth."


The trtipe coming from Pacifica these days is

unbearable to anyone who follows domestic fascism and

covert operations. I've noticed that callers to Ian's

show constantly accuse Masters of being compromised.

We're not all dupee, and some of know exactly what Ian

Masters is about - deceiving the listeners of KPFK

with complete arrogance because the management at KPFK

is more concerned with fund-raising than factual

reporting, and allows this farce to continue.


- AC





BUZZFLASH: Let me begin by asking you, just to

establish your background, you wrote a book called See

No Evil, in which you talked about your career with

the CIA. Can you explain a little bit more about what

your background and areas of responsibility were with

the CIA?

ROBERT BAER: I spent 21 years in the CIA as what’s

called a case officer. That means that I went overseas

and served overseas almost all the years I spent with

the CIA, meeting with what we call agents. Those are

foreigners who spy for the CIA. And you write up their

reports and send them back to Washington. So I was a

field officer, in short.

BUZZFLASH: In what area? You did serve in Iraq, if I

recall, in reading your book.

BAER: I served in Iraq for awhile. A couple times I

was there on a temporary basis. I was mostly in the

Middle East – Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Bosnia as well

as a couple of other countries.

BUZZFLASH: So you have extensive experience with the

Middle East.

BAER: Yes.

BUZZFLASH: As a gatherer of what is called "human


BAER: Yes.

BUZZFLASH: Now in reading through the book we’re going

to discuss, Sleeping With the Devil, I noticed there

are many thick black bars through it that I assumed

were censored by the CIA. Is that correct?

BAER: Yes. They get the manuscript in advance of


BUZZFLASH: So the CIA basically vets it and approves

it, minus whatever they feel is necessary to black out

or censor.

BAER: Yes, they don’t mess with the content. They just

say: Listen, this is our stuff. You can’t publish it.

BUZZFLASH: The book’s full title is Sleeping With the

Devil – How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude,

and you cover several administrations. The claims you

make here seem to apply, for the most part, whether

they’re Democrat or Republican. And you, of course,

focus on Saudi Arabia. What compelled you to write the


BAER: I’d always been fascinated by Saudi Arabia. And

I’d always noticed that on general intelligence

reports that are sent around in the field, and in

Washington, there’s virtually nothing said about Saudi

Arabia. Every Arab that I talked to – and I know a lot

of them – kept on talking about the disputes in the

royal family, huge contracts, the Wahhabi's funding

Lebanese politics. It became clear to me, even though

I wasn’t seeing much in the CIA traffic, or State

Department, or anywhere else, that this was a key


So when I got back to Washington in ’95 – and I stayed

there until I resigned from the CIA – I said, all

right, I don’t know a whole lot about Saudi Arabia.

What about Saudi Arabia? And I got onto the computer

and I took a look around, and there just wasn’t

anything useful. I mean, you, as a journalist, would

have looked at this and said: It’s junk. There’s

nothing here. And especially nothing that goes deep

into the problems in Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, I started running into these

assessments of the oil industry, and just how much

damage you could do to the processing facilities, not

the pipelines, if you were a terrorist and wanted to

bring the Saudis down. And then 9/11 came along, and

the 15 Saudis that caused it.