Genesis, Part 31

We continue reviewing declassified State Department cables addressing the rise of the Taliban. This is a May 13, 1996, cable from the US Embassy in Moscow to the US Secretary of State's office, and addresses a discussion between Assistant Secretary of State Raphel and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Chernyshev. Abbreviations used in this cable include GOR for Government of Russia, and USG for United States Government.



This cable was extensively redacted for release.

SUBJECT: A/S RAPHEL CONSULTATIONS WITH DEPUTY FM CHENYSHEV

1. (U) CLASSIFIED BY JOHN ORDWAY, A/DCM. REASON: 1.5 (B) AND (D).

2. (C) SUMMARY. DURING A/S RAPHEL'S CONSULTATIONS ON AFGHANISTAN, RUSSIAN OFFICIALS DECLINED TO ENGAGE ON THE ISSUE OF RE-ENERGIZING THE UN MISSION, AND PARTICULARLY ON THE WIDESPREAD VIEW IN THE REGION THAT MISSION HEAD MESTIRI SHOULD BE REPLACED. THEY SHOWED VARYING DEGREES OF ENTHUSIASM FOR THE IDEA OF AN ARMS EMBARGO. THE RUSSIANS EXPRESSED A) GRATITUDE FOR U.S. EFFORTS TO FREE THEIR HOSTAGES IN KANDAHAR; B) HOPE FOR A QUICK RESUMPTION OF THE INTER-TAJIK TALKS; AND C) DETERMINATION TO PRESS INDIA TO SIGN THE CTBT. END SUMMARY.

3. (U) DEPUTY FM ALBERT CHENYSHEV HOSTED VISITING SA A/S ROBIN RAPHEL APRIL 30 FOR TALKS DEVOTED MOSTLY TO AFGHANISTAN. CHERNYSHEV WAS JOINED BY KONSTANTIN SHUVALOV, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE THIRD ASIA DEPARTMENT, AND VYACHESLAV TRUBNIKOV, DIRECTOR FO THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. EMBASSY MOSCOW POLMINCOUNS, COUNSELOR FOR REGIONAL AFFAIRS, POL/EXT CHIEF AND POLOFF (NOTETAKER) ACCOMPANIED THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

-----------------------------------
THE U.S. PERSPECTIVE ON AFGHANISTAN
-----------------------------------

4. (C) A/S RAPHEL BEGAN THE READOUT OF HER TRIP THROUGH PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN, AND CENTRAL ASIA BY OBSERVING THAT THERE IS A GROWING INTEREST IN WASHINGTON IN RESOLVING THE AFGHAN CONFLICT. IN ADDITION TO OUR TRADITIONAL CONCERNS -- RESTORING REGIONAL POLITICAL STABILITY, INTERDICTING NARCOTICS, AND RELIEVING HUMAN SUFFERING -- THE USG NOW HOPES THAT PEACE IN THE REGION WILL FACILITATE U.S. BUSINESS INTERESTS LIKE THE PROPOSED UNOCAL GAS PIPELINE FROM TURKMENISTAN THROUGH AFGHANISTAN TO PAKISTAN.

A proposed gas pipeline through Afghanistan -- this would have benefitted not just U.S. business interests, but Pakistan as well. This is in addition to Pakistani interests in opening up a trade route through Afghanistan to Central Asia; and, this trade route would have had U.S. support, as well, if for no other reason to help steer the economic benefit away from rival Iran.

5. (C) THE CURRENT SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN IS FLUID, CONTINUED RAPHEL, WITH A MILITARY STALEMATE ACCOMPANIED BY LIVELY CONTACTS AMONG THE FACTIONS. MOREOVER, SOME OF THE OUTSIDE PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN MANIPULATING THE FACTIONS (AND HAVE THEMSELVES BEEN MANIPULATED BY THE AFGHANS) ARE TIRING OF THE GAME. [redacted] EMPHASIZING THAT THE U.S DOES NOT BACK ANY FACTION, SHE HOPED THE RUSSIANS UNDERSTAND THAT RUMORS OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR THE TALIBAN WERE AN IRANIAN CANARD.

Were they?

Recall from Part 21 how we saw that Russia had "more than one Afghan policy." We then speculated how and why that might have also been the case for the United States.

Consequently, concerns that the US might have been supporting the Taliban may have been well-founded, even though A/S Raphel might not have had any knowledge of any Americans involved in supporting them.

Was this covert U.S. policy? Was this the activity of rogue elements in the U.S. government, allied with U.S. business interests?

In this context, it is interesting to consider some of what Sibel Edmonds saw, which dates back almost to the time under consideration in this message; from The Highjacking of a Nation, Part 2: The Auctioning of Former Statesmen & Dime a Dozen Generals by Sibel Edmonds, November 29, 2006:

The foreign influence, the lobbyists, the current highly positioned civil servants who are determined future 'wanna be' lobbyists, and the fat cats of the Military Industrial Complex, operate successfully under the radar, with unlimited reach and power, with no scrutiny, while selling your interests, benefiting from your tax money, and serving the highest bidders regardless of what or who they may be. This deep state seems to operate at all levels of our government; from the President's office to Congress, from the military quarters to the civil servants' offices.

Returning now to our May 13, 1996, cable:

6. (C) THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO TRACKS TO PURSUE IN WORKING TO RESOLVE THE AFGHAN CONFLICT, RAPHEL CONCLUDED: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL. ON THE INTERNAL SIDE, A RE-ENERGIZED UN MISSION NEEDS TO PUSH THE FACTIONS TO CUT A DEAL. [redacted] THIS SENTIMENT IS SO PERVASIVE THAT IT IS BECOMING DIFFICULT TO IGNORE.

7. (C) ON THE EXTERNAL SIDE, SAID RAPHEL, OUTSIDE POWERS MUST RECOGNIZE THAT A BROADLY-BASED AFGHAN GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT UNFRIENDLY TO THEIR INTERESTS WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE INCREASINGLY UNLIKELY OPTION OF HAVING THEIR FAVORED FACTION EMERGE COMPLETELY TRIUMPHANT. A LOGICAL MANIFESTATION OF THIS RECOGNITION, SHE ASSERTED, WOULD BE THE IMPOSITION OF AN ARMS EMBARGO ON ALL THE AFGHAN FACTIONS, AS UZBEKISTAN AND OTHERS ARE SEEKING. THE U.S., SHE CONCLUDED, WOULD BE ACTIVELY EXPLORING THIS IDEA IN THE COMING MONTHS.

And an Afghan government, with extensive support from Afghanistan's many Pashtuns and with extensive support from across the border in Pakistan, "not unfriendly" to U.S. interests, is what was being cooked up; and that government, the Taliban, was about to seize Kabul.

Continued in Part 32.

Financial Onslaught, Part 6

We continue from Part 5 reviewing an article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen. In this part, the article gets a little choppy, so I have had to do some formatting and editing for punctuation.

As I mentioned previously, please keep in mind as you read this that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See my sidebar for links for further information.

United Arab Emirates⁶⁴

Like every Muslim country, the UAE collects mandatory Islamic charity (zakat: the Third Pillar of Islam -- an annual wealth tax), of 2.5 percent to 20 percent from Muslim institutions and companies. Being non-Muslims, foreign banks and oil companies theoretically don't pay zakat. But foreign banks and oil companies do pay at least 20 percent of their profits in the form of a mandatory tax rather than zakat. In 2003, the UAE established an independent federal agency collecting zakat on government tax revenues from "companies listed on the Dubai Financial Market and Abu Dhabi Securities Market ... oil-producing companies and branches of foreign banks." In 2007 these revenues were estimated at $13.5 billion.⁶⁵

Although presenting itself to the West as a moderate ally, the UAE has consistently supported the peaceful and violent advancement of shari'a and terrorism worldwide. In 2006, to support suicide bombing, the UAE gave $100 million to the Palestinian Authority to build a new town named Sheikh Khalifa City, in honor of the UAE president. The city houses families of "shahids and prisoners" and was built on the ruins of Morag, one of the evacuated Israeli settlements in Gaza.⁶⁶

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for [its] "unstinting support." The statement said: "We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support ... that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation."

The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had ... never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF .... The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies."⁶⁷

Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (CSS),⁶⁸ Hamas charitable societies are known as integral parts of the Hamas infrastructure, and are outlawed by the United States and Israel.

As we consider the support terrorism -- so much of which is linked to the Religion of Peace -- gets from "charities", it is worth keeping in mind Sibel Edmonds' quotes.

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: You know how they always talk about these Islamic charities funding the terrorists, right?

CD: Yes...

SE: Well, and this is not a firm statistic, just a sort of ratio... but these charities are responsible for maybe 10 or 20 percent of al-Qaeda's fundraising. So where is the other 80 or 90 percent coming from? People, it's not so difficult!

From An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Two by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004:

CD: [snip] At several points you state that such organized crime networks employ "semi-legitimate organizations" as their point of interface with governments and the "legit" world. Can you explain exactly what you mean?

SE: These are organizations that might have a legitimate front -- say as a business, or a cultural center or something. And we've also heard a lot about Islamic charities as fronts for terrorist organizations, but the range is much broader and even, simpler.

CD: For example?

SE: You might have an organization supposed to be promoting the cultural affairs of a certain country within another country. Hypothetically, say, an Uzbek folklore society based in Germany. The stated purpose would be to hold folklore-related activities -- and they might even do that -- but the real activities taking place behind the scenes are criminal.

CD: Such as?

SE: Everything -- from drugs to money laundering to arms sales. And yes, there are certain convergences with all these activities and international terrorism.

CD: So with these organizations we're talking about a lot of money --

SE: Huge, just massive. They don't deal with 1 million or 5 million dollars, but with hundreds of millions.

Returning to Ehrenfeld and Lappen:

Hamas also included a special tribute, promising to "never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan [al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi],"⁶⁹ the current UAE president's father. The multibillionaire was an early PLO patron and, from the 1970s until his 2004 death, contributed millions of dollars to the PLO's terror agenda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.⁷⁰

Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan was the first Arab ruler to understand the strategic importance of economic jihad⁷¹ against the West. He was first to use oil as a political weapon after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.⁷² He was also the major sponsor of the first international Islamic bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). The bank was created to serve as "the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."⁷³ BCCI, which was shut down in July 1991 by New York City district attorney Robert Morgenthau,⁷⁴ funded and otherwise facilitated terrorist organizations and states, including the Sandinistas, Hezbollah, abu Nidal, the PLO, al Qaeda, Syria, Libya, Iran's Islamic revolution -- as well as Pakistan's nuclear program, to create the "Islamic Bomb."⁷⁵

BCCI is a scandal worth looking into. It was deeply linked to narcotics trafficking, organized crime, and covert activities of the West, as well as the funding of terrorism. In fact, it was a classic example of the kinds of things Sibel Edmonds later came across.

Immediately before the 1991 Gulf War, Sheikh Zayed branded the United States the Muslims' "number two enemy" after Israel. As of this writing, the UAE votes against the United States 70 percent of the time in the UN.⁷⁶

It is interesting how we were maneuvered into battling Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Even in 1990-1, the winds of war were fanned by lies and propaganda.

Many of our "allies" in the Persian Gulf have continuously called for jihad against Israel and the United States. Short of abandoning Israel and siding with terrorists, there is no policy the United States can have for the Middle East that will not be deemed a justification for terrorism, and even should the United States go that far, the reprieve -- if there were one -- would be short-lived, lasting only until Israel were destroyed and the jihadists could focus their attention more exclusively on America.

Consequently, the whole exercise of siding with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries against Hussein's Iraq was to some extent like siding with Stalin's Russia against Hitler's Germany; we would perhaps be foolish to even delude ourselves into thinking that we have chosen the lesser of two evils.

Human Appeal International (HAI), a UAE government-run "charitable" organization, whose board includes the UAE president,⁷⁷ continues to fund Hamas and other Palestinian organizations, "martyrs," and Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI modus operandi includes transferring funds to the Palestinian Red Crescent, whose West Bank and Gaza branches Hamas runs. Hamas, in turn, distributes the money to Hamas "charities." The Toronto, Canada, Orient Research Center reports that the UAE compensation plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shahid, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, and $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, the families of terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000. Also in 2001, the UAE held two telethons to support the "martyrs'" families. One entitled "We Are All Palestinians" raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and another called "For Your Sake Palestine" raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.

My denunciation of the terrorists should not be construed as to imply blanket endorsement of Israeli operations to destroy the homes of families of terrorists and suicide bombers. I think it is, in principle, wrong to hold a family responsible for the actions of one of its members, just because the people are family members. If it can be shown that those family members actually helped perpetrate the terrorist act, then that of course begins to be a far different matter.

On 15 February 2005, the Hamas Web site reported on funds transferred from HAI to two West Bank Hamas front organizations, IQRA and Rifdah, outlawed in Israel.⁷⁸ On 22 March 2005, the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to Hamas "charities" for 3,158 terrorists' orphans.⁷⁹

A detailed 25 March 2005 report, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, noted that the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank "charitable" organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarem to distribute to families of "martyrs," orphans, imprisoned Palestinians, and others.

And in July 2005, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Gaza's Khan Younis was arrested while returning from the UAE⁸⁰ for often transferring as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza branch of Hamas.

As long as there is this support network for terrorism, the terrorism will continue: in an environment where there is no hope, and where "religious" institutions fan the flames of hatred and promise virgins in heaven for sexually-frustrated males (in a society wherein wealthy males have up to four wives, and others do without), getting to Allah by means of a suicide attack on innocent civilians becomes a viable option for helping one's family and getting one's frustrations out -- the perfect storm.

Out of Context, Part 8

We continue from Part 7, reviewing a September, 2004, interview entitled The Third Terrorist, where FrontPageMag.com talks with journalist and author Jayna Davis about the Middle Eastern connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

FP: Why has this story been untold up till now? Why did the FBI not pursue the Islamic/Iraqi connection?

Davis: The answer has haunted and mystified me for nearly a decade. I am a journalist who prefers to connect the dots with facts. However, in order to address your query, I must offer conjecture and leave it to your readers to decide the motivations behind the FBI's failure and/or refusal to investigate the dossier of evidence I have compiled exposing Middle Eastern complicity behind the brutal slaughter of 171 Americans, including women and children.

One possibility to which I attribute little plausibility is that this information innocently slipped through the cracks of a massive federal investigation due to gross incompetence. However, I cannot explain why the FBI flatly refused to take receipt of this information in 1997 when I offered twenty-two witness statements and hundreds of pages of corroborative documentation implicating Iraqi nationals in the Murrah Building bombing.

Officials with the Justice Department informed my lawyer, Tim McCoy, and later confirmed to Bill O'Reilly of Fox News that prosecutors "did not want any more documents for discovery" that they would be compelled by law to surrender to the defense teams for McVeigh and Nichols.

Well, I am going to have to stick up for convicted mass-murdering terrorists here.

Whoever they are, whatever they did, whatever they were accused of, they deserve fair and impartial treatment by the judicial system. Perhaps more than anyone else, federal law enforcement authorities have the responsibility of protecting the civil rights of accused criminals.

In this case, by discouraging more documents for discovery, federal law enforcement authorities not only denied a degree of justice to McVeigh and Nichols, but they also denied full justice to the families of the victims by leaving the crime less than fully investigated, and thus by possibly letting some of the conspirators go free -- and this endangers society, as these free conspirators might strike again.

Perhaps they already have struck again.

In 1999, I returned to the Bureau, and a very courageous FBI agent, Dan Vogel, took custody of the twenty-two witness affidavits. In compliance with official protocol, Agent Vogel passed the evidence up the chain of command to be reviewed by the legal department at the Oklahoma City FBI field office.

From there, the documents inexplicably vanished. The evidence was ultimately withheld from the defense teams for McVeigh and Nichols. More egregious was the undisputed fact that the FBI made no attempt to prove or disprove the veracity of the witnesses' testimonies. None was called. None was questioned.

To this day, the Justice Department has refused my requests to officially clear the man identified by witnesses as the mysterious third terrorist who delivered the weapon of mass destruction to the intersection of 5th and Harvey Streets on that dreadful spring morning. Yet the Bureau did not hesitate to exonerate several innocent men who were named in the media as having been collared and questioned simply because they bore a slight resemblance to the sketch of John Doe 2.

My meticulous research into the Iraqi soldier's whereabouts for the morning of April 19 roundly discredits his publicly espoused alibi. Why the FBI has never questioned Hussain Al-Hussaini or his Middle Eastern cohorts, I am at a loss to explain. That question should be posed to the former administration and the handful of officials who were charged with investigating and prosecuting the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

The survivors and slain of April 19 deserve justice and our country deserves the truth. Was Oklahoma City the silver bullet that could have prevented 9-11?

To be clear about this, had federal authorities competently handled the Oklahoma City bombing, they might have brought to justice some of the people who later were involved in orchestrating 9/11.

FP: So how will justice be achieved? Howe will the rest of the perpetrators be punished?

Davis: I leave the outcome and pursuit of justice to the American people. If my readers believe that I have presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for foreign complicity in the Oklahoma City bombing, then I implore concerned citizens to start a grass roots campaign to demand the arrest, interrogation, and criminal prosecution of the Iraqi suspects identified in my book.

After all, if the man whom multiple eyewitnesses positively pegged as the third terrorist had foreknowledge of the 9-11 plot, then what do he and his Iraqi cohorts know about the next strike Al-Qaeda is planning to execute within our borders? American lives hang in the balance. We cannot afford to speculate that these men will not be re-activated to construct more truck bombs like the one that levelled a nine-story building in 1995.

FP: Jayna Davis, thank you. It was a pleasure to speak with you.

Davis: Thank you Jamie.

Back to FrontPageMag.com's first question in this segment: "Why has this story been untold up till now? Why did the FBI not pursue the Islamic/Iraqi connection?"

As I commented previously, who knows why President Clinton might have swept that connection under the rug, but certainly this would have been a much meatier reason for Bush to go to war with Iraq, rather than the questionable stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and so on. Why didn't Bush pursue this?

Sibel Edmonds has made several comments in the context of her case, but let me take some of those comments out of context to shed some possible light on the Oklahoma City bombing.

From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points -- and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they're even prevented from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department of State just comes in and says, "Leave it."

You know, it's funny, after 9/11, the common criticism was that there was "no information-sharing" between the FBI, CIA, and the like, and this is why the terrorists pulled it off -- as if we didn't want to cooperate. No information-sharing? That's the biggest BS I ever heard!

From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SH: And as you pointed [out], some of this information has been confirmed in the public. I know when you speak about the Iranian informant...

SE: Correct.

SH: ...who warned in April of 2001 -- that was even confirmed by Mueller, the director of the FBI.

SE: Absolutely there was actually an article in the Chicago Tribune in July 2004 saying that even Mueller expressed surprise that during the hearings, the commissioners didn't ask about this. And guess what, nobody reported all these omissions. What would happen if you hit them with 20 cases? And I'm talking about 20 affidavits from experts and veteran agents.

SH: This is all about the question of prior knowledge and who knew what, when before the attack.

SE: And also what happened afterward. I started working three days after Sept. 11 with a lot of documents and wiretaps that I was translating. Some of them dated back to 1997, 1998. Even after Sept. 11, covering up these investigations and not pursuing some of these investigations because the Department of State says, "You know what, you can't pursue this because that may deal with this particular country. If this country that the investigation deals with are not one of the Axis of Evil, we don't want to pursue them." The American people have the right to know this. They are giving this grand illusion that there are some investigations, but there are none. You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda. Well, if you were to talk about the financing of al-Qaeda, a very small percentage comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today, three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it getting here? Who are getting the proceedings from those big narcotics?

Perhaps the connections that Jayna Davis made didn't stop with Iraq.

Perhaps the connections led to other countries, as well....

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

CD: Can you elaborate here on what countries you mean?

SE: It's interesting, in one of my interviews, they say "Turkish countries," but I believe they meant Turkic countries – that is, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and all the 'Stans, including Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and [non-Turkic countries like] Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these countries play a big part in the sort of things I have been talking about.

CD: What, you mean drug-smuggling?

SE: Among other things. Yes, that is a major part of it. It's amazing that in this whole "war on terror" thing, no one ever talks about these issues. No one asks questions about these countries – questions like, "OK, how much of their GDP depends on drugs?"

CD: But of course, you're not implying...

SE: And then to compare that little survey with what countries we've been putting military bases in --

Perhaps those in power know that the people named in Davis' book are connected to others, who in turn have connections that lead back to Washington?

From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: And there were four major FBI investigations, not counting yours, that were squelched in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York.

SE: Correct.

JH: And yours was even outside of that.

SE: Correct.

JH: So, obviously, we have mid-level FBI people who have been told something. It was the mid-level FBI people who knew enough to squelch many of these investigations before they went further. So how did they know to do that? Can all of them have been incompetent?

SE: No. Absolutely not.

JH: So they got the word down from Mueller, probably.

SE: I cannot confirm that for sure, but I can tell you that there is so much involvement, that if they did let this information out, and if they were to hold real investigations--I'm not talking about this semi-investigation they're holding under this "Joint Inquiry"--the pure show of the 9/11 Commission that has been getting the mass media's attention. If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country.

This post concludes this series, but this post does not conclude our look at the OKBOMB!

Genesis, Part 30

We continue from Part 29 reviewing an April 22, 1996, cable from the US Embassy in Islamabad to the US Secretary of State's office, which addresses a discussion between Assistant Secretary of State Raphel and Pakistani officials about Afghanistan policy. Again, the acronym GOP here means Government of Pakistan, while GOR means Government of Russia.

KABUL GOVERNMENT: SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS MASKS DEEP INSECURITY
-----------------------------------------------------------

7. (C) THE KABUL GOVERNMENT'S DIALOGUE WITH A/S RAPHEL EMPHASIZED RABBANI AND MASOOD'S PERCEPTION OF THEMSELVES AS THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN. THEY BLAMED PAKISTAN AND THE TALIBAN FOR ALMOST ALL OF THEIR PROBLEMS, WITH LAFRAIE AND MASOOD GOING SO FAR AS TO ALLEGE THAT "PAKISTAN IS AS MUCH TO BLAME FOR THE DESTRUCTION IN AFGHANISTAN AS THE SOVIETS;" A PERCEPTION WITH WHICH A/S RAPHEL STRONGLY TOOK ISSUE. A PRE-OCCUPATION WITH FIXING THE BLAME (ON THE TALIBAN AND PAKISTAN), RATHER THAN FIXING THE PROBLEM OF AFGHANISTAN, WAS A RECURRING THEME IN DISCUSSIONS WITH LAFRAIE, MASOOD AND RABBANI. LAFRAIE, IN PARTICULAR, TOOK A HARD-LINE, SUGGESTING THAT IT WAS FOR THOSE OPPOSED TO THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE PEACE OVERTURES; MASOOD OBSERVED THAT "WE ARE READY TO TALK TO ANYBODY AND HAVE SAID WE ARE PREPARED TO TRANSFER POWER, THAT IS ALL WE NEED TO DO."

That allegation about the extent of Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan is actually not too far off the mark. From the beginning of the jihad, some elements in Pakistan wanted to spread Islamic revolution throughout Central Asia, just as the Soviets had been determined that Communism, if it could not be spread, would at least not retreat.

8. (C) SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS WAS THE FIRST REACTION OF ALL OF THE KABUL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. LAFRAIE SAID AN ARMS EMBARGO WAS A GOOD IDEA, BUT INSISTED THAT "THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGITIMATE RIGHT" TO IMPORT WEAPONS SHOULD NOT BE AT ISSUE; RABBANI INDICATED THAT HE WOULD NOT LET AFGHANISTAN BECOME "ANOTHER BOSNIA." RABBANI SAID A TRANS-AFGHAN PIPELINE WAS A GOOD IDEA, AS LONG AS IT BENEFITTED AND STRENGTHENED THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN ANY OTHER GROUP. WHEN ASKED HYPOTHETICALLY IF HE WOULD BE WILLING TO ATTEND AN ALL-PARTY PEACE CONFERENCE IN JALALABAD IF THE PRECONDITION FOR UNIVERSAL PARTICIPATION WAS THAT RABBANI NOT GO AS PRESIDENT BUT AS LEADER OF JAMIAT, HE RESPONDED BY NOTING THAT SUCH A CONDITION WOULD BRING INTO QUESTION THE SINCERITY OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS AND WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTEREST OF PEACE. SIMILARLY, WHEN ASKED WHAT CONCESSIONS COULD BE MADE TO THE TALIBAN AND DOSTAM FOR THEIR FUTURE ROLE IN AFGHAN SOCIETY, MASOOD SAID BOTH COULD FORM POLITICAL PARTIES TO CONTEST OPEN ELECTIONS AGAINST "THE GOVERNMENT." AS FOR A NEUTRAL SECURITY FORCE OR A NATIONAL ARMY, MASOOD ALLOWED THAT OTHER GROUPS WOULD BE WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH A FORCE, BUT WARNED THAT "THE GOVERNMENT" WOULD NOT TOLERATE "ILLEGITIMATE FACTIONS" RULING THEIR AREAS BY FORCE OF ARMS.

Of course, "'illegitimate factions' ruling their areas by force of arms" was the problem that prompted the rise of the Taliban to begin with.

9. (C) YET IF THE KABUL GOVERNMENT'S INITIAL IMPULSE ON ALMOST ALL QUESTIONS WAS TO STAND ON ITS (HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE) SOVEREIGNTY AND LEGITIMACY, CONCERTED PROBING REVEALED BOTH DEEP INSECURITY AND A WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER A WIDER RANGE OF OPTIONS. INSECURITY WAS CLEAR IN MASOOD AND RABBANI'S STRONG CRITICISM OF DOSTAM'S VISIT TO THE U.S., WHICH THEY SAID "GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT WRONG-DOERS WOULD BE REWARDED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOR THEIR INCORRECT ACTIONS." BUT ON A MORE POSITIVE NOTE, RABBANI (AFTER A LENGTHY DIATRIBE AGAINST THE EVILS PERPETRATED AGAINST KABUL BY ISLAMABAD) AGREED ULTIMATELY TO SEND A DELEGATION TO PAKISTAN IF THE GOP FIRST ISSUED A FORMAL INVITATION. SIMILARLY, RABBANI AND MASOOD SAID THEY WANTED TO TALK TO THE TALIBAN AND WOULD BE WILLING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF A TRANSFER OF POWER IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INTER-AFGHAN DIALOGUE. AFGHANISTAN NEEDE A STRONGER U.N. MISSION AND ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO HELP BUILD TOWARDS A TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT WHICH WOULD DRAFT A CONSTITUTIN AND THEN HOLD ELECTIONS, RABBANI STATED. MASOOD OUTLINED A VISION FOR A BOTTOM-UP DEMOCRACY IN WHICH LOCAL, DISTRICT AND PROVINCIAL SHURAS WOULD CREATE THE STRUCTURE FOR A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

Of course, "wrong-doers" will "be rewarded by the international community for their incorrect actions" -- and we have demonstrated that in Bosnia and especially in Kosovo.

10. (C) MISSING FROM THE KABUL GOVERNMENT'S APPROACH WAS A SENSE OF HOW TO GET FROM THE CURRENT STALEMATE TO THE ROSY, DEMOCRATIC FUTURE BOTH RABBANI AND MASOOD ENVISIONED. MASOOD SAID HE THOUGHT A JALALABAD CONFERENCE PROBABLY WOULD BE USEFUL ONLY IN GIVING THE "MINOR FACTIONS" OF GAILANI, MOJADDEDI, NABI MOHAMMEDI AND KHALIS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN-ON WITH THE GOVERNMENT. KABUL-SCC DISCUSSIONS WERE SEPARATE FROM THE JALALABAD MOOT, MASOOD NOTED, AND THE DIFFICULTY FACING PROGRESS WITH THE TALIBAN AND DOSTAM WAS THEIR "ARROGANCE AND PURSUIT OF THEIR OWN INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF AFGHANISTAN." IT WAS THE LATTER FACTOR, MASOOD ADDED, WHICH MADE THE KABUL GOVERNMENT RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT THE IDEA OF FEDERALISM, WHICH WOULD ONLY DIVIDE -- OR OBLITERATE -- THE NATION OF AFGHANISTAN.

Actually, some form of federalism is likely the only thing that can keep Afghanistan (and, ultimately, Pakistan) together -- the only thing, that is, short of totalitarianism with a healthy dose of genocide.

11. (C) ON BILATERAL CONCERNS, THE KABUL GOVERNMENT WAS WILLING TO BE COOPERATIVE. ALTHOUGH DESIROUS OF U.S. SUPPORT, BOTH POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC, RABBANI AND MASOOD ACCEPTED THAT THE U.S. WAS A NEUTRAL PLAYER; ALTHOUGH BOTH THOUGHT WASHINGTON SHOULD LEAN MORE ON PAKISTAN TO STOP ITS AID TO THE TALIBAN. RABBANI AGREED TO COOPERATE ON COUNTER-NARCOTICS ISSUES, AND WHILE DENYING KABUL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN TERRORISM, DID ADMIT THAT "AREAS OUTSIDE THE CONTROL" OF THE KABUL AUTHORITIES MAY BE BEING USED BY TERRORIST ELEMENTS. SAYYAF MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN THE PAST, RABBANI STATED, BUT NO LONGER HAD THE FUNDS TO SUPPORT SUCH ACTIVITIES.

THE TALIBAN: IMAGE CONSCIOUS BUT RELUCTANT TO CHANGE
-----------------------------------------------------

12. (C) TALIBAN LEADERS ASKED A/S RAPHEL TO HELP IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. THEY DENIED BEING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS AND CLAIMED TO HAVE OPENED MANY MORE SCHOOLS IN THE AREA UNDER THEIR CONTROL THAN HAD EXISTED PREVIOUSLY. DIFFERENCES OF CULTURE LAY AT THE HEART OF MUCH OF THE MISUNDERSTANDING, THEY ALLEGED; "IN FRANCE YOU CANNOT WEAR THE VEIL, BY LAW, AND HERE WOMEN HAVE TO, BY LAW" MAULAVI MOTAQI COMMENTED. THE TALIBAN CLAIMED IRAN AND RUSSIA ACCUSED THEM OF BEING TERRORISTS. ON THE CONTRARY, THEY NOTED, THE TALIBAN HAD WITHIN TWO YEARS BROUGHT PEACE AND SECURITY TO HALF OF AFGHANISTAN; SOON THE WHOLE COUNTRY WOULD BE SAFE AND AT PEACE, GOD WILLING.

13. (C) CONTRADICTIONS ABOUNDED IN THE TALIBAN DISCOURSE. RABBANI WAS A LIAR WHO ATTACKED WHEN HE PROMISED TO TALK, THEY SAID -- BUT THE TALIBAN ENCOURAGED THE U.N. MISSION TO CONTINUED ITS EFFORTS TO DEVELOP AN ACCEPTABLE PEACE PLAN TO WHICH "EVERYONE SHOULD AGREE. IF THE U.N. FAILS, THEN WE HAVE FAILED," MOTAQI INTONED. THE TALIBAN CLAIMED TO DESIRE PEACE, BUT DID NOT RULE OUT FIGHTING IF THAT WAS WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO DISARM TO THE KABUL REGIME. WHEN A/S RAPHEL MADE A FULL-COURT PRESS FOR THE RELEASE OF THE DETAINED RUSSIAN AIRCREW, EVEN OFFERING TO FLY THEM OUT VIA DAO C-12 ON THE SPOT AND NOTING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S LETTER REPLYING TO THE MISSIVE SENT BY THE WIVES OF THE CREW, MOTAQI RAILED AGAINST RUSSIAN AND IRANIAN INTERFERENCE AND DEMANDED TO KNOW WHY THE U.S. HAD NOT CONDEMNED AND/OR STOPPED THIS FOREIGN INTERVENTION. HOLDING THE RUSSIAN AIRCREW WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE INTENSE ENMITY OF THE AFGHAN PEOPLE AGAINST RUSSIA AND AS PROOF OF MOSCOW'S INTERFERENCE, THE TALIBAN SAID. YET LATER IN THE CONVERSATION, WHEN A/S RAPHEL EXPLAINED THAT THE U.S. VIEW THAT THE TALIBAN'S ACTIONS TOWARDS THE PRISONERS WERE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE AND REPREHENSIBLE, MOTAQI SAID THE TALIBAN TREATED THE RUSSIAN AIRCREW AS WELL CARED FOR GUESTS, BUT THEY COULD NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE MISSING 60,000 AFGHANS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND/OR THEIR FAMILIES ACROSS AFGHANISTAN HAD BEEN CONSULTED. (A/S RAPHEL MET WITH THE CREW FOR 15 MINUTES IN THE KANDAHAR GOVERNOR'S COMPOUND AND EXPRESSED TO THEM U.S. CONCERN AND EFFORTS TO SECURE THEIR RELEASE; THEY SEEMED GENERALLY HEALTHY AND WERE APPRECIATIVE OF USG EFFORTS ON THEIR BEHALF. PICTURES OF THE AIRCREW (WHOM THE TALIBAN HAD NOT ALLOWED TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED SINCE NOVEMBER, 1995) WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE GOR FOR DELIVERY TO FAMILY MEMBERS.)

14. (C) THE TALIBAN HAD FEW IDEAS TO PUT FORWARD ON WHAT THE FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN SHOULD BE, OR HOW IT COULD BE ACHIEVED. MOTAQI SAID THE SHAPE OF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE "DETERMINED BY THE PEOPLE" ONCE THE NATION WAS DISARMED AND PEACE RESTORED. MOTAQI DID EMBRACE THE IDEA OF AN ARMS EMBARGO, HOWEVER, SAYING THAT THE TALIBAN SUPPORTED THIS PROPOSAL AND INVITED THE U.S TO JUDGE FOR ITSELF THE EVIDENCE ON WHO RECEIVED MORE OUTSIDE HELP: THE TALIBAN OR KABUL. WHEN PRESSED TO ENGAGE IN MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS, MOTAQI REPLIED SIMPLY THAT "WE ARE STUDENTS; WE WILL TAKE YOUR ADVICE TO OUR SHURA AND TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT." HOWEVER, WHILE THE BASIC TALIBAN MESSAGE WAS NAIVE, SIMPLISTIC AND RIGID, THEIR CONCERN ABOUT THEIR IMAGE AND REQUEST THAT A/S RAPHEL "TELL PRESIDENT CLINTON AND THE WEST THAT WE ARE NOT BAD PEOPLE" DEMONSTRATED A GROWING AWARENESS, PREVIOUSLY ABSENT, OF THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS -- WHICH MAY BE THE MODALITY THROUGH WHICH THEY CAN BE COAXED, OVER TIME, TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE.

I just don't see these guys holding fair elections; besides which, power that is achieved via elections and not via the force of arms by Allah's hand is illegitimate to many of the extremists: "determined by the people" indeed!

COMMENT: FLEXIBILITY OF FIGHTING?
----------------------------------

15. (C) A/S RAPHEL'S DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE AGAINST THE BACK-DROP OF GENERAL EXPECTATIONS THAT HEAVY FIGHTING BETWEEN THE KABUL REGIME AND THE TALIBAN WILL BE AN INEVITABLITY THIS SUMMER. YET ALL SIDES GENUINELY APPEAR TO DESIRE A WAY OUT -- AT LEAST IN PART BECAUSE NONE CAN BE CONFIDENT THAT THE FIGHTING WILL GO THEIR WAY. THAT INSECURITY HAS CREATED RENEWED OPPORTUNITIES FOR A REINVIGORATED U.N. MISSION TO MOVE FORWARD -- PARTICULARLY NOW THAT PAKISTAN APPEARS WILLING TO ENGAGE MORE POSITIVELY. AN ARMS EMBARGO (PERHAPS TO BE DISCUSSED VIA AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE), PLUS SUPPORT FOR AN ALL-PARTY AFGHAN CONFERENCE, COULD BE USEFUL TOOLS TO BREAK PAST THE KNEE-JERK, RIGID POSITIONS OF THE AFGHAN FACTIONS AND TO START COALESCING SUPPORT FOR A RESOLUTION TO THE CRISIS THERE. THE BOTTOM-LINE IS THAT THERE STILL APPEARS TO BE REASON FOR A LIMITED OPTIMISM THAT, PROPERLY MANAGED, THERE MAY NOW BE OPPORTUNITIES TO MOVE THE PEACE PROCESS FORWARD. END COMMENT.

SIMONS

ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE CONFIDENTIAL

Genesis, Part 29

We continue reviewing declassified State Department cables addressing the rise of the Taliban. This is an April 22, 1996, cable from the US Embassy in Islamabad to the US Secretary of State's office, and addresses a discussion between Assistant Secretary of State Raphel and Pakistani officials about Afghanistan policy. The acronym GOP here means Government of Pakistan; GOR means Government of Russia.

SUBJECT: A/S RAPHEL DISCUSSES AFGHANISTAN

1. (U) CLASSIFIED BY THOMAS W. SIMONS, JR, AMBASSADOR. REASON: 1.5 (D).

2. (C) SUMMARY: DISCUSSIONS WITH GOP, KABUL GOVERNMENT AND TALIBAN OFFICIALS SUGGEST THE DOOR IS NOT YET CLOSED FOR AN AFGHAN PEACE PROCESS -- BUT IT WILL TAKE HARD WORK TO KEEP IT OPEN, LET ALONE GO THROUGH IT. THE GOP HAS RECOGNIZED THAT ITS SUPPORT FOR THE TALIBAN HAS BACK-FIRED AND IS LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVES, AND NEITHER THE TALIBAN NOR THE KABUL GOVERNMENT CAN BE SUFFICIENTLY SURE THAT THEY WILL WIN THE EXPECTED NEXT ROUND OF FIGHTING TO RULE OUT COMPLETELY NEGOTIATIONS. NONETHELESS, IT WILL TAKE SKILLFUL MANAGEMENT -- AND A BIT OF LUCK -- TO BREAK THROUGH THE RIGID POSITIONS ESPOUSED BY KABUL AND THE TALIBAN. AN ARMS EMBARGO (PERHAPS TO BE DISCUSSED VIA AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE) AND SUPPORT FOR AN ALL-PARTY AFGHAN CONFERENCE COULD BE USEFUL TOOLS TO BREAK THE CURRENT DEAD-LOCK. END SUMMARY.

3. (U) SOUTH ASIA A/S RAPHEL'S APRIL 19-20 VISIT TO AFGHANISTAN, AND HER MEETINGS IN ISLAMABAD WITH TOP GOP AND U.N. OFFICIALS, PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS THE CURRENT STATE OF PLAY ON THE AFGHAN PEACE PROCESS. IN AFGHANISTAN SHE MET WITH KABUL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDING PRESIDENT RABBANI, DE FACTO DEFENSE MINISTER AHMED SHAH MASOOD, MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS NAJIBULLAH LAFRAIE AND ACTING DEFENSE MINISTER YUNIS QANUNI AS WELL AS TALIBAN LEADERS MAULAVI AMIR KHAN MOTTAQI (TALIBAN CHIEF FOR INFORMATION) AND FIVE OTHER MEMEBERS OF THE TALIBAN INNER SHURA. IN PAKISTAN SHE CALLED ON, AMONG OTHERS, PM BHUTTO, COAS KARAMAT, INTERIOR MINISTER BABAR, FOREIGN MINISTER ASSEF ALI AND NAJMUDDING SHAIKH.

PAKISTAN: LOOKING FOR A WAY OUT
--------------------------------

4. (C) A CONSENSUS HAS EMERGED AMONG THE TOP LEADERSHIP OF THE GOP THAT PAKISTAN NEEDS TO BROADEN ITS AFGHAN POLICY. PM BHUTTO TOLD A/S RAPHEL THAT THE GOP IS PURSUING AN ENHANCED DIALOGUE WITH THE KABUL GOVERNMENT; FM ASSEF ALI SAID ISLAMABAD WOULD WELCOME A VISIT BY A RABBANI/MASOOD DELEGATION, WHICH WOULD BE RECIPROCATED, AND ALSO OFFERED TO MEET WITH KABUL REGIME MINSTATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS LAFRAIE ON THE MARGINS OF THE UPCOMING ASHGABAT ECO CONFERENCE. THE MOVE TO REPAIR RELATIONS IN KABUL IN LARGE PART DERIVES FROM GOP DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THE TALIBAN ARE MOVING; COAS KARAMAT WENT SO FAR AS TO REFER TO THE TALIBAN AS "A MILLSTONE AROUND OUR NECKS." FONSEC SHAIKH OUTLINED PAKISTAN'S REPEATED EFFORTS TO GET THE TALIBAN TO AGREE TO NEGOTIATIONS AND EXPRESSED DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THE RECENT KANDAHAR ULEMA MAJLIS OPTED FOR HARD-LINE REJECTIONISM; FM ASSEF ALI SAID THE ONLY GOOD RESULT OF THAT GATHERING WAS THE POSSIBILITY THAT MAULAVI MOHAMMED OMAR'S ELEVATION TO "LEADER OF THE FAITHFUL" WOULD GIVE HIM MORE POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS. PM BHUTTO EMPHASIZED THAT PAKISTAN WAS NOT PROVIDING MILITARY SUPPORT TO THE TALIBAN AND INSISTED THAT ONLY MINIMAL, NON-LETHAL AID WAS BEING DELIVERED.

Of course, we by now know that wasn't true.

Was PM Bhutto telling a lie, or did she not know the extent of the involvement of her government in supporting the Taliban?

(It seems fairly obvious to me that any country that can have as many coups and as many years under military rule as Pakistan does, must have a military willing to act upon its own agenda -- including in the arena of foreign affairs -- as opposed to the agenda of the elected rulers.)

This support for Islamic militants, dating back to the founding of Pakistan, has long been a tiger that any civilian (or even military) leadership in Islamabad has by the tail.

5. (C) HOW TO MOVE FORWARD FOR PAKISTAN, HOWEVER, IS STILL A MATTER OF SOME DEBATE WITHIN THE GOP'S TOP CIRCLES, BUT ISLAMABAD IS OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. FEARING REGIONAL ISOLATION ON AFGHANISTAN POLICY, THE GOP IS REACHING OUT, AND WANTS TO ENGAGE WITH THE U.S. ON NEXT STEPS, FM ASSEF ALI OBSERVED. ENGAGING THE 'RIM STATES' ON AFGHANISTAN ALSO IS IMPORTANT, TOP GOP OFFICIALS AGREE, AND ISLAMABAD IS INCREASINGLY WILLING TO COOPERATE WITH TEHRAN,PERHAPS EVEN TO THE POINT OF HOSTING (AT IRANIAN URGING) AN AFGHAN CONFERENCE IN ISLAMABAD, AND TO ENGAGE THE ECO. IN ADDITION TO BEING LUCRATIVE FOR PAKISTAN, THE TRANS-AFGHAN PIPELINE IDEA IS STRONGLY SUPPORTED BECAUSE IT IS SEEN AS A WAY TO BRING POTENTIALLY HELPFUL ACTORS ONTO THE AFGHAN STAGE. THE PM MADE CLEAR PAKISTAN'S SUPPORT FOR THE U.N. MISSION'S PRIMACY AS THE LEAD ACTOR IN BROKERING A PEACE DEAL, BUT OTHERS OUTLINED ISLAMABAD'S DISSATISFACTION AND DISAPPOINTMENT OVER WHAT IS SEEN AS THE LACK OF ENERGY AND DIRECTION OF THE MESTIRI MISSION.

And herein lies the dilemma: Islamabad had been, and still was, dissatisfied and disappointed with the peace process, and that was why the decision was made to back the Taliban -- they might be able to succeed, by force not just of arms but of Islamic arms, where the warring parties had failed.

What do I mean with the expression "by force of... Islamic arms"?

Well, just as Pakistan in the 1940's painted anything other than unity in the face of the infidel enemy (India) as un-Islamic, so perhaps was it hoped that Mullah Omar, the "Leader of the Faithful", could win not necessarily a military victory, but some kind of religious-political one. Indeed, during the Taliban's rise to power, the forces of the "Leader of the Faithful" bribed enemies into submission more often than they won militarily.

6. (C) AT HEART, PAKISTAN'S NEED TO PURSUE A PRO-PASHTUN POLICY FOR THE SAKE OF ITS OWN DOMESTIC POLITICAL AND SECURITY AGENDA REPRESENTS A HURDLE WHICH THE GOP ACKNOWLEDGES, BUT FEELS THE TAJIK-DOMINATED KABUL GOVERNMENT IS DOING LITTLE TO HELP OUT ON. EFFORTS TO RESUSCITATE RELATIONS WITH KABUL ARE HAMPERED, SHAIKH AND ASSEF ALI REMARKED, BY RABBANI AND MASOOD'S BICKERING OVER MODALITIES AND THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS AIMED AT CREATING A BROAD-BASED GOVERNMENT. PAKISTAN APPEARS TO FOCUS MORE ON WAYS TO GET THE AFGHAN FACTIONS THEMSELVES TO PUT THEIR HOUSE IN ORDER, AND IS LESS FIXATED ON THE ISSUE OF CURBING OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE, THE LATTER BEING SEEN MORE AS A CONTRIBUTING -- RATHER THAN CAUSAL -- FACTOR. WHILE ACCEPTING THE NEED TO WORK BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TRACKS, THE GOP WOULD PREFER AN AFGHAN ALL-PARTY CONFERENCE IN JALALABAD TO AN INTERNATIONAL GATHERING, SENIOR OFFICIALS NOTED, SINCE ISLAMABAD BELIEVES THE KEY TO (AND THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR) A SOLUTION MUST LIE WITH THE AFGHAN FACTIONS THEMSELVES. THEY BELIEVE EITHER GATHERING WOULD REQUIRE CAREFUL PREPARATION AND A PRE-AGREED AGENDA.

And that's exactly right -- the Afghan factions themselves need to come to an agreement; military victory was, and is, elusive.

The U.S. might do well even today to keep the door open to negotiations with the Taliban. The Taliban has its differences with Al Qaeda; in fact, the Taliban is internally divided. Once they realize that they cannot win militarily, but stand a chance to gain some real concessions at the conference table, their differences with Al Qaeda will likely prove stronger than we may now realize.

Continued in Part 30.

Financial Onslaught, Part 5

We continue from Part 4 reviewing an article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen.

As I mentioned previously, please keep in mind as you read this that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See my sidebar for links for further information.

STATE ZAKAT AGENCIES

Saudi Arabia

In 2007, Saudi Arabia collected $18 billion in zakat⁵² -- which includes the 20 percent flat corporation tax from foreign companies. The Saudis claim that the money collected develops their infrastructure. However, two-thirds of Saudi men are unemployed and the infrastructure is crumbling.⁵³

And why should they work, if Allah has promised all this loot to holy warriors?

And then this explains why Saudi Arabia has to import so many foreign workers to do all the actual work of the Kingdom, while so many of the holy warriors encountered by U.S. forces in Iraq are Saudis -- our ally in the War on Terror is incapable of being anything other than a menace to world security.

Illustrating how funds are used, Saudi Arabia's secretary-general of the official Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission stated on Iqra TV, on 29 August 2005, "The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter...it is as if he himself fought.' You lie in your bed, safe in your own home, and donate money and Allah credits you with the rewards of a fighter. What is this? A privilege."⁵⁴

You lie in bed with your four wives and as many concubines as your right hand possesses, and this is the same as martyring yourself for Allah -- why do all these young Palestinian and Saudi men not see that they are being duped and used by these shiekhs who have things way too easy?

Since the 1970s, the Saudi government has spent more than $100 billion⁵⁵ to build thousands of mosques, Islamic centers, and Islamic studies programs in universities worldwide to advance the ummah's power and undermine Western economic, political, cultural, educational, and legal structures and replace them with the shari'a.⁵⁶ In the last 13 years alone, the Saudis gave at least $459 million to British universities for Islamic study centers, according to Professor Anthony Glees, of Brunel University.⁵⁷

The worldwide Muslim riots following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark's largest daily, Jyllands-Posten, began only after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark; after Sheikh Osama Khayyat, imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, praised on national Saudi television the Saudi government for its action; and after Sheikh Ali Al-Hudaify, imam of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, called "upon governments, organizations and scholars in the Islamic world to extend support for campaigns protesting the sacrilegious attacks on the Prophet."⁵⁸ Saudi-controlled OIC initiated and coordinated Muslim rioting worldwide after the Danish Muhammad cartoon publications.⁵⁹

How can the United States be allies of such a nation?

Did our politicians prostitute our country like that to the Nazis and the Communists?

Moreover, to wield more control over Muslim communities worldwide, better orchestrate "spontaneous demonstrations," and better allocate funds for them, the Saudi-backed OIC established the clerical International Commission for Zakat (ICZ) on 30 April 2007. Previously, there were more than 20,000 organizations that collected zakat. Now, however, the Islamic clerics' centralized "expert committee" based in Malaysia also supervises and distributes zakat funds globally. The new committee distributed roughly $2 billion collected over Ramadan 2007 to Muslim "charities".⁶⁰

In a show of unity, the Shiite Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah argued, "If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwa against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so."⁶¹

What is this if not an attempt to enslave us by force?

The Saudi role in terror financing is no secret. Yet, the U.S. administration keeps telling us that the Saudis are our allies. On 10 December 2002, criticizing the Joint Inquiry Staff (JIS) report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Senators Jon Kyl and Pat Roberts stated, "The pervasiveness in Saudi Arabia of Wahhabism, a radical, anti-American variant of Islam, was well known before 9/11. The JIS should have inquired why the country of Saudi Arabia was given such preferential treatment by the State Department and whether the intelligence agencies were complicit in the policy."⁶²

Foreign policy regarding Saudi Arabia is created by whores that we have sent to Washington.

In early 2008, however, U.S. government officials publicly noted that the Saudis continue the financing of radical Islamic groups.⁶³

Created by whores in Washington -- and these whores are running our military into the ground in Iraq, while denying our forces the possibility of victory by refusing to address the source of most of the problems, Saudi Arabia.

But, then again, the war in Iraq is good for business for too many that are closely associated with the Bush Administration. Halliburton, for example, has plenty of lucrative contracts supporting the war, and if anyone ever dealt with the Kingdom, all that would end, wouldn't it?

Whores in Washington....

Financial Onslaught, Part 4

We continue from Part 3 reviewing an article entitled The Fifth Generation Warfare by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen.

As I mentioned previously, please keep in mind as you read this that Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad, and needs contributions to her organization to continue her work and defend herself against the legal harassment of the libel terrorists that target her. See my sidebar for links for further information.

ZAKAT

Zakat, we are told, is to help the needy. But as Janine A. Clark's excellent 2004 study shows, zakat is used to support the middle class, to strengthen its loyalty to the rulers, and to back their radical ideology'.⁴³

Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi decrees, "Declaring holy war ... is an Islamic duty, and fighting ... is the Way of Allah for which Zakat must be spent." In his 1999 publication, Fiqh az-Zakat, al-Qaradawi adds, "The most important form of jihad today is serious, purposefully organized work to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains. This is certainly most deserving of Zakat."⁴⁴ And as previously demonstrated time and again, Muslim jihadist-terror organizations are indeed prominent zakat recipients.

The use of charities to fund jihad, however, is not limited to radical Sunnis. On Jerusalem Day, 5 October 2007, Al-Manar TV broadcasted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's cantankerous speech giving religious, moral, and political justification in support of "the armed Palestinian resistance" and calling for financial support to the Palestinian terrorist organizations. Nasrallah "gave Khomeini's fatwa [⁴⁵] ... allowing charity funds ... and the tax of 1/5 (khums)[⁴⁶] to be transferred to the Palestinian terrorist organizations ... to pay for their campaign."⁴⁷

The definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam includes in "category 7" of eligible recipients "volunteers engaged in jihad," for whom the zakat covers "living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons)."⁴⁸

Millard Burr and Robert Collins's compelling study Alms for Jihad documents that when zakat, which is obligatory to all Muslims, is given "in the path of Allah," it is given to fund jihad. There are seven broad categories of eligible recipients: the poor, converts, wayfarers, those in bondage or in debt, those committed to Allah for the spread and triumph of Islam, newcomers whose faith is weak, and new converts to Islam "whose hearts have been [recently] reconciled [to truth]." Moreover, zakat may be used to support those who administer it.⁴⁹

What jumps out at me in this passage is the last part, indicating that charitable contributions to Islamic organizations not only fund holy war, but are a source of income for those who manage the money.

There's money in jihad -- big money.

In a 2006 federal case, alleged al Qaeda supporters Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid were charged with soliciting and spending "funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications,” through their now-defunct "charity" and front organization, Care International. The Boston-based organization published, among other things, the English version of al Qaeda cofounder and key Muslim Brotherhood leader Abdullah Azzam's "Join the Caravan."

It states, "The individually obligatory nature of jihad remains in effect until the lands are purified from the pollution of the disbelievers."⁵⁰ They collected more than $1.3 million in contributions. In their defense, Muntasser and Mubayyid claimed to merely have exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give zakat as part of their constitutionally protected freedoms. Their motion for dismissal (which the court denied) cited chapter 9, verse 60, of the Qur'an, describing "those entitled to receive zakat."

Jihad is an obligation that "remains in effect until the lands are purified from the pollution of the disbelievers."

Incredibly, the suspects' attorneys also argued that such charitable giving, to support jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax exempt under the U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom.⁵¹ Court records show Care International deposited checks "with handwritten notes such as 'for jihad only,' 'Bosnia Jihad fund,' and 'Chechen Muslim Fighters'." The U.S. Constitution provides protections for religious freedom, but most certainly was never intended to protect religiously sanctioned or encouraged war in or against America.

The First Amendment bars Congress from enacting laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However, the Constitution offers no protection to any group or religion supporting "holy war" against the United States or its citizens.

That is how they twist our Constitution around.

This is a clash of civilization versus barbarity, and it is a fight to the finish.