Chapter 6: THE TANGLED ROOTS OF TERRORISM: Wahhabism, Nicaragua, Iran-Iraq War, Iran-Contra, and the Sadat Assassination
"The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world."
-- Amnesty International, October 1998
The CIA is like a living organism, that has its own brain. The CIA has the ability to function independently of those who have been elected to "power," or those who have been appointed to temporarily head the agency.
CIA directors, like Presidents, come and go. What remains in place, is the mission, the networks, and the operatives who make things happen, even as President, like CIA directors. come and go.
And often the "mission" has nothing to do with national security, but instead serves the long range financial interests of bankers, arms merchants. drug dealers, oil-men, and the Wall Street elite (1). The mission, more often than not. is corporate terrorism and the enslavement and mass murder of those who resist.
*******
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described. I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses."
"I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here. then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag."
"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for."
"One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."
"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism."
"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups."
"This is typical with everyone in the military service."
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given AI Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
-- Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
*******
War, terror, and instability are great for those in the business of war. War and civil unrest is a wonderful means of achieving short- and long-term political and financial goals, such as the overthrow of sovereign nations and the acquisition of another country's and another people's resources, such as land, labor, minerals, and black gold -- oil that is.
During the Nixon and Ford years. the United States was fighting a multi-front "terrorist war" against the people of South and Central America (2), the people of South East Asia (3), the people of the Middle East, Iraq in particular (4) and as detailed in chapter 5, the people of Europe. In Germany, Belgium, and Italy in particular CIA-directed terrorist teams were bombing, shooting, and killing civilians. In Italy this resulted in the destabilization and overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ital ian Prime Minister Moro who was taken hostage and killed. It has been said that Bush masterminded the plot (5).
In the late 1970s, the CIA hatched a plan for the Middle East, which was designed to woo away Arabic, Islamic, and terrorist states, such as Libya, Iraq, and Egypt, from the Soviet sphere of influence. The long range goal was to gain control over Middle Eastern, and Central Asian oil reserves. This was to be accomplished, in part, through secret military and financial aid provided by the CIA. However. in the case of Libya and Iraq, the provision of aid was illegal as these were designated terrorist states.
Simultaneously, Islamic "holy warriors" and terrorists were trained. financed. and armed by the CIA -- with the assistance of the bin Ladens and the Saudi Royal family as well as Pakistan's Intelligence Service, the ISI. These CIA-trained terrorists were then unleashed on Afghanistan (6), Iraq (4), Egypt (7), and in 1980, Iran (8,9).
OIL, WAHHABISM & COMMUNISM
The economy of the world is dependent on black gold, oil that is. Saudi Arabia has the largest pool of oil reserves. The desert kingdom is awash with oil. The second largest known reserves are beneath the soil of Iraq (10). However, in the I970s. evidence began to accrue to suggest that beneath the Caspian Basin and in the adjoining Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan, lay incredible huge pools of oil, perhaps as much or more than the total reserves of Iraq (11).
Total world oil consumption, in 1979, was 23.41 billion barrels. Prior to 1979, estimates of yearly oil consumption had been based on a simple mathematical formula, i.e. multiplying the world population by the factor 4.43. Thus, based on estimates of world population growth, reasonable and quite accurate predictions could be made (12).
However, oil is consumed at different rates by two different groups, i.e. the people of highly industrialized countries vs third world countries where oil consumption is relatively minimal. For example, Canadian consumption of oil, in the year 2000, was 20.71 barrels per person. By contrast, in India only 0.75 barrels per person were consumed (10,12).
In the 1970s, it was recognized, that India and China, each with over 1 billion citizens, would gradually, then more rapidly, become industrialized, and oil consumption would explode. Some analysts were estimating that oil consumption, in these two countries alone, might be more than 75 billion barrels in the year 2010, and that world oil consumption would thus be in excess of 100 billion barrels per year (13).
It was also recognized, that whoever controlled the refining, shipping, and distribution of this oil, would thus have a strangle hold on these two emerging industrial nations.
Oil is produced by a number of independent, inter-dependent, and closely aligned groups. such as the "seven sisters" (Exxon, Gulf, Texaco, Mobil, Socal, BP and Shell), and OPEC which has eleven members (Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq. Kuwait).
In the 1970s, it was recognized that oil production in most of the non-OPEC countries, would begin to peak and might even begin to decline by the year 2000 -- and this in fact is the case (13). By contrast, it was recognized that OPEC oil production would not begin to peak until well after the year 2010. Strategically, this means that OPEC nations would become stronger, and the non-OPEC nations would become weaker, such that, at some "cross-over event" the balance of power might shift. This is one of the main reasons why the U.S. has attributed so much importance to dominating this region, and maintaining a positive relationship with Saudi Arabia in particular. Indeed, the strategic importance of the oil-producing Gulf-states and Saudi Arabia was recognized even before 1950.
In the 1970s, there were two superpowers: the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Both were struggling to gain or maintain influence in the Middle East and among the Gulf states. Libya, Egypt, and Iraq were in the Russian comer. Moreover, the incredibly oil-rich, albeit undeveloped regions of Central Asia and the Caspian basin were part of the Soviet Union.
In the 1970s, it was recognized that in the future. who ever controlled and developed the oil resources of the Caspian basin and Central Asia, as well as that of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. would also have a strangle hold, not just on India and China, but the world. Those who established this control would also become wealthy beyond their dreams.
By the late 1970s, one of the keys to gaining access to the oil-rich central Asian states. was Afghanistan. If these states were to be destabilized and stripped away from the Soviet Union, then Afghanistan, with its Soviet-backed government, would have to be tom lose first. Before and after Afghanistan fell, terrorist attacks would be launched into the underbelly of the Soviet Union (14).
Afghanistan was also a key, because Afghanistan offered the best route for an oil pipeline -- a pipeline that would pump the oil extracted from the central Asian states, across Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and thus to the world markets via the Arabian sea.
However, in order for western oil companies and the CIA to accomplish this, required Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as a partner.
The willingness to involve Saudi Arabia was strategic and based on political reality. If the ruling families of Saudi Arabia were not promised a huge piece of the central Asian pie, they would refuse to cooperate in any destabilizing attacks on the Soviet Union. As Saudi Arabia was also a major source of funds to Pakistan and its ISI, if Saudi Arabia were not part of the equation. Pakistan too would refuse to cooperate, and might even align itself with the Soviet Union.
The Saudis were willing to cooperate for a number of reasons, including those related to the spread of the Islamic religion, and the creation of an Islamic superstate, and because they wished to retain their power. If America alone won the central Asia oil "prize" the Saudis would lose the power of oil and their ability to effect the world economy by turning the oil spigot on or off.
Likewise, given that Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil reserves, they key to controlling the world's economy, and thus the world, required a partnership with the Saudi kingdom. Moreover, without Saudi help and Saudi funding, it would have been impossible for the CIA and the Wall Street elite, to destabilize or significantly influence those Middle Eastern states, such as Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan, which, in the I970s, were in the comer of the Soviet Union.
As noted, religion was also a major factor in the establishment of the partnership. Before and after the I970s, the Saudis were eager to destabilize and overthrow the Soviet Communist state, as well as the rulers of even fellow OPEC members, because of major issues related to religion, i,e. the Sunni vs the Shiit branches of Islam (14,15).
The Saudi agenda was to export their Wahhabism brand of the Sunni Islamic religion not only into the southern Asian states of the Soviet Union, but into Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (14, 15). It was a Saudi-Sunni-Wahhabi dream to create a unified, fascist, Islamic superstate, and to terrorize, murder, and destroy not just those worshipping non-Islamic religions, but the Shiit and all other variants of Islam, especially those variants which emphasized the tolerant, peaceful, poetically mystical schools of thought such as Sufism.
As detailed, for example, in Stephen Schwartz's recent book, The Two Faces of Islam, "Wahhabism exalts and promotes death in every element of its existence, the suicide of its adherents, mass murder as a weapon against civilization, and above all the suffocation of the mercy embodied in Islam" as represented by the "bright aspect of Sufi traditionalism, [which is] happy, filled with love of God and humanity .....Wahhabi fundamentalism," he writes, is "ugly ... narrow, rigid, tyrannical, separatist, supremacist and violent."
It could thus be argued that Wahhabism is a Nazi version of Islam, which in turn might explain why the Saudis linked up with Hitler in the 1930s (see chapter 3). In the 1930s, the Saudis embraced Nazism for a number of reasons, including their shared goal of destroying the Soviet Union, and gaining access to the oil-rich underbelly.
Forty years later, the goal remained the same: to first topple the Soviet-backed regime, and to then take the "holy war" into the underbelly of the Soviet Union, in order to grab the oil-rich central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan (14,15,16). "Holy Warriors" would do the dirty work.
In the late I970s and continuing into the I990s, the primary mission of these CIA-trained and Saudi-financed terrorists, referred to as the mujahideen, was to attack Afghan villages, and bomb health centers, government offices, and even Kabul University, and to rape, murder. and terrorize the civilian population. In this regard, they were highly successful. Tens of thousands of civilians, as well as Soviet troops were "butchered in a hideous fashion" (5). The mujahedeen's battle for supremacy resulted in the death and maiming of over 100,000 civilians and the displacement of millions people who became refugees (17).
Iraq, too, was and is a target of the Wahhabis, as the Saudis believe that Iraq is a broken off piece of Arabia. Indeed, for the last several centuries, and until 1922, Iraq, as well as Kuwait, were part of Arabia. However, at the close of the first world war, and with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France pounced on the Middle East, and divided up the spoils. They created artificial boundaries and thus new states in the Middle East, as they believed that by fragmenting the Arab peoples they would be easier to dominate and control.
Britain broke Arabia into three states: Iraq, Kuwait, and Arabia. Each state was then given its own ruler, who in turn owed their positions to France and Britain. Kuwait was handed to the al-Sabah family. The Hashemite King Hussein was awarded Jordan. And Arabia was given to the Saud family and which was then renamed after Ibn Saud.
King Ibn Saud, however, was determined to someday unify his country and to erase the artificial boundaries which created the bastard states of Kuwait and Iraq. Like his ancestors, he also dreamed of creating an Islamic superstate, encompassing all the nations of the Middle East. and in fact, the world. In 1922, however, it was an impossible dream.
LIBYA & EGYPT
In the 1970s, U.S. and Saudi Arabia formed an unholy alliance. Under the guise of fighting communism, terrorists were trained, funded, equipped and then unleashed on the nations of Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. At the same time. Saudi Arabia was actively funding and establishing fundamentalist Islamic schools in nations, such as Pakistan and Egypt, which in turn became breeding grounds for terrorists. Likewise, the US was trying to curry favor with some of these same countries in order to woo them from the Soviet sphere.
As will be detailed, part of that strategy involved funding and providing arms and weapons to Libya -- a Soviet ally -- which were used to attack Egypt. Egypt repeatedly beat back these assaults which the Egyptians erroneously believed were sponsored, through Libya, by the Soviet Union.
The first tangible fruits of these well devised plans were plucked from the tree in 1976, when Egyptian President, Anwar al- Sadat ended Egypt's Treaty of Friendship with Soviet Union (18). Nevertheless, Sadat remained cool to U.S. proposals for increased U.S. military involvement in his own armed forces (18).
Then the unexpected, Sadat began making peaceful overtures toward Israel. Simultaneously, he began signaling a willingness to accommodate Islamic fundamentalists who were demanding a greater role in the Egyptian government. These events and policies upset Saudi Arabia and U.S. planners, albeit for different reasons.
Sadat would soon be targeted for assassination.
*******
The CIA has a history of forming alliances with terrorists, Nazis, dictators, and the like. In some instances, the CIA is playing the "Great Game" and engaging the Hegelian dialectic. That is, it creates entities that threaten the US, in order to strengthen the hand of right-wing Republican administrations who then promise to destroy the threat. In some instances, as was the case with Iraq and Iran in the late 1980s, and Libya. during the 1970s, the CIA provided resources so that these nations would be better equipped so as to encourage them to attack each other.
In the 1970s, the terrorist government of Libya was targeted -- but not for overthrow, but as an instrument of power to be wielded by the unseen hand of the CIA.
CIA agent, Edwin Wilson was put in charge of the Libya mission (19).
Like the Mafia. no one ever really ever leaves the CIA. Edwin P. Wilson who "left" the Brotherhood in 1971, continued to run high level operations until the 1980s and this included providing weapons, funds, and strategic information to Libya when it was illegal to do so. Although illegal, the Libyan operation had the blessing of the CIA, and Wilson met frequently with two of the agency's top executives while running this and other illegal CIA programs: Thomas G. Clines, the director of training for clandestine services, and Theodore G. Shackley, the No. 2 man in the espionage branch (19,20). Wilson and Shackley also worked together in the planning and implementation of the failed "Bay of Pigs" invasion of Cuba.
In 1977, Edwin P. Wilson, working under the auspices and with the approval of the CIA, sold Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddaffi, over 20 tons (42,000 pounds) of C-4, an extremely concentrated but powerful explosive. C-4 is perfect for terrorist operations, including the bombing of schools, hospitals, government buildings and the downing of commercial airlines.
Wilson also provided Libya with "secret CIA cables from the Far East, NSA computer procedures for detecting submarines and missiles, assassination devices from CIA suppliers, and exotic secret weapons from the Navy and CIA testing base at China Lake in California. Wilson clandestinely exported to Libya all the components (including specially developed exploding plastics from the CIA) for manufacturing terrorist bombs disguised as ashtrays and other innocent looking objects" (20).
Other CIA agents also took an active role in the Libya mission.
"Mulcahy" a specialist in secret communications technology supervised the smuggling of electronic and military equipment into Libya (20).
"Dubberstein" worked for the Pentagon and specialized in compiling the daily military intelligence summary for the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Dubberstein" provided Libya with this data including the "ultra secret Single Integrated Operational Plan" for nuclear war (20).
Of course, this was all illegal, particularly so as this information and these weapons posed a danger to our allies and our national security. Libya was not only a sponsor of "terrorism," but was aligned with the Soviet Union.
It is precisely because Libya was a sponsor of terrorism that the CIA covertly sold weapons of mass destruction to this nation. The CIA fully expected Libya to engage in terrorist attacks against Western targets as well as against Egypt which was on the verge of signing a peace treaty with Israel.
Based on the evidence which was revealed at his trial, the CIA, through Wilson, paid one million dollars to have Sadat assassinated. A CIA-agent, "Villaverde who had served the CIA as a saboteur in Cuba, was recruited by Wilson as a hired gun and promised a million dollars" for the "assassination" in Egypt (20).
Sadat who had boldly visited Israel in 1977, then signed the 1978 Camp David Accords with Israel, and then a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, was assassinated while observing a military parade on October 6, 1981.
Immediately following the assassination of Sadat, a U.S. carrier battlegroup, including the 552nd Airborne Warning and Control Wing, and the Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group were ordered to take up positions north of Egypt and to the east comer of Libya. These massive forces were deployed because of the "possibility of Libyan involvement," and were thus set to strike and invade Libya in order to prevent any further aggression against Egypt (21).
That myth was quickly dispelled. However, in consequence, U.S. forces came to be permanently deployed in Egypt, beginning immediately following the Sadat assassination in 1981. Since then, every year around October, Egyptian forces join with and become part of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. These are multination coordinated exercises for infantry, airborne, artillery, and armored forces. These annual exercises have been named, Operation "Bright Star."
U.S. military forces were not only situated near Egypt when Sadat was assassinated, but Operation "Bright Star" was just about to get under way off the coast of Egypt, when terrorists struck the U.S. on 9/11/2001. U.S. and British forces were conveniently in place when President Bush ordered the attack on the Taliban government of Afghanistan.
BIN LADEN & THE ASSASSINATION OF SADAT
That the assassination of Egyptian President Sadat was the result of a well organized conspiracy, is beyond dispute. Sadat was seated at the front of a virtually unguarded podium. Many of those in his security detail, including his plainclothes U.S. trained security guards had mysteriously been dismissed for the day. In fact, he was provided almost no protection, which in-itself was extremely unusual (22).
His four attackers were thus able to approach Sadat without being challenged. Moreover, for reasons that are unknown, Sadat, and only Sadat, stood up as his attackers approached, thus making him an easy target. Speculation is that he was instructed to stand up by those sitting near him.
Although we are told that he was assassinated because his attackers wished to establish an Islamic state, the gun fire was concentrated only on Sadat (22). Although vice-president Hosni Mubarak and many other top army officers and diplomats. sat to Sadat's left, to his right, and behind him, thus making them easy targets, they were spared injury, which is surprising if the attackers wished to overthrow the government. If they had really aspired to establish an Islamic state, then why didn't they kill all the top politicians and military men seated around President Sadat?
In fact, by killing Sadat, and then sparing Hosni Mubarak and the others, the assassins actually hindered their supposed extremist Islamic and anti-Western cause. Hosni Mubarak, who became president, was far more pro-western than the more independent- minded Sadat (18). Whereas Sadat was more accommodating, Murabak immediately began a massive campaign of retaliation against Islamic fundamentalists which included the arrest of over 10.000 clerics and students (22).
As noted, the CIA paid at least I million dollars for an assassination that was to take place in Egypt (20). Who else, how many other groups were also paid, we do not know.
What we do know is that the terrorist organization, Islamic Jihad group, claimed responsibility (22) and that this group is linked to Saudi Arabia and bin Laden (23). Several of the so called masterminds of the plot, Nabil Soliman and Ayman al-Zawahiri, are members of Islamic Jihad, and Ayman al-Zawahiri is also a member of al-Qaeda.
Islamic Jihad's specialty is assassination.
Islamic Jihad, however, is in actuality, al-Qaeda (23). Indeed, some, such as the CIA and U.S. State Department, claim that the leader of Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri is Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenant. Others, such Osama bin Laden's hand-picked biographer, Hamid Mir, claim that Ayman al-Zawahiri is actually the leader of al-Qaeda. whereas Osama is just a "front man" (24) -- an issue we will explore in detail in chapter 13.
Nevertheless, regardless of which position we accept, it is beyond dispute that Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri, work closely together and that al-Zawahiri is one of the chief strategist for al- Qaeda.
What is in dispute. is the possibility that al-Zawahiri may have also worked for the CIA -- which may also explain why he was able to visit the United States several times where he openly raised funds as recently as 1995 (25). An undercover FBI informant, linked to the CIA, in fact, made the arrangement for al-Zawahiri to visit (see chapter 11).
Osama bin Laden is also linked to the CIA, and he is believed to have first begun working with this intelligence organization in 1978 or 1979 (26). Presumably Osama was still in the employee of the CIA in 1981, when Sadat was assassinated. The CIA, along with the Saudi royal family. were providing Osama and his nascent terrorist organization with millions of dollars in funds, and Saudi Arabia was covertly supporting terrorist groups whose mission was to overthrow Sadat (7,15.27).
Nabil Soliman, one of those involved in the assassination, left Egypt after Sadat was killed and lived in Saudi Arabia (28). Nabil then moved to Yemen in 1988 and then to the United States in 1992 where he lived unmolested for almost to years (28). On July 12,2002, he was extradited from the United States to Egypt (28).
Ayman al-Zawahiri was jailed after the assassination, but was then released! He too traveled to Saudi Arabia, and then to Afghanistan where he fought with the Saudi- and CIA-backed mujahideen.
We are told that Sadat was assassinated because Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda) wished to usher in a pure Islamic state in Egypt, and because Sadat had made peace with Israel (22). In part, that may have been the motives of at least some of the plotters.
However, the result of the assassination, was to remove an independently minded leader who had ushered in Islamic law and who was making overtures to Islamic fundamentalists and offering them a role in his government.
For example, in 1981, Sadat declared that the Shari' a, that is, orthodox, Sunni, Islamic law (29), would be the basis of Egyptian law. Egyptian law would become Shari'a (18). Sadat was in fact an extremely devout Sunni Muslim. His forehead was marked with the permanent bruise of those who bow their heads to the ground and pray five times a day (18). Indeed, there was a fear, among some Western leaders, that because of Sadat, Islamic fundamentalism would mushroom out of control, and that Egypt was in danger of being a radicalized Islamic nation, similar to Iran.
The assassination of Sadat did not help the Islamic cause but resulted in a massive and brutal crackdown on Islamic fundamentalism. Over 10,000 Islamic leaders were eventually jailed.
The assassination also resulted in the regular deployment of U.S. forces in Egypt, as well as the installation of a pro-western government in Sadat's place -- a government that is so friendly to the U.S. that it receives massive military and economic aid from the United States, the OECD countries and the World Bank -- over $52 billion from the U.S. alone (30) -- massive financial and military aid that was not available in the L 970s. This aid, of course, makes Egypt that much more dependent on the U.S. Indeed, since Sadat's death, Egyptian society has been increasingly shaped by Western hands and the Western strings attached to foreign aid (30). Hence, the consequences of killing Sadat were completely opposite to the ideas Islamic Jihad and Osama bin Laden espouse -- which can only make us wonder as to what may have been the real agenda.
To answer that question, we need only ask: who benefits?
Answer: The U.S. and Wall Streets merchants of death.
Likewise, we are told that one of the reasons for the 9/11 attack on America, was to further Islamic ideals and to remove western influences and to drive Western military forces from the Islamic states (31).
Instead, the 9/11/2001 assault on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, resulted a devastating attack on the Islamic fundamentalist rulers of Afghanistan, and the permanent installation of the U.S. military and a pro-western government in its place.
If we dare to assume that the planners of 9/11 and the Sadat assassination, also considered the likely consequences of their acts, one would have to conclude, that the purpose of both 9/11 and the assassination of Sadat in 1981, was to serve western and not Islamic interests, and in this regard, we note that Osama bin Laden had began working with the CIA since at least 1979 or 1978.
IRAN-CONTRA SAUDI-BIN LADEN
Reagan and Bush were in power when Sadat was assassinated. Those implicated in the assassination include Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabia, Libya, as well as terrorists linked to Iran and the Sudan (22,27). In the early 1990s, the Sudan would become yet another base for Osama bin Laden (26).
Likewise, although there are different terrorists groups linked to Iran, one Iranian terrorist organization was Paris-based in 1981, and was linked to the Paris-based bin Laden organization (9,33) which in turn is closely allied with the royal family of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Royal family, the bin Ladens, and a number of Saudi Arabia's richest families have also provided millions of dollars in aid to bin Laden and his terrorist network (26,33,34,35,36,37). Some of those funds were laundered through banks and corporations located in London, Geneva, Paris, and the Sudan -- banks and corporations which are owned or controlled by the bin Laden family or their associates including members of the royal family (35-38).
For example, the Saudi government and the wife of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, provided over $100,000.000, each, to Osama Bassnan, a Saudi agent who made arrangements for 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq al-Hazmi, to live in San Diego. Osama Bassnan even paid their rent. The payments from the Saudi government and the Saudi royal family continued up until the 9/11 hijackings.
Moreover, some of these same high ranking Saudis, including Prince Bandar and members of the bin Laden family, have been business partners with the Bush family, including "Mr. George W. Bush of the CIA" (38). All are heavily invested in the Carlyle Group -- whose board members included a number of ex-CIA heavyweights. Bin Laden, in turn, had been working with the CIA, since 1978 or 1979 (26, 39).
Thus, it could be reasonably argued that the bin Ladens, the Saudis, the CIA, George Bush, and the Reagan-Bush administration are implicated to varying degrees, as having played some role in the assassination of Sadat as well as terrorist acts that have resulted in the assassination of a number of foreign leaders. As we have seen in earlier chapters, Bush and the CIA, as well as previous Republican administrations, have been linked to terrorism, mass murder, torture, and the assassination and attempted assassination of a number of foreign presidents and prime ministers, including Italian Prime Minister Moro and Allende of Chile (1,2,32).
Likewise, as to the Libya and Iran connection to the Sadat assassination, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the CIA was providing illegal financial or military aid to both countries either prior to, during, or after the assassination, and that part of the motive for this illegal activity was to curry favor and gain influences on Libyan and Iranian terrorist- and intelligence organizations (19,20,40,41,42).
Although an arm's embargo and other sanctions were in place against Libya and Iran, and presumably, vigorously enforced by the CIA, State Department, and Reagan-Bush administration, the facts indicate otherwise (19,20,40,41,42). Indeed, the CIA had been providing weapons and technology to Libya since 1977. Likewise, despite its being a "terrorist" state, it is now well established that the Reagan and Bush administration were supplying weapons and related technology to Iran -- despite laws forbidding any such trade with this "terrorist" state (40,41,42).
BUSH PAYS TERRORISTS TO KEEP AMERICANS HOSTAGE: THE BIN LADEN CONNECTION
According to official records, including those of the "Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters" (40) and the Tower Commission (41), the Reagan-Bush administration were also illegally selling arms to Iran in 1985 -though in fact, the evidence suggests that the CIA and the Reagan-Bush administration had been trading with the enemy, since October of 1980 (43). And the evidence indicates that the Reagan-Bush team utilized the services of the bin Laden family in carrying out these illegal terrorist-related actions.
According to a number of independent sources including French Intelligence, and as reported by PBS Frontline, and "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway" columnist, Al Martin (43), Bush, along with Salim bin Laden and Amiram Nir (an intelligence agent with Israel's Mossad), personally met with Iranian government officials and offered unspecified bribes, in October of 1980. These meetings took place in Paris. Paris is also a corporate base for the bin Laden family, and a number of other Saudi business men implicated in funding Osama bin Laden and other terrorist groups (33).
The purpose of these meetings was to persuade Iranian officials to keep 52 American hostages imprisoned in Teheran, until after the November, 1980 election -- men and women who had been taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Iran, after the U.S. provided sanctuary to the deposed Shah of Iran. That is. George Bush met with representatives of a terrorist nation, in order to persuade them to keep American citizens hostage long enough to help insure the defeat of President Jimmy Carter and the election of the Reagan- Bush ticket (43,44).
The Reagan-Bush administration, and George Bush, were not just dealing with Iranian terrorists, but the bin Ladens.
As also noted by Frontline (2001), "if the French report is correct, it points to a long-standing connection of highly illegal behavior between the Bush and bin Laden families."
That Bush would conspire with terrorists and put his own interests above those of the American people, is consistent with everything we know about this man and his family.
Bush, of course, claims that these meetings never happened. Nevertheless a number of independent witnesses, including French Intelligence agents, observed George H.W. Bush and Iranian officials in Paris in October, when these meetings took place.
What other evidence do we have which indicates that these Bush -- bin Laden -- Iranian meetings actually occurred, and that bribes were offered?
For one, we know that the Iranians held off on freeing the hostages until after the November elections. They were freed on the day Reagan and Bush were sworn into office.
We also know that the Reagan-Bush administration illegally provided arms to Iran (40-43).
The evidence indicates that the "bribe" offered to Iran included offensive weapons, and that in return for the promise of weapons, Iran continued to hold American hostage until after the election.
As scientists, we do not believe that "coincidence" is a scientific explanation.
IRAN-CONTRA: THE BIN LADEN CONNECTION
As noted, not only George H.W. Bush, but Israeli agent, Amiram Nir, and the bin Ladens played a prominent role in the October 1980 meeting in Paris. These same individuals also played a significant role in the illegal operation code named "arms for hostages," i.e. the illegal provision of offensive weapons to the Iranian regime, and the provision of illegal funds to terrorists operating in bases outside Nicaragua.
Amiram Nir and Salem bin Laden played a significant role in arming not just the Iranians, but Central American terrorists.
To quote the New Yorker 01/5/01), "During the nineteen-eighties, when the Reagan Administration secretly arranged for an estimated thirty-four million dollars to be funneled through Saudi Arabia to the Contras, in Nicaragua. Salem bin Laden aided in this cause, according to French intelligence."
Yet another coincidence, Salem bin Laden died in a 1988 air crash in Texas. Nothing was ever proven, but Salem bin Laden's death led to speculation that he might have been "eliminated." If he was in fact purposefully killed, his murder may have been related not to the Contras, but to the illegal arms trade with Iran and the Paris meeting in 1980.
Likewise, Amiram Nir died in a plan crash after departing Texas and while flying over Mexico, presumably in route to South America. His death, too, may have had little to do with the Contras, per se, but with operation code named: "arms for hostages," and the Paris meeting where Bush traded the lives of Americans to enhance his chances to be elected Vice-President.
As will be explained, the Contras were a terrorist army waging a terrorist campaign of murder, torture, and terrorism, against the people of Nicaragua. The contrast were funded, trained, and equipped by the CIA, with the assistance of the Saudi royal family, including the bin Laden family and Salem bin Laden.
SAUDI ARABIA
By 1980, 50 patriarchs of the ruling Saud family had become multi-billionaires. The royal family's budget was estimated be between $6 to $7 billion annually. The king's palace, in 1980,was estimated to be worth $17 billion.
Saudi Arabia, the richest and thus the most powerful state in the Gulf region, is also the most repressive and the most inscrutable. The population is kept under extremely tight control, women have almost no rights, and Jews are forbidden entry except under exceptional conditions, i.e. U.S. diplomats who are Jews (15,45).
Foreign researchers and reporters are almost always refused entry into the country unless specifically invited. They are then accompanied wherever they go.
American soldiers and oil company staff are required to live in prison-like compounds, which are fenced off to prevent unsupervised interaction with Saudi citizens.
Arrest and imprisonment without trial, torture, solitary confinement for years on end, political executions, beheadings, amputation, and the most barbaric of criminal penalties are imposed on men, women, and children, for crimes such as criticizing the Royal family. A typical case reported by Amnesty International: a ten-year-old child was tied to a rope and left exposed to the merciless desert sun until he died of exposure.
Likewise, the armies of foreigners who labor at extremely low wages in Saudi Arabia have no rights, are denied citizenship, and are ruled with an iron hand (15,45).
It is a suffocating world of the most extremist oppression. In November of 1990, as U.S. forces began to arrive in preparation for war in Iraq, 47 Saudi women did the unthinkable: They drove cars. The women were covered from head to foot. There was nothing un-Islamic about their appearance. However, they had broken Saudi Arabia's version of Islamic law and the religious police pounced. The women were arrested, branded "harlots," "bitches" and "whores" and threatened with death.
On March 15, 2002, over a dozen Saudi girls burned to death, when they were not allowed to escape a burning school building. Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped the schoolgirls from escaping the blaze because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress (headscarves and black robes -- abayas). Because the girls, in their panic, refused to return to the burning buildings, the religious police -- also known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice -- began beating them and tossing them bodily back into the inferno. Men who stopped and tried to help the girls, were warned back by the religious police because "it is a sinful to approach them."
These incredibly repressive policies have been fully supported by a succession of U.S. Presidents, who, like the Kings of Arabia, know that it is in the strategic and economic interests of the bankers, oil men, and the arms merchants, to keep the kings in power and the people under control. Indeed, Saudi Arabia is the world's largest single oil producer, and thus controls the spigot which provides the major life blood of the world's economy, oil, that is (12, 45).
Because of its police state mentality, the exclusion or confinement of foreign visitors, and its hyper-secrecy, Saudi Arabia is thus the perfect partner for men of power who wish to engage in criminal acts or commit terrorist atrocities against the people and leaders of other countries who do not share their views. All becomes permissible, nothing is forbidden, if there is enough secrecy. Saudi Arabia is a religious-fascist state which under the cloak of secrecy seeks to impose its world view and its repressive interpretation of Islam, on other countries and peoples.
THE SAUDI-CONTRA CONNECTION
The Bush family -- with its Nazi connections, the Saudi royals -- with their Nazi-connections-and other rich and influential Saudi families were naturally drawn to one another as they share similar ideologies and goals: the "new world order" which is to be governed and controlled by a small ruling class elite, that is, the "Brotherhood" (15,46). In the 1960s, and certainly by the 1970s, they were all doing business together (38, 43).
However, in the case of the Saudis, that new world order will be a world-wide Islamic state, governed according to Sunni Wahhabi interpretations of Islam (15). Although that goal is not shared by the Bush-Wall Street-corporate elite, the Bush team and the Saudis are nevertheless willing to work closely together, to increase their wealth and their power, and to combat and eliminate common enemies and competitors for world domination, such as the Soviet Union and its communist allies. In the 1980s, these "communist" enemies targeted for elimination included those in South- and Central America which, despite its distance from the Persian gulf, is a perfect target for Islamic extremists.
Indeed, due in part to Saudi efforts, since the 1980s, Islam has become the fastest growing religion among Latinos in the Americas (47,48). This is not entirely surprising, as Islam has a long history in Spain, beginning with the Spanish rule of the Muslim Moors from the 700s to the 14oos. It is Spain, with its Muslim-colored culture, which conquered Mexico and South America during the 1500s.
In fact, in the semi-isolated jungles of countries like Peru (e.g., in a region called Canete) as well as in cities such a Lima, there are houses which resemble Muslim Masjids. Peasants of many villages sill dress in turbans and thobes -- Arab robes (49).
Although the peoples of South- and Central America are predominantly Catholic, Islam has made strides by stressing and promoting the idea that converts are actually reverting back to their original religion. For example, Ibrahim Gonzalez, raised as a Catholic, says he "didn't convert to Islam" -- rather, he says, "I reverted. We're returning to a religion that we once belonged to and was very much a part of our historical heritage" (48).
The Saudis thus looked to Central America as another breeding ground for their brand of Sunni Wahhabism. The Saudis were happy to assist the Reagan-Bush administration in funding terrorists who would be unleashed on South- and Central American countries such as Nicaragua.
As the CIA and the Reagan-Bush administration were working with the Saudis to unleash terrorists on Middle Eastern countries, it was only natural that they would work together in promoting terrorism in South- and Central American countries.
As was the case in the 1980 Paris meeting that Bush held with Iranian officials, Salem bin Laden would act on behalf of the Saudi royal family for the Central American operation.
As confirmed by French Intelligence sources, and as reported by PBS Frontline (43), during the 1980s, "Salem bin Laden, Osama's oldest brother, [was] one of the two closest friends of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd. As such, he often performed important missions for Saudi Arabia."
Thus, the CIA, Bush and associates, and various Saudi families and Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar and the bin Ladens began working hand in glove (40,41,43) to help support terrorist organizations, including the Contras who were raping, torturing and terrorizing the people of Nicaragua (50).
Bush business partner and friend, Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi billionaire oil and arms trader, admitted in a television-interview, that he funneled $5 million dollars to help finance arms shipments to the Contras who were terrorizing Nicaragua. In addition, the Sultan of Brunei -- the richest man in the world -- pitched in another $10 million.
According to the Tower Commission, led by Senator John Tower (41) Saudi officials linked to Saudi King Fahd donated from $1 million to $2 million a month from July 1984 to April 1985. over 32 million dollars, to support the Contras. According to the New York Times the contribution may have been part of a 1981 secret agreement between Riyadh and Washington "to aid anti communist resistance groups" in return for "sophisticated American AWACS radar planes, according to United States officials and others familiar with the deal."
As detailed in the "Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters" (40) "Saudi Arabia had contributed to the support of the Nicaraguan contras at a time when Congress had forbidden the use of appropriated funds for this purpose." The report goes on to say that the Reagan-Bush administration were soliciting "foreign countries including Saudi Arabia .,. to provide funds for the contras, and that ... Saudi Arabia was providing $25 million in assistance to the contras."
The Saudi royal family was intimately involved in these illegal activities.
"During the period between 1984-1987 ...daily diary notes record at least 64 separate contacts with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States ...." the subjects discussed ranged "from political strategy for handling the revelation of the Iran arms sales, and included discussions of helping Saudi Arabia acquire United States weapon systems."
Some of those who attended or were privy to those meetings included the Secretary of Defense (Caspar Weinberger), the Director of the CIA, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (40), as well as Bush and Cheney.
Although Bush later claimed he was "out of the loop", Secretary of State George Shultz later told the Tower Commission (41) that George Bush was completely aware of the complex arrangements between the Saudis, the Reagan-Bush administration, the Contras, and even the operation coded named: "arms for hostages."
Likewise, according to Reagan Press Secretary James Brady, "Bush" was "functioning much like a co-president" and was "involved in all the national security stuff because of his special background as CIA director. All the budget working groups he was there, the economic working groups, the Cabinet meetings. He is included in almost all the meetings."
In the "Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Irani Contra Matters" (40) it is also noted that Reagan-Bush administration officials repeatedly lied and perjured themselves by attempting to cover up these illegal activities. The Independent Counsel also concluded that "Prince Bandar" repeatedly made false statements including: "Saudi Arabia is not and has not been involved either directly or indirectly in any military or other support activity of any kind for or in connection with any group or groups concerned with Nicaragua," he claimed.
As an aside, this is the same Prince Bandar, who, some 15 years later, and again acting as a spokesman for the terrorist regime of the Saudi royal family, refused to let U.S. investigators interview the families of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers, all of whom Saudi citizens. It was the wife of Prince Bandar, and the Saudi government which also provided over $200,000.00 to Osama Bassnan who in turn provided cash to 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq al-Hazmi.
Just as we know that the Saudi royals and other Saudi families helped finance the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States (34-37), we also know, based on Reagan-Bush administration documents which escaped destruction in the 1980s, that "Saudi Arabia had agreed to give financial support to the Nicaraguan contras during the period when U.S. funds for the contras were virtually exhausted and Congress had refused to appropriate additional funds" (40). In yet another administration note it is written: "Bandar is giving $25 million to Contras."