rigorousintuition.ca

No, not the New York Times.

Anybody know who the State Department official is supposed to be? Is it Armitage?

WOW.

Turks = conduit for ISI, makes so much more sense than just Turks.
And the ISI + Israelis + US...what a combo. Of course!
Transnational organized crime...christ, it's very real.

That has to be Armitage, right?

It may be Armitage. It may be Mark Grossman. Though I have not yet seen the documentary, Kill the Messenger, in it, I understand Sibel Edmonds implicates Grossman in the 1999 outing of Brewster-Jennings.

It's good to see this in the international media. Now if only some domestic reporters would pay attention and continue to dig.

Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group


Sibel Edmonds: KILL THE MESSENGER
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

Very interesting. Edmonds hinted that Grossman was a key figure in what she knew:

http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8137

Let's assume it is Grossman, and that Grossman is as neocon as his buddies. Someone please explain to me how it serves Israeli interests to be offering nuclear secrets to countries with large power bases committed to the destruction of Israel? I'm not trying to be snarky here; I'm trying to figure it out.

On Sept 10, 2001 it was reported that Grossman had important meetings with ISI Director Mahmud Ahmed:

"[Ahmed's] most important [US] meeting was with Mark Grossman, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs. U.S. sources would not furnish any details beyond saying that the two discussed 'matters of mutual interests.' What those matters could be is a matter of pure conjecture. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centered around Afghanistan, relations with India and China, disarmament of civilian outfits, country's nuclear and missiles program, and, of course, Osama bin Laden."

http://www.karachipage.com/news/Sep_01/091001.html


So much for safe assumptions. This stinks rotten.

Cannon connects some of the dots:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... peaks.html

From cannonfire: (Update: BradBlog confirms that Edmonds tagged Grossman. Keep in mind that Armitage and Grossman are thisclose.)

Nothing all that persuasive from Smolderin' Joe.

Let's assume it is Grossman, and that Grossman is as neocon as his buddies. Someone please explain to me how it serves Israeli interests to be offering nuclear secrets to countries with large power bases committed to the destruction of Israel? I'm not trying to be snarky here; I'm trying to figure it out.

You can't play ball if the other team doesn't have a bat. The nuclear secrets would probably lead to evidence (or, "evidence") of nuclear ambitions which would be used to justify an invasion.

It's always fun to see who picks up a story and how they report it.

The Times of India focuses on the Pakistan angle. (A number of other Indian papers also ran the story.)
Haaretz focuses on the Israel angle.
The Australian runs the whole piece.

FourthBase wrote:

bks wrote:Someone please explain to me how it serves Israeli interests to be offering nuclear secrets to countries with large power bases committed to the destruction of Israel?

You can't play ball if the other team doesn't have a bat. The nuclear secrets would probably lead to evidence (or, "evidence") of nuclear ambitions which would be used to justify an invasion.

I was thinking the same thing. It would be a humorous explanation for why the Israelis are so sure that Iran is more nuclear capable than is currently believed.

The Daily Times, a Pakistani paper, covers the story but expunges the damning parts about Pakistan.

(202) 225-3976: Henry Waxman's office.

Your script: Hello, I'm calling to inquire: When are the upcoming hearings that Chairman Waxman is holding on the Sibel Edmonds case?

You're not holding hearings? But I don't understand. Are you saying that Chairman Waxman is soft on terrorism?

Are you saying that it's not a matter of utmost, urgent importance that Chairman Waxman determines where the money to fund terrorism is coming from and who may be involved in our own government?

So I still don't understand: Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator-turned-whistleblower, who has been corroborated by Senator Charles Grassley, confirmed by the Inspector General's office, confirmed by FBI agents including veteran FBI agent John Cole, is being ignored by Chairman Waxman and her information is not being investigated?

In fact, so many people know about the veracity of Sibel Edmonds' information that it's starting to make Henry Waxman and the Democrats look soft on terror and even complicit if they're turning a blind eye to criminal activities where money laundering, narcotics trafficking and nuclear black markets are converging with terrorist activities -- and Chairman Waxman is not interested? The Democrats are not interested in investigating this?

IF you are interested in playing hardball further with the Waxman Staffer who has taken your phone call, then press for her/his name, and remark that you will be contacting McClatchy News Service to inquire about the details on Waxman's disinterest in terrorism and National Security and Public Safety.

IF you can, make this phone call once every ten days or so.

So in other words, like 9/11, if there is a nuclear terror attack on 9/11...its going to come from the same shadow government transnational network of Pakistani ISI, US government, Mossad, Saudi Arabia, and Turkish conduits?

The article highlights General Mahmoud Ahmed and AQ Khan, with Osama bin Laden...but links them directly to the US government through proxies, as well as Israel. Turkey being the conduit, much like ISI is the conduit for false flag terror bombings.

This has got to be one of the most explosive articles in ages, especially after the "America is going to be nuked by Osama, lets invade Pakistan!" Democrat debate theme

via cannonfire via Lukery, Sibel Edmonds has "named names", but really she has "posted pictures."

Lukery at Dailykos has a great write-up of this story today:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/6/112413/4231/854/431373

I'm not a big Kos fan at the moment, but this particular write-up is damned good. Lukery also thinks it's Grossman.