Catharsis of Iraq War

My Dear friend I was really impressed with your opinion about US and its values, a pig does not become a gentleman by putting on a 3 piece suit and a tie. The war history of Americans is littered with the bloodshed of innocent Native Americans (Red Indians as we know them), what US did in Abu Ghuraib Prison was not unexpected, you want proof go check out Veitnam war and the cruelities that were carried out by the Civilized US Troops.What do you think Americans as a whole are civilized nation, my friend will you be surprised if I told you what is an ALABAMA VIRGIN is? ALABAM VIRGIN is a 12 year old girl who can outrun his elder brother`s rape attempts. So if 60 % of population has this level morality what do you expect from them.

My friend the US is not what it says to the world, it is the most cruel and self serving society and to expect humanity and moral behaviour is foolish, and what happened in Iraq should be an eye opener for us and the Muslim world

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Saminasha #41
Accusing me implicitly or explicitly of racism may fit your definition of restraint, but it does not fit mine. I wish you well too.

Sadna,

I have read the pieces you posted. I made my comments. I have also remained pretty restrained in my posts to you. I would request that you do the same. If this is not something you can do, I wish you well.

regards,

Sadna,

That would be a kind of censorship I dont support.

Saminasha #37
``Can you leave me out of the racist baby killer debate? ``

Uh Saminasha, can you leave me out of the racist neocon debate?

I have posted all I wanted to on the subject, which clearly you did not read. I suggest you contact the Boston Herald and Newsweek about the articles and their titles. If you do not like those articles being posted here, ask chowk staff to delete them.

whoops-

NOT disputing your framing of the article

Uh Sadna,

Can you leave me out of the racist baby killer debate?

And I`m disputing your framing of the article-I`m defending the deconstruction of the title, which you perceive as innocuous. That doesnt make my reading of the piece ``less intelligent`` than yours....in fact, I think that several people would back up my reading of the title...and whole scholarly papers are often built on single sentences...(and if you make fun of liberal arts, then I`ll know you really are a science elitist)

Words/phases/references/puns are text open to as much deconstruction as any thing else is. Tell you what; I`ll show ten Americans this article this weekend and report their responses on Monday.

Here are my questions:

1. Please read the title of the article. What, if any, inferences do you make from it.
2. Please read the text of the article. What are your conclusions?

Okay? No winking or suggestive gesturing will be involved. Nor will I offer stingy bribes or coach response... I`ll be ethical in a way that the Bush Administration has never dreamed of. You`ve got to start somewhere...

And Arjun Sahib, just to please you, I`ll ask a broad cross section of Americans of varying formal education backgrounds and races. But I`ll make a point of asking one working class Indian...

I was going through the Amnesty International Report 2004. It seems that the global war against terrorism is causing more terror for innocent people than terrorism itself. From Far East to South Asia to EU to USA, every state is using terrorism as an excuse to detain and torture people without any formal charges. Just like nothing can justify the 9/11 attacks, nothing can justify this witch-hunt either. I don’t see much sanity prevailing in middle of the media hype created over terrorism and the war which is being fought like a reality show on TV.

vertex:

quite honestly no. i cannot explain sadna`s motivations for bringing that article here in the first place. the topic of aafia siddiqui was being vigorously discussed between indians and pakistanis elsewhere on this site. apparently it is okay if a pakistani muslim should bring up the subject of aafia siddiqui but anyone else. . .it is baiting and cyber rage?

i am not defending the title, or the article itself. and i believe that even if reports should be made regarding POTENTIAL or ALLEGED suspects as fingered by the oh so reliable Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the media fails to carry out its `objective` mission when reporting such news.

but to reduce any remark sadna says to `her blind rage against pakistanis and muslims` is not a very well-thought out remark in and of itself. if you don`t agree with that statement, that`s fine, but consider the fact that some of your remarks could easily be construed as blind rage towards something as well. as a matter of fact, they do. think about that one.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

nooralain,

Can we bring up the question as to why in the blue blazes the article was posted in the first place, out of the blue, out of context...and out of place? Public service announcement? Gee, how nice.

Please answer that question...and if anything other than ``baiting`` doesn`t come to mind, I will be keen to know...and yes, `baiting`/`trolling` is a form of cyber-rage.

---

Can we judge an article by it`s title? Well, we can certainly judge an author by references to what are clearly racist references in said article. What is sad is that this women, who the FBI wishes to question, has all of a sudden reached alleged ``key alQuaeda`` status through the media...at the very least they could point out how odd it would be for a women to be a `key` member in this particular organization...

The Daily Times Pakistan:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2004_pg1_6
Online adds: However, intelligence sources told Online that Aafia was already in the custody of US intelligence agencies for the last one year.

They said Aafia had come to Pakistan in January last year and stayed with her friend in Islamabad for a few days and later went to Karachi to see her mother. Soon after landing at Karachi airport she was picked up by intelligence personnel and handed over to the FBI.

Aafia’s mother confirmed her daughter’s arrest, saying she was asked to keep quiet over the matter. She was told that it would not be good for her daughter if she reported the incident, she added. She denied that her daughter was linked to any jehadi outfit. Aafia was married to a US-based Pakistani doctor and had three children. She was later divorced, her mother added.

Ms Siddiqui’s family is friends with Senate Chairman Muhammadmian Soomro.



Now who is lying, the hanood who posts this here, the Daily Times, Pakistani intelligence agencies or the FBI ? My guess is the Muslim-hating hanood and the Muslim-hating FBI are lying.

IMO, it seems the Pakistani government is playing a dangerous game of chicken with US on one side and US`s enemies on the other, putting the Pakistani nation at risk of retaliation from either side.

But being a Muslim- and Pakistani- hater, what else will I say. So - whatever!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

HP. .

Sadna is driven by her blind rage against Muslims and Pakistan in general????

I`m curious to know what you`re driven by, and how you come to such interesting conclusions?

In posting the article she did, how did Sadna express her rage against Muslims?

HP #27
``Sadna is driven by her blind rage against Muslims and Pakistan in general. So, I am not really going to discuss much of her thoughts. ``

Noooo kidding? What ELSE have you Pakistanis been discussing on this thread?

#9
It appears that Aafia Siddiqui`s actions may all have a benign explanation. The articles are sensational and inflammatory. Look at how both articles describe her husband`s purchases from Black Hawk industries. Rather than concentrate on the specific purchases, they set up the scene for you: this is a company selling dangerous stuff. On first reading, it sounded as though these guys were buying AK47s, bomb disposal equipment and so on. You had to look carefully to find that they bought night vision goggles.
They gave money to charities that were later shut down. A particularly vicious aspect of the Patriot Act is that you can be convicted for making donations to a charity that is found to have ``terrorirst`` connections even if you yourself believed that they were engaged in humanitarian activities.
The two articles are exemplary of the coverage of anyone suspected by Ashcroft`s justice department. Mayfield was vilified before he was cleared. The media are bloodthirsty. They seem not to have learned from the way they covered iraq pre-war and how wrong they all have turned out to be.

Saminashah: your criricism of the title is a stretch.

My 2 cents:

Sadna is driven by her blind rage against Muslims and Pakistan in general. So, I am not really going to discuss much of her thoughts.

Arjun makes a very good point and really there should not be two opinions on that. His assessment of the Ashcroft’s motives is right on the money.

Now the issue of racist undertones. I again agree with Arjun. A good majority of American would not be able to make the connection, whether they had seen the movie or not.

It is not a matter of giving credit or not. It is simply a matter of making connection. Most of the population does not read the newspaper or news in details. It is more like glancing over the news and that’s why TV has sound bites.

“Gorillas in the mist” to me is just a metaphor especially when we are talking about a Boston paper, and the alleged terrorist stay in the Boston area.
Racial undertones are for fanciful minds.

Saminasha,

There are gorillas in our midst, so I suggest you try to communicate with sign-language and offerings of bananas. They seem to be unresponsive to your well thought replies...

Saminasha #23
``What I dont understand is why you think there is no other way of relaying this info with a judicious dollop of restraint and objectiveness.``

That has been your accusation(without basis) about me from the start.

I said clearly in my post #9 FWIW which stands for `for whatever it is worth`.

In my post #14, I clearly spelled out that the FBI itself states that her activities might not be suspicious.

The fourth sentence of the article whose title you are protesting says:

``The FBI rejected Newsweek`s description of Siddiqui, her family and Saudi Arabians living in the 75 Alphonsus St. high-rise apartment building as a possible al-Qaeda ``sleeper cell`` that may have been plotting follow-up attacks to 9/11.

``We don`t believe there are cells operating in Massachusetts,`` Marcinkiewicz said, adding agents had thoroughly reviewed Siddiqui`s activities. ``


In my #9 I said clearly `` I do not understand why her name is suddenly being trumpeted about now. `` I said `` I hold no brief for the conservative establishment and a hysterical press that takes cue from it``.

I happen to agree with arjun_m. The reason why these names are being trumpeted now is because it is clear from intelligence that an attack is imminent and Ashcroft and Mueller have no clue, so they are covering their as_es by taking out some open files and making a big noise.

The need to include a `wanted` Pakistani in the hungama might come from the fact that Bin Laden is suspected to be in Pakistan, and the Bush adminstration wants an alibi in case after the next attack, they are accused of being too chummy with the Pakistani govt.


But why should I have to explain myself? I think it is you who is the racist insisting on your own interpretations here. You are just like your compatriot who called me a racist baby killer because I asked about Indian Muslim women`s education. This tendency to claim moral superiority based on nothing but your self-serving assumptions about me is a despicable one.

Gorillas in the Mist was based on a true story, Sigourney Weaver was in it, and was even nominated for an oscar for her performance. It was brought to networks and cable channels after its run in the theaters. . .how is it possible that such a high percentage of americans were not aware of the movie? unless 99% of americans have finally killed their televisions and boycotted much of hollywood. ah! wouldn`t that be nice?
arjun dada, pay up! : )

Sadna,

Oh no. I believe an entire narrative exists the processess of how ``information`` is created and disseminated. According to the first article you posted, Siddiqui is a terrorist-and that impression is repeated from the title to text.

What I dont understand is why you think there is no other way of relaying this info with a judicious dollop of restraint and objectiveness. And I dont think there is anything wrong in pointing out yellow journalism when it is printed.

But then my beliefs about the media`s role in a democracy is that it checks the workings of our govt with integrity...not serve as an unquestioning apparatus.

Arjun,

It really is a pity how little you seem to think Americans know.

#8 nikki, the definition you have given for terrorism applies aptly to what the US is doing in Iraq. Killing civilians in the name of exterminating terrorism is never gonna solve the problem. Violence breeds violence.

the article that you quoted sadna misses a crucial piece of information -- aafia siddiqi has been reported missing in pakistan also, probably been picked up by the govt`s agencies -- a story on a pakistan from a boston news source is likely to tell you an incomplete picture in any case -- it gives the wrong impression as if she has fled to pakistan -- no such thing happened, or not at least according to the press in pakistan -- she was reported missing over six months ago and her family approach even the interior minister and he could not tell them even who had detained her or where she was being kept -- i hope, sadna, you believe that such `guerillas` do have these rights or not --

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Saminasha #15 #16
So I was right, you could not get beyond the title.

It appears to be your POV that there is no threat to public safety from anyone, and that any threat is wholly US media/govt. created fiction. In that case, the mayor of NY needs to stop survelliance of public places and start scanning media headlines for signs of ill intent.

Apparently Atif Sahib can be a productive member of society after all. He posted this:

To Tell the Truth
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 28, 2004

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com


Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down.

But it`s not just Iraq, and it`s not just The Times. Many journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in which the press wasn`t willing to report negative information about George Bush.

People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush`s character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.

But now those people hear about a president who won`t tell a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how that war is going, who can`t admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won`t hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?

The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for various reasons, presented as reality.

The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Mr. Bush`s problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush`s ``infallibility complex`` more than two years ago, and I wasn`t being original.

So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn`t possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.

Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from ``irrational Bush haters`` who were neither haters nor irrational — and whose critiques look pretty mild in the light of recent revelations.

And some journalists just couldn`t bring themselves to believe that the president of the United States was being dishonest about such grave matters.

Finally, let`s not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative about the president, you had to be prepared for an avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access to the sort of insider information that is the basis of many journalistic careers.

The Bush administration, knowing all this, played the press like a fiddle. But has that era come to an end?

A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the national media believing that the press has not been critical enough of Mr. Bush, compared with only 8 percent who believe that it has been too critical. More important, journalists seem to be acting on that belief.

Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops — but the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called yet another terror alert — but the press raised questions about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran of ABC News actually said what many thought during other conveniently timed alerts: ``There is a disturbing possibility that you are manipulating the American public in order to get a message out.``)

It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post — who has tried, at great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency — ``the White House press corps showed its teeth`` for the first time since 9/11. It didn`t last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility.

But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush — who has always depended on that docility — may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest.
user posts | profile

Sadna, Arjun,

The tenor of the mainstream press is far from the even toned, balanced construction of language we should be demanding from it. For example Arjun, the title is a play on the movie Gorillas in the Mist. So, already the frame of the article has inferred that the people being investigation are: 1. as gorillas: sub human 2. as guerillas: guilty of extreme politics 3. in the mist: the confusion of secret intelligence/our national fear/our environment 4. in our midst: our neighbors, within the body of the US. Need we question Siddiqui or Khan any further? All the average American reader has to do is scan that title and s/he has his daily dose of anxiety laced with the requisite overlay of paranoia and rage mainlined immediately.

This press mechanism should be commented on because it is manipulative and ethically questionable. Khan and Siddiqui may be innocent of the charges being attached to them in their absence, but regardless, their humanity-and the humanity of other brown folk-particulary Pakistani, has been questioned, joked about, othered. When our press fails in being able to maintain objective detachment from their subjects, we cannot pretend that it is without agenda. What are the subtexts of this article? That Pakistani educated and both gendered radicals exist in America. Beeewwwwaaarrrreeee.....

As for the content of the piece, yes the Saudi ties look damning. But that doesnt preclude other possibilties....such as Siddiqui and Khan needing that stuff for science related activities (I`m not talking about bombs here). But, and lets go out on a limb here, what if those Saudi ties were linked to pro democracy activities? Would they still be gorillas? Would they still have vanished from our local flora/fauna so ``mysteriously``?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Saminasha #12
Here`s the difference between us. You find the title racist. I did not notice it, I concentrated on what the body of that article because it was a followup/part rebuttal of some assertions in the second article. Apparently you did not read the body of either. I am looking for information, I don`t know what you are looking for.

While I hold no brief for establishment conservatives nor for a hysterical press taking cue from them, I am not on the side of their Al Qaeda enemies either. What I can`t understand is how you know that, whatever the intention of the writers, that that title is purely racist and not factual.

Unless you have sufficient information, how can you tell? This is not the first time I have found people on this site show utterly irresponsible attitudes/complete denial about individuals and groups potentially planning to perpetuate violence while piously demanding proper language from others.


What I find amazing about both sides of this `clash of civilisations` situation is that the same people who demand that others act responsibly towards individuals and groups in their midst who are perpetuating violence, have no problem being utterly irresponsible about individuals and groups in their OWN ranks who might be thinking of perpetuating violence.

I have seen this woman`s name in the press a number of times in the last year or so. I do not understand why her name is suddenly being trumpeted about now. The fact remains there are questions about certain money transfers by her and her associations with certain individuals. There is no way to tell if those activities were suspicious or not, whether they pose a threat to public safety or not. They might not be suspicious at all, the FBI itself insists.

But why would you care either way, you don`t want to go beyond jumping on me and anyone else for the `neocon racist wording` in the title.

Sadna,

But Sadna...thats the just the first line of the piece you posted...do you find it acceptable?

Saminasha #10
Whatever.

``Guerrillas in our midst``: nice bit of racism and conservative cant conflated in that title...

Off-topic but knowing general tendency to emote without information, posting here for general information, FWIW:

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=483&format=

Report on Hub terror: Guerrillas in our midst: Fleet, FBI probe couple
By J.M. Lawrence
Friday, April 9, 2004

Fleet Bank reports obtained by the FBI show an MIT biology graduate and her husband bought high-tech military equipment and may have been plotting terror attacks from their Mission Hill apartment, according to a published report.

Aafia Siddiqui, a 34-year-old Pakistani national and mother of three, has fled Boston and is wanted for questioning by the FBI, Newsweek magazine reports.

``It`s an ongoing investigation and we are still trying to locate her,`` said Boston FBI spokeswoman Gail Marcinkiewicz yesterday, adding agents believe she has returned to Pakistan.

The FBI rejected Newsweek`s description of Siddiqui, her family and Saudi Arabians living in the 75 Alphonsus St. high-rise apartment building as a possible al-Qaeda ``sleeper cell`` that may have been plotting follow-up attacks to 9/11.

``We don`t believe there are cells operating in Massachusetts,`` Marcinkiewicz said, adding agents had thoroughly reviewed Siddiqui`s activities.

Newsweek obtained ``suspicious-activity reports`` filed by Fleet Bank with the U.S. Treasury Department showing Siddiqui and her now estranged husband, Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, made repeated purchases from stores selling military equipment.

They ordered from Black Hawk Industries in Chesapeake, Va., and Brigade Quartermasters in Georgia - companies whose inventories include parts for AK-47s and specialized combat equipment, including vests designed for bomb disposal.

Khan, a Harvard-trained anesthesiologist, bought body armor, night-vision goggles and military manuals.

Fleet tipped off the government to the couple in October 2001. Federal law prohibits bank officials from discussing such reports publicly.

In the report, Fleet also noted the couple`s ``major purchases`` from airlines and hotels and an $8,000 international wire transfer on Dec. 21, 2001, to a major financial institution in Pakistan under U.S. watch as a source of terrorist transactions, the magazine reported.

Two years later, after the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he fingered Siddiqui as an al-Qaeda ``fixer`` who was supposed to help operatives as they entered the United States, according to internal FBI documents cited by Newsweek.

Fleet also spotted suspicious money transfers totaling $20,000 from the Saudi government`s armed forces account to a man who lived in the same Boston apartment as Siddiqui. His name is Abdullah Al Reshood and he has been questioned by the FBI, according to a source.

Reshood wrote a $20,000 check to another Saudi, Hatem Al Dhahri, who then wired $17,193 back to an account in Saudi Arabia controlled by Reshood. Al Dhahri lived at the same address as Siddiqui, Fleet noted in its report.

The Newsweek report also highlighted the role of Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., in the transactions from Saudi Arabia. Riggs never filed any suspicious activity reports with the U.S. Treasury, prompting an investigation.

The Riggs accounts, according to Newsweek, showed a number of checks sent to flight schools and flight school students in the United States.

Riggs also paid out $19,200 from the Saudi embassy to Gulshair al-Shukrijumah, an imam who lives in Florida and once served as an interpreter for ``blind Sheik`` Omar Abdul Rahman, convicted in 1996 of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks.

A Saudi Embassy spokesman told Newsweek that the Saudis have cooperated with U.S. officials in their investigation. Senior U.S. law enforcement officials told Newsweek the investigation into the Saudi embassy`s accounts is still active.

Money trail

Large amounts of money flowed back and forth between Mideast financial institutions and U.S. banks - including Fleet Bank - involving MIT graduate Aafia Siddiqui, her estranged husband Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, and others, according to a recently published report in Newsweek.

July 10, 2001: Fleet investigators found that $50,000 wired from the Saudi Armed Forces Account at the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., was sent to an unnamed student at Clark University in Worcester. The same day $20,000 from the same account was sent to a Saudi national named Abdullah Al Reshood in Boston. Neither man could be located, said Newsweek.

Immediately after receiving the $20,000, Al Reshood wrote a $20,000 check to another Saudi, Hatem Al Dhahri, who five days later wired $17,193 to an account controlled by Al Reshood at the Al Rahji Bank in Saudi Arabia.

Dec. 21, 2001: $8,000 wired by Khan and Siddiqui from a Fleet Bank account to Habib Bank Ltd. in Pakistan, a financial institution that has been scrutinized by U.S. intelligence officials in connection with terrorist money transfers.

Between July 9, 2001, and Aug. 28, 2001: 50 separate $1,000 American Express travelers checks were sent to Saudi employees from the Riggs Bank; seven of the checks were deposited at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. Riggs also reported $19,200 in payments from the Saudi Embassy to Gulshair al-Shukrijumah, a Florida-based imam connected to Omar Abdul Rahman, convicted of a 1996 plot to blow up New York City landmarks. Gulshair al-Shukrijumah`s son, Adnan al-Shukrijumah, is a suspected al-Qaeda operative being sought by the FBI, said Newsweek.





The Newsweek article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4687305/

Tangled Ties
Law-enforcement officials follow the money trail among suspected terrorists straight to the doors of the Saudi Embassy NewsweekApril 7 - Within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified “suspicious” wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda “sleeper cell” that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States, according to documents obtained by NEWSWEEK.



U.S. law-enforcement officials familiar with the matter say there is no evidence that officials at the Saudi Embassy were knowingly financing Al Qaeda activity inside the country. But documents show that while trying to trace a tangled money trail beginning with the Saudi Embassy, investigators soon drew startling connections between a group of Saudi nationals receiving financial support from the embassy and a 34-year-old microbiologist and MIT graduate who officials have since concluded was a U.S. operative for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The microbiologist, Aafia Siddiqui, a mother of three young children, has since fled the country—most likely to her native Pakistan-and is now wanted for questioning by the FBI. But “suspicious-activity reports” (SARS) filed by Fleet Bank with the U.S. Treasury Department, suggest that Siddiqui and her estranged husband, Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, an anesthesiologist, may have been active terror plotters inside the country until as late as the summer of 2002.

The reports show that Fleet Bank investigators discovered that one account used by the Boston-area couple showed repeated debit-card purchases from stores that “specialize in high-tech military equipment and apparel,” including Black Hawk Industries in Chesapeake, Va., and Brigade Quartermasters in Georgia. (Black Hawk’s Web site, advertises grips, mounts and parts for AK-47s and other military-assault rifles as well as highly specialized combat clothing, including vests designed for bomb disposal.)

Fleet accounts associated with the couple also showed “major purchases” from U.S. airlines and hotels in Pittsburgh and North Carolina as well as an $8,000 international wire transfer on Dec. 21, 2001, to Habib Bank Ltd., a big Pakistani financial institution that has long been scrutinized by U.S. intelligence officials monitoring terrorist money flows.

NEWSWEEK first reported, in a June 23, 2003, cover story, that the FBI had identified Siddiqui and Khan as suspected Al Qaeda agents. Internal FBI documents showed that, after his capture in March 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed told U.S. interrogators that Siddiqui was supposed to support “other AQ operatives as they entered the United States.” Agents also found evidence that she had rented a post-office box to help another Baltimore-based Al Qaeda contact who had been assigned by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up underground gasoline-storage tanks. Bureau documents also stated that Khan, Siddiqui’s husband, had purchased body armor, night-vision goggles and a variety of military manuals that were supposed to be sent to Pakistan.



The newly obtained SARS documents filed by Fleet shed additional light on the federal government’s effort to track Siddiqui and Khan’s activities—and raise questions about possible links to other Saudis in the United States. As early as October 2001, long before Khalid Shaik Mohammed’s capture, FBI and Treasury Department investigators were alerted to the couple’s possible terror links in a series of SARS filed by Fleet. At the time, Fleet’s Financial Intelligence Unit was trying to trace $70,000 in wire transfers on the same day, July 10, 2001, to two Saudis in the United States. One, for $50,000 from the Saudi Armed Forces Account at the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., went to a Saudi student at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. Two others, totaling $20,000 from the same Saudi military account, went to a Saudi national named Abdullah Al Reshood in Boston.

NEWSWEEK has been unable to locate either Saudi. But a spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington said both wire transfers were consistent with the Saudi government’s longstanding practice of providing educational and medical assistance to fellow countrymen living in the United States. The spokesman said the embassy has no reason to believe either Saudi has any connection to terrorist activity.

But Fleet security officers were concerned about the transactions from the start. Immediately after receiving the $20,000 wire from the Saudi Embassy in Washington, Al Reshood wrote a $20,000 check to another Saudi, Hatem Al Dhahri, who five days later wired $17,193 back to an account controlled by Al Reshood at the Al Rahji Bank in Saudi Arabia. “There appears to be no commercial reason nor reasonable explanation for the series of transactions,” wrote one Fleet security officer in an Oct. 24, 2001, SARS report. Both Saudis lived at the same address, a high-rise apartment building in Boston’s Mission Hill neighborhood that was frequented by Arab nationals. If the purpose of the expenditures was to provide medical expenses for either Al Reshood or Al Dhahri and their families in the United States, as the Saudis claimed, the security officials wanted to know why the money was being wired back to Saudi Arabia. Al Dhahri also listed as his address the same apartment number, 2008, as another Fleet Bank customer—Aafia Siddiqui.

It is still not clear what connection, if any, Al Dhahri had with Siddiqui or whether they shared the apartment at the same time. (The Fleet Bank records suggest that Al Dhahri and Siddiqui’s accounts were both active and current in the fall of 2001 and do not indicate a change of address had been filed.) A Saudi Embassy spokesman said that the payments to Al Dhahri were to pay for liver treatments for one of his children in the United States. A Saudi Embassy spokesman said that Al Dhahri has been interrogated by the FBI and has denied any knowledge of the microbiologist.

But the common address prompted Fleet auditors to zero in on Siddiqui, resulting in more “links” that “shocked” the security officers, according to a source familiar with the matter. In addition to the expenditures for high-tech military equipment—items that seemed unusual for a microbiologist—the security officers found that Siddiqui was making regular debit-card payments to one Islamic charity, Benevolence International, that was under active investigation by federal agents for raising funds for terrorist causes. (The charity has since been shut down and its founder jailed.) In addition, Siddiqui was found to be active with the Al-Kifah Refugee Center, another Islamic charity that was ostensibly raising funds for Bosnian orphans but which also was under scrutiny by federal investigators.

A spokeswoman for Fleet, which last week was purchased by Bank of America, declined to comment on the bank’s role, noting that it is a violation of federal law to even refer to the existence of a SARS. But investigators noted that Fleet Bank SARS stand in stark contrast to the lack of similar reports from Riggs Bank, where the Saudi Embassy kept its accounts and the wire transfers began. Riggs Bank’s failure to alert investigators to a large number of unusual cash transactions by the Saudi Embassy and other foreign bank customers has led to a wide-ranging investigation by Treasury Department regulators that is likely to result in substantial civil fines imposed on the bank in the next few weeks, according to sources familiar with the matter. “Anytime, you have suspicious money movements, and it’s not reported as needed, it hurts our overall efforts,” a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said about Riggs’ failure to file the SARS. Riggs recently terminated the Saudi Embassy as a client and, according to a story in today’s Wall Street Journal, may be planning to drop its diplomatic business entirely.)

Riggs officials say they`ve initiated a program to more vigorously monitor financial accounts. And the bank late last year filed more than two-dozen reports involving Saudi Embassy transactions, including large overseas wire transfers and cash deposits made by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan; his executive assistant, Ahmed A. Kattan; his chief military aide, Gen. Abdual Rahman Al-Noah, and other embassy officials.

Most of these transactions have no apparent links to terrorism and may simply reflect the Saudis’ longstanding habit of mixing government and personal accounts. In one case, Kattan, who carries the rank of ambassador, deposited $6 million in embassy funds into his personal account at Riggs, wired $5.5 million to the agents of a school in Egypt and the remaining $500,000 to his own account in Saudi Arabia. Al-Noah, the military officer, made a total of $1.6 million in cash deposits—most in cash, one of them for $210,000—and then wired the money to pay for the purchase of furniture for a new palace in Saudi Arabia. Bandar himself wired $17 million last year to his construction manager for a new palace in Saudi Arabia. Just last December, one of Bandar’s personal aides deposited $3 million in international drafts, converted them to dollars, and then wired substantial sums back overseas—including about $200,000 to a luxury-car dealer in Great Britain. (A Saudi spokesman said that Bandar has substantial business interests overseas, so it is not surprising that he would conduct such transactions.)

But other transactions raised eyebrows at the FBI. The Riggs accounts showed a number of checks to flight schools and flight-school students in the United States as well as 50 separate $1,000 American Express travelers checks issued by Bandar to Saudi employees between July 9, 2001 and Aug. 28, 2001—including seven that were deposited that summer at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. Riggs also reported $19,200 in payments from the Saudi Embassy to Gulshair al-Shukrijumah, a Florida-based imam who once served as an interpreter for the “blind Sheik” Omar Abdul Rahman, who was convicted in 1996 of a plot to blow up New York City landmarks. Gulshair al-Shukrijumah`s son, Adnan al-Shukrijumah, also known as “Jaffar the Pilot,” is a suspected Al Qaeda operative who is the subject of a worldwide FBI manhunt. (In response to U.S. demands to impose tighter controls, the Saudis have since terminated the payments to Gulshair al-Shukrijumah, along with a number of other clerics who were being supported by the embassy.)

A Saudi Embassy spokesman stressed that the Saudis have been actively cooperating with U.S. officials on all aspects of the war on terrorism and that the embassy has recently been assured by top FBI officials that the bureau “has no concerns” about any of the embassy accounts. But senior law-enforcement officials told NEWSWEEK that Saudi Embassy accounts—including the wire transfers related to Siddiqui—remain under active investigation. Told that the Saudis have been assured the FBI “has no concerns,” a law-enforcement official made additional checks and reported back to NEWSWEEK: “That is not the case.”

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Nikki, what kinda terrorism are you talking about, Iraqi civilians are not responsible for any terrorism. By the way what do you mean by terrorism, I think what the Americans are doing in Iraq is the worst form of terrorism. Whatever they are doing in Iraq only vindicates the hatred against America, its system and its values.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

LAUGHTER THE BEST MEDICINE

Little David was in his 5th grade class when the teacher asked the
Children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up-
fireman, policeman,salesman, doctor, lawyer, etc. David was
being uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked him about his
father. ``My father`s an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all
his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer`s really good,
he`ll go out to the alley with some guy and make love with him for
money.`` The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the
other children to work on some exercises and took little David aside to
ask him, ``Is that really true about your father?`` ``No,`` said David,
``He works for the Bush administration, but I was too embarrassed to say
that in front of the other kids

A 64000 dollar question is whether Americans have stopped abusing their POWs or not. The common sense tells that they will never - the ``operations`` have only moved to secret locations. Can we trust America?

nikki7777:

I hope you are not trying to tell me that 911 was justified.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts