Authorities in the United Arab Emirates earlier this year quietly broke up a major terrorist ring affiliated with al Qaeda that had plotted to blow up targets in Dubai - a banking hub that has long seemed immune to attacks by the terrorist group.
The disruption in May of the previously undisclosed plot came at a sensitive time for the UAE, which months earlier concluded an agreement with the United States that would allow the U.S. to sell it nuclear reactor technology and nuclear fuel...
Three U.S. intelligence officials and one former senior U.S. government official confirmed that the terrorist scheme originated in Ras Al Khaimah...
17 September, 2009
Report: UAE Disrupted Major Terrorist Ring
From today's Washington Times:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Let me preemptively point out that I sent a tweet to Eli Lake, one of the authors that the Burj Dubai and the Dubai Towers are not the same thing and he said that the paper decided to translate burj for their readers. FWIW
'a banking hub that has long seemed immune to attacks by the terrorist group.'
There's no such thing as 'immune' or 'immunity' even if these words are prefaced with 'seem' or 'seemed'.
As for the UAE being a target for terror attacks. Well, let me put it this way 'there's a price you have to pay when you join the Big League'. Or like Pierce Brosnan says in The Thomas Crown Affair 'do you wanna dance, or DO YOU WANNA DANCE?'!
As a well-wisher of the country & its people (not those that run the show here), I hope no innocents ever come in harm's way.
Even putting aside the 'Dubai Towers' obvious mistake, the article is very poorly written and full of rotten assumptions:
"In the past, al Qaeda has not targeted Dubai in part because wealthy Arabs there have been a source of funding for the organization."
WTF? is there any evidence of this? I know this is a long-held belief among some nutty neocon intelligence analysts. But you'd think a decent newspaper would refrain from such presumptuous nonsense.
DJ,
I have no idea if it is true either, but I also think that it is not true that just "nutty Neo-Cons" believe this. Some examples:
"Upon their arrival in the United States, the hijackers received a total of approximately
$130,000 from overseas facilitators via wire or bank-to-bank transfers. Most of the
transfers originated from the Persian Gulf financial center of Dubai, UAE, and were sent
by plot facilitator Ali." 9/11 Commission staff report, Appendix A, page 134.
Time Magazine: "Welcome to the world of hawala, an international underground banking system that allows money to show up in the bank accounts or pockets of men like hijacker Mohammed Atta... The industry's hub is the oil emirate of Dubai..."
"After September 11, 2001, US authorities believe that millions of US dollars were sent through Hawala by Al-Qaeda to Dubai." Strategic Analysis:
A Monthly Journal of the IDSA
"Legitimate banking channels are regularly being used to fund terrorist operations. Many instances of funds received via banking channels from so-called safe locations such as Dubai and UAE intended for terrorist organizations have been detected by Indian Counter-Terrorist Agencies." Outlook India.
Brn,
Laxed financial regulations and easy hawala access hardly means that Dubai is a source of funding. Really.. $13000.. REALLY? Is that even a figure worth noting?
I second Dubai Jazz on this one. I don't mind if someone actually backs this with evidence.. hell, I would want to know.. but as it is, unsubstantiated statements thrown in as well-known-non-debatable facts pisses me off.
FA,
Actually it was $130,000 (you wrote $13,000), and that was only one instance that was cited; it wasn't as if the authors of that report were stating that no other money had ever gone through Dubai.
Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of evidence would you accept? I have to admit that after doing some searching to answer DJ, it looks more likely to me, but again, I don't know for sure.
Brn,
Alright, the money was wired through Dubai (this was actually mentioned in the 9/11 commission report and had since become so omnipresent whenever the UAE is mentioned in the American press), but what does that mean?
Does that necessarily implicate Dubai's/UAE's residents or citizens?
I don't think so.
These guys (the terrorists) moved under the radars of everyone, including the two major domestic and international intelligence agencies in the US. If we are to accept that "wealthy Arabs there have been a source of funding for the organization" for the above reason, then we should also charge flight schools in Florida for harboring and training terrorists.
yeah yeah yeah.. go dish it on some other city...
oh yeah, i found a report here: click me that claims that the UAE is implicated in 9/11 at a deeper level than though of originally. Apparently the Kerosene that power 1 of the 4 jets on that day came from the UAE, additionally the the fuel on 3 of the 4 jets passed through the St. of Hormouz, thus implicating Iran, a long lasting enemy of Freedom and thus Washington.
It is believed that the missing plane was powered by fuel from the Gulf of Mexico, which explains why it fell short of whatever target it had. The Latino population in CA, NE, NM, and TX are protesting their innocence.
Please follow any American news outlet for further, fair and unbiased coverage.
Well, I have to say it, you all have convinced me with your absolutely overwhelming evidence. Yep, there is absolutely no way that anyone, resident or citizen, in Dubai has ever done anything wrong at all. It is all just a figment of the American media's imagination. Especially the articles from the Indian media. Yep, just the usual folderol from the American media.
Thanks so much for clearing everything up.
Brn,
You don't have to get all offensive about it. Like I said, just because it passed through here doesn't implicate the country, much like being trained to fly in Florida doesn't implicate Americans.
I mean, really.. step back and think about it. No one is absolving Dubai or the UAE of any responsibility. However, just pointing fingers without facts is... ah... so Bush-era.
Get over it. Let us learn to love America again.
Brn,
This is the last forum you should post such an article.
Moreover, I hope you had taken into consideration the programmed-resistance you would face by posting such an article, especially in a region where blatant denial is the order & rule of the day or better yet, a way of life.
In other words, welcome to Utopia to have your brain washed.
No, wait, one needs one, to have one; washed, no?
It is well known that money laundering is a common practice in SOME parts of the world and VERY common in certain Gulf cities.
Page 189 of the 911 Commission report:
To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.
That last sentence really makes me wonder where the money came from!
Brn said:
"there is absolutely no way that anyone, resident or citizen, in Dubai has ever done anything wrong at all."
Brn, I know you're being sarcastic and that you're usually much smarter than this, but let me state the obvious anyway: yes, Dubai residents and citizens are innocents until proven guilty.
ah, NZM, i bet you and i know where that money came from..
DJ, i was hoping you'd comment sooner! To be honest I don't think the original post was sarcastic, but my response, well it was sarcastic, as well as comments that followed..
but still, something inside me doesn't trust the media.. so it's all FALSE until proven true.
FA,
You are right, I was excessively sarcastic. I apologize.
DJ,
Fair points all.
So, let me ask both of you (and BuJ too) again: Is there any evidence that you would accept?
I think that I've shown that it isn't just "neo-cons" or the American media saying this. I mean there are people who don't believe that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11, even after he himself said that he did. If nothing will convince you, then fine, but it seems pointless to continue this conversation.
Hi Brn,
Correct me if i'm wrong but you didn't really give much evidence. To answer your question, I would accept any kind of evidence that can be proven to be true or from a trusted source.
I don't think i'm as unreasonable as some might think just because I was sarcastic in a comment on two. Please.
BuJ,
I know, after being so sarcastic, that it might have seemed that I wasn't being honest in my question, but I was. Please, tell me what "evidence that can be proven to be true or from a trusted source" would be? What source would you trust?
I dont think saying "they said so" prove anything though !
Brn,
You asked: "So, let me ask both of you (and BuJ too) again: Is there any evidence that you would accept? "
So in order to answer, I have to ask what is that you (or we) are trying to prove? that Al Qaeda had perpetrated this heinous act of terror is something I would not dispute (and I have to say that it's somewhat dishonest on your part to imply that I said anything to the effect that Bin Laden wasn't involved).
My qualm with the article, as I stated in my first comment, is this allegation:
"In the past, al Qaeda has not targeted Dubai in part because wealthy Arabs there have been a source of funding for the organization."
This is a wild speculation on the part of the article's writer. And there is no evidence to THAT. The brilliant quote from the 9/11 commission report which NZM had cited, clearly shows that nobody knows where the money that was wired from Dubai had come from originally.
So, yes, unfortunately, even though intelligence in the US is supposed to be non-partisan, it's almost always the neocons-leaning guys that would make such generalizations and implicate everyone in the Middle East.
DJ,
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I wasn't trying to make a statement about your beliefs about 9/11. I was merely saying that on some subjects certain people cannot be convinced no matter what.
Second, I personally am not trying to prove that Dubai's citizens or residents are the original source of funds to anyone. But I did show that examples of this belief are found in
a) the 9/11 report, researched and written by a bi-partisan (i.e. not Bush or neo-con, however defined) controlled) US committee;
b) an article in Time magazine, a mainstream and if anything liberal leaning US news magazine;
c) an Indian think tank report; and
d) an Indian news media article.
You all have said what you won't believe (e.g. you don't believe anything from neo-cons and don't believe the American media). I produced three things that meet those criteria, and you all have rejected them too.
Fine. I'm just asking what you would believe. There are no wrong answers. If you said that it would take seeing such a transfer take place with your own eyes, and nothing else, that would be fine. Whatever you ask for, I'm not going to try to provide it. I'm seriously just curious what you all would consider proper evidence.
Brn,
I'm not setting anyone an impossible goal.. but I don't generally trust stuff told by governments.. sources i would trust :
- The UN (in general)
- HRW
- Amnesty International
- Greenpeace (although they can get a bit crazy)
- The Guardian (although they make mistakes)
- Any one really if they are fair and unbiased, and if they have suitable evidence.
Usually in a trial the judge/jury would look at available evidence and decide on it rather than pre-emptively sending out a list of approved/non-approved evidence.
Buj,
I wasn't trying to imply that any of you had an impossible standard. I think your list is a perfectly fair and valid one.
The FBI admits: No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
LOL, TRUST the U.N., one of the most corrupt organizations in the history of the world! Too funny
nzm,
That report is a beautiful example of deliberately twisting someone's words. Rex Tomb, the FBI spokesman that Ed Haas quotes in the article you cite also said:
"There's no mystery here...they could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
Or how about a former Clinton era terrorism prosecutor: "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view..." (source for both quotes)
The fact that the FBI doesn't list 9/11 clearly doesn't mean that he is not involved.
Believe what you will, Brn.
If Bin Laden was involved and there was hard proof, there would be no doubt in my mind that 9/11 would be added to his crime list. It makes a farce out of all the justification that has been made for hunting him down which has been built pretty much solely around his supposed involvement in 9/11.
nzm,
Thanks I will.
You are demonstrating a textbook case of why it is impossible to argue with conspiracists. Your system is completely closed, and you only present a parody of a logical argument. When people like this FBI spokesman say things you like, you cite them and then throw out the other things they say that contradict your world view, frequently when they are in the same sentence.
Moreover, you are just wrong that 9/11 is "all the justification that has been made for hunting him". Bin Laden has been on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List since 1998 and the US Embassy attacks.
I'm not going to argue further about this, because it is pointless. If you aren't going to believe Bin Laden himself, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or Ayman al-Zawahiri, all of whom have admitted that Al Qaeda is responsible, then nothing is going to convince you.
Brn, in case you didnt know, OBL's confession was a fake one, doctored by the CIA!
Post a Comment
NOTE: By making a post/comment on this blog you agree that you are solely responsible for its content and that you are up to date on the laws of the country you are posting from and that your post/comment abides by them.
To read the rules click here
If you would like to post content on this blog click here