Kurt Nimmo — Prison Planet March 17, 2015
The U.S. government says it has given al-Qaeda millions of dollars “largely because of poor oversight and loose financial controls,” reports The New York Times.
The money, supposedly part of a secret CIA fund to pay kidnappers, was used by al-Qaeda for operational costs and weapons.
The United States and Britain insist they do not pay ransom to terrorist groups.
Details of the money transfers supposedly showed up in the papers of Osama bin Laden who was, according to the official war on terror narrative, killed in 2010 in Pakistan by U.S. Navy SEALs. In fact, according to multiples sources, the former CIA operator who headed up the Arab Afghans in the CIA’s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan died in late 2001, not 2010 as the government and its corporate media insist.
A fictional twist to the government story on the payment to al-Qaeda has Osama bin Laden worried the money was contaminated with radiation or poison or that it would be used to track al-Qaeda leaders and operatives.
Funding Crucial to War on Terror Operation
The recent effort to fund the enemy and thus continue unabated the highly profitable military industrial complex and government manufactured war on terror has cost over a hundred million dollars, most of it dispensed under the excuse of paying ransom, which the U.S. publicly denies paying.
In 2013 alone, the United States paid out $165 million. Since 2008, according to the Times, other countries added the following amounts to the total:
- France: $58.1 Million
- Qatar and Oman: $20.4 Million
- Switzerland: $12.4 Million
- Spain: $11 Million
- Austria: $3.2 Million
- Undetermined Countries: $21.4 Million
Additionally, millions of dollars ends up in al-Qaeda and Taliban coffers through contractors working in Afghanistan.
“I am deeply troubled that the US military can pursue, attack and even kill terrorists and their supporters,” said John Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, in a letter sent to Congress in 2013, “but that some in the US government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract.”
The U.S., through its Gulf Emirate partners, has allowed millions of dollars to flow into the coffers of al-Qaeda — and now ISIS — affiliated proxy mercenary groups in Syria.
From the CIA’s massive operation in Afghanistan, funding and creating the Mujahideen that would become al-Qaeda and the Taliban, to its work with other terrorist groups, including the drug-running Kosovo Liberation Army, Chechnya terrorists and the Jundullah terrorists attacking Iran, there is plenty of evidence the United States government and its partners are engaged in supporting terrorist groups for political gain.
As Sam Muhho notes, it is not religious sectarianism or the Wahhabist drive to execute apostates under the banner of ISIS that is the problem, but rather it “is the hegemonic and imperialist designs of the NATO governments who have on-record worked with Saudi Arabia and Qatar to use Islamic extremists throughout the Middle East as their ‘Swiss army knife of destabilization’ in order to reorient the Middle East per their interests.”
As Robert Dreyfuss (Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam) and others (namely Peter D. Goodgame: The Globalists and the Islamists: Fomenting the “Clash of Civilizations” for a New World Order) have eloquently and exhaustively documented, the United States, Britain and their Saudi and Qatari partners are responsible for Islamic terrorism routinely exaggerated for propaganda purposes by the corporate media. This support includes direct funding and, more recently hands-on military training of ISIS terrorists by the U.S. military in Jordan.
The ISIS phase of the clash of civilizations, as plotted by the neocons and the globalist think tanks, is designed to make the war on terror a permanent feature. It not only enriches the military industrial complex and a burgeoning national and homeland security industry, but also aimed at threatening the designs of China and Russia in the Middle East and Africa, supporting the “imperial geostrategy,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski described it, and thus “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.