Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #403 Lets Make a Deal (None Dare Call It Treason)

MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

This broadcast takes its name from an old television game show. In turn, the title is a reference to two deals (one apparent and one verifiable) that are significant to an analysis of the events of 9/11, as well as the Iraq war. The apparent deal is one between Saudi Arabia and the United States. In exchange for a cover-up by the Bush administration of the Saudi links to 9/11 and the granting of favors by the US to the Saudis in post-war Iraq, the Saudis are letting the US use Saudi bases against Iraq and are keeping oil production at a level that will prevent an economic collapse. The other deal alluded to by the title is the Afghan pipeline deal that figures in the 9/11 scenario. Most accounts of the negotiations focus on Unocal as the primary business element on the US side. In fact, the negotiations were initiated by the Argentinean oil company Bridas, founded in the immediate aftermath of World War II. Inevitably, Bridas must have been connected to the Bormann/Juan Peron axis. The program lends credence to the scenario concerning the Saudi deal-making in Washington D.C.

Program Highlights Include: The Saudi role in post-war Iraq; projected Saudi influence in keeping the Shiite majority suppressed in post-war Iraq; the Saudi agreement to keep pumping oil; the possible awarding of post-war reconstruction contracts in Iraq to the Fluor corporation; Fluor’s connections to the Bin Laden economic interests; suppression by the Bush administration of Saudi religious discrimination; Bush administration suppression of Saudi links to 9/11 and related intelligence failures; comparison of 9/11 with the subversion of France prior to, and during, World War II; the projection by Bush administration insiders of the need for a an event like “Pearl Harbor”; attempts at portraying the invasion of Iraq as a Zionist conspiracy; the role of Bridas in initiating the Afghan pipeline deal; the subsequent negotiations of that deal in (of all places) Berlin; the cover-up of the Argentine/Nazi connections of the Peron government by the Peronist regime of Carlos Menem; the indictment of Iranian nationals for the AMIA bombing; the connections of that bombing to the “tri-borders” area; review of Francois Genoud associate Beaudoin Dunand’s role with the Bin Laden organization; an eerie foreshadowing of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

1. Adding substance to speculation, the program indicates that Saudi Arabia’s agreement to let the United States use bases in its territory for the attack on Iraq appears to be in exchange for influence in postwar Iraq. In particular, it looks as though the Saudis are bargaining for the continued diminution of the Shiite majority in that country and (perhaps) the preservation of the military and ruling Baath party. “In an apparent attempt to secure an involvement in post-war plans for Iraq, Saudi Arabia has conceded to a range of US demands for facilities in the kingdom in the run up to any US attack, according to western and Gulf diplomatic sources. Western diplomatic sources said the US had secured the use of the crucial air command and control center at the Prince Sultan airbase near Riyadh to co-ordinate the air campaign that will be mostly led out of neighboring Qatar.” (“Saudis Concede to US Demands and Allow Use of Key Facilities” by Robin Allen and Roula Khalaf; Financial Times; 3/10/2003; p. 2.)

2. “As in the rest of the Gulf a chief consideration for Saudi Arabia after the war is to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq and stem the influence that Iran might have with Shia groups. The Saudis and others have argued that existing Iraqi institutions, including the Ba’ath party and the military establishment, should be maintained in a post-war transition to ensure stability and reduce the need for a long-term US presence.” (Idem.)

3. Another part of the bargain discussed above concerns Saudi oil production. “Saudi Arabia said it will ensure the world will have enough oil in the event of a war with Iraq, even though OPEC members declined to endorse a proposal to suspend the cartel’s official production limits if the U.S. invades. ‘There will be no shortage of oil,’ said Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali Naimi. Mr. Naimi made the promise after members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries tabled the Saudi-backed proposal. The Group left its output quotas unchanged even though world oil prices have surged to near $40 a barrel.” (“Saudis to Ensure Supply of Oil If War Begins” by Bhushan Bahree and Thaddeus Herrick; The Wall Street Journal; 3/12/2003; p. A2.)

4. The program underscores the fact that among the primary bidders for reconstruction contracts in postwar Iraq is the Fluor corporation. ” . . . A handful of U.S. construction giants-including San Francisco’s Bechtel Group Inc. as well as Halliburton Co. and Fluor Corp.-were invited to bid for the work on an emergency basis.” (“U.S. Taking Bids for Rebuilding Iraq” by Peter Slevin and Mike Allen [Washington Post]; San Francisco Chronicle; p. B1.)

5. A Fluor subsidiary is closely associated with the Bin Laden business enterprises. Interestingly (and, perhaps, significantly) the Daniels Realty Corporation was involved with the reconstruction of Kuwait after the first Gulf War. “Sico, as the parent company of the group’s foreign interests, also has offices in London and in Curacao in the Dutch Antilles. The latter outpost, established in 1984, manages among other things the relations of the bin Laden group with an American company, the Daniels Realty Corporation, a subsidiary of the Fluor Corporation, which, through the influence of the bin Ladens, was awarded many reconstruction contracts in Kuwait after the Gulf War.” (In the Name of Osama Bin Laden; by Roland Jacquard; Copyright 2002 [SC]; Duke University Press; ISBN 0-8223-2991-3; p. 8.)

6. Indicative of pressure to cover-up the Saudi connections to 9/11, a lawsuit by alleged Al Qaeda financier Khalid Bin Fahfouz (closely asssociated with the Bush business milieu) appears to be getting cooperation from elements of CIA. (For more about Bin Mahfouz, see FTR 391 and the broadcasts referenced in the description for it.) “When lawyers for the families of the Sept. 11 victims filed a $1-trillion lawsuit against banks, charities and individuals who purportedly funneled money to Al Qaeda, they named as their lead investigator Jean-Charles Brisard, who had written a book on terrorist financing. Now the French business analyst and financial investigator is himself the subject of a lawsuit-a libel suit filed by a billionaire Saudi banker, Khalid bin Mahfouz whom Brisard has described as a key supporter of Osama bin Laden.” (“Top Investigato in 9/11 Victims’ Lawsuit Faces Libel Action” by Ken Silverstein; Los Angeles Times; 2/26/2003; p. A.18.)

7. “The suit against Brisard and coauthor Guillaume Dasquie, filed last Wednesday in Belgium-and another filed two days earlier against The Mail on Sunday, a British newspaper that has repeated several of Brisard’s assertions-lays out what is described as a series of significant errors in the book. If upheld, the libel action could undermine Brisard’s credibility and, by extension, the Sept. 11 lawsuit. Ronald Motley, a lawyer for the Sept. 11 plaintiffs, said he now plans to amend his complaint, filed in U.S. District Court here, and additionally charge Bin Mahfouz with attempting to intimidate a material witness by pursuing the libel action.” (Idem.)

8. ” ‘Brisard is an internationally recognized expert, and Bin Mahfouz is the king of terror financiers and a recognized supporter of Bin Laden,’ Motley said. But in the libel suit, Bin Mahfouz’s lawyers cited what they described as many false statements by Brisard and Dasquie-such as saying that the Saudi’s sister is married to Bin Laden. The book, ‘Forbidden Truth,’ describes a Saudi conspiracy to support Al Qaeda. It calls Bin Mahfouz the ‘banker of terror’ and ‘one of the principal supporters of Osama bin Laden.'” (Idem.)

9. “Jean-Pierre van Cutsem, an attorney for Bin Mahfouz, is asking for damages, legal expenses and a halt to further publication of the book, which was published in late 2001 in France and last year in the United States and Britain. The complaint, filed in Belgium because France has a three-month statute of limitations for libel cases, said the book is ‘based on false and unverified information [that] cast a slur’ on Bin Mahfouz, who has vigorously denied supporting terrorist groups or activities . . .” (Idem.)

10. The apparent reversal of field by former CIA director James Woolsey is frankly suspicious under the circumstances. In disclaiming his allegations of Bin Mahfouz’s relationship (by marriage) to Bin Laden, Woolsey says he was referring to a “Mr. Hafous.” Khalid Bin Mahfouz is one of the most powerful figures in Saudi Arabia and Woolsey is no fool. Woolsey’s alleged confusion is not credible under the circumstances and may well be indicative of pressure from elements of CIA and/or the Bush administration. Of particular significance is the fact that Bin Mahfouz’s attorney is Cherif Sedky, associated with the SAAR Foundation (itself a focal point of terrorism-funding investigations). The SAAR Foundation was central to the milieu targeted by the all-important “Operation Green Quest” raids of 3/20/2002. ” . . . Specific statements that Bin Mahfouz considers libelous include the book’s assertion, citing congressional testimony by former CIA Director R. James Woolsey in 1998, that the banker’s ‘close ties’ to Bin Laden were strengthened sister’s marriage to the terrorist leader. This statement was repeated in the Sept. 11 relatives’ lawsuit, which identifies the sister as ‘Kaleda.’ Cherif Sedky, an American lawyer who lives in Saudi Arabia and is Bin Mahfouz’s chief legal advisor, said the banker has no sister with that name, nor any sister married to Bin Laden.” (Idem.)

11. “In his testimony, Woolsey, who left the CIA in 1995, said his information was not based on U.S. government sources. In a recent interview, he said his testimony referred to a ‘Mr. Hafous,’ not Mahfouz. Other comments Woolsey made during his testimony strongly suggest that he was referring to Bin Mahfouz, but he now disputes the remarks attributed to him by Brisard. ‘I don’t know what to say other than that there was some confusion, but I never meant to refer to Bin Mahfouz’s sister,’ Woolsey said . . . ” (Ibid.; pp. A18-19.)

12. “Brisard stands by his reporting. He said last week a Bin Laden relative confirmed the marriage of Bin Laden and Bin Mahfouz’s sister. He also said he has seen bank transfers and reports that clearly link Al Qaeda with National Commercial Bank. Bin Mahfouz’s name does not appear on the Treasury Department’s list of individuals and organizations that provide financial or other support to terrorists, and his alleged role in sponsoring terrorism is the subject of debate within the U.S. intelligence community.” (Idem.)

13. Among the indications of the continued coddling of the Saudis is Bush administration suppression of the Saudi regime’s continued abolition of religious freedom in the kingdom. “In a move expected to infuriate religious conservatives and human-rights advocates alike, the Bush administration has decided to reject the recommendation of a special government commission to place Saudi Arabia on an American blacklist of countries that violate religious freedom . . .” (“No ‘Particular Concern'” by Michael Isikoff; Newsweek; 3/10/2003; p. 8.)

14. ” . . . One commissioner, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, weighed in with White House aides, describing it as a high-priority item for evangelical Christians. Land tells Newsweek he was greatly influenced by a briefing the commission got last fall in which human-rights groups and religious dissidents described how the Saudi religious police raided the homes of foreign workers practicing Christianity and threw them into overcrowded prisons with squalid conditions. ‘It’s unthinkable to me that our government is not pressing the Saudis on this,’ says Land. But senior administration officials, including some at the White House, concluded that publicly chastising the Saudis would be counterproductive-and might interfere with broader U.S. interests in the region. That stand appeared to pay off last week: after months of resistance, Saudi Arabia agreed to allow the United States to use its air bases in the event of war with Iraq.” (Idem.)

15. Among those of us who carry suspicions concerning the Bush administration’s active cover-up of the Saudi links to 9/11 is Florida Senator Bob Graham. “What prompted Florida Senator Bob Graham to join the Democratic presidential sweepstakes last week? The 66-year-old Graham-who recently had heart surgery-has toyed with the idea of running for years, but says he always lacked ‘fire in the belly.’ What gave it to him this time, he tells Newsweek, was his experience last year overseeing a joint House-Senate inquiry into the events of 9-11. Graham says he became ‘outraged’ by the intelligence and law-enforcement failures discovered by the inquiry-most of which he charges, are still being suppressed by the Bush administration. The inquiry’s 400-page report can’t be publicly released because the administration won’t declassify key portions. Graham says the report documents far more miscues by the FBI and CIA than have been publicly revealed, as well as still unpursued leads pointing to ‘facilitation’ of the hijackers by a ‘sovereign nation.’ (Sources say the country is Saudi Arabia.) ‘There’s been a cover-up of this,’ Graham said.” (“Graham His 9-11 ‘Outrage'” by Michael Isikoff; Newsweek; 3/10/2003; p. 8.)

16. The 9/11 attacks constitute an event as complicated as they are important. The attacks could be viewed as “Pearl Harbor meets the Reichstag Fire.” They were, indeed, a sneak attack by a hostile foreign power (the virtual state that is the Underground Reich.) It was also utilized by an internal Fifth Column that was connected to the attackers through structural economic relationships to institute the foundations of fascism. This broadcast compares the attacks to the German invasion of France in World War II. The German invasion was not a “provocation” as such, but it was used to implement fascism is France. (The Franco-German axis that opposed the American invasion of Iraq is reflective of the foundations of the events prior to, during, and after World War II.) “Enough evidence has been published already to prove that France was stabbed in the back by those who saw in Hitler the new St. George who would slay the Communist dragon. When Pierre Lazareff, former editor-in-chief of Paris Soir (the French newspaper with the widest circulation), reports royalists as saying: ‘We need the defeat to wipe out the Republic;’ when Elie Bois, former editor of the Petit Parisien (the most influential political newspaper), reports great industrialists admitting to him, during the winter of 1939-1940, that a plot had been organized to replace the democratic regime by a ‘government of authority’ and that this plot presupposed a Nazi victory; when Anatole de Monzie writes, in a book passed by the censor of the Vichy government, that Marshal Petain said in February, 1940: ‘They will appeal to me in the third week in May’; when Genevieve Tabouis tells of the work accomplished in the Parisian salons by the Fifth Column’s ‘brigade mondaine’; when Henri de Kerillis, former officer and nationalist deputy, exposes the inroads of the Fifth Column in the conservative and military circles which he knew; when Henry Torres reveals to us what was going on in the offices of the official propaganda . . . we have every reason to accept their affirmations, which tally so perfectly with the events.” (Triumph of Treason; by Pierre Cot; Copyright 1944 [HC]; Ziff-Davis; p. 63.)

17. Foreshadowing the attacks in an ominous way is the phrasing of an analysis of The Project for a New American Century. Composed of “embeds” in the Bush administration, this group hypothesized about the need for a “Pearl Harbor-like event” in order to catalyze the American public behind their agenda. “In 1992, just before Bush’s father was defeated by Bill Clinton, Wolfowitz wrote a blueprint to ‘set the nation’s direction for the next century,’ which is now the foreign policy of George W. Bush. Entitled ‘Defense Planning Guidance,’ it put an onus on the Pentagon to ‘establish and protect a new order’ under unchallenged American authority. The US, it said, must be sure of ‘deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’-including Germany and Japan. It contemplated the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry pre-emptively, ‘even in conflicts that do not directly engage US interests.’ Wolfowitz’s group formalized itself into a group called Project for the New American Century, which included Cheney and another old friend, former Pentagon Under-Secretary for Policy under Reagan, Richard Perle.” (“Two Men Driving Bush into War” by Ed Vulliamy; The Observer; 2/23/2003; pp. 3-4.)

18. “In a document two years ago, the Project pondered that what was needed to assure US global power was ‘some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.’ The document had noted that ‘while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides immediate justification’ for intervention, ‘the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'” (Ibid.; p. 4.)

19. The blame for the agenda of the Underground Reich elements in the Bush administration is being shifted to “the Jews.” “Exhibit A for this plot is a document entitled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,’ prepared in 1996 by a group of American defense thinkers for the hard-line Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. This study proposed an aggressive redirection of Israeli strategy, including a plan for ‘removing Saddam Hussein from Power.’ Three of the authors of the prescription Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser-are now prominent embeds’ in the Bush administration.” (“Is It Good for the Jews?” by Bill Keller; The New York Times; 3/8/2003; pp. 1-2.)

20. “The ‘Clean Break’ group, interestingly, did not call for an American conquest of Saddam. . . .They proposed that Israel handle it together with Jordan and Turkey. Jordan’s Hasemite dynasty would share the management of Iraq with the Shiites-presumably leaving the fate of the poor Kurds in Turkish hands. As for America, the document proposed that Israel adopt a new policy of self-reliance, immediately declining economic aid and, eventually, military assistance. This was all a bit much, even for the ultranationalist Mr. Netanyahu. A less conspiracy-minded observer might point out that the longstanding Bushite animosity toward Iraq is complex and hardly secret, and the fact that our interests coincide with Israel’s does not mean that a Zionist fifth column has hijacked the president’s brain. But that would not satisfy the yearning for a simple story.” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

21. There has been considerable discussion of the possible role in the 9/11 attacks of a proposed Afghan pipeline across Afghanistan. (For more about this proposed deal, see FTR#’s 328, 334, 337, 362.) Interestingly (and, perhaps, significantly), this deal was first proposed by the Argentine oil company Bridas, founded in the immediate post-World War II period under Juan Peron. “One man would meet these expectations and was instrumental in soliciting outside help to bring the Taliban to power. Naturally, it was an oilman. But Carlos Bulgheroni is not Saudi Arabian, or Pakistani, or American; he is Argentinean. He is the president of Bridas, the fourth-largest energy group in Latin American, based in Buenos Aires and founded after World War II. In the 1970’s, Bridas executives recognized the necessity of forging partnerships with new executives in the former Soviet Republics, especially in Turkmenistan. From their offices in Islamabad, they envisioned a stable Afghanistan run by leaders who were willing to cooperate with them so they could build oil and gas pipelines connecting Turkemenistan to Pakistan. Bulgheroni struck his first deal with the government of Turkemenistan in January 1992 to exploit a gas field in Daulatabad. On March 15, 1995, he brought together Pakistani and Turkmen officials, who signed an agreement in principle for the construction of a pipeline crossing Afghanistan.” (Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden; by Jean-Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie; Copyright 2002 Jean-Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie; published by Thunders Mouth Press/Nation Books [SC]; ISBN 1-56025-414-9; p. 17.)

22. “At that point, Bulgheroni invited other oil companies to join his business venture, including Unocal, one of the largest oil corporations in the United States. The Union Oil Company of California was founded in Santa Paula in 1890, and changed its name to Unocal Corporation in 1983. One of the success stories of the energy industry, it became, under the direction of its president, Roger Beach, one of the ‘world’s largest independent oil and gas producers’ in the 1990s. A savvy businessman, Beach immediately recognized the potential of Carlos Bulgheroni’s offer-so much so that he decided he could do without Bridas’s services and invest in the region without their help. To improve his bargaining position and get financial backing, he enlisted the help of another group, the Saudi company Delta Oil.” (Ibid.; pp. 17-18.)

23. These negotiations took place in Berlin. Was the Underground Reich monitoring these negotiations-perhaps utilizing them to help further the 9/11 attacks? Recall, in that context, that Al Qaeda was aware of these negotiations, that the now-bankrupt Enron was (apparently) brokering the potential deal, and that Al Qaeda may well have used the negotiations as “cover” for furthering their plans for 9/11. “According to Niaz Naik, at least three rounds of meetings took place in Germany, under Vendrell’s authority, in November 2000, and then March and July 2001. The meetings focused on getting the Taliban to sign an armistice with the Northern Alliance, creating a government of national unity, and obtaining the extradition of Osama bin Laden. ‘We would . . . try to convey to them that if they did certain things, then, gradually, they could win the jackpot-get something in return from the international community.’ The objective was to convince the Taliban that once a broad-based government of national unity was installed and the pipeline project was in the works, there would be billions of dollars in commission-of which the Taliban, with their own resources, would get a cut.” (Ibid.; pp. 41-42.)

24. “Everyone involved wanted the radical regime to peacefully cede some of its power, and to subscribe to U.S. priorities. But the deal fell short. In Berlin, on July 17, a third secret meeting was supposed to occur. Two days earlier, on July 15, the weekly newspaper Focus announced that a meeting was scheduled to take place in the German capital between the Taliban foreign minister and his counterpart in the Northern Alliance, Abdullah Abdullah. But the Taliban representative never showed up . . . In the course of these last talks in Berlin, and in the absence of Taliban representatives, according to the Pakistani representative Naiz Naik, the small American delegation mentioned using a ‘military option’ against the Taliban if they did not agree to change their position, especially concerning Osama bin Laden.” (Ibid.; pp. 42-43.)

25. Indicative of the profound nature of the relationship between Peron’s Argentina and the Underground Reich is the “disappearance” of Argentine government files about the importation of Nazi war criminals after World War II. (Recall that-as discussed in FTR#’s 130, 131, 305-the Peron regime was very close to the Bormann organization. Bormann and Peron held a joint bank account, founded in 1941.) “Under fire because of a new book that documents for the first time how Juan Peron clandestinely maneuvered to bring Nazi and other war criminals to Argentina after World War II, the Peronist government here is resisting calls to release long-secret official records about the collaboration. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center here, both the Foreign Relations Ministry and the Interior Ministries have failed to respond to letters, sent to them shortly after the book was published here late last year, asking that the records be made public. In addition, seven members of congress have now called for an investigation into how crucial immigration records were apparently destroyed six years ago in defiance of existing laws.” (“Argentina, a Haven for Nazis, Balks at Opening Its Files” by Larry Rohter; The New York Times; 3/10/2003; p. 1.)

26. “The book, that ignited the controversy, published in the United States as The Real Odessa: Smuggling the Nazis to Peron’s Argentina (Granta Books: 2002), has become a best seller here. Its author, Uki Goni, is an Argentine journalist who had to do much of his research in European archives after encountering closed doors here. ‘This is an issue of credibility and transparency,’ Mr. Goni said in an interview.” (Idem.)

27. “But he also said he recognized the political explosiveness of the documents since they demonstrated ‘just how closely linked Argentina and the Third Reich were and prove the existence of a secret postwar organization that involved Peron and provided a safe haven to Nazis.’ According to records Mr. Goni has uncovered here and abroad, Peron’s government, which was in power from 1946 to 1955, shepherded nearly 300 war criminals into the country.” (Idem.)

28. Note that, among the Argentine/Nazi émigré milieu are Adolf Eichmann and Klaus Barbie. The trials of both Barbie and Eichmann were financed by Francois Genoud. Klaus Barbie’s attorney was Jacques Verges, a protégé of Genoud. Verges’ law partner-Isabel Coutant-Peyre-is the future wife of Carlos the Jackal, another protégé of Genoud’s. Coutant-Peyre, in turn, is the French attorney for Zacharias Moussaoui, the accused 20th hijacker. It can be asserted that the Moussaoui/Coutant-Peyre relationship mirrors the Franco/German axis and its geopolitical confrontation with the US. “Besides such notorious figures as Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele and Klaus Barbie, dozens of French, Belgian, Italian, Croatian and Slovak fascists, many of them Nazi collaborators sought in their home nations, were also admitted, some under aliases, others under their real names. The documents indicate that the covert network was run directly from the presidential palace here by Rodolfo Freude, A German-Argentine who was one of Peron’s closest advisers. At the same time, Mr. Freude was both running Peron’s propaganda apparatus and serving as director of the newly founded state intelligence service . . .” (Ibid.; pp. 1-2.)

29. Born in Syria, linked to fascist elements in Syria that are-in turn-linked to fascist elements in the intelligence community, Carlos Menem represents the Peronist party. His administration destroyed the records about the Peron/Nazi connection. ” . . . In 1992, the president at the time, Carlos Saul Menem, also a Peronist, ordered that all documents relating to the Argentine government’s dealings with the Nazis be made public. But that decree, like the findings of a Foreign Ministry commission set up in 1997 to examine similar links, appears to have produced little of use to historians or victims of the war criminals who settled here.” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

30. The AMIA center in Argentina was a repository for Jewish records about Argentine war criminals. Its destruction in 1994 was allegedly aided by the Iranian government. There are also significant evidentiary tributaries connecting the AMIA bombing to the milieu of Timothy McVeigh and the Syrian milieu of Monzer al-Kassar and Carlos Menem. “An Argentine judge has ordered arrest warrants for four Iranian government officials who he says helped organize and carry out the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that left 85 people dead. But the judge balked at a recommendation by prosecutors that more than a dozen more senior Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s spiritual leader, also be indicted. He offered no public comment, and the decision is likely to intensify criticism that he has not pursued the case aggressively enough. The 400-page ruling, by Judge Jose Galeano, made public Saturday, was the first time Argentina has formally accused Iran of involvement in the blast that occurred July 18, 1994, and was the deadliest single anti-Semitic incident since World War II.” (“Iranians Accused in Bombing of Argentine Jewish Center” by Larry Rohter [New York Times]; San Francisco Chronicle; 3/10/2003; p. A9.)

31. The AMIA bombing was allegedly staged in the “tri-border” area used by Islamists and Al Qaeda. This area was also a way station for Nazi war criminals on the run. “The CIA and Israel’s Mossad spy agency say terrorists used the tri-border area to plot deadly bombings of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and a Jewish center in Buenos Aires in 1994. There is ample evidence that Hamas and Hezbollah-two militant Islamist organizations that conduct terrorist operations-use the region as a financial center.” (“Al-Qaida Presence in Brazil Renews Fears in South America” by Kevin G. Hall; San Jose Mercury News; 3/14/2003; p. 7A.)

32. The program further underscores the fact that Genoud associate and attorney Beaudoin Dunand is the co-chairman of the board of directors of Sico, the holding company for the Saudi Bin Laden Group. “This company [Sico], established by the bin Ladens in 1980, is the flagship for the group’s activities in Europe. It is headed by Yeslam bin Laden, and the board of directors is made up almost exclusively of members of the family clan, except for a Swiss citizen, Baudoin Dunand. This well-known lawyer from French-speaking Switzerland, who is on the boards of several dozen companies, came to public notice in 1983, when he agreed to represent the Swiss banker Francois Genoud, a controversial figure who had been a disciple of Hitler and sole heir of Goebbels’s copyrights before becoming one of the financiers of the FLN during the Algerian War.” (In the Name of Osama Bin Laden; p. 17.)

33. In conclusion, the program presents a gambit proposed by the Baader-Meinhof gang. Closely associated with Francois Genoud, this organization proposed to send anthrax through the mail, not unlike what was done in the US just after 9/11. Was this a precedent for 9/11 and, perhaps, an operational paradigm? “In the 1980’s, the German far-left Baader-Meinhof terrorist gang threatened to spread anthrax bacteria through the mail in West Germany, but the threat was never carried out.” (Ibid.; p. 153.)


2 comments for “FTR #403 Lets Make a Deal (None Dare Call It Treason)”

  1. Dave, the show notes reference the book Forbidden Truth by Jean-Charles Brisard, Guillaume Dasquie. Apparently the authors included libelous and unfounded information, and have had lawsuits brought against them. Do you still believe the information in this book is trustworthy?

    Posted by David Lowe | September 19, 2012, 5:58 pm
  2. @David Lowe–

    The book is credible, though there was an error that permitted nuisance, libel-tourism from Saudi magnates, including the late Khalid bin-Mahfouz.


    Dave Emory

    Posted by Dave Emory | September 19, 2012, 7:01 pm

Post a comment