The most significant information that we were receiving did
not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations,
and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have
money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they
are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.
- Sibel EdmondsNo. It is right to take a look behind the scenes. Getting intelligence about the intentions of an enemy makes sense. It is important when one tries to put oneself into the mind of the opponent.
Whoever wants to understand the CIA's methods, has to deal with its main task; covert operations - below the level of war, and outside international law, foreign states are to be influenced by inciting insurrections or terrorist attacks, usually combined with drugs and weapons trade, and money laundering.This is essentially rather simple:
One arms violent people with weapons. Since, however, it must not under any circumstances come out that there is an intelligence agency behind it,
all traces are erased, with tremendous deployment of resources. I have the impression that this kind of intelligence agency spends 90% of its time this way:
creating false leads. So that if anyone suspects the collaboration of the agencies, he is accused of paranoia
. The truth often comes out only years later.
- Andreas von BeulowI did a number of things in my research
and when I ran into the drugs I was told that if I mentioned the money to the drugs around 9/11 that would be the end of me. That is a current threat that I’'m under...
...our currency is the U.S. dollar,
their currency is drugs. I stumbled into the drugs for weapons deals. This is no different than Iran-Contra.
In fact the same names that were around there are affiliated with Ptech. The same illegal clandestines are affiliated behind the scenes with Ptech.-
Indira Singh The global drug trade and its relationship to "terrorist" activities continues to be an area of research largely unexplored, and completely disregarded by the corporate press.
One researcher who digs further than most is Peter Dale Scott. In the following excerpt from the concluding section of an essay entitled, "The Global Drug Meta-Group: Drugs, Managed Violence, and the Russian 9/11", Scott sketches an outline of the multi-discipline milieu that includes drugs, terror, and American geostrategic ambitions...----------------------------------------
The Meta-Group's Geostrategic Goal: Maintain the War of Terror
The fact that the United States will use drug traffickers as geostrategic assets does not at all mean that Washington and the traffickers will necessarily have the same agendas. In theory at least, the contrary should be true. Although the United States may have used known traffickers like Zaman and Qadir to regain access to Afghanistan, its stated ultimate goal, and the one assumed by the mainstream media, was to reimpose its own kind of order. Whether the country is Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Colombia, or Kosovo, America's national interest is said to be to install and then protect pipelines. And pipelines require peace and security.
The prime geostrategic goal of the drug traffic in Afghanistan is precisely to prevent peace and security from happening. It is true that the international illicit drug industry, like the international oil industry, is polymorphous and flexible, relying on diversified sources and markets for its products in order to maintain its global dominance. But for the global drug traffic to prosper, there must always be key growing areas where there is ongoing violence, and state order does not prevail.
However, in speaking above of America's stated national interest, I do not assume that a U.S. government will always represent that national interest. Something else has happened in recent decades, the growth of the drug trade to the point that it now represents a significant portion of national and international wealth. And it has to be said that the American free enterprise system, like every other dominant political system in a current nation with world pretensions, will tend above all to represent the interests of the wealthy.
Thus Bush Administration policies cannot be assumed to reflect the national goals of peace and security, as outlined above. On the contrary, its shocking underfunding of Afghanistan's recovery, like its complex and destabilizing interventions in Georgia, suggest that it, as much as the drug traffic, hopes to utilize instability – as a pretext for maintaining unstable U.S. bases in countries like Uzbekistan, whose people eventually will more and more object to them. These policies can be said to favor the interests of the drug traffic more than the interests of security and orderly development.
Continued...