Reply #4: Nice RW source, here are some problems with it [View All]

[pschoeb]

One, they use the ultra dubious Peter Leitner as a source, he made the wonderful(sarcasm) video "Trading With the Enemy: How the Clinton Administration Armed China.". He is a special adviser to Rumsfeld. Also he really has no expertise in terrorism, as he spent his whole career working on defense technology licensing and international treaties. As far as I can tell, he is not, as stated in the article, a professor at the National Center for Biodefense at George Mason.

Here is the faculty/staff lists:
http://www.gmu.edu/centers/biodefense/faculty_fac.html
http://www.gmu.edu/centers/biodefense/faculty_staff.html
http://www.gmu.edu/centers/biodefense/faculty_affil.html

He is friends though, with Dr. Kenneth Alibek who co-founded the Center. Dr. Kenneth Alibek is a former head of the Offensive Bioweapons program for the Soviet Union and former Soviet Colonel. He "defected" in 1992, probably because he wanted to continue working on Offensive Bioweapons.

One interesting item, is that Mohammad Salah, has ties to Bush and Harken Energy, but interestingly the article tells us nothing of this. In 1998, Talat Othman intervened on Salah's behalf in a terrorist funding real estate investigation by the FBI. Talat Othman was on the board of Harken Energy for 8 years and also Tejas Power, he is a long time friend of Bush. Salah despite all of this, was still teaching at a Chicago City College in 2002, he was exposed by an ABC news investigation, he has yet to be arrested or even detained. In our detention happy country this either means the FBI does not want him detained, or there is really nothing against him.

Also the article fails to mention that Israel later dropped it's request for extradition of Mousa Abu-Marzook after Mousa Abu-Marzook gave up objecting to the extradition. The reasons cited by Israel for it's change of heart "security and the prevention of terrorist attacks". The US then deported him to Jordan. pretty bizarre aye.

One begins to wonder about so called terrorist supporting groups, whos members seem to move around with ease and have connections to high powered persons. Maybe they are allowed to exist for a reason?

Also the article incorrectly states in the following paragraph about Salah's laptop:

"Salah's laptop computer also allegedly contained the information necessary for Israeli and American investigators to form a financial link and other operational connections between al Qaeda and Hamas, according to government documents filed in August of 2003 by the U.S. attorney's office in the Eastern District of Virginia."

This is not Salah's laptop, but Soliman S. Biheiri laptop, it seems maybe the so called journalist didn't do more than a cursory reading of his source material. Since Salah is the supposed Hamas agent, if it's not his laptop, the proof of a strong connection between Hamas and al Queda becomes substantially weaker. It also means there is no linkage between UASR and al Queda. The only linkage is BMI invetments, but the two mentioned above only had investments in BMI prior to 1995,(in fact they seem to date to 1991) so it is hardly meaningfull towards a link to al Queda.
bhttp://www.4law.co.il/Lea99c.htm

The funny part is that CNSN supposedly did their own investigation on the groups office, but come up with no real information. One of the "suspicious" activity they observe:

"From time to time, day or night, the occupants emerge from the office to make cell phone calls in the parking lot. Government investigators say that is for privacy in the likely event that a government counter-terrorism unit has placed listening devices inside the building."

Firstly cell phone reception can be horribly bad inside buildings, especially basement locations, so it's not unusual for some people to sometimes have to exit a building to use a cell phone. Secondly, it seems without question that this group should be suspicious of a wiretap, even innocent people wouldn't want too talk on a line they believed to be wiretapped, so this is hardly incriminating. The rest of the supicious activity they witness is equally laughable, we would have to be suspicious of almost every group who owns an office.