[Intelforum] Sources: August terror plot is a "fiction"

[IntelForum Mailing List]

From: "David Guyatt" <hammer at firenet.uk.com>
To: intelforum at lists101.his.com
Subject: Re: Sources: August terror plot is a "fiction"
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:17:04 -0000

Mr. Chambers wrote (16th November 2006):

  ãStill not understanding what I said about living your cover.

If Mohammed Atta was dealing drugs, it would be a very good cover for 
a Muslim fundamentalist.ä

  Thatâs rum, coming from the person who only a month ago stated that 
Al Qaeda instructs its people to ãmerge into the backgroundä and look 
ãunremarkableä to avoid arousing suspicion from the authorities.

Letâs revisit your post (17th October 2006):

  ãFirst of all, al-Qaeda's instructions to its people carry the very 
old instruction to merge into the background·.ä 

And 

ã·The hijackers appear to have been quite talented at looking unremarkable.ä

On the evidence, Atta was a drug runner, although I donât at all 
follow your reasoning that this is ãvery good coverä for a Muslim 
fundamentalist, but Iâll return to that statement further below.

Meanwhile, youâve appear to have conveniently forgotten my post of 
21st October in response to yours of the 17th Oct. in which I stated:

ãIf one were to apply this logic of "looking unremarkable" to avoid 
discovery by the authorities, then the alleged tactical leader of the 
terrorist cell responsible for 911, Mohammed Atta, was simply the 
worst trained terror operative in history.  Drinking hard liquor, 
whoring around, doing drugs and associating with drug runners (and 
even arguably dealing drugs) in Naples, Florida, are activities that 
can hardly be described as -merging into the backgroundŠ or keeping a 
low profile.ä

To which you replied (25th October 2006)

ãCertainly doesn't make him look like a fundamentalist Muslim does it?ä

But now, following some mighty acrobatic abracadabra and supernatural 
spoon-bending, your position has flipped back to Atta being a Muslim 
fundamentalist again.  No one will arrest for not being consistent, 
but it helps being that way if you want to be taken seriously·

Iâm also curious why you think that being a drug runner and hanging 
with the notorious drug boss, Wall Hilliard et. al. is good cover? 
This logic on your part is curious because it appears to imply that 
the authorities in the USA turn a blind-eye to running drugs and 
adopt a sort of ãgo home folks, nothing to see hereä attitude to such 
major criminal activity.

Could it be that by default that you may well be getting to the heart 
of matter and that some parts of the international drugs trade are 
sanctioned and protected?  This would put Atta in an altogether 
different light and could even explain why Rumsfeld ordered Lt. Col. 
Schaffer to withhold further testimony on the Able Danger hearing as 
it ãwas classifiedä and could not be ãdisclosed to the publicä and 
would also explain why Pentagon lawyers stepped in to protect Atta 
ãfor reasons that remain unclearä.

I realise that youâd like inconvenient facts like these to evaporate 
and not have to deal with them.  Yet it is such inconvenient the 
facts that threaten to unravel the official explanation -- and that 
is why they must be ignored, disparaged and demonised at every 
opportunity.

But I just know youâll keep peddling the three blind monkeys line, no 
matter what.

David Guyatt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/intelforum/attachments/20061122/766e3e98/attachment.html