A few questions about Pakistan ISI Link

[offchops]

Hi all, i'm new here, i've just dribbled my way through 15 posts so i could include my links.

I have been looking to the events of 911 for quite some time, and i must say i'm pretty undecided on the whole thing.

While i find many conspiracy theories embarrassingly ridiculous, i also believe their have been many lies on behalf of the Bush admin which leaves me with some doubt on the official version.

I have searched this forum and have not found anything relevant, so i apologize if this has been addressed before.

I have a few questions in regard to the Pakistan ISI link, as reported by the India times.

Firstly, from what i gather, the main counter against the reports said to have come from Indian intelligence, is that Indian intelligence may not be the best source for evidence against Pakistan.
I can certainly understand this point of view, however,

What motive would Indian intelligence have to make these claims if they were false?
Surely Indian intelligence would understand that the US could not be fooled into buying this if it were false.
Surely the US would want to see solid evidence of these claims.
Would attempting to mislead the US with a false claim do anything but harm the Indian Govt?
Seems like a pointless exercise.

Secondly,
Why do earlier reports from US media, sourcing US investigators, support the claims from the India times, that a $100,000 transfer was made from Pakistan by a ahmad umar sheikh (AKA-Mustafah Ahmed, full name-Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh)
Many reports claim a Mustafah Ahmed transferred $100,000 from Pakistan.
Some examples,
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/41025_probe02.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35540,00.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.terror.investigation/
Note in the cnn example they write,
This source said U.S. investigators now believe Sheik Syed, using the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, sent more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the suspected hijacking ringleader who piloted one of the jetliners into the World Trade Center.
From what i gather, Sheik Syed is yet another alias for Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh.
A couple of these name variations are mentioned here, often the spelling is slightly different
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh

Thirdly,
In the monograph on terrorist financing, staff report
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf
The report names the 2 main funders as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa al Hawsawi. They name the location of the transfers as Dubai.
Why do they make no mention of any $100,000 transfer from Pakistan, nor do they mention Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Mustafah Ahmed, Sheik Syed)?
Further to that, why does yet another earlier media article, sourcing US investigators, write,
The indictment alleged that al-Hasawi, a Saudi native, received more than $18,000 from three suspected hijackers in the days before the attack, then cleared out bank accounts he had control over in the United Arab Emirates and fled the country on Sept. 11. U.S. investigators suspect that al-Hasawi, whom the FBI originally identified as Mustafa Ahmed, was actually Shayk Saiid, a key figure in the financial side of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network.
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/wtc_globaldragnet/sought_uae.htm
Here they suspect Mustafa al Hawsawi is Shayk Saiid (Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh)


Look forward to your opinions on this.

[boloboffin]

The motive for Indian intelligence to falsely report or to embellish a Pakistan/al-Qaeda link: turning the US against the Pakistanis, and thus gaining the upper hand in their conflict. This is a propaganda war, and if enough Americans got outraged over associating with a country with percieved al-Qaeda contacts, something would have to be done (like the Dubai ports controversy).

The ISI is openly a part of the Pakistan government, btw. Saying the Pakistan-ISI connection is like saying the American-CIA connection.

I can't answer all of your questions, but that's a start.

[uk_dave]

Well all I can really add is that we should always be careful about news reports which are not corroborated, merely repeated.

A similar thing happened some months ago on another forum during the paris riots, where a single article by a paris journalist claiming that (un-named) eyewitnesses saw the rioting youth deliberately targeting cars of 'white' people, was picked up by other news agencies and reprinted in full, giving the impression on cursory examination that all of those other news services had their own versions of the story (i.e unique reporting by themselves) whereas in fact there was only ever one report making this claim. Some who wanted to hype the 'race' aspect to those riots used this apparent widespread reporting of the phenomena to support their claims.

So, in the case of the ISI link, as far as I am aware the India Times is the ONLY news outlet to have produced a unique report on this connection, though this report was subsequently carried by others. Ulitmately there is just the one source, and it should be treated with caution.

What does India have to gain from discrediting Pakistan? Kashmir.

Interestingly, those other reports you linked to, while they do not mention ISI, they do mention this one guy who, according to CNN, was held in an India jail before being released prior to 9/11.

So we might as well claim an India link to the terrorists now!

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2287769#post2287769

Boy, you really wanted to get that post links privilege fast didn't ya offchops? ;)

[MikeW]

Further to that, why does yet another earlier media article, sourcing US investigators, write,
The indictment alleged that al-Hasawi, a Saudi native, received more than $18,000 from three suspected hijackers in the days before the attack, then cleared out bank accounts he had control over in the United Arab Emirates and fled the country on Sept. 11. U.S. investigators suspect that al-Hasawi, whom the FBI originally identified as Mustafa Ahmed, was actually Shayk Saiid, a key figure in the financial side of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network.
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/wtc_globaldragnet/sought_uae.htm
Here they suspect Mustafa al Hawsawi is Shayk Saiid (Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh)
Originally the US suspected al-Hawsawi was an alias for someone, possibly Saeed Sheikh. But then, uh, they arrested al-Hawsawi in Pakistan, which is probably a good indicator that he's not Saeed Sheikh after all. Search for Hawsawi at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html to find the documents submitted about him to the Moussaoui trial.

[offchops]

Hi boloboffin,
I can definately understand why India would want to turn the US against the Pakistanis. However, if you assume the evidence to link the ISI with Atta is false or non existant, then you must assume that the US would become aware of this and therefore India would not achieve their goal to turn the US against Pakistan.

Seems pointless India even trying this.

[boloboffin]

I would like to emphasize in my first post the words propaganda war, American people, and ask you to consider the Dubai ports controversy once again.

[offchops]

uk dave,

Yes as far as i am aware, the only report linking ISI to Atta was the India times, but those earlier US media articles support the story.

paradalis,

Tell me about it. lol

Mike,

I realise they arrested an al-Hawsawi, but that doesn't satisfy my doubts. It's possible that could have plucked out anyone and slapped an al-Hawsawi name tag on him.
Where are all these numerous earlier reports coming from that indicate Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh? How can authorities be confident enough to release his name to the media, then later decide this guy has nothing to do with it?

Not saying they have lied, it's just one of the big questions for me.

[Gravy]

Hi boloboffin,
I can definately understand why India would want to turn the US against the Pakistanis. However, if you assume the evidence to link the ISI with Atta is false or non existant, then you must assume that the US would become aware of this and therefore India would not achieve their goal to turn the US against Pakistan.

Seems pointless India even trying this.Welcome to the forums, offchops. This has been discussed here a few times. When you read up on India/Pakistan relations, you see pretty quickly that India reflexively blames the ISI for, well, everything bad in the region (an exaggeration, but not by much). I wouldn't be shocked to learn of someone in the ISI having some involvement in the 9/11 attacks, but AFAIK no such evidence has been produced, and I would be very surprised if someone in a position of power was stupid enough to leave a money trail.

[VespaGuy]

I'd also like to point out the mysterious nameless 'sources' behind the content of the article. Read the article again. Who reported the connection to the India Times? So far, I've found "top sources" and "senior government sources", not one actual named person who can verify these claims.

Oh, and welcome to the forums Offchops. I've seen a lot of new posters who claim to be "undecided" intially, but later reveal that they actually believe one conspiracy theory or another. Hopefully, you don't fall into that category.

I think you'll find many intelligent folks in these forums with a very wide breadth of experience and knowledge in 9/11 related fields (engineers, architects, etc). If you have doubts about 9/11, this is a good place to be.

Once again, welcome!

[Gravy]

deleted. sorry.

[MikeW]

I realise they arrested an al-Hawsawi, but that doesn't satisfy my doubts. It's possible that could have plucked out anyone and slapped an al-Hawsawi name tag on him.
Then they must also have faked the documents showing that it was him who opened the account used to transfer the funds. Which means the bank now know they did that, and so they must be in on the cover-up, too. Possible, but not very likely.

Where are all these numerous earlier reports coming from that indicate Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh? How can authorities be confident enough to release his name to the media, then later decide this guy has nothing to do with it?
They weren't quite as confident as some people pretend. Nafeez Ahmed quotes this story, for instance:

According to the Washington Post, a figure identified as “Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi... played a central role in the financial mechanics of the Sept. 11 plot.” US officials believe that “he may be the same man as Mustafa Muhammed Ahmad, alias Shaykh Saiid, who is a top bin Laden financial lieutenant included on the list of alleged terrorists whose assets have been frozen by the United States”. The Post elsewhere notes that US investigators believe al-Hawsawi is “the central financial figure” of the 9/11 plot, as well as “al Qaeda’s finance chief.”
Page 140, Chapter 6
The War On Truth
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Seems to confirm exactly what you said, right? But here's the original:

About a month later, Ahmed turned over control of the account to a man named Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, who played a central role in the financial mechanics of the Sept. 11 plot, including allegedly shipping credit and ATM cards to Ahmed in Florida.

Al-Hawsawi's precise identity is unclear in court papers and to investigators. Some U.S. officials believe he may be the same man as Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, alias Shaykh Saiid, who is a top bin Laden financial lieutenant included on the list of alleged terrorists whose assets have been frozen by the United States.

But authorities say they cannot be sure, and the indictment identifies al-Hawsawi only as a key financial figure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34751-2001Dec12&notFound=true
The fact is the authorities were uncertain who he was. This would hurt Ahmed's case, though, so he deceives his readers by selectively quoting the original to remove the authorities' concerns.

[offchops]

boloboffin,

Personally, that doesn't satisfy the Indian motive for me.

I mean if the Indian intelligence know they are going to put out a whole heap of lies for their own agenda on Pakistan.

They would have to have considered this,

They could not provide any evidence of this to the US, and therefore any hopes of the story becoming headlines in the US would be slim

It could easily backfire on them, getting the US offside

[Basilio]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2287769#post2287769

Boy, you really wanted to get that post links privilege fast didn't ya offchops? ;)

Yah, I at least went to different threads, and posted something related (true, it was on cats and signatures... still..). :D

Welcome and all,

basilio

[offchops]

Thanks for the welcome guys, will check in again later.
Still leaves me scratching my head on this one.


Gotta run for now

[Shrinker]

I don't think I've read enough on this topic. What's the evidence that the India Times didn't exaggerate the credibility of their source, or even make the story up? Xenophobia sells newspapers over here. I don't see why it should be different in India.

[eeyore1954]

boloboffin,

Personally, that doesn't satisfy the Indian motive for me.

I mean if the Indian intelligence know they are going to put out a whole heap of lies for their own agenda on Pakistan.

They would have to have considered this,

They could not provide any evidence of this to the US, and therefore any hopes of the story becoming headlines in the US would be slim

It could easily backfire on them, getting the US offside


As Vespa pointed out there is no named source from within Indian intelligence or government. So the fact that it might backfire on the goverment doesn't mean much because it is not for certain that India had anything to do with it.

[Gravy]

Thirdly,
In the monograph on terrorist financing, staff report
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf
The report names the 2 main funders as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa al Hawsawi. They name the location of the transfers as Dubai.
Why do they make no mention of any $100,000 transfer from Pakistan, nor do they mention Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Mustafah Ahmed, Sheik Syed)?
You may be thinking of a single transfer, but the money was doled out in smaller amounts. The monograph makes it clear that the FBI traced the source of some funds to KSM when he resided in Pakistan, but not to bank accounts in Pakistan.

Keep in mind that the three U.S. news articles you linked two are all reporting the same story: that an anonymous law enforcement source said it was believed that $100,000 was sent from Pakistan to finance operations.

[MikeW]

I don't think I've read enough on this topic. What's the evidence that the India Times didn't exaggerate the credibility of their source, or even make the story up?
Or that the paper reported what they were told, but that was exaggerated, in order to make the government look better ("hey, look, we're exposing Pakistani plots"). They know the US aren't going to comment (at least publicly) on unsourced claims in a single newspaper story, so can say whatever they want.