Why the Taliban is winning in Afghanistan
As Washington and London struggle to prop up a puppet government over which Hamid Karzai has no control, they risk repeating the blood-soaked 19th-century history of Britain’s imperial defeat.
William Dalrymple | June 22, 2010
In 1843, shortly after his return from Afghanistan, an army chaplain, Reverend G R Gleig, wrote a memoir about the First Anglo-Afghan War, of which he was one of the very few survivors. It was, he wrote, "a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, has Britain acquired with this war. Our eventual evacuation of the country resembled the retreat of an army defeated."
It is difficult to imagine the current military adventure in Afghanistan ending quite as badly as the First Afghan War, an abortive experiment in Great Game colonialism that slowly descended into what is arguably the greatest military humiliation ever suffered by the west in the Middle East: an entire army of what was then the most powerful military nation in the world utterly routed and destroyed by poorly equipped tribesmen, at the cost of £15m (well over £1bn in modern currency) and more than 40,000 lives. But nearly ten years on from Nato's invasion of Afghanistan, there are increasing signs that Britain's fourth war in the country could end with as few political gains as the first three and, like them, terminate in an embarrassing withdrawal after a humiliating defeat, with Afghanistan yet again left in tribal chaos and quite possibly ruled by the same government that the war was launched to overthrow.
Certainly it is becoming clearer than ever that the once-hated Taliban, far from being swept away by General Stanley McChrystal's surge, are instead regrouping, ready for the final act in the history of Hamid Karzai's western-installed puppet government. The Taliban have now advanced out of their borderland safe havens to the very gates of Kabul and are surrounding the capital, much as the US-backed mujahedin once did to the Soviet-installed regime in the late 1980s. Like a rerun of an old movie, all journeys by non-Afghans out of the capital are once again confined largely to tanks, military convoys and helicopters. The Taliban already control more than 70 per cent of the country, where they collect taxes, enforce the sharia and dispense their usual rough justice. Every month, their sphere of influence increases. According to a recent Pentagon report, Karzai's government has control of only 29 out of 121 key strategic districts.
Just recently, on 17 May, there was a suicide attack on a US convoy in the Dar-ul Aman quarter of Kabul, killing 12 civilians and six American soldiers; the following day, there was a daring five-hour-long grenade and machine-gun assault on the US military headquarters at Bagram Airbase, killing an American contractor and wounding nine soldiers, so bringing the death toll for US armed forces in the country to more than 1,000. Then, over the weekend of 22-23 May, there was a series of rocket, mortar and ground assaults on Kandahar Airbase just as the British ministerial delegation was about to visit it, forcing William Hague and Liam Fox to alter their schedule. Since then, a dozen top Afghan officials have been assassinated in Kandahar, including the city of Kandahar's deputy mayor. On 7 June, the deadliest day for Nato forces in months, ten soldiers were killed. Finally, it appears that the Taliban have regained control of the opium-growing centre of Marjah in Helmand Province, only three months after being driven out by McChrystal's forces amid much gung-ho cheerleading in the US media. Afghanistan is going down.
Already, despite the presence of huge numbers of foreign troops, it is now impossible - or at least extremely foolhardy - for any westerner to walk around the capital, Kabul, without armed guards; it is even more inadvisable to head out of town in any direction except north: the strongly anti-Taliban Panjshir Valley, along with the towns of Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat, are the only safe havens left for westerners in the entire country. In all other directions, travel is possible only in an armed convoy.
This is especially true of the Khord-Kabul and Tezeen passes, immediately to the south of Kabul, where as many as 18,000 British troops were lost in 1842, and which are today again a centre of resistance against perceived foreign occupiers. Aid workers familiar with Afghanistan over several decades say the security situation has never been worse. Ideas much touted only a few years ago that Afghanistan might become a popular tourist destination - a Switzerland of central Asia - now seem to be dreams from a distant age. Lonely Planet's guidebook to Afghanistan, optimistically published in 2005, has not been updated and is now once again out of print.
The present war is following a trajectory that is beginning to feel unsettlingly familiar to students of the Great Game. In 1839, the British invaded Afghanistan on the basis of sexed-up intelligence about a non-existent threat: information about a single Russian envoy to Kabul was manipulated by a group of ambitious and ideologically driven hawks to create a scare - in this case, about a phantom Russian invasion - thus bringing about an unnecessary, expensive and entirely avoidable war.
Initially, the hawks were triumphant - the British conquest proved remarkably easy and bloodless; Kabul was captured within a few weeks as the army of the previous regime melted into the hills, and a pliable monarch, Shah Shuja, was successfully placed on the throne. For a few months the British played cricket, went skating and put on amateur theatricals as if on summer leave in Simla; there were discussions about making Kabul the summer capital of the Raj. Then an insurgency began and that first heady success slowly unravelled, first among the Pashtuns of Kandahar and Helmand Provinces. It slowly gained momentum, moving northwards until it reached Kabul, so making the British occupation impossible to sustain.
What happened next is a warning of how bad things could yet become: a full-scale rebellion against the British broke out in Kabul, and the two most senior British envoys, Sir Alexander Burnes and Sir William Macnaghten, were assassinated, one hacked to death by a mob in the streets, the other stabbed and shot by the resistance leader Wazir Akbar Khan during negotiations. It was on the retreat that followed, on 6 January 1842, that the 18,000 East India Company troops, and maybe half that many again Indian camp followers, were slaughtered by Afghan marksmen waiting in ambush amid the high passes, shot down as they trudged through the icy depths of the Afghan winter. After eight days on the death march, the last 50 survivors made their final stand at the village of Gandamak. As late as the 1970s, fragments of Victorian weaponry and military equipment could be found lying in the screes above the village. Even today, the hill is said to be covered with the bleached bones of the British dead.
One Englishman lived to tell the tale of that last stand (if you discount the fictional survival of Flashman) - an ordinary foot soldier, Thomas Souter, wrapped his regimental colours around him to prevent them being captured, and was taken hostage by the Afghans who assumed that such a colourfully clothed individual must command a high ransom. It is a measure of the increasingly pertinent parallels between the 19th-century war and today's that one of the main Nato bases in Afghanistan was recently named Camp Souter after that survivor.
In the years that followed, the British defeat in Afghanistan became pregnant with symbolism. For the Victorian British, it was the country's greatest imperial disaster of the 19th century. It was exactly a century before another army would be lost, in Singapore in 1942. Yet the retreat from Kabul also became a symbol of gallantry against the odds: William Barnes Wollen's celebrated oil painting The Last Stand of the 44th Regiment at Gundamuck - showing a group of ragged but doggedly determined British soldiers standing encircled behind a porcupine of bayonets, as the Pashtun tribesmen close in - became one of the best-known images of the era, along with Remnants of an Army, Elizabeth Butler's image of the wounded and bleeding army surgeon William Brydon, who had made it through to the safety of Jalalabad, arriving before the city walls on his collapsing nag.
For the Afghans, the British defeat of 1842 became a symbol of freedom from foreign invasion. It is again no accident that the diplomatic quarter of Kabul is named after the general who oversaw the rout of the British in that year: Wazir Akbar Khan.
For south Asians, who provided most of the cannon fodder - the foot soldiers and followers killed on the retreat - the war ironically became a symbol of possibility: although thousands of Indians died on the march, it showed that the British army was not invincible and a well-planned insurgency could force them out. Thus, in 1857, the Indians launched their own anti-colonial uprising, the Great Mutiny (as it is known in Britain) or the first war of independence (as it is known in India), partly inspired by what the Afghans had achieved in 1842.
This destabilising effect on south Asia of the failed war in Afghanistan has a direct parallel in the blowback that is today destabilising Pakistan and the tribal territories of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata). Here the Pakistani Taliban are once more on the march, rebuilding their presence in Swat, and are now surrounding Peshawar, which is almost daily being rocked by bombs, while outlying groups of Taliban are again spreading their influence into the valleys leading towards Islamabad. Across much of the North-West Frontier Province - roughly a fifth of Pakistan's territory - women have now been forced into the burqa, music has been silenced, barbershops are forbidden to shave beards and more than 125 girls' schools have been blown up or burned down.
A significant proportion of the Peshawar elite, along with the city's musicians, have decamped to the relatively safe and tolerant confines of Lahore and Karachi, while tens of thousands of ordinary people from the surrounding hills of the semi-autonomous Fata tribal belt, and especially the Bajaur Agency (or tribal area), have fled from the conflict zones blasted by US Predator drones and strafed by Pakistani helicopter gunships to the tent camps ringing the provincial capital.
The Fata, it is true, have never been fully under the control of any Pakistani government, and have always been unruly, but the region has been radicalised as never before by the rain of shells and cluster bombs that have caused huge civilian casualties and daily add a stream of angry foot soldiers to the insurgency. Elsewhere in Pakistan, anti-western religious and political extremism continues to flourish, as ever larger numbers of ordinary Pakistanis are driven to fight by corruption, predatory politics and the abuse of power by Pakistan's feudal elite, as well as the military aggression of the drones. Indeed, the ripples of instability lapping out from Afghanistan and Pakistan have reached even New York. When CIA interrogators asked Faisal Shahzad why he tried to let off a car bomb last month in Times Square, he told them of his desire to avenge those "innocent people being hit by drones from above".
The route of the British retreat of 1842 backs on to the mountain range that leads to Tora Bora and the Pakistan border, an area that has always been a Taliban centre. I had been advised not to attempt to visit the area without local protection, and so last month I set off for the mountains in the company of a regional tribal leader who was also a minister in Karzai's government. He is a mountain of a man named Anwar Khan Jegdalek, a former village wrestling champion who made his name as a Hezb-e-Islami mujahedin commander in the jihad against the Soviets in the 1980s.
It was Anwar Khan Jegdalek's ancestors who inflicted some of the worst casualties on the British army of 1842, something he proudly repeated several times as we drove through the same passes. "They forced us to pick up guns to defend our honour," he said. "So we killed every last one of those bastards." None of this, incidentally, has stopped Anwar Khan Jegdalek from sending his family away from Kabul to the greater safety of Northolt, Middlesex.
He drove himself in a huge 4x4, while a pick-up full of heavily armed Afghan bodyguards followed behind. We left Kabul - past the blast walls of the Nato barracks built on the very site of the British cantonment of 170 years ago - and headed down a corkscrewing road into the line of bleak mountain passes that links Kabul with the Khyber Pass.
It is a dramatic and violent landscape: fault lines of crushed and tortured strata groaned and twisted in the gunpowder-coloured rock walls rising on either side of us. Above, the jagged mountain tops were veiled in an ominous cloud of mist. As we drove, Anwar Khan Jegdalek complained bitterly of western treatment of his government. "In the 1980s when we were killing Russians for them, the Americans called us freedom fighters," he muttered, as we descended through the first pass. "Now they just dismiss us as warlords."
At Sorobi, where the mountains debouche into a high-altitude ochre desert dotted with encampments of nomads, we left the main road and headed into Taliban territory. A further five trucks full of Anwar Khan Jegdalek's old mujahedin fighters, all brandishing rocket-propelled grenades and with faces wrapped in keffiyehs, appeared from a side road to escort us.
At the crest of Jegdalek village, on 12 January 1842, 200 frostbitten British soldiers found themselves surrounded by several thousand Pashtun tribesmen. The two highest-ranking British soldiers, General Elphinstone and Brigadier Shelton, went off to negotiate but were taken hostage. Only 50 infantrymen managed to break out under cover of darkness. Our own welcome was, thankfully, somewhat warmer. It was my host's first visit to his home since he had become a minister, and the proud villagers took their old commander on a nostalgia trip through hills smelling of wild thyme and rosemary, and up on to mountainsides carpeted with hollyhocks, mulberries and white poplars. Here, at the top of the surrounding peaks, lay the remains of Anwar Khan Jegdalek's old mujahedin bunkers and entrenchments. Once the tour was completed, the villagers fed us, Mughal style, in an apricot orchard: we sat on carpets under a trellis of vine and pomegranate blossom as course after course of kebabs and mulberry pulao was laid in front of us.
During lunch, as my hosts casually pointed out the various places in the village where the British had been massacred in 1842, I asked them if they saw any parallels between that war and the present situation. "It is exactly the same," said Anwar Khan Jegdalek. "Both times the foreigners have come for their own interests, not for ours. They say, 'We are your friends, we want democracy, we want to help.' But they are lying."
“Whoever comes to Afghanistan, even now, they will face the fate of Burnes, Macnaghten and Dr Brydon," said Mohammad Khan, our host in the village and the owner of the orchard where we were sitting. The names of the fighters of 1842, long forgotten in their home country, were still known here.
“Since the British went, we've had the Russians," said an old man to my right. "We saw them off, too, but not before they bombed many of the houses in the village." He pointed at a ridge of ruined mud-brick houses.
“We are the roof of the world," said Mohammad Khan. "From here, you can control and watch everywhere."
“Afghanistan is like the crossroads for every nation that comes to power," agreed Anwar Khan Jegdalek. "But we do not have the strength to control our own destiny - our fate is always determined by our neighbours. Next, it will be China. This is the last days of the Americans."
I asked if they thought the Taliban would come back. "The Taliban?" said Mohammad Khan. "They are here already! At least after dark. Just over that pass." He pointed in the direction of Gandamak and Tora Bora. "That is where they are strongest."
It was nearly five in the afternoon before the final flaps of nan bread were cleared away, by which time it had become clear that it was too late to head on to the site of the British last stand at Gandamak. Instead, that evening we went to the relative safety of Jalalabad, where we discovered we'd had a narrow escape: it turned out there had been a huge battle at Gandamak that morning between government forces and a group of villagers supported by the Taliban. The sheer scale and length of the feast had saved us from walking straight into an ambush. The battle had taken place on exactly the site of the British last stand.
The following morning in Jalalabad, we went to a jirga, or assembly of tribal elders, to which the greybeards of Gandamak had come under a flag of truce to discuss what had happened the day before. The story was typical of many I heard about the current government, and revealed how a mixture of corruption, incompetence and insensitivity has helped give an opening for the return of the once-hated Taliban.
As Predator drones took off and landed incessantly at the nearby airfield, the elders related how the previous year government troops had turned up to destroy the opium harvest. The troops promised the villagers full compensation, and were allowed to burn the crops; but the money never turned up. Before the planting season, the villagers again went to Jalalabad and asked the government if they could be provided with assistance to grow other crops. Promises were made; again nothing was delivered. They planted poppy, informing the local authorities that if they again tried to burn the crop, the village would have no option but to resist. When the troops turned up, about the same time as we were arriving at nearby Jegdalek, the villagers were waiting for them, and had called in the local Taliban to assist. In the fighting that followed, nine policemen were killed, six vehicles destroyed and ten police hostages taken.
After the jirga was over, one of the tribal elders came over and we chatted for a while over a glass of green tea. "Last month," he said, "some American officers called us to a hotel in Jalalabad for a meeting. One of them asked me, 'Why do you hate us?' I replied, 'Because you blow down our doors, enter our houses, pull our women by the hair and kick our children. We cannot accept this. We will fight back, and we will break your teeth, and when your teeth are broken you will leave, just as the British left before you. It is just a matter of time.'"
What did he say to that? “He turned to his friend and said, 'If the old men are like this, what will the younger ones be like?' In truth, all the Americans here know that their game is over. It is just their politicians who deny this."
The defeat of the west's latest puppet government on the very same hill of Gandamak where the British came to grief in 1842 made me think, on the way back to Kabul, about the increasingly close parallels between the fix that Nato is in and the one faced by the British 170 years ago.
Now as then, the problem is not hatred of the west, so much as a dislike of foreign troops swaggering around and making themselves odious to the very people they are meant to be helping. On the return journey, as we crawled back up the passes towards Kabul, we got stuck behind a US military convoy of eight Humvees and two armoured personnel carriers in full camouflage, all travelling at less than 20 miles per hour. Despite the slow speed, the troops refused to let any Afghan drivers overtake them, for fear of suicide bombers, and they fired warning shots at any who attempted to do so. By the time we reached the top of the pass two hours later, there were 300 cars and trucks backed up behind the convoy, each one full of Afghans furious at being ordered around in their own country by a group of foreigners. Every day, small incidents of arrogance and insensitivity such as this make the anger grow.
There has always been an absolute refusal by the Afghans to be ruled by foreigners, or to accept any government perceived as being imposed on the country from abroad. Now as then, the puppet ruler installed by the west has proved inadequate to the job. Too weak, unpopular and corrupt to provide security or development, he has been forced to turn on his puppeteers in order to retain even a vestige of legitimacy in the eyes of his people. Recently, Karzai has accused the US, the UK and the UN of orchestrating a fraud in last year's elections, described Nato forces as "an army of occupation", and even threatened to join the Taliban if Washington kept putting pressure on him. Shah Shuja did much the same thing in 1842, towards the end of his rule, and was known to have offered his allegiance and assistance to the insurgents who eventually toppled and beheaded him.
Now as then, there have been few tangible signs of improvement under the western-backed regime. Despite the US pouring approximately $80bn into Afghanistan, the roads in Kabul are still more rutted than those in the smallest provincial towns of Pakistan. There is little health care; for any severe medical condition, patients still have to fly to India. A quarter of all teachers in Afghanistan are themselves illiterate. In many areas, district governance is almost non-existent: half the governors do not have an office, more than half have no electricity, and most receive only $6 a month in expenses. Civil servants lack the most basic education and skills.
This is largely because $76.5bn of the $80bn committed to the country has been spent on military and security, and most of the remaining $3.5bn on international consultants, some of whom are paid in excess of $1,000 a day, according to an Afghan government report. This, in turn, has had other negative effects. As in 1842, the presence of large numbers of well-paid foreign troops has caused the cost of food and provisions to rise, and living standards to fall. The Afghans feel they are getting poorer, not richer.
There are other similarities. Then as now, the war effort was partially privatised: it was not so much the British army as a corporation, the East India Company, that provided most of the troops who fought the war for Britain in 1842, just as today both the British and the Americans have subcontracted much of their security work to private companies. When I visited the British embassy, I found that many of the security guards at the gatehouse were not army or military police, but from Group 4 Security. The US security contracts offered to Blackwater/Xe and other private security forces under Dick Cheney's ideologically driven policy of privatising war are worth many millions of dollars.
Finally, now as then, there has been an attempt at a last show of force in order to save face before withdrawal. As happened in 1842, it has achieved little except civilian casualties and the further alienation of the Afghans. As one of the tribal elders from Jegdalek said to me: "How many times can they apologise for killing our innocent women and children and expect us to forgive them? They come, they bomb, they kill us and then they say, 'Oh, sorry, we got the wrong people.' And they keep doing that."
The British soldiers of 1842 found the same reaction in their day. In his diary of his time with the British army of retribution, which laid waste to great areas of southern Afghanistan as punishment for the massacres on the retreat from Kabul earlier in the year, the young Captain N Chamberlain reported how his troops inflicted horrible atrocities on any Afghan civilians they could find. One morning he met a wounded Afghan woman dragging herself towards a stream with a water pot. "I filled the vessel for her," he wrote, "but all she said was, 'Curses on the feringhees [foreigners]!' I continued on my way disgusted with myself, the world, above all with my cruel profession. In fact, we are nothing but licensed assassins."
However, there are some important differences between Britain's first defeat in Afghanistan and the current mess. In 1842, we were at least reinstalling a legitimate Afghan ruler and removing one who could genuinely be cast as an illegitimate usurper. Shah Shuja, the British puppet, was a former ruler of the Sadozai dynasty, from the leading Pashtun clan, and a grandson of the great Ahmed Shah Durrani, the first king of a united Afghanistan. As the traveller and pioneering archaeologist Charles Masson observed: "The Afghans had no objection to the match; they merely disliked the manner of the wooing."
This time, we have been clumsier, and Nato has helped instal a former CIA asset accused by a high-ranking UN diplomat of drug abuse and of having a history of mental instability, with little to recommend him other than that he was once run out of Langley. Although Karzai is a Pashtun of the Popalzai tribe, under his watch Nato has in effect installed the Northern Alliance in Kabul and driven the country's Pashtun majority out of power.
The reality of our present Afghan entanglement is that we took sides in a complex civil war, which has been running since the 1970s, siding with the north against the south, town against country, secularism against Islam, and the Tajiks against the Pashtuns. We have installed a government, and trained up an army, both of which in many ways have discriminated against the Pashtun majority, and whose top-down, highly centralised constitution allows for remarkably little federalism or regional representation. However much western liberals may dislike the Taliban - and they have very good reason for doing so - the truth remains that they are in many ways the authentic voice of rural Pashtun conservatism, whose views and wishes are ignored by the government in Kabul and who are still largely excluded from power. It is hardly surprising that the Pashtuns are determined to resist the regime and that the insurgency is widely supported, especially in the Pashtun heartlands of the south and east.
Yet it is not too late to learn some lessons from the mistakes of the British in 1842. Then, British officials in Kabul continued to send out despatches of delusional optimism as the insurgents moved ever closer to Kabul, believing that there was a straightforward military solution to the problem and that if only they could recruit enough Afghans to their army, they could eventually march out, leaving that regime in place - exactly the sentiments expressed by the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, on his visit to Afghanistan last month.
In 1842, by the time they realised they had to negotiate a political solution, their power had ebbed too far, and the only thing the insurgents were willing to negotiate was an unconditional surrender. Today, too, there is no easy military solution to Afghanistan: even if we proceed with the plan to equip an army of half a million troops (at the cost of roughly $2bn a year, when the entire revenue of the Afghan government is $1.1bn - in other words, 180 per cent of revenue), that army will never be able to guarantee security or shore up such a discredited regime. Every day, despite the military power of the US and Nato and the $25bn so far ploughed into rebuilding the Afghan army, security gets worse, and the area under government control contracts week by week.
The only answer is to negotiate a political solution while we still have enough power to do so, which in some form or other involves talking to the Taliban. This is a course that Karzai, to his credit, is keen to pursue; he made it clear that his peace jirga at the start of this month was open to any Taliban leader willing to lay down arms, and that jobs and monetary incentives would be available to former Taliban who changed their allegiance and joined the government. It is still unclear whether the new Tory government supports this course; Barack Obama certainly opposes it. In this, he is supported by the notably undiplomatic US envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, described by one senior British diplomat as "a bull who brings his own china shop wherever he goes".
There is something else we can still do before we pull out: leave some basic infrastructure behind, a goal we notably failed to achieve in the past nine years. Yet William Hague and Liam Fox oppose this policy - as Fox notoriously said in his 21 May interview with the Times, which infuriated his Afghan hosts: "We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th-century country." The Tories could do much worse than consult their own newly elected backbencher Rory Stewart. He knows much more about Afghanistan than either Fox or Hague. As Stewart wrote shortly before he entered politics, targeted aid projects that employ Afghans can do a great deal of good, "and we should focus on meeting the Afghan government's request for more investment in agriculture, irrigation, energy and roads".
In the meantime, Obama has announced that he will begin withdrawing troops in July 2011. The start of the US withdrawal is likely to begin a rush to evacuate the other Nato forces located in pockets around the country: the Dutch have announced that they will be pulling out of Uruzgan this summer, and the Canadian and Danes won't be far behind them. Nor will the Brits, despite assurances from Hague and Fox. A recent poll showed that 72 per cent of Britons want their troops out of Afghanistan immediately, and there is only so long any government can hold out against such strong public opinion. Certainly, it is time to shed the idea that a pro-western puppet regime that excludes the Pashtuns can remain in place indefinitely. The Karzai government is crumbling before our eyes, and if we delude ourselves that this is not the case, we could yet face a replay of 1842.
George Lawrence, a veteran of that war, issued a prescient warning in the Times just before Britain blundered into the Second Anglo-Afghan War in the 1870s. "A new generation has arisen which, instead of profiting from the solemn lessons of the past, is willing and eager to embroil us in the affairs of that turbulent and unhappy country," he wrote. "Although military disasters may be avoided, an advance now, however successful in a military point of view, would not fail to turn out to be as politically useless."
William Dalrymple's latest book, "Nine Lives: in Search of the Sacred in Modern India", won the first Asia House Literary Award in May, and is newly published in paperback (Bloomsbury, £8.99). His book on the First Anglo-Afghan War is planned for release in autumn 2012
New Statesman: Why the Taliban is winning in Afghanistan
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Filed under
Afghanistan,
Pakistan,
Taliban
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, July 06, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Times : Lawyer of the Week: Amjad Malik
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Lawyer of the Week: Amjad Malik
Linda Tsang | June 10, 2010
Amjad Malik, a solicitor-advocate at the Rochdale firm Amjad Malik Solicitors, acted pro bono for three Pakistani students in a deportation appeal hearing at a Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in London and won the appeal against deportation in the case of Shoaib Khan.
What were the main challenges in this case and the possible implications?
Ten Pakistani-national students were arrested on April 8, 2009, in Operation Pathway because they were considered to be a threat to national security. No charges were brought and they were later released to the UK Border Agency, which initiated deportation proceedings.
SIAC allowed the appeal of Shoaib Khan [and two other students represented by the lawyer Gareth Peirce] on all the allegations on the ground that there was a risk of torture on deportation to Pakistan.
What was your most memorable experience as a lawyer?
Ensuring that the three appellants I acted for could give evidence via video-link from Pakistan, with possible far-reaching implications in similar cases.
What was your worst day as a lawyer?
In 2001, after receiving a judgment in the House of Lords in the case of a Muslim cleric (Rehman), who won his deportation appeal in SIAC, my house was stoned early the next morning. It was a shattering experience and I can only say that I was only doing my job.
Who has been the most influential person in your life and why?
My father played a pivotal role in my academic progress -- and my wife is a solid rock who has supported me for the past 18 years. As we acted pro bono in this case, she sat behind me while I appeared alongside five QCs.
Why did you become a lawyer?
A passion to fight injustice in any shape and formÍ and I was fascinated that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was a barrister at Lincoln’s Inn early in his life.
What would your advice be to anyone wanting a career in law?
A lawyer’s job is important and difficult and one must be ready to do pro bono work because it is part of the package — to do a little extra for society: to serve yourself as well as others.
If you had not become a lawyer what would you have chosen and why?
A journalist reporting on human rights abuses all around the world. Reporting requires sheer hard work and advocacy and there is a sense of satisfaction after each report, which is similar to concluding a case.
Where do you see yourself in ten years?
I was a lawyer for Oldham Citizens Advice Bureau from 2000-03 and I hope to have some future role working for a charity in the area of human rights, or at the UN.
l_tsang@hotmail.com
Linda Tsang | June 10, 2010
Amjad Malik, a solicitor-advocate at the Rochdale firm Amjad Malik Solicitors, acted pro bono for three Pakistani students in a deportation appeal hearing at a Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in London and won the appeal against deportation in the case of Shoaib Khan.
What were the main challenges in this case and the possible implications?
Ten Pakistani-national students were arrested on April 8, 2009, in Operation Pathway because they were considered to be a threat to national security. No charges were brought and they were later released to the UK Border Agency, which initiated deportation proceedings.
SIAC allowed the appeal of Shoaib Khan [and two other students represented by the lawyer Gareth Peirce] on all the allegations on the ground that there was a risk of torture on deportation to Pakistan.
What was your most memorable experience as a lawyer?
Ensuring that the three appellants I acted for could give evidence via video-link from Pakistan, with possible far-reaching implications in similar cases.
What was your worst day as a lawyer?
In 2001, after receiving a judgment in the House of Lords in the case of a Muslim cleric (Rehman), who won his deportation appeal in SIAC, my house was stoned early the next morning. It was a shattering experience and I can only say that I was only doing my job.
Who has been the most influential person in your life and why?
My father played a pivotal role in my academic progress -- and my wife is a solid rock who has supported me for the past 18 years. As we acted pro bono in this case, she sat behind me while I appeared alongside five QCs.
Why did you become a lawyer?
A passion to fight injustice in any shape and formÍ and I was fascinated that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was a barrister at Lincoln’s Inn early in his life.
What would your advice be to anyone wanting a career in law?
A lawyer’s job is important and difficult and one must be ready to do pro bono work because it is part of the package — to do a little extra for society: to serve yourself as well as others.
If you had not become a lawyer what would you have chosen and why?
A journalist reporting on human rights abuses all around the world. Reporting requires sheer hard work and advocacy and there is a sense of satisfaction after each report, which is similar to concluding a case.
Where do you see yourself in ten years?
I was a lawyer for Oldham Citizens Advice Bureau from 2000-03 and I hope to have some future role working for a charity in the area of human rights, or at the UN.
l_tsang@hotmail.com
Filed under
Amjad Malik,
Operation Pathway
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, June 10, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
WaPo : U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role
Friday, June 04, 2010
U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role
By Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe | June 4, 2010; A01
Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.
Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.
Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.
The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the other side of the national security doctrine of global engagement and domestic values President Obama released last week.
One advantage of using "secret" forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.
Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed "things that the previous administration did not."
'More access'
Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush's administration, when most briefings on potential future operations were run through the Pentagon chain of command and were conducted by the defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"We have a lot more access," a second military official said. "They are talking publicly much less but they are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly."
The White House, he said, is "asking for ideas and plans . . . calling us in and saying, 'Tell me what you can do. Tell me how you do these things.' "
The Special Operations capabilities requested by the White House go beyond unilateral strikes and include the training of local counterterrorism forces and joint operations with them. In Yemen, for example, "we are doing all three," the official said. Officials who spoke about the increased operations were not authorized to discuss them on the record.
The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said last week that the United States "will not merely respond after the fact" of a terrorist attack but will "take the fight to al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond."
That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to "take the battle to the enemy . . . and confront the worst threats before they emerge." The elite Special Operations units, drawn from all four branches of the armed forces, became a frontline counterterrorism weapon for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
But Obama has made such forces a far more integrated part of his global security strategy. He has asked for a 5.7 percent increase in the Special Operations budget for fiscal 2011, for a total of $6.3 billion, plus an additional $3.5 billion in 2010 contingency funding.
Bush-era clashes between the Defense and State departments over Special Operations deployments have all but ceased. Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld saw them as an independent force, approving in some countries Special Operations intelligence-gathering missions that were so secret that the U.S. ambassador was not told they were underway. But the close relationship between Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is said to have smoothed out the process.
"In some places, we are quite obvious in our presence," Adm. Eric T. Olson, head of the Special Operations Command, said in a speech. "In some places, in deference to host-country sensitivities, we are lower in profile. In every place, Special Operations forces activities are coordinated with the U.S. ambassador and are under the operational control of the four-star regional commander."
Chains of command
Gen. David H. Petraeus at the Central Command and others were ordered by the Joint Staff under Bush to develop plans to use Special Operations forces for intelligence collection and other counterterrorism efforts, and were given the authority to issue direct orders to them. But those orders were formalized only last year, including in a CENTCOM directive outlining operations throughout South Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.
The order, whose existence was first reported by the New York Times, includes intelligence collection in Iran, although it is unclear whether Special Operations forces are active there.
The Tampa-based Special Operations Command is not entirely happy with its subordination to regional commanders and, in Afghanistan and Iraq, to theater commanders. Special Operations troops within Afghanistan had their own chain of command until early this year, when they were brought under the unified direction of the overall U.S. and NATO commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and his operational deputy, Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez.
"Everybody working in CENTCOM works for Dave Petraeus," a military official said. "Our issue is that we believe our theater forces should be under a Special Operations theater commander, instead of . . . Rodriguez, who is a conventional [forces] guy who doesn't know how to do what we do."
Special Operations troops train for years in foreign cultures and language, and consider themselves a breed apart from what they call "general purpose forces." Special Operations troops sometimes bridle at ambassadorial authority to "control who comes in and out of their country," the official said. Operations have also been hindered in Pakistan -- where Special Operations trainers hope to nearly triple their current deployment to 300 -- by that government's delay in issuing the visas.
Although pleased with their expanded numbers and funding, Special Operations commanders would like to devote more of their force to global missions outside war zones. Of about 13,000 Special Operations forces deployed overseas, about 9,000 are evenly divided between Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Eighty percent of our investment is now in resolving current conflicts, not in building capabilities with partners to avoid future ones," one official said.
Questions remain
The force has also chafed at the cumbersome process under which the president or his designee, usually Gates, must authorize its use of lethal force outside war zones. Although the CIA has the authority to designate targets and launch lethal missiles in Pakistan's western tribal areas, attacks such as last year's in Somalia and Yemen require civilian approval.
The United Nations, in a report this week, questioned the administration's authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification -- the permission of the country in question -- is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge approving the attacks.
Former Bush officials, still smarting from accusations that their administration overextended the president's authority to conduct lethal activities around the world at will, have asked similar questions. "While they seem to be expanding their operations both in terms of extraterritoriality and aggressiveness, they are contracting the legal authority upon which those expanding actions are based," said John B. Bellinger III, a senior legal adviser in both of Bush's administrations.
The Obama administration has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.
Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, "particularly in places outside Afghanistan," had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.
By Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe | June 4, 2010; A01
Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.
Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.
Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.
The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the other side of the national security doctrine of global engagement and domestic values President Obama released last week.
One advantage of using "secret" forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.
Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed "things that the previous administration did not."
'More access'
Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush's administration, when most briefings on potential future operations were run through the Pentagon chain of command and were conducted by the defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"We have a lot more access," a second military official said. "They are talking publicly much less but they are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly."
The White House, he said, is "asking for ideas and plans . . . calling us in and saying, 'Tell me what you can do. Tell me how you do these things.' "
The Special Operations capabilities requested by the White House go beyond unilateral strikes and include the training of local counterterrorism forces and joint operations with them. In Yemen, for example, "we are doing all three," the official said. Officials who spoke about the increased operations were not authorized to discuss them on the record.
The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said last week that the United States "will not merely respond after the fact" of a terrorist attack but will "take the fight to al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond."
That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to "take the battle to the enemy . . . and confront the worst threats before they emerge." The elite Special Operations units, drawn from all four branches of the armed forces, became a frontline counterterrorism weapon for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
But Obama has made such forces a far more integrated part of his global security strategy. He has asked for a 5.7 percent increase in the Special Operations budget for fiscal 2011, for a total of $6.3 billion, plus an additional $3.5 billion in 2010 contingency funding.
Bush-era clashes between the Defense and State departments over Special Operations deployments have all but ceased. Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld saw them as an independent force, approving in some countries Special Operations intelligence-gathering missions that were so secret that the U.S. ambassador was not told they were underway. But the close relationship between Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is said to have smoothed out the process.
"In some places, we are quite obvious in our presence," Adm. Eric T. Olson, head of the Special Operations Command, said in a speech. "In some places, in deference to host-country sensitivities, we are lower in profile. In every place, Special Operations forces activities are coordinated with the U.S. ambassador and are under the operational control of the four-star regional commander."
Chains of command
Gen. David H. Petraeus at the Central Command and others were ordered by the Joint Staff under Bush to develop plans to use Special Operations forces for intelligence collection and other counterterrorism efforts, and were given the authority to issue direct orders to them. But those orders were formalized only last year, including in a CENTCOM directive outlining operations throughout South Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.
The order, whose existence was first reported by the New York Times, includes intelligence collection in Iran, although it is unclear whether Special Operations forces are active there.
The Tampa-based Special Operations Command is not entirely happy with its subordination to regional commanders and, in Afghanistan and Iraq, to theater commanders. Special Operations troops within Afghanistan had their own chain of command until early this year, when they were brought under the unified direction of the overall U.S. and NATO commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and his operational deputy, Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez.
"Everybody working in CENTCOM works for Dave Petraeus," a military official said. "Our issue is that we believe our theater forces should be under a Special Operations theater commander, instead of . . . Rodriguez, who is a conventional [forces] guy who doesn't know how to do what we do."
Special Operations troops train for years in foreign cultures and language, and consider themselves a breed apart from what they call "general purpose forces." Special Operations troops sometimes bridle at ambassadorial authority to "control who comes in and out of their country," the official said. Operations have also been hindered in Pakistan -- where Special Operations trainers hope to nearly triple their current deployment to 300 -- by that government's delay in issuing the visas.
Although pleased with their expanded numbers and funding, Special Operations commanders would like to devote more of their force to global missions outside war zones. Of about 13,000 Special Operations forces deployed overseas, about 9,000 are evenly divided between Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Eighty percent of our investment is now in resolving current conflicts, not in building capabilities with partners to avoid future ones," one official said.
Questions remain
The force has also chafed at the cumbersome process under which the president or his designee, usually Gates, must authorize its use of lethal force outside war zones. Although the CIA has the authority to designate targets and launch lethal missiles in Pakistan's western tribal areas, attacks such as last year's in Somalia and Yemen require civilian approval.
The United Nations, in a report this week, questioned the administration's authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification -- the permission of the country in question -- is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge approving the attacks.
Former Bush officials, still smarting from accusations that their administration overextended the president's authority to conduct lethal activities around the world at will, have asked similar questions. "While they seem to be expanding their operations both in terms of extraterritoriality and aggressiveness, they are contracting the legal authority upon which those expanding actions are based," said John B. Bellinger III, a senior legal adviser in both of Bush's administrations.
The Obama administration has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.
Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, "particularly in places outside Afghanistan," had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.
Filed under
Barack Obama,
Special Operations
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, June 04, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : VIDEO FROM WEBSTER TARPLEY OF RUSSIA TODAY
Friday, February 12, 2010
VIDEO FROM WEBSTER TARPLEY OF RUSSIA TODAY
By Kurt Haskell | February 12, 2010
This is a very interesting video, which backs up much of what I have been saying, but takes it a step further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4RjI9ZhKA&feature=player_embedded
By Kurt Haskell | February 12, 2010
This is a very interesting video, which backs up much of what I have been saying, but takes it a step further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4RjI9ZhKA&feature=player_embedded
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, February 12, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : Remaining Questions
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Remaining Questions
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell
January 31, 2010
The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?
The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:
The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:
"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".
The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:
1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.
There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.
While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.
The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:
1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:
1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
This is possibly the most important question to be answered.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:
1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".
Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:
1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".
1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:
"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".
This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?
It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell
January 31, 2010
The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?
The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:
The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:
"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".
The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:
1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.
There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.
While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.
The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:
1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:
1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
This is possibly the most important question to be answered.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:
1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".
Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:
1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".
1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:
"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".
This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?
It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, January 31, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : Remaining Questions
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Remaining Questions
Kurt Haskell | January 31, 2010
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell
The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?
~~~
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?
The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:
The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:
"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".
The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:
1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.
There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.
While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.
The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:
1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:
1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
This is possibly the most important question to be answered.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:
1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".
Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:
1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".
1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:
"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".
This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?
It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.
Kurt Haskell | January 31, 2010
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell
The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?
~~~
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?
The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:
The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:
"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".
The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:
1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.
There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.
While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.
The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:
1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:
1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
This is possibly the most important question to be answered.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:
1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".
Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:
1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".
1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:
"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".
This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?
It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, January 31, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : AN INTERESTING NOTE TO TODAY'S CNN ARTICLE ON FLIGHT 253
Thursday, January 28, 2010
AN INTERESTING NOTE TO TODAY'S CNN ARTICLE ON FLIGHT 253
Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010
A few days ago, CNN contacted all of the known flight 253 passengers by email. The email stated that as the Haiti earthquake story had calmed down, CNN wanted to write a new article on flight 253. The email listed a series of questions that CNN wanted the passengers to answer about flight 253. This is the first major media organization to contact Lori and I after the hearings took place in Congress. These hearings provided the statements from Patrick Kennedy and Michael Leiter that led to the obviously conclusion that the Sharp Dressed Man was a U.S. Government agent (Please scroll down below and read previous blog posts if you are not informed as to these comments and this conclusion). Therefore, I expected CNN to address these issues, as they are now, in my opinion, the most important part of the flight 253 story. When I provided my answers, I informed CNN that it could only use my answers if it intended to discuss the Sharp Dressed Man in its article. I heard nothing further from CNN. Lori, however, got another email that said, since we can't use Kurt's answers, can we at least use yours? This was not a surprise to me since it is obvious that the major media is furthering the U.S. governement's flight 253 propaganda. Lori's take on all of this is that we should keep flight 253 in the media no matter what. My take is that it is time for the media to step up to the plate and ask the hard questions. Until that happens, don't bother wasting my time to further the U.S. Government's agenda. You can read the article below as Lori posted a link in her most recent blog entry. Notice that I am not mentioned in the article. At least the media is showing its true colors.
Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010
A few days ago, CNN contacted all of the known flight 253 passengers by email. The email stated that as the Haiti earthquake story had calmed down, CNN wanted to write a new article on flight 253. The email listed a series of questions that CNN wanted the passengers to answer about flight 253. This is the first major media organization to contact Lori and I after the hearings took place in Congress. These hearings provided the statements from Patrick Kennedy and Michael Leiter that led to the obviously conclusion that the Sharp Dressed Man was a U.S. Government agent (Please scroll down below and read previous blog posts if you are not informed as to these comments and this conclusion). Therefore, I expected CNN to address these issues, as they are now, in my opinion, the most important part of the flight 253 story. When I provided my answers, I informed CNN that it could only use my answers if it intended to discuss the Sharp Dressed Man in its article. I heard nothing further from CNN. Lori, however, got another email that said, since we can't use Kurt's answers, can we at least use yours? This was not a surprise to me since it is obvious that the major media is furthering the U.S. governement's flight 253 propaganda. Lori's take on all of this is that we should keep flight 253 in the media no matter what. My take is that it is time for the media to step up to the plate and ask the hard questions. Until that happens, don't bother wasting my time to further the U.S. Government's agenda. You can read the article below as Lori posted a link in her most recent blog entry. Notice that I am not mentioned in the article. At least the media is showing its true colors.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, January 28, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : THE TRUTH ABOUT FLIGHT 253 HAS BEEN REVEALED
Thursday, January 28, 2010
THE TRUTH ABOUT FLIGHT 253 HAS BEEN REVEALED
Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010
***Please note that in the article that follows, I am not claiming that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb or intended to hurt anyone on Flight 253 when the U.S. Government let him board.
THE SHARP DRESSED MAN WHO AIDED MUTALLAB ONTO FLIGHT 253 WAS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENT.
Since our flight landed on Christmas Day, Lori and I have been doing everything in our power to uncover the truth about why we were almost blown up in the air over Detroit. The truth is now finally out after the publication of the following Detroit News article:
http://detnews.com/article/20100127/NATION/1270405/Terror-suspect-kept-visa-to-avoid-tipping-off-larger-investigation
Let me quote from the article:
"Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaeda threats against the United States.
"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."'
Now it all becomes apparent. Let me detail everything we know about the "Sharp Dressed Man" (SDM).
1. While being held in Customs on Christmas Day, I first told the story of the SDM.
2. My story has never changed.
3. The FBI visited my office on December 29, 2009, and showed me a series of approximately 10 photographs. None were of the SDM. I asked the FBI if they brought the Amsterdam security video to help me identify the SDM, but they acted as though my request was ridiculous. The FBI asked me what accent the SDM spoke in and I indicated that he had an American accent similar to my own. I further indicated that he wore a tan suit without a tie, was Indian looking, around age 50, 6'0" tall and 250-260 lbs. I further indicated that I did not believe that he was an airline employee and that he was not on our flight.
4. During the first week of January, 2010, Dutch Military Police and the FBI indicated that over "200 Hours" of Amsterdam airport security video had been reviewed and it "Shows Nothing".
5. The mainstream media picked up the "Shows nothing" story, which slanders my story. After visiting my office twice for a flight 253 special, Dateline NBC and Chris Hanson indicated that my story was "Unsubstantiated rumor dispelled as myth" and our story did not air during the tv special.
6. On January 2, 2010, I receive a call from a flight 253 passenger who indicated to me that it may be in my best interest to stop talking publicly about the SDM because he believes I am "wrong" in what I saw. He did not make any claim that he saw the SDM boarding gate incident at all. This call was made out of the blue after he made a "revelation" of this event on January 1, 2010. I later discover that this caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
7. On January 20, 2010, current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission. Leiter indicated that: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."
8. On January 22, 2010, CongressDaily reported that intelligence officials "have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities."
CongressDaily also reported, citing an unnamed "intelligence official" that Michael E. Leiter's statement on January 20, 2010, reflected government policy and told the publication, "in certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts."
9. On January 22, 2010, ABC News published an article that showed a change of position in the government's official story. Please see the following blog post for more information:
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/initially-discounted.html
The U.S. government provided no explanation for the reason my story was initially discounted.
10. The SDM could not be from Al Qaeda. When speaking at the counter in Amsterdam, the SDM said the following "He is from Sudan, we do this all the time". Who is "we"? If it is Al Qaeda, you surely don't make such a statement to an airport security official.
11. The SDM could not be from airport security. The SDM did not dress in any security uniform and did not appear to have any security badge. The SDM did not speak with a Dutch accent. The SDM dressed in a suit coat and pants. If the SDM was a higher up security official, he would not have to convince the ticket agent to let Mutallab on the plane without a valid passport. Instead, he would just order her to do it.
12. Could the SDM have been a U.S. Government official? He dressed in a suit and not a security uniform. Check. He indicated we do this all the time. Could "we" be the U.S. Government? Check. He spoke Enlish with an American accent. Check. Would he need to convince the ticket agent that this was a normal procedure to allow boarding without a passport? Check. Would he have the ability to obtain such clearance? Check. Could he enter this security area even though he wasn't a passenger? Check. Would the ticket agent likely refer this request to a manager? Check. Would the U.S. Government not want this information public and try to hide it? Check.
13. The Amsterdam security video has not been released. A much more minor airport security violation occurred at the Newark New Jersey airport several days after the flight 253 incident. That video was released shortly thereafter.
14. Senators Levin and Stabenow, as well as Congressman Dingle, all refuse to discuss the matter with me.
With the information we already knew and the admission from the above referenced Detroit News article, we have evidence and claims made by government officials that the U.S. Government wanted Mutallab to proceed into the U.S. in order to obtain information on other terrorists involved with him. Once we take this statement and add it to my eyewitness account of a "Sharp Dressed Man" escorting Mutallab through the boarding process and allowing him to board without a valid passport we can make the connection that the "Sharp Dressed Man" was a U.S. Government official/agent.
The reasoning behind the following events now becomes very clear:
1. The reason Mutallab got through security despite the numerous warnings for months before our flight.
2. The reason why there have been so many lies from the U.S. Government attempting to discredit my eyewitness account.
3. The reason why the Amsterdam airport security video is being hidden from the public.
4. The reason why the government is proposing a "Failed to Connect the Dots" account of the failure. The truth is too damning.
5. The reason why Mr. Wolf of the Obama administration indicated on the Keith Olberman Show that the White House was investigating a possible "intentional act" from within the U.S. Government as the reason for the Christmas Day attack.
6. The explanation for the cameraman and why he hasn't been identified (Obviously, he was another U.S. Government agent) whose job was to film Mutallab for some governmental purpose.
7. The reason for the lax security after landing, which can be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.
8. The reason for the failure to search or secure the plane and passengers after landing, which can also be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.
9. The corporate media's attempt to bury my eyewitness account.
10. Carl Levin's, Debbie Stabenow's and John Dingle's intentional avoidance of my story and failure to return my calls/emails.
11. Janet Napolitano's statement that "The System Worked". From her point of view it probably did as this WAS PART OF THE SYSTEM!
This article is the big center piece of the puzzle that has been missing and was needed to finish the entire puzzle.
Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010
***Please note that in the article that follows, I am not claiming that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb or intended to hurt anyone on Flight 253 when the U.S. Government let him board.
THE SHARP DRESSED MAN WHO AIDED MUTALLAB ONTO FLIGHT 253 WAS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENT.
Since our flight landed on Christmas Day, Lori and I have been doing everything in our power to uncover the truth about why we were almost blown up in the air over Detroit. The truth is now finally out after the publication of the following Detroit News article:
http://detnews.com/article/20100127/NATION/1270405/Terror-suspect-kept-visa-to-avoid-tipping-off-larger-investigation
Let me quote from the article:
"Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaeda threats against the United States.
"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."'
Now it all becomes apparent. Let me detail everything we know about the "Sharp Dressed Man" (SDM).
1. While being held in Customs on Christmas Day, I first told the story of the SDM.
2. My story has never changed.
3. The FBI visited my office on December 29, 2009, and showed me a series of approximately 10 photographs. None were of the SDM. I asked the FBI if they brought the Amsterdam security video to help me identify the SDM, but they acted as though my request was ridiculous. The FBI asked me what accent the SDM spoke in and I indicated that he had an American accent similar to my own. I further indicated that he wore a tan suit without a tie, was Indian looking, around age 50, 6'0" tall and 250-260 lbs. I further indicated that I did not believe that he was an airline employee and that he was not on our flight.
4. During the first week of January, 2010, Dutch Military Police and the FBI indicated that over "200 Hours" of Amsterdam airport security video had been reviewed and it "Shows Nothing".
5. The mainstream media picked up the "Shows nothing" story, which slanders my story. After visiting my office twice for a flight 253 special, Dateline NBC and Chris Hanson indicated that my story was "Unsubstantiated rumor dispelled as myth" and our story did not air during the tv special.
6. On January 2, 2010, I receive a call from a flight 253 passenger who indicated to me that it may be in my best interest to stop talking publicly about the SDM because he believes I am "wrong" in what I saw. He did not make any claim that he saw the SDM boarding gate incident at all. This call was made out of the blue after he made a "revelation" of this event on January 1, 2010. I later discover that this caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
7. On January 20, 2010, current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission. Leiter indicated that: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."
8. On January 22, 2010, CongressDaily reported that intelligence officials "have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities."
CongressDaily also reported, citing an unnamed "intelligence official" that Michael E. Leiter's statement on January 20, 2010, reflected government policy and told the publication, "in certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts."
9. On January 22, 2010, ABC News published an article that showed a change of position in the government's official story. Please see the following blog post for more information:
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/initially-discounted.html
The U.S. government provided no explanation for the reason my story was initially discounted.
10. The SDM could not be from Al Qaeda. When speaking at the counter in Amsterdam, the SDM said the following "He is from Sudan, we do this all the time". Who is "we"? If it is Al Qaeda, you surely don't make such a statement to an airport security official.
11. The SDM could not be from airport security. The SDM did not dress in any security uniform and did not appear to have any security badge. The SDM did not speak with a Dutch accent. The SDM dressed in a suit coat and pants. If the SDM was a higher up security official, he would not have to convince the ticket agent to let Mutallab on the plane without a valid passport. Instead, he would just order her to do it.
12. Could the SDM have been a U.S. Government official? He dressed in a suit and not a security uniform. Check. He indicated we do this all the time. Could "we" be the U.S. Government? Check. He spoke Enlish with an American accent. Check. Would he need to convince the ticket agent that this was a normal procedure to allow boarding without a passport? Check. Would he have the ability to obtain such clearance? Check. Could he enter this security area even though he wasn't a passenger? Check. Would the ticket agent likely refer this request to a manager? Check. Would the U.S. Government not want this information public and try to hide it? Check.
13. The Amsterdam security video has not been released. A much more minor airport security violation occurred at the Newark New Jersey airport several days after the flight 253 incident. That video was released shortly thereafter.
14. Senators Levin and Stabenow, as well as Congressman Dingle, all refuse to discuss the matter with me.
With the information we already knew and the admission from the above referenced Detroit News article, we have evidence and claims made by government officials that the U.S. Government wanted Mutallab to proceed into the U.S. in order to obtain information on other terrorists involved with him. Once we take this statement and add it to my eyewitness account of a "Sharp Dressed Man" escorting Mutallab through the boarding process and allowing him to board without a valid passport we can make the connection that the "Sharp Dressed Man" was a U.S. Government official/agent.
The reasoning behind the following events now becomes very clear:
1. The reason Mutallab got through security despite the numerous warnings for months before our flight.
2. The reason why there have been so many lies from the U.S. Government attempting to discredit my eyewitness account.
3. The reason why the Amsterdam airport security video is being hidden from the public.
4. The reason why the government is proposing a "Failed to Connect the Dots" account of the failure. The truth is too damning.
5. The reason why Mr. Wolf of the Obama administration indicated on the Keith Olberman Show that the White House was investigating a possible "intentional act" from within the U.S. Government as the reason for the Christmas Day attack.
6. The explanation for the cameraman and why he hasn't been identified (Obviously, he was another U.S. Government agent) whose job was to film Mutallab for some governmental purpose.
7. The reason for the lax security after landing, which can be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.
8. The reason for the failure to search or secure the plane and passengers after landing, which can also be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.
9. The corporate media's attempt to bury my eyewitness account.
10. Carl Levin's, Debbie Stabenow's and John Dingle's intentional avoidance of my story and failure to return my calls/emails.
11. Janet Napolitano's statement that "The System Worked". From her point of view it probably did as this WAS PART OF THE SYSTEM!
This article is the big center piece of the puzzle that has been missing and was needed to finish the entire puzzle.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, January 28, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Lori Haskell : Initially "Discounted"
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Initially "Discounted"
Lori Haskell | January 24, 2010
OMFG. Cannot even believe the article below. I think I may have fallen over if I had been standing when I read this article. A woman posted a link to this article in comments on my blog, and I clicked on it. Most of the article has nothing to do with Flight 253. Which is interesting too. Why is this not total breaking news????? The part of the article that is incredible, I will post below.
I think we now know WHY the video is not being released. Because IT SHOWS WHAT KURT SAID!!!!!! I mean, where is his apology? Where? They come out in the media, basically calling Kurt a liar, then they take it back, but it is in the bottom of another nonrelated article. Ridiculous. And still, to date, no authorities contactinig KURT to ask him to look at the freaking video and help identify the guy. It's so insane to me. We have an eyewitness to this, and they just don't care.
"Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.
Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab "did not get cold feet."
Click here to read the entire article
Lori Haskell | January 24, 2010
OMFG. Cannot even believe the article below. I think I may have fallen over if I had been standing when I read this article. A woman posted a link to this article in comments on my blog, and I clicked on it. Most of the article has nothing to do with Flight 253. Which is interesting too. Why is this not total breaking news????? The part of the article that is incredible, I will post below.
I think we now know WHY the video is not being released. Because IT SHOWS WHAT KURT SAID!!!!!! I mean, where is his apology? Where? They come out in the media, basically calling Kurt a liar, then they take it back, but it is in the bottom of another nonrelated article. Ridiculous. And still, to date, no authorities contactinig KURT to ask him to look at the freaking video and help identify the guy. It's so insane to me. We have an eyewitness to this, and they just don't care.
"Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.
Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab "did not get cold feet."
Click here to read the entire article
Filed under
Lori Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, January 24, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : UPDATE ON FLIGHT 253: A CONVERSATION WITH A FELLOW PASSENGER
Saturday, January 02, 2010
UPDATE ON FLIGHT 253: A CONVERSATION WITH A FELLOW PASSENGER
By Kurt Haskell | January 02, 2010
Today I received a phone call from a fellow passenger, Bo Taylor (Bo indicated that I could identify him). This was the first contact I have had with any other passenger (besides Lori) since we left customs on Christmas Day. The conversation was very interesting because we both saw different things and were able to compare notes.
In the interest of obtaining the truth, which has always been my goal, I am posting the following account of Bo Taylor that differs from mine:
"After we landed in Detroit I saw an older looking teenager who was African and looked NEARLY IDENTICAL to the terrorist bomber. Since he was a minor, and travelling alone, he was accompanied by an airport employee at all times. Kurt, this could have been the guy you saw in Amsterdam before we boarded." I have no reason whatsoever to dispute the veracity of Bo's statement. I also have no reason to not believe what I saw.
Two different people can see two different things. However, I am not sure that it matters that much. You see, if Bo is correct, than we have a possible future airline security breach since the teenager was allowed on the plane without a passport(apparently) due to coming from Sudan (apparently). This may be a common airline policy that is potentially problematic. If I am correct, well, we have an entirely different and much larger problem. Either way, there are concerns. Either way we need an open, honest, and thorough investigation. There is one way to conclusively determine who is correct, and that would be for the Amsterdam Airport to RELEASE THE CLOSED CAPTION VIDEO FOOTAGE! Seriously, the attack happened 8 days ago, the relevant video is probably 2-3 minutes in length and has(apparently) already been viewed by airport security personnel. So why hasn't it appeared anywhere? Within 24 hours of any bank robbery or gas station hold up, the video of the perpetrator is played all over the news and posted on the internet. If the video really is not related to the terrorist incident, release it and let us move on. If it is related, release it, place it on the internet and let the world attempt to identify the "sharp dressed man". I suspect that due to the potential problems I indicated above (regardless of which account the video supports) federal law enforcement will likely never release the video.
Bo went on to emphasize the numerous amount of gaffes he saw (Many of which I did too) AFTER our plane landed. Bo cited the following as major problems he saw with how the investigation was handled:
1. We were left on the plane too long after landing, which caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.
2. We should have never been allowed to take our carry on bags into the terminal since they were not searched until we had been held for approximately one hour. This also caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.
3. Even though there was a no cell phone policy, Bo observed many people making cell phone calls and believes this was also an unnecessary risk to the passengers.
4. He was particularly concerned that according to him, "law enforcement in customs was not even notified that there was a bomb on our plane until we had been held for quite awhile". He informed me that an officer he spoke to in customs was clueless that there was even a bomb on our plane. Therefore, law enforcement WAS NOT EVEN AWARE of the risk our carry on bags presented while we were held in customs!
5. He indicated that he informed law enforcement that a man videotaped the entire terrorist incident and he gave the following possible seat numbers for the "camera man", seats 31A, 31B, 32A or 32B. However, law enforcement did not verify who was in such seats. Further, law enforcement could have confiscated each camera, but instead let this lead slip away when they let the passengers leave without ever finding the video.
It was very nice to compare notes with a fellow passenger even if his account was somewhat different than mine. My goal is not to prove that what I saw is correct, but only to pose the questions in order to obtain satisfactory answers. An open, honest, and complete investigation is vitally important to the future of all airline passengers. We must all continue to ask the questions until all of our concerns are satisfied.
By the way, the very important questions I posed at the conclusion of yesterday's post continue to remain unanswered.
Kurt Haskell- A Flight 253 passenger and a concerned American Citizen.
By Kurt Haskell | January 02, 2010
Today I received a phone call from a fellow passenger, Bo Taylor (Bo indicated that I could identify him). This was the first contact I have had with any other passenger (besides Lori) since we left customs on Christmas Day. The conversation was very interesting because we both saw different things and were able to compare notes.
In the interest of obtaining the truth, which has always been my goal, I am posting the following account of Bo Taylor that differs from mine:
"After we landed in Detroit I saw an older looking teenager who was African and looked NEARLY IDENTICAL to the terrorist bomber. Since he was a minor, and travelling alone, he was accompanied by an airport employee at all times. Kurt, this could have been the guy you saw in Amsterdam before we boarded." I have no reason whatsoever to dispute the veracity of Bo's statement. I also have no reason to not believe what I saw.
Two different people can see two different things. However, I am not sure that it matters that much. You see, if Bo is correct, than we have a possible future airline security breach since the teenager was allowed on the plane without a passport(apparently) due to coming from Sudan (apparently). This may be a common airline policy that is potentially problematic. If I am correct, well, we have an entirely different and much larger problem. Either way, there are concerns. Either way we need an open, honest, and thorough investigation. There is one way to conclusively determine who is correct, and that would be for the Amsterdam Airport to RELEASE THE CLOSED CAPTION VIDEO FOOTAGE! Seriously, the attack happened 8 days ago, the relevant video is probably 2-3 minutes in length and has(apparently) already been viewed by airport security personnel. So why hasn't it appeared anywhere? Within 24 hours of any bank robbery or gas station hold up, the video of the perpetrator is played all over the news and posted on the internet. If the video really is not related to the terrorist incident, release it and let us move on. If it is related, release it, place it on the internet and let the world attempt to identify the "sharp dressed man". I suspect that due to the potential problems I indicated above (regardless of which account the video supports) federal law enforcement will likely never release the video.
Bo went on to emphasize the numerous amount of gaffes he saw (Many of which I did too) AFTER our plane landed. Bo cited the following as major problems he saw with how the investigation was handled:
1. We were left on the plane too long after landing, which caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.
2. We should have never been allowed to take our carry on bags into the terminal since they were not searched until we had been held for approximately one hour. This also caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.
3. Even though there was a no cell phone policy, Bo observed many people making cell phone calls and believes this was also an unnecessary risk to the passengers.
4. He was particularly concerned that according to him, "law enforcement in customs was not even notified that there was a bomb on our plane until we had been held for quite awhile". He informed me that an officer he spoke to in customs was clueless that there was even a bomb on our plane. Therefore, law enforcement WAS NOT EVEN AWARE of the risk our carry on bags presented while we were held in customs!
5. He indicated that he informed law enforcement that a man videotaped the entire terrorist incident and he gave the following possible seat numbers for the "camera man", seats 31A, 31B, 32A or 32B. However, law enforcement did not verify who was in such seats. Further, law enforcement could have confiscated each camera, but instead let this lead slip away when they let the passengers leave without ever finding the video.
It was very nice to compare notes with a fellow passenger even if his account was somewhat different than mine. My goal is not to prove that what I saw is correct, but only to pose the questions in order to obtain satisfactory answers. An open, honest, and complete investigation is vitally important to the future of all airline passengers. We must all continue to ask the questions until all of our concerns are satisfied.
By the way, the very important questions I posed at the conclusion of yesterday's post continue to remain unanswered.
Kurt Haskell- A Flight 253 passenger and a concerned American Citizen.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, January 02, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : Latest Story
Friday, January 01, 2010
Latest Story
By Kurt Haskell | January 1, 2010
-The Man In Orange and the Merry Go Round of Ron Smith/U.S. Customs-
As many of you know, my wife Lori and I were passengers and innocent victims of Northwest Flight 253 (Flight 253). We have repeated our story many times to various reporters, television and radio stations ,both across the country and abroad. Our story has never changed. What I would like to emphasize in this article is that not only did we almost lose our lives in the air, but we also almost lost our lives after our plane landed. Let me explain.
When Flight 253 landed, the passengers were forced to stay on the plane on the runway for 20 minutes. We were forced to do this despite not knowing whether there was a further bomb on our plane held by another passenger, in a carry on bag, or in the cargo hold. This action taken by law enforcement further endangered the lives of every passenger on flight 253.
After we were removed from the plane all of the passengers of flight 253 were taken to an empty baggage claim area of an airport terminal. We all had our carry on bags with us and we stood together for nearly one hour until bomb sniffing dogs arrived. Three dogs arrived, one lab, and two German shepherds. The dogs were split up and one German shepherd sat next to a bag of “the man in orange” who stood 20 feet from me the entire time until he was detained (see my post yesterday for more detail). This man in orange was immediately taken into a room for questioning. He was not handcuffed at this time. After approximately one hour, the man in orange was taken out of that room, handcuffed, and led away. At this exact time, a law enforcement person came up to the group of flight 253 passengers and said the following (approximate quote) “You are all being moved to another area because this are is not safe. You all just saw what happened and I’m sure you are smart enough to read between the lines and figure out what is going on.” We were then escorted out of this baggage claim room and taken to a long narrow hallway. While we were being held in this area, an FBI agent announced the following to us 253 passengers “We have those (Plural) we believe are responsible for this in custody we will now be doing interviews with each of you and then you are free to go.” He went on to state two further references to more than one person, which I cannot specifically quote. I have repeated this exact story hundreds of times since flight 253.
The “official” story regarding the man in orange has now changed numerous times.
Version 1: This was the official story from 12-25-09 to 12-30-09. This version was that only Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was involved or detained.
Version 2: After some of my fellow passengers supported my claim in media accounts, this version 2 was released and became the official story on December 30, 2009.. This version was that, yes, another man was taken into custody, but he was being held indefinitely on “immigration charges”.
Version 3: This version came out late in the day on December 30, 2009. This version provided that yes another man was taken into custody, but he was from another flight. This story was the most ridiculous version to date and made myself write the current article on Mlive.com.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.html
Let me explain.
Ever since the passengers of flight 253 got off of the plane, we were “quarantined”. By this I mean that nobody was allowed on our floor of the terminal or anywhere near any of us passengers. As a matter of fact, we never saw anyone except law enforcement personnel the entire time we were held by customs (6 hours). To say that the man that was being held was from another flight, and is the same one I saw 20 feet away from me the entire time, defies logic. We were in such tight security that we were not able to drink, eat, use our phones, or go to the bathroom by ourselves (without a law enforcement officer). However, this version tries to make the American public believe that passengers from other flights were by us commingling the entire time. This did not happen. To think that law enforcement would let anyone else near the passengers and crime scene of the biggest terrorist attack in 8 years is simply beyond comprehension. Further, every plane that landed for quite some time after we did, held its passengers on board for a long time. The man in orange was taken away one hour into our detention period (during which, I do not believe any other flights allowed their passengers to get off of). Most certainly however, no other passengers were on the baggage claim floor that we were. When I wrote the above Mlive article I predicted that I would soon see version 4 of the “official story”. I was overwhelmed to find not only a fourth version, but a fifth version.
Version 4: Shortly after 6PM eastern time on December 31, 2009, Ron Smith of U.S. Customs sent an email to various reporters across the country. I received my copy from a reporter that I have been corresponding with. Here is a copy of the email:
Mr. Ron Smith now claims the following:
1. “He just received some information he didn’t previously have”. Seriously.
2. “The eyewitness accounts coincided with a separate issue concerning a passenger from a separate flight arriving at the airport”. Please see above where I explain that we were “quarantined” which makes this statement impossible.
3. “He now knows (as if he didn’t before), that a passenger from flight 253 did have a canine alert to his carry on baggage in the baggage area of the CBP facility. . . There was nothing found during the search”.
First of all, does it seem plausible that Mr. Ron Smith didn’t have and know all of this information before? Also, please see my account of events above, where I explain that the man in orange was taken away not in handcuffs, but was HANDCUFFED AFTER HE WAS QUESTIONED/SEARCHED FOR AN HOUR! Remember, we were then moved to a new “safe” area at this time and damning comments were made by a law enforcement officer(see above).
4. “This information is consistent with eyewitness accounts”. Not mine Mr. Smith.
5. “He accepts full responsibility because he did not access the correct report that contained this information.” Mr. Smith, are you sloppy and incompetent or something else? This is the most important story in 8 years and a spokesperson for U.S. Customs just cannot come out in public and make an incorrect statement of this magnitude.
6. “Please accept my apologies . . . “ Where is my apology Mr. Smith? Oh wait, I don’t get one because the purpose of this bogus story was to discredit me…………….
Version 5: I was pretty shocked to see version 5 come out this morning in The Detroit News. It seems that Mr. Smith works really hard at this. Of course it would be much easier to just put out one correct story.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100101/NATION/1010354/1020/rss09
This is my second favorite version besides version 3. Now Mr. Smith claims the following:
1. “My account is a composite of two events at the airport around the time passengers got off flight 253. Both events were unrelated to the suspected terrorist incident.” One of these events involved a passenger from flight 249. Come on Mr. Smith, we both know that our flight was completely “quarantined”. Please see above for a further explanation.
2. “A sniffer dog reacted to agriculture or food products inside the bag of a third man who was off yet another flight”. OK, passengers from other flights DID NOT COMINGLE WITH OUR FLIGHT!
Funnier yet, Mr. Smith is proposing that a dog sniffing for food from another flight was the same as the dog sniffing for a bomb in the carry on bag carried by the orange dressed man on flight 253, who stood 20 feet away from me the entire time until he was taken away. Oh boy is that ever a stretch.
3. “Officials did attempt to segregate flight 253 passengers but the entire baggage area was not cleared”.
Think about this one for a minute. You have the biggest crime scene in 8 years. You don’t know if there are further bombs. Federal law enforcement is involved. You don’t know if there are accomplices. You need to find evidence Yet Mr. Smith proposes that law enforcement was unable to segregate the passengers of Flight 253 and let others trample through our “quarantine area”. Mr. Smith you should become a comedian.
Please answer a few questions for me Mr. Smith before I accept the apology you have yet to give to the passengers of flight 253:
1. Why were the passengers of flight 253 detained on a plane for 20 minutes not knowing if there was another bomb on the plane, in the cargo hold, or on another passenger after the “terrorist” had admitted that he had an explosive device in his pocket to a flight attendant, tried to detonate it, and set our plane on fire? Was it gross incompetence or something else?
2. Why were the passengers of flight 253 taken WITH their carry on bags and held with them for one hour before bomb sniffing dogs arrived in the baggage claim area of the terminal, all the while not knowing if any of the bags contained a bomb? Was it gross incompetence or something else? Did law enforcement intentionally risk the ENITRE AIRPORT TERMINAL TO AN EXPLOSIVE DEVICE or was it something else?
3. Why did you indicate to a well respected reporter that our carry on bags were searched ON THE PLANE, when in fact they were never searched (except for sniffer dogs), until she told you that my wife and I adamantly disputed your claim? Then you suddenly changed the official position to, yes, the carry on bags were not searched? (This was relayed to me in confidence)
Mr. Smith, I think if you honestly answer the few questions above, we will have our answer as to why the “official” position regarding the man in orange has changed 5 times. I suspect that all of the above is tied in together. Draw your own conclusion.
By the way, I look forward to version six of the official story.
I am not going away.
---A concerned American and a victim on multiple fronts, Kurt Haskell
By Kurt Haskell | January 1, 2010
-The Man In Orange and the Merry Go Round of Ron Smith/U.S. Customs-
As many of you know, my wife Lori and I were passengers and innocent victims of Northwest Flight 253 (Flight 253). We have repeated our story many times to various reporters, television and radio stations ,both across the country and abroad. Our story has never changed. What I would like to emphasize in this article is that not only did we almost lose our lives in the air, but we also almost lost our lives after our plane landed. Let me explain.
When Flight 253 landed, the passengers were forced to stay on the plane on the runway for 20 minutes. We were forced to do this despite not knowing whether there was a further bomb on our plane held by another passenger, in a carry on bag, or in the cargo hold. This action taken by law enforcement further endangered the lives of every passenger on flight 253.
After we were removed from the plane all of the passengers of flight 253 were taken to an empty baggage claim area of an airport terminal. We all had our carry on bags with us and we stood together for nearly one hour until bomb sniffing dogs arrived. Three dogs arrived, one lab, and two German shepherds. The dogs were split up and one German shepherd sat next to a bag of “the man in orange” who stood 20 feet from me the entire time until he was detained (see my post yesterday for more detail). This man in orange was immediately taken into a room for questioning. He was not handcuffed at this time. After approximately one hour, the man in orange was taken out of that room, handcuffed, and led away. At this exact time, a law enforcement person came up to the group of flight 253 passengers and said the following (approximate quote) “You are all being moved to another area because this are is not safe. You all just saw what happened and I’m sure you are smart enough to read between the lines and figure out what is going on.” We were then escorted out of this baggage claim room and taken to a long narrow hallway. While we were being held in this area, an FBI agent announced the following to us 253 passengers “We have those (Plural) we believe are responsible for this in custody we will now be doing interviews with each of you and then you are free to go.” He went on to state two further references to more than one person, which I cannot specifically quote. I have repeated this exact story hundreds of times since flight 253.
The “official” story regarding the man in orange has now changed numerous times.
Version 1: This was the official story from 12-25-09 to 12-30-09. This version was that only Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was involved or detained.
Version 2: After some of my fellow passengers supported my claim in media accounts, this version 2 was released and became the official story on December 30, 2009.. This version was that, yes, another man was taken into custody, but he was being held indefinitely on “immigration charges”.
Version 3: This version came out late in the day on December 30, 2009. This version provided that yes another man was taken into custody, but he was from another flight. This story was the most ridiculous version to date and made myself write the current article on Mlive.com.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.html
Let me explain.
Ever since the passengers of flight 253 got off of the plane, we were “quarantined”. By this I mean that nobody was allowed on our floor of the terminal or anywhere near any of us passengers. As a matter of fact, we never saw anyone except law enforcement personnel the entire time we were held by customs (6 hours). To say that the man that was being held was from another flight, and is the same one I saw 20 feet away from me the entire time, defies logic. We were in such tight security that we were not able to drink, eat, use our phones, or go to the bathroom by ourselves (without a law enforcement officer). However, this version tries to make the American public believe that passengers from other flights were by us commingling the entire time. This did not happen. To think that law enforcement would let anyone else near the passengers and crime scene of the biggest terrorist attack in 8 years is simply beyond comprehension. Further, every plane that landed for quite some time after we did, held its passengers on board for a long time. The man in orange was taken away one hour into our detention period (during which, I do not believe any other flights allowed their passengers to get off of). Most certainly however, no other passengers were on the baggage claim floor that we were. When I wrote the above Mlive article I predicted that I would soon see version 4 of the “official story”. I was overwhelmed to find not only a fourth version, but a fifth version.
Version 4: Shortly after 6PM eastern time on December 31, 2009, Ron Smith of U.S. Customs sent an email to various reporters across the country. I received my copy from a reporter that I have been corresponding with. Here is a copy of the email:
All,
Good Evening,
Thank you for your patience and accuracy in reporting the events of December 25 at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Everything we have talked about has been accurate concerning these events
That being said I have just received a piece of information that I did not previously have and hope it will clear up this matter.
As I have explained, there were no other passengers from flight 253 arrested or detained. The eyewitness accounts coincided with a separate issue concerning a passenger from a separate flight arriving at the airport. That passenger was escorted from the arriving plane to the CBP area. He was handcuffed at that time and could have been observed by the passengers from flight 253.
This still remains true; however, I now know that a passenger from flight 253 did have a canine alert to his carry on baggage in the baggage area of the CBP facility. He was placed in handcuffs and escorted to an interview room where he was interviewed and searched. There was nothing found during that search. Following the negative search results he received an explanation of why he was searched. He thanked the officers for doing their job and departed the facility along with the other passengers from flight 253.
I can not provide any other information about the individual because again, he was not arrested or detained and we have to protect his privacy.
This information is consistent with the eyewitness accounts.
I accept full responsibility for this information not being made available to you. I did not access the correct report that contained this information. I take pride in providing my media contacts complete, accurate information and I did not accomplish that this time. Please accept my apologies for any difficulties this may create.
I am sending this as an email because I will be traveling this evening and will not be available by phone until first thing in the morning.
Respectfully,
Ronald G Smith
Chief CBP Officer
Public Affairs Liaison
US Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
Mr. Ron Smith now claims the following:
1. “He just received some information he didn’t previously have”. Seriously.
2. “The eyewitness accounts coincided with a separate issue concerning a passenger from a separate flight arriving at the airport”. Please see above where I explain that we were “quarantined” which makes this statement impossible.
3. “He now knows (as if he didn’t before), that a passenger from flight 253 did have a canine alert to his carry on baggage in the baggage area of the CBP facility. . . There was nothing found during the search”.
First of all, does it seem plausible that Mr. Ron Smith didn’t have and know all of this information before? Also, please see my account of events above, where I explain that the man in orange was taken away not in handcuffs, but was HANDCUFFED AFTER HE WAS QUESTIONED/SEARCHED FOR AN HOUR! Remember, we were then moved to a new “safe” area at this time and damning comments were made by a law enforcement officer(see above).
4. “This information is consistent with eyewitness accounts”. Not mine Mr. Smith.
5. “He accepts full responsibility because he did not access the correct report that contained this information.” Mr. Smith, are you sloppy and incompetent or something else? This is the most important story in 8 years and a spokesperson for U.S. Customs just cannot come out in public and make an incorrect statement of this magnitude.
6. “Please accept my apologies . . . “ Where is my apology Mr. Smith? Oh wait, I don’t get one because the purpose of this bogus story was to discredit me…………….
Version 5: I was pretty shocked to see version 5 come out this morning in The Detroit News. It seems that Mr. Smith works really hard at this. Of course it would be much easier to just put out one correct story.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100101/NATION/1010354/1020/rss09
This is my second favorite version besides version 3. Now Mr. Smith claims the following:
1. “My account is a composite of two events at the airport around the time passengers got off flight 253. Both events were unrelated to the suspected terrorist incident.” One of these events involved a passenger from flight 249. Come on Mr. Smith, we both know that our flight was completely “quarantined”. Please see above for a further explanation.
2. “A sniffer dog reacted to agriculture or food products inside the bag of a third man who was off yet another flight”. OK, passengers from other flights DID NOT COMINGLE WITH OUR FLIGHT!
Funnier yet, Mr. Smith is proposing that a dog sniffing for food from another flight was the same as the dog sniffing for a bomb in the carry on bag carried by the orange dressed man on flight 253, who stood 20 feet away from me the entire time until he was taken away. Oh boy is that ever a stretch.
3. “Officials did attempt to segregate flight 253 passengers but the entire baggage area was not cleared”.
Think about this one for a minute. You have the biggest crime scene in 8 years. You don’t know if there are further bombs. Federal law enforcement is involved. You don’t know if there are accomplices. You need to find evidence Yet Mr. Smith proposes that law enforcement was unable to segregate the passengers of Flight 253 and let others trample through our “quarantine area”. Mr. Smith you should become a comedian.
Please answer a few questions for me Mr. Smith before I accept the apology you have yet to give to the passengers of flight 253:
1. Why were the passengers of flight 253 detained on a plane for 20 minutes not knowing if there was another bomb on the plane, in the cargo hold, or on another passenger after the “terrorist” had admitted that he had an explosive device in his pocket to a flight attendant, tried to detonate it, and set our plane on fire? Was it gross incompetence or something else?
2. Why were the passengers of flight 253 taken WITH their carry on bags and held with them for one hour before bomb sniffing dogs arrived in the baggage claim area of the terminal, all the while not knowing if any of the bags contained a bomb? Was it gross incompetence or something else? Did law enforcement intentionally risk the ENITRE AIRPORT TERMINAL TO AN EXPLOSIVE DEVICE or was it something else?
3. Why did you indicate to a well respected reporter that our carry on bags were searched ON THE PLANE, when in fact they were never searched (except for sniffer dogs), until she told you that my wife and I adamantly disputed your claim? Then you suddenly changed the official position to, yes, the carry on bags were not searched? (This was relayed to me in confidence)
Mr. Smith, I think if you honestly answer the few questions above, we will have our answer as to why the “official” position regarding the man in orange has changed 5 times. I suspect that all of the above is tied in together. Draw your own conclusion.
By the way, I look forward to version six of the official story.
I am not going away.
---A concerned American and a victim on multiple fronts, Kurt Haskell
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, January 01, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
