Eric Zuesse
Zacarias Moussaoui was the bookkeeper for
Al Qaeda, but the U.S. intelligence services have been keeping this
fact secret as much as they can, because what he knows about the crucial
financial backers of Al Qaeda can be very damaging to the U.S.
aristocracy, which is heavily oil-based and closely allied with the
Saudi royal family, which created Al Qaeda in order to please the Saudi
clerics, who are Wahhabist Muslims who constantly threaten the royals
with exposure of their economic and sexual corruption unless the royals
finance the spread of the Wahhabist sect (such as by Al Qaeda), and
thereby finance the spread of those clerics’ own international influence
and power.
Or, so says the former bookkeeper of Al Qaeda, who was selected by Al Qaeda’s military chief, Abu Hafs (also known as “Mohammed Atef”), to serve Osama bin Laden in that capacity: Zacarias Moussaoui. This is his testimony, in brief.
If you will look at the wikipedia article on Moussaoui, it says nothing whatsoever about his having graduated with a Masters in International Export Business degree from the Institute of Export in France, the French affiliate of the UK’s Institute of Export. That’s how he described himself on the very first day of his testimony. Then, on the second day of his testimony, he was asked what qualifications he had presented to Osama bin Laden, and he answered in more detail, and listed several:
I had the Master degree in
International Business from the University — University of South Bank in
London, and also a — a diploma of the Institute of Export in London,
and also a business degree of Commerce Technology from French — a French
degree, okay, and — so that’s the main credential I think for the
education, okay. And, of course, I speak English and French, and
colloquial Arabic.
Q: Were there many other members of al-Qaeda at that time who had that kind of business education?
A: Absolutely no one.
So, that’s what had prepared him to become the person whom Abu Hafs specifically selected to be the organization’s bookkeeper.
The financial donations were crucial;
and, in Arabic as well as most other cultures, any organization that
fails to serve its donors is considered bad — a donation buys an
obligation, and any organization that fails to fulfill on an obligation
is taking that donation like mere theft from the donor. Therefore: the
financial backers were everything, they were all of the actual
motivation behind the organization. The organization exists to do the
donors’ will.
So: wikipedia’s article
(perhaps in order to veil the real individuals who are behind Al Qaeda,
etc.) ignores Moussaui’s role of bookkeeper, and presents him instead
as having just been a regular fighter for Al Qaeda — though he was
hardly just that (to the extent that he was that at all, which is
actually debatable, but it certainly wasn’t his main function,
especially not during the key years, 1998-1999). He said that he also
received from Al Qaeda training in explosives, and he described, in the
final fourth day of his testimony, various aborted terrorist plans for
which he had been assigned a role, but that was the least interesting of his four days of testimony.
Inasmuch as those roles came to nothing,
his only real role was as the bookkeeper; and, then (in his third day of
testimony), he also describes trips that he took as a direct financial
courier between bin Laden and the Saudi royals.
Wikipedia reluctantly admits and then says nothing about the CIA’s editing wikipedia articles, but almost all agencies of the U.S. aristocracy (and this includes all large international U.S.-based corporations) also do that as a routine part of their PR. In fact, on 16 August 2007, Reuters even had an article, “CIA, FBI Computers Used for Wikipedia Edits.” And this CIA editing of wikipedia continues.
So, Moussaoui’s crucial knowledge of whom
the key funders of Al Qaeda were, is ignored in the general press,
which relies heavily on wikipedia, which in turn relies on the CIA and
other editing/censorship organizations, which in turn rely on their
controlling stockholders and (when the organization happens to be a
newspaper or other medium) also relies on their advertisers (which might
be connected to the given ‘news’ medium’s owners, so that an
advertisement in it becomes part of mutual backscratching between
aristocrats — the owner of the medium, and the owner of the company
that’s being advertised — and not merely a buy-and-sell of an individual
ad, such as the case will be whenever a typical smaller business places
an ad).
Moussaoui has been held incommunicado by
the U.S. Government between 2001 and late 2014, and so you probably
don’t know that he had been Osama bin Laden’s bookkeeper, and, later,
his financial courier, but that’s what he was, and that’s also why he
has been held incommunicado, because both roles connect the Saudi royals
crucially with Osama bin Laden.
However, evidently, President Barack
Obama and the American Establishment that he represents, are now trying
to put pressure on the Saudi royals. (The
Senate Democrats who had wanted the 28 pages of damning evidence
against the Saudi royals to be included in the published report by
Senator Feinstein’s Committee report on the CIA’s role in torture, are
leading there.) This has nothing to do with the recent death,
on 23 January 2015, of the Saudi King and ‘U.S. ally’ (after King Fahd
died in 2005) Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, because the first
interview with Moussaoui occurred on 20 October 2014 and none of the
four interviews was made public (uploaded to the Internet) until 3
February 2015. These interviews were in process before the king’s death.
For whatever reason, Moussaoui was now
being allowed, for the very first time, to testify, under oath (and he’s
a fanatical Muslim who swore upon the Quran, so truthfulness was
binding upon him as a Muslim, which he devoutly is), in a long-running
U.S. court case where his testimony had been sought, over which the Bush
Administration and then the Obama Administration have exercised
control. Until recently, this case, which had been brought by some 9/11
families who were wanting to find out whom the individuals behind the
deaths of their loved-ones had been, was simply squelched, first by
Bush, and then by Obama.
The first part of the four-part
transcript of Moussaoui’s testimony under oath contains the most-basic
information. This reporter has spot-checked the individuals that he
names there and throughout his testimony, and I have not found any that,
on the basis of previously released reliable information about those
named individuals, any of them was other than as Moussaoui has described
them.
Here are highlights of what Moussaoui said. I have boldfaced what I consider to be the most important parts.
First, as taken from the first day’s transcript:
——
Q: What — what was bin Laden’s attitude towards the Saudi ulema [the religious scholars]?
A: It was of complete reverence and obedience. [It was like a Roman Catholic’s attitude] toward the Pope. …
Q: Did bin Laden believe that what he was doing with his organization was consistent with the teachings of the ulema?
A: He was doing it with the express advice and consent and directors of the ulema. …
Q: Did you receive any information
indicating that the [bin Laden] family in general was continuing to send
money to Osama bin Laden?
A: Yes, I receive — I used to — to
enter into [the] database [of donations] a financial document of money
of — of account of the bin Laden group within Saudi Arabia; al — also
when we wanted to buy spare parts of — okay, the — the spare part were
bought by the Saudi bin Laden group, and was sending to — to Jeddah, and
then after to Karachi. …
Q: You told us a little bit ago that
members of the Saudi royal family were contributing to bin Laden’s
organization during this time [1998], the royal family and government of
the Kingdom have said that that’s an illogical idea because bin Laden
was the enemy of the — of Saudi Arabia. How do you respond to that?
A: This is a complete misleading
explanation for assumption of people who are not familiar with the way
the Saudi government is established, because the Saudi government is —
they have two heads of the snake, they have the Saudi, like Al Saud, and
the Wahhabi [clerics] were in charge of the Islamic Code of the Islam —
or Islamic power in Saudi Arabia, okay, and that’s why they have the
name ‘Wahhabi,’ okay, okay. So the Saudi cannot keep power in Saudi
Arabia without having the agreement, okay, of the Wahhab, the Wahhabi,
the scholar, okay. …
So … father of Osama bin Laden was
best friend, he was known, okay, of — of — of Fahd Al Saud, the ruler,
the King of Saudi Arabia, and he’s the one — Al Saud — okay, who give to
bin Laden [money] to rebuild the Holy Mosque in Mecca and to rebuild
the Holy Mosque in Medina and also to rebuild the Holy Mosque in
Jerusalem, okay. So the three mosques … the three holy sites in Islam
was built by the father of Osama bin Laden, okay. So bin Laden was pure —
a pure Wahhabi and will obey the Wahhabi scholar to the letter. … If
you were being branded an apostate Osama bin Laden most likely 100
percent will not have any busines with you and wage war, but at the fath
he will not be — will not be allowed to wage war unless he was
guaranteed success, and, so, the ulema told him not to wage war against
Al Saud because Fahd was going to die and, therefore, that Al — Abdullah
Al Saud — will take power and he will reestablish a true power [total
Islam], okay. You have to see that on — after the seizure of Mecca,
okay, you — after the seizure of Mecca by Juhaiman, okay, the — the
Saudi Kingdom reverted to a more autotic(phonetic) or more drastic
Draconion Islam 100 percent in the hand of the ulema, the scholar of
Saudi Arabia, so Bin Baz, Uthaimeen, who used to be the mentor, the
scholar of Juhaiman, the person who make the city of Mecca, okay. So bin
Laden was the child of Wahhabi, the child of the — of the — of the
scholar. …
Q: What would be the specific benefit
to the Saudi royal family in this 1998, ’99 period to giving money to
bin Laden’s organization?
A: There is — there — there is many
benefit. First of all it was a — a matter of survival for them, okay,
because all of the mujahideen, okay — I believe — I believe all of them,
okay, the hard core believe that Za — Al Fahd was an apostate, so they
would have wanted jihad against Saudi Arabia, so it was the policy for
the Saudi government to finance jihad in the first Af — Afghanistan —
the first jihad in Afghanistan, then in Bosnia, then before that in
Tajikistan, and Saudi used to send people, and you could travel and you
could — as long as you don’t do stuff in your back — back — backyard.
Q: Okay, in your view was the ule — ulema demanding that the royal family support bin Laden’s organization?
A: If — it was a — it was a credential to the proof that they were emphatic in an apostate.
Q: It was a proof for whom?
A: For — for — for — to give to —
money to bin Laden could be used by the Saudi to say to the ulema,
“Look, see, we are not against Islam or the jihad, we finance bin
Laden.”
Q: And that would assist them in their relationship with the ulema?
A: It — it will guarantee that the
ulema will not raise their — their voice and their concern about many
thing wrong with Saudi Arabia, like, you know, widespread homosexuality,
it’s endemic, okay; usury, you know, interest rate in bank; American
troop on the ground, you — I think — I don’t remember exactly the date,
but you stay long time in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, okay, and
Shaykh Hudhaify even make a speech and say that you — you are to — you
are to leave, and he’s — he’s a — he was a — Hudhaify was the — the Imam
of the second holy site in Islam, Medina. So he — bin Laden was also —
was proof that — because when — bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the people that
come to him was the proof that these people were not apostate, ’cause
they say, “You don’t finance jihad if you don’t believe in Allah.”
Q: The money that was coming from the Saudi donors, how important was it to bin Laden’s ability to maintain the organization?
A: It was crucial. I mean, without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing.
All of that is from the first of the four days of testimony from him. It’s at:
The second day is at
In it is this:
Q: Do you remember the amounts of any of the donations reflected on the database you built?
A: I do, ye — yes. I mean, you talk
about million of dollar, that’s — million of dollar. You had — for
example, they — depending — the — the — the Saudi, okay — the Saudi
prince, you know, Abdullah — and he was a new prince at the time, you
know — they will give 2, $3 million, okay, and it was — each time they
will have interaction with somebody from there, because most of the —
the top-ranking close to Osama bin Laden were also from the biggest
family in Saudi Arabia.
——
A: So when I say each time for country
that you have these people going to Saudi Arabia, or Bin Baz or
Uthaimeen or Shehri, or Hammoud al-Uqlaa, they will come back and say to
Sakaf, okay, he gave X amount of money for this, okay. Initially I
heard it and initially I — I wrote for — for — for Shaykh Abu Hafs and
Shaykh Saeed, and I will only know that he brought 1 million [dollars], 2
million and 3 million, and it was something that was not a big deal for
— for them, you know, they are — it was something that very common in
the inner circle of the Saudi, because they all are from the richest
family in Saudi Arabia.
Q: And all of this money was used to sustain al-Qaeda’s operations, correct?
A: Absolutely. I mean, all this.
——
Q: To clarify, you’re saying that the al-Qaeda members received salaries?
A: They do, absolutely.
——
The third day is at
Q: At a certain point in time did you receive an additional assignment from Osama bin Laden to deliver letters on his behalf?
A: I did receive — Osama bin Laden ask me to — to — to take a pack of letter to Saudi Arabia. …
I went to — by private plane to
Riyadh, and that’s the first time I made to meet with the Prince — what
you — what he call himself — Emir, Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud, okay.
And the — the day after, okay, I — I — I went and toured — toured a big
palace, okay, okay, and I spent one night there, overnight, the morning
— I believe it was in the morning — I — I went to a — with Turki, he
came to get me, and we went to a — to a — a meeting room, or big room,
okay, where there was Abdullah and Bandar [called ‘Bandar Bush’ in
Washington, because he’s so close to the Bush family] — Prince Abdullah,
Prince Bandar, okay — and I give Prince — I remember Prince — to give
letter to Prince Abdullah, Prince Bandar, Prince Salman, and Waleed bin
Talal, okay. And there was other letter that Prince Turki told me that
the people were not available, okay, and I say he wanted me — he wanted
me to give it to him, I say no, that Shaykh Osama said to give them by
hand.
——
Q: During your first trip do you recall approximately how many letters Shaykh Osama gave you?
A: I think seven or eight.
Q: Do you recall whom they were addressed to?
A: Only the people — I recall the
people that I believe I was familiar, the name I heard before, okay,
Abdullah, Fahd, okay, Salman, Waleed bin Talal, Bandar, Turki of course,
and Shaykh — Shaykh Bin Baz, Shaykh Uthaimeen, Shaykh Shehri, and
Shaykh Hammoud al-Uqlaa, but Shaykh Osama told me that the — the letter
for the — for — for the ulema I could give it — give it to Turki, but
the letter for the — for the prince, no, he didn’t want it.
Q: Did Osama bin Laden at that time identify Prince Turki as your principal point of contact for this trip?
A: He told me, yes, he said that you will — you will go and you see Prince Turki.
——
Q: Do you know what the letters were about?
A: No, I don’t know what the letter
were about — because Osama bin Laden didn’t tell me, but I know that it
— at the time the — the — the — the talk inside the — the circle of
Osama bin Laden was about the fact that King Fahd was very sick, he was
going to die, and it was to — to know about who was going to take the
succession, and there was competing between Nawaf, who was
Chief of the National Guard, or — okay, one who had the — Sultan who —
another bro — brother — they have seven brother to — who — who are
taking power, that was what it was about, that’s the general idea I had,
but I don’t — I never saw the written letter or never — never Osama bin
Laden told me specifically what it was about, no.
Q Do you have any understanding why
in that context Osama bin Laden would have been sending letters to both
members of the royal family and the senior ulema [the scholars]?
A: My understanding from talking
with people like Abu Basir al-Wahishi who become the — the head of
al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, who I used to be close to, okay, or
Halad or Shaykh Abu Hasan, Shayk Mujahideen, Shaykh Aman, and Shaykh
Abul Sef — my understanding that they — they want to know who they
should support, because — and they supported Abdullah, who
become the King, okay, and that’s what it was about. Because for them
the — the Prince Abdullah was the lesser of all the evil, because Nawaf
was known as a extremely anti-Islamic person, okay, Sul — Sultan was
being seen as a sodomite, okay, okay, and — and — and the Abdullah was
seen as a traditional Arab most — mostly be — be fasiq and touching in —
in criminal activity. When I say “criminal activity,” fornication,
homosexuality, drinking, but still a Muslim, so — but Nawaf was branded
an apostate, Fahd was an apostate, so for — at the time the — the — my
understanding is that Osama bin Laden, and be — in talking with Abu Hafs
— Commander Abu Hafs al Mauritani and the people of — of Saeed and the
people of — of — of al-Qaeda ash-Shura, they were seeing that it’s
better for ul — for al-Qaeda to — to — to accept Sul — what’s his name —
Abdullah — Prince Abdullah than to have — to declare an apostate and to
be against him, that will give him more chance to — Nawaf and Sultan —
to take power.
Q Why would the ulema have a say in that process?
A: Ulema, essentially they are the
king maker. If — if the ulema say that you should not take power, you
are not going to take power. And the ulema were important because they
are the people who — who — who certify the Islamic legality
of the jihad of Osama bin Laden. So Nawaf, Sultan, all the prince, they
were giving money, helping Osama bin Laden so he know the — to get,
let’s say, favor, or especially not to get the — the wrath of the ulema —
the Wahhabi ulema and to declare apostate, because they could — they
could, let’s say, put forward their — their donation and activity for
Osama bin Laden to counteract or to contradict anybody who said that
people are apostate because, look, he is drinking, he is doing
fornication, he is now engaging in homosexuality, so he is not a Muslim,
okay, the bad news anymore he is not a Muslim, or he is a friend of the
America, but it’s okay for — he is doing all this, but, look, he is
giving money to Osama bin Laden, he is sending people, material, blah,
blah, blah, and — and everything, all this charity work.
9/11 was basically a regular,
aristocratically and clerically backed, charity operation. People who
don’t know a lot about history might find that idea difficult to wrap
their heads around, but, to anyone who has studied the history of many
cultures and many religions, it actually seems quite normal, almost as
normal as war itself — the ultimate authoritarian expression. If
anything is abnormal, it is democracy: the lack of authoritarianism, the concern for the public instead of for the kings and preachers.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment