Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: IS THE NEW AGE REALLY HERE?
4/29/2013 12:51:31 AM

9/11 Wheels: I Do Hope You Don’t Buy This

9_11 4356I feel obliged to comment on Stephen’s article about the landing gear of a Boeing aircraft suddenly being discovered in New York City. And in the immediate vicinity of a proposed Islamic community center. And a few blocks from Ground Zero. Heavens.

Perhaps I can quote the central part of that article:

“The piece of equipment was discovered Wednesday by surveyors inspecting the lower Manhattan site of a planned Islamic community center, at 51 Park Place, on behalf of the building’s owner, police said. The inspector was on the roof and noticed the debris and then called 911. Police secured the scene, documenting it with photos.

“The spot where the landing gear was found is about three blocks from ground zero. When plans for the mosque and community center were first announced several years ago, a furor erupted. Opponents protested that putting a Muslim facility near ground zero showed disrespect. Supporters cited freedom of religion and said it wasn’t too close to where Islamic extremists attacked on Sept. 11.” (1)

Notice the gratuitous reminder of the previous furor and the positive assertion that it was “Islamic extremists” who caused 9/11 (it was not).

“In a statement, Sharif El-Gamal, the president of Soho Properties, which owns 51 Park Place, said workers called the city and the police as soon as they discovered the landing gear. He said the company is cooperating with the city and the police to make sure the piece of equipment “is removed with care as quickly and effectively as possible.”

“The medical examiner’s office will complete a health and safety evaluation to determine whether to sift the soil around the buildings for possible human remains, police said.”

We mention the oh-so-touchy subject of “human remains,” which must inflame anyone who suffered on 9/11.

“Patricia Riley, whose sister Lorraine Riley was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, said the landing gear discovery was “very strange.”

“’Twelve years later we are still finding remnants of the attack on our country,’ she said. ‘… For years to come we’ll continue to find things that we didn’t see before. Hopefully they’ll serve as a reminder that we have to stay vigilant.’”

Yes, we do need the reminder to remain vigilant. But the real question is: Vigilant against what and whom? Our own agencies, military and government?

“Outside the Islamic center building, known as Park51, a police officer stood next to the door on Friday and a police barricade was set up to contain the many journalists who had gathered to try to see the piece of the plane.”

Many journalists bought it. You should too. Is this out of a 1950s “They Came From Outer Space” movie?

Longtime readers of this blog will have heard me say what follows (2) and perhaps may prefer to just skip this article (yes, yes, I waited till now to tell you). But for anyone who hasn’t, I do feel the need to repeat it.

I agree with Stephen that this is about the most blatant attempt to keep Islamophobia alive in America that I’ve seen recently. To interview people who had relatives die in 9/11, to remind people that they need to remain vigilant, to locate the landing gear right next to an Islamic center, on and on – heavens, do those responsible really believe that we are this bereft of good sense that we would buy this kind of staged performance at this late date?

I guess they do.

So just to remind folks: People representing Islam as an organized institution, Muslims, of whatever political stripe, and anyone even claiming to speak for Islam while falling into neither of these two categories had nothing to do with 9/11, with a few exceptions. Those exceptions were General Mahmud Ahmed, Director General of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, who served as a bagman and received a very large payment in the United States on 9/11 for the part that his confederates played. Hardly an Islamic extremist.

It also included various John Does who may have been Muslims but worked for the real people behind 9/11. (3) They probably had some association with the United States government or its agencies, or allied governments (Israel, Britain, etc.) and their agencies. And some of them worked in the financial institutions who bankrolled 9/11.

But, as subsequent events showed, there never were nineteen Arab hijackers with boxcutters. Everything connected to the event was staged.

In fact all of us, all of us, owe a huge apology to world Islam for blaming it for so many years for 9/11 and for punishing Muslims for something they probably had nothing to do with. Granted that many Muslims after 9/11 may have taken actions based on how they felt being blamed for 9/11 (if they even knew that Muslims had not carried out 9/11), the fact remains that 9/11 was a false-flag operation for which Muslims were made the scapegoat and successfully so.

I could run through the details which lie behind why I say that, but I’ve said that before and direct you to those articles. (Again 2) One by one, the lies and manipulations have been exposed to show that the act of blaming Muslims and making that charge stick was a central part of the plan to create this “new Pearl Harbor” (4) and start a plan of world conquest in motion. That plan would have seen you and me, Christians, Muslims and Jews, and everyone on this planet, except the perpetrators, brought under conditions amounting more or less to slavery. (5)

Now here’s the latest crude (or crafty) attempt to stir the pot, following as it does on the latest engineered incident (the Boston Marathon Bombings, only the latest in manufactured incidents that have cost many innocent lives).

Please, don’t sully your conscience by buying into this charade but perhaps consider whether the time has not arrived to apologize to world Islam for the awful, shabby, and undeserved way we treated it as a result of being hoodwinked by our own governments.

Footnotes

(1) “’9/11 Landing Gear’ Miraculously Found,” Associated Press, The Huffington Post, April 26, 2013 at http://goldenageofgaia.com/2013/04/911-landing-gear-miraculously-found/.

(2)

(3) 103 Suspected 9/11 Criminal Co-Conspirators; September 11 Commission Report (Revised)

(4) Decade of Rage; Eternity of Love

(5)

(6) See http://www.angelfire.com/space2/light11/fc/light1.html#nukes1


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: IS THE NEW AGE REALLY HERE?
4/29/2013 10:50:36 AM

Saudi Arabia finally says no to domestic violence

Friday, April 26, 2013



The King Khalid Foundation's anti-domestic violence ad (translated from Arabic by BuzzFeed).

It's 2013, but Saudi Arabia has only just started informing its citizens that domestic violence is wrong.

The Middle Eastern country — which is ranked 131st out of 134 countries for gender parity in the World Economic Forum's 2012 Global Gender Gap Report — has released its first ever advertising campaign condemning violence against women.

The poster features a woman in a burqa with a black eye next to the slogan "Some things can't be covered: Fighting women's abuse together".

It is the first ad for the King Khalid Foundation's No More Abuse campaign, which encourages Saudi women to report domestic violence.

Currently, all Saudi women are under the guardianship of a man, usually their father, brother or husband, so most domestic abuse is not reported. Violence against children, particularly female children, is also believed to be endemic.

"The phenomenon of battered women in Saudi Arabia is much greater than is apparent on the surface," the No More Abuse website reads.

"It is a phenomenon found in the dark. We want to achieve justice for all women and children exposed to abuse in all parts of the Kingdom."

It's been a big year for women's rights in Saudi Arabia. In August, two athletes became the first Saudi women to compete at an Olympic Games.

Women are forbidden from playing sport in the conservative country, but the rules were relaxed to allow Sarah Attar, 19, and Wojdan Shaherkhani, 16, to compete, although they had to do so in a full burqa.

Watch video


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: IS THE NEW AGE REALLY HERE?
4/29/2013 11:01:15 AM

Leftist priests: Francis can fix church 'in ruins'

Associated Press/Victor R. Caivano - Liberation Theologist Leonardo Boff, of Brazil, pauses as he attends the launching of a book by Clelia Luro, the wife of former bishop Jeronimo Podesta, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Saturday, April 27, 2013. Boff says Pope Francis has what it takes to fix a church “in ruins.” Previous popes tried to silence the Brazilian leftist, but Boff says the former Argentine cardinal who became pope last month has both the vigor and tenderness to create a new spiritual world. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano)

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — A new pope from Latin Americaknown for ministering to the poor in his country's slums is raising the hopes of advocates of liberation theology, whose leftist social activism had alarmed previous pontiffs.

Prominent liberation theologian Leonardo Boff said Pope Francishas what it takes to fix a church "in ruins" and shares his movement's commitment to building a church for the world's poor.

"With this pope, a Jesuit and a pope from the Third World, we can breathe happiness," Boff said Saturday at a Buenos Aires book fair. "Pope Francis has both the vigor and tenderness that we need to create a new spiritual world."

The 74-year-old Brazilian theologian was pressured to remain silent by previous popes who tried to draw a hard line between socially active priests and leftist politics. As Argentina's leading cardinal before he became pope, Francis reinforced this line, suggesting in 2010 that reading the Gospel with a Marxist interpretation only gets priests in trouble.

But Boff says the label of a closed-minded conservative simply doesn't fit Francis.

"Pope Francis comes with the perspective that many of us in Latin America share. In our churches we do not just discuss theological theories, like in European churches. Our churches work together to support universal causes, causes like human rights, from the perspective of the poor, the destiny of humanity that is suffering, services for people living on the margins."

The liberation theology movement, which seeks to free lives as well as souls, emerged in the 1960s and quickly spread, especially in Latin America. Priests and church laypeople became deeply involved in human rights and social struggles. Some were caught up in clashes between repressive governments and rebels, sometimes at the cost of their lives.

The movement's martyrs include El Salvador's Archbishop Oscar Romero, whose increasing criticism of his country's military-run government provoked his assassination as he was saying Mass in 1980. He was killed by thugs connected to the military hierarchy a day after he preached that "no soldier is obliged to obey an order that is contrary to the will of God." His killing presaged a civil war that killed nearly 90,000 over the next 12 years.

The case for beatification of Romero languished under popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI due to their opposition to liberation theology, but he was put back on track to becoming a saint days after Francis became pope.

Scores of other liberation theologians were killed in the 1970s and 1980s. Six Jesuit teachers were slaughtered at their university in El Salvador in 1989. Other priests and lay workers were tortured and vanished in the prisons of Chile and Argentina. Some were shot to death while demanding land rights for the poor in Brazil. A handful went further and picked up arms, or died accompanying rebel columns as chaplains, such as American Jesuit James Carney, who died in Honduras in 1983.

While even John Paul embraced the "preferential option for the poor" at the heart of the movement, most church leaders were unhappy to see intellectuals mixing doses of Marxism and class struggle into their analysis of the Gospel. It was a powerfully attractive mixture for idealistic Latin Americans who were raised in Catholic doctrine, educated by the region's army of Marxist-influenced teachers, and outraged by the hunger, inequality and bloody repression all around them.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, hundreds of Argentine priests were affiliated with a movement that proclaimed Christian teaching "inescapably obliges us to join in the revolutionary process for urgent radical change of existing structures and to reject formally the capitalistic system we see around us ... We shall go forward in search of a Latin American brand of socialism that will hasten the coming of the new man."

John Paul and his chief theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, drove some of the most ardent and experimental liberation theologians out of the priesthood, castigated some of those who remained, and ensured that the bishops and cardinals they promoted took a wary view of leftist social activism.

Yet much of the movement remained, practiced by thousands of grassroots "base communities" working out of local parishes across the hemisphere, nurtured by nuns, priests and a few bishops who put freedom from hunger, poverty and social injustice at the heart of the Church's spiritual mission.

Hundreds of advocates at a conference in Brazil last year declared themselves ready for a comeback.

"At times embers are hidden beneath the ashes," said the meeting's final declaration, which expressed hopes of stirring ablaze "a fire that lights other fires in the church and in society."

Boff and other advocates are thrilled that this new pope spent so much time ministering in the slums, and are inspired by his writings, which see no heresy in social action.

"The option for the poor comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It is the Gospel itself," said then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio during a 2010 deposition in a human rights trial. He said that if he were to repeat "any of the sermons from the first fathers of the church, from the 2nd or 3rd century, about how the poor must be treated, they would say that mine would be Maoist or Trotskyite."

Msgr. Gregorio Rosa Chavez, the auxiliary bishop of San Salvador, said Romero and Francis have the same vision of the church. "When he says 'a church that is poor and for the poor,' that is what Monsignor Romero said so many times," he said.

Rosa Chavez said neither was among the most radical of churchmen.

"There are many theologies of liberation," he said. "The pope represents one of these currents, the most pastoral current, the current that combines action with teaching." He described Francis' version as "theologians on foot, who walk with the people and combine reflection with action," and contrasted them with "theologians of the desk, who are from university classrooms."

John Paul II himself embraced the term "liberation theology," but was also credited with inspiring resistance to the communist regime in his native Poland, and was allergic to socialist pieties.

For 30 years, the Vatican has been seeding Latin America, Africa and Asia with cardinals "who have tended to be, adverse, to put it kindly, to liberation theology," said Stacey Floyd-Thomas, a professor of ethics and society at Vanderbilt University Divinity School.

In Brazil, Sao Paulo Archbishop Odilo Scherer, widely considered a possible pope, told the Estado de S. Paulo newspaper last year that liberation theology "lost its reason of being because of its Marxist ideological underpinnings . which are incompatible with Christian theology."

"It had its merits by helping bring back into focus matters like social justice, international justice and the liberation of oppressed peoples. But these were always constant themes in the teachings of the Church," Scherer said.

In 1984, Ratzinger put Boff in Galileo's chair for a Vatican inquisition over his writings, eventually stripping him of his church functions and ordering him to spend a year in "obedient silence." Nearly a decade later, in 1993, the Vatican pressured him again, and he quit the Franciscan order.

Now Boff says Francis has brought a "new spring" to the global church.

"Josef Ratzinger. He was against the cause of the poor, liberation theology," Boff said. "But this is from last century. Now we are under a new pope."

___

Associated Press Writers Michael Warren in Buenos Aires, Jenny Barchfield in Rio de Janeiro, Marcos Aleman in San Salvador and John Rice in Mexico City contributed to this report.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: IS THE NEW AGE REALLY HERE?
4/29/2013 11:04:44 AM

Croatians to vote on golf in historic referendum

Associated Press/Darko Bandic - WITH STORY CROATIA GOLF REFERENDUM - Dubrovnik old town is pictured from Srdj, the hill above the city, Friday, April 26, 2013. The residents of this scenic Croatian Adriatic sea resort will decide hold a referendum on Sunday April 28, 2013, whether to allow the 1.1-billion euros ($1.4 billion) golf park development project on the hill above the city that many claim endangers their ancient city, often dubbed the Pearl of the Adriatic, and the outcome could have serious consequences on the future of foreign investments in Croatia. (AP Photo/Darko Bandic)

DUBROVNIK, Croatia (AP) — In 1991, Croatians voted for independence and then last year to join the European Union.

Now, in only the third referendum ever in the country, the residents of the postcard-pretty Adriatic sea resort of Dubrovnikwill vote on the construction of a massive golf complex on a hill above their ancient walled tourist city. The implications could be just as enduring.

Although the Sunday vote focuses on local issues, backers hail it as an unprecedented citizen referendum giving voters in post-communist Croatia a direct say in their democracy.

But the project's investors warn it could have serious consequences on future foreign investment in the economically struggling Balkan country, which is to formally become EU's 28th member this summer.

Backers say the 1.1-billion-euro ($1.4 (€1.08) -billion) golf course designed by Australian golfing legend Greg Norman — which includes villas, hotels, tennis courts, a horse-riding club and restaurants — will be a tourist boon and the source of hundreds of jobs.

But others worry that the club will endanger their scenic city of red-roofed stone houses and aquamarine sea, dubbed the Pearl of the Adriatic. Foreign investors have already paid some 100,000 euros ($130,000) to buy the largely barren rocky land from private owners, but opponents say the construction would choke the old town, would represent an environmental hazard and would not bring financial gains for Dubrovnik residents.

"First and foremost, this is not a golf project at all," said Enes Cerimagic, a member of the group campaigning against the project, whose makeshift pro-referendum stand stood out on the city's main street of white stone 17th-century palaces and churches.

"Golf here serves just as excuse for a big real estate development," he said, that at 300 hectares (740 acres) dwarfs the area of the old walled town, would overburden the city's infrastructure and penalize taxpayers.

The private investors say the project would provide 1,000 new jobs in Dubrovnik, would bring wealthier golf-playing tourists to the area and stretch the main tourist season, which currently last only two summer months.

Maja Frenkel, the head of Razvoj Golf, the main Israeli investor group behind the project, insisted that the referendum and the opposition to the project is sending the wrong signal to other foreigners planning to invest in Croatia, which will enter the EU on July 1.

"Unfortunately, the message has already been sent," Frenkel said. "No matter the outcome of this referendum, I think that any other investor will be very carefully watching the development of our project and will think twice before entering the country, which has relatively unclear investment procedures."

Croatia split from Yugoslavia in the wars of the 1990s, and is currently going through a painful transition into a market economy. The privatization and the closure of once prosperous factories led to mass unemployment.

Its economy relies heavily on tourism, which brings some 7 billion euros ($9.1 billion) a year to the nation of 4.2 million, blessed with a spectacular Adriatic coast and stunning islands.

The rocky 415-meter (1,360-feet) Srdj hill currently has only a cable car from the old town to the Napoleon-era Imperial fortress on its top, a large stone cross, a restaurant, a souvenir shop and the small village of Bosanka, with some 30 homes. The Bosanka residents are in favor of the golf park.

"We locals are all against the referendum," said Luko Paskojevic, as he pointed toward the stretch of dry bushes where the project is planned.

"We are against someone else deciding what we are to do with our land. They are saying 'Srdj is ours,' but this is all a private land," he said. "We hope people will see that this golf project is good and that the referendum will fail."

Referendums in the Balkans have in the past been organized by ruling elites and dealt with issues such as secession of their countries from Serb-led Yugoslavia, or joining the EU or NATO. This is the first time that a referendum has been called by a group of citizens to deal with everyday issues.

Dubrovnik mayor Andro Vlahusic says that the Sunday referendum is a sign of Croatia's democratic development. But, he said he hoped Dubrovnik will vote for the golf park.

"That area has been neglected for 15 centuries," Vlahusic said. During that period, there were two ideas of what to build there, he said.

"One was a railway station, the other was golf. Between the railway station and golf, golf is much better."

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: IS THE NEW AGE REALLY HERE?
4/29/2013 3:32:50 PM
More revelations of CIA's rampant corruption at highest levels coming to light

CIA Has Been Paying Afghans to Keep War Going

CIAStephen: The idea that various governments, agencies or sections of the military-industrial complex have paid to create wars or finance one side over another is not news, but these clear revelations that tens of millions of dollars secretly went from the CIA to the Afghan PM to keep a war going – a war that has claimed the lives of thousands and thousands of every day Afghanis and coalition soldiers – is now making mainstream news headlines. This is way more than seeking ‘influence’ and it was ‘off-the-books’ – but it’s not a secret any more.

With Bags of Cash, C.I.A. Seeks Influence in Afghanistan

By Matthew Rosenberg, New York Times – April 28, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/world/asia/cia-delivers-cash-to-afghan-leaders-office.html?_r=0

KABUL, Afghanistan — For more than a decade, wads of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan’s president — courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency.

All told, tens of millions of dollars have flowed from the C.I.A. to the office of President Hamid Karzai, according to current and former advisers to the Afghan leader.

“We called it ‘ghost money,’ ” said Khalil Roman, who served as Mr. Karzai’s deputy chief of staff from 2002 until 2005. “It came in secret, and it left in secret.”

The C.I.A., which declined to comment for this article, has long been known to support some relatives and close aides of Mr. Karzai. But the new accounts of off-the-books cash delivered directly to his office show payments on a vaster scale, and with a far greater impact on everyday governing.

Off-the-books cash delivered directly to President Karzai’s office shows payments on a vast scale.

Off-the-books cash delivered directly to President Karzai’s office shows payments on a vast scale.

Moreover, there is little evidence that the payments bought the influence the C.I.A. sought. Instead, some American officials said, the cash has fueled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington’s exit strategy from Afghanistan.

“The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan,” one American official said, “was the United States.”

The United States was not alone in delivering cash to the president. Mr. Karzai acknowledged a few years ago that Iran regularly gave bags of cash to one of his top aides.

At the time, in 2010, American officials jumped on the payments as evidence of an aggressive Iranian campaign to buy influence and poison Afghanistan’s relations with the United States. What they did not say was that the C.I.A. was also plying the presidential palace with cash — and unlike the Iranians, it still is.

American and Afghan officials familiar with the payments said the agency’s main goal in providing the cash has been to maintain access to Mr. Karzai and his inner circle and to guarantee the agency’s influence at the presidential palace, which wields tremendous power in Afghanistan’s highly centralized government. The officials spoke about the money only on the condition of anonymity.

It is not clear that the United States is getting what it pays for. Mr. Karzai’s willingness to defy the United States — and the Iranians, for that matter — on an array of issues seems to have only grown as the cash has piled up. Instead of securing his good graces, the payments may well illustrate the opposite: Mr. Karzai is seemingly unable to be bought.

Over Iran’s objections, he signed a strategic partnership deal with the United States last year, directly leading the Iranians to halt their payments, two senior Afghan officials said. Now, Mr. Karzai is seeking control over the Afghan militias raised by the C.I.A. to target operatives of Al Qaeda and insurgent commanders, potentially upending a critical part of the Obama administration’s plans for fighting militants as conventional military forces pull back this year.

But the C.I.A. has continued to pay, believing it needs Mr. Karzai’s ear to run its clandestine war against Al Qaeda and its allies, according to American and Afghan officials.

Like the Iranian cash, much of the C.I.A.’s money goes to paying off warlords and politicians, many of whom have ties to the drug trade and, in some cases, the Taliban. The result, American and Afghan officials said, is that the agency has greased the wheels of the same patronage networks that American diplomats and law enforcement agents have struggled unsuccessfully to dismantle, leaving the government in the grips of what are basically organized crime syndicates.

The cash does not appear to be subject to the oversight and restrictions placed on official American aid to the country or even the C.I.A.’s formal assistance programs, like financing Afghan intelligence agencies. And while there is no evidence that Mr. Karzai has personally taken any of the money — Afghan officials say the cash is handled by his National Security Council — the payments do in some cases work directly at odds with the aims of other parts of the American government in Afghanistan, even if they do not appear to violate American law.

Handing out cash has been standard procedure for the C.I.A. in Afghanistan since the start of the war. During the 2001 invasion, agency cash bought the services of numerous warlords, including Muhammad Qasim Fahim, the current first vice president.

“We paid them to overthrow the Taliban,” the American official said.

The C.I.A. then kept paying the Afghans to keep fighting. For instance, Mr. Karzai’s half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was paid by the C.I.A. to run the Kandahar Strike Force, a militia used by the agency to combat militants, until his assassination in 2011.

A number of senior officials on the Afghan National Security Council are also individually on the agency’s payroll, Afghan officials said.

While intelligence agencies often pay foreign officials to provide information, dropping off bags of cash at a foreign leader’s office to curry favor is a more unusual arrangement.

Afghan officials said the practice grew out of the unique circumstances in Afghanistan, where the United States built the government that Mr. Karzai runs. To accomplish that task, it had to bring to heel many of the warlords the C.I.A. had paid during and after the 2001 invasion.

By late 2002, Mr. Karzai and his aides were pressing for the payments to be routed through the president’s office, allowing him to buy the warlords’ loyalty, a former adviser to Mr. Karzai said.

Then, in December 2002, Iranians showed up at the palace in a sport utility vehicle packed with cash, the former adviser said.

The C.I.A. began dropping off cash at the palace the following month, and the sums grew from there, Afghan officials said.

Payments ordinarily range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, the officials said, though none could provide exact figures. The money is used to cover a slew of off-the-books expenses, like paying off lawmakers or underwriting delicate diplomatic trips or informal negotiations.

Much of it also still goes to keeping old warlords in line. One is Abdul Rashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek whose militia served as a C.I.A. proxy force in 2001. He receives nearly $100,000 a month from the palace, two Afghan officials said. Other officials said the amount was significantly lower.

Mr. Dostum, who declined requests for comment, had previously said he was given $80,000 a month to serve as Mr. Karzai’s emissary in northern Afghanistan. “I asked for a year up front in cash so that I could build my dream house,” he was quoted as saying in a 2009 interview with Time magazine.

Some of the cash also probably ends up in the pockets of the Karzai aides who handle it, Afghan and Western officials said, though they would not identify any by name.

That is not a significant concern for the C.I.A., said American officials familiar with the agency’s operations. “They’ll work with criminals if they think they have to,” one American former official said.

Interestingly, the cash from Tehran appears to have been handled with greater transparency than the dollars from the C.I.A., Afghan officials said. The Iranian payments were routed through Mr. Karzai’s chief of staff. Some of the money was deposited in an account in the president’s name at a state-run bank, and some was kept at the palace. The sum delivered would then be announced at the next cabinet meeting. The Iranians gave $3 million to well over $10 million a year, Afghan officials said.

When word of the Iranian cash leaked out in October 2010, Mr. Karzai told reporters that he was grateful for it. He then added: “The United States is doing the same thing. They are providing cash to some of our offices.”

At the time, Mr. Karzai’s aides said he was referring to the billions in formal aid the United States gives. But the former adviser said in a recent interview that the president was in fact referring to the C.I.A.’s bags of cash.

No one mentions the agency’s money at cabinet meetings. It is handled by a small clique at the National Security Council, including its administrative chief, Mohammed Zia Salehi, Afghan officials said.

Mr. Salehi, though, is better known for being arrested in 2010 in connection with a sprawling, American-led investigation that tied together Afghan cash smuggling, Taliban finances and the opium trade. Mr. Karzai had him released within hours, and the C.I.A. then helped persuade the Obama administration to back off its anticorruption push, American officials said.

After his release, Mr. Salehi jokingly came up with a motto that succinctly summed up America’s conflicting priorities. He was, he began telling colleagues, “an enemy of the F.B.I., and a hero to the C.I.A.”


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!