When asked why they did not investigate his story, an FBI spokesperson said that they began an investigation, but were told to stand down by someone higher up in the government.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Democrat Support For Terrorism Remembered
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
When asked why they did not investigate his story, an FBI spokesperson said that they began an investigation, but were told to stand down by someone higher up in the government.
It was on the front page of the London Times, which is a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. A few weeks later there was a follow up article. It was somehow ignored by the US media, which my wife and I found very strange. An American relative told me that she heard the story, and that it was in the 9/11 Commission Report.
You are talking about Niaz Khan. His story is in the 9/11 Commission Report and was reported as major news in Great Britain. He is a citizen of Great Britain. The FBI confirmed some of his allegations. He did not know any of the 9/11 terrorist or anything about the 9/11 attack. He claimed he was trained to hijack an airplane in but never given specific details. After his training he was sent to New York to allegedly meet with an al Qaeda representative for further instructions. He claims that instead of joining the assumed secret al Qaeda cell that he fled with the funds provided to him by al Qaeda and after blowing the money on gambling (he was a degenerate gambler) he went to the FBI in fear that al Qaeda was coming after him for stealing their funds. This was in 2000. The FBI sent him back to GB and British intelligence. British released him. His story can be found with a simple name search on google.
"Although he passed two lie detector tests, ultimately the FBI didn't believe him. The FBI sent him back to the UK, where he was interviewed by UK security officials, who didn't believe him either."
Niaz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always said one cannot trust Bush's MI5!!!
This was a warning.
It was on the front page of the London Times, which is a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. A few weeks later there was a follow up article. It was somehow ignored by the US media, which my wife and I found very strange. An American relative told me that she heard the story, and that it was in the 9/11 Commission Report.
You are talking about Niaz Khan. His story is in the 9/11 Commission Report and was reported as major news in Great Britain. He is a citizen of Great Britain. The FBI confirmed some of his allegations. He did not know any of the 9/11 terrorist or anything about the 9/11 attack. He claimed he was trained to hijack an airplane in but never given specific details. After his training he was sent to New York to allegedly meet with an al Qaeda representative for further instructions. He claims that instead of joining the assumed secret al Qaeda cell that he fled with the funds provided to him by al Qaeda and after blowing the money on gambling (he was a degenerate gambler) he went to the FBI in fear that al Qaeda was coming after him for stealing their funds. This was in 2000. The FBI sent him back to GB and British intelligence. British released him. His story can be found with a simple name search on google.
"Although he passed two lie detector tests, ultimately the FBI didn't believe him. The FBI sent him back to the UK, where he was interviewed by UK security officials, who didn't believe him either."
Niaz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always said one cannot trust Bush's MI5!!!
Yes, but wikipedia perhaps should not be trusted on this one. Other sources say the FBI believed him, but he provided no information that was actionable. The FBI believed British intelligence could make use of Niaz Khan but seemed to have missed an oppurtunity.
You are talking about Niaz Khan. His story is in the 9/11 Commission Report and was reported as major news in Great Britain. He is a citizen of Great Britain. The FBI confirmed some of his allegations. He did not know any of the 9/11 terrorist or anything about the 9/11 attack. He claimed he was trained to hijack an airplane in but never given specific details. After his training he was sent to New York to allegedly meet with an al Qaeda representative for further instructions. He claims that instead of joining the assumed secret al Qaeda cell that he fled with the funds provided to him by al Qaeda and after blowing the money on gambling (he was a degenerate gambler) he went to the FBI in fear that al Qaeda was coming after him for stealing their funds. This was in 2000. The FBI sent him back to GB and British intelligence. British released him. His story can be found with a simple name search on google.
"Although he passed two lie detector tests, ultimately the FBI didn't believe him. The FBI sent him back to the UK, where he was interviewed by UK security officials, who didn't believe him either."
Niaz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always said one cannot trust Bush's MI5!!!
Yes, but wikipedia perhaps should not be trusted on this one. Other sources say the FBI believed him, but he provided no information that was actionable. The FBI believed British intelligence could make use of Niaz Khan but seemed to have missed an oppurtunity.
Why do you think that this story was in the British media, but not the American media?
It was on the front page of the London Times, which is a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. A few weeks later there was a follow up article. It was somehow ignored by the US media, which my wife and I found very strange. An American relative told me that she heard the story, and that it was in the 9/11 Commission Report.
You are talking about Niaz Khan. His story is in the 9/11 Commission Report and was reported as major news in Great Britain. He is a citizen of Great Britain. The FBI confirmed some of his allegations. He did not know any of the 9/11 terrorist or anything about the 9/11 attack. He claimed he was trained to hijack an airplane in but never given specific details. After his training he was sent to New York to allegedly meet with an al Qaeda representative for further instructions. He claims that instead of joining the assumed secret al Qaeda cell that he fled with the funds provided to him by al Qaeda and after blowing the money on gambling (he was a degenerate gambler) he went to the FBI in fear that al Qaeda was coming after him for stealing their funds. This was in 2000. The FBI sent him back to GB and British intelligence. British released him. His story can be found with a simple name search on google.
"Although he passed two lie detector tests, ultimately the FBI didn't believe him. The FBI sent him back to the UK, where he was interviewed by UK security officials, who didn't believe him either."
Niaz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always said one cannot trust Bush's MI5!!!
Is British Intelligence an oxymoron?
"Although he passed two lie detector tests, ultimately the FBI didn't believe him. The FBI sent him back to the UK, where he was interviewed by UK security officials, who didn't believe him either."
Niaz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always said one cannot trust Bush's MI5!!!
Yes, but wikipedia perhaps should not be trusted on this one. Other sources say the FBI believed him, but he provided no information that was actionable. The FBI believed British intelligence could make use of Niaz Khan but seemed to have missed an oppurtunity.
Why do you think that this story was in the British media, but not the American media?
It was in the American media. Prominently on NBC national TV news.
One of the guys brought over to be trained had a change of heart, turned himself in and told them what was planned. The FBI and MI6 did not believe him. That was a bit of a warning.
Horsefeathers.
You don't know what you're talking about.....not an unusual strategy for you.
He didn't get any 'warnings', you moron.
"There was . . . an awareness by the government, including the president, of Osama bin Laden and the threat he posed in the United States and around the world," Fleischer said. "That included long-standing speculation about hijacking in the traditional sense, but not involving suicide bombers using airplanes as missiles."
A CIA spokesman said the agency routinely passed on intelligence citing the possibility that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack an airliner as part of a terrorist action against the United States. But a suicide attack involving an aircraft was never envisioned, the spokesman said."
Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)
Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)
"...information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation officials and national security agencies. ... In a press briefing, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the threats were very general and did not mention a specific time, place or mode of terrorist attack." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...esident's_Daily_Briefing_Memo_(External_Links)
Pretty specific warning, huh?
And...do you know who asked for intelligence briefings?
"The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was requested by Bush, who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States."
CNN.com - White House releases*bin Laden memo - Apr 12, 2004
Seems like Bush was far more responsible than the oaf in the White House now.....the one who took a nap while Benghazi was under attack.
But....all in all, a good job in your post as far as continuing the "Blame Bush" strategy.
The FBI had one of he guys who turned himself in before the attack. The FBI did not believe him, and neither did MI6.
So, was he the guy behind the trash can or the one that was hiding in the bowling alley?
Horsefeathers.
You don't know what you're talking about.....not an unusual strategy for you.
He didn't get any 'warnings', you moron.
"There was . . . an awareness by the government, including the president, of Osama bin Laden and the threat he posed in the United States and around the world," Fleischer said. "That included long-standing speculation about hijacking in the traditional sense, but not involving suicide bombers using airplanes as missiles."
A CIA spokesman said the agency routinely passed on intelligence citing the possibility that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack an airliner as part of a terrorist action against the United States. But a suicide attack involving an aircraft was never envisioned, the spokesman said."
Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)
Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)
"...information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation officials and national security agencies. ... In a press briefing, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the threats were very general and did not mention a specific time, place or mode of terrorist attack." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...esident's_Daily_Briefing_Memo_(External_Links)
Pretty specific warning, huh?
And...do you know who asked for intelligence briefings?
"The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was requested by Bush, who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States."
CNN.com - White House releases*bin Laden memo - Apr 12, 2004
Seems like Bush was far more responsible than the oaf in the White House now.....the one who took a nap while Benghazi was under attack.
But....all in all, a good job in your post as far as continuing the "Blame Bush" strategy.
The FBI had one of he guys who turned himself in before the attack. The FBI did not believe him, and neither did MI6.
So, was he the guy behind the trash can or the one that was hiding in the bowling alley?
Are you really too stupid to admit that you were wrong?
Yes, but wikipedia perhaps should not be trusted on this one. Other sources say the FBI believed him, but he provided no information that was actionable. The FBI believed British intelligence could make use of Niaz Khan but seemed to have missed an oppurtunity.
Why do you think that this story was in the British media, but not the American media?
It was in the American media. Prominently on NBC national TV news.
Most Americans I have spoken to about it never heard of it.
No, I didn't. It makes sense though.Yep, probably why he laid a wreath at Yassir Arafat's tomb (the Godfather of terrorists).And a hatred for Jews
tapatalk post
Did you know that Carter wrote speeches for, and served as public relations for Arafat?
Why do you think that this story was in the British media, but not the American media?
It was in the American media. Prominently on NBC national TV news.
Most Americans I have spoken to about it never heard of it.
Because the guy was a British citizen who left Britain and went to a training camp in Pakistan and afterwards came to the US. He returned to Britain. It didn't get much attention here because in the big picture, it's not such a big story. Plenty of other "FBI Screwed Up" stories to report, "CIA Screwed Up" stories and "Bush Administration Screwed UP" stories.
O
Other than some loose comments offered without sources, evidence or links on some RW blogs making such claims, I am unable to find anything reliable on this topic or anything offering a clue as to where the claims originate. Perhaps you could point us in the right direction with a link or clue about where to search.
Yep, probably why he laid a wreath at Yassir Arafat's tomb (the Godfather of terrorists).And a hatred for Jews
tapatalk post
Did you know that Carter wrote speeches for, and served as public relations for Arafat?
Other than some loose comments offered without sources, evidence or links on some RW blogs making such claims, I am unable to find anything reliable on this topic or anything offering a clue as to where the claims originate. Perhaps you could point us in the right direction with a link or clue about where to search.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #113
The FBI had one of he guys who turned himself in before the attack. The FBI did not believe him, and neither did MI6.
So, was he the guy behind the trash can or the one that was hiding in the bowling alley?
Are you really too stupid to admit that you were wrong?
Wait......did you actually claim that stupidity is failing to admit you were wrong???
The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.
- Thread starter
- #114
You are talking about Niaz Khan. His story is in the 9/11 Commission Report and was reported as major news in Great Britain. He is a citizen of Great Britain. The FBI confirmed some of his allegations. He did not know any of the 9/11 terrorist or anything about the 9/11 attack. He claimed he was trained to hijack an airplane in but never given specific details. After his training he was sent to New York to allegedly meet with an al Qaeda representative for further instructions. He claims that instead of joining the assumed secret al Qaeda cell that he fled with the funds provided to him by al Qaeda and after blowing the money on gambling (he was a degenerate gambler) he went to the FBI in fear that al Qaeda was coming after him for stealing their funds. This was in 2000. The FBI sent him back to GB and British intelligence. British released him. His story can be found with a simple name search on google.
"Although he passed two lie detector tests, ultimately the FBI didn't believe him. The FBI sent him back to the UK, where he was interviewed by UK security officials, who didn't believe him either."
Niaz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always said one cannot trust Bush's MI5!!!
This was a warning.
They say that having a sense of humor requires intelligence.
You tend to prove the reverse.
See....MI5 is British Intelligence.
Not American....so..."I always said one cannot trust Bush's MI5!!!"....
....oh, never mind.
- Thread starter
- #115
You are talking about Niaz Khan. His story is in the 9/11 Commission Report and was reported as major news in Great Britain. He is a citizen of Great Britain. The FBI confirmed some of his allegations. He did not know any of the 9/11 terrorist or anything about the 9/11 attack. He claimed he was trained to hijack an airplane in but never given specific details. After his training he was sent to New York to allegedly meet with an al Qaeda representative for further instructions. He claims that instead of joining the assumed secret al Qaeda cell that he fled with the funds provided to him by al Qaeda and after blowing the money on gambling (he was a degenerate gambler) he went to the FBI in fear that al Qaeda was coming after him for stealing their funds. This was in 2000. The FBI sent him back to GB and British intelligence. British released him. His story can be found with a simple name search on google.
"Although he passed two lie detector tests, ultimately the FBI didn't believe him. The FBI sent him back to the UK, where he was interviewed by UK security officials, who didn't believe him either."
Niaz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always said one cannot trust Bush's MI5!!!
Yes, but wikipedia perhaps should not be trusted on this one. Other sources say the FBI believed him, but he provided no information that was actionable. The FBI believed British intelligence could make use of Niaz Khan but seemed to have missed an oppurtunity.
The 'missed opportunity' was Romney.
- Thread starter
- #116
No, I didn't. It makes sense though.Yep, probably why he laid a wreath at Yassir Arafat's tomb (the Godfather of terrorists).
Did you know that Carter wrote speeches for, and served as public relations for Arafat?
...and, let me add, Carter was bought and paid for with Saudi oil millions.
- Thread starter
- #117
OYep, probably why he laid a wreath at Yassir Arafat's tomb (the Godfather of terrorists).
Did you know that Carter wrote speeches for, and served as public relations for Arafat?
Other than some loose comments offered without sources, evidence or links on some RW blogs making such claims, I am unable to find anything reliable on this topic or anything offering a clue as to where the claims originate. Perhaps you could point us in the right direction with a link or clue about where to search.
Absolutely.
"Last month, Carter penned a remarkable op-ed piece for the New York Times, entitled "America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace." In it, he let it all hang out as an apologist for Arafat and a bulldog against Sharon. Before getting to that piece, however, we should be clear about just how attached to Arafat and his cause the ex-president is. As Brinkley writes in his book The Unfinished Presidency about Carter's celebrated post-White House years "there was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat." The former president "felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition...."
"...Carter actually acted as PR adviser and speechwriter to Arafat."
Jay Nordlinger on Jimmy Carter on National Review Online
Let's also give a shout out to Reagan and Oliver North for sending arms to Iran, a demonstration of their "yes Hezbollah, of course we'll negotiate with you and pay you a ransom" philosophy.
ODid you know that Carter wrote speeches for, and served as public relations for Arafat?
Other than some loose comments offered without sources, evidence or links on some RW blogs making such claims, I am unable to find anything reliable on this topic or anything offering a clue as to where the claims originate. Perhaps you could point us in the right direction with a link or clue about where to search.
Absolutely.
"Last month, Carter penned a remarkable op-ed piece for the New York Times, entitled "America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace." In it, he let it all hang out as an apologist for Arafat and a bulldog against Sharon. Before getting to that piece, however, we should be clear about just how attached to Arafat and his cause the ex-president is. As Brinkley writes in his book The Unfinished Presidency about Carter's celebrated post-White House years "there was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat." The former president "felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition...."
"...Carter actually acted as PR adviser and speechwriter to Arafat."
Jay Nordlinger on Jimmy Carter on National Review Online
Thank you. While Jay Nordinger, a former Bush speech writer, in somewhat exaggerates and distorts his article in the unltra conservative National Review Online, his source is the book UNFINISHED PRESIDENCY by Douglas G. Brinkley. Brinkley is a Professor of History and a recognized legitimate historiam with impeccable credentials. Without viewing a better context of Brinkley's source it is not possible to determine how far out of context Nordenger has gone. It is possible however to see the distortion between Nordinger's interpretation and Brinkley's. That distortion is relevant and substantial.
- Thread starter
- #120
O
Other than some loose comments offered without sources, evidence or links on some RW blogs making such claims, I am unable to find anything reliable on this topic or anything offering a clue as to where the claims originate. Perhaps you could point us in the right direction with a link or clue about where to search.
Absolutely.
"Last month, Carter penned a remarkable op-ed piece for the New York Times, entitled "America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace." In it, he let it all hang out as an apologist for Arafat and a bulldog against Sharon. Before getting to that piece, however, we should be clear about just how attached to Arafat and his cause the ex-president is. As Brinkley writes in his book The Unfinished Presidency about Carter's celebrated post-White House years "there was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat." The former president "felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition...."
"...Carter actually acted as PR adviser and speechwriter to Arafat."
Jay Nordlinger on Jimmy Carter on National Review Online
Thank you. While Jay Nordinger, a former Bush speech writer, in somewhat exaggerates and distorts his article in the unltra conservative National Review Online, his source is the book UNFINISHED PRESIDENCY by Douglas G. Brinkley. Brinkley is a Professor of History and a recognized legitimate historiam with impeccable credentials. Without viewing a better context of Brinkley's source it is not possible to determine how far out of context Nordenger has gone. It is possible however to see the distortion between Nordinger's interpretation and Brinkley's. That distortion is relevant and substantial.
" That distortion is relevant and substantial."
Nah.
It's far simpler than that.
You're simply a lap dog for DeathPanelDemocrats.
The facts have no effect on one-dimensional folks like you.
And, of course, lock-step Liberals don't have the capacity to change their perspective....no matter the information they are given.
These are the folks eho voted for
a. affirmative action, creation of different classes based on skin color
b. a legislative icon who was responsible for the death of a young girl, and who plotted with the Russians against the President of the United States
c. a rapist who lost his license for perjury....
d. a radical who supported infanticide, and lived under the tutelage of an America-hater...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 114
- Replies
- 77
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 243
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 197
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 118
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 23
- Replies
- 162
- Views
- 842
- Replies
- 3K
- Views
- 41K
- Replies
- 79K
- Views
- 1M
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 122
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8087
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-