Posts Tagged ‘Central Intelligence Agency’

_49725131_camera.jpg

Trump’s CIA visit made relations with intel community worse

Authorities are also pushing back against the perception that the CIA workforce was cheering for the president. They say the first three rows in front of the president were largely made up of supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign. 

An official with knowledge of the make-up of the crowd says that there were about 40 people who’d been invited by the Trump, Mike Pence and Rep. Mike Pompeo teams. The Trump team expected Rep. Pompeo, R-Kansas, to be sworn in during the event as the next CIA director, but the vote to confirm him was delayed on Friday by Senate  Democrats. Also sitting in the first several rows in front of the president was the CIA’s senior leadership, which was not cheering the remarks.

I suspected that Donald’s proclamations of healing all those rifts was a bit premature. The CIA brass is firmly against him, and the clapping was from his own people.

51zbwgdhcal-_sx331_bo1204203200_

Original:

How I Came to Understand the CIA

I’ve been researching the CIA for over 30 years and I’ve interviewed over 100 CIA officers. So naturally, people often wonder how I prepare myself. In one of the interviews that’s included in my new book, James Tracy asked me how I know where to look for information that’s pertinent to a given story.

I told James that’s it’s complicated, that my experience is different from most other CIA researchers and writers. I didn’t follow the usual career course. I didn’t go to the Columbia School of Journalism. I’m a college dropout who climbed trees for a living for ten years. But I did want to be a writer, and my philosophy of life is based on the study of language and literary criticism. I take a very broad approach. When I went to college, I studied Greek and Roman literature, read the Norton anthologies of English and American literature, and took courses in classical myth and the Bible.

Very early in my studies I was introduced literary critics like Robert Graves, poet and author of The White Goddess, and Sir James Fraser who wrote The Golden Bough. Fraser brought a socio-anthropological way of looking at the world of literature. That led me to Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, Eric Newman, Northrop Frye and a few other people who approached literature from a variety of different perspectives – psychological, political, anthropological, sociological, historical, philosophical. All those things were of interest to me. So when I look at a subject, I look at it comprehensively from all those different points of view, plus my blue collar, working class perspective.

Literary criticism teaches the power of symbolic transformation, of processing experience into ideas, into meaning. To be a Madison Avenue adman, one must understand how to use symbols and myths to sell commodities. Admen use logos and slogans, and so do political propagandists. Left or right; doesn’t matter. The left is as adept at branding as the right. To be a speech writer or public relations consultant one must, above all, understand the archetypal power of the myth of the hero. That way you can transform Joe the Plumber, or even a mass murdering politician, into a national hero.

When I decided to research and write about the CIA’s Phoenix program, that was how I thought about it. I went directly to William Colby, who’d been Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I didn’t know enough to be intimidated, it was just the smart thing to do. Colby was the person most associated with Phoenix, the controversial CIA “assassination” program that resulted in the death of tens of thousands of civilians during the Vietnam War. No one had written a book about it, so I wrote Colby a letter and sent him my first book, The Hotel Tacloban, which is about my father’s experiences in combat and as a POW in World War Two.

Tacloban was key to unlocking the CIA’s door, for two reasons. First, it demonstrated that I understood what it means to be a soldier, which was essential in terms of winning the trust of CIA officers, most of whom think of themselves as soldiers. The CIA is set up like a military organization with a sacred chain of command. Somebody tells you what to do and you salute and do it.  Colby himself had parachuted behind enemy lines in France during World War Two.

On a deeper level, Tacloban showed that I could bridge the “man” gap that divided my frag-happy, draft-dodging generation from Colby’s “saved the world for freedom and democracy” generation. I felt that “father-son” dynamic with Colby and several of the senior spooks he referred me to. Some of them even acknowledged that I was attempting to reconcile with them in a way their own sons never had.

So I told Colby I wanted to write a book that would de-mystify the Phoenix program, and he was all for that. Colby liked my approach – to look at it from all these different points of view – so he got behind me and introduced me to a lot of senior CIA people. And that gave me access from the inside. After that it was easy. I have good interview skills. I was able to persuade a lot of these CIA people to talk about Phoenix. I approached it from an organizational point of view, which is essential when writing about bureaucracies like the CIA or the DEA. You have to understand them as a bureaucracy, that they have an historical arc. They begin somewhere, they have a Congressional mandate, they have a purpose, and organizational and management structures. And in that regard I really lucked out. One of the first people I interviewed was the CIA officer, Nelson Brickham, who organized the Phoenix program in 1967 in Saigon. Brickham graduated magna cum laude from Yale and was something of an organizational genius. He explained to me how he organized Phoenix. He also explained the different divisions and branches of the CIA so I’d be able to understand it. All of that went into my book The Phoenix Program.

So I lucked out. Through Colby I had access to the CIA people who created the Phoenix program and its various components. I was able to find out what was on their minds and why they did what they did. That never would have happened if I had gone to the Columbia School of Journalism, or if I’d been working for mainstream media editors for many years. I’d have had a much narrower way of going about the thing. But the CIA officers I spoke with loved the broad view that I was bringing to the subject. They liked me asking them about their philosophy. It enabled me to understand the subject comprehensively. I related to them on a very personal level, and when the book came, they reeled. Colby was furious.

So the New York Times killed the book in its cradle. As Guillermo Jiminez noted in one of our interviews, the book didn’t take off until Open Road Media republished it 25 years later as part of their Forbidden Bookshelf series. Guillermo asked me why my book was chosen for the series, why there was new-found interest in Phoenix, and what the CIA is up to, generally, nowadays.

As I explained, when the book came out in 1990, it got a terrible review in The New York Times. Morley Safer, who’d been a reporter in Vietnam, wrote the review. Safer and the Times killed the book because in it I said Phoenix never would have succeeded if the reporters in Vietnam hadn’t covered for the CIA.

Several senior CIA officers told me the same thing, that some correspondent “was always in my office. He’d bring a bottle of scotch and I’d tell him what was going on.” The celebrity reporters knew what was going on, but they didn’t report about it in exchange for having access.

I said that in the book specifically about The New York Times. I said, “When it comes to the CIA and the press, one hand washes the other. To have access to informed officials, reporters frequently suppress or distort stories. In return, CIA officials leak stories to reporters to whom they owe favors.” I told how, at its most incestuous, reporters and government officials are related. I cited the example of Charles LeMoyne, a Navy officer who ran the CIA’s counter-terror teams for a year in the Delta, and his New York Times correspondent brother James. I said that if Ed Lansdale hadn’t had Joseph Alsop to print his black propaganda in the US, there probably would have been no Vietnam War.

So I not only got the CIA mad at me, I also got the Vietnam press corps angry at me too. Between those two things, the book did not get off to an auspicious start. The Times gave Safer half a page to write his review, which was bizarre. The usual response is just to ignore a book like The Phoenix Program. But The Times Book Review section serves a larger function; it teaches the media elite and “intelligentsia” what to think and how to say it. So Safer said my book was incoherent, because it unraveled the bureaucratic networks that conceal the contradictions between stated CIA policy and operational reality. It exposed Colby as a liar. Safer was upset that I didn’t portray his buddy, Bill Colby, as a symbol of the ruling elite, as a modern-day Odysseus.

Safer vented his professional hatred for me when he wrote the half page review in The New York Times that killed my book in its cradle. [1] And, at the time, I wasn’t surprised that the Times employed Safer to assassinate my book. But I was totally unaware of the personal basis for his animosity.

At the time of the review (October 1990), I thought Safer hated me primarily for accusing the press corps of covering up CIA war crimes. I thought he did it for pecuniary reasons too; Safer’s grandiose and self-congratulatory book on Vietnam had come out a few months before mine. I wrote the Times editor about that conflict, but of course never heard back. And I didn’t have another book published for 14 years.

It wasn’t until 25 years later that I found out that Safer owed William Colby a favor. Safer revealed his incestuous relationship with Colby for the first time at the American Experience conference in 2010. [2]

“I got a call to come and see [Colby] in his office,” Safer explained. “And I walked in – and I had met him; we had no strong relationship at all – but – and [Colby] said, ‘Look, can you disappear for three days?’

(Laughter.) And I said, ‘I guess.’ (Laughter.) And he said, ‘Well, be at the airport – be at (inaudible) at the airport tomorrow morning at 5:30.’”

Bernard Kalb, the moderator, asked Safer if Colby wanted him to bring along a camera crew.

“No, no,” Safer replied. “And I showed up and [Colby] said, ‘Okay, here are the rules. You can see that I’m going on a tour of all the stations. You can’t take notes and you can’t report anything you hear.’ And I spent three days first of all, down in the Delta and they were really, really revealing. There was only one meeting that he would ask me to leave the barracks. And it was fascinating because the stuff that these guys were reporting through whatever filters to you had been so doctored by the time it got to you – I mean, to this day, I still feel constrained in terms of talking about.”

So, Colby introduced Safer to all the top CIA officers in Vietnam. He introduced him to the guys who ran the interrogation/torture centers and the counterterrorism teams. Safer got to see how the CIA crime syndicate was organized and operated. And like Don Corleone dispensing favors in The Godfather, Colby knew that one day Safer would be obligated to return it. Colby, of course, hated me more than Safer did.

That is how the CIA, as the organized crime branch of the US government, functions like the Mafia through its old boy network of complicit media hacks.

Luckily, with the Internet revolution, people aren’t bound by The Times and network news hacks like Safer anymore. They can listen to Russia Today or tune in to Counterpunch and get another side of the story. So Mark Crispin Miller at Open Road chose The Phoenix Program to be the first book they published. And it’s been reborn. Thanks to the advent of the e-book, we’ve reached an audience of concerned and knowledgeable people in a way that wasn’t possible 25 years ago.

It’s also because of these Internet developments that John Brennan, the current director of CIA, thought of reorganizing the CIA into “centers” that have their origin in the Phoenix program. Phoenix is the template for the war on terror and the homeland security boondoggle.

All these things are connected. It’s a vastly different world than it was in 1947 when the CIA was created, or in 1967 when the CIA created the Phoenix program, or in 1990 when my book came out. The nature of the American empire has changed, and what the empire needs from the CIA has changed. The CIA is allocated about $30 billion a year, so the organizational changes are massive undertakings.

If you want to understand the CIA, you have to understand how it’s organized and how it relates to the press and every other thing that’s going on. And that’s what I try to explain in my new book.

Notes.

[1] Behind the scenes, the CIA was doing it’s best to prevent Valentine from completing his research. Valentine found out the CIA was keeping a file on him and, through the ACLU, sued the CIA in federal court. Here’s the link to the documents that were released to Valentine in 1993.

And here’s a link to an article John Prados wrote about the borderline legality of the CIA’s secret attempts to obstruct Valentine.

[2] US Department of State, Media Roundtable Discussion, The American Experience in Southeast Asia, 1946-1975, 29 September 2010.

filepicker-Q4W0nyEaSxOHGQWpyiLw_scarface.jpg

Creating a Crime: How the CIA Commandeered the DEA

By Doug Valentine
Original at Counterpunch

The outlawing of narcotic drugs at the start of the Twentieth Century, the turning of the matter from public health to social control, coincided with American’s imperial Open Door policy and the belief that the government had an obligation to American industrialists to create markets in every nation in the world, whether those nations liked it or not.

Civic institutions, like public education, were required to sanctify this policy, while “security” bureaucracies were established to ensure the citizenry conformed to the state ideology. Secret services, both public and private, were likewise established to promote the expansion of private American economic interests overseas.

It takes a book to explain the economic foundations of the war on drugs, and the reasons behind the regulation of the medical, pharmaceutical and drug manufacturers industries. Suffice it to say that by 1943, the nations of the “free world” were relying on America for their opium derivatives, under the guardianship of Harry Anslinger, the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN).

Narcotic drugs are a strategic resource, and when Anslinger learned that Peru had built a cocaine factory, he and the Board of Economic Warfare confiscated its product before it could be sold to Germany or Japan. In another instance, Anslinger and his counterpart at the State Department prevented a drug manufacturer in Argentina from selling drugs to Germany.

At the same time, according to Douglas Clark Kinder and William O. Walker III in their article, “Stable Force In a Storm: Harry J. Anslinger and United States Narcotic Policy, 1930-1962,” Anslinger permitted “an American company to ship drugs to Southeast Asia despite receiving intelligence reports that French authorities were permitting opiate smuggling into China and collaborating with Japanese drug traffickers.”

Federal drug law enforcement’s relationship with the espionage establishment matured with the creation of CIA’s predecessor organization, the Office of Strategic Services. Prior to the Second World War, the FBN was the government agency most adept at conducting covert operations at home and abroad. As a result, OSS chief William Donovan asked Anslinger to provide seasoned FBN agents to help organize the OSS and train its agents to work undercover, avoid security forces in hostile nations, manage agent networks, and engage in sabotage and subversion.

The relationship expanded during the war, when FBN executives and agents worked with OSS scientists in domestic “truth drug” experiments involving marijuana. The “extra-legal” nature of the relationship continued after the war: when the CIA decided to test LSD on unsuspecting American citizens, FBN agents were chosen to operate the safehouses where the experiments were conducted.

The relationship was formalized overseas in 1951, when Agent Charlie Siragusa opened an office in Rome and began to develop the FBN’s foreign operations. In the 1950s, FBN agents posted overseas spent half their time doing “favors” for the CIA, such as investigating diversions of strategic materials behind the Iron Curtain. A handful of FBN agents were actually recruited into the CIA while maintaining their FBN credentials as cover.

Officially, FBN agents set limits. Siragusa, for example, claimed to object when the CIA asked him to mount a “controlled delivery” into the U.S. as a way of identifying the American members of a smuggling ring with Communist affiliations.

As Siragusa said, “The FBN could never knowingly allow two pounds of heroin to be delivered into the United States and be pushed to Mafia customers in the New York City area, even if in the long run we could seize a bigger haul.” [For citations to this and other quotations/interviews, as well as documents, please refer to the author’s books, The Strength of the Wolf: The Secret History of America’s War on Drugs (Verso 2004) and The Strength of the Pack: The Personalities, Politics, and Espionage Intrigues that Shaped the DEA (TrineDay 2009). See also www.douglasvalentine.com]

(more…)

3069568.jpg

 

Gullible, ignorant people annoy me greatly. This is how it works in the real world: you cover up your crimes (conspiracies) for as long as possible until no one cares anymore, say 55 years, but of course it was a crime, murder, assassination, all along from day one…

Apartheid SA Killed UN Secretary General
Dag Hammarskjold may have been killed by South African agents backed by the CIA

 

 

guns-drugs-300x300

Hopsicker again:

CIA Plane in Big Aussie-American Heroin Bust

Ask yourself why this never, ever, ever appears on US television? Not in the mainstream propaganda rags either, for the most part. Any mention in NY Times? Washington Post? Fucking Time Magazine? You must be joking.

Everyone in politics and in journalism KNOWS this has been going on since Vietnam. They get caught repeatedly, and it is covered-up repeatedly. Many books have been written by insiders.  And it goes on…

cia-miami-hitman

 

Top CIA spy is accused of being a HITMAN for Miami mobsters

Mr Wright claims San Pedro hosted parties for Miami’s rich and famous, lost one of his testicles in a drive-by shooting, tortured guard dogs for fun and imported tens of millions of dollars of cocaine into the United States each year, according to Wired.

Meanwhile, Mr Prado was moonlighting as a killer, according to the journalist who claims investigators with the Miami-Dade Police Department’s organised crime squad suspected him of participating in at least seven murders and one attempted murder.
article-2166312-13D80284000005DC-800_468x723

“Accused killer: CIA spy Enrique ‘Ricky’ Prado, pictured, has been accused of being an assassin on the pay role of notorious Miami mobsters”

article-2166312-13D8028A000005DC-946_468x351 (1)

And dig this, little “land of the free” denizens–

prado-news-blackout

Of course that’s actually not true, Google. It matches the UK Daily Mail headline story; so what’s going on?

But not one US media outlet is covering the release of this explosive book alleging a criminal CONSPIRACY between the Mafia and the Central Intelligence Agency, one that probably stretches back to the early 60s and the Kennedy assassination. Being Florida, cocaine was mentioned.

We live in Orwellian mindfuck land, surrounded by the grotesquely ignorant. And that’s the way they like it.

cia

 

CIA Director Held ‘Secret Consultations’ in Kiev

CIA director John Brennan had a secret meeting with Ukrainian officials in Kiev before they began operations against separatist forces that had taken over buildings in the country’s east.”

 

CIA Role Behind the Anti-Government Protests in Venezuela

She has toured a series of countries in the world where very similar situations have occurred, like what she tried to do in Venezuela. And when you analyze Venezuela, and what has happened nowadays and the way in which she has acted, I think that in Venezuela, the characteristic that has been that they are tremendously aggressive in the manipulation of the information. Tremendously aggressive. To the point where you say it’s a blunder, because there are images which are so obviously not from Venezuela. I saw a very famous one, in which a soldier appears with a journalist, with a camera.They are Koreans. It’s an image from Korea. They’re Asian. They don’t look like Venezuelans at all. Also, the uniforms they wear. They’ve been very aggressive with that image which has projected what’s going on in Venezuela to the world. The greater part of the world’s people, this image is the one they’re seeing, of what they’re trying to say.

 

mandela415x479

With all the crocodile tears finally drying, let’s get real about where the US stands vis a vis third world people’s movements.

Chicago Tribune:

“We have turned Mandela over to the South African security branch. We gave them every detail, what he would be wearing, the time of day, just where he would be. They have picked him up. It is one of our greatest coups.“ -CIA Officer Paul Eckel

And guess what, America?  Dr. King had more than a dream too, and elements of the US government killed him because of it.  They also succeeded in erasing his legacy of opposing the war and fighting for equality and economic justice, so that your kids hear a tiny fraction of what the man actually stood for.

 

counter-intelligence-cover

 

Extensive documentary on the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency:

Part 1: The Company

Part 2: The Deep State

Part 3: The Strategy of Tension

Part 4: Necrophilous

Part 5 – Drone Nation

Part one alone is a priceless education on the history of ‘the company.’ More mind blowing stuff at Metanoia Films.

CIA-STATE-DEPT-APATHY

Per Glenn Greenwald and Wikileaks

March, 2010:

Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough(C//NF)

The fall of the Dutch Government over its troop commitment to Afghanistan demonstrates the fragility of European support for the NATO-led ISAF mission.  Some NATO states, notably France and Germany, have counted on public apathy about Afghanistan to increase their contributions to the mission, but indifference might turn into active hostility if spring and summer fighting results in an upsurge in military or Afghan civilian casualties and if a Dutch style debate spills over into other states contributing troops. The Red Cell invited a CIA expert on strategic communication and analysts following public opinion at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) to consider information approaches that might better link the Afghan mission to the priorities of French, German, and other Western European publics.(C//NF)

Your tax dollars at work.
“Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters.”

 

Wow — they wrote it down in black and white.  Not quite restricted to France or Germany.  That’s going in the quote file.

“The Afghanistan mission’s low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments, according to INR polling in fall 2009.

The enemies of humanity know their stuff.

article-2312496-196830D8000005DC-416_964x609Doku Umarov calls himself “Russia’s Bin Laden”

I’m working out the details of getting this next investigative article published, but people need to know now.

Excerpt:


Canadian Broadcasting reported,

“Last year, a charismatic rebel commander calling himself Said Buryatsky bragged on the rebel website Kavkaz Center he was training new suicide bombers. An ethnic Russian convert to Islam, Buryastky, born Alexander Tikhomirov, studied for several years in Saudi Arabia. …A new leader, Dokka Umarov, emerged declaring the new goal was to separate all six Muslim majority provinces in the Russian Caucasus from the Russian Federation, and create a new Islamic state ruled by Sharia law. Admired for his Saudi religious education Buryatsky quickly became Umarov’s chief ideologist. He also became a valued military strategist.”

Brian Glyn Williams next tells his Huffington Post readers, “It seems that the older Tamerlan then converted his brother Dzhokar to the fanatical cause”. Ah. But, here is where we must insist on a full disclosure from Mr. Brian Glyn Williams. You see it is Williams’ own personal relationship with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, over several years and via numerous email communications concerning the younger Tsarnaev’s Chechen roots, that alerted me to this topic in the first place.

I hope I didn’t contribute to it,” said Mr. Williams on April 19th, in the wake of the bombing revelations (South Coast Today). “That kid and his brother identified with the Chechen struggle.” Williams is identified as “Dr. Brian Glyn Williams” and no mention of his CIA or Jamestown Foundation connections appears in the article.

williams-jamestownanalyst

What does appear however demands some scrutiny. Williams hooked up with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev when the latter was still in high school and 17 years old, according to South Coast Today reporter Steve Urbon.

“Williams, whose classes on the War on Terror are routinely packed, obliged by exchanging emails with the then-17-year-old student [Dzhokhar]…As Williams put it, an ancient civilization was being wiped away. …Williams shot me an email. I phoned him and at one point I heard a rare twinge of worry in his voice. “I hope I didn’t contribute to it. … [Dzhokhar] was learning his Chechen identity, identifying with the diaspora and identifying with his homeland. … He wanted to learn more about Chechnya, who the fighters were, who the commanders were. I sort of gave him background.”

Well, the commanders were, and are, Doku Umarov, Said Buryatsky and a distinguished gentleman named Shamil Basayev. Basayev arranged for 850 hostages to be taken at a theater in Moscow in 2002, demanding Russia give up the province of Chechnya and pull out. During the siege 130 civilians died as well as all 40 of Basayev’s armed terrorists.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev


End excerpt.

Relates to:

Censored: Uncle Ruslan Tsarni May Have Funded Terrorists

http://wp.me/pwAWe-1Ts

2nd CIA connection to the Boston bombing, source, South Coast Today, Steve Urbon:

“…one of the top experts on Chechnya, UMass Dartmouth’s Brian Glyn Williams.

That was two years ago. The assignment was to have each student in the very diverse class research their own ethnicity and write about it. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose family fled the horrors of the Russian occupation, was about to learn about some harrowing things he escaped from at a very young age.”

The entire article is one-sided and guided by William’s CIA view of the conflict (Chechens can’t be terrorists, and are allied to CIA objectives).  Even the actual terrorism in Chechnya is dismissed later on.

“Williams, whose classes on the War on Terror are routinely packed, obliged by exchanging emails with the then-17-year-old student [Dzhokhar Tsarnaev].

There was a lot to read about. Especially since the Russians retook the tiny separatist republic, there are stories of mass killings, death camps, mass graves, torture, destruction.

There were retaliatory strikes inside Russia, including a hostage drama in a Moscow theater. Russia in the end sent 100,000 troops to surround Chechnya to keep it under their thumb.

As Williams put it, an ancient civilization was being wiped away.

…Williams shot me an email. I phoned him and at one point I heard a rare twinge of worry in his voice. “I hope I didn’t contribute to it. That kid and his brother identified with the Chechen struggle,” he said.

…But Williams recalled the student clearly, though the two [ALLEGEDLY] never met and communicated by email, Williams sending him links to academic papers he’s published and books he recommended.

“He was learning his Chechen identity, identifying with the diaspora and identifying with his homeland,” he said.

“He wanted to learn more about Chechnya, who the fighters were, who the commanders were. I sort of gave him background.”

“Sort of.”  Gotta love the sort of.

“If there is trauma in the homeland, I think some in the diaspora become radicalized and that causes them to resort to terror,” Williams said.

…In Williams’ view, Chechnya has an undeserved reputation as a hatchery of terrorists, including al-Qaida and the Taliban.

“Foreign fighters did come in and radicalized people,” Williams said. For some, “they transformed the form of war from a national one to a full-blown terrorist jihad.”

But he charges there is no basis for an al-Qaida link, or even a Taliban link, for that matter.”

This is a clear lie.  The NSFW piece destroys William’s credibility and casts him as a disinformation artist for the CIA.

In a book to be published next year, “Inferno in the Caucus: The Chechen insurgency and the Mirage of Al Qaeda,” [Brian Glynn Williams of the Central Intelligence Agency] says that no matter what the Chechens are, “they are not al-Qaida. Repeat: They are not al-Qaida.”

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” -The Bard

Biran Glyn Williams latest “article” is: “How Anti-American Are Most Chechens? Not Very.” The Atlantic. April 26, 2013.

Biran Glyn Williams website.

Biran Glyn Williams01a

Biran Glyn Williams “profile” from an interview by Andrew Gaboury, March 13, 2013:

 “His work has taken him to London to consult with Scotland Yard and to Afghanistan to work for the Central Intelligence Agency.Williams was tasked with helping law enforcement and intelligence agencies understand the motivations and behaviors of suicide bombers. He is of the mind that while Islam is a subtext for much of the violence and terrorism in the region, it’s not the sole explanation. His findings about suicide bombings in Afghanistan were informed by his understanding of tribal identities as much as fervor for the Jihadist movement. He came to these conclusions after being sent to Afghanistan by the CIA to perform firsthand research on these types of attacks. This type of fieldwork is unusual for most academics but especially for historians,who are content to let some time pass before trying to understand it’s (sic) role in the narrative. “

 

See also:

The Graham Fuller, CIA connection to the Boston Bombing and Uncle Ruslan Tsarni / Tsarnaev

 

 

http://wp.me/pwAWe-1KM