Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alex3917 | Hacker News Reader

Just like how, according to the 9/11 commission report, on the morning of 9/11 there was a "chance meeting" between the two guys who ran the investigation into attacks (Porter Graham and Bob Goss) and the guy who wired 100k to the lead hijacker (Ahmad).

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss

View on HN

> On the morning of September 11, 2001, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with General Ahmad [head of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)]

Secondary source for the $100k money transfer from the ISI head to Atta:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september1...

> Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?

The ISI has also been implicated in giving harbor to Al Qaeda (like with bin Laden) and the Taliban (helping them rebuild and take over Afghanistan again). Between these and near constant state supported terrorism against India, how is it that Pakistan has escaped all accountability and public scrutiny? I would love to learn more about the foreign policy or diplomatic dynamics that may be involved here.

Jesus. How did they get away with genocide?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide

reading that: wtf (never heard about this)

I have also never heard about it and am shocked that I have not given how high the death count is.

Ask Indira.

They exchanged 1971 captives for 1965 captives

> Task Force 74 was a task force assembled from the Seventh Fleet of the United States Navy that was deployed to the Bay of Bengal by the Nixon administration in December 1971, at the height of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_74

US administration at the time supported Pakistan in that war.

The genocide isn’t even acknowledged:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/genocide-us-cant-reme...

Read "Directorate S" by Steve Coll.

Here is the reason https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/pakistan/nuclear/ . Pakistan has nukes making it untouchable and unmentionable. Media doesnt even try to link Pakistan with Taliban and super quick fall of Afghanistan.

Reason they have nukes: Because China more or less gave them to the country, in an utterly irresponsible move in a game of asian geopolitical chess.

And then AQ Khan sold nuke know-how to Iran and North Korea. Play stupid games...

The Dutch gave the nuclear tech to Pakistan. https://www.ft.com/content/be09ba7c-b0d8-45e4-aff8-bf01b4aa5...

All this sarcasm is getting confusing. Can you just clearly state what you're insinuating?

the amount of "chance" surrounding the 9/11 event truly boggles the mind. I can't think of any other historical occurence that even comes close

Here's another weird one. One of the 9/11 hijackers [1] checked into a Florida hospital with apparent cutaneous Anthrax symptoms. After investigation of this incident, the FBI officially ruled out a link between 9/11 and the 2001 Anthrax attacks [2]. The main suspect in the Anthrax attacks, Bruce Ivins, committed suicide. A lot of unknowns remain and I'm still not sure if I believe the official FBI story about Ivins.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_al-Haznawi

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/24/terrorism.anth...

This article starts off with meeting between Graham/Goss and Mahmoud Ahmed, or 'Mehmood Ahmed' as it is spelled some other places. Also, what is the reason spellings always differ so much?

https://archive.is/ttTRs

Transliteration schemes from one language/alphabet to another are not always consistent.

If I'd have to guess, Mehmood is what is used in Pakistan, reflecting local pronunciation, whereas Mahmoud is the more traditional Arabic translation of the name (which is Arabic).

The "oo" and "ou" spelling difference has more to do with the english vs french influence, with Pakistan having had more English than French influence.

The spellings reflect different transliteration schemes that can be used for Arabic.

How would you translate french "bœuf" to american english? Well, we have, "beef". But someone would also just use boeuf which might have a closer recemblance with the pronounciation of the original word. So whats most important, to have an as direct as possible spelling to how it is pronounced or just make an own version of it.

We have the same with a lot of names in the west as well, Jacob, Jakob, Yakob, Yakov, Jakub, Jakup etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com