Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B Part 2 Subtitles [EN] Raw TXT

♪ (intro music) ♪

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome.

This is James Corbett of
CorbettReport.com.

It is currently the 8th of February, 2013
here in the Land of the Rising Sun,

and tonight we are joined once again

on the line from the western
United States

by our old friend Sibel Edmonds

of BoilingFrogsPost.com.

And for those of you who missed

our recent conversation with Sibel

on Operation Gladio

and how that relates
to the current war on terror,

I would wholeheartedly suggest

you go and re-acquaint yourself,
or acquaint yourself, with that interview.

A ton of fascinating information

in that first interview,

and this is the second interview

in what promises to be a series
of interviews on this subject

as we continue exploring deeper

into Operation Gladio Plan B

and how that ties in to the current
War on Terror.

So Sibel, thank you once again
for your time tonight.

Sure.

Well, let's pick up

where we left off last time.

We really did cover quite a bit
about the ultranationalists

and how that was used
in Operation Gladio in Turkey

in the 1960s, 70s, 80s,

and how that leads into the
current time-frame.

And we talked a bit about
the current era, the War on Terror.

But let's start getting more
into that specifically.

And there's a couple of news stories
that have just occurred

in the last couple of weeks

that might provide a good starting point
or an entrée to this conversation.

And I want to start with the recent
bombing, in Ankara, of the US Embassy.

And people might have followed this story,

but some of the details that have
come out are

-- or at least the way they're being
framed in the mainstream media --

are quite interesting.
For example,

we have this from The Times of Israel
from last week:

"Turkey: Embassy bombers cling
to Cold War ideology."

And it says,
"Some speculate that the DHKP-C"

"targeted the old 'imperialist' nemesis
of leftist radicals everywhere"

"in efforts to oust Assad."

And this article starts by saying,

"Long before al-Qaeda,"

"when the Cold War gripped the world,"

"leftist terrorists staged
spectacular attacks"

"in a doomed campaign
to overthrow governments"

"and impose their vision
of a socialist utopia."

"The bulk of these extremist groups
eventually drifted into oblivion,"

gutted by police pressure, internal rifts,

and an ideology undercut
by Communism's fall.

"In Turkey, one cult-like group
didn't get the memo."

And it goes on to talk about
how this group

-- the Revolutionary People's
Liberation Party Front, or the DHKPC --

is responsible for this bombing.

Sibel, what do you make of this bombing

and how it's being framed right now

in terms of this Cold War ideology
leftover of the socialist radicals?

It's very interesting,

because you can't really get to the
bottom of what's going on there.

As you said, with all these
conflicting reports

that is coming out on this attack.

And as far as Turkey and Turkish media

and the Turkish government goes,

whenever they say "left"

and "the communists"

and "these groups"

and "these cults,"

they're always talking about Russia.

And another way they framed
this latest incident was

tie it, again, to Syria and to Assad.

Because these people are very pissed
off, they are very angry:

the Turkish government's support
of the United States

and the foreign influence there to Assad.

And, well, let's see:

they are Communist,

they are leftist,

they are pro-Assad.

And so... and then we have had
one superpower

-- or former superpower --

who has been stepping in and saying,

"No, you can't attack Syria,"

and has been an obstacle

to some of our plans for Syria.

And that is, who? Russia.

So... so it starts coming all together,

and in a way maybe it's an
indirect message

-- because I'm sure they get the direct
message through different channels --

to Russia, saying:

"OK, well, we're gonna have
some of these incidents,"

"and you're gonna start looking
really bad internationally."

And so that's what it looks like.

The most important thing
in terms of timing on this

is the recent report

-- the mainstream media is not
really playing it big yet,

not in the United States.

It's huge in Turkey, and it's very big

in the rest of the Middle East.

All these Arabic publications:

from Egypt, to Saudi Arabia,

to even Pakistan.

And that is: the recent arrest

-- and immediate release of --

Bin Laden's son-in-law.

Well, this guy, Bin Laden's son-in-law,

since 2000 actually has been

most wanted internationally.

And if you recall, Bin Laden

really never directly claimed

responsibility for 9/11.

It has never been this clear claim

of responsibility for 9/11.

On the other hand, this guy,

Bin Laden's son-in-law...

-- who's supposed to be among top five
al-Qaeda leaders and number two

spokesperson for so-called al-Qaeda:
and this is Bin Laden's son-in-law --

he is the one who did the
highest number

of these so-called videos that
kept popping up

between 2001, 9/11, and 2008.

At least six or seven videos

came out that this guy
was saying, "OK, we did great,"

and in some ways claiming
responsibility for 9/11,

and then coming and threatening
over Iraq and everything.

So this guy has been wanted,

and the rumor has been

-- or had been until recently --

that he was in Iran, of all places.

Now you have to remember,

Iran has never, ever had good relations

-- or any relationship --
with al-Qaeda.

There were certain geographic
locations in Iran

that had a high level of activities,

but that area is considered
the no-man's zone:

and that is Sistan and Baluchistan.

And that is shared by Pakistan as well.

And we know that Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed has been active there,

including Bin Laden,

Bin Laden's son-in-law.

On and off, this region
has been very important.

And this region also has been very
important for the United States.

We have been doing a lot of things
in Baluchistan.

Baluchistan, just like Xinjiang
that I mentioned,

is another area that you don't
hear much report.

All we know as Americans, in general,

is that there are all these
terror incidents;

there are people who want
independence;

Pakistan: they're abusing them, they're
oppressing them, and...

And so, anyhow:

Baluchistan, Sistan, but not Iran.

You're looking at Sunni factions

-- and these are the Wahhabis;
this is Bin Laden.

You're looking... Iran's Shias.

Iran and Bin Laden and...

-- or, so-called al-Qaeda --

they've never had anything jointly.
Nothing.

In fact, during the time
when I was in the FBI after 9/11,

we -- the United States --
we tried very hard

to find something to link Iran to 9/11.

And they couldn't.
They couldn't even make it up:

I mean, it was that far-fetched.

However, the rumor has been

-- and I have no idea how it started:
usually we don't have any idea

how these things start; it just gets to
be placed out there, then it circulates --

was that Bin Laden's son-in-law
went to Iran; he was arrested in Iran;

and Iran is holding several key
al-Qaeda members,

in either prisons
or some sort of house arrest in Iran.

Never confirmed;
never a shred of evidence.

Anyhow, in October

-- uh, in February,

that would be on February 2nd or 3rd,

here is the headline saying,

"Bin Laden's son-in-law was arrested
in Turkey by Turkish authorities."

And he was...
-- and this is Bin Laden's son-in-law --

he was staying at this five-star hotel

only two blocks from the
Presidential Palace.

In a way, hiding there, in a five-star...

-- it's a penthouse room,
according to the Turkish media.

And how did this happen?

So, you have Bin Laden's son-in-law

-- one of the top five al-Qaeda leaders
most wanted,

or wanted by the international
community --

and he is in this penthouse
in this hotel

in capital city of Turkey,

two blocks from the Presidential Palace.

And the story that Turkish government
fed to the media was,

"This is how it happened:" They...

-- this is "they" being the
Turkish government --

they got a call from the CIA.

And CIA said,

"We want to give you a very
important information!"

"Bin Laden's son-in-law,"

"our most wanted guy, he..."
-- maybe with a backpack or something,

the guy who was staying in a
five-star hotel --

"he crossed the border..."
(laughs) "from Iran,"

"recently entered Turkey."

"In fact, we know where he's staying: "

"here is the name of his hotel,
and his room number."

And Turkish authorities, they said,
"Whoo!"

So they stormed the hotel room,

the penthouse unit

two blocks from the Presidential Palace.

They took this guy and questioned him;

interrogated him.

Temporarily, they held him.

And again, it's very interesting:

it's not a regular criminal
or terrorism-related police station;

it's in a totally different

political, intelligence-related station

that they held him.

Then they said they don't have any
evidence indicating that this guy

-- Bin Laden's son-in-law,
the internationally most wanted guy,

al-Qaeda's number four or number five --

has done anything against Turkey,

or has threatened Turkish security
in any way.

And because of that, they were
going to release him.

Then the articles -- these newspapers in
Turkey -- they are saying,

"Well, the US said,
'But, we want him!'"

"'We want him in Guantánamo!'"

"'I mean, this guy: imagine
how much information he has on 9/11!'"

"'As you know, we've never been able
to have anyone in court.'"

"'They're either dead or they
have disappeared.'"

"'Not a single person!'"

"'So we want him.
Give this guy to us.'"

And Turkey said,

"Uh, sorry, we don't have this
extradition treaty with you."

"And as we said, this guy
hasn't done anything to us."

"'So we are not gonna give him,
hand him to you."

And the CIA and the State Department,
the US Government, said,

"Oh, OK." Hmm...
"We are not happy, but fine."

Now, as I said...

Definite... and keep in mind,
this is the same CIA that has

abducted citizens from other countries
that they have nothing to do with

-- including, famously, Italy and
other places --

and flown them halfway across the world
to torture them.

Exactly.

But they won't do that with
this person, apparently.

First of all, it's Turkey.
And Turkey has been

one of our top allies in detaining

-- most of them innocent --
people.

Putting them in these black sites
and torturing them.

Taking them into Guantánamo.

Since when we are paying attention

to some sorts of international rules

like extradition treaties?

After all, as you said,

we had our Gulfstream

with our CIA psychopaths with ski masks

landing in Sweden and saying,

"We want that guy, that guy, that guy."
And Sweden says, "Yes."

And they just put chains
around their ankles

and they hand them over.

No evidence sought.

This is what we've been doing.

And then we -- basically, it's out

that 99% of people in Guantánamo, we
have no evidence against these people.

They had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Now yet, based on our own claim,

this is one of the top al-Qaeda people.

Basically it was, what? Bin Laden,
Zawahiri,

Mullah Omar from the Taliban side.

This guy is number four or number five,
and is wanted.

Turkey says,
"We're not gonna give him to you."

And none of our rendition stuff
applies to this:

We don't want this guy.

Why don't we want this guy?

And that is the question that people
should be asking.

But then again: where is it?

-- the news and analysis of this incident
here in the United States

for people to even look at and then
ask the question?

But again: again, very important,

because you are looking at,
again, Turkey.

You're looking at a high-level, now,
so-called "al-Qaeda" leader.

And as we get into the topics

from where we left last time,

you keep seeing this same pattern.

You're gonna keep seeing the
same pattern again.

Another top guy that we declared later

as top al-Qaeda financier and terrorist,

and that was Yasin al-Qadi.

And the name, people may recognize it

via P-Tech and the P-Tech incident.

Well: Yasin al-Qadi, after 9/11

-- without being touched --

he left the United States, went for a while -- for about six to eight months --

and lived in Albania. He has
Albanian passport.

From Albania, he went to Turkey.

And while he was in Turkey,
he still operated.

He was totally, completely operational.

And the United States did
the same thing.

They asked Turkey, they said,
"We want this guy. We want al-Qadi."

"Look, he is wanted; his financial
network is wanted."

And same thing: Turkey said,

"Oh, sorry. There is nothing here
that indicates"

"he has done anything criminal or
terrorist-related here in Turkey."

"We're not gonna give him to you."

And so he very nicely settled there

with all his operations and networks,

and he's been operational.

And now, currently, he is in the
United Kingdom.

Because he basically brought these
lawsuits against the United Nations,

and finally...

-- a few months ago, or a year ago --

United Nations said,

"OK, well, fine: he's not
really a terrorist."

"Nobody has anything evidence
or anything, either,"

"for the arguments of terrorist or not."

But again, you're looking at Turkey.
And when you start looking,

you're gonna see a lot of
these characters.

We're gonna see a lot of these people
ending up in Turkey

and being protected in Turkey
with our OK.

Because, as we said: take a look
at the recent reports

and see how Turkey has been

very, very readily complying

with all these illegal practices

of black sites, rendition.

And you will see that on one hand
they've been doing it

-- but why? --

with the so-called "important" characters.

Turkey has been a great haven
for these people,

to go and continue their network
and their operations.

Well, let's focus in on that al-Qadi case
for a little bit

because it is such a fascinating story.

And of course, immediately
in the wake of 9/11,

the US was putting together its list

of specially-designated terrorists

and specifically looking at
financiers of terrorism.

And al-Qadi made that list
in October of 2001.

So immediately after 9/11,
he's put on that list.

And as you indicate, in the last
four to five years

he's managed to clear himself
from blacklists

in Switzerland, the European Union,
the United Kingdom,

and has managed to fend off lawsuits

from 9/11 victims' family members

for any culpability -- so far.

But he has not yet been removed

from the US specially-designated
terrorists list.

And part of the investigation
that put him on that list

goes back to an FBI investigation
from the late 1990s

called Operation Vulgar Betrayal,

which was led by a couple of agents

that were in that FBI Chicago office.

I don't know what you're able to say
about those investigations,

but perhaps you can tell us
a little bit about that story.

Sure. The agents

-- Robert Wright and also John Vincent --

they became members of
our organization,

National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition.

And because Robert Wright
was still working...

-- he is still working with the FBI --

and during this time,

-- this would be 2003, 2004 --

he was under a lot of retaliation
and punishment for what he did

by coming and exposing
this terrorist network,

including their investigation;

and the fact that the United States
government

-- this wasn't the FBI itself, but
entities such as the White House,

and the State Department,
and the CIA --

they were forced to shut down
this very, very important investigation

that, again, would have led us

to all the actors and the evidence

that were involved, later, in 9/11.

So, this guy was under retaliation,

so he couldn't become, officially,

a member of my organization,
our organization,

National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition.

But his partner... because these two
guys, they did all this...

they chased these bad guys together
in Chicago Field Office

-- and that would be John Vincent --

he, by then, was retired;
and he joined our organization,

and he and I had a lot
of discussions on this,

and we worked together on all this:
whistleblowers on 9/11-related issues.

And again, John Vincent was one of
many, many high-level agents

who went to the 9/11 Commission.

And they said,

"Let us present you with the evidence"

"of all the things that hasn't
been out yet."

"that is related to 9/11."

And like many others,
he had been excluded.

Same thing with Agent Wright:

the FBI said the 9/11 Commission
is not allowed to question him.

So he was never interviewed by 9/11.

And he's a very key guy,
with a key operation,

and a key investigation
of that operation.

And same thing with John Vincent.

So this is happening,

and as I said, I keep saying,
"Chicago," and "Chicago."

Because with Plan B, with Gladio,

a lot of the operational

and logistic aspects of Gladio Plan B

was being conducted from Chicago.

Chicago is the top, the best,

the easiest city for money laundering,

Because of huge level of corruption
within the local...

the state government, Illinois,

but also Chicago political figures.

And again, it came out that
Dennis Hastert

-- very little of it has come out --

but it is the easiest place to...

for these operations, it's a very
good base in the US.

And I want to emphasize:
one thing that I realized

from some of the questions I got
on Gladio Plan B was that...

how does it even...
how can we even claim

that US is involved with this,
Gladio operations,

because it was Italian?

We... the United States,
has an office in the Pentagon.

This office has a number,
has a specific name.

It's not called the
"Gladio Plan B Office,"

but it is a designated section
in the Pentagon

that only deals with these
Plan B operations for Gladio,

which is the... via Turkish actors,

and all the stuff we are doing
in Caucasus.

And before that, that same office

-- physical office, section of Pentagon --

dealt with the previous operations
of Gladio.

Not only until 1989:
all the way up to 1995, 1996.

So there is actually
a physical division: an office.

So it's not some assumption,
or some conclusion:

There is an office.
There is a division, OK?

Now, with Chicago:

this is when I was working with the FBI,

and you said October for Qadi
leaving the United States.

And again: he left;

a lot of Bin Laden family members,
business associates:

they left, without being questioned.

Qadi was not questioned either.

Starting from the two, three days
after 9/11,

we had this quota that we had to meet,
the FBI had to meet.

And that was to round up as many
people as possible

-- immigration violation, even
the tiniest one --

to show in the newspaper all the
arrests we were making

and interrogations that we were
conducting.

And these were nobody. This was some
guy who violated a traffic rule.

and they realized his Green Card
was expired. (claps)

"He's -- he may be involved in 9/11.
We're gonna interrogate him."

And taking all the resources
away from the FBI,

while you had all these top people
with Bin Laden last names;

Bin Laden's known associates; Qadi:

nobody ever questioned them;
nobody ever detained them.

They just had their first-class tickets,
or they had their private jets,

and they just were out of here when
they wanted.

Nobody touched them. OK?

That's another very important side of,

aspect of all this 9/11 enigma.

So, this is when they are chasing

-- in mid- to late-1990s, John Vincent
and Agent Robert Wright --

they are chasing Qadi

under Counterterrorism Division.

They were with Counterterrorism
Division.

But a lot of the work also involved...

-- because it spilled over to the
White-Collar Crime Division

for the FBI Chicago Field Office.

Because a lot of Qadi and
these terrorists

-- so-called terrorists --

they were also involved

in a massive amount of
money laundering,

and there were a lot of financial
aspects of it.

So you have Chicago Counterterrorism
involved with this;

you have Chicago White-Collar Crime
Division involved with this.

Meanwhile, I'm in Washington, DC.

The main operation I'm translating
for has to do

with the Washington, DC Field Office's
Turkish counterintelligence,

Agent Dennis Saccher.

Again, if you read... if you have read my
book, or if you read my book,

you will see all the detailed
description of this.

However, because I was the only one
translating

for Turkish and Turkic languages,

I also worked with field agents

from other cities and towns

-- and that included Chicago in Illinois.

And that became my second-biggest
case that I was working with;

and that was with Agent Joel Roberts.

And this guy, he was not with

the Counterterrorism Division
in Chicago.

He had his case that he's been chasing
since 1996 in Chicago,

but that was under Turkish
Counterintelligence,

with targets that were... [laughs]
-- included --

the person we discussed here:

Abdullah Çatlı, who was living
in Chicago,

and Çatlı's associates.

These are all NATO Plan B,

Gladio Plan B operatives that

were doing a lot of things in Chicago,

and they had their base in Chicago.

And we discussed that:
they went to Xinjiang from there;

they went to Azerbaijan
for assassination attempt.

So while these agents in Chicago
for Turkish Counterintelligence

-- they are chasing these
Turkish terrorists,

narcotics, criminal, espionage
entities --

a lot of that overlaps

with what Agent Wright and John
Vincent were chasing with al-Qadi,

and these were the mostly
Arabic-speaking

and Saudi Arabia-rooted individuals
who have...

again, there were a bunch of things.

There were financial crimes,

terrorism-related, et cetera.

In Washington, DC, again, it was
certain diplomatic targets with Turkey.

Those overlap.

So the most important thing
for people to get in this is:

we are not even looking at
one big investigation,

all these agents working together.

They were chopped up and divided.

But because I worked in the
central place,

and even other field offices

-- whether it's someone
in Illinois, Chicago,

or someone from New Jersey --

they were sending their material
to me

-- or the Turkic portion of it,
or Turkey-related portion of it --

I was in this position to see
all the dots being connected,

and going to my agent and saying...

-- to Dennis Saccher in
Washington DC --

and saying, "You may want to talk with
this guy, Robert Wright,"

"or Joel Roberts in Chicago,"

"because they have the other pieces
of what you're working on."

And that's exactly what took place
with some of these investigations,

these agents, while I was there.

Because I was the central person,
they started connecting the dots.

So I'll leave it here before I make
things more complicated.

All right. Well, let's focus on...

the national aspect of this.

Of course, you were looking specifically
at Turkic,

Turkish diplomatic targets of the FBI,

and that was related to some of this.

But you mentioned that al-Qadi
had an Albanian passport.

Is that particularly relevant?

Uh, yes. It is.

Because -- absolutely.

Because... same whether it's
Abdullah Çatlı,

whether it's al-Qadi,

whether it was some of these
other Turkey... Turkish NATO operatives

that we were monitoring within the FBI.

In... between early 1990s

till about 1996, '97,

the biggest focus of these operatives
was on the Balkans.

And we know what was happening
during this time:

we had Bosnia, we had Kosovo.

I mean, this was when these
mujahideens were being mysteriously...

-- nobody ever gets into the details --

they cross the borders and
they end up in the Balkans.

How do they end up in the Balkans?

Coming from Pakistan, Egypt,

Saudi Arabia, via Turkey

into this region and fighting.

So... and this was...

when I say they are all connected,

Abdullah Çatlı and Qadi,

well, a lot of the focus

during that early portion of mid-1990s

was on the Balkans.

And this was when these individuals

were going to that region
and coming back,

and the networks were bringing
these mujahideens

-- not al-Qaeda, they were
not called al-Qaeda --

from those regions into...

And if you look at...
later, to Fethullah Gülen,

and madrasas and mosques by him,

again, you will see Fethullah Gülen
all over this region.

Same thing.

And another interesting aspect is,

this is the period of time where

a lot of Albanians poured
into the United States.

And this was when they started
really establishing themselves

as the most ferocious

and strongest mafias in
the United States.

And again, a lot of their activities

were centered in
-- where? --

Chicago.

Because the network that brought
the heroin to Europe,

it was Turkish-Albanian network.

So this is...
once it comes out of Turkey,

it goes into the Balkans; it goes through
Brussels; it goes to Egypt; but then

it comes to the United States. United
States is a huge market for heroin.

And if you look at this particular period,

you would see the top mafia operators

in the United States were Albanians.

And this was when Italians said,

"Well, even we don't -- or won't --
mess with these Albanians."

Well, who are these Albanians, exactly?

And how were they able to bring...

and how come every time we...

-- the FBI, together and sometimes
jointly with DEA --

there would be an operation,

they would go completely untouched?

Untouched, whether...

when the actors involved were Turkish,
or they were Albanians.

Now, with Turkish actors,
we had several incidents

while I was in the FBI.

There would be a joint sting operation,

They're gonna have a bust: and this is
FBI and DEA, joint operations.

They know the location,
they know the actors,

and 9:30 AM, they're gonna be there.

They're gonna bust these guys, right?

They get into their SUVs and the vans

-- and this includes my agents,
some of the agents I work with --

they're gonna meet their DEA counterparts

and make the bust, right?

15 minutes before the bust,

while they are on the way,

they get a call from the top tier,
top layer in the FBI

saying, "Operation finished."

"Over.
Come back to the office,"

"and get the DEA's guys off this."

And the agents would be absolutely livid,

saying, "What!" and "Why?"

"Well, it's because the State Department
told us they have diplomatic immunities,"

"and it will be a diplomatic incident."

Now, the first question people
should ask is:

how in the world did the CIA

and the State Department in each case,

how did they find out about the fact
that we were monitoring them

and there would be a
sting operation, right?

And this is, again, another topic

that is not really talked about,

and that is Colleen Rowley.

And one of the things, maybe,
we will do for this video:

I will find that interview...

-- or, the article --

where Colleen Rowley came and said,

"I'm not joking: I believe, in FBI,
there were so many moles;"

"and some of these moles were
al-Qaeda-related moles:"

"because that's the only explanation
I have been able to come up with."

And this is Colleen Rowley's, OK?

-- senior FBI, currently retired --

her quote.

Well, that was the thing:
we had the moles;

and people immediately assumed
they would be Russian moles...

I mean, even with this Jan Dickerson
case: Turkish moles?

These are the moles who work
for foreign governments.

That's not... that was not the case.

Or in these cases, that was not the case.

Because in these cases, we had moles

-- whether within the management,
within the...

whether within the headquarters,
or within the translation divisions --

that were placed there strategically

by the State Department and the CIA.

CIA wanted to know at any given
moment what FBI was doing,

how much they had, and what they
were planning to do.

On the other hand,

if you look the other way and say,

"How many people from the FBI
had penetrated the CIA?"

you would get this:
Zilch. Zero.

So, right: there's a sting operation --

-- maybe maximum of six, seven,
ten people know about this --

and the top-layer guy in the FBI says,

"You're coming back to the headquarters."

"We are calling off the operations.
They have..."

-- the targets that you're
about to bust --

"they have diplomatic immunities."
"Who said that?" "State Department."

"How does State Department know?"

There is nothing there.
No explanation on that.

How many DEA agents know about this?

I would say at least a dozen of DEA
agents today

would tell you about several incidents
where the State Department, CIA

would come and prevent their operations,

when they would get close in the
sting operations.

They would tell me about cases

where the CIA, State Department,

would actually go tip off the targets

that the DEA was after, or the FBI.

There are dozens of cases:

not only within the Turkish department,
but in...

-- and I do have many DEA,
former DEA agents --

it's a norm. It would...

if you were to ask senior DEA agents,

the biggest enemies you have
in doing your job

-- preventing you from going
after the big guys or doing real busts;

I'm not talking about street-level
drug dealers --

they would tell you,
"Yeah, State Department; a.k.a. CIA."

I can guarantee you that.

And same thing was the case
with the FBI.

So basically, that was what was
happening with...

whether it was narcotics...

when I all along kept saying...

Look, as a whistleblower, they try
to portray you

as someone who has... who's disgruntled.

And you're going after your bosses

who fired you or didn't promote you.

If you look at my case

-- I mean, in the book, you will see

some stupid little bureaucrat
like Mike Feghali --

and my answer is saying
he was a nobody.

He was a little guy with some
bureaucratic psychosis, OK?

I kept saying that the people who
came with the state secrets privilege,

-- the people who prevented
our investigations --

were State Department, CIA.
State Department, CIA:

well, they didn't fire me!

If you look at some of
the individuals' names

that kept coming out during my case...

-- Marc Grossman: well, what did
Marc Grossman do to me?

I have never met this guy face-to-face.

And you would think, why would somebody...

-- he didn't fire me; he didn't demote
me; he didn't have anything to do

with all the torture I was put through
in the FBI before I was fired --

why in the world I would name people

like Dennis Hastert or Marc Grossman?

Yet if I want to go and get revenge

-- or if I'm after revenge
or I'm disgruntled --

I'll be going after the guys
like Muellers, and...

or, even beneath them, Feghali.

But all along I've been saying, with 9/11

-- before, after, during --

we were the FBI.

I know FBI does a lot of bad things now
with civil liberties-related issues.

But when it comes to terrorism
and criminal stuff,

it was always the State Department
and the CIA.

You were putting a lot on the line by

even bringing up these people
and doing this.

So for people who are on
the outside of this looking in,

what are the ways that they can start

to put some of these pieces together

from the sources that are
already out there?

Because a lot of these pieces
are on the table

and all they need to do is
to be put together.

So how do we start linking names
like this from the outside

with the publicly-available information
that we have?

As you said, with research.

For example, one of the things
I tried to do...

that's how we actually ended up

organizing ourselves as National
Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

What brought us together was,

I took that [9/11] commissioners' report.

And I said, "This is bull! "

And so many facts had been
intentionally omitted,

the ones that were given to them.

Or people were prevented by
the Commission themselves:

"Don't give us this fact. We are not
gonna interview you."

Time Magazine's Woman of the Year,
Colleen Rowley, right?

With Moussaoui, Zacarias Moussaoui
case:

2002, she became well-known.

Well, this was even before
9/11 Commission had started.

9/11 Commission didn't interview
Colleen Rowley.

They said they were not going to
interview her.

And, as you said, Robert Wright;
John Vincent.

So what I did was:

during my own case, I started meeting

and coming across these high-level

-- not like me, I was just a language
specialist in the FBI

for six, seven months --

these were the people with the FBI
for 25 years, 20 years:

high-level agents, senior agents,

whether it's DEA or the FBI.

Well, initially it was
10, 11, 12, 13 of us,

and before long there were like 70,
65-70 of us.

I said, "I'm going to go, I'm gonna say
there is a press conference."

"I'm gonna throw this in the trash can."

And I'm gonna tell the media that
I went to them; I took them documents;

I took them specific file information;
I took them names of witnesses

including informants, because
they have clearance

-- and these are the 9/11
Commission investigators,

they all had Top Secret clearance --

meaning that was when, inside a SCIF,

I could give them detailed information.

I would never, right now, talk about
some informant's name.

That would be nefarious,

Even if that person is a scumbag,
I'm gonna cause his death, or her death:

I'm not gonna do that.

I did it with 9/11 Commissioners,
because I went inside the SCIF;

and the protocol says,
"Look, they have clearance."

I can even give them the phone number,

the address of the informants
and everything.

So I did. It's not here;
it says, "deferred to the IG."

IG investigation was already
completely classified.

Well, all these agents joined me.

They said, "We want to do the
same thing."

So during that press conference

they all came and they stood
right next to me

and they did the same thing.

These are the senior agents:

FBI, DEA, Pentagon.

So that's... and I released the report

-- people can go and research --

and it lists their names. Whether...

there's Tony Shaffer with Able Danger

that nobody has an answer to this day;

whether it's John Vincent
and Agent Wright;

whether it's Colleen Rowley:

they're all on that list.

People who came and said,

"It's a huge cover-up. All this
information has been omitted."

And this information includes moles
in the FBI

from the CIA and the State Department.

It includes the terabytes of data
being destroyed.

It... and these people would testify
under oath.

As I said, these are not disgrunt--...

Agent Vincent: he retired from the FBI.

Nobody fired him. So nobody can come
and accuse this guy of,

"He's disgruntled because he's saying
that," or, "He's a whack-job."

Well, he's highly-decorated.

If he's a whack-job and you
decorated him highly,

there's something really wrong
with you. (laughs)

So, it's out there.

They can go, they can see.

And a lot of these cases include...

not "the lack of imagination."

(laughs)
-- that's what they said --

Or, "they couldn't connect the dots."

Or, "there were these walls and the
information was not being sh--";

"It was all bureaucratic incompetence,
bungling."

Did we have tons of bureaucratic bungling?

Oh, yeah!

Did any of these have anything to do
with bureaucratic bungling?

Oh, no! Absolutely no.

And they would tell you,

"Yes, there were State Department,
the CIA."

And even with the White House, it gets
very interesting;

because I know "the evil Bush"
we talk about a lot.

A lot of these...

-- that includes Agent Wright's case,
John Vincent's case --

took place in late 1990s, mid-1990s.

So you're looking at the Clinton
administration and Bush administration.

You're looking at a Democrat,
and you're looking at a Republican.

And so, it's not partisan.

It doesn't go only through two evils,
Cheney and Bush. It...

And this is very important
to talk about briefly here.

When I'm talking about this...

-- Gladio Plan B, these cases, Clinton,
Bush administration --

one of the biggest reasons I believe

a lot of people don't get it, and don't
want to get it...

-- and this is in the United States; with
most of our foreign viewers, that doesn't

seem to be the case as much; but
especially with the United States --

is, we are conditioned to look at things

as very classic "black hat guys,
and the guys in white hats."

Now, you get these guys in black hats
versus other guys in black hats?

It just doesn't go through.

It just... this automatic wall comes up,
and they're like,

"Uh, well, because... what the Russians
are doing is really bad;"

"And here's what Israel is doing,
and it's really bad;"

"And here's US. Here are these... the
State Department?"

"Democrats? Republicans? Clinton? Bush?"

"No!"

That doesn't fit our paradigm.
Because we have to say,

"PNAC, Bush and Cheney, versus
the good Democrats,"

"and they were the ones that did...
-- now, that's simple. That's easy."

"I can go for that. I can really put
my support behind that."

Including, like what you were
talking about with...

and this is Common Cause,

the NGO that was set up here,

the website during the
Bush administration.

It was Soros-funded.

It becomes very easy. And it's like,

"Give me the black hat guys"

"and tell me these are the white,"

"and I can follow you."

If you come

-- whether you're Sibel Edmonds
or if you're Colleen Rowley --

and you say,

"Yeah, but it involved this
administration,"

"this administration, this
administration;"

"Democrats and Republicans;
Allies and non-allies,"

then I'm gonna say it's crazy.

Then I'm gonna say it doesn't make
sense to me.

And it's always been this way.

And you have covered in your program

these episodes on education:

it is framed that way from the
beginning for us.

I mean, even with the test-taking.

One quick example would be,

Watergate incident and what
happened with Nixon.

There is this classic narrative.

And we have some good guys,

we have guys that we believe
they have white hats.

I mean, Bob Woodward was there,
Washington Post: they were fantastic.

They carried a lot of these.

It makes it very sexy;

it makes it very Hollywood-ish.

Imagine a Hollywood movie when you
don't have guys with white hats?

They're all black hat guys?

So, you want to give a test?
This is the classic you give them.

And there's one answer.

Because with those tests,

and multiple-options tests,

they can't say, "This, however..."

You can't put a "however" or "but."

You can't start bringing in some
critical-thinking elements and say,

"All right, now, it's interesting: "

"because look at Washington Post "

"before Watergate and long
after Watergate: "

"why there was such an
aberration there?"

What has -- really --
Bob Woodward done?

He's been the mouthpiece of White
Houses from Bush to Obama

and he has millions of dollars.

I went to his house in Georgetown:
he was one of the first reporters I...

I got introduced to during my case:
before, even, my case came out.

His kids are going to private schools:
he is the system.

He is the CIA's darling, OK?

And, Washington Post :
Iran-Contra, what did they do?

They had their opportun-- ...

if it was was the Washington Post
and reporters,

it happened during this time with
Watergate.

It didn't happen before;
it didn't happen after.

You see... because the classic way is,

you get people like Gary Webb
and Iran-Contra.

If you're a good reporter, you do your
job, that's what happens to you.

Not become a multimillionaire
scumbag Bob Woodward.

And then, looking at it this way

-- from this angle --

that makes you think and say,

"Really, let's look at Watergate."

And based on some of the documents
that have been, already, public;

based on some people who
have already talked:

Is it what they tell us it was about?

Was it true that there were
some elements

saying they wanted to see Nixon gone?

OK, they really...

Well, they wanted to get caught, at any
rate. I think that much is apparent from

...or someone in that operation wanted
to get caught, at some point.

And absolutely, they were handed
that story on a golden platter.

Unfortunately, we're running out of time;
and we've lost your video feed,

unfortunately, for those watching
the video of this.

So I hope you people will put up
with the frozen image.

But Sibel, let's...

in the final few minutes we have here
with you today, why don't we get to some

of the questions and comments that
came in from our last conversation?

We've had a lot of feedback from
people about it,

and I want to address some of these
people's questions and concerns.

For example, we had...

from someone called Errol E.:

he wrote in to take issue with some
of the things

that we brought up in the
last conversation,

including his contention that the idea

to implement the Islamist cults as actors
of Gladio did not come up

after the Susurluk scandal, but was
long prepared beforehand.

And I was wondering if you could
address that idea:

is there something to the fact that this
was something

that had already been in existence
before Susurluk?

And if so, then what was, really, the
changing incident there?

What really took place?

Of course! I mean, first you can start
with 1980s in Afghanistan,

With mujahideens and our partnership
with al-Qaeda...-- not al-Qaeda, actually:

because there's no such thing,
"al-Qaeda" --

with mujahideen and Bin Laden,
back then.

Then you're looking at all the
religious cults

-- even in Iran, OK?

That's another thing,

and that is for another program.

People, they say, "OK, Iran,
Islamic Revolution,"

but it's so much more into...

I was there;
my father was right in the thick of it.

It's not the story presented here.

First of all, there was no
"Islamic Revolution."

The initial revolution in Iran

was actually carried out, organized,

mainly by Social Democrats
and the leftists

-- the Hezb-e Tudeh.

But I'm not gonna get into that.

We have been doing that...

before us, the United Kingdom,

the Brits have been doing this.

This has been a classic approach, using...

-- and especially by the British Empire --

using religion.

So that part of it is not new.

And even some of these elements

early on in 1990s, sure.

But they were not prioritized,

and they did not become NATO's
-- Gladio's -- adopted new plan.

That is: were they being used by the
CIA? Yes.

Were they being used by the British
intelligence agencies? Absolutely.

But it was not prioritized.

And again, we have Gladio

-- and this is specifically Gladio --

going through the military
and ultranationalist factions.

It was after Susurluk when
NATO, Gladio adapted.

Because before that it was...

they were being implemented,
but not by NATO.

And it was not part of Gladio's operation.

It wasn't, absolutely it wasn't.

That became after Susurluk incident.

Then we have a question in from John S.

And he writes:
"When Dickerson and Grossman"

"were yanked home out of Turkey
following Susurluk,"

"it may seem very obviously linked to
that scandal, and I'm sure it totally is."

But how do we know? Or do we know?

"Again, how much is reasonable
conjecture and logical conclusion,"

"and how much is something more than
that: information statements, documents,"

"links to Gladio, et cetera?"

(Sibel): Sure. And again, part of
this question

is caused by... partly by the fact

of all the secrecy and classification.
That's one.

But then, for people not knowing the
whole picture

because they haven't looked at this case,
they haven't looked at this book...

because you start with Grossman
and with Dickerson.

However, later, they...
-- at least Grossman --

was part of the FBI's investigations.

And even though he was, first, number
three guy in the State Department,

and ended up being number two guy,

his job actually was with NATO

and these operations in Central Asia
and Caucasus.

And they don't know that.

The other thing that this question

-- the person who asked the questions --

is disregarding is...
with Dickersons, though,

he was sent to NATO, then to the
United States.

When my case case came out,

when he was under investigations,

when the court case was still proceeding

-- my court case --

and the Congress was at the beginning,

initial stage of its investigations:

even though the judge had banned him,

Dickerson got on the plane

and he said he has a new job,

he's going to NATO.

So he was sent to NATO Brussels:
he escaped, while under investigation.

And this was completely supported

by the Pentagon's Gladio division.

And then he went

-- and this would be end of August,
early September 2002 --

where did he end up? Brussels.

Where did he end up? NATO Brussels.

Not only that. One of the things...

-- again, if they had read my books,
they wouldn't even have this question --

one of the things that happened is...

first thing that happened,

before the FBI was stopped and I
became the target of retaliation,

there was a damage assessment
on the espionage

to see how much information
-- intelligence --

we had lost due to the spies in the FBI.

How much documents, and
informants' safety, et cetera.

Well, the top one, two, three, four...

the top four targets of the FBI within
this period

-- even though they still had more
official time left

from their official positions overseas --

they were removed. And they were
sent... -- not to Turkey:

they were sent to NATO.

I would ask them to look at

this very important guy, for example,

in Turkish consulate in Chicago

and Chicago consul.

Where did he end up?

Again, he had more left
-- more time left -- in his term.

However, he was given a very high-level
position in NATO in Brussels.

So you're looking at criminal top targets
who ended up in NATO

-- including Dickersons.

And so, that is not to take one or two
or three incidents

and say, "These people are there."

That's one. And the second thing is:

FBI's operations
-- counterintelligence --

has already established that.

I didn't call it Plan B.

The file that has to do with Grey Wolves

turned into Gladio Plan B operations.

And this is why...

this was the reason these investigations,
operations, had to be stopped

by the State Department and Pentagon.

And this was why they didn't want
any of these to proceed in courts.

Because they didn't want
anyone to know

that this was the operation...

they were carrying it out.

Including their operations together

with Bin Laden and the mujahideen:

part of the NATO operation.

OK, time for one more quick question.

We have a question from Emery:

"How does Sibel consider the
Ergenekon trials in light of Gladio?"

"What does she make of the claim
that it is a US-backed operation"

"to replace the secular
nationalist establishment"

"with a more pliant Islamic
capitalist establishment,"

"using the Gülen movement?"

Uh, 100 percent, I believe.

And anyone who knows and who
understands

and who is analyzing this objectively
would tell you:

Ergenekon is completely, 100 percent,
a US plan -- a US-backed plan.

Look, I will give a very quick example.

In 1997, this same administration,
Turkish regime,

the Turkish government, AKP government

-- which, these are all Gülen's guys:
Erdoğan and Gul;

the Islamic, current Islamic people --

they won the election.

And... in 1997, their party won
the majority,

both popular and... everything, right?

However, this was not exactly
during the time

the United States had switched
from the military secularists.

So the military in Turkey said,

"Too bad! They have the majority
of votes,"

"but we're not gonna let them
get into power."

So you know what they did, right?
The Turkish military shut down AKP.

They took Erdoğan; they put him in jail.

They said, "Vote doesn't matter."

"If you vote and it's not our guy who gets
the majority, we'll put them in court."

The military in Turkey can never,
ever, ever do anything...

-- they can't even pee --

without the permission from
the United States.

Same thing... I mean, this is no different

from the military under... in Egypt
under Mubarak.

The military regimes we install,
they are not answerable

to the Presidents or the kings
that we have installed.

They are answerable to the United
States: as simple as that.

Same thing with the Iran revolution

-- and I'm not gonna call it
"Islamic Revolution."

Shah's military, they all put
their guns down...

-- and I hate the Shah. He tortured
my father, OK?

Who told them to put down their guns?

Suddenly, boom! They put their...

and they told Shah he was on his own.

He escaped, and before he died,

Shah said, "It was the United States'
wish."

They said to the military,
"Don't support or protect him."

So, when the United States believe
you're fair game and it's over,

it's over, babe!

Now in this case, the military in 1997,
they said,

"You're not allowed with the green lights
from the United States." What changed?

Five years later, the same party
-- the same man --

gets the same number of votes.

And, lo and behold!
Nobody puts them in jail.

They get into power.

And starting within the first two,
three years,

they start picking the top...

-- not top military guys.
Military got divided:

those who were willing to go along with
the US NATO Operation Plan B,

including this administration;

and the segment that was still
ultranationalist and secularist.

And the United States gave the green
light, saying, "Go after them."

Without the United States giving the
green light

saying, "Yes, you can do it,"

no way you would see that!

And again, what kind of aberration are
we talking about?

Between 1997 and 2002,
the military got enlightened, and...

(laughs) and we had a real democracy.

This time, the ones who got the majority
in fact came into power.

That's the difference five years make.

Makes such a huge... (laughs)

Well, Sibel, I'm afraid time flies when
you're having fun and kicking butt

-- and we have had a lot of fun today.

So unfortunately, time is just about up.

And once again, this is a conversation

that is not going to end anytime soon, I
think; we have a lot more to discuss.

But is there any final things that you'd
like to leave people with

from what we've talked about today?

Uh, one quick final note.

And that's... it's so disheartening;
it's very disappointing.

Because, as I said: in the United States,

people are so conditioned

to frame their minds around
this "white hat, black hat."

And things are set up this way;

and when things are outside
that paradigm,

they just cannot absorb it.

And one of the unfortunate things and
disheartening things

that I have observed with some of the
comments is... it's...

and this destroyed the
9/11 Truth Movement.

There are people who are eating
each other within the movement.

It's like, "It's LIHOP!" "It's MIHOP!"

"If it's LIHOP, it can't be MIHOP,"

or "If it's MIHOP..."
Hop, hop!

It's... and they get into some semantics,

and they get into some...

and they are self-destroying.

I don't know how much of it is caused by
planted elements,

to have this division.

I don't know how much of it is the
natural course of...

I think it's devolving in some ways.

But I am attributing a lot of this
with this...

I guess, decades of
systemic conditioning,

for people to say,
"This is how you view the world;"

"this is how you view things; this is how
you answer."

"Buts" and "howevers," or "this and
also:"

we don't... we want to get rid of these.
The answer is either A, B, C, D:

LIHOP; MIHOP; No/Nothing;
Israel...

And they need to, first, put that away.

Open it up, take in the entire picture;
critically think about it.

And if they want to refuse a certain
theory or certain explanation, that's fine.

But it's very disheartening.

and I'm hoping that we will get

more and more people with open minds

watching this thing and thinking.

And first, get rid of all the
old conditionings.

And I know it's hard to do,

but it's very disheartening -- especially
for some of the journalists

and people who've been trying
very hard.

I know many whistleblowers have given
up because they got disgusted:

of being attacked, and their major
revelations being completely obscured

by some stupid
-- excuse my language --

really idiotic semantics and details.

And so, again, I encourage people
to put everything aside.

Absorb, and do your own research.

Because there's plenty out there
to see with this regard,

with what we are discussing today.

And that would be it for me for this
evening.

Well, I think that's very well-put,

and it's an apt description
of this conversation we're having.

Because I hope that this starts
to give people a view

of the broader, broader, broader picture;

because this is such a large thing

that it can't be put into one of those
little boxes

that, I think, makes it a neat little story
to tie everything together.

I think there's a lot of different
elements involved here.

It's a lot more complicated than many
people are giving credit for.

So I think we're going to have to continue
delving into this, piece by piece.

So that's going to do it for this
particular version of the conversation.

Once again, I do appreciate all the
comments and feedback I'm getting in

via the website; and as we continue this
conversation with Sibel, we will again

attempt to get to some of your questions
and comments. So keep them coming in,

and keep spreading the word
about this information,

but we'll leave it there for now. Sibel Edmonds, BoilingFrogsPost.com:

thank you, as always, for your time.

And thank you, James.

♪ (theme music) ♪
(James -- voiceover): This video

is brought to you by the subscribers
of BoilingFrogsPost.com.

For more information on this
and other topics,

please go to BoilingFrogsPost.com.

For more information and commentary
from James Corbett,

please go to CorbettReport.com.

[Captions by "Adjuvant"]
[CC-BY 4.0]