U.S. sent Hamas $$$ in late 90s

[DukeFan21]

Text

WASHINGTON - While President Clinton was trying to broker an elusive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the FBI was secretly funneling money to suspected Hamas figures to see if the militant group would use it for terrorist attacks, according to interviews and court documents.

 

[KenGr]

Before anyone gets carried away on this one before carefully reading the story, here is the more relevant quote that explains what was going on

Several thousand dollars in U.S. money was sent to suspected terror supporters during the operation as the FBI tried to track the flow of cash through terror organizations, the FBI said in a rare acknowledgment of an undercover sting that never resulted in prosecutions.

Sounds like a good idea that, unfortunately, didn't work out. NEVER just read the headlines.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Trafficant was conducting a 'sting' operation, too.

 

[tnitsuj]

Yeah so what? Sounds like they were trying to track down terrorist financing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

WEll, the "so what" here is the fact that most people on this board would all over this like vultures on roadkill if this has happened during Bush's watch. So yes - the silence is deafening

CkG

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
WEll, the "so what" here is the fact that most people on this board would all over this like vultures on roadkill if this has happened during Bush's watch. So yes - the silence is deafening CkG

Maybe, but I'd like to think not. Its a great attention seeking title, but the story is a non-starter in the controversy stakes

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
WEll, the "so what" here is the fact that most people on this board would all over this like vultures on roadkill if this has happened during Bush's watch. So yes - the silence is deafening CkG

Maybe, but I'd like to think not. Its a great attention seeking title, but the story is a non-starter in the controversy stakes

Right

I can't believe you think that the left wouldn't be jumping all over this if it happened under Bush's watch. You'd all be screaming conspiracy or some BS, but since it's good 'ol Bubba - you keep mum, cuz he's the left's hero. BOBDN, and the rest would be having a cow about this. I know the FBI's intent most likely was genuine - but that still doesn't mean it is a non-starter, because it seems to show that our intel agencies have blundered things before....under other people's watch. What about that terrorist stock market thing - what happened to that? Good intentions, but the left got their panties in a bunch - plus it never actually happened, as it was only in the idea stage. This actually happened - we funded the "terrorists" on purpose...

I'm sure this'll get spun into being Bush's fault somehow though...it just might take a day or two for the left to get on board with the story.

CkG

 

[dpm]

I can appreciate why you think so, and there are certainly enough loonies about, but this was an open and shut case - inflammatory headline on story that explains it was a legitimate effort. Even if it was George W in charge at the time, I don't think this would be a big thing.

btw, what was the deal with that terrorist stock market thing anyway? I never did find out exactly what it was about.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
WEll, the "so what" here is the fact that most people on this board would all over this like vultures on roadkill if this has happened during Bush's watch. So yes - the silence is deafening CkG

Maybe, but I'd like to think not. Its a great attention seeking title, but the story is a non-starter in the controversy stakes

Right

I can't believe you think that the left wouldn't be jumping all over this if it happened under Bush's watch. You'd all be screaming conspiracy or some BS, but since it's good 'ol Bubba - you keep mum, cuz he's the left's hero. BOBDN, and the rest would be having a cow about this. I know the FBI's intent most likely was genuine - but that still doesn't mean it is a non-starter, because it seems to show that our intel agencies have blundered things before....under other people's watch. What about that terrorist stock market thing - what happened to that? Good intentions, but the left got their panties in a bunch - plus it never actually happened, as it was only in the idea stage. This actually happened - we funded the "terrorists" on purpose...

I'm sure this'll get spun into being Bush's fault somehow though...it just might take a day or two for the left to get on board with the story.

CkG

The terrorist stock market thing was universally jumped on by lawmakers from ALL parties. Even the White House couldn't run away from it any faster once they found out about it. It wasn't really a partisan thing, but an OMG I CAN"T BELIEVE THEY ACTUALLY CAME UP WITH THAT THING!


I am pretty sure the FBI is running similar types of operations now, we just don't know about it. I have a hard time believing that normal people would be running around screaming conspiracy at legitimate intelligence gathering operations. Following the money is a legitimate tool of law enforcement and intelligence.

 

[EXman]

We tried to give $ to a known terrorist from the FBI under the Clinton watch... All I can say is that is fvcked up if all you bleading heart Libs heard that Bush did this you'd be looking for a cross to put him on.

This was just a BAD idea gone right (money never got to the Hamas leader) this is really indefensible if Bush had done It I'd still say it was wrong.

 

[rjain]

Um, terror futures aren't needed are are a dumb idea. Few legislators disagreed with that point. Insurance companies insure against disaster just fine, thanks.

 

[Nitemare]

Moral of the story...


Blame Bush

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
WEll, the "so what" here is the fact that most people on this board would all over this like vultures on roadkill if this has happened during Bush's watch. So yes - the silence is deafening

CkG

The difference is Bush is a dumbass and Clinton wasn't!

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: KenGr
Before anyone gets carried away on this one before carefully reading the story, here is the more relevant quote that explains what was going on

Several thousand dollars in U.S. money was sent to suspected terror supporters during the operation as the FBI tried to track the flow of cash through terror organizations, the FBI said in a rare acknowledgment of an undercover sting that never resulted in prosecutions.

Sounds like a good idea that, unfortunately, didn't work out. NEVER just read the headlines.

"in never worked" or they didnt use the money for terrorism?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: rjain
Um, terror futures aren't needed are are a dumb idea. Few legislators disagreed with that point. Insurance companies insure against disaster just fine, thanks.

While morally wrong, the 'terror futures' idea served two purposes, in my opinion.

The first purpose was illustration of an open predictor or public system that one might measure for specific significant activity of a damaging nature. Whether or not this open predictor was subject to collusion or manipulation is obviously another question.

Secondly, and most importantly, the 'terror futures' symbolized a legitimate wager that monetarily condemned specific regions of the world for their own shortcomings.

Rag on Poindexter and DARPA all you want. The idea was sound. The morality, however, was not.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

..not to mention that gambling markets like this are very efficient, economically speaking.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: burnedout

The first purpose was illustration of an open predictor or public system that one might measure for specific significant activity of a damaging nature. Whether or not this open predictor was subject to collusion or manipulation is obviously another question.

There was heavy options trading in airline stocks in early Sept 2001. We already have the system we need, if the government cares to pay attention. Do you really think terrorists will be so stupid as to use this system to tell the world that they're about to strike? Who the hell would ever speculate one way or the other as far as terrorist activity goes? It's such a low-probability, high-risk event that you'd get totally washed out if you made any significant, incorrect bet on it. Those who can afford the risk are called insurers, and they already offer their services to the public in an open market.

Secondly, and most importantly, the 'terror futures' symbolized a legitimate wager that monetarily condemned specific regions of the world for their own shortcomings.

Huh? How would this condemn regions of the world? If they don't want to waste their money playing this lottery, they don't need to.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: rjain

There was heavy options trading in airline stocks in early Sept 2001. We already have the system we need, if the government cares to pay attention. Do you really think terrorists will be so stupid as to use this system to tell the world that they're about to strike?

Who in the hell says that people or speculators who suspect such activity won't? Who says portfolio managers would not hedge positions?

Who the hell would ever speculate one way or the other as far as terrorist activity goes?

Obviously one hell of a lot of speculators were interested before the program was cancelled.

It's such a low-probability, high-risk event that you'd get totally washed out if you made any significant, incorrect bet on it.

Depends on the hedge and exposure.

Those who can afford the risk are called insurers, and they already offer their services to the public in an open market.

And those who wish to bet in such a manner are called speculators.

Huh? How would this condemn regions of the world? If they don't want to waste their money playing this lottery, they don't need to.

Did you even see the matrixes for the futures activity shortly before the program was cancelled?