Podcast Interview- Sibel Edmonds on the U.S. Government’s Support for International Terrorism, Heroin & Organized Crime

Last week UK magazine Ceasefire published never- before-disclosed insights into how the Sunday Times investigative series was spiked under the direct pressure of interest groups tied to the US government. The groundbreaking and revelatory exposé is investigated and reported by bestselling author and analyst Dr. Nafeez Ahmed. Today Part I of my podcast interview series with Dr. Ahmed is published here.

In this podcast we discuss her case and feature a long in depth Skype- chat between Sibel Edmonds & Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. This is part one of a two part special hosted and edited by Dean Puckett deaddeanfilms.co.uk . Find more from Sibel at boilingfrogspost.com & find Nafeez’s articles and work at http://www.nafeezahmed.com. This podcast is brought to you by the team that made ‘The Crisis of Civilization http://crisisofcivilization.com/

Listen to the Podcast Interview Part I

Sibel Edmonds is the Publisher & Editor of Boiling Frogs Post and the author of the Memoir Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story. She is the recipient of the 2006 PEN Newman's Own First Amendment Award for her “commitment to preserving the free flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international isolation and increasing government secrecy” Ms. Edmonds has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Excellent podcast – thank you Sibel. I’m glad to see more coverage and interest in your narrative. Looking forward to Part II.

    Now I have to ask, and I really don’t want to ask, but could you please explain further what you meant, when you discussed HOP and all of the various who-done-it qualifiers?

    Here’s what I heard:
    a) HOP definitions are a distraction and should be avoided.
    b) You don’t see Made It Happen
    c) You see Let It Happen at the top few levels.

    Now, this goes against everything I have been arguing, based on the following statements from you:
    a) This was not blowback
    b) They were following orders from the US/NATO
    c) Look at the MO of Gladio B, when thinking about 9/11

    Some of these you said immediately following your statement about LIHOP.

    So, I don’t want to talk about HOP definitions. BUT, after saying you don’t either, you gave us your opinion that it was LIHOP and not MIHOP!

    Did I misunderstand? How can I reconcile your statements that this was not just useful blowback/useful terrorism/useful drug running/useful etc. with “I don’t see any Made It Happen”?

    The way I have come to understand the terrorism on 9/11, ever since your 1st interview with Corbett, regarding orchestration of terrorism via Turkey and the Gulen Movement, on Dec 2, 2011, is that the US/NATO are orchestrating terrorism (also in Gladio B series).

    I argue this against the statements of people like Webster Tarpley, who say Sibel is LIHOP. Maybe because you don’t talk about explosives etc. I argue that, because you talk about orchestration (funding, planning, logistics, protection), you are not to be labelled as LIHOP.

    Yes, HOP definitions should be avoided, but I have to follow up on your statements in this podcast, because I think they will drive further criticism about your narrative, especially from people who have not taken the time to listen to it.

    They should be avoided, primarily because of what you said right after you said they should be avoided!

    Sorry and thanks in advance for putting this to rest.

  2. @Xicha: It would take several pages to explain this, and avoid misunderstanding.

    The first step is to clarify who are we talking about? Is NATO US government? Are some of the top players, some former gov people, some outsiders, US gov? Maybe partly?

    Because there is no reason to have the concepts exclusive. Is it possible that a certain tier (made of outside & inside gov)made it happen (as they specifically and publicly stated the need-think PNAC and alike), while another tier let it happen-think top tier FBI, etc.?

    This is why I consider that discussion utterly damaging and self-defeating. It separates, thus, brings falsehood. Who said it had to be either or? Unless the executors are definitively and in detail named (with evidence), one cannot separate the two. Until then, both arguments ring true, while neither argument is absolute/correct.

    Hope this short answer to a very loaded question does not lead to further misunderstanding. People must get out of narrow labels- must broaden the view point in order to take in the macro truth.

  3. Well said. Thanks!

    I’m sorry that I thought I had to point out that I thought your statements in the podcast might lead to confusion, even though you prefaced them.

    This clears it up nicely and I totally agree that no one needs to be pigeonholed into those narrow definitions.

  4. Incredible.

    Sibel, a question please: what is the earliest instance that you’re aware of of bin Laden and/or al Zawahiri et al, as refering to themselves as “al Qaeda”? There’s a point to this question and the need for some precision, but I’d rather hold onto the reason just yet. Adam Curtis in ‘Power of Nightmares’ seems to indicate that it was only after 9/11. Thanks so much if you — or anyone else — can help with this.

  5. Good question, PeterM. BTW, I seem to remember the MSM repeating the story of how theUS trained and funded the Mujihadeen for use in Afghanistan in the 80’s and how that relationship had ended. They talked about it quite often, shortly after 9/11, probably while they were making the transition to al qaeda and educating/training the public to use the new terminolog. After this was accomplished, of course, they didn’t think it was necessary to bring up that dirty laundry any more.

    PS – Sibel, how about “OmniHOP”? IHOP?

  6. Bill Bergman says:

    Sibel, your answer to the first post rings the bell, not that it hasn’t been rung already, for an honest investigation. Who does this? How? Under what authority? How do we get there?

  7. Bill, agree absolutely. Sibel’s sage and direct rejection of a simple either/or paradigm is a key understanding and a further clue.

  8. gogetem says:

    @Peter M.

    I just recently read an old newspaper article about Osama bin Laden just after the Embassy bombings (in ’98) and there was no mention of Al Qaeda.

  9. Sibel, I need to follow up on your last comment to me. After listening to the interview again, I noticed that for most of the interview it was quite clear who/what you were talking about. You were very adamant about the fact of US official involvement, until the end of the interview, when you started talking about your frustrations with other truther types, and then backed away from US involvement as a known fact.

    I have to say that I found this very confusing. Your comment helps, but I still find it inconsistent with the majority of the interview.

    I won’t say any more about this, as it probably is frustrating for you – that’s not my intention.


    “The first step is to clarify who are we talking about? Is NATO US government? Are some of the top players, some former gov people, some outsiders, US gov? Maybe partly?
    Because there is no reason to have the concepts exclusive. Is it possible that a certain tier (made of outside & inside gov)made it happen (as they specifically and publicly stated the need-think PNAC and alike), while another tier let it happen-think top tier FBI, etc.?”
    most troubling
    most important of state secrets priv case
    tying directly to 9/11

    the prev shut down investigations (by early 2002)
    produced evidence that made it very clear, that we, the us,
    up to the time of 2001, up to 9/11, we had very close, joint operations
    with Ayman Zawahiri, with Bin Laden … several Bin Ladens, including OBL
    (high level us officials had) meetings in baku, azerbaijan
    at least 3 or 4, 2 with zawahiri
    included prince bandar
    last one in 1999 in us embassy in baku

    one was highest level turkish nato general
    very high level religious figure

    this made the entire thing with 9/11 and what the government was saying completely moot.
    29:25 NA says what Sibel brings up is probably the biggest scandal in US history
    one of sibel’s fbi supervisors describes the scandal as bigger than watergate

    documented evidence, gathered through counterintel,
    hard evidence that not cia let muja do that. we officially official capacity met with them all the way until 2001. objective of meetings was part of wider operations linked to mujahideen. in 97/98 ops involved a lot of people trained in turkey nato airplanes took them to bosnia/kosovo. they came from official turkish nato planes to eastern block in europe. balkans focus and some chechen in 97 98

    1999 azerb became a hub organizing smaller religious factions using gulen and 350 madrasas. us nato turkey strong english lang dept in madrasas. 100’s of american eng teachers in gulen madrasas with diplomatic passports. done through official channels. not “us saw muja and said we like that” planning to implementation were all taking place in wash dc. fully communicated with turkish arm of nato. was not the case of enemy’s enemy is our friend – that was not the case – other fbi agents would have testified to this if invited. didn’t happen becaues congress was gagged. courts were shut down.

  10. Xicha

    I’d suggest that you might consider the purpose and process of compartmentalization. “It is complex, but it is also very simple.”

  11. Thanks PeterM. I have no trouble with the concept of compartmentalization. I would never suggest that everyone from government, for instance, was “in on it”.

    I’m not sure that you are getting the point I was making. I felt that Sibel’s comments were, probably unintentionally, labelling official government participation as a fact for most of the interview, and as unknown during her comments about her frustration with various truth researchers.

    Although I think I have a good grasp of Sibel’s narrative, I am poiting out what I see as an inconsistency, in order to help clarify and defend against the perceptions and labels which have been applied to her by her detractors. I hope that my comments can be seen in this positive light and not as some kind of picture of my own bubble being burst.

  12. Xicha

    “…labeling official government participation as a fact…”

    Could not happen w/out some inside help, some pirates and some patsies. That’s as accurate as I understand it. Sibel has contributed greatly in understanding motive, means and opportunity.

  13. Hi PeterM,

    Sibel has stated many times, and I think you will find her saying it in the Gladio Series, that the US has orchestrated EVERY major terrorist event, from the mid-1990’s until at least a few months after 9/11.

    In a nutshell.

  14. Maybe this is my bubble bursting. I am getting a little dizzy actually.

  15. Bill Bergman says:

    If an extraordinary increase in billions of dollars of hundred dollar bills in circulation in July and August 2001 overlaps with Sibel’s story, as seems possible/probable, and even if it doesn’t overlap with Sibel’s story, it still seems worth investigating, including why it hasn’t been investigated. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/03/23/a-911-paper-trail/

Speak Your Mind