Bosnia Raid Yields al-Qaida Donor List

WASHINGTON - U.S. authorities recovered a list of 20 financiers they suspect funneled money to Osama bin Laden and others extremist Muslim causes among a cache of documents that provide insight into the financing of terrorism, an unsealed court record shows.

The seized documents are a "treasure trove" and among other things indicate al-Qaida military leaders were at times paid salaries from Muslim charity proceeds and purchased weapons with money from charity leaders, prosecutors said in the once-secret court filing.

Other evidence seized in March 2002 from the Bosnian offices of the Benevolence International Foundation, an Illinois-based Muslim charity, includes handwritten correspondence to and from bin Laden and documents detailing the origins, growth and expansion of his al-Qaida network in the 1980s and 1990s, the filing said.

Though the original documents remain secret, the prosecutor described their contents and English translations for the first time in the filing unsealed this month in the case of the head of the Muslim foundation who reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors in Chicago.

Enaam Arnaout pleaded guilty last week to illegally buying boots and uniforms for fighting forces in Bosnia and Chechnya under a deal in which prosecutors, in exchange for his cooperation, dropped charges that he aided bin Laden.

In a pretrial document known as a "proffer," prosecutors said handwritten documents scanned into computer formats in the Bosnia office included a file titled "Osama's history" that contained "a handwritten draft list of people referred to within al-Qaida as the 'Golden Chain,' wealthy donors to mujahedeen efforts."

"The list contained 20 names, and after each name a parenthetical indicating the person who received the money from the specified donor," the proffer said.

The list suggested at least seven of the donors gave directly to bin Laden, and six of the others were listed as giving to the founder of a Muslim charity, the court document said.

U.S. officials declined to identify any of the 20 donors, but said the list is one of several pieces of evidence the government has obtained since the war on terror began after Sept. 11 that identifies spigots of money that have financed bin Laden and Middle Eastern and Asian terrorists over the past two decades.

U.S. officials estimate they have frozen roughly $124.5 million in financial assets belonging to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, since the Sept. 11 attacks.

One letter found in the files instructed a charity leader to pay a monthly salary of 4,500 Saudi riyals each - about $1,200 - to two of al-Qaida's top military leaders. The letter establishes "that military commanders were salaried by the support organizations," the prosecutors said in the proffer.

Other documents discuss the purchases of weapons such as missiles, dynamite, fuses, rocket-propelled grenades and bayonets, the proffer stated.

The documents found in the charity's Bosnian office also chronicle the evolution of bin Laden's movement from support of the once U.S.-based muhajedeen warriors fighting Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to a global terror network that posed threats to the United States and rest of the Western world.

In one letter, an unidentified author writes to bin Laden asking for help for followers in the African country of Eritrea. The letter identifies as its top goal "facilitating the travel of the youth to the field of Jihad so they can benefit from the training possibilities, by providing them with tickets and entry visas," according to the government translation.

Another letter from bin Laden "explains the time has come for an attack on the Russians," the court documents said. Other correspondence describe money transfers and weapons purchases showing that al-Qaida often facilitates such transactions with a simple letter from bin Laden or a top lieutenant asking the recipient to provide money to the bearer of the letter.

For instance, one letter instructed the recipient to send 400,000 rupees of Pakistani money - about $7,200 - "to the owner of the weapon for delivery in Parachinar ... for security reasons," the proffer said.

Another used an alias to refer to bin Laden and his request that a charity leader "give 500,000 rupees to the man bearing the letter," the proffer said. That's about $9,000.

While most of the documents were a decade or more older, they provided U.S. authorities with significant insight into al-Qaida and helped confirm many suspicions about its finances, structure and evolution, U.S. officials said. Some details in the documents "were not known to the public," the proffer said.

Handwritten notes detail the original formation of al-Qaida, including minutes of an Aug. 11, 1988, meeting bin Laden held to discuss "the establishment of a new military group." Those notes record bin Laden's own statements on the efforts to recruit members from Saudi Arabia for his network and to raise money.

The notes quote bin Laden as saying "we took very huge gains from the country's people in Saudi. We were able to give political power to the mujahedeen, gathering donations in very large amounts, restoring power," the court document states.

And if you're going to insist on hewing to your "Pan Yugoslav" voting model, I'll shove the "Pan European" voting model back down your throat.

Yugoslavia was a souvereign and recognized state. The European Union does not resemble anything even close to a souvereign state and it's ridiculous to campare them. What would have been wrong with a Yugoslav referendum on Yugoslavia's future? All Yugoslav citizens within the borders of the only recognized entity, namely Yugoslavia, could have voted on Yugoslav soil on the future of Yugoslavia. That's democracy and the majority will get it's will. You don't call elections in the US and Germany "Pan American" or "Pan Germanic" don't you? The problem you have with it, is the fact that Serbs made up the largest voting block and thus a vote in favor to dismember Yugoslavia was very unlikely to succeed. That's why Tudman, Izetbegovic and Genscher rejected it as well. Like you do. But at the same time you insist on your "Pan Bosnian" voting model for the electorate in Bosnia.

That's democracy and the majority will get it's will.

Look at the 1981 census* for Yugoslavia and see how well your proposition holds up...

Serbs	8,140,000	36.3%
Croats	4.428,000	19.8%
Muslims	2,000,000	8.9%
Slovenes	1,754,000	7.8%
Albanians	1,730,000	7.7%
Macedonians	1,340,000	6.0%
'Yugoslavs'	1,219,000	5.4%
Montenegrins	579,000	2.6%
Hungarians	427,000	1.9%
Others	811,000	3.6%

If you add up all the nationalities who did leave Yugoslavia when given the chance, your pan Yugoslav plebescite doesn't look like such a great idea any more, does it?

The fact of the matter is that all of Yugoslavia did vote, albeit within their own Republics, and they didn't want to be a part of Serboslavia as envisioned by Milosevic. All your talk about democracy is a charade given the stake Milosevic drove through the heart of democratic principle in Yugoslavia when he rescinded the autonomy of Vojvodina and Kosovo while usurping those two votes in the federal government.

* Denitch, Ethnic Nationalism: The Tragic Death of Yugoslavia via Judah.

To change the constitution and that includes abolishing the country, reqires a 2/3 majority, not a simple 50% majority. That would have been the case, if you had asked the people to abolish the country. What if we turn it around, and ask them to preserve what they have. Thus a simple majority is enough, because there are no changes to the constitution at all.

Are you for preserving a sovereign, independent and strong Yugoslavia, a state of equal citizens, the peoples of Yugoslavia-- Muslims, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins and members of other nations -- living in it?

Just depends on what you ask the people to vote for. Why do you think members of other nations, except the Serbs, wouldn't have approved such a question?

The fact of the matter is that all of Yugoslavia did vote, albeit within their own Republics, and they didn't want to be a part of Serboslavia as envisioned by Milosevic.

The Bosnian Serbs and the Krajina Serbs obviously wanted to stay in Yugoslavia.

Split hairs all you like, Hoplite. Was not the RS, by definition, areas controlled by the SDS? Regardless, including whatever non-SDS members there were in the RS referendum would have made the same difference as if Serbs had voted in the Bosnian referendum - none. When the RS declared independence from Bosnia, it did the same thing that Bosnia did to Yugoslavia. You can support both or reject both, I really don't care. But there is no other way around it. End of story.

And before you start calling people "ethno-bigots", be careful of the stones you choose to throw Mr. I Don't Give a Rat's Ass About the Hundreds of Thousands of Serbs Cleansed from Krajina & Kosovo.

Now, please, elaborate on this "Pan European" nonsense. I'll even make it easy on you and open wide...

AAAAHHHHHHHHH....

Go ahead and shove away.

What would have been wrong with a Yugoslav referendum on Yugoslavia's future? All Yugoslav citizens within the borders of the only recognized entity, namely Yugoslavia, could have voted on Yugoslav soil on the future of Yugoslavia.

Well said, DEI.

However, that might have made things difficult for Mr. "Thank God my wife is not a Serb or a Jew" Tudjman and Mr. "Islamic Declarations (or was it Islamic Manifesto?)" Izetbegovic. And we couldn't have that, of course...

When the RS seceded, it began to murder and expel non-Serbs in order to create an ethnically pure state-

When Croatia seceded, it began to murder and expel non-Croats in order to create an ethnically pure state- as already attempted in WWII and finally achieved in 1995. In order to protect themselves from extermination, the Serbs had the legitimate right to establish the RSK and vote for secession.

Was not the RS, by definition, areas controlled by the SDS?

No. It was the areas that the SDS claimed, regardless of whether Serbs were a majority therein or not.

When the RS declared independence from Bosnia, it did the same thing that Bosnia did to Yugoslavia.

Wrong again - Bosnia didn't start to ethnically cleanse Serbs as the SDS was doing to non-Serbs because it wasn't based upon some whacked out racist worldview which should have been laid to rest after World War 2.

You can't get your facts straight, so your understanding of what happened in the Balkans will suffer accordingly, and that, Bob, is the end of the story.

Just a reminder, though, Bob - you live in my world, the real world, not your little fantasy one. Try to deal with it in a more mature and constructive manner than you are used to displaying in your interactions with me.

Krizni Stab WASP Opstine America?????

My,my,Parrot I am amazed with your command of Serbo-Croat language!Does it mean that I was always right thinking that you are of Croat orrigin?

No wonder you`re so zealously anti-Serb and so rude with other posters!

And,as far as the rest of you FReepers are concerned,any attempt to debate with this gentlaman should be considered as waist of time.Why are some of you repeating the same mistake all the time???

It was the areas that the SDS claimed...

Oh, you mean just like the newly created state of Bosnia was the area that Izetbegovic claimed, regardless of the wishes of the Serb population NOT to be a part of it? I get it now.

Bosnia didn't start to ethnically cleanse Serbs...

Oh no, Izetbegovic just wanted to sit down and have a picnic with the Serbs, right? Hmmm, then what do you think he meant in his Islamic Declaration, originally written in 1970 and then re-published in 1990, when he said such wonderful things as:

"There can be neither peace nor coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions."

Or what about...

"...the Islamic movement must and can, take over political power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non-Islamic power, but also to build up a new Islamic one..."

In what direction did he want to take Bosnia? Hmmm...

"Turkey as an Islamic country used to rule the world. Turkey as an imitation of Europe represents a third-rate country, the like of which there is a hundred in the world."

Gosh, those crazy evil Serbs didn't want to be a part of that. I can't imagine why...

Try that real world on for size, hypocrite.

What about the silent ethnic cleansing campaign of Serbs one or two yeasrs prior to 1991, that went unnoticed by you and the 'western' media? In places like Zagreb, Split, Sibenik, Zadar, Karlovac, Osijek, Vukovar and many more.

Sorry, you lose, you lost, and I'm tired of dealing with losers.

You declared yourself the winner again. Why such a childish behaviour?

Ouch, I think the spanking Hoplite received on this thread will prompt him to take his ball and go home. No room in the sandbox for a sore loser and a hypocrite, I can hear the crying now...

This was classic, I have never seen a cornered rat try so hard to claw their way out of a pickle as ferociously as Hoplite. Not ONCE did he directly answer bob808's question, branicap just nailed the coffin lid down with his accurate observation and I think old Hoppalong is all Hopped out! The rat will have to claw his way through that lid now!!!

Hoplite, this is what happens when you're a disingenuous boob!

Sorry, the Croats began cleansing the Serbs in a village just outside of Pakrac beginning in 1987, and militarily cleansed the Serbs in 1989. I have lost contact with Ms. G.D who was sent to the states to finish her school in 1987. I remember while home on leave talking to this cute high school girl from Serbia (Western Slavonia) who tells me her family was forced to leave. I did not understand th reason, as she didnt disclose to me what happened til 1992, when I began getting to know her well during our weekly trips to Hamilton and Toronto for Serbian food.

That is when G----ka told the entire story of how the Croats began marking homes with the Ustasa symbols and literally stoning the Serbian schoolkids enroute to school. Being punched, bruised and bloodied during their walks to school and home. It all stopped when the local Croatians armed and forced out the Serbs. Her brother and father returned to their village outside of Pakrac in 1991 with their Serbian neighbors, but this time, they brought their weapons and were organized. They went their and kicked out the Croats that were Ustase.

Their were Croats that stayed, and they stayed because they did not do anything to their Serbian neighbors accept allowing that cleansing to occur against their Serbian neighbors. Differance is, the Serbs disarmed and confiscated ALL weapons from non-Serbs to further prevent ANY acts of war against anyone else.

Kijevo was the first instance of ethnic cleansing in Croatia.
Sorry, you lose, you lost, and I'm tired of dealing with losers

I will brake my rule and reply to your post Parrot!

First of all,first refugees in Yugoslav Crissis were the Krajina Serbs that started arriving in Serbia in september 1990!That was 9 months prior to beggining of the war and fighting in Kijevo.You got that,Parrot?

I can also see that you play your usual game:a boxing match in which you`re the fighter and a referee at the same time!?You will decide when the fight is over and who is a winner!?Nice one,mate.

And,you`re tired of dealing with losers...So,why do you keep coming back,like a bad penny?Why don`t you go to bed and have a nice,looooooooooooooong sleep and dream of SuperDupe and his courvacious body!?After all,you two are a soulmates...and we all know what was a favourite Spartan/Greek past time,don`t we,Hoplite?

The Free Republic will be a much better,more intelligent place without you,rest assured.

If you didn`t understand what I am trying to say,I can post in Croatian.

PS.I am worried about you,Parrot:you didn`t mention Mladich& Karadzich for more than a week!Are you OK?

Lepo spavaj,Papagaj!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.