Thank you for the data, some of which, I'll say with qualification, was new to me. I would say information but it took a lot of wading through unrelated and tangentially related links to find what you are talking about.
I recommend reading the book (Ian Johnson's A Mosque In Munich: Nazis, The CIA, And The Rise Of The Muslim Brotherhood In The West) because it is the first (and, AFAIK, so far only) study where all the "tangentially related links" are explained in context. Johnson did an excellent job of perusing West German and newly declassified CIA documents, as well as tracking down and interviewing surviving participants of the events. It is not something you can credibly explain in one post.
I guess I don't understand the writer's, or your, focus on the fact they were Muslim when the CIA, and adversarial intelligence agencies generally recruit opportunistically from any disaffected groups.
Because that is what the book is about. Specifically, about the history of the Islamic Center of Munich, regularly attended by Mahmoud Abouhalima, the 1993 WTC bomber, and Al Qaeda co-founder and bin Laden mentor Mamdouh Mahmud Salim. I don't know what you are trying to imply. As suggested previously, read the book.
"Because that is what the book is about." Is your intention to promote a book? I thought it was to make a point was about US alliances and supporting for terrorists and other unsavoury types going back a long time.
That argument would only be stronger if you left it broad by including US support for Catholic Guatemalan dictators and Italian fascists, Protestant White South Africans, Orthodox fascists during the Greek civil war or useful nazis generally. These all predate 1957 but instead you single out Muslim groups to make a more narrow point? I'm just wondering if you have something against Muslims.
