zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,891
- 31,410
- 146
sure...gl finding a CIA source that won't be mentioned anonymously. Have you ever read real journal/news article before? You seem unprepared for the world...
This includes an anonymous CIA source (as you will always see in print), who gives information backed up by a named government official.
Wait a minute. Wasn't it your Criminal In Chief who said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror?" Looks like Al Qaeda can be with us AND against us at the same time, on our dime, if the Nitwit In Chief says so. :shocked:
Considering that Sy Hersh is a respected Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist publishing in a well established periodical, and considering the Bushwhackos' continuous history of lies, miscalculations and outright stupidity over the last six years, doesn't it raise at least a little curosity about the possiblity that it's true? :roll:
I'll tell you what... I agree that the charges raised by Sy Hersh should be investigated to confirm the truth. Doesn't that mean you should agree that the complete truth about the Bushwhackos' lies and crimes should also be brought to light?
I'll be interested in your answer to that.
Just curious .. all the arming and training of terrorist by the U.S...
who is usually in power? Democrats or Republicans?
who is usually in power? Democrats or Republicans?
I think, palehorse, that your defense of the Bushistas is a little misguided, particularly when attempting to turn it into an attack on Iranian involvement in Iraq. In the examples I cited above, American equipment and training was ubiquitous, including shoulder fired AA missiles, the most advanced at the time... few American units even had them, but the mujahedin did...
If the Iranians are, indeed, arming Iraqi factions, then it's the Shia, the allies of the current govt, our pals... and it's at a much, much lower level than what Reagan illegally provided to the Contras... wherein Ollie North&Co got the money by selling arms to the Iranians, anyway...
The possibilities of duplicity are near endless, given that it's the middle east, and that the Bush Admin is involved... I don't pretend to really know what's going on, but the likelihood that the Bush Admin is giving us an accurate representation is extremely remote. I'm not sure, at this point, that they're even capable of telling the truth... one of those situations where, having lied, the perps actually believe it themselves.
If the Iranians are, indeed, arming Iraqi factions, then it's the Shia, the allies of the current govt, our pals... and it's at a much, much lower level than what Reagan illegally provided to the Contras... wherein Ollie North&Co got the money by selling arms to the Iranians, anyway...
The possibilities of duplicity are near endless, given that it's the middle east, and that the Bush Admin is involved... I don't pretend to really know what's going on, but the likelihood that the Bush Admin is giving us an accurate representation is extremely remote. I'm not sure, at this point, that they're even capable of telling the truth... one of those situations where, having lied, the perps actually believe it themselves.
So I take it you admit he's been telling the truth about the Bushwackos and their mad schemes and lies for years.
Welcome back to planet Earth. It's about time you woke up. :sun:
Show us your Pulitzer prizes and all of your excellent reporting, and we'll consider whether you actually have anything to say beyond pissing in the wind because your Bushwhacko chickenhawk heros are being outed for the liars, murderers and traitors they are. :roll:
Gates. He's "no expert" on anything. What an idiot.
"I'm no expert on (fill in the blank)...BUT...."
All of this is a moot point. You don't run a Shia Police State for 25 years and suddenly get overthrown by the "grand schemes" of the most incompetent US administration in decades.
The US spy agencies are terrible when it comes to working in the Middle East. Too many years of spying on the Soviets with big, expensive electronics and not enough human intel. And even with our sophisticated sensors, remember the dearth of knowledge about Iraq, even though we flew over 2/3rds of the country for 10 years pre-invasion undisputed? Entities like the insurgents and terrists in Iraq and Afghanistan rely on couriers and tribal bonds rather than interceptable communications or neat little Jack Bauer style meetings.
As soon as it becomes apparent that some ridiculous fringe insurgent groups in Iran are being backed by the US, the Iranian people will rally around their rulers. The Iranian people, loath as some may be to be under Shiara law, do not want their nation totally raped by Bush in some half-assed Iraq Part II.
The US spy agencies are terrible when it comes to working in the Middle East. Too many years of spying on the Soviets with big, expensive electronics and not enough human intel. And even with our sophisticated sensors, remember the dearth of knowledge about Iraq, even though we flew over 2/3rds of the country for 10 years pre-invasion undisputed? Entities like the insurgents and terrists in Iraq and Afghanistan rely on couriers and tribal bonds rather than interceptable communications or neat little Jack Bauer style meetings.
As soon as it becomes apparent that some ridiculous fringe insurgent groups in Iran are being backed by the US, the Iranian people will rally around their rulers. The Iranian people, loath as some may be to be under Shiara law, do not want their nation totally raped by Bush in some half-assed Iraq Part II.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Iran Contra in reverse? Oh wait the Nicaraugian government is actually led by a coalition of Daniel Ortega and a conservative. They wouldn't support the plan.
Seriously though, people all at least tacitly support those who actively seek thier own agenda. No matter whether they themselves would ever do such a thing.
Seriously though, people all at least tacitly support those who actively seek thier own agenda. No matter whether they themselves would ever do such a thing.
*yawn*
Your obsession is showing up again. I advise counseling.
I believe some refer to this as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Seriously, what do you want the administration to do? Sit back and let Iranians do as they please?
It's much more beneficial to keep them busy on their own territory.
Sure, removing Saddam was probably a mistake when viewed in the short term -- and I say this only because I know you & others will fall back to this argument -- but fact is that the USA is there now, and we have to make the best of it, and that is getting Iraq to function as a democratic country to a certain extent.
Either that, or get out and let them fight it out once and for all.
Some politicians never learn. Aren't people familiar with recent US history?? I am amazed at this stupidity.
dna said:
And so is "your" obsession "showing". It is completly plausible that Isreal would support or "look the other way" if money was funneled to extremist sunni groups in the hope of provoking shia Hezbollah and Iran into a fight, and from getting any control or any more of a political foothold in Lebanon.
So save your sophomoric rants on Isreals "angelic" exsistance in the ME
Say what you want about Hersh. He is not the issue.
Again it's completly plausible the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte's decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept the position of deputy secretary of state.
Its also plausible that all along the real enemy has been in Saudi Arabia. Specifically the Wahhabist and Salafist Sunni radicals with close ties to Al Qaeda. Groups the Saudi government has been paying off for years, with the money they get from *us* for their oil!
We can't point the finger at the radical groups inside Saudi Arabia, because if we did that, the money trail leads straight back to the Saudi Royals.. and then what?. Our government in cahoots with a State that supports terrorists inside its own borders, with OUR money.
You follow the thugs, and you get a few low-level runners. You follow the money, you never know WHERE you'll end up.
And that is the story of our latest middle-eastern imperial advanture. We can't follow the money, because if we did, we would end up in places we cannot afford to go...like the King's palace in Riyadh..
Actually, it could be more complicated than that.
The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family's myriad princes.
The Saudi's internal relationship is a rough analogy with what keeps the GOP together--an unholoy alliance of God and Mammon. (Ralph Reed, anyone?)
The only difference is that the worst that ever happens with Bushco is that Harreit Meiers goes down in flames. The worst that ever happens with the Saudis is that 1000 foot buildings go down in flames.
The flip side of the right wing demonization of lpeoples over trivial stuff like some random blog comments wishing Cheney were dead is the intense internal cognitive dissonance between their own patriot and traitor identities, which can be found in all their friends as well. Friends such as Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia.
Reads like the History of the Peloponnesian War. As with Thucydides, the Athenians have mistaken themselves for the Spartans. No good can come of that. Chickenhawk doesn't even begin to describe the malady, or hint at its consequences for any of us currently residing below the Acropolis.
The schizophrenia in the Saudis is not so surprising: they are a royal family, which has certain common traits throughout history. One of the most essential is that, since legitimacy is at point of arms and associated with genealogy, there is a constant strain between senior and junior scions, both within the ruling family, and between that family and their lesser cousins.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Al-Qaeda funding is coming from elements of the royal family hoping for a revolution, which they hope to control and use to replace the current head. A risky move, but one that isn't at all unusual in these situations. Remember, many of the folks behind the French revolution were aristocrats themselves.
The Saudi royal family has been essentially bribing the radical Sunni groups in the Kingdom for many, many years. This is so commonplace, it's hardly worth mentioning. The Saudi royals share the oil money, and the radical groups don't take them down. That's the deal.
However, that bribery has had consequences. It's allowed the most distorted forms of fundamentalist Islam to flourish, unopposed, uncontradicted, inside the Kingdom.
Most, if not all, of the 9/11 attackers either came from the Kingdom, or were indocrinated by dogma originating in the Kingdom, and it's hardly worth noting that Bin Laden himself is a Saudi, part of a very wealthy family there, and part of the wealth he used to support his operations came from his family, through inheritance. The rest of the money to support Al Qaeda comes largely from Saudi backers. That much has been clear for a long time.
And so is "your" obsession "showing". It is completly plausible that Isreal would support or "look the other way" if money was funneled to extremist sunni groups in the hope of provoking shia Hezbollah and Iran into a fight, and from getting any control or any more of a political foothold in Lebanon.
So save your sophomoric rants on Isreals "angelic" exsistance in the ME
Say what you want about Hersh. He is not the issue.
Again it's completly plausible the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte's decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept the position of deputy secretary of state.
Its also plausible that all along the real enemy has been in Saudi Arabia. Specifically the Wahhabist and Salafist Sunni radicals with close ties to Al Qaeda. Groups the Saudi government has been paying off for years, with the money they get from *us* for their oil!
We can't point the finger at the radical groups inside Saudi Arabia, because if we did that, the money trail leads straight back to the Saudi Royals.. and then what?. Our government in cahoots with a State that supports terrorists inside its own borders, with OUR money.
You follow the thugs, and you get a few low-level runners. You follow the money, you never know WHERE you'll end up.
And that is the story of our latest middle-eastern imperial advanture. We can't follow the money, because if we did, we would end up in places we cannot afford to go...like the King's palace in Riyadh..
Actually, it could be more complicated than that.
The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family's myriad princes.
The Saudi's internal relationship is a rough analogy with what keeps the GOP together--an unholoy alliance of God and Mammon. (Ralph Reed, anyone?)
The only difference is that the worst that ever happens with Bushco is that Harreit Meiers goes down in flames. The worst that ever happens with the Saudis is that 1000 foot buildings go down in flames.
The flip side of the right wing demonization of lpeoples over trivial stuff like some random blog comments wishing Cheney were dead is the intense internal cognitive dissonance between their own patriot and traitor identities, which can be found in all their friends as well. Friends such as Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia.
Reads like the History of the Peloponnesian War. As with Thucydides, the Athenians have mistaken themselves for the Spartans. No good can come of that. Chickenhawk doesn't even begin to describe the malady, or hint at its consequences for any of us currently residing below the Acropolis.
The schizophrenia in the Saudis is not so surprising: they are a royal family, which has certain common traits throughout history. One of the most essential is that, since legitimacy is at point of arms and associated with genealogy, there is a constant strain between senior and junior scions, both within the ruling family, and between that family and their lesser cousins.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Al-Qaeda funding is coming from elements of the royal family hoping for a revolution, which they hope to control and use to replace the current head. A risky move, but one that isn't at all unusual in these situations. Remember, many of the folks behind the French revolution were aristocrats themselves.
The Saudi royal family has been essentially bribing the radical Sunni groups in the Kingdom for many, many years. This is so commonplace, it's hardly worth mentioning. The Saudi royals share the oil money, and the radical groups don't take them down. That's the deal.
However, that bribery has had consequences. It's allowed the most distorted forms of fundamentalist Islam to flourish, unopposed, uncontradicted, inside the Kingdom.
Most, if not all, of the 9/11 attackers either came from the Kingdom, or were indocrinated by dogma originating in the Kingdom, and it's hardly worth noting that Bin Laden himself is a Saudi, part of a very wealthy family there, and part of the wealth he used to support his operations came from his family, through inheritance. The rest of the money to support Al Qaeda comes largely from Saudi backers. That much has been clear for a long time.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I'd have to agree that this is quite a stretch.
I mean, I can buy that this has been bandied about as a possible policy avenue, because that's what the Pentagon does - discuss every single possible strategy. But realistically, both in the political and operational sense, this is impossible for two reasons:
1. You could simply never get the political capital to pull this off. If the public found out the U.S. was funding terrorism, it'd be the end of that government.
2. You couldn't put the pieces together for this operation. The biggest problem operationally on this war on terror is that terror groups are notoriously hard to penetrate and/or befriend. It's not about to happen here.
I imagine that people will refute this thread with the same kind of logic that is used to purport the 9/11 conspiracy theory (not that they're the same thing, just a comparison), so I'll just reiterate that I find this incredibly implausible and leave it at that. I'm confident the level-headed among us will agree with me.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To yllus---who writes---If Secretary Gates isn't an expert on the topic at hand, nobody is. Get a grip.
Rumsfeld and Cheney have almost equally impressive resumes---and get a grip---the only thing they seems expert at is being legends in their own minds---its one thing to know a thing or two in a given area, its a totally different thing to come up with a plan that can be implemented without backfiring bigtime.---and Gates has a past history of doctoring intel---so far he has done little impressive--and my jury on him is still out.---only time will tell.
Rumsfeld and Cheney have almost equally impressive resumes---and get a grip---the only thing they seems expert at is being legends in their own minds---its one thing to know a thing or two in a given area, its a totally different thing to come up with a plan that can be implemented without backfiring bigtime.---and Gates has a past history of doctoring intel---so far he has done little impressive--and my jury on him is still out.---only time will tell.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Vice President Cheney is by all accounts quite brilliant, even if he is overly hawkish (an opinion of him expressed in not so many words by retired General Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, and James Horner). Ex-Secretary Rumsfeld also has his areas of expertise, namely managing the bureaucracy and, ironically, diplomacy.
Secretary Gates, however, specifically worked in the CIA as DDCI, DCI, served on the National Security Council, and likely had his fingers in the Iran-Contra scandal. For decades. The guy probably picked up more about this specific topic around the company water cooler than you and I combined will ever know. This is fairly obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in bashing one party or the other.
Lastly, you really, really must learn to use the quote feature of these forums.
Secretary Gates, however, specifically worked in the CIA as DDCI, DCI, served on the National Security Council, and likely had his fingers in the Iran-Contra scandal. For decades. The guy probably picked up more about this specific topic around the company water cooler than you and I combined will ever know. This is fairly obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in bashing one party or the other.
Lastly, you really, really must learn to use the quote feature of these forums.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter