"Eventually, “things ground to a halt,” the other former officer said, because no one could come to agreement on the projects.
They also faced strong opposition from James Pavitt, then head of the agency’s Operations Division, and his deputy, Hugh Turner, who “kept throwing darts at it.”
The ideas were patently ridiculous, said the other former agency officer."
"Eventually, “things ground to a halt,” the other former officer said, because no one could come to agreement on the projects.
They also faced strong opposition from James Pavitt, then head of the agency’s Operations Division, and his deputy, Hugh Turner, who “kept throwing darts at it.”
The ideas were patently ridiculous, said the other former agency officer."
I find it disconcerting that that is all you and Jazzy manage to take away from such a detailed post.
I thought this was a legitimate debunking site but you do not appear to want to discuss issues which do not suit your position.
The disclosure shows, if the source is accurate and it appears to be, that the CIA made a fake video of bin Laden... with others around a camp fire, for disinformation and demonisation purposes and planned to do similar with Saddam.
It shows intent and ability.
The fact that that particular video was 'killed off' because it was patently ridiculous... i.e. was so badly done that even they, (CIA), could not see it being in the least believable, does not show that they did not make others, inc his 'confessional tape'. On the contrary, it underpins that they, (or their colleagues) are the likeliest of sources for the fake bin laden tapes that did surface at key opportune times.
The 'confessional tape is still patently ridiculous but they obviously thought that would convince enough of the sheeple that it was worth putting out... and it appears to have done just that even though bin laden, in an allegedly authorised tape of huge import, is always in shadow, looks nothing like him and the debunking site that tries to authenticate the tape stoops to saying... 'notice how bin laden has to duck under the doorway and everyone knows he is tall so it must be him'. I suppose they have acceptable and unacceptable degrees of ridiculousness in the CIA.
Bin Laden makes an extremely good point IMO, that if it was proven that 9/11 was carried out by say the IRA or Baader Meinhof, America would not have invaded Ireland or Germany... a different solution would have been sought. But no, they wanted to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and effect the other regime changes in the Middle East as per PNAC and that is why we have the situation that we have today.
I think the quote from CATO sums it up pretty well. "their (U.S),presence in the region makes us less, not more, secure... Our military forces exist to serve one essential purpose: defend vital U.S. interests.."
I find it disconcerting that that is all you and Jazzy manage to take away from such a detailed post.
I thought this was a legitimate debunking site but you do not appear to want to discuss issues which do not suit your position.
The disclosure shows, if the source is accurate and it appears to be, that the CIA made a fake video of bin Laden... with others around a camp fire, for disinformation and demonisation purposes and planned to do similar with Saddam.
It shows intent and ability.
The fact that that particular video was 'killed off' because it was patently ridiculous... i.e. was so badly done that even they, (CIA), could not see it being in the least believable, does not show that they did not make others, inc his 'confessional tape'. On the contrary, it underpins that they, (or their colleagues) are the likeliest of sources for the fake bin laden tapes that did surface at key opportune times.
Yet as evidence you simply present one tape that you think is fake, and an anonymous source saying the CIA played around with the idea of faking tapes, but decided against it.
"lots" and "often" suggests several more tapes that that clearly fake. Yet you present one or two that are only arguably fake.
Who exactly noticed they were fake, besides InfoWars, and people who read Infowars? People who knew Bin Laden?
I find it disconcerting that that is all you and Jazzy manage to take away from such a detailed post.
I thought this was a legitimate debunking site but you do not appear to want to discuss issues which do not suit your position.
The disclosure shows, if the source is accurate and it appears to be, that the CIA made a fake video of bin Laden... with others around a camp fire, for disinformation and demonisation purposes and planned to do similar with Saddam.
Here's a graphic, published by The Times of London (and subsequently parroted all over the place without so much as a fact checked), would you believe? I would.
Rumsfeld waved this piece of rubbish about in a network media interview, telling us - with as straight a face as such a creature could manage - that there wasn't just one of these such places, but many, dotted all over Afghanistan. It seems apposite to revisit. An illustration of the synthesis of corporate media and the State colluding in outrageous lying.
Rumsfeld waved this piece of rubbish about in a network madia interview, telling us - with as straight a face as such a creature could manage - that there wasn't just one of these such places, but many, dotted all over Afghanistan. It seems apposite to revisit. An illustration of the synthesis of corporate media and the State colluding in outrageous lying.
Russert: The search for Osama bin Laden. There is constant discussion about him hiding out in caves, and I think many times the American people have a perception that it's a little hole dug out of a side of a mountain.
Rumsfeld: Oh, no.
Russert: The Times of London did a graphic, which I want to put on the screen for you and our viewers. This is it. This is a fortress. This is a very much a complex, multi-tiered, bedrooms and offices on the top, as you can see, secret exits on the side and on the bottom, cut deep to avoid thermal detection so when our planes fly to try to determine if any human beings are in there, it's built so deeply down and embedded in the mountain and the rock it's hard to detect. And over here, valleys guarded, as you can see, by some Taliban soldiers. A ventilation system to allow people to breathe and to carry on. An arms and ammunition depot. And you can see here the exits leading into it and the entrances large enough to drive trucks and cars and even tanks. And it's own hydroelectric power to help keep lights on, even computer systems and telephone systems. It's a very sophisticated operation.
Rumsfeld: Oh, you bet. This is serious business. And there's not one of those. There are many of those. And they have been used very effectively. And I might add, Afghanistan is not the only country that has gone underground. Any number of countries have gone underground. The tunneling equipment that exists today is very powerful. It's dual use. It's available across the globe. And people have recognized the advantages of using underground protection for themselves.
Russert: It may take us going from cave to cave with a great group of men I know in the United States military, the tunnel rats, to try to flush out Osama bin Laden.
Rumsfeld: We're entering a very dangerous aspect of this conflict. There is no question about it. It is a confused situation in the country. The amount of real estate they have to operate on has continually been reduced. The noose is tightening, but the remaining task is a particularly dirty and unpleasant one.
Russert: If need be, would we put gas into those caves to flush them out?
Rumsfeld: Well, I noticed that in Mazar, the way they finally got the dead-enders to come out was by flooding the tunnel. And finally they came up and surrendered, the last hard core al Qaeda elements. And I guess one will do whatever it is necessary to do. If people will not surrender, then they've made their choice.
Tora Bora was variously described by the western media to be an 'impregnable cave fortress' housing 2000 men complete with a hospital, a hydroelectric power plant, offices, a hotel, arms and ammunition stores, roads large enough to drive a tank into, and elaborate tunnel and ventilation systems.[3] Both the British and American press published elaborate plans of the base which was readily accepted by the public. When presented with such plans in an NBC interview, the United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said "This is serious business, there's not one of those, there are many of those".[4][5][6]
When Tora Bora was eventually captured by the U.S. and Afghan troops, no traces of the supposed 'fortress' were found despite painstaking searches in the surrounding areas. Tora Bora turned out to be a system of small natural caves housing at most, 200 fighters. While arms and ammunition stores were found, there were no traces of the advanced facilities claimed to exist.[6][7]
In an interview published by the Public Broadcasting Service, a Staff Sergeant from the U.S. Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) 572 described the caves as thus:[8]
Again, with the caves, they weren't these crazy mazes or labyrinths of caves that they described. Most of them were natural caves. Some were supported with some pieces of wood maybe about the size of a 10-foot by 24-foot room, at the largest. They weren't real big. I know they made a spectacle out of that, and how are we going to be able to get into them? We worried about that too, because we see all these reports. Then it turns out, when you actually go up there, there's really just small bunkers, and a lot of different ammo storage is up there. – Jeff, Staff Sgt. ODA 572[8]
No. Turned out they were lying. It's a big difference. But you're apologising, effectively. You say it was a mistake. Pretty detailed mistake there, not as detailed as the Iraq/WMD 'mistake', though.
Let's split a few more hairs. I've seen the interview, it's still out there on yt.
No. Turned out they were lying. It's a big difference. But you're apologising, effectively. You say it was a mistake. Pretty detailed mistake there, not as detailed as the Iraq/WMD 'mistake', though.
They lied. Why do you contort morality and honesty? Your defence of liars is insulting to the memory of all those who have suffered directly as a result, and to anyone with a modicum of intelligence/empathy/compassion/common sense.
They lied. Why do you contort morality and honesty? Your defence of liars is insulting to the memory of all those who have suffered directly as a result, and to anyone with a modicum of intelligence/empathy/compassion/common sense.
It appears that the graphic and legend of the Tora Bora cave originated in the British Press- the story went "viral" and spread across news services and took a life of its own-according to this anyways:
The Lair of Bin Laden is a fictoid that originated in the highly-enterprising British press on November 27th, 2001. The chronology is as follows. On November 26th, the New York Times carried a story based on the account of an a ex-Russian soldier, Viktor Kutsenko, who had served in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties in which he claimed that there had seen an elaborate cave complex in Zhawar with "iron doors" that contained " a bakery, a hotel with overstuffed furniture, a hospital with an ultrasound machine, a library, a mosque, weapons of every imaginable stripe; a service bay with a World War II-era Soviet tank inside, in perfect running order." The historic story then added "Mr. bin Laden is reported to have upgraded both it and a nearby camp in the 1990's."
On November 27th, the London-based Independent came up with its own fairly similar troglodyte story, except that it had moved the underground fortress from Zhawar to Tora Bora, where the manhunt for bin Laden was about to begin, and advanced it in time from the nineteen-eighties to the present.
The Independent headlined: "Al-Qa'ida almost 'immune to attack' inside its hi-tech underground lair." In the story, its correspondent Richard Lloyd Parry, in Jalalabad, described a vast redoubt burrowed deep under a mountain, with labyrinthian tunnels sealed by with iron doors. "It has its own ventilation system and its own power, created by a hydro-electric generator. Its walls and floors in the rooms are smooth and finished and it extends 350 yards beneath a solid mountain." It was therefore tunneled almost as deep as the World Trade Center was high. It was also " so well defended and concealed that – short of poison gas or a tactical nuclear weapon – it is immune to outside attack. And it is filled with heavily armed followers of Osama bin Laden, with a suicidal commitment to their cause and with nothing left to lose."...
...In the Los Angeles Times Professor Mark C. Taylor added to his essay on an ancient troglodyte Hittite city in Turkey that "This city and others like it provide the prototype for the underground fortresses where Bin Laden and his followers are presumed to be hiding;" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution put the underground city in context, saying "The bitter and brutal end game between Osama bin Laden and U.S.-led forces is being played out in a mountain fortress the CIA helped build... equipped with ventilation and hydroelectric power." This bunker-fortress, the story continued, "provides bin Laden with significant advantages... it is considered invulnerable even to bunker-busting bombs and impregnable to conventional military attack." The Times of London meanwhile illustrated its story with an artist's rendering of the underground fortress, which dwarfed even Hitler's infamous "eagle's nest" fortress.
I doubt Russert (who I met before his death) and Rummy were knowingly lying...Rummy was just talking out his A** as per usual.
And this from one of your posts on the previous page, O.
Here's a graphic, published by The Times of London (and subsequently parroted all over the place without so much as a fact checked), would you believe? I would.
Rumsfeld waved this piece of rubbish about in a network media interview, telling us - with as straight a face as such a creature could manage - that there wasn't just one of these such places, but many, dotted all over Afghanistan. It seems apposite to revisit. An illustration of the synthesis of corporate media and the State colluding in outrageous lying.
The image is a stylized and unrealistic representation of reality, I make no excuse for that. It's a typical "artists impression" found in newspapers.
But it's correct in many aspects, as was Rumsfeld. There were multiple locations of caves used in Afganistan, and they had many of the elements represented above, although much more so in Zhawar Kili than Tora Bora.
The image is a stylized and unrealistic representation of reality, I make no excuse for that. It's a typical "artists impression" found in newspapers.
But it's correct in many aspects, as was Rumsfeld. There were multiple locations of caves used in Afganistan, and they had many of the elements represented above, although much more so in Zhawar Kili than Tora Bora.
One person's "propaganda" is another person's shoddy journalism.
Propaganda suggests intent. I do not think it was the intent of all the news agencies that spread this story to knowingly lie. I think they were caught up in the fervor of the OBL myth building and in the heady days immediately following 9/11 let their sensationalism get the better of them.
As for Rummy? Hard to say...he could have very well been lying...but he was just so clueless to begin with that its hard to say if he was knowingly lying or unknowingly lying about known knowns and unknown knowns.
The plain facts that are before us is what is being discussed. All I know is that these tapes exist.
There is no-one here who knows that the first video isn't a fucking fake.
Anything that follows is merely an interminable waste of time, which would be better spent, for the most part, on studying how not to come to stupid conclusions.
Here's a graphic, published by The Times of London (and subsequently parroted all over the place without so much as a fact checked), would you believe? I would.
No he didn't - it was shown to him by the interviewer - here is a piece on that interview that also clearly identifies the graphic as "the artists rendering" - it is clearly NOT a survey map!
telling us - with as straight a face as such a creature could manage - that there wasn't just one of these such places, but many, dotted all over Afghanistan.
He said there were many - he did not say they were all over Afghanistan although apparently there are many such areas of caves.
And of course many ARE extensive - and many are ancient having been used as refuges for hundreds of not thousands of years, and some were indeed very well built and even comfortably furnished!.
I would also like to point out that The Times is owned by Rupert Murdock. He is great at getting folks to read/listen/watch his media companies and that does include some 'dodgy' reporting.
Not really unsurprising that they can all so readily identify bin Laden from such murky dark pictures yet cannot see a giant owl when it's under their noses! Suppose if OBL walked around with an owl mask on he could have traveled anywhere and no one would have even seen him.
Words from Phillip Marshall, who can't talk anymore, because he's dead:
“Think about this,” Marshall said last year in a written statement, “The official version about some ghost (Osama bin Laden) in some cave on the other side of the world defeating our entire military establishment on U.S. soil is absolutely preposterous.”
a tweet:
This should be easy to confirm, but if 80% of Pakistanis were polled and the verdict was that the whole op was a farce few in the US would believe them or care anyway. Most of US are perfectly happy believing our Gov, which has lied so many times in the past about so many things, it's a wonder they're believed about anything at all. And the fact that there has not been a single picture released of "bin laden" besides the one that doesn't show his face- and then thrown off a plane into the sea at night is A-OK too. It's astounding, but it's real.
Phillip Marshall may have had some unique information, or he may have just been another 911 kook/gun nut that ate too many SSRI drugs. How will the public know for sure?
19 guys (most from Saudi Arabia) armed with box cutters defeated the Most Powerful Military That Ever Existed In All Of Time? How embarrassing for the USSR.
And just think, this happened after the Military Industrial Complex has bilked the citizens for over a half a billion dollars a year for how long? No one was fired? Really?
Sorry that is nonsense and I know you Know it. 19 guys armed with box cutters didn't defeat the military. They took advantage of pilots, flight attendants and passengers that had no idea their lives were on the line. Look at the 4th plane, by then folks KNEW and they defeated the hijackers.
At the time of the American Revolution the Brits had one of most powerful armies on the planet, but they were defeated by citizens soldiers, along with the help a British enemy, the French. (Hmm sort of like us helping the 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan).
Sorry that is nonsense and I know you Know it. 19 guys armed with box cutters didn't defeat the military. They took advantage of pilots, flight attendants and passengers that had no idea their lives were on the line. Look at the 4th plane, by then folks KNEW and they defeated the hijackers.
At the time of the American Revolution the Brits had one of most powerful armies on the planet, but they were defeated by citizens soldiers, along with the help a British enemy, the French. (Hmm sort of like us helping the 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan).
To me is obvious. Maybe it isn't for him. Civilian airliners are not military. He is just ignoring the obvious.
I doubt any US plane will be hijacked successfully for years, if ever. Now, the passengers will consider that if they don't act, that they are dead. Many will act. The granny with her cane will try to hit one as they pass by. The passengers will either defeat or cause the plane to crash. Look at what has happened when someone has become aggressive on plane since 9/11. There have been several cases of an unruly passenger being tied up.
The hijacking worked because, in the past most hijackers would allow the plane to land and MOST on the plane survived
That's two of you now who apparently can't differentiate between literal and figurative. Ever heard the expresson - 'you're talking shit?' I bet you have. It's an example of a figure of speech, yes? It's not literal.
He said there were many - he did not say they were all over Afghanistan
If you listen to or read the text, it can be reasonably inferred that he wasn't saying that the 'many' he referred to (in the context of hi tech cave bunkers in Afghan) were all right on top of each other in one place. It's just another facile non-argument from you.
No need for hindsight. Some of us can see bullshit when it's put in front of us the first time. Not you though, not even hindsight gets you to see things for what they are, clearly.
It seems apposite to revisit. An illustration of the synthesis of corporate media and the State colluding in outrageous lying.
No. My precis was perfectly accurate. No misquoting, no misunderstanding, no false accusations. All reported accurately. I'm not interested in anything more you might say, now it's clear you're yet another blinkered apologist for illegal war and occupation....etc etc. Maybe you should stick to playing with toy soldiers.
Great example of the state of mind of an ardent denialist. I wouldn't expect any less.
Yes.
That's two of you now who apparently can't differentiate between literal and figurative. Ever heard the expresson - 'you're talking shit?' I bet you have. It's an example of a figure of speech, yes? It's not literal.
If you listen to or read the text, it can be reasonably inferred that he wasn't saying that the 'many' he referred to (in the context of hi tech cave bunkers in Afghan) were all right on top of each other in one place. It's just another facile non-argument from you.
No need for hindsight. Some of us can see bullshit when it's put in front of us the first time. Not you though, not even hindsight gets you to see things for what they are, clearly.
No. My precis was perfectly accurate. No misquoting, no misunderstanding, no false accusations. All reported accurately. I'm not interested in anything more you might say, now it's clear you're yet another blinkered apologist for illegal war and occupation....etc etc. Maybe you should stick to playing with toy soldiers.
Fair enough. I was stretching a little. But sometimes, P, you have to understand the content of the correspondent's post (or the cumulative effect of their posts) is more offensive then mere words like 'shit'. Context matters. I don't expect you to agree with me, P, but to understand that one point. You seem a sterlingly bright chap, so I'm sure you get it.
Actually the hijackers did defeat the American defenses... that includes the CIA, FBI, Law Enforcement and Air Force, despite documented foreknowledge, (which was ignored), going back years to operation Bojinka... which is basically what 9/11 was.
This, to my mind shows the strong possibility that the attack was at least allowed. The Airforce Stand Down was integral
They took advantage of pilots, flight attendants and passengers that had no idea their lives were on the line. Look at the 4th plane, by then folks KNEW and they defeated the hijackers.
I accept they did not know their lives were in such danger, but the CIA/FBI, new because they had in depth information that planes were likely to be hijacked and used as missiles which begs the question... why weren't the Airline and Civil aviation authorities warned?
At the time of the American Revolution the Brits had one of most powerful armies on the planet, but they were defeated by citizens soldiers, along with the help a British enemy, the French. (Hmm sort of like us helping the 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan).
I don't think that's logical. OBL would have known about the air force maneuvers. He had that foreknowledge, and also knowledge of FBI surveillance routine.
Nobody else knew what was to be done, or when. It utilized surprising that FBI surveillance to circumvent all possible opposition to his actions. The FBI's suspicion and surveillance were defeated. The plan worked even when his operatives were being watched.
How would the Air Force have prevented 9/11? They would have had to shoot down passenger planes over the populated NE.
Please explain how you explain doing that to the American people, on the CHANCE that they might have been going to flown into buildings, because that part of a failed plot that was over 5 years old.
I don't think that's logical. OBL would have known about the air force maneuvers. He had that foreknowledge, and also knowledge of FBI surveillance routine.
Nobody else knew what was to be done, or when. It utilized surprising that FBI surveillance to circumvent all possible opposition to his actions. The FBI's suspicion and surveillance were defeated. The plan worked even when his operatives were being watched.
But so many people would have known - thousands would need to be involved in such a plot - someone would have talked - there would be leaked documents - no-one could cover up such a huge conspiracy!
It utilized surprising that FBI surveillance to circumvent all possible opposition to his actions.
