SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the We-have-always-been-at-war-with-Eurasia dept.
Journalist Gareth Porter reports:
For many years, major U.S. institutions ranging from the Pentagon to the 9/11 Commission have been pushing the line that Iran secretly cooperated with Al Qaeda both before and after the 9/11 terror attacks. But the evidence for those claims remained either secret or sketchy, and always highly questionable.
In early November, however, the mainstream media claimed to have its "smoking gun"—a CIA document written by an unidentified Al Qaeda official and released in conjunction with 47,000 never-before-seen documents seized from Osama bin Laden's house in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
[..] But none of those media reports were based on any careful reading of the document's contents. The 19-page Arabic-language document, which was translated in full for TAC, doesn't support the media narrative of new evidence of Iran-Al Qaeda cooperation, either before or after 9/11, at all. It provides no evidence whatsoever of tangible Iranian assistance to Al Qaeda. On the contrary, it confirms previous evidence that Iranian authorities quickly rounded up those Al Qaeda operatives living in the country when they were able to track them down, and held them in isolation to prevent any further contact with Al Qaeda units outside Iran.
What it shows is that the Al Qaeda operatives were led to believe Iran was friendly to their cause and were quite taken by surprise when their people were arrested in two waves in late 2002. It suggests that Iran had played them, gaining the fighters' trust while maximizing intelligence regarding Al Qaeda's presence in Iran.
Full article is well worth reading, a great deal of detail is provided.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @01:12AM (14 children)
This can't be right! Axis of evil, and all that other lame shite!! The CIA had all the evidence, Dubya told us so! Even if the CIA denied having that evidence, the Dubya told us! Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran! And, don't forget Sadman!!
Alright, more seriously - this reads very much like Iraq's dealings with Al Queda. Al Queda was viewed as a destabilizing force, by both governments. The nations didn't need, or want, to be involved with Al Queda. Yet, all them ragheads were painted as being sympathetic to Al Queda, to the point of actively supporting Queda.
Gotta push that narrative. It doesn't matter what the evidence says, the narrative is what matters. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran! Bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq! Bomb, bomb, bomb Afghanistan!! Oh, wait. Afghanistan. Yeah, those assholes deserved some bombs - they did thumb their noses at us, and protected Al Queda. I don't know about this 90 years of occupation crap. We should have bombed hell out of them, executed everyone we could find an excuse to execute, then got the hell out after about six or nine months.
On the other hand - selling bombs makes a lot of rich bastards richer. BOMB, BOMB, BOMB EM ALL!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @01:53AM (2 children)
People just can't get fired up about bringing a modern standard of living and infrastructure to the rest of the world the way they can get fired up about bombing the rest of the world.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @02:45AM (1 child)
In our defense, being the greatest military power the world has ever known is meaningless unless we get to blow shit up and kill people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @09:35AM
That nuclear carrier fleet thousands of miles away at China's doorstep is for defense... Yeah right.
While there's some merit to "the best defense is a good offense" but so far spending lots of money to create terrorist and extremist groups hasn't really made the USA safer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday November 24 2017, @03:06AM
The problem, of course, is that Al Qaida has absolutely nothing to do with why the US wanted to take over those countries. Similarly, ISIS has basically nothing to do with US goals in Syria.
The primary US objective in Afghanistan was an oil pipeline that the Taliban government refused to allow. The primary US objective in Iraq was its oil fields, as described by the Project for a New American Century when Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz worked for them. And the primary US objective in Syria was a planned oil an gas pipeline from Iraq through Turkey into Europe, which would allow Europe to no longer rely on Russian natural gas and completely devastate the Russian economy.
International terrorism was always an excuse, not really a threat.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Friday November 24 2017, @03:08AM (7 children)
We're not bombing Iran. But many people are saying we should. Because Iran did something horrible. They sent a ballistic missile from Yemen into Riyadh, right into the capital of Saudi Arabia. One of the capitals. And, fortunately, the missile was shot down. The Saudis protected themselves very well. And we're helping them protect themselves. I visited them. I had a great time there and made some terrific deals. And they made a very strong move to protect themselves, they did a blockade. Cut off the food going into Yemen. But they stopped that, some guy from the UN didn't like it and they stopped. They were doing something very smart, they stopped it. They could have won very quickly, I still think they'll win.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @03:48AM (6 children)
Odd, isn't it, that we are best friends with the most backward, and most oppressive, of all of the Arabic/middle eastern nations?
Actually, we should ally with Iran, for the purpose of overthrowing the House of Saud. WTF we helping Saudi Arabia for? SA is such a shithole, that the most radical offshoots of Islam originated there. Or, do you think that the world needs more Salaafists?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 24 2017, @05:02AM
Thank you! This, this, this! And a big thank you to your personal care aide for finally getting the haloperidol IV going, too...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:51PM (4 children)
It's not odd in the least when you realize that the shit stain in chief has a lot of business interests there.
FUCK YOU TRUMP, AND FUCK YOU EVERYONE THAT VOTED FOR THE PIECE OF SHIT!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @05:09PM (2 children)
Once again, AC shows himself to be clueless. The US government has been pretty closely allied with SA for damned near forever. Carter maintained close relations all those decades ago when I was in the Navy, but he didn't even establish those relations. Read more here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations [wikipedia.org]
Ever since the modern U.S.-Saudi relationship began in 1945, the U.S. has been willing to overlook many of the kingdom’s more controversial aspects as long as it kept the oil flowing and supported U.S. national security policies.[2] Since World War II, the two countries have been allied in opposition to Communism, in support of stable oil prices, stability in the oil fields and oil shipping of the Persian Gulf, and stability in the economies of Western countries where Saudis have invested.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:17AM (1 child)
Once again, in a seemingly infinite series of such, Runaway proves himself to be clueless, even when he is right on occasion. Oh, dear, how long do we have to put up with the observations of the Arkansas Hillbilly?
Signed: AC, you bastard.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:51AM
Hey retard - if you were born in Zimbabwe, and then traveled around for a couple decades, and finally bought a home in Egypt - would that make you Egyptian? One more time: I'm not an Arkansan.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @05:18PM
Speaking of shitstains in chief, watch Obama kissing King Salman's ass - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY [youtube.com] You're going to pretend that Obama wasn't in bed with SA?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:37AM (1 child)
You must have missed the news recently. First Wikileaks got hold of documents showing that it was actually Pakistan, then Obama sent in Seal Team Six to kill Osama Bin Laden... And while we're at it, afterwards the Americans elected another move star has been as president, this time it was the guy from "Home Alone 2".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @08:51AM
Maybe you're the one who hasn't been paying attention. Bin Laden was actually being protected by the Taliban. Afghanistan was deserving of a punitive expedition, as punishment. Yes, the Taliban also operates in northern Pakistan, but basically it's the same bunch of people. Southern Pakistan would like to see the Taliban die in a fiery crash. Those are the people we don't want to see fall out of power. Of course, that's going to happen anyway. And, yes, I know - there isn't a "South Pakistan" or a "North Pakistan" - not officially. But, facts are facts - the officials in Pakistan have very limited control over their northern lands. The Taliban rules there.