U.S. Officials Claim Iran Is Helping Al-Qaeda
The administration needs to establish ties between Iran and Al-Qaeda if they are to be able to successfully promote the necessity of war with the Islamic Republic.
It would be even better to accuse the Iranians of participating in 9-11.
From today's Los Angeles Times:
U.S. intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country.
Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations.
And they suggest that recently elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be forging an alliance with Al Qaeda operatives as a way to expand Iran's influence or, at a minimum, that he is looking the other way as Al Qaeda leaders in his country collaborate with their counterparts elsewhere...
To some U.S. intelligence officials, what worries them most is what they don't know.
"I don't need to exaggerate the difficulty in determining what these people are up to at any given moment," the intelligence official said.
The U.S. counter-terrorism official was more blunt. "We don't have any intelligence going on in Iran. No people on the ground," he said. "It blows me away the lack of intelligence that's out there."
Only by the fucked up standards of 21st century U.S. intelligence analysis (and nowhere else in the world of spookdom) can someone extrapolate from no evidence whatsoever that an "imminent" threat is brewing.
One can prudently consider the worst when you don't have all the facts. That's what footnotes in intelligence analyses are for.
But to plan a military attack or other disruptions of the international system based solely upon masturbatory fantasies about worst case scenarios is a whole other level of incompetence that we've not proven to be immune to in recent years.
The remainder of the propaganda piece details a rogue's regiment of Al-Qaeda operatives that the U.S. claims are hiding in Iran.
Leaving aside the obvious non sequitur of Shiite Iran giving voluntary sanctuary to shit-disturbing Wahabists, one wonders why--if true--this would amount to a casus belli against Iran.
On the lunatic fringe, there is a blog calling for the United States to spill it's blood so that a bunch of jerk-off Iranian ex-pats can go back home to a "Free-Iran."
Part of their hook is their claim that Osama bin-Laden was sheltered by the Iranian Mullahs before his death.
Does that make anybody want to immediately head off to the recruiting station? I didn't think so.
That's why we see today's piece in the Los Angeles Times.
L.A. being the home of perhaps the loudest bunch of Iranian expatriates in the USA.
Must be one of them "coincidences."
It would be even better to accuse the Iranians of participating in 9-11.
From today's Los Angeles Times:
U.S. intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country.
Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations.
And they suggest that recently elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be forging an alliance with Al Qaeda operatives as a way to expand Iran's influence or, at a minimum, that he is looking the other way as Al Qaeda leaders in his country collaborate with their counterparts elsewhere...
To some U.S. intelligence officials, what worries them most is what they don't know.
"I don't need to exaggerate the difficulty in determining what these people are up to at any given moment," the intelligence official said.
The U.S. counter-terrorism official was more blunt. "We don't have any intelligence going on in Iran. No people on the ground," he said. "It blows me away the lack of intelligence that's out there."
Only by the fucked up standards of 21st century U.S. intelligence analysis (and nowhere else in the world of spookdom) can someone extrapolate from no evidence whatsoever that an "imminent" threat is brewing.
One can prudently consider the worst when you don't have all the facts. That's what footnotes in intelligence analyses are for.
But to plan a military attack or other disruptions of the international system based solely upon masturbatory fantasies about worst case scenarios is a whole other level of incompetence that we've not proven to be immune to in recent years.
The remainder of the propaganda piece details a rogue's regiment of Al-Qaeda operatives that the U.S. claims are hiding in Iran.
Leaving aside the obvious non sequitur of Shiite Iran giving voluntary sanctuary to shit-disturbing Wahabists, one wonders why--if true--this would amount to a casus belli against Iran.
On the lunatic fringe, there is a blog calling for the United States to spill it's blood so that a bunch of jerk-off Iranian ex-pats can go back home to a "Free-Iran."
Part of their hook is their claim that Osama bin-Laden was sheltered by the Iranian Mullahs before his death.
Does that make anybody want to immediately head off to the recruiting station? I didn't think so.
That's why we see today's piece in the Los Angeles Times.
L.A. being the home of perhaps the loudest bunch of Iranian expatriates in the USA.
Must be one of them "coincidences."
posted by Effwit at 11:30 AM
36 Comments:
Yaaaaaawn
ol' dawgs ol' trix
M1:
ol' news, as well.
The meme about some Al Qaeda taking refuge in Iran first surfaced at the time of the U.S. attack on Afghanistan in Oct 2001.
Back then it was said that Iran's reformist (Khatami) government had nothing to do with it. That it was the infernal Revolutionary Guards.
The timing of today's story is what struck me.
And the absense of Revolutionary Guard involvement.
Now it is being pinned on their new boy. The one that we tried to place at the embassy takeover in Nov 1979.
Nice.
No precisely, the timing of the story is the news...and what makes it highly noteworthy. The contents are old drawer.
Dito for your preceeding post on Moussaoui. The substance is rather dated in as much as one defines substance here to be the stonewalling of FBI agents hot on the tracks of pre911 leads - and not as the specific case related revelations that oh no, we had leads on this towelhead too!.
M1:
The contents are old drawer.
Sometimes even the best gotta dig through the slush pile to find something for an info-op.
The newsworthy bit about Moussaoui today was the sheer number of warnings the FBI agent is claiming he gave to his superiors.
And that he says he specifically warned them about his suspicions of a hijacking plot.
Of course, that particular agent may have been known around the Field Office as a nervous ninny.
Nobody listened to the boy who cried wolf, either. For the same reason.
I think the following: Our intelligence was close-enuff to fucking fantastic pre 911 on 911 activities -at the field level. It uncovered 911-related shit other echelons and agencies were involved in.
Those complicit agencies/echelons/operatives did a fantastic job themselves of pulling off a poetic caper, keeping a tight lid on things such as dealing with colleagues that picked up their pre911 scent.
My goodness...there was no intelligence failure anywhere whatsoever. Our intelligence fucking rocks. The intelbotch is one of the 3 bigs myths to come outta 911.
That's one of the filters I view events and claims through. Another filter is a dry martini fog.
M1:
Ah, the wonders of compartmentalization.
Nobody knows the whole story.
Thats how they got away with it.
(If they did it, of course.)
Well somebody did it and it wasn't me - I was in St Tropez the whole summer with Atta drinking Mohitos.
M1:
It looks like someone has the same idea as you.
I can't compete with you two.
LOL - I and few other fellow meatballs pool resources and vacuum the net for all manner of oddball graffiti as a sidekick as well as for certain profesional purposes.
911 has been one of the topics on our cleaning list since 914 so of course Alex ain't no stranger as an aggregator & agitator.
Funny thing is, I just listened to Alex's podcast interview with Charlie while out for a run a few hours ago. Their staged unscripted discussion was hilarious. They were both terrible at playing unscripted. They both seem like fun guys and I love when Alex rants. I can even empathize with his Christian angle to it all when it comes from him cuz I read him as pretty darn genuine.
BTW, have you ever run across those Wing TV nut cases-that creepy couple who look like smack junkies?
Anyways, I have you pegged as dropping byAlex's a few times a week. Can't quite figure out though if you have a subscription. I'm betting you took a month subscription and leached all of his documentaries to your external hard drive.
Am I wrong or am I wrong?
Spelling professional with one 's' as I did above is akin to mispelling 'inteligant' when describing the qualities one is seeking in another at a matchmaking site.
Or even 'mispelling' for that matter.
M1:
BTW, have you ever run across those Wing TV nut cases-that creepy couple who look like smack junkies?
I don't have cable, the only time I ever see cable TV is in hotel rooms when I am out of town engaging in skullduggery. I don't know of whom you are referring.
I like the synchronicity involved in you listening to the Sheen interview at the same time I was reading the article.
I ran across the Prison Planet link in a comment on another blog while I was out page whoring.
I very rarely go to either of Alex Jones' sites.
I think the last time I was there was for this fine article.
M1:
I stand corrected.
This piece attracted my attention more recently.
;-)
LMAO...I think I actually just peed my pants..if not something worse. I'm gonna get a hernia from all this jocularity.
M1:
What else can you expect from the Most Insufferable Meatball?
http://www.wingtv.net/
It's an online set up with some sort of local cable access vent. Only interesting per its eensy role in the lo-grade scintillant infoskirmishes and faux skirmishes twinkling througout the binary night.
M1:
Thanks for the link.
A conspiracy site. I was thinking that you were referring to Wing-Nuts on Faux News or some other vile cable abode.
Goopers on TV are a dime a dozen.
True tinfoily characters on any media are a much higher caliber of entertainment.
I think I came across them a few years ago when I was looking for some anti-Alex stuff and stumbled across these crossbranders. Guess the tactic worked cuz their website has gone from scuzzy to...err, scuzzygloss. Something picked up for them but they appear to be the same smack shootin' vegans per appearances. Nice to see dat moola don't go changin' everyone.;)
"Leaving aside the obvious non sequitur of Shiite Iran giving voluntary sanctuary to shit-disturbing Wahabists, one wonders why--if true--this would amount to a casus belli against Iran."
Your eloquence being what it is, shame your insight prevents you from writing at the L.A. Times.
Sometimes we know of scary things but not precisely ho they will shape our future if left unbridled.(the contents of McDonalds' McNuggets in our God-given bodies)
And sometimes we know that there are things we don't know (Is there life on Mars)- and scary things could be hiding in that known void of knowledge.
And then there are times when we realize we don't know what we don't know and then unknown stuff scary beyond our wildest imaginations could be hiding in voids unkown.(Can we guarantee the benignancy of every unknown man's thoughts?)
We cannot allow any of these nescient states to exist in a WMD world. A Kuhnian paradigm shift has been nobly inflicted upon us by our judicious President and those to whom he has delegated authorities.
In such cases we must pre-empt forth knowledge of voids unkown. Certainty must be had and certainty, like freedom, can come at a significant cost. Sometimes that cost is high. Sometimes that cost is Iraq.
I and the President wish we could place the WMD djinni back in the dusty bottle but we can't. Can you Mr. Effwit?
Go forth now and be a responsible citizen.
M1:
Good people never develop affectations after striking it rich.
Ya know, the purity of heart stuff.
Jeremy:
Thanks.
If Blogzy is still giving you fits you may want to move The Other News over to Blogger/Blogspot.
With this Iran shit heating up, we are gonna need your help from down under.
David:
ROFL
On the off chance that this is not a parody, I will clarify a few things for you.
In your list of scary and known and unknown things, I find nowhere "known falsehoods."
Like most of what comes from the administration on questions of national security.
Certainty? Only pussies like think-tankers need certainty. There aint no certainty in life.
WMD djinni? Here's a news flash for you, while you were so busy reading T. Kuhn, you failed to learn that the U.S. has a whole bunch of nukes, which work as a fine deterrent to possible aggressors.
Thanks for sharing with the group.
I think it sufficiently safe to conclude Mr. Effwit that you too are well aware of the limiting comprehensibility factor as relates to the majority of the American electorate.
This being of course the practical limitations of exisiting communication tools to accurately instill in the citizenry the complexities of the broader world that their comfortably myopic lifestyles are contingent upon so as to empower themselves to themselves chose and navigate the path best travelled for assured protection of best interests.
And I'll tell you why the toolbox is limited in effectively communicating complexities: The electorate at large doesn't want the job. That's why we have it. In fact it upsets the electorate when skewed idealists keep trying to force the task of comprehension and executive action back on to the them.
Rest well assured as the President does, the American animal is intuitively cognizant of her best interests and her of heaven endowed birthright even when she cannot spell her own name or see her own toes for her avoirdupois belly. This cognizance resides in their bellies, the same locus which many a Nobel Prize winner has claimed to be the source of their own guidance and inspiration.
Now as to the burdens of stewardship bestowed upon the President by the citizenry: The President and his men do not always want to expose their tactics & strategies, in all their benevolence, as this most often jeopardizes the achievement of the very electorate's interests they are jealously advancing.
Such is the world we inhabit that one cannot alway show one's cards and yet many a hyperpostpubescent reader of Salinger would have you believe that such cloaking is tantamount to malfeasance. Shame on the President for not bowing to the Ayatollahs of Veracity as he performs the duties tasked to him by the electorate.
Sometimes, if not most often, it is necessary to justify actions vital to electorate interests with truthy pretext palatable to a citizenry of gourmands as opposed to gourmets. And this for a multitude of goo reasons.
Nihilist adherence to concepts of Truth must never be allowed to obturate the fruition of present and future self-actualization for Americans.
Simply because they've chosen! to delegate to the President the necessary informed prescience with which to correctly select paths now that will find then protected tomorrow in favor of concentrating on other activities and endowments - why should they be punished with the President's grotesque adherence to truth? Would they not fib,lie, and obfuscate a little themselves to further their own agenda andinterests if they had not delegated the administration and furtherance of their security to us? Show me a phobic of lies and I'll show you a person who themselves is a big fat liar themselves.
The Prseident is not elected and paid to tell the truth per se. He is elected to protect and to preserve the dreams, aspirations, and welfare of our fellow citizens and he should be summarily executed lest he lends countenance to fundamentalists who would have deformed dialectics of honestness undermine the furtherance of the American citizen's interests (present And future).
And yes, America has nukes. Did we use them in Viet Nam? Did we use them in Korea? Did we use them on the Russians or Chinese before they got their own?
What ever are you dithering on about, young man
And as to Certainty...yes many an obsessive consumer of Herman Hesse and Sartre have landed themselves in an asylym from festering on in absurdum about certainty. Forget absolute values - the futile pursuit of absolute values is what drives men mad and finally convinces most teenagers to sell Hesse and get a job so they can buy a Porsche.
The President only aims to make America more certain than anyone else. Most certain all it takes to be the most secure, not absolutely certain.
Most is enough but it still makes great demands and exacts the same high costs as libery has been known to do.
You too are welcome to the new and improved paradigm. Until then, we will still be looking out for you and your posterity. That's what we call unconditional love. That's what we call being an American.
God Bless!
Please excuse all the typos in the above - they are not intended as tokens of disrespect to your web log. I just never proofread anything I post directly to the internet.
David:
A more exhaustive defense of bullshit I have rarely encountered.
And to think that you splashed it into this particular fountain of righteousness makes me proud.
Best Regards,
Effy
PS: No apology needed. You are obviously a gentleman.
Is that all you have to say for yourself, young man?
Well bite me and my horny dog.
(Pinko muthafuckers the whole ungrateful lot of you.)
"Gentlemen" - you must be talking about your ambidextrous hands, you hermetic treasonist.
David:
Get a grip dude.
A martini might help.
Don't drink. Never have. Probably never will. But one can never be certain, can one?
83 and still going strong,
D
David:
83 and still going strong
Ya still gettin' any?
I'm getting so much, and young hide at that, that I'd whine about it if I were a pinko schminko. But I'm old school traditional so I just unbuckle and chuckle.
D as in Dirk
Dirk:
Good for you. The young stuff is what keeps you chipper.
A lot of goopers go through Viagra like it's going out of style.
I'm talking about the young ones here.
Why they would bother with their hideous wives is beyond me.
Maybe we should get together after all. Ever in Ohio?
David:
eww...
That's all you goopers think about 24/7.
I'll have to pass.
34 comments!!!?!
M1:
A new record.
Yay.
Post a Comment
<< Home