.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Headbanging_Man.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Headbanging_Man:1230170"][QUOTE="brian_dc:1202125"]John Brennan is definitely an epic twat.[/QUOTE] You got that right! Dude said it was a good idea to ship "terror" suspects to Syria, Egypt, etc. because that allowed the "families to get involved" in the interrogations. I.E. maybe we'll get better information if the "terrorists" are forced to watch their wives being raped or their kids being castrated. And apparently he's the driving source behind the latest "official" version of events in The New Yorker... But the great Russ Baker has deconstructed that mythology quite ably: http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/08/17/raidbinladen/ [QUOTE]Original Investigation: Who–and What–Are Behind the “Official History” of the Bin Laden Raid? By Russ Baker on Aug 17, 2011 The establishment media just keep getting worse. They’re further and further from good, tough investigative journalism, and more prone to be pawns in complicated games that affect the public interest in untold ways. A significant recent example is The New Yorker’s vaunted August 8 exclusive on the vanquishing of Osama bin Laden. ... ... as Paul Farhi, a Washington Post reporter, noted, that narrative was misleading in the extreme, because the New Yorker reporter never actually spoke to James—nor to a single one of James’s fellow SEALs (who have never been identified or photographed–even from behind–to protect their identity.) Instead, every word of Schmidle’s narrative was provided to him by people who were not present at the raid. ... One person who spoke to the reporter, and who is identified by name is John O. Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism adviser... The mere fact of Schmidle’s reliance on Brennan at all should send up a flare for the cautious reader. After all, that’s the very same Brennan who was the principal source of incorrect details in the hours and days after the raid... At the time of the raid, the decision to hastily dump Osama’s body in the ocean rather than make it available for authoritative forensic examination was a highly controversial one—that only led to more speculation that the White House was hiding something. The justifications, including not wanting to bury him on land for fear of creating a shrine, were almost laughable. So what do we learn about this from The New Yorker? It’s truly bizarre: the SEALS themselves made the decision. That’s strange enough. But then we learn that Brennan took it upon himself to verify that was the right decision. How did he do this? Not by speaking with the president or top military, diplomatic or legal brass. No, he called some foreigners—get ready–the Saudis, who told him that dumping at sea sounded like a good plan. ... Also please consider this important caveat: As we noted in a previous article, the claim that the body had already been positively identified via DNA has been disputed by a DNA expert who said that insufficient time had elapsed before the sea burial to complete such tests. The line about Brennan himself having been a former CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia is just sort of dropped in there. No recognition of what it means that a person of that background was put into that position after 9/11, no recognition that a person of that background and those fraught personal connections is controlling this narrative. He’s not just a “counterterrorism expert”—he is a longtime member of an agency whose mandate includes the frequent use of disinformation. And one who has his own historic direct links to the Saudi regime, a key and problematical player in the larger chess game playing out. ... The New Yorker also includes a few other officials who brief Schmidle on general background, like a “senior defense department official” explaining the overall relationship between Special Operations and CIA personnel, and a named former CIA counsel explaining that the Abottabad raid amounted to “a complete incorporation of JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] into a C.I.A. operation.” That’s only slipped into the article, but it is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the piece ... It seems almost as if Panetta, Obama, and the people in the story who most closely approximate actual representatives of the public in a functioning democracy, were basically cut off from observing what went down that day—or from influencing what transpired. ... Taken together, here’s what we have: President Obama did not know exactly what was going on. He did not decide that bin Laden should be shot. And he did not decide to dump his body in the ocean. The CIA and its Special Ops allies made all the decisions. Then Brennan, the CIA’s man, put out the version that CIA wanted. (Keep in mind that, as noted earlier, CIA was really running the operation—with Special Ops under its direction). What we’re looking at, folks, is the reality of democracy in America: A permanent entrenched covert establishment that marches to its own drummer or to drummers unknown. It’s exactly the kind of thing that never gets reported. Too scary. Too real. Better to dismiss this line of inquiry as too “conspiracy theory.” ... Summing up about the reliability of this account, which is now likely to become required reading for every student in America, long into the future: - It is based on reporting by a man who fails to disclose that he never spoke to the people who conducted the raid, or that his father has a long background himself running such operations (this even suggests the possibility that Nicholas Schmidle’s own father could have been one of those “unnamed sources.”) - It seems to have depended heavily on trusting second-hand accounts by people with a poor track record for accurate summations, and an incentive to spin. - The alleged decisions on killing bin Laden and disposing of his body lack credibility. - The DNA evidence that the SEALs actually got their man is questionable. - Though certain members of Congress say they have seen photos of the body (or, to be precise, a body), the rest of us have not seen anything. - Promised photos of the ceremonial dumping of the body at sea have not materialized. - The eyewitnesses from the house—including the surviving wives—have disappeared without comment. [/QUOTE] Those are just some of the juicier quotes, the whole thing is worth a read though.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][