Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 98

Thread: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

  1. #71
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    01-17-18 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    366

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    In return for normalizing relations, sure. We weren't open to the deal, and so Iran drove on with their relationship with AQ.



    Iran allows AQSL and their families to seek sanctuary from US targeting inside Iran, but keeps a lid on them. They have alternately held and released them into certain spaces at given times in order to create trouble for others (chiefly, us). This is confirmed by not only the CEM from Abottabad, but by numerous interviews with the families, and other reporting. This is a relationship that goes back to varying degrees for decades (in 2007, for example, Zawahiri released a video praising Hezbollah and declaring they were partaking in a legitimate Jihad), after telling Zarqawi to knock it off with targeting the Shia (Zarqawi ignored him. AQI/ISIS had a bloody, independent streak well before it split formally) . It was Hezbollah who first taught AQ how to conduct car bombings, built on their success in the Lebanese Civil War.

    From the testimony of the AQ guys involved in the Africa Embassy Bombings, for example:

    I was aware of certain contacts between al Qaeda and al Jihad organization, on one side, and Iran and Hezbollah on the other side. I arranged security for a meeting in the Sudan between Mughaniyah, Hezbollah's chief, and Bin Laden. Hezbollah provided explosives training for al Qaeda and al Jihad. Iran supplied Egyptian Jihad with weapons. Iran also used Hezbolla to supply explosives that were disguised to look like rocks...



    Not really. Iran depends heavily on proxies, and AQ is a (somewhat problematic) proxy that was useful against the United States, especially in the early 2000's when they needed to drain US political will in order to avoid being the next regime to attract US attention for Regime Change.



    Did you even read his byline at the bottom?



    Then you are going to look silly.

    The media is actually fairly divided on this - there are a lot of folks still pretty invested in defending the Obama administration, who see no reason to think anything bad about Iran which might reflect negatively on a naive administration that gave them the moon.



    Alright. I want you to think about your suggestion here that there is a massive conspiracy across the CIA and the media to produce reams of false reporting that won't be declassified for decades, but which may trick intelligence personnel who can't repeat what it says, combined with a massive covert operation to produce the physical evidence of such a relationship...

    ....and tell me that doesn't sound like conspiracy thinking. You literally just posited off-handedly a massive, entire new level of a conspiracy in order to explain why someone in a position to know says you are wrong, rather than taking new information into account.



    Feel free to check with American, who once came to pick me up from an intel school I was going through to take me to a wine fest (he's a good guy, we had a good time hanging out). People on this board have known me for over a decade, people knew me when I was posting live from Fallujah, where I was a company level intel cell at the time (fun fact: that's where I started working on this problem, AQI in our area had a nasty amount of Iranian munitions).
    As for Iran, could you please quote your sources more? Anyway, you gave me a Wikipedia link (which I don't trust) and a book page link. Either way, I'm still not sure whether I should trust what you've given me. We're talking about former intel vets saying that Iran helping al Qaeda isn't the case. Are you sure the testimony turned out to be true? Maybe it happened under coercion?

    Anyway, there's nothing silly about distrusting the mainstream media which bombards us with "Russia-gate." And no, it's not conspiracy thinking to say that the CIA and the mainstream media gives out false information.

    Look, I don't believe in the mainstream media. I think we're at an impasse. Let's just agree to disagree.

  2. #72
    Stable Genius
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,342

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The OP.... mostly exposes their own ignorance, suggesting their name is, perhaps, more aspirational than suggestive of actual expertise.

    If...[snip]....that would read to you pretty much like the OP reads to me.
    I understand this completely. You are certainly not alone. But this is because you have been conditioned and are unwittingly holding on to the same prejudice that Americans have experienced since 1979. Iran has and continues to be a favored scapegoat, but the general opinions of Iran are not justified by the facts. Just step back and actually consider this...

    1) The Intel community was completely shocked with the 1978-79 Revolution and Americans and Soviets blamed each other. American civilian populations didn't understand why their television sets showed such a hatred for America because they did not not know about the 1953-coup history that Iranians knew all too well. And then the 444-day Hostage Crisis occurred that November (1979), which had everything to do with Carter's errors that summer, not the longer history. We know now that Khomeini had nothing to do with ordering the embassy raid. His associates were actually secretly reaching out to the U.S. before November in regards to Islamic Iran's future and Benisadr was later in secret talks throughout 1980 to find solution to the crisis. But during this time, Iran had become the big bad wolf among the American population who saw Iran as simply "evil."

    2) Then came the suicide bombings in Beirut in 1983. After Israel invaded Lebanon in April 1982, Iran flew a large number of Iranian soldiers to Lebanon to train Lebanese fighters. Over a thousand of these soldiers stayed and formed Hezbollah. Out of Hezbollah came an Islamist group named Islamic Jihad. At the time, a chain-of-command from Iranís government to Hezbollah and then onto the Islamic Jihad organization was imagined and this largely contributed to the official understanding of who was responsible. Bitterness between the United States and Iran continued to harden and this strengthened the idea of Iranian fanaticism. However, the bombings were only traced to Hezbollah even then. We know now that it was this splinter group that was responsible. Even the connection between it and Hezbollah is weak. Furthermore, directly after Islamic Jihad carried out its attacks, Iranian clerics immediately outlawed suicide attacks.

    3) Just hours after the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City in 1995, major news outlets, such as ABC, CBS, and CNN, began a false narrative that it was the act of Arabs or Islamic terrorists under orders from probably Iran. Most Americans quickly embraced the nonsensical narrative. It was announced days later that the Oklahoma City bombers were of domestic origin. But the Iranian narrative continued to just make sense to people.

    4) Throughout the 1990s, Massoud and the Northern Alliance fought the Taliban in Afghanistan. He received economic and military aid from Russia, India, and Iran. Clinton repeatedly ignored Massoud's pleas for assistance. Clinton's attitude was entirely based on the notion that Iran was the enemy. In 2000, the CIA finally figured it out, convinced Massoud to join the south with the north, and worked with Iran to establish a supply route. Too late. After 9/11, Iran offered to assist the U.S. in rebuilding the Afghanistan military. However, Condaleeza Rice ignorantly informed Bush that "some believe that Iran supported the Taliban." Not only did this ignore the tactical history, but it ignored the fact that the Iranian ulema maintained strong opposition towards the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. In 2002, Bush declared to the American people that the Axis of Evil consisted of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

    5) In 2003 Iran offered to assist against Hussein. Bush declined again. Despite this, Iran told the Shi'a of Iraq not to impede on the U.S. advance. Hussein even flew aircraft to Iran in the hopes to keep them safe, for which Iran merely confiscated. By 2005, al-Zarqawi began his murderous campaign upon the Shi'a in Iraq. It's at this point that Iran began to get involved (reminiscent of Hezbollah's purpose following Israel's attack into Lebanon when Shi'a began to die).

    * Strict focus on government politics has led many Americans to default to misleading opinions of Iran. Why, even after 9/11 and the consistent Sunni Islamist scourge, do we still need Iran to be the enemy? Why, despite Iran not taking part in a military action since 1988 (and have never attacked the U.S.) do we maintain this idea that Iran is out to get us? I would argue that Iran is convenient for Israel's interests, Arab government's interests, and the convenience of our politician's who prefer their heads up their asses. The American population is as much a victim to this political garbage as the Iranian population.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC 1992~2012

  3. #73
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    In the Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,722

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by The Lurker View Post
    I didn't see anything about this on this forum, so I thought I might as well post it here now.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/2...error-sponsor/









    I would suggest reading the whole article.
    I think you need to discriminate between state actors, and regional militias. State actors like Iran back up their terrorist activities with a state military, where as militias are like ISIS, when you are cornered you die, as opposed to Hezbollah who can call Iran to negotiate a deal to prevent their extermination.
    I admire JFK for his most admirable achievement - bedding Marylin Monroe!
    When Democrats are out of options, they make everything about race.
    American students want to be "happy". Chinese students want to rule the world.
    It's hard to match the burning, visceral hate a liberal can bring to bear.

  4. #74
    Stable Genius
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,342

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    Kinda reminds me of the words attributed to William Casey: When everything the American people believe is false, we will be able to judge the success of our misinformation efforts.
    Because of the 1979 grudge, Israeli, Arab, and American leaders have been able to use Iran as a scapegoat for damn near everything that happens in the Middle East. It just amazes me how easily our population continues to be manipulated into blindness.

    - It doesn't understand (or even care to) about what is actually happening between Islamic Modernist and Islamists and prefer a Western-centric perspective that (1) denies local agency, (2) makes the issues all about us and what we do while at the same time denying our responsibility.

    - Despite trying to simplify what is happening in the ME as merely a Sunni vs. Shi'a thing, it prefers a dastardly Iranian narrative where Shi'a Iran is secretly behind all terrorism and that Sunni organizations work for them.

    - Despite acknowledging that the modern rise in Islamist militancy being rooted in the Soviet-Afghanistan war of the 1980s and a result of American/Saudi/Pakistani backing, it prefers to acknowledge it with a shrug as it condemns Iran for being the regional problem.

    - Despite Iran not conducting military action since 1988 (against Saddam Hussein) and supporting Massoud and the Northern Alliance against the Taliban in the 1990s, it prefers to see Iran as this great aggressor and regional threat to stability as Bush declares it a part of the "Axis of Evil."

    - It doesn't understand (or even care to) that regional stability is the result of America supporting tyranny and that this kind of "stability" in no way equals peace. The consequences of this support is that the Islamic Modernist and Islamist philosophies have manifested into the Islamist monsters of Al-Qaeda/IS/Boko Haram and the Arab Spring. Today's instability has absolutely nothing to do with Iran, yet one damn President after another.....

    It's all just about scapegoating. Israel needs Iran to be evil. The House of Saud and other Sunni governments need Iran to be evil. And we need the American population to keep looking away from the Sunni governments, who supply the world with oil, and their need to maintain a false sense of religious "defense" for their populations against Iran's quests to rule the universe through Shi'a Islam. It's all BS and the end result will be a nuclear Iran that has achieved its status on its own terms (long after we unofficially gave Israel the Jewish bomb, officially gave India the Hindu bomb, and gave Pakistan the Sunni bomb). The only thing missing is a Shi'a bomb and, because of our ignorant grudge and nonsensical Foreign Policy habit, Iran will eventually achieve that on its own terms.
    Last edited by MSgt; 01-01-18 at 12:51 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC 1992~2012

  5. #75
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I understand this completely. You are certainly not alone. But this is because you have been conditioned and are unwittingly holding on to the same prejudice that Americans have experienced since 1979.
    No, it is because I did this for a living, and know what I'm talking about. What MOS were you?

    Iran has and continues to be a favored scapegoat, but the general opinions of Iran are not justified by the facts.
    I don't know what the "general opinions of Iran" are, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that their slot as a top supporter of VEO's in the region is absolutely justified by the facts.

    Just step back and actually consider this...

    1) The Intel community was completely shocked with the 1978-79 Revolution and Americans and Soviets blamed each other.
    I wrote my capstone for my Graduate Cert in Intelligence Studies on this, comparing the then-support provided to current ICD-derived Best Practices. So yes, I'm aware .

    Recommended Reading, if this is a topic you are interested in.

    2) Then came the suicide bombings in Beirut in 1983. After Israel invaded Lebanon in April 1982, Iran flew a large number of Iranian soldiers to Lebanon to train Lebanese fighters. Over a thousand of these soldiers stayed and formed Hezbollah.
    IIRC... sort of. Iranian proxy/actors took over the local Amalist movement, sort-of-purchasing it with aid (he who controls the money, controls decision-making), and turning it into a joint venture of Hezbollah.

    Out of Hezbollah came an Islamist group named Islamic Jihad. At the time, a chain-of-command from Iran’s government to Hezbollah and then onto the Islamic Jihad organization was imagined
    And was correct. At the time, Islamic Jihad was the action arm of the still-forming Hezbollah. Those attacks traced back to Iran in the same way that actions by US SOF trace back to the United States, as has now been demonstrated in a court of law.

    Just hours after the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City in 1995, major news outlets, such as ABC, CBS, and CNN, began a false narrative that it was the act of Arabs or Islamic terrorists under orders from probably Iran
    Yup. People grasp for narratives to explain deadly attacks, and fit new facts into patterns they are most familiar with. For example, should someone from PETA grow a beard, drive a large truck into a crowd, and then begin unloading onto onlookers with an AK, most folks would assume he was ISIS or AQ affiliated before they found out further details.

    NONE OF THIS, however, has any impact whatsoever on whether or not Iran continues to provide aid to militant groups throughout the region, which it does, and which we have watched them doing for years.

    I get that you think you are drawing some kind of historical Americans-always-suspect-Iran narrative, but the case you are making does not defend the point you wish it to.

    In 2002, Bush declared to the American people that the Axis of Evil consisted of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.
    Yup. And Iran had no desire to be next on the list after the Taliban and Hussein. They quit developing nukes, and started supporting insurgent elements creating casualties for American forces in order to drain and distract us.

    By 2005, al-Zarqawi began his murderous campaign upon the Shi'a in Iraq.
    Yeah. Hey, how did Zarqawi get into Iraq to do that, anyway?

    oh yeah.... Iran delivered him to the border, in order to stand up his organization and fight the US.

    Then he turned hard core on the Shia, and so they turned to Zawahiri to tell him to tone it down. Zawahiri told him to do so, and Zarqawi didn't listen.

    It's at this point that Iran began to get involved...
    Sort of. Iran had been involved in protecting AQSL and their families from US targeting for a couple of years at that point. But you are right that they got involved - in a big way. Iran backed militias (including advisors from the IRGC Qods Force) proceeded to become the most dangerous elements in Iraq - killing, maiming, and kidnapping US Servicemembers.

    Why, despite Iran not taking part in a military action since 1988 (and have never attacked the U.S.)...
    This is like arguing that, because it was the CIA and SOCOM that took the lead in targeting AQSL, the US has never done so.

  6. #76
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I understand this completely. You are certainly not alone. But this is because you have been conditioned and are unwittingly holding on to the same prejudice that Americans have experienced since 1979. Iran has and continues to be a favored scapegoat, but the general opinions of Iran are not justified by the facts. Just step back and actually consider this......[snip]....
    And, again, none of your read on history in any way defends the OPs claim that Iran has not worked with AQ, which it has. For people who have actually worked this problem set in the IC, this assessmenta rates up there with "Putin is in charge of Russia" and "Afghanistan is not very stable."

  7. #77
    Stable Genius
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,342

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I...know what I'm talking about.
    You were conditioned and your MOS in military Intel has nothing to do with it. Because Iran is supposed to be the enemy, the Intel is exploited to fit the narrative. This occurs even at the CIA level where they actually analyze the Intel and scrub it. This is exactly how we exaggerated the Soviet Union's activity around the world during the Cold War.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Those attacks traced back to Iran...
    To this day, there is no empirical evidence that Iran had anything to do with the Beirut bombing. Don't mistake the U.S. Supreme Court's civil ruling for actual guilt.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ...Iran continues to provide aid to militant groups throughout the region...
    And why shouldn't they? It's their ****ing region, not ours. The U.S. and Sunni leaders have done far more damage to the region than Iran can ever do. Chastising Iran for its geopolitics is simply a part of the exaggerated scapegoating. And all of this has everything to do with the false narrative of Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ...Iran had no desire to be next on the list...
    Also false and disingenuous. Iran was never on any list and Iran and the U.S. knew it. Attacking Iran was always impractical and nobody that mattered had any real interest in doing so.

    Supporting insurgent elements came only after Zarqawi began slaughtering Shi'i. Besides, al-Zarqawi saturated suicide bombings and IEDs throughout Shi'a militia territories, which also accounts for American casualties. Remember Fallujah? That was not Iran. In other words, U.S. troops were largely caught between what was developing as a civil war. Simply blaming Iran is disingenuous, especially since it was Iran who offered us assistance and then instructed the Iraqi Shi'i in the south to move out of our way.

    And Iran did not suspend it's nuclear program. In 2003, the IAEA reported that Iran had not disclosed sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities, for which Ahmadinejad began arguing about it's "peaceful" intentions.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    .... Iran delivered him to the border...
    Also false and disingenuous. After released from prison in Jordan in 1999, he fled to Pakistan. His then fled across the border to Afghanistan where he met Osama Bin Laden. He happened to be in Iran during 9/11 and then crossed back to Afghanistan to fight Americans. He was wounded fled back across to Iran. In 2002 he turned up in Baghdad supposedly still nursing wounds. He was later reported to be in Syria training jihadists. Sometime after this he turned up in northeastern Iraq and on the other side of the Iranian border where he planned sleeper cells in Baghdad and claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks in Turkey, Morocco, and Jordan. After the U.S. invasion he turned up in Iraq where he targeted Shi'i mosques, civilians, and Americans. His intercepted letter to Osama Bin Laden reported his absolute hatred for the Sunni/Shi'a ulema, the Shi'i, and Americans.

    - But, you would have people believe that Shi'a Iran "delivered" Zarqawi? He was also in Syria and Pakistan, two countries that have historically pushed the Sunni agenda. But only Iran, which is in philosophical opposition to the Sunni and their Islamist groups, is supposed to be Zarqawi's partner in crime?

    - You would have people believe that, after Iran supported the Northern Alliance against the Sunni Taliban and Sunni Al-Qaeda for years, Shi'a Iran now hung out with Sunni Zarqawi, who rubbed shoulders with Sunni Osama Bin Laden?

    This is exactly what I mean about making the Intel fit the narrative. Because he was in Iran, you immediately assume that Iran's government all of a sudden became Sunni handlers despite the complete lack of hard facts and the complete avoidance of the history. Zarqawi's mere presence in Iran is supposed to mean that he and the Shi'a ulema planned to slaughter Americans and members of the Shi'a ulema in Iraq? This is nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    This is like arguing that, because it was the CIA and SOCOM that took the lead in targeting AQSL, the US has never done so.
    Only if you wish Iran to have a hard connection to Hezbollah splinter groups, which there was none in regards to 1983. You can trace Kermit Roosevelt to the CIA, to Dulles, and to Eisenhower. You can not trace the Islamic Jihad organization, to Hezbollah, and then to Iran. No historian can because the path is broken. You ignore the part where Iran's ulema immediately condemned the act and outlawed suicide attacks in Shi'a Islam. This is about the time that Sunni Islamists began adopting suicide attacks as a tactic.

    Now, Iran's funding of groups in Syria is a different story. But like I stated, it's their ****ing region and once again we see a theme of protecting Shi'i.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC 1992~2012

  8. #78
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    You were conditioned and your MOS in military Intel has nothing to do with it. Because Iran is supposed to be the enemy, the Intel is exploited to fit the narrative. This occurs even at the CIA level where they actually analyze the Intel and scrub it. This is exactly how we exaggerated the Soviet Union's activity around the world during the Cold War.


    To this day, there is no empirical evidence that Iran had anything to do with the Beirut bombing. Don't mistake the U.S. Supreme Court's civil ruling for actual guilt.



    And why shouldn't they? It's their ****ing region, not ours. The U.S. and Sunni leaders have done far more damage to the region than Iran can ever do. Chastising Iran for its geopolitics is simply a part of the exaggerated scapegoating. And all of this has everything to do with the false narrative of Iran.



    Also false and disingenuous. Iran was never on any list and Iran and the U.S. knew it. Attacking Iran was always impractical and nobody that mattered had any real interest in doing so.

    Supporting insurgent elements came only after Zarqawi began slaughtering Shi'i. Besides, al-Zarqawi saturated suicide bombings and IEDs throughout Shi'a militia territories, which also accounts for American casualties. Remember Fallujah? That was not Iran. In other words, U.S. troops were largely caught between what was developing as a civil war. Simply blaming Iran is disingenuous, especially since it was Iran who offered us assistance and then instructed the Iraqi Shi'i in the south to move out of our way.

    And Iran did not suspend it's nuclear program. In 2003, the IAEA reported that Iran had not disclosed sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities, for which Ahmadinejad began arguing about it's "peaceful" intentions.



    Also false and disingenuous. After released from prison in Jordan in 1999, he fled to Pakistan. His then fled across the border to Afghanistan where he met Osama Bin Laden. He happened to be in Iran during 9/11 and then crossed back to Afghanistan to fight Americans. He was wounded fled back across to Iran. In 2002 he turned up in Baghdad supposedly still nursing wounds. He was later reported to be in Syria training jihadists. Sometime after this he turned up in northeastern Iraq and on the other side of the Iranian border where he planned sleeper cells in Baghdad and claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks in Turkey, Morocco, and Jordan. After the U.S. invasion he turned up in Iraq where he targeted Shi'i mosques, civilians, and Americans. His intercepted letter to Osama Bin Laden reported his absolute hatred for the Sunni/Shi'a ulema, the Shi'i, and Americans.

    - But, you would have people believe that Shi'a Iran "delivered" Zarqawi? He was also in Syria and Pakistan, two countries that have historically pushed the Sunni agenda. But only Iran, which is in philosophical opposition to the Sunni and their Islamist groups, is supposed to be Zarqawi's partner in crime?

    - You would have people believe that, after Iran supported the Northern Alliance against the Sunni Taliban and Sunni Al-Qaeda for years, Shi'a Iran now hung out with Sunni Zarqawi, who rubbed shoulders with Sunni Osama Bin Laden?

    This is exactly what I mean about making the Intel fit the narrative. Because he was in Iran, you immediately assume that Iran's government all of a sudden became Sunni handlers despite the complete lack of hard facts and the complete avoidance of the history. Zarqawi's mere presence in Iran is supposed to mean that he and the Shi'a ulema planned to slaughter Americans and members of the Shi'a ulema in Iraq? This is nonsense.




    Only if you wish Iran to have a hard connection to Hezbollah splinter groups, which there was none in regards to 1983. You can trace Kermit Roosevelt to the CIA, to Dulles, and to Eisenhower. You can not trace the Islamic Jihad organization, to Hezbollah, and then to Iran. No historian can because the path is broken. You ignore the part where Iran's ulema immediately condemned the act and outlawed suicide attacks in Shi'a Islam. This is about the time that Sunni Islamists began adopting suicide attacks as a tactic.

    Now, Iran's funding of groups in Syria is a different story. But like I stated, it's their ****ing region and once again we see a theme of protecting Shi'i.
    Sure, man. Every data point that you don't like is just Proof How Good The Conspiracy (by CIA, DIA, and NSA collectors against their own analysts) is. Everyone from General McChrystal to E5 HET guys are in on it, and not a single one of them has ever talked, ever. Because That's How Good They Are. That guy really did get out as a Captain-First-Class, and III MEF really is in Florida. And if you don't believe it, well, you were just lied to by the entire Marine Corps, all in a giant plot against you

  9. #79
    Stable Genius
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,342

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sure, man. Every data point that you don't like is just Proof How Good The Conspiracy (by CIA, DIA, and NSA collectors against their own analysts) is. Everyone from General McChrystal to E5 HET guys are in on it, and not a single one of them has ever talked, ever. Because That's How Good They Are. That guy really did get out as a Captain-First-Class, and III MEF really is in Florida. And if you don't believe it, well, you were just lied to by the entire Marine Corps, all in a giant plot against you
    Data points exist for every single country on the planet. Analysis means detailing and putting those data points together and seeing a factual picture that makes sense to the data. If you are going to boast an enlisted Intel MOS, you should try to transcend the basics of it. And even most officers do not. They collect local intel and pass on bits. And bits do not make a coherent picture.

    What you argue makes absolutely no sense at all to the history; and the actual general Intel analyses out of the CIA or NSA is local in nature and does not hold Iran up as some regional wolf that threatens us. It also does not compliment the political trash of Washington that you have been conditioned to. You are clinging to innuendos, exaggerations, and misconceptions that do not pan out.

    - First, the entire region is almost completely made up of the Sunni. Iran holds no sway upon what makes up around 90% of Islam.

    - Second, this is Iran's region, not ours. It will do what it feels is in its best interests; and expecting Iran to behave like a good boy, ignore dying Shi'i, so that we can have fun in the desert is foolish. It is also the first step towards seeing everything that Iran does as an attack on us. This is why any bit of data that the CIA collects is seen as "proof" of the traditional narrative. Funny how all the Intel factoids about Sunni governments just get shrugged off among the population, huh? Even with al-Qaeda, IS, Boko Haram, and so many others, we still need Iran to fit that false narrative so that we can remain friends with Sunni governments, huh?

    - Third, you would contradict the history of Iran's support for Massoud and the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (while we and those Sunni governments did ****), our attempt to work with Iran by establishing a supply line to Massoud in 2000, Iran's offer to help train new Afghan soldiers after 9/11, and Iran's actual help with Iraq's southern population during the Iraq invasion...just to cling to the big bad wolf narrative.

    - Fourth, you would deny the very real Sunni threat upon the U.S., which has come from under every Arab government since the 1980s, just to cling to the narrative that it is really Iran who threatens us. And if you wish to spotlight the Beirut bombing again, in which there is no evidence that the Iranian government was involved, I will simply move to the attack on the USS Liberty, in which the Israeli government was absolutely involved. Oh, but...IRAN...huh?

    This narrative exists because we lost our ally in Iran (Shah), maintain allies among the Arab governments, maintain support for Israel, and both Arab and Israeli governments have great interests invested in our continued ignorance. Anybody who unconditionally supports Israel automatically hates Iran. And for some reason, people would rather hate Iran than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Can you guess why at all? This is what the educated call "shutting down."

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC 1992~2012

  10. #80
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    01-17-18 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    366

    Re: Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sure, man. Every data point that you don't like is just Proof How Good The Conspiracy (by CIA, DIA, and NSA collectors against their own analysts) is. Everyone from General McChrystal to E5 HET guys are in on it, and not a single one of them has ever talked, ever. Because That's How Good They Are. That guy really did get out as a Captain-First-Class, and III MEF really is in Florida. And if you don't believe it, well, you were just lied to by the entire Marine Corps, all in a giant plot against you
    That's the Deep State for you. And hey, the former intel vets did talk in the end and say that Iran was not the top terror sponsor.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •