This anonymous CIA agent has been in charge of the CIA department responsible for keeping tabs on Osama bin Laden since 1996. He's written a book called Imperial Hubris. The headlines have focused on his prediction that Al-Qaeda will attack again in the U.S., more destructively than on 9/11. But he's got some interesting things to say about the geopolitics of the Middle East, too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/
The interview is very long, so here are a few excerpts. The anonymous CIA agent, interviewed by Andrea Mitchell, claims that bin Laden's success comes from the fact that he doesn't rail against American decadence, like other Islamicists do. Instead, he focuses on American foreign policy, which even moderate and liberal Arabs object to. Emphasis is mine.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')itchell: "Well, you say in your book that the reality is that there is a large and growing feeling among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against America, not because of a misunderstanding of America but because they understand our policies very well."
Anonymous: "That's exactly right. I certainly believe that, and I think the substantial amount of polling that's been done by the Pew Trust and by other very reputable pollsters in the Islamic world indicate that most of the Islamic world believes they know exactly what we're up to, and that's to deny the Palestinians a country, to make sure that oil flows at prices that may seem outrageous to the American consumer, but are not market prices in the Islamists' eyes, supporting Russia against Chechnya. I think very coolly bin Laden has focused them on substance rather than rhetoric. And his rhetoric is only powerful because that is the case. He's focused them on U.S. policies."
PeakOil is You
THE Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Thread (merged)
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
by Leanan » Thu 24 Jun 2004, 09:56:09
He thinks that we should take tough action, even if it means forgoing cheap oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')itchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"
Anonymous: "I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived. We've arrived at the point where the only option is military. And quite frankly, in Iraq and in Afghanistan we've applied that military force with a certain daintiness that has not served our interests well.
Despite this, he thinks we should have never gone into Iraq:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')itchell: "You call the invasion of Iraq, ‘an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.’ Why do you think so?"
Anonymous: "For several reasons. That was a passage cut from a larger passage where I describe my personal aversion to aggressive war, to the war started by the United States. And I tried to draw an analogy between our war against Mexico in the 19th century and just saying it is not part of the American character or our basic sense of decency to wage wars except in self-defense or preemption.
"The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowed—it made us invade, or it caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam. It's not really the same as the Russians invading Afghanistan in 1979. Afghanistan is an Islamic country, but it was far from the mainstream of world Islam.
"Iraq, however, for both Sunnis and Shias, is the second holiest place in the Islamic world. And to invade that country, on the face of it, is a great offense to Islam and an action which almost entirely validated bin Laden's assertions about what the United States intended vis-à-vis the Islamic world."
So even though he was against the war, now that we're in there, he thinks we should be more brutal than we are being. To hell with protecting civilians and preserving the infrastruture.
This guy is not an extremist. He's pragmatic, and pretty much in the mainstream of American thought. I fear it's very possible that we'll end up going to war over oil...again.
-
Leanan - News Editor
- Posts: 4582
- Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Why wars are fought and how they are started
by mainster » Thu 24 Jun 2004, 12:39:40
What do you mean again? Iraq and Afghanistan were only about oil/pipelines from the beginning! Is it coincidence that all the so called "axis of evil" countries are oil producing countries or essential for oil pipeline routes? Check out the connections between military deployments and oil production. US (and others) have a history of supporting brutal dictators and suppressing or instating coups against democratically elected leaders who did not follow Washingtons orders.
Wars are always fought for treasure (resources). Why else go to war?
The "problem" for the leaders is that they often have to "invent" some other pretext, be it religious, ideological, false provocation (fx fake terrorism). Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!
"Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pascifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII
Sounds familiar???
History repeats itself!
Wars are always fought for treasure (resources). Why else go to war?
The "problem" for the leaders is that they often have to "invent" some other pretext, be it religious, ideological, false provocation (fx fake terrorism). Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!
"Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pascifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII
Sounds familiar???
History repeats itself!
-
mainster - Wood
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue 22 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
I ignore them
by Cool Hand Linc » Thu 24 Jun 2004, 13:37:28
I do not listen to anonymous sources. Stand up and be counted. Its not your word until you say your name!
-
Cool Hand Linc - Tar Sands
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Sat 17 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Tulsa, Ok
by Leanan » Thu 24 Jun 2004, 14:18:07
He's a CIA agent. He has to be anonymous, it's part of his job description. (Just ask Valerie Plame.) Revealing his name could result in his sources/contacts losing their lives.
The CIA did vet the book before publication, to make sure there was nothing classified in it.
The CIA did vet the book before publication, to make sure there was nothing classified in it.
-
Leanan - News Editor
- Posts: 4582
- Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
by gg3 » Sat 26 Jun 2004, 05:02:53
What Leanan said about Anon's job description.
Mainster, please operationalize your variable "fake terrorism."
Re. Goering, yes, he said that, and also, he underetimated the power of democracy to perform course corrections.
IMHO Anon's case rests on its merits, and I think it has many.
I would say that the first step is to recognize the depth of the threat, and then achieve the national will to fight as if our lives depend on it. At that point we will be in a better position to examine a range of potentially less harmful options and make our decisions from a position of strength, rather than reacting to events.
First, objectivity and principles compel recognition that we have to take a more even-handed approach to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. And, to the extent we were seen as acting in a manner that's principled *and* consistent, we could then also pressure various Arabic governments that have not seen fit to assist in the real alleviation of the Palestinians' situation.
Second, I'm not at all sure how to arrive at a circumstance by which we're paying a more world-equitable (e.g. higher) price for crude without at the same time putting more money directly or indirectly into the hands of people who want to destroy us.
However, I can think of something that would have three specific strategic benefits:
Create a Federal gasoline tax that raises the pump price to a level consistent with world standards e.g. the UK price. Apply the funds collected to the following purposes:
a) Increased military funding: it's one thing to call for an additional 20,000 troops (the number currently on the table), or 40,000 as Kerry proposes. It's another thing to fund the vast logistical engine that keeps them trained, armed, supplied, and ready.
b) A significant program directed toward applying already-known technologies to increase energy self-reliance. This would include such measures as increased staffing at NRC (combined with a reduction in regulatory burden on nuclear plant applications), to provide an incentive for rapid deployment of nuclear reactors; development of light rail and intercity rail infrastructure that favors the concept of publicly-owned rights of way made available to competing private carriers; tax incentives for viable energy deployments generally (nuclear, wind, solar, etc.), and so on.
c) And here's the one that no one is expecting: A very substantial allocation for the development of Islamic primary and secondary schools in the Sufi tradition (moderate Islam that has much in common with the mystical tendencies in Christianity). Endowments for University positions at various institutions around the world, for Sufi scholarship and studies. In essence, direct support for the most moderate branch of Islam, the branch that is fully oriented toward peaceful coexistance. This will work against the hostile influence of the Saudi-sponsored Madrassas, and will foster attitudes that are more conducive toward an indigenous Islamic renaissance of a constructive nature.
d) Substantial infrastructure aid to Islamic countries and regions, for things such as health, literacy, and information technology. The point being that a healthy and educated population, anywhere, is less susceptible to the enticements of terrorist and insurgent organizations.
e) And not to forget, financial aid of some kind that will enable economically disadvantaged Americans to cope with the increased cost of fuel by a) purchasing new vehicles such as advanced diesels and hybrids with higher efficiency, and b) perhaps being entitled to some kind of tax relief of the actual fuel tax, directly and at the pump.
The strategic benefits are to increase our military strength, decrease our dependence on the Islamic world for energy sources, and promote a truly moderate Islam while ameliorating the conditions upon which terrorist recruitment feeds.
Bottom line is, to the extent we act consistently and in a self-disciplined manner, we will gain on many fronts. To the extent that we act for raw expedience and to preserve self-indulgence, we lose respect, lose our muscle, and ultimately lose the war.
And then, having done these things, if any foreign foe wants to try launching attacks against us, they will find us so well disciplined and well prepared that they won't even have enough time left to regret it.
Mainster, please operationalize your variable "fake terrorism."
Re. Goering, yes, he said that, and also, he underetimated the power of democracy to perform course corrections.
IMHO Anon's case rests on its merits, and I think it has many.
I would say that the first step is to recognize the depth of the threat, and then achieve the national will to fight as if our lives depend on it. At that point we will be in a better position to examine a range of potentially less harmful options and make our decisions from a position of strength, rather than reacting to events.
First, objectivity and principles compel recognition that we have to take a more even-handed approach to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. And, to the extent we were seen as acting in a manner that's principled *and* consistent, we could then also pressure various Arabic governments that have not seen fit to assist in the real alleviation of the Palestinians' situation.
Second, I'm not at all sure how to arrive at a circumstance by which we're paying a more world-equitable (e.g. higher) price for crude without at the same time putting more money directly or indirectly into the hands of people who want to destroy us.
However, I can think of something that would have three specific strategic benefits:
Create a Federal gasoline tax that raises the pump price to a level consistent with world standards e.g. the UK price. Apply the funds collected to the following purposes:
a) Increased military funding: it's one thing to call for an additional 20,000 troops (the number currently on the table), or 40,000 as Kerry proposes. It's another thing to fund the vast logistical engine that keeps them trained, armed, supplied, and ready.
b) A significant program directed toward applying already-known technologies to increase energy self-reliance. This would include such measures as increased staffing at NRC (combined with a reduction in regulatory burden on nuclear plant applications), to provide an incentive for rapid deployment of nuclear reactors; development of light rail and intercity rail infrastructure that favors the concept of publicly-owned rights of way made available to competing private carriers; tax incentives for viable energy deployments generally (nuclear, wind, solar, etc.), and so on.
c) And here's the one that no one is expecting: A very substantial allocation for the development of Islamic primary and secondary schools in the Sufi tradition (moderate Islam that has much in common with the mystical tendencies in Christianity). Endowments for University positions at various institutions around the world, for Sufi scholarship and studies. In essence, direct support for the most moderate branch of Islam, the branch that is fully oriented toward peaceful coexistance. This will work against the hostile influence of the Saudi-sponsored Madrassas, and will foster attitudes that are more conducive toward an indigenous Islamic renaissance of a constructive nature.
d) Substantial infrastructure aid to Islamic countries and regions, for things such as health, literacy, and information technology. The point being that a healthy and educated population, anywhere, is less susceptible to the enticements of terrorist and insurgent organizations.
e) And not to forget, financial aid of some kind that will enable economically disadvantaged Americans to cope with the increased cost of fuel by a) purchasing new vehicles such as advanced diesels and hybrids with higher efficiency, and b) perhaps being entitled to some kind of tax relief of the actual fuel tax, directly and at the pump.
The strategic benefits are to increase our military strength, decrease our dependence on the Islamic world for energy sources, and promote a truly moderate Islam while ameliorating the conditions upon which terrorist recruitment feeds.
Bottom line is, to the extent we act consistently and in a self-disciplined manner, we will gain on many fronts. To the extent that we act for raw expedience and to preserve self-indulgence, we lose respect, lose our muscle, and ultimately lose the war.
And then, having done these things, if any foreign foe wants to try launching attacks against us, they will find us so well disciplined and well prepared that they won't even have enough time left to regret it.
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
by Guest » Wed 14 Jul 2004, 06:32:52
>Second, I'm not at all sure how to arrive at a circumstance by which we're paying a more world-equitable (e.g. higher) price for crude without at the same time putting more money directly or indirectly into the hands of people who want to destroy us.
So, we destroy them instead?
Thats a bankrupt extremist philosophy
Isn't it ironic how Bin Laden and the CIA source are saying exactly the same things?
Extremists are ultimately one people, regardless of which side they are on
The only way forward is to treat everyone as a human being and thrash out a deal
The only way to kill is to dehumanise the 'enemy'
Martin
So, we destroy them instead?
Thats a bankrupt extremist philosophy
Isn't it ironic how Bin Laden and the CIA source are saying exactly the same things?
Extremists are ultimately one people, regardless of which side they are on
The only way forward is to treat everyone as a human being and thrash out a deal
The only way to kill is to dehumanise the 'enemy'
Martin
- Guest
by Hegel » Sun 18 Jul 2004, 06:04:20
Is there anything like a "wrong" or "right" war? Is it important to whine about decisions made in the past that turn out to be blantantly wrong in first place?
Is it even of any importance to listen to someone that works for an agency that claimed to have fool proof evidence of illegal uranium trading between Niger and Irak that turned out to be false information spread by the every agency itself?
Hey wait a minute, are we talking about an intelligency agency from some fascist country, that forges its own evidence to trigger wars elsewhere, as seen in 1939 in Germany in order to blitz Poland and the rest of Europe?
Don't worry, homeland security might pull a much more laughable stunt in near future to take some pressure from the CIA
I really hate to say this, but it looks like that the CIA does the same Spiel all over again only replacing 'k' with a 'n'. Iran that is. It's sad to see the former beacon of democracy turning into a twisted republic with quasi fascist methods e.g. Patriot Act I & II and the like. Compare Patriot Act with the Laws of Nuremberg of 1935, notice the similarity in wording. Scary. On the other hand I'm just some german guy, I couldn't care less about the US of A, if there wasn't that bad feeling in my stomach concerning all those G.I. Grunts all over Europe and especially where I live. Drop me a line when you guys are planning to go haywire in Europe
P.S:
The utmost uncommon thing in universe is common-sense.
Is it even of any importance to listen to someone that works for an agency that claimed to have fool proof evidence of illegal uranium trading between Niger and Irak that turned out to be false information spread by the every agency itself?
Hey wait a minute, are we talking about an intelligency agency from some fascist country, that forges its own evidence to trigger wars elsewhere, as seen in 1939 in Germany in order to blitz Poland and the rest of Europe?
Don't worry, homeland security might pull a much more laughable stunt in near future to take some pressure from the CIA
I really hate to say this, but it looks like that the CIA does the same Spiel all over again only replacing 'k' with a 'n'. Iran that is. It's sad to see the former beacon of democracy turning into a twisted republic with quasi fascist methods e.g. Patriot Act I & II and the like. Compare Patriot Act with the Laws of Nuremberg of 1935, notice the similarity in wording. Scary. On the other hand I'm just some german guy, I couldn't care less about the US of A, if there wasn't that bad feeling in my stomach concerning all those G.I. Grunts all over Europe and especially where I live. Drop me a line when you guys are planning to go haywire in Europe
P.S:
The utmost uncommon thing in universe is common-sense.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Current Doomerosity Level (Jaymax Scale): 5
Current Doomerosity Level (Jaymax Scale): 5
-
Hegel - Peat
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Germany
No
by Cool Hand Linc » Fri 23 Jul 2004, 02:21:52
No, Matt, my id it doesn't read Link Missing.
Link, The Missing
My real first name is 'The'. I go by Link.
I have posted a few times that I am 'The Missing Link'.
Link, The Missing
My real first name is 'The'. I go by Link.
I have posted a few times that I am 'The Missing Link'.
Peace out!
Cool Hand Linc
Cool Hand Linc
-
Cool Hand Linc - Tar Sands
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Sat 17 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Tulsa, Ok
Say hello to the CIA
by Kingcoal » Mon 29 Nov 2004, 15:19:12
Security officials to spy on chat rooms
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n April 2003, the CIA agreed to fund a series of research projects that the documents indicate were intended to create "new capabilities to combat terrorism through advanced technology." One of those projects is research at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., devoted to automated monitoring and profiling of the behavior of chat-room users.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n April 2003, the CIA agreed to fund a series of research projects that the documents indicate were intended to create "new capabilities to combat terrorism through advanced technology." One of those projects is research at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., devoted to automated monitoring and profiling of the behavior of chat-room users.
Any spies here?
-
Kingcoal - Expert
- Posts: 2149
- Joined: Wed 29 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
![[smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/new_popcornsmiley.gif "new_popcornsmiley")
