Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Thread (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 19:35:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I') trust Brzezinki's statements over yours, Carlhole.

June 13, 1997, in a CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets:


OK, but then a year later in 1998, he admitted in the Nouvelle Observateur interview that he had planned, in conjunction with the CIA, to sucker the Soviets into, in his words, "the Afghan trap".

The CNN archive interview occurred in 1997. The French newspaper interview happened 1998.
Carlhole
 

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 19:50:15

So Brzezkinski can't keep his facts straight in interviews a year apart. So what is else is new.

Brzezkinski deserves credit for convincing the feckless Carter to send aid to the Mujahdeen to bleed the Soviets. Huzzah for Brezenski.

The Soviets were defeated and kicked out Afghanistan after Reagan greatly increased to level of aid as apart of the Reagan doctrine to push back the Soviets in Afghanistan, Angola, etc. Two Huzzahs!

The Soviet empire in Europe collapsed during the end of the Reagan and beginning of the Bush41 adinistrations. Three Huzzahs!!! 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 20:31:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'S')o Brzezkinski can't keep his facts straight in interviews a year apart. So what is else is new.


Brzezinski chose the Nouvelle Observateur interview in 1998 to disclose previously non-public information about the beginnings of the Soviet-Afghan War.

He takes credit for engineering the plan that allowed CIA covert operations to de-stabilize the Soviet-installed Kabul regime. He is very deliberate, specific and vehement in the interview.

It has nothing at all to do with keeping facts straight.
Carlhole
 

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 22:28:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')He takes credit for engineering the plan that allowed CIA covert operations to de-stabilize the Soviet-installed Kabul regime.


Thats all very fine except the Kabul regime was destablized by the Mujahadeen....largely by Ahmad Shad Massoud and his forces.

Once the Russians invaded Brzesinski deserves credit for convincing Jimmy Carter to begin to send aid to the mujahadeen, but they were afraid to give direct aid to the Afghanis because it would make the Russians mad. Thats why Brzezinski was buying and sending only Russian-made equipment to the mujahadeen....he thought it wouldn't be traceable. Brzezinksi also allowed the Pakistanis to direct the insurgency so Carter could deny US involvement. You yourself showed that the Russians outsmarted Brzezkinski and blamed the US for aiding the Mujahadeen anyway.

When Reagan came in he changed the plan. Rather then just "bleeding" the Russians as Brzenzenski had suggested, Reagan had a bigger idea. Reagan called for defeating them and kicking them out of Afghanistan, Angola, etc. This policy is called the "Reagan Doctrine." Reagan's new plan called for much more aid to the Mujahadeen, and the US getting directly involved with dispensing and training the Mujahadeen so the Pakistanis wouldn't rip off so much of the aid and only give the rest to their clients. Once the US was involved, Ahamd Shah Massoud and other muhahadeen who were some of the best fighters but didn't have Pakistani support, suddenly got substantial US aid. Reagan also sent high quality US weapons that Zbig and Carter had been too afraid of the Russians to send, including the Stinger missile.

Reagan's more muscular policy was successful. The Russian expeditionary force was defeated and left Afghanistan in 1989.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 22:31:34

Image

Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Lion of Panjshir
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 22:45:14

This is what happened:

Soviet war in Afghanistan

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wiki', '[')b]Initiation of the insurgency
In June of 1975, militants from the Jamiat Islami party attempted to overthrow the Daoud government. They started the rebellion in the Panjshir valley, some 100 kilometers north of Kabul, and in a number of other provinces of the country. However, government forces easily defeated the insurgency and a sizable portion of the insurgents sought refuge in Pakistan where they enjoyed the support of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government, that had been alarmed by Daoud's revival of the Pashtunistan issue.[14]

The reaction against the reforms of the Government was violent, and large parts of the country went into open rebellion. The revolt began in October among the Nuristani tribes of the Kunar Valley, and rapidly spread among the other ethnic groups, including the Pashtun majority. The Afghan army was plagued with desertion and low morale and proved completely incapable of subduing the insurgency. By the spring of 1979, 24 of the 28 provinces had suffered outbreaks of violence.[15] The rebellion began to take hold in the cities: in March 1979 in Herat Afghan soldiers led by Ismail Khan mutinied and massacred approximately 200 Soviet civilians advisors. The Afghan Government with and Soviet assistance retaliated by an air campaign that killed an estimated 5000.[3] Despite these drastic measures, by the end of 1980, out of the 90,000 soldiers strong Afghan Army, more than half had either deserted or joined the rebels.[16]

Like many other anti-communist movements at that time, the rebels quickly garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:

[/i]We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.[/i]
Carlhole
 

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 22:58:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'O')n July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.


How did the covert propaganda authorized by the secret plan induce the Soviets to attack? 8)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 23:34:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'O')n July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.


How did the covert propaganda authorized by the secret plan induce the Soviets to attack?


I understood it to be more than simple propaganda; it was anything and everything that would inflame the situation to the point where many divisions of Soviet troops and a whole array of Soviet airpower would become involved. As an inveterate cold-warrior, Brzezinski's pursued his objective like a junkyard dog. He hated the Soviet Union.

I think the best analysis of it all was in William Blum's Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.

I can't recall all the details - there were one or two key assassinations, there was religious "instruction", fear-mongering, propaganda, arms, supplies, money... The Pakistanis were involved as US proxies...

That's an excellent book, btw. Cold-blooded, well-documented... I wish I'd been able to hang on to my copy.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 24 Oct 2007, 00:40:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'O')n July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.


How did the covert propaganda authorized by the secret plan induce the Soviets to attack?


I understood it to be more than simple propaganda; it was anything and everything that would inflame the situation to the point where many divisions of Soviet troops and a whole array of Soviet airpower would become involved.....I can't recall all the details - there were one or two key assassinations


All you've provided evidence for is an executive order authorizing a covert propaganda campaign. If Zbig Brzezinski and Carter were also involved in "key assassinations", as you claim, then they were breaking U.S. law. Can you provide any documentation at all to support your claims? 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 24 Oct 2007, 01:52:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'A')ll you've provided evidence for is an executive order authorizing a covert propaganda campaign. If Zbig Brzezinski and Carter were also involved in "key assassinations", as you claim, then they were breaking U.S. law. Can you provide any documentation at all to support your claims? 8)


My memory is probably faulty about the assassinations. There were a couple but I can't remember the details or who was involved so strike that.
Last edited by Carlhole on Wed 24 Oct 2007, 04:11:14, edited 1 time in total.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The CIA’s Jihad

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 24 Oct 2007, 04:01:07

"The Gates Inheritance: The World That Bob Made" by Roger Morris

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')ates' memoir dutifully notes the ensuing stream of bland speculations by the CIA's Soviet analysts about what the Soviets might next do in their tortured relationship with a faltering, needy, yet independent Afghan communist regime. But he spares us the covert actions the CIA carried out, amid a stream of memos Brzezinski and he sent Carter about the Soviet "threat" in South Asia - an intervention kept secret from their hated rival, secretary of state Vance and the rest of government.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y summer 1978, the old insurgent training camps in Pakistan were open again and thronged with Islamic radicals. They were eager to fight a regime pushing land reform and education for women, while establishing a secular police state. By the autumn of 1978, more than a year before Soviet combat troops set foot in Afghanistan, a civil war, armed and planned by the US, Pakistan, Iran and China, and soon to be actively supported, at Washington's prodding, by the Saudis and Egyptians, had begun to rage in the same wild mountains of eastern Afghanistan where US forces would seek Osama bin Laden a little more than 23 years later.

In April 1979, with arms and agitators paid for by the CIA and Pakistani intelligence (the shah fell in January, ending SAVAK's role), a radical Islamic uprising in Herat, western Afghanistan, led to the slaughter of thousands on both sides, including more than 200 Russian military and civilian advisers and their families. Even so, the Soviets stoutly refused to intervene militarily. They even made their refusal absolutely plain to Washington by pointedly conducting telephone conversations with the Afghan leadership for the Americans to intercept. But Gates, Brzezinski and Carter were having none of it in what had become a deliberate plot to "suck" the Russians into Afghanistan.

The old Great Game was now in cynical full swing. In the sort of mad plan not even Rudyard Kipling could have imagined, they plotted personally to "give the Soviets their Vietnam", as Brzezinski was fond of saying.

The ceaseless machinations and bloody civil strife culminated, of course, in the December 1979 Soviet invasion. The Politburo had resisted it for more than a year and hesitated even at the eleventh hour. It is, by any measure, one of the more dramatic, and chilling, stories in the annals of world politics. By now, Brzezinski and Gates had in essence created a new foreign policy for the United States and put it into action in secret with few co-authors and no parallel.

By the time they and their co-conspirators are through, a course will have been set that will take the Afghans into a nightmare universe in which one and a half million of them will die, millions more will become homeless (in what the United Nations will call "migratory genocide"), and, for more than a quarter-century, their country will be a continuing catastrophe beyond any other in the history of nation-states. In part, it is his own work that Gates now faces as secretary of defense.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Asia Times', '[')i]Roger Morris is an award-winning author and investigative journalist who served in the US Foreign Service and on the senior staff of the National Security Council under presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Before resigning over the invasion of Cambodia, he was one of only three officials comprising Henry Kissinger's special projects staff conducting the initial highly secret "back-channel" negotiations with Hanoi to end the Vietnam War in 1969-70. He is the author of several critically acclaimed books, including Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician, 1913-1952, and the best-selling Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America as well as, most recently, The Money and the Power: The Making of Las Vegas and Its Hold on America (co-authored with historian Sally Denton).

His Shadows of the Eagle, a history of US covert intervention in the Middle East and South Asia since the 1940s, will be published by Knopf early in 2008. His studies and commentary on US politics and foreign policy appear regularly on the website of the Green Institute, where he is senior fellow.


Shadows of the Eagle, A History Of US Covert Intervention In The Middle East and South Asia Since The 1940s by Roger Morris

I'll have to buy that book.
Carlhole
 
Top

Was Pelosi aware of CIA's tactics?

Unread postby Carlhole » Thu 13 Dec 2007, 09:42:24

Was Pelosi aware of CIA's tactics?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('San Francisco Chronicle', 'W')hen the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, were they also destroying the truth about Sept. 11, 2001? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day - and the nature of the enemy in this war on terror that Bush launched in response to the tragedy - comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers. The commission was never allowed to interview the prisoners, or speak with those who did, and was forced to rely on what the CIA was willing to relay instead.

On the matter of the existence of the tapes, we know the CIA deliberately lied, not only to the 9/11 commission, but to Congress as well. Given that the Bush administration has for six years refused those prisoners any sort of public legal exposure, why should we believe what we've been told about what may turn out to be the most important transformative event in our nation's history? On the basis of what the CIA claimed the tortured prisoners said, President Bush launched a "Global War on Terrorism," (GWOT), an endless war that threatens to bankrupt our society both financially and morally.

How important were those "key witnesses" to the 9/11 Commission report?...


Oh come on! The "basic narrative of 911" was pretty much declared that afternoon. They didn't no steenking torture to tell a monstrous lie - not when you control most of the major media to spread it around, substantiated or not.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sat 14 Mar 2009, 23:41:34, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE CIA Thread.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Was Pelosi aware of CIA's tactics?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 13 Dec 2007, 13:25:54

Of course Pelosi was aware. She sits on the intelligence oversight committee and was fully briefed.

Also as Speaker of the House she is third in line to the presidency and receives an additional, even more complete intelligence review then the rest of the oversight committee receives.

There is no sign that Pelosi did not completely concur with the policy.
8)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Was Pelosi aware of CIA's tactics?

Unread postby Chuckmak » Thu 13 Dec 2007, 14:20:32

Again...

Republican = Democrat

The "Good Old Boy/Girl" network knows no political boundaries. This is evidence of this.
"if god doesn't exist, it is necessary that we invent him" - Voltaire

"they say prescott bush funded hitler" - Nas

Image
Chuckmak
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat 19 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Bridge City

Re: Was Pelosi aware of CIA's tactics?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 13 Dec 2007, 14:31:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chuckmak', 'R')epublican = Democrat


Obviously Republican does not equal democrat. They are two separate political parties.

The reality is a bit more complicated then Republican=Democrat.

The US Constitution was designed to FORCE consensus between a majority of the states and between different political parties before Congress could pass laws or declare wars, etc. The constitution forces compromises and accommodations between the two parties, and that operational consensus now definitely includes Pelosi. 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Obama Exempts CIA Torture Staff

Unread postby mattduke » Fri 17 Apr 2009, 08:04:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')IA agents who used harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects during the Bush era will not be prosecuted, US President Barack Obama has said.


bbc
User avatar
mattduke
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3591
Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Obama Exempts CIA Torture Staff

Unread postby Jotapay » Fri 17 Apr 2009, 09:14:58

While I think torture is deplorable, I honestly think Obama and Holder (whom I hate) did the right thing here. Some select prosecutions at the very top (former white house counsel, CIA director who authorized the torture) might be warranted, but you cannot engage in a purge of federal agencies based on decisions of past administrations. It would destroy the working environment for hundreds of thousands of people. I do commend the Obama administration for releasing these documents and not dickering with the state secrets excuse.
Jotapay
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat 21 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Obama Exempts CIA Torture Staff

Unread postby Schmuto » Fri 17 Apr 2009, 09:54:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jotapay', 'W')hile I think torture is deplorable, I honestly think Obama and Holder (whom I hate) did the right thing here. Some select prosecutions at the very top (former white house counsel, CIA director who authorized the torture) might be warranted, but you cannot engage in a purge of federal agencies based on decisions of past administrations. It would destroy the working environment for hundreds of thousands of people. I do commend the Obama administration for releasing these documents and not dickering with the state secrets excuse.


Usually I agree with your posts.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this one.

The message that Bush the 3rd has sent is clear - "you will not be held accountable for your crimes."

That message can only incite further crime.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Obama Exempts CIA Torture Staff

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 17 Apr 2009, 10:50:07

Obama (and his dupes in the MSM) are pretending that the CIA didn't interrogate people using slaps, food deprivation, water-boarding etc. prior to 9/11.

That isn't true.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Obama Exempts CIA Torture Staff

Unread postby Jotapay » Fri 17 Apr 2009, 11:06:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'T')he message that Bush the 3rd has sent is clear - "you will not be held accountable for your crimes."

That message can only incite further crime.


The rub occurs with those employees who were following orders/job duties. I do not think they should be prosecuted. Censured? Maybe. It is those few at the top who approved the program who should be prosecuted. It is with them where responsibility lies.
Jotapay
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat 21 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests