Monday, August 09, 2010

Former ISI Chief Still a Kook

Hamid Gul, who used to be one of the Troofer's suspects (remember the whole bit about the $100,000 wire transfer to Atta?) is now their big buddy because he endorses the nuttery:

The attacks of September 11 were a pretext to a war already under consideration, Gul said. "I think some of the neocons, who were very close to President [George W.] Bush, they wanted that he could embark on a universal adventure of Pax Americana, and they thought that the world was lying prostrate in front of them," he said. The 2001 terrorist attacks helped win the public support for the neocon plans, he said.

There was no legitimate reason for the United States to attack Afghanistan, Gul said, because the FBI had no solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in the attacks on New York and Washington. "Why has not a single individual connected to 9/11 been caught in America so far, and why hasn't Osama bin Laden been charged?" With no evidence anyone in Afghanistan was involved, there is no way to legitimize the U.S. occupation, Gul said.


Errr, Zacharias Moussaoui was caught in America. And the goofiness about Osama not being charged is so stupid only a Truther could believe it. Gul also blurs the line between the US support for the Afghan resistance in the 1980s and the Taliban (which arose much later).

Correction: Gul headed the ISI before Mahmoud Ahmed, who is the guy suspected of wiring the money to Atta, according to one article in the Times of India. Gul was on the Alex Jones show a year or two and denied the charges against Ahmed.

83 Comments:

At 09 August, 2010 10:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Pat, it was Mahmood Ahmed who was suspected of the wire transfer.

 
At 09 August, 2010 11:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another irrelevant factoid from the let's pick gnat shit out of pepper crowd. Right, Brian?

You're a waste of bandwidth--not to mention skin.

 
At 09 August, 2010 13:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, that "irrelevant factoid" is otherwise called factual accuracy and truthfulness, Bill. Not something this blog is known for. To his credit, Pat corrected his error.

You were saying?

Good job, other Anonymous, whoever you are. If you hadn't said it, I would.

 
At 09 August, 2010 13:15, Blogger byMassingale said...

I made sure all my screws were in place before I posted...
join Us International Boycott Of The Arabic Drug Empire Phase 2

1.YouTube - State of Disrepair
 - 6:22am
Jun 7, 2010 ... The whole justification for this war was 9/11 and that was a false flag attack. ... What if they sold the opiom to the Purdue pharmaceutical company to make oxycontin. ... money & not replace it with something else that will also make money. ... queue Off the Grid - 62min Documentary30411 views ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta8vt8LRlEY - Cached

pharmaceutical company purdue linked to 9/11

 
At 09 August, 2010 14:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Good job, other Anonymous, whoever you are. If you hadn't said it, I would."

I smell a sock puppet.

You're pathetic, Brian.

 
At 09 August, 2010 14:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Pat, it was confirmed by Agence France Presse.

 
At 09 August, 2010 15:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

Off-topic.

An observation: For some strange reason posts that include hyperlinks in the body of the text are disappearing from the comment section of the blog. I'm 100% certain this phenomenon is blogspot.com weirdness, but I thought you'd like to know that comments are disappearing.

 
At 09 August, 2010 16:04, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

You mean all you gotta do is goof on the "Git"s porcine schnozz and he disables the link to his cute little promo pic? Notice,he don't include it with his posts anymore.We always knew you were a pussy,Dogboy,but that's pathetic.

 
At 09 August, 2010 16:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awe. Arhoolie gets so butthurt by your posts, Bill, he has to stalk you.

 
At 09 August, 2010 16:32, Anonymous Gitty Factotums said...

Up Early Paddy the Bloated Fathead flails miserably again,face first into the pachysandra,and the Yuppie Plonker is right there with a ringing endorsement and an insane riff about "irrelevant factoids"!!! I guess nothing matters when the wheelchair's already in motion,hey Dogboy!

 
At 09 August, 2010 18:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Gitty Factotums said...
Up Early Paddy the Bloated Fathead flails miserably again,face first into the pachysandra,and the Yuppie Plonker is right there with a ringing endorsement and an insane riff about "irrelevant factoids"!!! I guess nothing matters when the wheelchair's already in motion,hey Dogboy!"

The systemization of patriarchal grammar allegorizes the imposition of process but the imposition of process must be a model for future work in the field, so let us suppose that, so far as regards the manifold, space, so far as regards our experience and our actual concepts, is the mere result of the power of reason, a blind but indispensable function of the pancreas.

 
At 09 August, 2010 19:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice feat of logorrhoea, Lazarus. Do you feel outwitted? I like it best when you discuss your climate change conspiracy theory.

 
At 09 August, 2010 19:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I smell a sock puppet.

Your fly is open.

 
At 09 August, 2010 19:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No that would be your upper lip, Brian.

 
At 09 August, 2010 19:54, Anonymous Marc said...

So 9/11 was pretense to invade Afghanistan, a country we clearly didn't give one shit about on 9/10 (other than to herumph about at Amnesty International parties), AND to invade Iraq even though all the justification we needed was to wait for them to fire on one of our airplanes covering the N0-Fly Zone.

This ISI guy is all over this international intrigue stuff.

 
At 09 August, 2010 20:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So 9/11 was pretense to invade Afghanistan, a country we clearly didn't give one shit about on 9/10

"Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11'"

Source: bit. ly / 9kSfM6 (remove spaces)

That little nugget right there seems to be in direct conflict with your "didn't give a shit on 9/10" claim, Mark. No wonder you visit SLC. You're poorly informed, sorry to say.

 
At 10 August, 2010 04:39, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Hamid Gul is a complete turd, and his flirtation with Islamists dates from the late 1980s-early 1990s. At the tail end of the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan Gul started to stir up the shit in Kashmir, training jihadis for that particular insurgency. The end result was the emergence of groups like Lashkar e-Toiba (responsible for Mumbai in 2008) and Harkat ul-Mujahidin.

Gul's other great achievement was the Jalalabad offensive in spring 1989, in which the Afghan mujahidin were used as cannon fodder. Gul and other Pakistani officers planned the attack, which ended up as a WWI reenactment party for the poor sods who were sent into battle.

He lost his job as ISI chief for plotting (with Pakistan's Islamist parties) to overthrow Benazir Bhutto (during her first term as PM). Bhutto actually accused him of responsibility for the bomb attack that killed several of her supporters during her welcome-home rally in October 2007.

Gul is also a member of Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, a pro-Taliban group (consisting of former military officers, industrialists and nuclear scientists) recognised by the UN as a sponsor of terrorism.

Pakistan's curse since the late 1980s is that many within its military and ISI hierarchy have tried to use the Taliban and groups like Lashkar e-Toiba as proxies. Not only have they turned Afghanistan and Kashmir into hell-holes in the process, but they've also weakened Pakistan as well. Furthermore, some of those officers have (like Gul) have gone rogue in the process.

Too many Pakistanis are in denial about what their military elite has done in the region. Gul is actively muddying the waters, because he shares the culpability for a lot of the bloodshed that has taken place across South Asia since the late 1980s.

 
At 10 August, 2010 08:34, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'"Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11'"

Source: bit. ly / 9kSfM6 (remove spaces)'

Brian, this red herring of yours has been discredited time and time again. But just in case you might (just for a change) actually learn something, read the following.

This is all a reference to NSPD-9, which is the source of conflicting accounts from within the former Bush administration about its content, and also the dispute between Richard Clarke and his former employers over the degree to which the Bushites were prepared to meet the threat from AQ.

In 'The Age of Sacred Terror' Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon state that the original discussion on this document at the Principals meeting on 4th September 2001 focused on targeting al-Qaeda’s finances, proposals to aid the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, and also an inconclusive discussion on whether Predator UAVs should be armed for operations over Afghanistan, and who should have the authority to use them (CIA or military, pp.345-346). This is confirmed in Steve Coll's 'Ghost Wars' (p.580), which also notes that there was no discussion on how the proposals outlined in NSPD-9 should be budgeted. That's quite a crucial distinction to make.

At no point did the Bush administration agree to a plan to invade and occupy Afghanistan. The Joint Chiefs - who would have been expected to draft any OPLAN involving the deployment of US military forces - had no such contingency document to guide them, which was why OEF had to be planned on the hoof (See Benjamin Lambeth, 'Air Power against Terror', for more on this subject).

Now are you man enough to admit that you are wrong?

 
At 10 August, 2010 09:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. The broadcasters of your area in voluntary cooperation with the Federal, State and local authorities have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of an emergency. If this had been an actual emergency, the Attention Signal you just heard would have been followed by official information, news or instructions.

*crickets*

This concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System.

%^)

 
At 10 August, 2010 10:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are you talking to, Sack? I don't see any 'Brian' around. Do you, Sack? If you have questions for Brian, contact him, Sack.

 
At 10 August, 2010 10:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the other hand, if you have questions for me, I'll be more than happy to answer them, Sack. Just let me know if the questions/remarks above were directed at me and not at 'Brian' and I'll (promptly!) respond.

Okay, Sack?

 
At 10 August, 2010 10:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 August, 2010 10:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've got to go now, but until I return, I'll give you a hint, Sack.

Reread my comment and try not to bayonet a straw man next time.

I know, I know, you're just trying to keep your eyes on the ball, Sack. ;-)

I understand.

 
At 10 August, 2010 10:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw

 
At 10 August, 2010 11:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am the one and only Anonymous. Pay no attention to the imposters!

 
At 10 August, 2010 11:12, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Talking of straw men, have you got any response to the substance of my comments, Anonymous?

Thought not.

 
At 10 August, 2010 11:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does Hamid Gul dislike Jews so much? Is it because he's a twoofer? I'm addressing that to anyone, but especially the Anonymouses. Or is it Anonymi? The latter question is addressed to Anonymouses only.

 
At 10 August, 2010 11:25, Anonymous Marc said...

That little nugget right there seems to be in direct conflict with your "didn't give a shit on 9/10" claim, Mark. No wonder you visit SLC. You're poorly informed, sorry to say.


Oh poor Bwian, I don't argue with you because you are clearly mentally ill. It's like beating up a retarded kid - not very fun.

But in you case I can learn to like it.

No, the Bush team did not have a plan to invade Afghanistan on 9/10. Even "Big Dick" Clarke would not have gone along with that idea and he had advocated strikes inside Afghanistan under Clinton but the JSOC guys told him no fucking way (yes, Bwian, the military can indeed tell the White House no).

Maybe in a world on Nanothermite this stuff happened but out here in the world where sick people take their medication to stop seeing unicorns it didn't.

Wave bye-bye, Bwian.

 
At 10 August, 2010 11:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Pat, it was confirmed by Agence France Presse.

C'est merde.

 
At 10 August, 2010 12:57, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

The only source I can see claiming that AFP (that's the reputable news agency Agence France Presse, rather than the far-right source of headlines for 'Loose Change', American Free Press) 'verified' the Atta-Ahmed money transfer comes from David Ray Griffin.

Pardon me if I ask for independent corroboration.

 
At 10 August, 2010 13:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

S & A wrote, "...Talking of straw men, have you got any response to the substance of my comments, Anonymous?"

Don't hold your breath.

 
At 11 August, 2010 01:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he wants to address his questions to me, I'll answer. So far, Sack seems to be talking to his imaginary friend "Brian". Same seems to go for the other fudge-packers here. Like I said, ask me and I will respond. I'm just aching to respond. But I'm not going to speak before my turn. Brian? Somebody asked you a question, under the chronically delusional impression that they were talking to you.

And about wrestling pigs, Bill, let's not talk about how your parents met. It's off-topic.

 
At 11 August, 2010 02:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sackcloth and ashes,

Don't ask him, ask me. For I am the true Anonymous.

 
At 11 August, 2010 02:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sackcloth and ashes,

Address your questions to me, the Anonymous of 02:32. I am he true Anonymous - accept no substitutes.

 
At 11 August, 2010 05:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, sock puppet all you want. I'm not going to register an account.

 
At 11 August, 2010 06:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that addressed to me?

 
At 11 August, 2010 06:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, it's addressed to me.

 
At 11 August, 2010 06:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous, did you notice that he thinks you have to register to post here?

 
At 11 August, 2010 06:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did notice, Anonymous. He's a twoofer - what do you expect? Give him a few years and he'll figure it out.

 
At 11 August, 2010 06:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"C'est merde."

"A highly-placed government source told AFP that the "damning link" between the general and the transfer of funds to Atta was part of evidence which India has officially sent to the US. "The evidence we have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism," the source said." [AFP, India Accuses Ex Pakistan Spy Chief Of Links to US Attacker: Report, 10/10/2001]

 
At 11 August, 2010 07:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing is for sure... whether or not Lt. Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100k to Mohammad Atta, Saeed Sheikh's relationship to the ISI is well documented. Also, Ahmed and Sheikh were said to take part in another terrorist attack together not long after 9/11. There's more reason to believe the story than not.

 
At 11 August, 2010 07:26, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

OK, so the reference to the 'damning link' comes from an Indian government 'source' quoted by Agence France Presse. It's not AFP's assessment that the Atta-Ahmed money-transfer story is genuine.

Try harder next time.

PS: Are you prepared to admit you were wrong about NSPD-9 as well?

 
At 11 August, 2010 07:30, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Omar Sayed Sheikh was in jail in India between 1994-1999 (being released in December of that year as a result of the hijacking of Indian Airlines 814 by Harkat ul-Mujahidin, relying on Taliban assistance). He went to ground in Pakistan after his release and was arrested after the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Your point is what, precisely?

 
At 11 August, 2010 07:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to me you need to learn a little more before you open your mouth.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0693saeed#a0693saeed

"Two months later, he begins training in Afghanistan at camps run by al-Qaeda and the Pakistani ISI."

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a122499hijack#a122499hijack

"He then tours Pakistan for weeks under the protection of the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency."

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a010100saeedreleased#a010100saeedreleased

"After being released from prison at the end of 1999 (see December 24-31, 1999), Saeed Sheikh travels to Pakistan and is given a house by the ISI."

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0summer01mahmoodcalls#a0summer01mahmoodcalls

"In 2002, French author Bernard-Henri Levy is presented evidence by government officials in New Delhi, India, that Saeed Sheikh makes repeated calls to ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed during the summer of 2000. Later, Levy gets unofficial confirmation from sources in Washington regarding these calls that the information he was given in India is correct."

 
At 11 August, 2010 08:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"PS: Are you prepared to admit you were wrong about NSPD-9 as well?"

Ah, you're talking to me. I'll respond.

You said: "At no point did the Bush administration agree to a plan to invade and occupy Afghanistan."

And my reply is very simple: I didn't claim this. You're bayoneting a straw man. I cited an article by the Guardian with the title: "Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11'"

If you had actually read the article I cited, you would have noticed the following paragraphs:

"The day before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a report by a bipartisan commission of inquiry.

The report pointed out that agreement on the plan, which involved a steady escalation of pressure over three years, had been repeatedly put off by the Clinton and Bush administrations, despite the repeated failure of attempts to use diplomatic and economic pressure.

(...)

However, the three-step process would have taken up to three years, and did not represent an immediate attack plan."


You see my point was that before 9/11, the Bush administration did give a shit.

That is all. But you had to invent your own imaginary argument to debate.

Do I think the Bush administration actually wanted to invade Afghanistan before 9/11? And that they had a plan to do so? Yes. But that was not the claim I made in the comment you responded to. I made the claim that the Bush administration DID give a shit, counter to Marc's claim that Afghanistan was a country that, and I quote: "we clearly didn't give one shit about on 9/10 (other than to herumph about at Amnesty International parties)"

This claim is clearly false.

Now, if you want to take the discussion to the claim I make in THIS comment, that the Bush administration DID plan to attack and invade Afghanistan before 9/11, fine. But I'm not sure if it's worth my time, considering you guys just handwave any reliable source not in line with your preconceived notions that the invasion of Afghanistan was merely a direct response to 9/11, instead of a long simmering plan to make war in the Middle East, enabled by 9/11.

And whoever it was that said: "Hey Anonymous, did you notice that he thinks you have to register to post here?", clearly doesn't understand that only registering will protect you from sock puppetry in the sense that you can't plausibly impersonate a registered account, but you can easily impersonate a Name/URL poster.

 
At 11 August, 2010 08:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and this post is my first since:

"Hey, sock puppet all you want. I'm not going to register an account."

FYI.

 
At 11 August, 2010 09:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It's not necessary to "register an account."

Go to Google mail and set up a mail account. Use the Google account name and password to login.

Got it, computer whiz?

 
At 11 August, 2010 09:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait, did you just tell me that it's not necessary to register an account, and in the next sentence, you recommend that I register an account?

This is type of cognitive dissonance crippling your thought processes. It would be pointless to try and get you to understand this though. After all, the nature of your condition precludes you from understanding the nature of your condition.

 
At 11 August, 2010 09:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Tell us about "cognitive dissonance", Mr. Psychopath.

I didn't tell you to "register an account." Registration of an account implies that you're registering an account with ScrewLooseChange.

If you had a brain in your empty, acephalic noggin you'd understand that blogspot.com IS Google.

And no, creating a mail account with Google is not invasive, and it's not a threat to your vaunted "privacy".

 
At 11 August, 2010 09:57, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

It's fun to see the loopy Sack of Marbles scuffle over all the Omar Saeed Sheikh smoking guns! Dogboy,when you are wrong you are spectacularly wrong.I guess it was just some weird coincidence that Benazir Bhutto clearly stated to David Frost that the same Omar Saeed Sheikh had murdered Osama Bin Laden! And then Bhutto was murdered herself in Rawalpindi,Musharraf's garrison town.I guess it was all a diabolical conspiracy hatched by those dastardly Indians! Hey Archie,when Melody Maker insists that punk rock is the greatest music movement ever produced,do you genuflect and throw another Cramps album on the player? I thought so.

 
At 11 August, 2010 10:29, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

Does the Nutty Professor even remember what Daniel Pearl was doing over there? He was chasing leads on the funding of "al-CIAeda" and ends up being killed,in Pakistan,by a known triple-agent named Omar Saeed Sheikh.Obviously another weird coincidence.Some guy name Occam just slit your throat,Dogboy.Quit drinkin',you jerkoff.Here's a clue,moron,go off the grid and read some non-establishemnt investigative journalism.It's nourishing to sad sacks like yourself.And there's a whole lot less propaganda!!

 
At 11 August, 2010 10:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan, Omar Saeed Sheikh murdered Daniel Pearl.

Clearly, Bhutto misspoke and meant to say Daniel Pearl.

She is on record shortly before and after the David Frost interview acknowledging that bin Laden is alive.

CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield: "...Do you think General Musharraf knows where Osama bin Laden is?"

Bhutto: "...I don't think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the '80s. That military dictatorship formed the Iran Mujahideen. The Mujahideen subsequently became Al Qaeda and Taliban. So I believe that break has not been made between the supporters and sympathizers of the Mujahideen and thereby, of the Taliban and Al Qaeda that is necessary. We need an administration and a security apparatus that does not have people with links to the Iran Jihad of the '80s."

Source: CNN: Benazir Bhutto Reacts To State Of Emergency; Crisis Of Violence In Pakistan, aired 3 November 2007.

"...If the Taliban are eliminated, or if their poster-boy Osama bin Laden is caught, the international cries for restoration of democracy will only deepen." -- Benazir Bhutto

Source: India Times: Mush's toppling, not a nightmare for West: Bhutto, June 2007.

"...If there is overwhelming evidence, I would hope that I would be able to take Osama bin Laden myself without depending on the Americans." -- Benazir Bhutto

Source: Boston.com: Bhutto would take US aid against bin Laden, October 2007.

The bottom line: Bhutto misspoke.

There's no conspiracy, ArseHooligan. Benazir Bhutto made an error. She was human; it happens.

Thus, you are...

Shot Down In Flames.

Have a nice day, ArseHooligan (you know the California translation).

 
At 11 August, 2010 10:58, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

I dealt with Arseholie's BS about Sheikh repeatedly. It's a shame he hasn't learnt a fucking thing.

Incidentally, when someone backs up all their claims through 'history commons' (or Global Research, or any other hooky website) I get suspicious.

To wrap this up, links between ISI and Islamist terror are old news (as per my comments on Gul's career). The fact remains that any close ties between Pakistani military and intelligence types and groups like LET is a purely Pakistani affair. Unless you want to be really stupid and claim that people like Hamid Gul are really CIA agents.

 
At 11 August, 2010 12:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"is a purely Pakistani affair"

Pulitzer prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh doesn't think so. Don't you remember when he reported on Dick Cheney using the CIA/ISI/Terror nexus to train, fund, and use Jundullah for attacks inside of Iran? One of Jundullah recently admitted to receiving American aid. ABCNews, and the Telegraph did their own reporting on this, and confirmed it. What about in the Balkans during the 90's? Historycommons uses mainstream media. There's nothing wrong with Historycommons.org. SLC on the other the other hand...

 
At 11 August, 2010 12:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Pulitzer prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh doesn't think so."

You mean Seymour "I rely almost entirely on unnamed sources" Hersh? You mean that Seymour Hersh?

"...This reporter [Seymour Hersh] has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources." -- Brian Whitman

Source: CNN: Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran

What a joke.

 
At 11 August, 2010 12:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Historycommons uses mainstream media. There's nothing wrong with Historycommons.org. SLC on the other the other hand..."

It takes an especially delusional brand of scumbag to write that pack of lies with a straight face--a fuckin' psychopath to be precise.

Go play in the freeway, Brian.

 
At 11 August, 2010 13:02, Anonymous Arhoolie vanunu said...

Bhutto was a politician,talking out of all sides of her mouth.Since she died a week after saying what she said to Frost,I'd take her last statement on the subject as the last word.Especially since Sheikh was a known operative for the folks who obviously wanted Osama dead and gone.He was denying any part in 9/11 a little too often and close for comfort.You can bet Sheikh did the deed just before the magic "confession" video was "discovered in a box of documents in a raid in Afghanistan.You have to love this one:"...any close types between the Pakistani military and intelligence types (say what,Goober?)... is purely a Pakistani affair"!! And,of course, the nutty state apologists are pretending they know nothing about the extensive,documented close ties between the CIA,the ISI and MI6.And how does it end up that a known inter-services operative (Sheikh) ends up involved in the murder of a dogged American reporter hot on the trail of the ties between....what else,the ISI,al-CIAeda and MI6? How many coincidences can rancid propaganda prop up? Just ask Sackdoily,that's his bailiwick! How can you explain the billions sent to Pakistan after 9/11? You think it was sent with a hope and a prayer to "those nutcases"? Musharraf was America's man and Bhutto was closing in on him at the moment she died (as Musharraf pulled her security).Only an idiot would attempt to pawn all this off as a "Pakistani stew".Typical British racism and condescension:"It's those savage brown people and we need to take over and set them straight".

 
At 11 August, 2010 13:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan, fugitive from justice, dissembles, "...Bhutto was a politician,talking out of all sides of her mouth.Since she died a week after saying what she said to Frost,I'd take her last statement on the subject as the last word."

Wrong again, ArseHooligan, I just gave a direct quote from Bhutto, which she made AFTER the Frost interview.

Can you read, jackass?

 
At 11 August, 2010 13:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's the proof that you're lying, ArseHooligan.

"...On 2 November 2007, Bhutto participated in an interview with David Frost on Al Jazeera where she claimed Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh."

Source: Wikipedia: Benazir Bhutto--Preparation for 2008 elections


Now, here's the 3 November 2007 CNN interview.

CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield: "...Do you think General Musharraf knows where Osama bin Laden is?"

Bhutto: "...I don't think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the '80s. That military dictatorship formed the Iran Mujahideen. The Mujahideen subsequently became Al Qaeda and Taliban. So I believe that break has not been made between the supporters and sympathizers of the Mujahideen and thereby, of the Taliban and Al Qaeda that is necessary. We need an administration and a security apparatus that does not have people with links to the Iran Jihad of the '80s."

Source: CNN: Benazir Bhutto Reacts To State Of Emergency; Crisis Of Violence In Pakistan, aired 3 November 2007.

Keep looking at the dates in bold font until you get it through your thick skull, ArseHooligan.

Enjoy your plate of crow, ArseHooligan--you lying sack-of-shit.

Thus, you are...

Shot Down In Flames.

ROTFLMAO!

 
At 11 August, 2010 15:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you just quote Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, (without saying so) as a "reliable source" to discredit Pulitzer Prize winner Hersh?

Bill?

Hello?

The lights are on but nobody's home.

:(

 
At 11 August, 2010 15:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The arse bandit dissembles, "...Did you just quote Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, (without saying so) as a "reliable source" to discredit Pulitzer Prize winner Hersh?"

Because Hersh is a joke--you batty bent wrist butt bender.

Suck on this, pederast.

"...As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a "source" to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances. By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the U.S. government." -- Amir Taheri

Source: The Sunday Telegraph London: Many sources but no meat.

Again, a conservative estimate of your IQ, Mr. Junior College dropout

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

 
At 11 August, 2010 15:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

By the way, arse bandito, did you take sockpuppet lessons from Adam 'sockpuppet' Syed, or vise versa?

 
At 12 August, 2010 00:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, Bill, Bill. I've lost count of the number of times we've crossed swords and you lost. The latest installment was the "XEDS can't 'reliably' detect C, N or O" - canard. I've always observed your pathetic attempts to rescue your fractured ego with a mixture of gleeful amusement and slight irritation. Irritation, because it's bothersome that your arrogance seems to increase as your verisimilitude continues to decrease. Increasingly unhinged, you rely on a rather limited and cheesy collection of witless oneliners cobbled up from insult sites and repetitive platitudes, so transparently, childishly boastful that one could best describe you as a bumbling, blundering lummox whose last resort in the face of yet another intellectual humiliation is yet another crazy aggrieved, and profoundly embarrassing tantrum. In every way, you behave like an obstinate child, whose sole purpose in life is trying to get a rise out of its parents. You never did get over that phase, did you?

Now, you try to smear Seymour Hersh. To do so, you look him up on Wikipedia, go to the section "Criticisms" and nose about (pun intended) for something nasty on Hersh. Soon, you find a suitable smear job to your liking, in the form of a quote by Amir Taheri:

"Some have criticized Hersh's use of anonymous sources in his reporting; implying that some of these sources are unreliable or even made up. In a review of Hersh's book, Chain of Command, commentator Amir Taheri wrote, "As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a "source" to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances... By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the U.S. government."[32]

"Yahtzee!!", Bill cheers. Next, Bill realizes that the trailing paragraph is a rather undesirable spoiler for his lame-ass character assassination of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, so he decides to just leave it out altogether:

"David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, maintains that he is aware of the identity of all of Hersh's unnamed sources, telling the Columbia Journalism Review that "I know every single source that is in his pieces.... Every 'retired intelligence officer,' every general with reason to know, and all those phrases that one has to use, alas, by necessity, I say, 'Who is it? What's his interest?' We talk it through."[33]"

And what, pray tell, now that we're wandering about Wikipedia anyway, does Wikipedia's 'criticism' section on Amir Taheri say? Why, there isn't one!

Just an entire section devoted to "alleged fabrications".

Touchdown, Bill! Next time, try one at the correct side of the playing field.

 
At 12 August, 2010 01:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 August, 2010 02:15, Anonymous Infowarrrior said...

Nothing wrong with fabrication. Hersh is a damn good fabricator. Taheri I don't know. He doesn't seem to be in the same league as Hersh, but the boy shows promise.

 
At 12 August, 2010 02:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More subterfuge, cretin?

Your desperation is palpable, Brian. And the cowardly "plagiarism" accusation is as hollow as it is desperate.

You're very proficient at avoiding the substance of my argument, lying like a rug and employing smear tactics; however, you utterly fail to address my argument.

So, how does that 100% fact-free pile of crap prove Seymour Hersh doesn't rely on unnamed sources? In fact, the NYT editor substantiates my argument.

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Of course, you're a conspiracy theorist; thus, when you manage to dredge it up, you love to play fast and loose with "source" material--up to, and including, misrepresenting your source. And, as I've proven over-and-over again, you never fail to misrepresent your source if you think there's the slightest possibility you could get away with it.

 
At 12 August, 2010 02:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did you leave out the trailing paragraph of the Wikipedia article, Bill? Why?

 
At 12 August, 2010 02:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasn't your attempt to use Whitman, a Pentagon spin doctor, to discredit Hersh embarrassing enough?

 
At 12 August, 2010 05:06, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Don't you remember when he reported on Dick Cheney using the CIA/ISI/Terror nexus to train, fund, and use Jundullah for attacks inside of Iran?'

Er, no. I remember him claiming that the CIA had linked up with PJAK (the Iranian Kurdish group). I don't remember him explaining why the US State Department subsequently branded PJAK as a terrorist organisation.

As for Arseholie, he was just about the only fool on the planet to believe the Iranians when they described Abdolmalek Rigi as a CIA asset. They promised to 'reveal the evidence' shortly after they arrested him in late February this year ... and hanged him without a trial in June.

Try harder, creeps.

 
At 12 August, 2010 05:28, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

More on the Jundollah non-story:

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/03/01/did-the-u-s-have-contact-with-terror-group-that-attacked-iran.html

'Declassified has learned that several years ago, the group did in fact try to cut a deal with U.S. officials—but were rebuffed.

A former U.S. intelligence official said that soon after the 9/11 attacks, a top Jundullah operative, claiming to be acting on Rigi's authority, approached CIA representatives in Pakistan and told them the group would help the U.S. against both Iran and Al Qaeda. According to the former U.S. official—who like others cited in this article asked for anonymity when talking about sensitive information—the Jundullah operative proposed that the group would kidnap leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Qaeda and turn them over to the Americans. U.S. officials flatly rejected any relationship with the group, said the former official. But the official did say that the door was left slightly ajar in case Jundullah really did capture important Al Qaeda operatives. That never happened'.

And the money shot ...

'Obama administration officials, like their Bush administration predecessors, have emphatically denied that U.S. agencies have ever been involved in any operations with Jundullah. They say that years ago the group was deemed too violent and untrustworthy by American intelligence. Current and former officials also say they suspect the group has been thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian intelligence.

“The Iranians are to Jundullah as termites are to wood,” a U.S. counterterrorism official told Declassified. “The group is hopelessly penetrated, and its methods don’t accord with those of the United States.”'

Game, Set and Match - yet again - to the debunkers.

 
At 12 August, 2010 07:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 August, 2010 07:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Why did you leave out the trailing paragraph of the Wikipedia article, Bill? Why?"

Do you honestly believe that pretending I didn't answer your question lends the force of credibility to your argument ?

Read it until you get it through your thick skull.

So, how does that 100% fact-free pile of crap prove Seymour Hersh doesn't rely on unnamed sources? In fact, the NYT editor substantiates my argument.

So why do you pretend the NYT editor didn't admit Hersch uses unnamed sources?

Sorry ass bandit, you may endorse that brand of so-called "journalism", I don't. Anyone who relies on unnamed sources is a trash "journalist"--your disingenuous argument to the contrary notwithstanding.

"...Wasn't your attempt to use Whitman, a Pentagon spin doctor, to discredit Hersh embarrassing enough?"

No, because Whitman's point is still valid. Hersh is a pseudo "journalist" who relies on unnamed sources that cannot be verified--period.

And wasn't your impotent, foolish attempt to pretend Hersch doesn't rely unnamed sources bad enough?

In addition, the NYT editor can claim he knows the sources until he's blue in the face; nevertheless, the sources and the information they provide cannot be independently confirmed. Thus, Hersch and his unnamed sources aren't worth the paper and the ASCII characters the NYT (or any other publisher for that matter) waste to publish them.

 
At 12 August, 2010 07:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He cited the ABC report, but failed to mention the follow up that said, "U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials."

He also seemed to ignore this report from the Telegraph that says, "the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan."

Incidentally, both Abdolmalek Rigi and Abdolhamid Rigi, brothers, confessed to U.S. help.

Sorry, but denials from the U.S. mean nothing.

He even cites that "they insist the United States has never had a relationship with Jundullah, a little-known group of Sunni jihadists based along Pakistan’s border with Iran," and then in the next paragraph says, "yet there appears to be at least some brief history between the U.S. and Junduallah."

 
At 12 August, 2010 08:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight... before both Rigis were arrested... years earlier... Sy Hersh, ABCNews, the Telegraph, all reported on the U.S. helping Jundullah... then after both Rigis confessed to it, years later, we're supposed to think Iran coerced both of them into confessing, and there was no legitimacy to their claims? Please.

 
At 12 August, 2010 08:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Newsweek isn't exactly trusted anymore.

 
At 12 August, 2010 08:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 August, 2010 08:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sibel Edmonds is a credible source?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You'll believe anyone, won't you?

Is reliance on Ol' Sibel "I have damning information, but I can't tell you" Edmonds anything like trying to convince us that Sy Hersch's unnamed sources are independently verifiable because a NYT editor claims to know his unnamed sources? (Say that three times, really fast. I dare you).

You're a logic cesspool, Brian.

 
At 12 August, 2010 08:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FBI Inspector General Glenn A. Fine seemed to think she was credible. As did several senators, reporters, and the individuals she testified under oath to last year. She's only not credible to "debunkers" and assholes.

 
At 12 August, 2010 08:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? No kidding?

If Sibel Edmonds is so "credible", why has the earth failed to open and swallow Washington DC as the result of Ol' Sibel's testimony?

I stand by my statement: You're a logic cesspool, Brian.

 
At 12 August, 2010 08:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you show me which mainstream media outlets reported on her testifying under oath please? Name one. Thanks.

 
At 12 August, 2010 09:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sibel Edmonds is the feminine equivalent of the little boy who cried wolf. As anyone knows, there's no there there.

%^)

So why did you pretend the NYT editor's frank admission that Hersch relies to unnamed sources exonerates Hersch from charges that he relies on unnamed sources?

%^)

Again, you're a logic cesspool, Brian--not to mention a liar.

 
At 12 August, 2010 10:49, Blogger Garry said...

'Incidentally, both Abdolmalek Rigi and Abdolhamid Rigi, brothers, confessed to U.S. help.'

Oh right. And nobody ever gets tortured in Iranian custody.

 
At 14 August, 2010 11:22, Blogger Garry said...

What's the matter, troofers? Can't you face the idea of posting under your names, with email addresses? Are you fucked over chronically just because you can't post under sockpuppets anymore, and hide under the guise of anonymity?

Come on, man the fuck up and get back in the ring. If you're too scared to play by Pat's rules, what chance have you got of overthrowing the NWO?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home