Firedog Flake
Another Troofer diary from the Firedogs:
As former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds subsequently reported, the US maintained ‘intimate relations’ with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, right up to “that day of September 11.” These ‘intimate relations’ included using Bin Laden for ‘operations’ in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China, and involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner “as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict,” that is, fighting ‘enemies’ via proxies.
Amazing how Lawrence Wright missed all those intimate relations in The Looming Tower.
It's the usual: PNAC, Operation Northwoods, how long it took to establish the commission, less money than they spent on Monica Lewinsky....
posted by Pat @ 12:25 PM
92 comments
92 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pat, maybe Wright missed the relations because his book was published in 2006 and Sibel's information wasn't made public until 2009. Sibel has a lot of information about Turkey, and suggests that the intimate relationship was mediated by Turkish proxies.
Wright didn't look into Turkey. The index for "Looming Tower" only has three page cites for Turkey, and they're all trivial.
After the embassy bombings the CIA had to do a full audit to double check that it never had any contact with bin Laden.
It didn't.
Bin Laden didn't like us (US), and wanted nothing to do with us. Hence the who attacking the United States thing.
Steve Coll confirmed this, and his sources are usually better than the CIA's sources, and had CIA had some kind of contact we'd have heard about it by now.
The Turks also tolds us there were WMDs in Iraq.
Oh right, the CIA always reveals all embarrassing information about its assets and has an unparalleled record of transparency and forthright honesty. I forgot to allow for that. Thanks for setting the record straight.
Brain, were you the idiot who called KGO last week when Michael Scheuer was a guest claiming that bin Laden was a "Well known" CIA asset?
Are you enjoying your new asshole?
Steve Coll has done a quality job listing the CIA's failures in Afghanistan.
Unlike you, Steve Coll is not a psychopath.
Sibel Edmunds...crazy as Charlie Sheen, without the celebrity status....
Oh right, the CIA always reveals all embarrassing information about its assets and has an unparalleled record of transparency and forthright honesty. I forgot to allow for that. Thanks for setting the record straight.
And who better to set the record straight on the CIA than an unemployed middle-aged sex stalker like Brian?
Brian, does the CIA use modified attack baboons to move the shipments of heroin that they control, or does Laurie Van Auken hide it between her tits? My Uncle Steve wants to know...
Ian, I don't need to set the CIA's record straight to point out the internal contradictions, evidence-free and counterfactual nature, and just plain impossible claims of some of the people in this forum.
Ian, I don't need to set the CIA's record straight to point out the internal contradictions, evidence-free and counterfactual nature, and just plain impossible claims of some of the people in this forum.
For example, there's one poster here who claims the NIST said the towers came down "essentially in free-fall". He also says Dr. Sunder claims the towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds. Anyone who can read and knows how to Google can tell you how much these claims are evidence-free, counterfactual, and just plain impossible.
As for internal contradictions, he has also claimed that the towers were destroyed by thermite, explosives, and airplanes, depending on the context.
Fortunately for us all, this poster is a truther, so all he does is discredit the tiny lunatic fringe movement that is 9/11 truth.
Ian, NCSTAR1 section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Deal with it.
Dr. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Deal with it.
And no, lying about it is not dealing with it.
Ian, don't forget to remind our resident weasel that "essentially" is a weasel word.
Notice that essentially is an adverb that is used to diffuse or weaken (ie., detensify) the term "free fall."
An appropriate rewording of the statement would read as follows:
"... the building mass came down at a speed other than free fall."
Here's an example of the power of weasel words:
Cascade leaves dishes virtually spotless.
Which translates, as follows:
Cascade leaves spots on your dishes.
The goat molester, as we all know, is a prolific liar, so every word he scribbles should be taken with a large grain of salt.
Ian, NCSTAR1 section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Deal with it.
Stop lying, Brian.
Dr. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Deal with it.
Stop lying, Brian.
And no, lying about it is not dealing with it.
Speaking of which, here are things you need to deal with, Brian: you will never get a new investigation, your "widows" will never have their "questions" answered, you will never have your "meatball on a fork" model published in an engineering journal, and you will never marry Willie Rodriguez.
Oh, so GutterBall is accusing NIST of being dishonest! Really good argument, guy!
Do you have an explanation for why NIST finds it necessary to be dishonest about the collapse times?
Ian, NCSTAR1 section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall", and
Dr. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.
Those are facts. Your claim to the contrary is an easily-checkable lie--a STOOOPID lie.
No, I'm not accusing NIST of being dishonest at all.
I'm accusing you of being a quote miner and a liar.
Here's what section 6.14.4 says, sans the quote mining that characterizes every distorted "fact" you present:
"..Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in the videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." -- NCSTAR1, Sec. 6.14.4, page 146.
When returned to the intended context of the passage--you quote mining son-of-a-bitch--we can see section 6.14.4 takes on an entirely different meaning than the unintended meaning that results after you butcher the passage for your own self-serving ends.
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
Ian, NCSTAR1 section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall", and
Dr. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.
False. If you knew how to read or google, you'd know this.
Those are facts. Your claim to the contrary is an easily-checkable lie--a STOOOPID lie.
My, such squealing!
UtterFail, NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". That's what the section you quoted said, and that's what it means.
It says the building "provided little resistance". Dr. Sunder's statement to NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds corroborates this interpretation, as does NIST's statement in the FAQs.
"Ian, NCSTAR1 section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall", and
Dr. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds."
Yes, Brian, but you conveniently left out the part where he said that the reason that they fell so fast was because 70% of the tower's structure was AIR, so there was nothing unusual about this.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
You have to click on the section where they discuss consiracy theories.
Once again Brian you demonstrate that you are not interested in the truth. You refference a PBS-NOVA piece that thoroughly addresses the WTC collapses to advance your agrument that the collapse has never been investigated.
This is psychopathic behavior.
The buildings didn't fall at gravitational acceleration, as anyone with two functioning eyes, a stop watch, and a calculator can determine.
WTC1 took over 19 seconds to collapse. WTC2 took 14.5 seconds to collapse--which is nowhere near "9 seconds and 11 seconds."
As usual, psychopathy doesn't allow you to debate in a coherent fashion. E.g., you reject the NIST Reports' conclusions, but you'll happily cherry pick the NIST Report and defend the contents found therein, provided it supports your thoroughly dishonest propaganda--which is intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale.
Tell us, goat molester, after your mother shit you out into the World, did she raise you to be an habitual liar, or did you have to work at it?
WTC1 and WTC2--no "free fall speed."
UtterFail, NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". That's what the section you quoted said, and that's what it means.
False.
It says the building "provided little resistance". Dr. Sunder's statement to NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds corroborates this interpretation, as does NIST's statement in the FAQs.
False. Brian, I sometimes think you can't be this stupid, but then I remember you believe in magic thermite elves and invisible widows.
MGF, the structure of the towers was not pneumatic. According to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the available potential energy must be expended in all of the tasks associated with the collapse--bringing the debris to earth, breaking apart the structural connections, smashing and crushing the steel, pulverizing the concrete, and heating the air. All of the ancillary tasks take energy away from the effort of bringing the debris to earth and thus make the collapse take longer than free fall.
A free fall collapse is thus not only unusual--it is impossible according to the laws of physics, unless energy on the form of incendiaries and/or explosives is added to the system.
The section where they discuss conspiracy theories is where Dr. Sunder say the building came down in 9 seconds and 22 seconds--and if you had listened to the program you would know that. Listen around 0:55.
GutterBall, where did you get the idea that I reject NIST's conclusions? I don't know enough to reject their conclusions. I reject their methodology and their lack of rigor and their blatant dishonesty.
I don't know enough to reject their conclusions.
It's the first honest thing that Brian has ever said. Too bad everything else in the above post is utter insanity.
I did listen to it Brian.
He said that the speed of thew collapse was nothing unusual because 70% of the structure was air.
Much like your brain.
'Pat, maybe Wright missed the relations because his book was published in 2006 and Sibel's information wasn't made public until 2009'.
So, she apparently had the inside information from this, gleaned from her time as an FBI translator in late 2001 (being hired after 9/11), and she 'reveals' all this info about CIA/OBL ties eight years later.
Hmm, why am I thinking that she might have made all this shit up?
MGF, if Dr. Sunder said that a free-fall collapse was not unusual he was revealing either 1) his lack of familiarity with the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics (freshman engineering)
or 2) his dishonesty.
Garry, Ms. Edmonds revealed her stuff to the 9/11 Commission years ago. They ignored it, and AG Ashcroft issued a gag order and much of what she had already made public was retroactively classified. Perhaps Wright left the material out of his book because his publishers required it.
Get professional help. NOW.
This comment has been removed by the author.
TR, that's an 8-year-old girl's argument.
Do you deny that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is freshman engineering?
Retroactive classification in the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/translator_in_eye_of_storm_on_retroactive_classification/
Retroactive classification in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20classify.html
It's not an argument. It's what I really want you to do.
Once again Brian you're psychopathic rants expose your mental problem to the world.
You wrote this:
"Dr. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Deal with it."
...and then you write this:
"MGF, if Dr. Sunder said that a free-fall collapse was not unusual he was revealing either 1) his lack of familiarity with the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics (freshman engineering)
or 2) his dishonesty."
As you have done in almost every response thread you cite a source using cherry-picked information. Then when you are called on your bafoonery you then attack the source that you initially used.
A rational person would pause a reassess sources, and then their ability to understand the information.
A psychopath doesn't care. For the psychopath it's about the con-job, and winning.
MGF, if Dr. Sunder said that a free-fall collapse was not unusual he was revealing either 1) his lack of familiarity with the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics (freshman engineering)
or 2) his dishonesty.
Well, I guess it's good that Dr. Sunder didn't say there was a free-fall collapse, huh Brian?
Leave the science to scientists, Brian. If any of us want to know how to get fired from a job mopping floors, we'll ask you, since that's your area of expertise.
MGF, I don't know what you mean by "cherry-pick information". I cherry pick the information that Dr. Sunder said the collapses were in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and I ignore the part where he tells us what he had for breakfast. You call that cherry-picking, UtterFaill calls it quote-mining. I call it scholarship.
Ian, since 9 seconds and 11 seconds are free-fall times, Dr. Sunder was saying the collapses were in free fall.
"You call that cherry-picking, UtterFaill calls it quote-mining. I call it scholarship."
Of course you do, you're mentally ill.
"Ian, since 9 seconds and 11 seconds are free-fall times, Dr. Sunder was saying the collapses were in free fall."
He said that was because the Tower's were 70% air, which explained the ease of their collapse.
Once again you leave out the main point of what Dr. Sunder was saying. In fact Dr. Sunder does a great job of shoving your theory right up your ass.
You'd know that if you'd listened to the piece on the PBS link.
You won't because you don't care, because you're a psychopath.
MGF, clearly you don't understand the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The towers were 70% air before they fell. (Actually I'd like to know where he got that figure. I'd bet it was more like 85% air.) That wasn't a factor before they fell, and it wasn't a factor when they fell. Air content is not a license to violate the laws of physics, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Brian. Psychiatric help. Get it. Now.
TR, you clearly know as little abou psychiatry as you know about the laws of physics and about 9/11 itself.
I don't have to expert in anything to know you're fucking nuts.
Ian, since 9 seconds and 11 seconds are free-fall times, Dr. Sunder was saying the collapses were in free fall.
False. Seek professional help.
Ian, do you deny that 9 seconds and 11 seconds are freefall collapse times?
"Ian, do you deny that 9 seconds and 11 seconds are freefall collapse times?"
There's no such thing as "Free Fall" speed. Only terminal velocity.
Since the buildings were 70% air the speed of their collapse was not unusual.
Deal with it.
MGF, your claim is contrary to the 1st law of thermodynamics.
'Garry, Ms. Edmonds revealed her stuff to the 9/11 Commission years ago. They ignored it, and AG Ashcroft issued a gag order and much of what she had already made public was retroactively classified. Perhaps Wright left the material out of his book because his publishers required it'.
That's bollocks, and you know it.
How much am I bid for the theory that Knopf was willing to defy the Attorney General's retroactive classification of publicly available information related to Turkish connections to al Qaeda.
Going once, going twice, sold for ten cents!
Retroactive classification in the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/translator_in_eye_of_storm_on_retroactive_classification/
Retroactive classification in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20classify.html
OK Brian, so everyone on the 9/11 Commission, in the CIA, the news media, and in Penguin (Wright's publishers) is in on the cover-up, and Edmonds alone is telling the truth.
Yeah, that all sounds plausible.
Garry, your straw man may be an esteemed colleague of yours, but he has nothing to do with me.
Seriously, do you think Knopf would publish classified material?
Are you seriously telling me that Sibel Edmonds has the full truth about 9/11, and no one in the news media (the same media that took the Bush administration to task over pre-war intelligence on Iraq) has bothered to cover it?
You need help, Brian.
Garry, I didn't say that, and you didn't answer the question. Do you think Knopf would want to publish classified information?
Ian, do you deny that 9 seconds and 11 seconds are freefall collapse times?
Objection, your honor. Relevance?
Show me some evidence that the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. I don't take the claims of failed janitors who lie as evidence.
MGF, your claim is contrary to the 1st law of thermodynamics.
The foremost expert on the laws of physics being a failed janitor, of course...
Do you think Knopf would want to publish classified information?
Seek professional help.
Ian, the evidence is that Shyam Sunder said so. Are you calling NIST's lead investigator a liar?
Ian, I don't need to be an expert on the laws of physics. I had the 1st Law my freshman year.
The information was retroactively classified after it had been made public.
Ian, the evidence is that Shyam Sunder said so. Are you calling NIST's lead investigator a liar?
No, I'm calling you a liar. And a lunatic. And a sex stalker. And petgoat.
Ian, I don't need to be an expert on the laws of physics. I had the 1st Law my freshman year.
Of high school, I have to assume, since nobody as dumb as you could have been admitted to any college.
Too bad you spent that class sniffing glue instead of paying attention, eh petgoat?
The information was retroactively classified after it had been made public.
Yes, in order to lead failed janitors like you on a wild goose chase, I'm sure.
Garry, do you think Knopf would want to publish classified information in Wright's book?
Why won't you answer the question?
The information was retroactively classified after it had been made public.
Christ, Brian, if you only you could hear how stupid you sound.
Retroactive classification in the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/translator_in_eye_of_storm_on_retroactive_classification/
Retroactive classification in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20classify.html
Speaking of stupid, the letsroll forum is shocked .... shocked! to find out that Willie Rodriguez is a liar.
http://letsrollforums.com/showthread.php?t=24680&highlight=rodriguez
Nobody cares about Willie Rodriguez, Brian. We're not sexually obsessed with the man like you are.
Brian, can you tell us why Edmonds keeps changing her story? And why someone whose languages do not include Arabic (the language of AQ) and Pashtun (the language of the Taliban) can claim an insight into bin Laden's intentions? Maybe you could explain also why a translator employed briefly by the FBI after 9/11 has the inside knowledge on what the CIA was upt to before September 2001?
Garry, you have not shown that Ms. Edmonds has changed her story. I would not be surprised if she has made additional revelations over the years.
In the course of her work as an FBI translator she had access to a number of documents that pre-dated 9/11. Her fluency in Turkish, Persian, and Azerbaijani gives her access to much information about al Qaeda from intelligence officials and operatives from the region. Persian is widely spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan; it's also spoken in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and the U.A.E.
UAE princes, you might recall, had close contacts with bin Laden. Perhaps if you would bother to inform yourself about the issues before dismissing them, you might not be so ignorant.
'Garry, you have not shown that Ms. Edmonds has changed her story.'
This has been the subject of repeated threads, Brian. It's clear to anyone with a functioning brain that she's a fantasist:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=654840532582437923
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=7833077617060843053
'Her fluency in Turkish, Persian, and Azerbaijani gives her access to much information about al Qaeda from intelligence officials and operatives from the region'.
How come? She worked for the Feds for a couple of months post-9/11. How come she's been able to acquire the inside story from the CIA, ISI, and practically every intelligence service in South and South-West Asia. She's clearly America's answer to Victor Ostrovsky.
'Persian is widely spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan;'
Farsi is not the lingua franca of the Taliban; that's Pashtun. And al-Qaeda's main language is Arabic.
'it's also spoken in Pakistan',
No it isn't. Urdu, Sindi, Pashtun, Baluchi - yes. But not Farsi.
'Uzbekistan',
Likewise. It's either Uzbek or Russian.
'and the U.A.E'.
Wrong again, janitor.
There are a million Farsi speakers in Pakistan.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=pk
There are more than 900,000 Farsi speakers (Tajiki) in Uzbekistan.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=UZ
There are 80,000 Farsi speakers in the UAE.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=AE
They're not indigenous languages in those countries, janitor boy. The stats you cite refer to refugees, migrant workers or (in UAE) expats.
It also doesn't alter the fact that Edmonds cannot speak either of the languages that AQ or the Taliban use, and cannot have had any knowledge whatsover from reading secret sources derived from those sources. After all, she worked for the Eff - Bee - Ai for a mere few months, and has somehow acquired godlike knowledge of covert ops on a planetary scale during that time.
Keep mopping the floors. It's all you're good for.
There are a million Farsi speakers in Pakistan.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=pk
There are more than 900,000 Farsi speakers (Tajiki) in Uzbekistan.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=UZ
There are 80,000 Farsi speakers in the UAE.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=AE
And there are zero farsi speakers in al Qaeda or the Taliban, you fucking moron. Al Qaeda is full of Arabic speakers and the Taliban speaks Pashto.
Jesus, Brian, at least make an attempt to look less stupid.
I should add that the enemies of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan are the ones likely to speak Persian languages like Farsi (or Dari, as the dialect is known in Afghanistan).
The way Brian manages to get this exactly the opposite of right is truly magical, but what else do you expect from a failed janitor?
What language was Behrooz Sarshar's area of expertise?
It was Farsi, wasn't it? And didn't he get warnings in April 2001 of suicide pilots inside the USA planning an attack from a former Iranian intelligence official based on this official's sources in Afghanistan and Baluchistan?
'And didn't he get warnings in April 2001 of suicide pilots inside the USA planning an attack from a former Iranian intelligence official based on this official's sources in Afghanistan and Baluchistan?'
Er, nope.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-07-21/news/0407210320_1_iranian-government-iraq-attacks/5
'Five months before Sept. 11, a longtime informant for the FBI reported that Al Qaeda was planning a devastating terrorist assault in which the weapons were to be commercial airliners.
According to two sources familiar with that interview, the informant was short on details. In particular, nothing was said about the precise timing of the airborne attack, its location or its possible targets.
Law enforcement officials who have reviewed the April 2001 interview and at least one follow-up conversation insist that the informant's information, by itself, could not have led the bureau to the Sept. 11 plotters.
But the real significance of that information, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the case, may lie in its source: a former member of the Iranian intelligence service now living in the U.S. and known to his FBI handlers as "the Asset."
"His `subsource' was somebody back home" in Iran, said the law enforcement official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. In the wake of Sept. 11, the official said, it appeared that "somebody in Iran had some knowledge of something" related to Sept. 11.
Although the Asset has lived in the U.S. 25 years and speaks some English, the FBI has had trouble understanding him in the past. To guard against any misunderstanding, the two FBI agents assigned to interview him in April 2001 brought along an FBI translator fluent in his native language, Farsi.
The interview followed the standard FBI format. The agents posed their questions in English, which were then translated into Farsi. The Asset's replies were translated back into English as the agents took notes.
According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.
It was the FBI agents' impression, the official said, that the target of the attacks could be "possibly here, but more probably overseas." The Asset also reported having heard a rumor that a plane would be hijacked to Afghanistan, the official said.
The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training."
According to Sarshar, the two FBI agents who interviewed the Asset were not visibly surprised by his report. It was his impression, Sarshar said, that the agents weren't sure whether to believe their informant, and that even the Asset wasn't convinced his information was true'.
Obvious points for Brian - who will probably miss them:
(1) Sarshar was a translator. He did not generate this supposed tip-off by himself.
(2) The 'asset' warned of possible suicide attacks from his source 'in Iran', but could give no further information on dates, times, targets.
(3) The 'asset' was an ex-Iranian intelligence officer who did not offer any information on his network, or any means of assessing the validity of his information.
(4) The tip-off came from 'someone in Iran'. Not Afghanistan.
(5) The 9/11 hijackers were not 'in training' in April 2001. They were in a position to prepare their attacks.
(6) The 'asset' was himself not convinced that the tip-off was genuine.
(7) Edmonds' account of Sarshar's version of events is completely different from Sarshar's original account, given in July 2004. That should not come as a great surprise to non-retarded members of the community:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/02/sarshars-incredible-expanding-story.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
Garry, even if all your claims were true, they are not relevant to the point. You implied that Ms. Edmonds had no access to information about the CIA and about bin Laden's intention. I showed that Mr. Sarshar's expertise in Farsi provided him with access to intelligence of the highest sensitivity. There's no reason to think that Ms. Edmonds did not have access to similar information.
If Ms. Edmonds is mischaracterizing Mr. Sarshar's story, then why doesn't he say so?
This is the original source, which for some reason didn't get posted on this thread:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-07-21/news/0407210320_1_iranian-government-iraq-attacks/4
'You implied that Ms. Edmonds had no access to information about the CIA and about bin Laden's intention. I showed that Mr. Sarshar's expertise in Farsi provided him with access to intelligence of the highest sensitivity'.
You seemed to have missed the fact that (1) Sarshar was working for the Feds, not the Agency; that (2) the 'asset' was an FBI informant, not CIA; that (3) the 'asset's' source in Iran did not provide the accurate intelligence that Edmonds claims he provided, and (4) that the 'asset' himself (the ex-Iranian spook - either SAVAK or MOIS, that remains unclear) was sceptical about the tip-off himself.
You might want to actually read your sources instead of quote-mining them.
'If Ms. Edmonds is mischaracterizing Mr. Sarshar's story, then why doesn't he say so?'
Like the rest of the reality-based community, he probably hasn't even heard of Edmonds, let alone her increasingly demented attempts to twist the evidence. I wouldn't have heard of Sarshar if it hadn't been for the need to rebut yet another piece of Brian Bullshit.
I must thank you, though, janitor boy. Every comment you make on this site makes me realise the extent to which you and the rest of your sick little crowd will manipulate and misrepresent any fragment of evidence in a desperate attempt to prove your point. A psychologist would have a field-day with you.
I showed that Mr. Sarshar's expertise in Farsi provided him with access to intelligence of the highest sensitivity.
No, you showed that you don't know the first thing about Afghanistan or Pakistan and that you're just babbling like we'd expect a failed janitor to do. They're all just towel heads living in caves speaking the same dirka dirka language, right Brian?
No Ian, I showed that my understanding of Afghanistan and Pakistan is considerably more nuanced than Garry's. I said that Farsi is spoken in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and the UAE. Garry denied it, and I showed that he was wrong.
I don't know what your knowledge of the facts is, but your knowledge of what's gone on in this very thread is obviously zilch.
No Ian, I showed that my understanding of Afghanistan and Pakistan is considerably more nuanced than Garry's. I said that Farsi is spoken in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and the UAE. Garry denied it, and I showed that he was wrong.
False. You showed that you understand about as much as we can expect from a failed janitor: nothing.
I don't know what your knowledge of the facts is, but your knowledge of what's gone on in this very thread is obviously zilch.
A failed janitor who squeals and squeals when he's been pwn3d.
Ian, your persistent lies pollute this board.
Ian, your persistent lies pollute this board.
What did I just say about your squealing, Brian?
Garry implied that Ms. Edmonds had no access to information about the CIA and about bin Laden's intention. I showed that Mr. Sarshar's expertise in Farsi provided him with access to intelligence of the highest sensitivity. There's no reason to think that Ms. Edmonds did not have access to similar information.
Garry implied that Ms. Edmonds had no access to information about the CIA and about bin Laden's intention. I showed that Mr. Sarshar's expertise in Farsi provided him with access to intelligence of the highest sensitivity. There's no reason to think that Ms. Edmonds did not have access to similar information.
No, you just posted nonsense, got pwn3d by us, and then squealed like you've just had your heart broken by Willie Rodriguez.
If you're so smart, Brian, how come you haven't figured out a way to get the widows' questions answered?
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Garry implied that Ms. Edmonds had no access to information about the CIA and about bin Laden's intention. I showed that Mr. Sarshar's expertise in Farsi provided him with access to intelligence of the highest sensitivity. There's no reason to think that Ms. Edmonds did not have access to similar information. That's not nonsense.
Garry implied that Ms. Edmonds had no access to information about the CIA and about bin Laden's intention. I showed that Mr. Sarshar's expertise in Farsi provided him with access to intelligence of the highest sensitivity. There's no reason to think that Ms. Edmonds did not have access to similar information. That's not nonsense.
Actually, that's exactly nonsense, but you're too stupid to realize it. Stick to mopping floors.
For some bizarre reasons, my responses to Brian's increasingly insane comments haven't been cleared by the moderator.
Let's firstly start with the original story in 2004:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-07-21/news/0407210320_1_iranian-government-iraq-attacks/4
Brian tells us that the Sarshar story shows that Edmonds definitely got her information from CIA reports. This is despite the fact that Sarshar was working for the FBI, and that the 'asset' (the ex-Iranian intelligence officer - whether SAVAK or VEVAK is left unclear) was also an FBI source.
Brian also lied when he said that the 'asset' was working directly in Afghanistan and Baluchistan (whether that's Pakistan or Iran he doesn't clarify - possibly because he can't tell the difference between the two). Instead, he was relaying information from a source 'somewhere in Iran'.
The 'asset' himself also expressed scepticism about the validity of his informant's info, which in any case (as already noted) was short on specifics.
Finally, I did not say that Farsi is not spoken in any of the countries Brian cited. I stated that it was not indigenous (except in the case of Afghanistan) and - more to the point - it was not the lingua franca of either al-Qaeda or their Taliban allies. The latter spoke Pashtun, the former usually communicate in Arabic.
I also have no idea why Sarshar has not noticed Edmonds' efforts to distort his original account. I suspect that it is because - like most of the reality-based community - he probably hasn't noticed Sibel's descent into madness.
Garry, upon what information do you base your conclusion from the fact that Sarshar has not disputed Edmonds's account that he has not noticed Edmonds's account?
Garry, upon what information do you base your conclusion from the fact that Sarshar has not disputed Edmonds's account that he has not noticed Edmonds's account?
Sarshar probably just doesn't care. Nobody cares about the antics of truthers because you're a tiny fringe cult that has no influence whatsoever.
This comment has been removed by the author.
See what I mean? Based on no information you both leap to conclusions that reinforce your assumptions.
See what I mean? Based on no information you both leap to conclusions that reinforce your assumptions.
Brian, your belief that I lead to conclusions based on no information is illogical. You live in a fantasy world.
Ian, there's nothing illogical about my analysis. You have no information that Sarshar doesn't care. And yet you make evidence-free conclusions based your assumptions, which you consider to be validated by your conclusions.
Ian, there's nothing illogical about my analysis.
False.
You have no information that Sarshar doesn't care.
Nobody cares.
And yet you make evidence-free conclusions based your assumptions, which you consider to be validated by your conclusions.
Seek professional help.
See what I mean?
No. Perhaps if you stopped babbling nonsense and started making sense, normal people would see what you mean.
"Normal people", Ian, will look at your repetitive substance-free claims and will be able to judge who is babbling and see what I mean.
"Normal people", Ian, will look at your repetitive substance-free claims and will be able to judge who is babbling and see what I mean.
False. Normal people see a middle-aged man with no way to support himself spending every waking hour babbling nonsense at an obscure blog and will conclude that he's insane.
And that's what people have concluded about you, Brian.
Normal people don't see a middle-aged man, Ian. They see an anonymous poster whose work is coherent, rational, and factual--completely the opposite of yours.
That's because normal people live in the world of fact. And not, like you, in a world of their own fantasies.
'Based on no information you both leap to conclusions that reinforce your assumptions'.
We have a pot/kettle/colour situation here.
Brian, I have no idea why Sarshar hasn't refuted Edmonds' distortion of his testimony. All I can tell you is that there is a Grand Canyon-wide gap between his account, and that offered by Edmonds (and believed by yourself).
Now go and have a wank over Carol or Willie. Or both, if they take your fancy.
Post a Comment
<< Home