Saturday, January 12, 2013

Stupid Zero Dark Thirty Theories

I saw Zero Dark Thirty, the movie about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, today.  While getting critical reviews, it has also been rather controversial for its depiction of torture.  I don't want to get too much into the politics  but I thought that was rather silly.  Yes, it depicted some rather gruesome interrogations, but they were hardly glamorizing it.  The main character Maya, seems to have trouble with the methods used, although she never does anything about it, and with the main source the movie starts with, they only start getting information after they stop abusing the guy and use subterfuge and rapport building instead.

Anyway, amidst all this it should come as no surprise that the Truthers would be all over this.  And in fact on 911 Flogger there have been several posts on the movie.  I was particularly drawn to this one though, linking to some kooky conspiracy site called The Cabal Times.  Here are some particularly egregious examples.


Disinformation # 8 There were only two helicopters involved in the raid. The film tries to shamelessly peddle this myth because it helps maintain the myth that Pakistan is an independent nation, not a surrogate state, and therefore would not tolerate a full scale assault. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
The SEALs flew into Pakistan from a staging base in the city of Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan [……] provided the two modified Black Hawk helicopters that were used for the raid itself, as well as the much larger Chinook heavy-lift helicopters that were employed as backups [..….] The Chinooks kept on standby were on the ground “in a deserted area roughly two-thirds of the way” between Jalalabad and Abbottabad, with two additional SEAL teams consisting of approximately 24 DEVGRU operatorsfor a “quick reaction force” (QRF). The Chinooks were equipped with M134 Miniguns and extra fuel for the Black Hawks. Their mission was to interdict any Pakistani military attempts to interfere with the raid. Other Chinooks, holding 25 more SEALs from DEVGRU, were stationed just across the border in Afghanistan in case reinforcements were needed during the raid. The 160th SOAR helicopters were supported by multiple other aircraft, including fixed-wing fighter jets and drones. According to CNN, “the Air Force had a full team of combat search-and-rescue helicopters available”.
This also became a major plot hole in the story. We are told that Pakistan has scrambled jet fighters and the American forces quickly leave the area with the one working helicopter and the body of Osama. But would they all fit in one heavily modified helicopter? 

 But they didn't all fit in one helicopter. In fact if the author had continued reading the post in Wikipedia, he would have seen:

 Since the helicopter that had made the emergency landing was damaged and unable to fly the team out, it was destroyed to safeguard its classified equipment, including an apparent stealth capability.[70] The pilot smashed "the instrument panel, the radio, and the other classified fixtures inside the cockpit," and the SEALs "[packed] the helicopter with explosives and [blew] it up". Since the SEAL team now had only one helicopter, one of the two Chinooks held in reserve was dispatched to carry part of the team and bin Laden's body out of Pakistan. 

 The movie, in a minor error, actually depicts another UH-60 coming in to pick up the rest, but the idea that this is some sort of smoking gun is rather silly.

 And even more ridiculous.

 Disinformation # 9
 The Pakistani army did not facilitate the raid in any way. According to neighbourhood accounts, several men ran through the neighbourhood, shouting out in Pashtu (using loudspeakers) instructing residents to stay inside. These could have been none other than members of Pakistan’s Armed Forces. To quote, 
  Late on Sunday night, locals heard the clatter of helicopters, gunfire and loud explosions. Most residents emerged from their homes turning on their lights. “I saw soldiers emerging from the helicopters and advancing towards the house. Some of them instructed us in chaste Pashto to turn off the lights and stay inside,” Gul Khan told India Today .
 The film tries to cover up this widely reported fact by showing one member of the US Special Forces as an ethnic Pakistani, who goes around the compound singlehandedly, with a loudspeaker in his hand, instructing locals in Pashtu to stay inside. 

 He was actually their interpreter, not a SEAL, and is written about in the book No Easy Day, going by the name Ali. The plan was for him to go around with a bullhorn and tell the locals that this was all part of a police operation and to stay inside.

 You have got to love truthers. They believe that we have the ability to blow up skyscrapers with super secret explosives and fly missiles into the Pentagon in broad daylight without being discovered, but apparently outfitting your interpreter with a bullhorn that you can pick up on Amazon.com for $29.95 is beyond the capabilities of the United States Special Operations community.

45 Comments:

At 12 January, 2013 19:47, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

It is a wonderful illustration of how they lack the understanding of black ops. The Bin Laden raid was straight forward, and somewhat old-fashioned. All of the great raids are (Al Qaeda's 9/11 hit was a simple affair).

Funny they chose not to discuss the appropriate use of thermite charges to destroy the sensitive electronics of the MH-60 that crashed. You'd think they'd be experts on Thermite by now.

 
At 13 January, 2013 02:33, Blogger mother said...

On the web i have found 2 video of this "special tortures" tecnique used by the army man!
http://youtu.be/Xp5o8BPJk-I
http://youtu.be/C71KGdEOnvY
Damn, it is so hard, they dont use chair!!!

Description:
"People say so much about US interrogation tecniques, well here it is in action. Listen, watch and learn how "terrible" we are. First ever released footage of an interrogation at GITMO. Hamdan was captured in southern Afghanistan on November 24, 2001. According to documents obtained by the Associated Press, he was captured in a car with four other alleged al-Qaeda associates, including Osama bin laden's son-in-law, three of whom were killed in a firefight with Afghan forces. Hamdan and the other surviving associate in the car were later turned over to U.S. forces. He was released January 8, 2009 to live with his family in Sana."

and

"The US Military has released some fo the interrogation tapes of terrorist suspects that are being used in the courts against them. As part of the public records we are postign them here for you to see and decide for yourself, what type of techniques were used and were they "inhumane" as accuded. While these do not show all of the interrorgations, they are the ones that reveal vital information used at trials."

I dont know if into GITMO process was released others videos...

 
At 13 January, 2013 10:48, Blogger James B. said...

The movie actually shows them rigging up C-4, although thermite is commonly used for destroying equipment of course. Having never destroyed a helicopter myself, I won't claim to know which method was used.

 
At 13 January, 2013 23:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

So James goes around reading obscure blog posts so he can quibble about whether the guy with the bullhorn was a SEAL or a hired translator. And claims that these quibbles somehow represent poor thinking skills among "truthers" at large.

And yet in his very own blog he tolerates liars like Ian who claim
"The widows have no questions."

 
At 14 January, 2013 04:43, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical over my endless humiliation of him that he wants James to squelch my right to free speech. Typical Bushcist behavior.

Also, Brian, please don't pretend you've seen this movie. It would cost you $13 for a ticket, and we all know you don't even have money to get a decent haircut, much less go to the movies.

 
At 14 January, 2013 08:04, Blogger James B. said...

Yes, I am quite aware of the no true truther fallacy.

 
At 14 January, 2013 09:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 January, 2013 11:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

James, instead of trotting out one-side-fits-all fallacies, how about demonstrating that the article you nit-pick has attracted any attention whatsoever in the truth movement?

Ian, I saw the movie. I saw it for $10 in Emeryville. It's way too long, its middle bloated with irrelevant subplots. One of my friends called out in the dark afterwards that the movie was pure propaganda, trying to justify war crimes and illegal wars. A guy answered her "I fought in Afghanistan. You shut up." I answered him right back "Is that what you fought for? To shut people up?" He had nothing to say to that.

The right to free speech is not the same as a right to lie. SLC scours the internet for trivial factual errors they can try to attribute to the truth movement at the same time they maintain an attitude of deniability about your blatant lies on their own blog. That's hypocritical.

 
At 14 January, 2013 12:20, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

One of my friends called out in the dark afterwards that the movie was pure propaganda, trying to justify war crimes and illegal wars.

Did she have a specific factual criticism? Or was the movie just not what she wanted to hear?

As an aside, freedom of speech does not include you talking during a film I paid to watch. Your friend needs to have the shit kicked out of her.

 
At 14 January, 2013 15:05, Blogger barogers619 said...

RGT, you are an utter fool if you think an imaginary friend can have the crap kicked out of them.

 
At 14 January, 2013 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

"Afterwards" means when it was over where I come from.

The specific criticism was that the movie contained a false allegation that torture produced actionable intelligence leading to the capture of bin Laden, and that the script seemed designed to make viewers feel good about torture and the shooting of unarmed noncombatants.



 
At 14 January, 2013 15:50, Blogger James B. said...

I saw nothing in that respect that was false. It showed prisoners being water boarded, which everyone pretty much agrees happened, the critics of the government more so than the government.. It shows those prisoners at some time giving up information, which everyone pretty much agrees happened. At no time did the movie ever ndicate that they gave up that information solely because they were waterboarded.

 
At 14 January, 2013 16:05, Blogger Ian said...

The specific criticism was that the movie contained a false allegation that torture produced actionable intelligence leading to the capture of bin Laden, and that the script seemed designed to make viewers feel good about torture and the shooting of unarmed noncombatants.

Andrew Sullivan has been one of the most prominent critics of the Bush torture program, and he didn't see any such thing in the film.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/12/the-torture-narrative.html

I haven't seen the film yet, but I'll trust his judgment over that of a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who thinks he sees "symmetrical collapse" of the WTC.

 
At 14 January, 2013 18:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"James, instead of trotting out one-side-fits-all fallacies, how about demonstrating that the article you nit-pick has attracted any attention whatsoever in the truth movement?'

You have been kicked out of every faction of the Truth movement, so you are in no position to comment of the movement whatsoever.

"One of my friends called out in the dark afterwards that the movie was pure propaganda, trying to justify war crimes and illegal wars."

Funny, 9/11 Truth effectively undermined the anti-war movement with rampant stupidity. Does your friend know you're a 9/11 troofer Bush-bot?


"The right to free speech is not the same as a right to lie."

You lie about Rodriguez, you lie about Dr. Sunder, and you lie about almost everything else.

" SLC scours the internet for trivial factual errors they can try to attribute to the truth movement.."

No, I'm sure they have certain boards bookmarked, and when a story makes Pat or James laugh out loud it shows up here.


"...at the same time they maintain an attitude of deniability about your blatant lies on their own blog. That's hypocritical."

Nope. This is the comments section, not the blog. Anyone can post here, unlike the troofer boards.

 
At 14 January, 2013 18:12, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

"Afterwards" means when it was over where I come from.

"Called out in the dark" means "was being intentionally disruptive". Cowardly, boorish, and worthy of a good beat-down, even during the credits.

The specific criticism was that the movie contained a false allegation that derp derp derp...

Assuming all that is important enough to bring up, why bring it up in such a combative and ineffective way? Would you call what she did effective activism?

 
At 14 January, 2013 18:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, you are an utter fool if you think an imaginary friend can have the crap kicked out of them.

I wanted to ask snug if it was a date, but I'm not that tasteless.

 
At 14 January, 2013 23:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

I guess you guys don't even know that 3 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have criticized the movie as "grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Usama bin Laden."

Mr. Sullivan makes the mistake of assuming that his own perceptive and discerning analysis will be the same as the knuckle-draggers who will go to see the film.

MGF, I didn't lie about anything or anybody. You only demonstrate your foolishness when you make such a dumb claim.

RGT, so you think Soldier Boy should have beat up a woman because she expressed anger about a piece of propaganda?

The movie was over. She didn't disrupt anything.










 
At 15 January, 2013 04:55, Blogger Ian said...

Brian's real problem is that a woman directed the movie. Since Brian is a fascist who wears women's underwear, he can't stand it when smart and successful women threaten his perverted sense of manhood.

Just imagine if Bigelow had been Latina. The squealing from the racist liar Brian Good would have been deafening!

Mr. Sullivan makes the mistake of assuming that his own perceptive and discerning analysis will be the same as the knuckle-draggers who will go to see the film.

I suppose so. I mean, look at your idiotic analysis of the film.

 
At 15 January, 2013 09:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I am not aware that I made any analysis of the film. It seems you don't know the difference between fact and opinion. Your irationality and poor reading comprehension make you a liability in any serious enterprise. Your obsession with haircuts suggests an effort to compensate for your failings.

 
At 15 January, 2013 09:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

So RGT, suppose a movie was made glorifying the efforts of the KKK to preserve segregation of schools in the USA. Suppose that after it was over, as people were leaving, a woman got up and denounced the movie as lies and racist trash. You think the big strong men in the audience should go and beat her up for disruption? Would you call her out for cowardice and boorishness?




 
At 15 January, 2013 12:17, Blogger James B. said...

I'm well aware of that. I admire senator Mccain, but I don't get my movie reviews from him.

 
At 15 January, 2013 14:37, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You think the big strong men in the audience should go and beat her up for disruption?

I think people should be quiet a movie theater. That's how well-socialized adults behave. The two exceptions are emergencies and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Preaching one's politics during a film is simply tasteless. You would have shut her up if you had any manners.

 
At 15 January, 2013 16:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you think if we saw a movie that worshipfully examined the moral anguish of Governor Wallace in blocking the schoolhouse door, that the conventions of socialization and your idea of tasteful behavior trump the rights of a committed activist to express her disapproval?

On Planet RGT do well-socialized and tasteful men kick the shit out of small women simply for behavior they consider tasteless? That's what you were advocating. You said she "needs to have the shit kicked out of her."

 
At 15 January, 2013 17:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"So RGT, suppose a movie was made glorifying the efforts of the KKK to preserve segregation of schools in the USA. Suppose that after it was over, as people were leaving, a woman got up and denounced the movie as lies and racist trash. You think the big strong men in the audience should go and beat her up for disruption? Would you call her out for cowardice and boorishness? "

There was such a movie - "The Birth of a Nation" - where the KKK saves the day.

First off, why would a committed activist go see a movie about a subject they disagree with?

1. They're curious.
2. They was to start trouble.

Face it, it's only a movie. The fight is in Washington D.C., and if your friend is as retarded as you are then people are going to call "her" on it.

Ronald Reagan stared in a movie called "Storm Warning" where he played a prosecutor who stands up against the KKK in 1951.

By your logic this makes Ronald Reagan a giant in the civil rights movement...unless it was just a movie.

You need new medications.

 
At 15 January, 2013 18:41, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So you think if we saw a movie that worshipfully examined the derp derp derp derp...

How many different ways would you like me to restate it? My quiet enjoyment of the film outweighs your friend's wish to be intentionally disruptive. Intentionally disruptive people deserve to get the shit kicked out of them.

Why don't you direct your friend to this topic on SLC? She can voice her important feelings in a forum that's designed for it. It'd even be on topic.

 
At 15 January, 2013 22:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

So MGF, when "Birth of a Nation" is screened today it's generally shown as an example of how fucked up intelligent people could be be in 1915.

"Storm Warning" is an obscure movie of no interest.

"Zero Dark Thirty" threatens to be Oscar-winning in 2013. So there's a difference on both counts.

RGT, my friend did not disrupt the film. She spoke up only after it was over.

I don't think this forum is worth her time. Not enough traffic.

 
At 16 January, 2013 05:00, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I am not aware that I made any analysis of the film. It seems you don't know the difference between fact and opinion. Your irationality and poor reading comprehension make you a liability in any serious enterprise. Your obsession with haircuts suggests an effort to compensate for your failings.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Of course you didn't make any analysis of the film. You didn't actually see it, given that you're too poor to afford the tickets, and you claimed to see it with a friend when you have no friends. You were just desperate to tell us a story of a "victory" where your "friend" had that exchange with the person in the theater.

It's all very contrived, Brian. It's what we expect from a worthless liar like yourself.

 
At 16 January, 2013 10:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

So first you claim that my "idiotic analysis of the film" was somehow significant, then you claim I didn't have any analysis and didn't see the film. You only prattle and blather.

 
At 17 January, 2013 04:47, Blogger Ian said...

So first you claim that my "idiotic analysis of the film" was somehow significant, then you claim I didn't have any analysis and didn't see the film. You only prattle and blather.

Poor Brian. He's so confused.

Anyway, we should talk about something else. Brian, you talk about invisible widows all the time. How do you think they become invisible? Is it some sort of Star Trek cloaking device?

 
At 17 January, 2013 08:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

It thinks it's funny. And hey, where's old JiggleCheeks, anyway? It seems that the best defense his (alleged) proxy here can offer to the fact that his lying hero story is fraudulent is to claim that I have a homosexual infatuation with a walking manboob. Did I develop that when I was supposedly attending San Jose State?

 
At 17 January, 2013 09:56, Blogger sabba said...

and then again, Brian Good says: I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...WILLIE!"

As predicted, another thread with Brian Good unable to control his gay obsession. It never fails.

 
At 18 January, 2013 00:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where is old Jiggle Cheeks? He ran away screaming and crying after I exposed his hero story for a lie.

 
At 18 January, 2013 04:29, Blogger sabba said...

and then again, Brian Good says: I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...WILLIE!"

As predicted, another thread with Brian Good unable to control his gay obsession. It never fails.
17 January, 2013 09:56

 
At 18 January, 2013 08:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

So the only answer you have to the charge that your "hero" steals his glory from the dead and lies about what happened on 9/11, is to claim with no evidence whatsoever that the person who points out that the "hero" is a fraud has a homosexual obsession.

Even if I did have a homosexual obsession with Willie (and how anyone straight or gay could be sexually attracted to a walking manboob like Willie I don't know) it has nothing to do with the fact that his story has been proven to be a lie.

 
At 18 January, 2013 08:50, Blogger sabba said...

""...Frankly Brian (Snug Bug )...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things-attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you...Please stop attacking Kevin, William and I. Do something useful--attack the people who did 9/11, not the people who are putting so much effort into exposing the lies and stopping them. Leave me alone- stop the email attacks on me and others. I think it probably harms your reputation more than mine, although it is horrifically embarrassing to me to think that at one time I thought of you as a friend. Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement [SIC] and rationality. [Signed] Carol Brouillet" ???????"

 
At 18 January, 2013 09:06, Blogger sabba said...

and of course, Brian Good (snug.bug here) never got to screw Carol...
and never will...

 
At 19 January, 2013 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you continue to demonstrate that you can not refute the fact that Willie's hero story is a lie. Instead you can only mount an ad hominem attack. You are also demonstrating the tactics of intimidation and blackmail used by Willie's (very few) supporters. I am supposed to be afraid of your silly quotes and back off.

Even if that hysterical quote were factually accurate, it has nothing to do with Willie's blatant con-artistry.

So you, who claims that truthers are delusional, now cites a prominent truther as a source for your libelous claims about me?

 
At 19 January, 2013 10:06, Blogger sabba said...

...that hysterical quote were factually accurate, it has nothing to do with Willie's blatant con-artistry.

and here it goes again: ""...Frankly Brian (Snug Bug )...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things-attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you...Please stop attacking Kevin, William and I. Do something useful--attack the people who did 9/11, not the people who are putting so much effort into exposing the lies and stopping them. Leave me alone- stop the email attacks on me and others. I think it probably harms your reputation more than mine, although it is horrifically embarrassing to me to think that at one time I thought of you as a friend. Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement [SIC] and rationality. [Signed] Carol Brouillet" ???????"

A prominent and recognized Truther Carol Brouilliet said that.

So you, who claims that truthers are delusional, now cites a prominent truther as a source for your libelous claims about me?
Prove I call anyone delusional but you and Richard Gage. Find that I used the word on any of my post against you. Prove it. The only one delusional ( first time I use it) here is you.

and again: you never got to shag Carol, and you never will.

 
At 19 January, 2013 10:12, Blogger sabba said...

...libelous claims about me?

and who are you again? as far as I known we are only attacking an INTERNET idiot named snug.bug and an alleged and apparent sex stalker named Brian Good from Palo Alto California, do you know any of them? Do you think they are the same person? if not, why are you defending an expelled member ( Brian Good) of Richard Gage's organization?

 
At 19 January, 2013 11:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're not very smart, are you?

Downright pathetic, actually.

 
At 19 January, 2013 12:54, Blogger sabba said...

...libelous claims about me?

and who are you again? as far as I known we are only attacking an INTERNET idiot named snug.bug and an alleged and apparent sex stalker named Brian Good from Palo Alto California, do you know any of them? Do you think they are the same person? if not, why are you defending an expelled member ( Brian Good) of Richard Gage's organization?

 
At 19 January, 2013 13:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

So I take it you can not defend your hero William Rodriguez per the fact that his claims of 15 rescues and hundreds saved are completely fraudulent.

 
At 19 January, 2013 13:25, Blogger sabba said...

So I take it you can not defend your hero Brian Good per the fact that his obsession with Rodriguez is completely sickening.

or are you Brian Good?

if you are... you will never get to screw Carol Brouillet, you never will.

 
At 19 January, 2013 13:26, Blogger sabba said...

and then again, Brian Good says: I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm not homosexually obsessed with Willie...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...I'm NOT!...WILLIE!"

As predicted, another thread with Brian Good unable to control his gay obsession. It never fails.

 
At 19 January, 2013 14:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

So I take it you can not defend your hero William Rodriguez per the fact that his claims of 15 rescues and hundreds saved are completely fraudulent.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home