HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Zero Dark Thirty is total...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:59 AM

Zero Dark Thirty is total propaganda

The torture issue is just one distortion. How do the filmmakers reconcile a desperate post 9/11 CIA willing to resort to torture with intentional CIA obstruction before 9/11?

The one thing that has caused Ali Soufan more anguish than anything else is the thought that the events of 9/11 might have been prevented if, he says, the CIA had shared certain information with him and his FBI team.

While they were investigating the attack on the USS Cole in November 2000, Soufan's team learned that an al Qaeda operative had met with other terrorists in Asia and received a large sum of money. Soufan says he made three formal requests through the FBI to the CIA to see if anything was known about what this operative was up to. Each time, he says, the CIA indicated that it did not know anything.

But, Soufan says he later learned the CIA knew - eight months before 9/11 - that this same operative had met in Malaysia with two terrorism suspects who would later hijack the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. And the CIA also knew that those two suspects were heading to the U.S.

"The agency knew that these al Qaeda operatives in Southeast Asia flew to America or they have visas to come to the United States, and somebody decided, 'Let's not share the information,'" Soufan said.

"And if it had been shared with you, what then?" Logan asked.

"I try not to think about that. I try not to think about, about what could have happened. Maybe, maybe thousands of American lives will be spared, maybe," Soufan said.

The Interrogator


Before celebrating the CIA why is it too much to expect a credible explanation as to why CIA officials protected al Qaeda operatives before 9/11?

32 replies, 2806 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Zero Dark Thirty is total propaganda (Original post)
noise Feb 2013 OP
Warpy Feb 2013 #1
noise Feb 2013 #2
Warpy Feb 2013 #4
graham4anything Feb 2013 #3
noise Feb 2013 #5
dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #6
leveymg Feb 2013 #7
graham4anything Feb 2013 #8
leveymg Feb 2013 #9
graham4anything Feb 2013 #10
leveymg Feb 2013 #11
graham4anything Feb 2013 #12
SomethingFishy Feb 2013 #13
graham4anything Feb 2013 #14
SomethingFishy Feb 2013 #15
graham4anything Feb 2013 #16
white_wolf Feb 2013 #17
99Forever Feb 2013 #18
noise Feb 2013 #19
99Forever Feb 2013 #24
white_wolf Feb 2013 #23
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #27
white_wolf Feb 2013 #29
graham4anything Feb 2013 #28
PM Martin Feb 2013 #20
Godhumor Feb 2013 #21
noise Feb 2013 #22
sendero Feb 2013 #26
sendero Feb 2013 #25
noise Feb 2013 #30
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #31
green for victory Feb 2013 #32

Response to noise (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:11 AM

1. I know a lot of Europeans have been very unimpressed with it

but then they've been used to the utterly hamfisted CIA for many years, made worse by the last 4 years of Stupid's reign, when Porter Goss tried to fire every Democrat in the agency.

There are a lot of good reasons the CIA missed the fall of the USSR, the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and 9/11, being blindsided by every single one of them. It has to do with homogeneity and groupthink. The few agents who actually find something have to fight it up through channels and channels are ossified.

Anything that makes them look like all knowing heroes is not going to be well received.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:17 AM

2. CIA hero narratives are well received by US journalists

The biggest clue as to why the CIA protected al Qaeda operatives was provided by former Senator Bob Graham. He said the hijackers were supported by the Saudi government.

Post 9/11 the CIA tortured people while Bush covered up the Saudi involvement and via propaganda made the case to invade Iraq. A movie that fails to deal with this is a joke. Sadly it speaks even worse of a country that has yet to deal with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:21 AM

4. It does, but any movie that told the truth

would be relegated to a few art houses near universities and that's it. Maybe it would be shown on PBS in ten years or so, after the bumblers and liars have retired and can't really be touched.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:17 AM

3. Unless they had specific info on OBL, how would it have stopped it?

 

It appears OBL had others aside from the 19 or 20 who could have done what they did.
Even getting a couple wouldn't have stopped 9-11, just changed the suicide bombers.

And what does this have to do with the movie which was based on a certain time frame
and not a history of the CIA, and a movie that, aside from the media distortion, showed that torture didn't achieve its goal.

The same 9-11 could have happened with only half of the 20 anyhow.
2 planes were basically unneeded as neither was used for what it was suppose to do, as it appears one was suppose to go into the Capital building while all of congress was in session,
and the other the White House itself.

But nothing would have stopped 9-11 unless it meant the capture of OBL and the #2 guy.
As they were the ones that planned it, financed it, and had it carried out.

Makes sense to me that the CIA, not being anywhere close to OBL, wouldn't have let others in on the secret at that time, as it would not have led to the capture of OBL.
The FBI and the CIA never seem to be friendly to each other anyhow, throughout all its history and the two have separate jobs anyhow then.(until after when the creation of homeland security head is suppose to oversee both to bridge that divide).

And the movie doesn't celebrate the CIA, that is a distortion.
The movie in detail, shows the detective work, then the capture/death of OBL who President Bush let slide after 9-11 and it took
President Obama to give the orders to take him down, bringing closure and justice to 9-11 and the 3000 people who died and their families.(real people), and the bankrupting of America after 9-11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:26 AM

5. An honest movie

wouldn't have ignored one of the most puzzling aspects of al Qaeda terrorism.

Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were two of the key hijackers. Arresting them would have likely led to the other 17. Some accounts say that al Qaeda would have called off the attack if they had known Moussaoui had been arrested. Knowing that two key plotters were arrested could have led to the suspension or postponement of the attacks. This would have given the FBI time to investigate more leads.

Closure is not possible without an honest accounting of US government conduct. Hollywood closure is not the same thing.

CIA conduct makes no sense. This is the lingering disconnect of 9/11. For example Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a book called 500 Days. He makes the case that the CIA was on point only to be ignored by a distracted White House. What he failed to mention in his book was the fact that the CIA withheld information about known al Qaeda operatives inside the US at the very same time high level CIA officials were briefing the White House about the threat level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:08 AM

6. OBL had others ?

I don't think you'll find any links to suggest they were "his" other than him being told of an idea and saying "go for it".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:41 AM

7. The principal hijackers all met together on several occasions. There was an opportunity to roll-up

the entire network, but Bush refused to issue the order -- somehow, Dubya's comment to the CIA briefer after the Aug. 6 PDB, "Ok, you've covered your ass, now" didn't make it into the script. Nor did the fact that CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (CTC) was aware of the entry of the Flt. 77 hijackers and had monitored a meeting they had with several of the other 9/11 attack cell members in Kuala Lumpur in early January 2000. A warning cable was drafted by the FBI liaison at CTC after al-Midhar and al-Hazmi arrived at LAX, but that cable was withheld at the order of the Center's higher management.

Upon arrival, the pair were taken under the wing of al-Awlaki (one of the US Citizens the CIA later droned in Yemen), and the pair followed him from San Diego to Northern Virginia. After 9/11, al-Alwaki met with officials at the Pentagon, and then left the U.S. After he returned to the US a couple years later, al-Awlaki was arrested and briefly detained, but let go and returned abroad. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-6978200.html He was the node of contact with virtually every major AQ terrorist attack inside the U.S. that followed.

By the summer of 2001, Tenet became so nervous that he personally made an unscheduled trip down to Crawford about ten days later and he rolled around with Dubya in a pickup truck and the two talked at length about the al-Qaeda attack cells inside the U.S. That's in Tenet's autobiography. "The Center of the Storm." But, the order was never given to the CIA so the files could be released to the FBI to roll-up the al-Qaeda network. Please, see, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/258

The FBI could have gotten all of them, and additional measures could have been taken to increase air security, but FAA and military alerts issued earlier that summer were actually relaxed, instead. 9/11 didn't have to happen.

Blame Bush. It was his call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:12 AM

8. That's why it's great they droned him.

 

He no longer can terrorize the world.

BRAVO!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:25 AM

9. And, he can no longer talk about his apparent role as a CIA/Saudi double-agent.

The only question is, what did al-Awlaki, himself, know about what he was doing? Guess he'll never have to testify about that.

The practice of assassinating and scrambling the brain cells of key surviving 9/11 conspirators seems to be in complete disregard for preserving evidence.

This guy was much more than a propagandist hater. He was an obvious double-agent who played a role in identifying numerous al-Qaeda operatives involved in attacks on the US during the last ten years, before the fact of the attacks -- from the guys who flew Flt. 77 into the Pentagon, to the shoe bomber, to the Ft. Hood shooter, to the Underwear bomber. The only question is how witting his role was as the spider at the center of the CIA (and/or) DIA and FBI CT web(s). Mike Scheuer, the head of the CIA CTC that Tenet replaced in 1999 with his own guys, Cofer Black and Rich Blee, has said so himself. See, below.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:36 AM

10. On the last post, you said he was the key to the US operation led of course by OBL

 

therefore, had they gone after the 20 plus him, they would all have been killed in 2000 or 2001
so he would still be dead.

dead is dead.

one can't have it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:13 AM

11. OBL hasn't led what we call al-Qaeda for many years.

At least since he was installed in his ISI cage in Abottabad in 2005, if not earlier. The architect who built the compound was regularly employed by ISI and told that "a VIP" was going to be installed there. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-17/opinions/35444232_1_abbottabad-military-garrison-city-osama-bin-laden

If they had rolled up the known cells in mid-2001, as was being urged to Dubya, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not sure what your last point is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:18 AM

12. AAK would have been dead then, instead of by drone.(Probably by bunker bomb).

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:02 PM

13. Funny thing,

the other day I saw a post where you claimed that the TSA made you feel safer because "what happened on 9/11 won't happen again" and today you claim ""But nothing would have stopped 9-11 unless it meant the capture of OBL and the #2 guy.
As they were the ones that planned it, financed it, and had it carried out.""


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:11 PM

14. Yeah, I agree with what I said 100%.

 

Now we have NRA gun nuts stockpiling guns, attempting to overthrow the governemnt, and as Benjamin Frankin said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
There will never be another 9-11, as the airplanes are now safe, and well, the WTC isn't there, so how could there be another 9-11 the same way?

Don't get what you don't get?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:24 PM

15. No, I don't get someone

who claims that TSA is keeping us safe one day and telling us the next day that TSA could have not stopped 9/11, which was the entire cause of the birth of the TSA to start with.

Paranoia may work for you, you may be happy with your "ounce of prevention". I'm not. I'm not a criminal, I work, I pay my taxes, and I don't want the government reading my e-mails and texts. I don't want them listening to my phone calls. I don't want to be on camera every moment of my life after I walk out my front door. I don't want airport employees looking at naked x-rays of my wife and kids.
I don't want to live in fear. It's just not my way. I understand that some people get off on it, they love the boogyman around every corner. Not me. And really, the Ben Franklin quote? You think this is what he envisioned for America? The man said an OUNCE of prevention.. not a TON.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:48 PM

16. But who said what you said I said?

 

The TSA came AFTER OBL not before.
They are there to prevent another 9-11(which is shorthand for a major terroristic event, of which since 2001, we know now the terrorists are HERE not there, having nothing to do with the same terrorists who did 9-11, but different ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:51 PM

17. I knew it would be. It's the same reason I refused to see "Act of Valor."

I'm sick to damn death of military propaganda everywhere. I have no desire to support it in a theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:09 PM

18. It was just a movie.

It did not claim to be a documentary. Get over it already.

I'd bet you haven't even fucking seen it and are just repeating the same PROPAGANDA being used by those with a vested interest in making it fail, fed you.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:13 PM

19. I didn't see it

I had no desire to be manipulated.

I didn't repeat any propaganda. My comments are based on reading non-fiction books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #19)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:22 AM

24. Oh the irony.

You didn't see a movie because of what someone else said, pass judgement on it based on what someone else said, and post negative comments about it on the weekend of the the Academy Awards, but yet you "haven't been manipulated." While I, who actually has seen the movie and haven't had my opinion swayed in any way about anything by, "have been manipulated."




Funny stuff dood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:29 PM

23. So what if it isn't a documentary? It still contains a message.

And no I haven't seen. I have no desire to see propaganda for the CIA. Just as I had no desire to see Act of Valor. All media contains a message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:45 AM

27. Very peculiar comments considering the Guy Fawkes mask n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #27)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:24 PM

29. You mean the mask that Occupy Wall Street used and I'm using a show of support for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:56 AM

28. Actually you are 100% wrong here.

 

It indeed did NOT show the CIA in good light whatsoever.
(and I am not saying you are).
It showed dogged detective work and being rebuffed every step of the way.
And the CIA NOT wanting to listen to the composite characters detective work.
It showed torture NOT working, and other methods working(old fashioned detective work).

You are repeating John McCain's lines, and he too never saw the movie.

If you don't want to give it money, buy a ticket for Amour, they could use every ticket sale there is, and go into the other theatre.

And the odd part is, Bigelow's Hurt Locker was rightwing. This was most certainly not.

and I also believe that Iraq and 9-11 were not exclusive to each other.

I believe it quite likely that Bush would have gone to Iraq without 9-11 at some point,
as he did so SOLELY to take care of a long standing family grudge. And for no other reason.

Bush actually could have were it later, just droned him at some point.(or perhaps at the UN
even).

9-11 was just a vessel after the fact.

I do not believe any of the conspiracy theories out there on 9-11.
It would have been impossible to keep it a secret, and I now agree with those that say
the way the media is, and the big mouths of the 2000 professional agitators who did
the fake riot in Miami Dade County, no way it was an inside job.
Way too many variables for it to have been, way too many big mouths.

But following breadcrumbs is easy if you believe the person dropping them.

Logic says it would have been impossible
and equal logic says the long standing FBI-CIA feud was part of the reason for the missed
connections.

Which is the point of the HS chief position, so that isn't suppose to happen.

And I recall way back in the Clinton days, that the rumblings of a new major problem were starting, that being the terrorist movement, but most people back then brushed it off
and were not concerned as it was so different from any state terror.

It is why I now applaud the TSA for their thankless job, so the way 9-11 went down, can not
happen NOW as it did then, same as Oklahoma City can't happen that way or WTC1,
as the garages in major city buildings are more(or should be more)secure so a truck cannot get inside them without being searched (and bravo to that!!!)


and as for drones, and people putting our President down, note that in getting OBL, it was done specifically to NOT send a bomb in, so that conspiracy theories would not start.
They went out of their way NOT to do that.

(If one believes the Warren commision sucked it does not mean 9-11 was an inside job)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:25 PM

20. Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:29 PM

21. The movie was entirely about the chase for OBL after 9-11

Nothing, not a single scene, is set before 9-11.

So why the hell should they include it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Godhumor (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:21 PM

22. The context of the movie is distorted

by Boal and Bigelow's acceptance of the CIA narrative at face value. It is assumed that the CIA acted in good faith at all times before and after 9/11. Thus they portray heroic CIA agents willing to go to any extent to find Bin Laden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Reply #22)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:30 AM

26. And as for the movie generally..

... when I can tell that something is akin to a polemic from just the trailer, I don't need to see the movie to know it is a piece of contrived ax-to-grind horsecrap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:28 AM

25. Ah bullshit...

... there was sign after sign and clue after clue that WERE REPORTED and nobody put two and two together. 911 was going to happen NO MATTER WHAT, that much is clear as day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #25)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:58 PM

30. Based on what?

The OP has a firsthand account of an obstructed investigation. The FBI Cole investigators had put two and two together but were prevented from following these leads because some people at the CIA withheld the information. To this very day we don't have an explanation for their conduct. They simply refuse to tell the public the truth.

John Farmer, the former senior counsel at the commission, tended to agree. Had they found them—Messrs. Mihdhar and Hazmi—he said, “it is much more likely that the whole operation would have been compromised. Mission security was very important to Al Qaeda leaders, to the point that if they were that concerned, I think it is certainly possible that they would have called it off completely.”

So the question has always been quite simple: Why wasn’t the Mihdhar information shared with the F.B.I.? “That is one of the big mysteries. Why was the information not passed on?”Mr. Farmer told The Observer. Mr. Farmer is also the author of a recent book about the attacks, Ground Truth. “And the explanations aren’t good,” he added.

The 9/11 Commission, in its exhaustive report, never explained why such important intelligence disappeared into the C.I.A.’s black hole. (Complicating matters, the C.I.A. initially claimed it did tell the F.B.I.) One reason for the lapse, insiders have speculated, is that C.I.A. analysts concealed it out of spite—they simply hated the F.B.I. Cliques in national security agencies, of course, can rival those in high school.

The Gay Terrorist by Aram Roston

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:00 PM

31. And this would differentiate it from other war-genre movies how?

History is told by the winners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noise (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:06 PM

32. Anyone remember this?

 

Many Americans can't remember what happened last month, let alone a year and a half ago...

Osama bin Laden corpse photo is fake

Image of bloodied man picked up by British newspapers has been circulating online for two years



An image purporting to show Osama bin Laden's bloody corpse, right, is a composite of two separate images, left and centre. Photograph: twitpic

An image apparently showing a dead Osama bin Laden broadcast on Pakistani television and picked up by British newspaper websites is a fake.

The bloodied image of a man with matted hair and a blank, half-opened eye has been circulating on the internet for the past two years. It was used on the front pages of the Mail, Times, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror websites, though swiftly removed after the fake was exposed on Twitter.

It appears the fake picture was initially published by the Middle East online newspaper themedialine.org on 29 April 2009, with a warning from the editor that it was "unable to ascertain whether the photo is genuine or not".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-fake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread