Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Huffington Post is shocked, SHOCKED, that Iran is getting unfairly blamed for training insurgents in Iraq. Because we all know how Iran is spilling over with love and warm feelings toward the U.S.   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
100
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2007 at 12:36 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



100 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
KazamaSmokers
2007-02-01 11:51:11 AM  
Hear that drumbeat?
 
sigdiamond2000
2007-02-01 11:59:26 AM  
So submitter thinks they're getting unfairly blamed?

Why do you hate the troops, submitter?
 
TheConvincingSavant
2007-02-01 11:59:35 AM  
It's just the truth hitting you over the head.
 
jimmyhaha
2007-02-01 12:05:17 PM  
Boston hates New York, but I didn't blame them for September 11th.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-02-01 12:07:00 PM  
sigdiamond2000: So submitter thinks they're getting unfairly blamed?

I suspect submitter thinks Huffington Post is staffed with waterhead retards.
 
tallguywithglasseson
2007-02-01 12:11:55 PM  
KazamaSmokers: Hear that drumbeat?

I hear it. I don't know why the HP is surprised that places like the New York Times and NBC are the ones holding the drums, they always are.

From TFA:


- the claim that Iran "may have" trained attackers gets the headline and the lede. Of course, green Martians "may have" trained the attackers. The key question is: is there real evidence?
A bit of a snark with the "Martians", but a fair criticism

- there is not a single named source in the article.
Sound Familiar?

- there is no rebuttal, no point of view different from the allegation, even though plenty of knowledgeable analysts (Juan Cole, Gareth Porter, Trita Parsi, for starters) could have easily been found to give a contrary view. A recent Los Angeles Times piece found "scant evidence" for the claim that Iran was behind attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
I don't think you need a rebuttal if you're printing facts. But they're not.

- no "direct evidence" exists, as the article acknowledges (further down.)
Classic. Write a 3 or 4 paragraph article inditing someone or something, and then right before the end of the article (when most have stopped reading), say "oh yeah, this might also all be BS."

- the only "evidence" given is that the attack was sophisticated (what are they saying - Iraqis are too dumb to do this by themselves ?!) and that Iran has a motive for retaliating against the U.S. Which is no evidence at all - lots of folks have a motive for retaliating against the U.S.
Well, whatever, it just goes back to the fact that this whole thing is just speculation.

I love the smell of propaganda in the morning!
 
playblu
2007-02-01 12:12:12 PM  
"unfairly"??

CNN is reporting the Pentagon is seriously investigating Iran's involvement in the attack.
 
Code_Archeologist
2007-02-01 12:16:47 PM  
Lets ask this question.

If/when the US leaves Iraq, is it going to be in Iran's interest for the Saudi-Al Qaeda backed Sunnis to be able to roll over the shiite majority and take over the government again?

Answer, no. Therefore Iran is protecting its interests by arming the shiite militias to fight the Sunni insurgents. Bush is simply using Iran's fear of a Sunni controlled Iraq to incite actions from Iran.
 
tallguywithglasseson
2007-02-01 12:22:16 PM  
playblu: CNN is reporting the Pentagon is seriously investigating Iran's involvement in the attack.

The Pentagon? They're seriously investigating it? Seriously seriously?

Don't get me wrong, if it was the Iranians, they need to pay a price.

Normally, I'd think the idea that the gov't would consider starting a war with Iran (in our current situation) preposterous, but my memory isn't that short. There are a lot of neo-conservative idiots with PhDs running around Washington.
 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-02-01 12:33:10 PM  
We certainly do find ourselves in a "boy who cried wolf" dilemma. What if there's really some substance to the Iranian involvement?
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-02-01 12:33:40 PM  
tallguywithglasseson: I hear it. I don't know why the HP is surprised that places like the New York Times and NBC are the ones holding the drums, they always are.

If Huffington Post thinks NYT is carrying water for the Bush administration, they probably think Noam Chomsky is too far to the right. Let's get real here.
 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-02-01 12:34:15 PM  
Code_Archeologist: Excellent analysis.
 
Code_Archeologist
2007-02-01 12:34:27 PM  
tallguywithglasseson
Normally, I'd think the idea that the gov't would consider starting a war with Iran (in our current situation) preposterous, but my memory isn't that short. There are a lot of neo-conservative idiots with PhDs running around Washington.

Sometimes I wonder if the chaos in Iraq was all part of the plan from the start. I guess because imagining that the people running things could be this incompetent is just too disturbing.
 
Code_Archeologist
2007-02-01 12:37:20 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin
If Huffington Post thinks NYT is carrying water for the Bush administration

It would not be new. You might recall that Judith Miller's series about hunting (and erroneously finding) WMDs in Iraq was run in the New York Times.
 
stebain
2007-02-01 12:52:07 PM  
What, besides the parties involved, is significantly different than any other country providing weaponry to Israel?
 
schiefaw
2007-02-01 12:53:19 PM  
Because we all know how Iran is spilling over with love and warm feelings toward the U.S.

Because we all know that pushing emotional buttons without presenting evidence has never gotten us into an unnecessary war in the past.
 
unto_others
2007-02-01 12:56:18 PM  
And the United States "may have trained" Osama Bin Laden. Oh wait! We DID train Osama Bin Laden. Kinda makes you wonder about all those Iraqi troops we're training right now!
 
whyarefartslumpy
2007-02-01 12:57:28 PM  
stebain: What, besides the parties involved, is significantly different than any other country providing weaponry to Israel?

Well, both countries start with an "I", so you might have something there. Other than that, Irael is an established country, with a stable political system, and not likely to undergo civil upheaval anytime soon.
 
costermonger
2007-02-01 12:57:38 PM  
stebain: What, besides the parties involved, is significantly different than any other country providing weaponry to Israel?

I'm not sure, but I'm fairly certain you'll get called anti-semetic for asking.
 
tallguywithglasseson
2007-02-01 12:59:20 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: If Huffington Post thinks NYT is carrying water for the Bush administration, they probably think Noam Chomsky is too far to the right. Let's get real here.

They're not "carrying water" for the Bush administration, but they are selling stories put out there by the Pentagon, at the behest (my conjecture) of the Bush administration, without proper scrutiny. It's nothing new.
 
stebain
2007-02-01 12:59:53 PM  
costermonger

I'm not sure, but I'm fairly certain you'll get called anti-semetic for asking.

That would be a shame, since my posit has nothing to do with race or religion, rather because of the Israeli's using American ordnance on southern Lebanon last year.
 
Wraithbane
2007-02-01 1:15:47 PM  
unto_others
We DID train Osama Bin Laden.

Proof? Oh, right, there isn't any, because we didn't do so.
 
The Why Not Guy
2007-02-01 1:24:00 PM  
I'll say the same thing I said before the Iraq invasion: if your evidence is strong enough to justify military action, there won't be any need to stretch the truth. At all. If you find yourself having to stretch, spin or even lie to make your case, it's not worth making.
 
jimmyhaha
2007-02-01 1:28:22 PM  
Wraithbane: Proof? Oh, right, there isn't any, because we didn't do so.

He fought in the mujahadeen we trained and backed to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It doesn't mean we were funding al Qaeda, but the vets of the Afghan war went on to seed many different nationalist and terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. It's one of the downsides of Reagan/Bush-era foriegn policy, which was effective in the short term (i.e. socialists were prevented from taking over South America), but not the long-term (i.e. socialists now control South America)
 
Headso
2007-02-01 1:29:37 PM  
unto_others: And the United States "may have trained" Osama Bin Laden. Oh wait! We DID train Osama Bin Laden.

not quite, but he may have worked indirectly with the CIA. You could argue that we did "train" the new generation of entry level terrorists...

Early 1980: Osama bin Laden, with Saudi Backing, Supports Afghan Rebels
Osama bin Laden begins providing financial, organizational, and engineering aid for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, with the advice and support of the Saudi royal family. [New Yorker, 11/5/2001] Some, including Richard Clarke, counterterrorism "tsar" during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, believe he was handpicked for the job by Prince Turki al-Faisal, head of Saudi Arabia's Secret Service. [New Yorker, 11/5/2001; Sunday Times (London), 8/25/2002] The Pakistani ISI want a Saudi prince as a public demonstration of the commitment of the Saudi royal family and as a way to ensure royal funds for the anti-Soviet forces. The agency fails to get royalty, but bin Laden, with his family's influential ties, is good enough for the ISI. [Miami Herald, 9/24/2001] (Clarke will argue later that the Saudis and other Muslim governments used the Afghan war in an attempt to get rid of their own misfits and troublemakers.) This multinational force later coalesces into al-Qaeda. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 52]

1984-1994: US Supports Militant Textbooks for Afghanistan
The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. For instance, children are taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines. Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban are still using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have "respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry." (He will fail to mention who created those earlier books). [Washington Post, 3/23/2002; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 5/6/2002]

1986: Bin Laden Works with CIA, at Least Indirectly
The CIA, ISI, and bin Laden build the Khost tunnel complex in Afghanistan. This will be a major target of bombing and fighting when the US attacks the Taliban in 2001. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/2001; Hindu, 9/27/2001] It will be reported in June 2001 that "bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani, and US intelligence services to recruit mujahedeen from many Muslim countries," but this information has not been reported much since 9/11. [United Press International, 4/10/2004] A CIA spokesperson will later claim, "For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden." [Ananova, 10/31/2001]
 
Headso
2007-02-01 1:31:59 PM  
jimmyhaha: but the vets of the Afghan war went on to seed many different nationalist and terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.

yeah, this policy probably wasn't the best move...

1986: CIA Officially Backs ISI Program Promoting Militant Islam Worldwide
During a secret visit to Pakistan CIA Director William Casey commits the CIA to support the ISI program of recruiting radical Muslims for the Afghan war from other Muslim countries around the world. In addition to the Gulf States, these include Turkey, the Philippines, and China. The ISI started their recruitment of radicals from other countries in 1982. This CIA cooperation is part of a joint CIA-ISI plan begun the year before to expand the "Jihad" beyond Afghanistan. [Rashid, 2001, pp. 128-129]
 
Paid RNC Spokesman
2007-02-01 1:35:30 PM  
Wraithbane: Proof? Oh, right, there isn't any, because we didn't do so.

True, there is a difference between training and supporting. Or, are you saying there was no US involvement with OBL during the Cold War?
 
Miles D Davis Jr.
2007-02-01 1:39:07 PM  
Wraithbane [TotalFark]

unto_others
We DID train Osama Bin Laden.

Proof? Oh, right, there isn't any, because we didn't do so.

You've got to be kidding me. We not only trained him, we funded his operations... and some believe the CIA still has contacts!

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=293

//sorry no html skills.
 
that_other_internet
2007-02-01 1:39:24 PM  
Riiight. And if it turns out to be Syria and Jordan? You guys'll still be going after Iran one way or another. NOT Syria or Jordan, despite wherever the evidence might lead the whitehouse administration.
 
unto_others
2007-02-01 1:40:55 PM  
Headso: A CIA spokesperson will later claim, "For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden."

This bit made me chuckle. I'm pretty sure if they did train him we would not be priviledged to that information, and never will be! My only point is that we seem to sell arms, train folks, divide people, and poke nests of hornets in ways that come back to haunt us. It's almost as if we are intentionally sowing the seeds of disaster. Yeah, that ISI thing was not a cunning plan.
 
tallguywithglasseson
2007-02-01 1:41:27 PM  
that_other_internet: Riiight. And if it turns out to be Syria and Jordan? You guys'll still be going after Iran one way or another. NOT Syria or Jordan, despite wherever the evidence might lead the whitehouse administration.

What? Dude, Syria's next, after Iran.
 
Wraithbane
2007-02-01 1:43:24 PM  
jimmyhaha
He fought in the mujahadeen we trained and backed to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It doesn't mean we were funding al Qaeda, but the vets of the Afghan war went on to seed many different nationalist and terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. It's one of the downsides of Reagan/Bush-era foriegn policy, which was effective in the short term (i.e. socialists were prevented from taking over South America), but not the long-term (i.e. socialists now control South America)

We trained some mujahdeen, he fought with some others. There has never been any evidence that we in any way funded or trained him, and his own comments support that he was not interested in any support or contact with the U.S. then.

Paid RNC Spokesman
Or, are you saying there was no US involvement with OBL during the Cold War?

OBL said so.
The guys on the ground coordinating said so.
Absolutely nothing exists to show any connection between OBL and the US. (pops)

If that's not saying there was no involvement, I don't know what would.
 
Abagadro
2007-02-01 1:45:08 PM  
Why would Iran support insurgents against what has become a client state?

BTW, the Iranians that the U.S. captured up in Kurdistan were invited in there by the President of Iraq. He's a Kurd. He is also a Moaist. What a clusterfark that place is.
 
Wraithbane
2007-02-01 1:46:16 PM  
Miles D Davis Jr. http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=293

That article makes exactly one connection, and provides no support for it whatsoever other than them saying so...and considering the amount of evidence out there arguing against it, I'm going to have to call BS.
 
Headso
2007-02-01 1:49:06 PM  
Wraithbane: OBL said so.
The guys on the ground coordinating said so.
Absolutely nothing exists to show any connection between OBL and the US.

.gov? what do you think they are going to say in it...
 
Poopspasm
2007-02-01 1:49:30 PM  
Wraithbane

Dude, did you just use a .gov site to back up your claim? What is Jeebus' name make you think the govt. would come clean about that relationship, even if it did exist?

That's like a trial where you bring the defendant to the stand and ask him if he did it. He says no and goes free.

We're not on the "honor system" with our govt. any more...
 
Abagadro
2007-02-01 1:50:06 PM  
I wouldn't be so sanguine about what the CIA says about its activities. They aren't the most reliable bunch. I'm sure that if there was support (and we likely will never know whether there was or not) it was through client states and cut-outs rather than any direct funding. Plausible deniability is the CIA mantra. Bin Laden was a minor punk back in those days anyways.
 
Wraithbane
2007-02-01 1:52:27 PM  
Headso
.gov? what do you think they are going to say in it...

And where do you have anything to support otherwise??? I know it's against the whackjob mindset, but not everything the government says is a lie.

Maybe you'll like this better then:

"Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, refuted Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following: The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
 
Headso
2007-02-01 1:56:10 PM  
Abagadro: Bin Laden was a minor punk back in those days anyways.

I wouldn't go that far...then again this might not be true...

Mid-1980s: ISI Head Regularly Meets with Bin Laden
According to controversial author Gerald Posner, ex-CIA officials claim that Gen. Akhtar Abdul Rahman, Pakistani ISI's head from 1980 to 1987, regularly meets bin Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan. The ISI and bin Laden form a partnership that forces Afghan tribal warlords to pay a "tax" on the opium trade. By 1985, bin Laden and the ISI are splitting annual profits of up to $100 million a year. [Posner, 2003, pp. 29]
 
Poopspasm
2007-02-01 1:58:17 PM  
I know it's against the whackjob mindset, but not everything the government says is a lie.

I don't think that's the point. The point is this: do you trust them to be honest with the American people about information which could be potentially damaging to them if it was made public?

I'm gonna go ahead and say no....
 
Poopspasm
2007-02-01 2:00:52 PM  
Yeah, and they're Iranian drums.

Yes, I'm sure every man, woman, and child in Iran is quivering with delight in anticipation of being attacked by the U.S.

Do you realize how stupid you sound? Seriously?
 
Headso
2007-02-01 2:00:57 PM  
Wraithbane: And where do you have anything to support otherwise???

I posted a loose connection further up the thread, I am not claiming to know either way, I am just commenting on the use of a .gov site to back up your claims, as another poster mentioned it is like asking a defendant if he is guilty or not...
 
Wraithbane
2007-02-01 2:08:16 PM  
Headso
I am just commenting on the use of a .gov site to back

What, vice posting nothing but unsupported accusations? When you can't argue facts, argue sources?

Yours had this in it: "It will be reported in June 2001 that "bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani, and US intelligence services to recruit mujahedeen from many Muslim countries," but this information has not been reported much since 9/11. [United Press International, 4/10/2004]" Wonder if the reason it wasn't reported much has something to do with a total lack of any evidence to support it?
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2007-02-01 2:09:50 PM  
"Huffington Post is shocked, SHOCKED, that Iran is getting unfairly blamed for training insurgents in Iraq. Because we all know how Iran is spilling over with love and warm feelings toward the U.S."

KazamaSmokers "Hear that drumbeat?"


Oh I hear it alright.

Dude here claims that the New York Times is drinking neocon Kool-Aid for reporting the news that might just possibly benefit Bush (cause it's actually true) and is in opposition to the left's standard operating talking points/anti-Bush/mantra ... and that's funnier than hell.
 
Poopspasm
2007-02-01 2:11:29 PM  
When you can't argue facts, argue sources?

Um, generally speaking, if you get conflicting "facts" from two different sources, the tie breaker is the reliability and impartiality of the sources themselves. Nice try though.
 
Headso
2007-02-01 2:15:23 PM  
Wraithbane: Wonder if the reason it wasn't reported much has something to do with a total lack of any evidence to support it?

maybe, or maybe it was because it made the US look bad. The past actions of the CIA supporting dictators and strongmen makes it not so unbelievable that they may have supported him when it was convenient...do you atleast agree with that?
 
Bored24
2007-02-01 2:16:51 PM  
Tim Osman
 
Poopspasm
2007-02-01 2:18:31 PM  
The gigantic mobs in Iran and Iran's mini-me (Hezbollah) chanting 'Death to America' every god d*mned day are the problem - not me, nor anyone else who wants the muslim madness to stop.

You mean like when they had one of the largest candlelight vigils in the world (many times larger than some of our "allies") after 9/11?

I'm guessing you never stopped to think that, just like in the good old US of A, the cameras over there focus on the nutjobs.
 
Wraithbane
2007-02-01 2:21:55 PM  
Poopspasm
Um, generally speaking, if you get conflicting "facts" from two different sources, the tie breaker is the reliability and impartiality of the sources themselves. Nice try though.

Gee, great, so me having a source against absolutely no sources means I win, right?

Headso
maybe, or maybe it was because it made the US look bad. The past actions of the CIA supporting dictators and strongmen makes it not so unbelievable that they may have supported him when it was convenient...do you atleast agree with that?

Nothing, NOTHING, in modern history leads me to believe that a news organization is going to surpress information that makes the US look bad. So no, that excuse doesn't wash. Does it make it believable, possibly, does it in any way support it? Not in the least. That's the problem with an unfounded accusation...it sounds believable, and all the evidence in the world won't be allowed to contradict it by those who want to believe.

There is not a single piece of evidence that supports the US funding or training OBL in any terrorist activities ever. You can find people claiming that he did, but not one single piece of evidence, and when all the people involved deny it happinging, there will still be people claiming they're just covering it up. You can lead people to facts, but you can't make them think.
 
Crakerasscracker
2007-02-01 2:26:49 PM  
Caution! Neo-Con circle-jerk in progress.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want the rest of the Farking story? Try

TotalFark

More threads. More community. More Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.