Not my anaylsis, actually.
It's Ali Soufan's, from The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War aganist Al-Qaeda.
Soufan is a former FBI agent that has been studying Al-Qaeda since the mid-90's. At the time of 9/11, he was on the USS Cole case. As a translator and interrogator he was tasked with interviewing many Al-Qaeda operatives. Usually when the Bush administration claimed that CIA "enhanced interrogation" was working, it was either BS, or info that Soufan gained using conventional law enforcement methods. His book was heavily censored by the CIA. What isn't censored makes wikileaks look like a joke.
"The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are not compatible with military efficency."
-George Orwell, in Homage to Catalonia, 1938.
Under the Patronage of Maximinus Thrax
well, where's the counter arguments? none of youse are addressing his points; simply saying 'oh he's not credible' doesn' make it so, just like saying 'saddam has WMDs' doesn't make it true
so g'wan then, address his points or admit defeat and go back to your kentucky fried chicken
Thats because his information is largely incorrect and his conclusions thus wrong. Lets look at his first point:
The only part there that is true is where he addressing the peacefullness of the tunisian egyptian and Bahraini beginnings. Do we really have to go through debunking the idea that the Libyan rebellion was a pre planned insurrection lead by foreign trained and financed mercenaries? That the current Syrian protests are in the same vein? We go after the sources because that is where he is getting all this from, and it just isn't true.Soon after being caught by surprise by the glorious uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, the counterrevolutionary forces headed by the United States embarked on damage control. A major strategy in pursuit of this objective has been to foment civil war and regime change in "unfriendly" places, and then portray them as part of the Arab Spring.
The scheme works like this: arm and train opposition groups within the "unfriendly" country, instigate violent rebellion with the help of covert mercenary forces under the guise of fighting for democracy; and when government forces attempt to quell the thus-nurtured armed insurrection, accuse them of human rights violations, and begin to embark openly and self-righteously on the path of regime change in the name of "responsibility to protect" the human rights.
As the "weakest link" in the chain of governments thus slated to be changed, Gaddafi's regime became the first target. It is now altogether common knowledge that contrary to the spontaneous, unarmed and peaceful protest demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, the rebellion in Libya was nurtured, armed and orchestrated largely from abroad. Indeed, evidence shows that plans of regime change in Libya were drawn long before the overt onset of the actual civil war. [1]
It is likewise common knowledge that, like the rebellion in Libya, the insurgency in Syria has been neither spontaneous nor peaceful. From the outset it has been armed, trained and organized by the US and its allies. Similar to the attack on Libya, the Arab League and Turkey have been at the forefront of the onslaught on Syria. Also like the Libyan case, there is evidence that preparations for war on Syria had been actively planned long before the actual start of the armed rebellion, which is branded as a case of the Arab Spring. [2]
Client of the honorable Gertrudius!
We don't need to.Originally Posted by Exarch
The well has already been poisoned in that respect.
It's really sad to me that in the 21st Century, with news articles freely available on the Internet years after events, that people could forget how something that started not even two years ago and how the chain of events began. I mean, the evidence is all sitting there even on Wikipedia showing how the Libyan rebellion started as a sit-in in several eastern towns against a wide-scale case of corruption over government-subsidized housing, and yet somehow there's people seriously arguing for a series of events that's not only less likely and negated by Occam's Razor, but also don't even have documentary evidence to be shown as provable/disprovable.
And that's another thing -- people speaking as if the Libyan uprising and the Syrian uprising are one in the same, when the two countries and their respective societies are massively different and their civil unrest based on massively different factors and local histories. How galling it is that, as is typical, the most vociferous in their opinions on this subject are the ones that know the least about the places and people they're talking about.That the current Syrian protests are in the same vein? We go after the sources because that is where he is getting all this from, and it just isn't true.
Just for another example, see the "the word Sharia law means al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood must be the same" implication put forward in this very thread. Good god that's ignorant. But on the other hand, Xanthippus got it 100% right when he pointed out how the Arab Spring was a total rejection of al-Qaeda and its ways, so that's heartening.
Last edited by motiv-8; April 24, 2012 at 11:01 PM.
قرطاج يجب ان تدمر
Sorry that we expect logic and reason.
Oh I see, he's an AMERICAN professor. Well, I'm impressed.
For one criticism, the article doesn't understand the Sunni-Shi'ia split. The Sunni-Shi’ia split is not a Judeo-Western-White man invention, it is the result of two starkly religious regimes claiming to hold the purer form of Islam and the two regimes claim that their government is the standard bearer of Islam. Khomenei denouced SA as being unIslamic (and anyone with passing knowledge of the winner would laugh at the thought of Sean Connery's Persian twin conspiring with Israel and America) Minions of both regimes of Tehran and Riyadh have helped to stir the pot in the wider Islamic world. And as usual with all things personal and ideological, people take it too far. And the late 20th century is hardly the only time in history where Sunnis and Shias haven't gotten along.
For more, read here and here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/the-religious-roots-of-irans-rivalry-with-saudi-arabia/2011/10/13/gIQAzjzchL_blog.html
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/12/explaining-the-iran-saudi-rivalry/
Much of the article is simple conjecture or a faulty line of thinking. I'm amused how uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia are geuine grassroots movements by the people whereas the Green Movement in Iran or the rebels in Syria are both nothing but Judeo-Whiteman plotted pieces of astro-turf. Uprisings against pro-Western autocrats/oligarchs good; uprisings against anti-Western autocrats/oligarchs bad.
Its a double-standard based purely on politics that reminds me of a certain commie on this forum.
Last edited by Prosaic Visitant; April 25, 2012 at 03:02 AM.
Fine, I have issues with the article and what its author classifies as truth. Its not a matter of confirmation bias or the hostile media phenomenon, its a poor article that relies heavily on conjecture. An opinion piece.
OP will have to make a better argument than throwing a piece of opinion out there and then claiming bias everythime its (rightfully) scoffed at.
And as the chap above says, I'm not the only one with these issues.
Littered with Facist symbols and the false controlled left right paradigm. The Politics shows for the masses, General Westley Clarke was eventually silenced, he has changed his views probably due to his family being threatened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8
Most of you don't know half of what I know and refuse to believe it since ignorance is bliss, thats why there is massive debates trying to justify whats going on.
And where is the evidence then?
And realitic, as in more realistic than the people just getting fed up with the regime and doing something about it?