Viewing 40 posts - 1,241 through 1,280 (of 1,456 total)
  • 9/11 documentary
  • pondo
    Full Member

    Strange you should focus on the book alone…

    As you’ve given us nothing else to go on…

    So anyway, back to Brian Crozier and ‘the 61’… what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that’s a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

    I can only imagine they’ll be doing everything they can to discredit Ivan Drago.

    9/11 isn’t made up, nor is Osama Bin Laden.

    Nor for that matter is Brian Crozier and ‘the 61’
    That is exactly true. So is the storming of the Iranian Embassy in the eighties.

    And the invention of the Rubiks Cube. Makes you think…

    Patience my dear friend, soon enough you’ll see they are entirely connected, both to one another and 9/11.

    Sweet baby jesus, you have plans to actually do the big reveal? Do give an idea of timescale, it means I’ll know how much longer I can enjoy mocking your other works of fiction.

    BigDummy
    Free Member

    Though Operation Cyclone was a covert operation, some folk at Rambo III must’ve been pretty in the loop.

    I check this thread every day to see whether it’s getting any stupider. It is.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member


    Makes you think

    slowoldman
    Full Member

    Sweet baby jesus, you have plans to actually do the big reveal?

    Not until series 6.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Blimey, and there was I thinking you’d be praising me for my meticulous research, speaking of which…

    Ronald Reagan talked publicly about Operation Cyclone and Stinger Missiles going to Afghanistan in 1980 when he was a Presidential Candidate.

    Source please…

    Seems a bit odd that a presidential candidate would blab about the early stages of a joint international CIA Operation in which they went through an intermediary (the Pakistani ISI) and sourced and supplied AK47s to distance themselves from involvement.

    Especially since supply of stingers to the Mujahideen wasn’t approved until March 1986.

    Factor in the time taken for development and pre-production of Rambo III, which would’ve been complete before filming began in mid 1987, and it’s reasonable to deduce that someone on the production team of Rambo 3 was in the loop (bearing in mind this was long before the luxury of modern communication) or at the very least a damn good researcher.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Source please…

    Seems a bit odd that a presidential candidate

    Do your own research 🙄

    You might want to start with “The Reagan Doctrine”
    And his very public praise, and support of Anti Communist freedom fighters, in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

    It was open Foriegn Policy of the Reagan Administration to offer support to Anti Communist fighters across the world.

    How you don’t know this is baffling.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    The Reagan Doctrine wasn’t announced until 1985, which doesn’t help your case…

    Ronald Reagan talked publicly about Operation Cyclone and Stinger Missiles going to Afghanistan in 1980 when he was a Presidential Candidate.

    However, considering how closely the Reagan Doctrine mirrors the sentiments of Brian Crozier, the 61 and the Pinay Circle (Le Cercle) it’s worth noting that Brian Crozier 1st met Reagan on July 8th 1980 after an introduction by OSS and CIA agent Aline Griffith, Dowager Countess of Romanones.

    Crozier states he was in regular covert unofficial contact with Reagan throughout his presidency mainly via Edward V Hickey and Nancy Reagan.

    For more, see Brian Crozier’s book, Free Agent

    especially Chapter 14:

    ‘Reagan meets ‘The 61”

    nickc
    Full Member

    I remember it as well, the US handing over stingers was all over the telly on the news, Panorama programmes like that …fer Christ’s sake I remember a boring car journey to an air cadet camp in the early eighties (83-4) when we discussed it, and I’m pretty sure none of us were part of a CIA operation.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Who were they handing Stingers over to in 83-84?

    It certainly wasn’t the Mujahideen at that stage…

    nealglover
    Free Member

    The Reagan Doctrine wasn’t announced until 1985, which doesn’t help your case

    I also said “you might want to Start with the Reagan Doctrine.

    Just because you don’t want to do any further research that will disprove your “theory” that the makers of Rambo 3 were inside the “conspiracy”
    Don’t blame me.

    There was no conspiracy here. It was public knowledge.
    Reagan was very open about it.

    Just because you haven’t researched it well enough, that doesn’t make it a conspiracy.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/jis-online.org/2017/10/27/the-soviet-vietnam/amp/

    The covert assistance program was not as covert as originally envisioned: by 1980, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan had publicized the U.S. role in arming the Mujahideen, in addition to initiating a discussion of whether to provide Stinger missiles to the insurgents.

    .

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Well I’ll be… last time I use Rambo to try and lighten the mood.

    It’s a reasonable misunderstanding though, since:

    Until the mid-1980s, the CIA avoided transferring American-made weapons to the Afghans, preferring instead to use Warsaw Pact weapons to match what was captured by the Mujahideen on the battlefield from Soviet troops. In addition, weapons were procured from Egypt, China, Poland, and on the international black market. The global operation to acquire weapons was so extensive that “by late 1986 there were so many agencies spending and distributing so many hundreds of millions dollars for so many countries that no agency could keep track of it all.”

    (On a side note, can’t help but wonder how many of those weapons went on to contribute to the efforts of Al-Qaeda, in much the same way that many of the stingers ended up in the hands of the Taliban)

    Couple that with the fact that as I’ve already stated, authorisation for provision of Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen wasn’t provided until March 1986:

    For several months, conservative groups had harshly criticized John N. McMahon, who was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, on the ground that he was blocking efforts to send Stingers to the guerrillas. In early March 1986, Mr. Reagan approved delivery of such missiles.

    Overall though, on this small point I concede, though I’m still baffled why Reagan would blow the cover when they’d gone to such trouble:

    For five years, American officials provided the guerrillas with weapons designed and manufactured by the Soviet Union or other East Bloc countries so they could deny that the United States was supplying such assistance.

    Regardless, CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Well I’ll be… last time I use Rambo to try and lighten the mood.

    Edinburgh ?

    jonnyboi
    Full Member

    Bin Laden drove a bulldozer, who does that implicate? John Charles Bamford or Bob the Builder?

    Because if someone remotely political had owned a bulldozer factory you would have tried to create a link there.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Regardless, CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling…

    Why ?

    Seriously, why is it troubling.

    35 years ago, during the Cold War, assistance was given by the CIA to people fighting against America’s Cold War enemy.
    That seems entirely logical wouldn’t you say.

    The fact that a, just out of university, bin laden happened to be there at the time, also fighting against America’s enemy, is an irrelevance.

    Is the fact that Political loyalties change over time totally lost in you ?

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Overall though, on this small point I concede,

    It’s always a “small point” when you are caught out talking shite though isn’t it.
    Or just ignored and move on to the next one.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Regardless, CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling…

    Why ?

    Seriously, why is it troubling.

    Well, in much the same way that NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission is troubling

    John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission “discovered that…what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.” Farmer continues: “At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened…The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public.”[23]

    Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: “We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.”

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Well, in much the same way that NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission is troubling…

    Nope. Totally different.

    Not even close to being the same. Pathetic deflection.

    Answer the question please.

    Why is the situation in the 1980’s, involving a young Bin laden (which YOU described as troubling) such an issue ?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling, as is NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 commission.

    Hope that clears things up for you 😉

    crankboy
    Free Member

    Norad not telling the truth to the commission is not really that troubling,”The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93.” All perfectly understandable particularly if you bother to follow the facts rather than whisk up a conspiracy. The facts are out there for all https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608 .

    jonnyboi
    Full Member

    Sure, there’s no fun if the cover up only hides incompetence. You need a conspiracy!

    anyway, back to 1961 and something completely unrelated that happened in south east asia

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Sure, there’s no fun if the cover up only hides incompetence. You need a conspiracy!

    Can you explain where I’ve mentioned a conspiracy here?

    This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling, as is NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 commission.

    jonnyboi
    Full Member

    Can you explain where I’ve mentioned a conspiracy here?

    how do you know that was aimed at you?

    This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling,

    It’s really not. As explained by others above. You just want it to be troubling. Can you see the difference here?

    as is NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 commission

    Adequately explained by others, they also gave you a link to vanity fair, which is inconvenient.

    Serious question. You’re in a minority of one here. Why do you think that no one subscribes to your position or gives any weight to your evidence?

    nealglover
    Free Member

    This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling

    Ok. Let’s try again 🙄

    What is it that you find troubling about the CIA providing support and funding for the Afghan fighters who were fighting against the Soviet occupation 35 years ago.

    You brought it up.
    You said you found it troubling.

    So what specifically do you find troubling about it ?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Let’s go back to the source…

    One striking coincidence which gives a degree of concern is Frank Carlucci being deputy director of the CIA at the Genesis of Operation Cyclone.

    That’s the same Frank Carlucci who was Chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1992-2003.

    The very same Carlyle Group who had extensive business ties with the Bin Laden Group (whose bulldozers Osama Bin Laden used to build the Tora Bora stronghold with CIA funding)

    Bear in mind that the Carlyle Group’s presence in Saudi Arabia came about as a result of a member of the Royal Family who has been implicated in funding and supporting Al-Qaeda.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    One striking coincidence which gives a degree of concern is Frank Carlucci being deputy director of the CIA at the Genesis of Operation Cyclone.

    Why is that a concern ?

    That’s the same Frank Carlucci who was Chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1992-2003.

    More than a decade later, he worked for a private equity firm. So what ?

    The very same Carlyle Group who had extensive business ties with the Bin Laden Group

    The bin laden family held a relatively tiny investment ($2m) in a fund at Carlyle Group.
    Their investment made up roughly 1.5% of a single fund at Carlyle Group.

    A drop in the Carlyle Group ocean.
    Hardly as “extensive” as you would like to make out.

    So.

    You’ve still not let us know what was so troubling about the CIA funding the Afghan fighters in the 80’s.

    It was publicly known foriegn policy.
    It was vote winner for Reagan in fact.

    jonnyboi
    Full Member

    Serious question. You’re in a minority of one here. Why do you think that no one subscribes to your position or gives any weight to your evidence?

    jam-bo
    Full Member

    is that the tag line to the new rambo film?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    If so, I’ll happily take the lead 😉

    Always outnumbered, never outgunned etc…

    Anyhoo back to facts…

    It was vote winner for Reagan in fact.

    Debatable whether that had a big influence on the result (Brian Crozier and his cronies are as likely to have played a role in the election results, much like Robert Mercer in the case of Trump) but regardless, if it was indeed a vote winner, it was one which spawned a terrorist network, supported by the Saudi Ambassador.

    Which resulted in an attack that could’ve been prevented.

    A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    So. Without changing the subject yet again.

    What is that has you so concerned about the CIA/USA funding Afgham fighters against the Soviet Occupation in the 80’s

    You’ve still not answered yet.

    You brought it up.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    it was one which spawned a terrorist network

    So what if it did ?

    Are You seriously suggesting that was the plan all along?

    The CIA saw some 20 year old uni grad on a digger in 1981 and said, you know what …. I’ve got an idea.

    Ffs.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    You’re talking guff…

    my concern was:

    CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling

    And it’s answered above.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling

    Osama bin laden was nobody at the time.
    This was the 80’s
    He was 20.

    So what is your concern really.

    Now its not just a soundbite that makes it sound like the CIA where knowingly funding bin laden (the terrorist)

    gobuchul
    Free Member

    You do realise that Governments change alliances all the time?

    You do know that Germany and Russia had a pact in 1939 but went to war in 1941?

    You do know the Japanese had an alliance with UK, France and the US in WW1 but 20 years went to war against teh same countries?

    You do not know that Churchill despised and mistrusted Stalin but still sided with him against the Nazi’s? Then 4 years later he wanted to invade the USSR?

    Very troubling.

    #makesyouthink

    nealglover
    Free Member

    You do realise that Governments change alliances all the time?

    Everyone else knows this. And accepts it.

    JHJ however doesn’t seem to get it.

    Or simply chooses to pretend not to, as it suits his argument.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Osama bin laden was nobody at the time.
    This was the 80’s
    He was 20.

    Well, you’re not far off… when Operation Cyclone started in 1979, he was 22; by the time he’d built the tunnels of Tora Bora, he would’ve been about 30.

    For a similar case study, let’s look at Saddam Hussein… he would’ve been around 25 when the CIA 1st started using him as an Asset.

    On the brink of war, both supporters and critics of United States policy on Iraq agree on the origins, at least, of the haunted relations that have brought us to this pass: America’s dealings with Saddam Hussein, justifiable or not, began some two decades ago with its shadowy, expedient support of his regime in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980’s.

    Both sides are mistaken. Washington’s policy traces an even longer, more shrouded and fateful history. Forty years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein.

    As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.

    (On a side note it’s worth remembering Nadhmi Auchi’s role in the Ba’ath Party… You’ll find I’ve mentioned Auchi in other threads)

    State Department records from the US Baghdad Embassy made at the time, and obtained by Wikileaks, confirm the Observer’s 2003 story. Saddam Hussein was tried in absentina. And not only did Nadhmi Auchi stand trial, but he was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment in 1960 for his part in the conspiracy–the supply of machine guns, as a Ba’ath party member, to other members who carried out the attack.

    slowoldman
    Full Member

    You don’t seem capable of accepting what gobuchul has just said, that in international affairs allies and enemies change. What on Earth has all this CIA support of Bin Laden got to do with 9/11? Are you suggesting the CIA were planning with Bin Laden way back then to turn a blind eye to a future, unspecified terrorist attack in America?

    jonnyboi
    Full Member

    You don’t seem capable of accepting what gobuchul has just said, that in international affairs allies and enemies change. What on Earth has all this CIA support of Bin Laden got to do with 9/11? Are you suggesting the CIA were planning with Bin Laden way back then to turn a blind eye to a future, unspecified terrorist attack in America?

    He’ll not tell you what he’s suggesting, as overt statements get refuted fairly easily.

    As above, alliances come and go. All this is old news and none of it, not one single shred of evidence points to a conspiracy relating to the events of 9/11.

    Incompetence? Possibly
    Missed opportunities? Almost certainly

    But that’s it.

    crankboy
    Free Member

    What is your problem with the Bora Bora tunnels ? The CIA fighting the soviets built them for the mujahedeen fighting the soviets . AQ did not exist had not even been thought of at that time . Years later Bin Laden who knew about the tunnels used them when fighting the Americans . What do you find surprising or suspicious in those facts ?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Over the last month, Al Waleed Bin Talal and Bandar Bin Sultan have both reportedly been detained as part of the Saudi Purge; there have also been suggestions of further investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal

    Still no word on Turki Bin Faisal though…

    Feathered Cocaine

    With some of the richest and most powerful men in the world visiting these falconry camps, the camps also attract some of the world’s most undesirable — like weapons smuggler and the inspiration for the movie, Lord of War, Viktor Bout, who was frequently a guest at royal falconry camps. But the most infamous guest was Osama bin Laden, who, for many years, made annual visits to the royal falconry camps in both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates during a time when he was already wanted around the world for mass murder. Former Saudi Ambassador, Prince Turki bin Faisal hunted with bin Laden often, and bin Laden was a VIP guest at the falconry camp organized by the former foreign minister from the U.A.E. bin Laden was so involved in falconry during the ‘90s and 2000s, that during the time he lived in Kandahar, Afghanistan, he stole most of the falcons from the surrounding tribes for his own personal use, giving the best birds as gifts to royal sheiks in the Emirates, and princes in Saudi Arabia.

    Not forgetting of course that it was Turki bin Faisal’s sister (Bandar Bin Sultan’s wife) who was involved in money finding it’s way from the Riggs account set up by the UK paymaster general to the hijackers support network.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Well, you’re not far off… when Operation Cyclone started in 1979, he was 22; by the time he’d built the tunnels of Tora Bora, he would’ve been about 30.

    And as a nobody, but a good civil engineer, he did a good job I presume.
    As America wanted, to enable the fight against the soviet occupation.

    That’s It. Simple.

Viewing 40 posts - 1,241 through 1,280 (of 1,456 total)

The topic ‘9/11 documentary’ is closed to new replies.