Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 02, 2017

The CIA on Wednesday announced it released a massive tranche of files it said came from the Osama bin Laden raid in 2011. Among them: the deceased al Qaeda founder's personal journal. CIA Director Mike Pompeo said the release "provides the opportunity for the American people to gain further insights into the plans and workings of this terrorist organization." The release came in accordance with a 2014 appropriations bill for intelligence activity that required the Director of National Intelligence to review documents obtained from the raid, and make the files it declassified from the review available to the public.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

anyone here know what chaff is?

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The timing of the release is very suspicious, but there is some very interesting info in there.

#1 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-02 09:32 AM | Reply

The CIA has released hundreds of thousands of new documents, images, and computer files recovered during the May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad.

One 19-page file in the cache of documents contains a senior al-Qaeda militant's analysis of the group's relationship with Iran.

According to the author's version of events in the 19-page dossier, Iran had offered some ‘Saudi nationals' of al Qaeda all the support they needed in terms of ‘money', ‘arms' and ‘training' at Hezbollah camps in Lebanon, in exchange for targeting installations of American interest in the Gulf region.

Iranian intelligence agencies arranged the travel of some operatives, and provided shelter to others. Abu Hafs alMauritani, a radical with considerable influence in militant circles, helped facilitate the provision of safe houses for his al-Qaeda colleagues inside Iran.

Bin Ladin wrote a letter to his followers saying Iran was the organisation's "main artery for funds, personnel, and communication".

Despite speculations, there is little evidence to lend credence to the claims that there were elements within the Pakistani security establishment who helped the al Qaeda chief reside in the country.

And some newly released files decry Pakistan's betrayal of the militants after the terrorist attacks of September 11, and supposedly point the incident as the turning point in the relationship between the two.

In short, Bin Ladin considered Pakistan a traitor to his cause and al-Qaeda was an Iranian funded group.

So much for suckers like DANNI who claim "but Iran never tried to hurt us".

#2 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-02 09:38 AM | Reply

along with a video that is time stamped dumping the body at sea...

#3 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2017-11-02 09:39 AM | Reply

So much for suckers like DANNI who claim "but Iran never tried to hurt us".

#2 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN

I don't think Danni ever said that. But they have been far more cooperative over the last several years than ever before.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 02:47 PM | Reply

But they have been far more cooperative over the last several years than ever before.

#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Is your basis for that claim anything other than the nuke deal?

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 02:51 PM | Reply

When has Iran ever attacked us???? NEVER.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-02 02:53 PM | Reply

"Bin Laden's Diary"?

Dear Diary the goat is kicking harder than usual and bruised my sack today soon as a dropped my pants.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2017-11-02 02:57 PM | Reply

But they have been far more cooperative over the last several years than ever before.
#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Is your basis for that claim anything other than the nuke deal?
#5 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's a darn good start. They've also toned down overt support for organizations in Palestine and terror related groups. Then there is their help in defeating ISIS. And the toning down of anti-US Rhetoric. Not a bad start I'd say.

Are you trying to imply that I think they are allies? Or are you smart enough to realize I'm merely saying they aren't as evil as they used to be. Do try to remember all the terrible things we did to them.

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When has Iran ever attacked us???? NEVER.

#6 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-11-02 02:53 PM | FLAG:

Iraq. Quds force were on the ground, hiding in the Shia communities backed by clerics like al Sadr. They supplied the EFPs and explosive compounds to use them with.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-02 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When has Iran ever attacked us???? NEVER.

#6 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-11-02 02:53 PM | FLAG:

Iraq. Quds force were on the ground, hiding in the Shia communities backed by clerics like al Sadr. They supplied the EFPs and explosive compounds to use them with.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-02 03:15 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#8 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I wasn't implying anything.

I was seeking clarification, which you provided.

Thank you.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 03:22 PM | Reply

When has Iran ever attacked us???? NEVER.

#6 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-11-02 02:53 PM

Laura, an attack on an embassy is considered to be an attack on foreign soil and an act of war.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 03:30 PM | Reply

When has Iran ever attacked us???? NEVER.
#6 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-11-02 02:53 PM
Laura, an attack on an embassy is considered to be an attack on foreign soil and an act of war.
#12 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Technically so is overthrowing their government. But eh.

#13 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 03:56 PM | Reply

"So much for suckers like DANNI who claim "but Iran never tried to hurt us"."

They haven't attacked us like the Saudis, they haven't provided a hiding place for Bin Laden as did the Pakistanis. The entire concept of Shiite Iran cooperating with Sunni Al Quaeda seems odd.

"Laura, an attack on an embassy is considered to be an attack on foreign soil and an act of war.
#12 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

That is why it was so despicable for Reagan to make deals with them even before he was elected President.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-02 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13

Agreed, just pointing out that NEVER was wrong.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 04:11 PM | Reply

"Laura, an attack on an embassy is considered to be an attack on foreign soil and an act of war.
#12 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

Which makes Ronnie Raygun selling them weapons an Act of Treason.

Yawn.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 04:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Laura, an attack on an embassy is considered to be an attack on foreign soil and an act of war.
#12 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Technically so is overthrowing their government. But eh.

Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 03:56 PM | Reply

No actually it was a retaliatory action for the way we supported and then helped the Shah of Iran.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-02 04:33 PM | Reply

No actually it was a retaliatory action for the way we supported and then helped the Shah of Iran.

#17 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

We helped install him. We funded the coup. We helped the rebels. We literally were the driving force in overthrowing the Iranian government in the 1950's.

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 05:01 PM | Reply

We helped install him. We funded the coup. We helped the rebels. We literally were the driving force in overthrowing the Iranian government in the 1950's.

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag

I should have removed your comment from my rebuttal to ROC. Sorry.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-02 05:07 PM | Reply

When has Iran ever attacked us???? NEVER.

They funded and helped al-Qaeda.

It's there in black and white.

They haven't attacked us like the Saudis

GAWD... DANNI thinks she knows better than the CIA!!! hahahahahahahahaha

I repeat for the slow witted....

They funded and helped al-Qaeda.

It's there in black and white.

a hiding place for Bin Laden as did the Pakistanis.

Again, I have to repeat:

Despite speculations, there is little evidence to lend credence to the claims that there were elements within the Pakistani security establishment who helped the al Qaeda chief reside in the country.

And some newly released files decry Pakistan's betrayal of the militants after the terrorist attacks of September 11, and supposedly point the incident as the turning point in the relationship between the two.

In short, Bin Ladin considered Pakistan a traitor to his cause and al-Qaeda was an Iranian funded group.

Stupid woman.

#20 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-02 10:47 PM | Reply

Yeah, well Al-Qaeda was a CIA funded group too, so I guess the CIA attacked us as much as Iran did.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 10:56 PM | Reply

Al-Qaeda was a CIA funded group

Not AFTER 9-11...

#22 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-02 11:08 PM | Reply

Is there a statute of limitations on Al Qaeda not being a CIA outfit?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 11:09 PM | Reply

And here's a thought....

If you think all this is manipulated/manufacture info by the CIA, then the conclusion is even worse.

It would mean, they are clearing a path forward for future confrontation/war against Iran.

Since Trump, USA has been spoiling for another war.

War against Norkistan would be suicide. But Iran? War with Iran would be like taking candy from a baby. For all it's bark, Iran can't really protect it self except launch a few repainted/rebranded SCUD missiles.

Question is, will the US economy and political system survive another losing war? Lost Iraq, lost Afghanistan, lost Syria.... the result is an Orangutan in Office.

One more war and you'll have Ronald MacDonald in Office.

#24 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-02 11:14 PM | Reply

Is there a statute of limitations on Al Qaeda not being a CIA outfit?

The Indian secret service... RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) created and helped the Tamil Tigers... until they killed Rajiv Gandhi.

MOSSAD created HAMAS. And then HAMAS turned against Isreal.

If CIA created al-Qaeda (true actually) and then al-Qaeda turned against it... I am saying it's a common theme.

People in the intelligence game can be quite stupid. They are not 007. That's only in the movies.

#25 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-02 11:19 PM | Reply

Ronald McDonald would be an improvement.

"Since Trump, USA has been spoiling for another war."

Buit there isn't one we can win. Trump will only go to war if he's 1000% sure he comes out looking like a hero. That ship has sailed.

Trump is more apt to wage some kind of civil war on immigrants than actually invade someplace else that he can't even find on a map.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 11:19 PM | Reply

"I am saying it's a common theme."

It sure is. Didn't know about the Tamil Tigers but it's the same script as Israel backing HAMAS, which somehow people, especially right-wingers, don't seem to know about.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 11:20 PM | Reply

"It would mean, they are clearing a path forward for future confrontation/war against Iran."

They've been wanting a war with Iran for 40 years; if Obama managed to put enough roadblocks and speed bumps on that route, it could well be his greatest accomplishment.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 11:21 PM | Reply

Trump is more apt to wage some kind of civil war on immigrants than actually invade someplace else that he can't even find on a map.

For all our sake, I hope you are right.

#29 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-02 11:22 PM | Reply

if Obama managed to put enough roadblocks and speed bumps on that route, it could well be his greatest accomplishment.

I have to agree.

#30 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-02 11:24 PM | Reply

Wasn't his real name Tim Osmond? Or that was his name when he was a CIA asset. Don't trust the CIA and don't trust the Bush or Trump administrations. All have been proven to usually be full of crap on most things.

#31 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-11-03 12:09 AM | Reply

Well. Our resident Pakistani has polluted this entire thread with his nonsense.

The entire concept of Shiite Iran cooperating with Sunni Al Quaeda seems odd.

Bingo.

they haven't provided a hiding place for Bin Laden as did the Pakistanis.

Bingo again.

Despite speculations, there is little evidence to lend credence to the claims that there were elements within the Pakistani security establishment who helped the al Qaeda chief reside in the country.

Then the Pakistanis are the most inept, clueless people in history.

Which. Is actually an accurate statement.

Bin Ladin considered Pakistan a traitor to his cause

Yet he was living there.

and al-Qaeda was an Iranian funded group.

Cause Shiites and Sunnis love each other.

"Al-Qaeda is a militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden..."

Don't Iran and Saudi Arabia consider each other to be enemies? Does Bin Laden need, or even want, money from Iran?

Stupid woman.

Good old Pakistani misogyny. Too bad Danni doesn't live in Pakistan. Then you could throw acid on her.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-03 12:14 AM | Reply

Al-Qaeda was a CIA funded group

Not AFTER 9-11...

Citation necessary.

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-03 12:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It would mean, they are clearing a path forward for future confrontation/war against Iran.

They've been doing so since 2006.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-03 12:16 AM | Reply

But Iran? War with Iran would be like taking candy from a baby.

Agreed.

For all it's bark, Iran can't really protect it self

Yep. But neither could Iraq. And look at what a mess that became.

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-03 12:19 AM | Reply

"But Iran? War with Iran would be like taking candy from a baby."

That was what they said about Iraq.

It could be like nuking a baby though. That I'll allow.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 12:22 AM | Reply

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-03 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag: Bad tempered Iranian immigrant to the rescue! hahahahahaha

Then the Pakistanis are the most inept, clueless people in history.

Pretending you're stupid is actually an art in itself.

Also, don't mistake "not looking for him" for "hiding him".

It was a sad fact that despite Bin Ladin being the most wanted person by USA, not a single police force in Pakistan... local or federal... was tasked to keep an eye out for him (Abbottabad Investigation Report).

Cause Shiites and Sunnis love each other.

They often do.

Inter-faith marriages are not uncommon.

Don't Iran and Saudi Arabia consider each other to be enemies?

Al-Qaeda was not loyal to Saudi Arabia, you stupid man. They wanted to OVERTHROW the Saudi Royal Family.

Does Bin Laden need, or even want, money from Iran?

Bun Ladin died watching Tom and Jerry on a 12 inch TV with rabbit antennas. He was broke. (CIA Report).

Good old Pakistani misogyny. Too bad Danni doesn't live in Pakistan.

Of course I called her a stupid woman. I can't call her a stupid man, now can I?

Then you could throw acid on her.

Wait... waaaaat???

You do know... being from Iran... that one of YOUR Ayatollahs invented acid throwing, yes?

#37 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-03 12:49 AM | Reply

That was what they said about Iraq.

USA would finish off the dumbo Iranian military in 2 weeks at the most.

But then, we'll stick around for at least a decade or two so we can turn it into another losing war.

Why do we do that??? Gawd knows.

#38 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-03 12:51 AM | Reply

Why do we do that???

Because as a occupying army, the US' military machine can make profits for its investors for far longer than if we just whipped Iran's ass and left.

It's a transfer of wealth through taxes taken from the great mass of hirelings in the "middle (working) class" and transferred to the investment class who live primarily off of dividends.

#39 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-03 01:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I still can't understand why the Pakistani military was so determined to protect Bin Ladin. I will always believe there was more to the story until that can be explained.

#40 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-03 02:47 PM | Reply

as a occupying army s/b as an occupying army.

#41 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-03 03:37 PM | Reply

"I still can't understand why the Pakistani military was so determined to protect Bin Ladin."

Follow the money. So long as OBL was alive there was the chance the USA would give them more money to fight him. You'll recall Bush enlisted Pakistan in his War on Terror pretty early on.

(Not that I necessarily agree with your premise, just explaining why it makes sense.)

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 09:57 PM | Reply

So long as OBL was alive there was the chance the USA would give them more money to fight him.

And they got a hell of a lot of money when he died.

Which leads to the conclusion, they sold him down the river.

That's one version.

The other version is, they were clueless about everything.

The truth will never be known because Bun Ladin was a Saudi citizen and when it comes to Saudis, Pakistan will never open it's mouth.

#43 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-04 12:35 AM | Reply

However, the point of this new info is, Iran is REALLY the enemy.

No matter how much Iranians like CLOWNSHACK, born-stupid people like DANNI and opportunistic ambulance chasers like MODER8 try to change the topic, the truth is now public.

#44 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-04 12:38 AM | Reply

The other version is, they were clueless about everything.

Bingo! I think one of President Obama's greatest moments was chewing on donald at the Correspondent's Dinner while the raid was spooling up.

#45 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-04 12:42 AM | Reply

#44

Must.

Not.

Agree.

With ------.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-04 12:47 AM | Reply

#45 yes those are the decisions that would keep me up at night.

I believe that was the only reason trump ran for president.

#47 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-11-04 12:49 AM | Reply

How Iran got to be the enemy is interesting and leaves little doubt of our complicity. We could prolly discuss it with the Iranian people, but the rulers of Iran are our enemies now, now matter how it came to this.

And we better do more talking than bombing if we want an even semi-happy ending to that history.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-04 12:55 AM | Reply

Must.
Not.
Agree.
With ------.
#46

Well. If our resident "Texan", J_(Not)TosseRigel, says it, it must be true.

If we need a war, and Iran needs to be the enemy, they will be.

Just like Iraq was.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-04 01:28 AM | Reply

If we need a war, and Iran needs to be the enemy, they will be.

Just like Iraq was.

Yep.

our resident "Texan"

Giddyup giddyup! We'll head em off at the pass!

#50 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-04 01:42 AM | Reply

it must be true

Whether the CIA wrote a fake diary or it really is the cockroach's diary... we will never know. Either way, tag... Iran is it!

#51 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-11-04 01:44 AM | Reply

So much for suckers like DANNI who claim "but Iran never tried to hurt us".

#2 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN AT 2017-11-02 09:38 AM | REPLY FEKKIN PATHETIC

Sad sad sad deflection.

#52 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2017-11-04 07:57 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort