CIA and fake Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein Videos

gandalf · 27-05-2010 11:47am

Laminations wrote: »

I'm not concerned about Osamas reputation, nor am I concerned about the Dons reputation or Cullen and Keoghs reputation or that of any criminal. My 'way of life' is that you can protect yourself from defamation through the courts, if you have acted in a way that prevents you from doing this then that's on your head. There are intelligence agencies in almost every country, many of them engage in misinformation -it is a way of life. I would consider extraordinary rendition much more worrying than this.

So basically you are saying that engaging in paedophilia to make one of your enemies look bad is ok? Interesting......

btw for the record extraordinary rendition or as its known in non doublespeak kidnapping someone, moving them to a foreign country with dubious human rights and torturing the hell out of them is something that I find completely abhorrent as well. So I guess we do agree on something

Laminations · 27-05-2010 11:57am

deadtiger wrote: »

So basically you are saying that engaging in paedophilia to make one of your enemies look bad is ok? Interesting......

btw for the record extraordinary rendition or as its known in non doublespeak kidnapping someone, moving them to a foreign country with dubious human rights and torturing the hell out of them is something that I find completely abhorrent as well. So I guess we do agree on something

Whoa! If the CIA were actually engaging in paedophilia fir the video then that is completely wrong- I thought it was an Osama impersonator saying how much they like boys or ordering in a few virgins from the mountainside. Actually getting kids in and recording sex acts is a blatant crime... and disgusting, we can agree on that too. I accept the likelihood and understand the reasoning behind spreading a rumour that he is a paedophile

Knarr · 27-05-2010 12:02pm

Laminations wrote: »

Whoa! If the CIA were actually engaging in paedophilia fir the video then that is completely wrong- I thought it was an Osama impersonator saying how much they like boys or ordering in a few virgins from the mountainside. Actually getting kids in and recording sex acts is a blatant crime... and disgusting, we can agree on that too. I accept the likelihood and understand the reasoning behind spreading a rumour that he is a paedophile

And framing someone as a paedophile, irrespective of how it is done should not be considered a crime?

To attempt to destroy a person by making them out to be a paedophile when they are not is a totally unacceptable and disgusting act. If they had something on Saddam then let it speak for itself.

Laminations · 27-05-2010 12:22pm

Knarr wrote: »

And framing someone as a paedophile, irrespective of how it is done should not be considered a crime?

To attempt to destroy a person by making them out to be a paedophile when they are not is a totally unacceptable and disgusting act. If they had something on Saddam then let it speak for itself.

Framing someone is a crime. Using misinformation to flush someone out or diminish their support base is propaganda and all intelligence angencies do it so if your argument is that the CIA and other agencies use very underhand tactics then I agree. Draining is a crime, defamation is also a crime but it needs to be fought in court, a legal challenge usually being a path unavaible to highly sought after criminals. Boo hoo, poor Osama. I only have issue with this leak if they were planning to use or did use kids in videos with sexual acts.

Knarr · 27-05-2010 1:11pm

Laminations wrote: »

Boo hoo, poor Osama. I only have issue with this leak if they were planning to use or did use kids in videos with sexual acts.

But sure if Osama has committed X Y and Z then why do you feel it would be neccessary to misinform and manipulate people that he is a child abuser? - or propagandise, as you might call it.

If his crimes are so many, the public will support actions taken by the state. To fake them is to decieve the public and create a false perception in the interests of the state and its often illegal activities.

Boo hoo to all the hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered which were justified through misinformation and creating false perceptions of people and cultures.

It is views like yours that is everything wrong with this world.

Honesty and openess - that is what people should be struggling and striving for. Not defending state manipulation foir its own ends.

Nijmegen · 27-05-2010 1:34pm

First off, they never released the Osama video (and we have no proof beyond hearsay that it exists), and they never created the Saddam video. So those were not live ideas.

Other crazy military ideas in the past have included dropping Budweiser on the Ho Chi Minh trail to get the drivers drunk and cause traffic jams and crashes.

Deception and doubleplay has always been a part of warfare: The Allies created whole model armies to fool German intelligence on the strength of forces and locations of invasions.

For Sicily they washed up the body of a dead soldier in an allied uniform with fake invasion plans on a beach in Spain to fool the Germans. Do that today and Amnesty would be on you like a tick in mud.

In the case of WMD's for Iraq, they took intelligence they wanted to hear and ignored the rest. Straight up inventions I sincerely doubt, but as with most things intelligence, neither you nor I can say for sure if there wasn't people making things up and at what levels they operated at.

To suggest that governments in wartime are going to play by Queensbury Rules is naïve.

Knarr · 27-05-2010 1:49pm

Nijmegen wrote: »

First off, they never released the Osama video (and we have no proof beyond hearsay that it exists), and they never created the Saddam video. So those were not live ideas.

Other crazy military ideas in the past have included dropping Budweiser on the Ho Chi Minh trail to get the drivers drunk and cause traffic jams and crashes.

Deception and doubleplay has always been a part of warfare: The Allies created whole model armies to fool German intelligence on the strength of forces and locations of invasions.

For Sicily they washed up the body of a dead soldier in an allied uniform with fake invasion plans on a beach in Spain to fool the Germans. Do that today and Amnesty would be on you like a tick in mud.

In the case of WMD's for Iraq, they took intelligence they wanted to hear and ignored the rest. Straight up inventions I sincerely doubt, but as with most things intelligence, neither you nor I can say for sure if there wasn't people making things up and at what levels they operated at.

To suggest that governments in wartime are going to play by Queensbury Rules is naïve.

It is not "wartime". It is setting the stage for war.

The US did not concoct the WMD story after they invaded Iraq, they did it beforehand to justify going to war.

It is decieving innocent civilians, the public, into supporting the states agenda - often for illegal activities involving the killing and destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives as in Iraq.

To compare tactical deception between two armies at war with one another, and a state and its own people to justify waging war with another state, - is off the wall.

Nijmegen · 27-05-2010 1:57pm

Knarr wrote: »

It is not "wartime". It is setting the stage for war.

The US did not concoct the WMD story after they invaded Iraq, they did it beforehand to justify going to war.

It is decieving innocent civilians, the public, into supporting the states agenda - often for illegal activities involving the killing and destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives as in Iraq.

To compare tactical deception between two armies at war with one another, and a state and its own people to justify waging war with another state, - is off the wall.

Well, we have two seperate issues here - Iraq and WMD's, and the Osama bin Laden and more general talk of deception in the war on terror.

Re: Iraq and WMD's, I fully agree that there was at the very best blinkers on to see the intelligence that the leaders wanted to see, and no heed paid to intelligence suggesting otherwise. This in and of itself was not right.

Did they outright make it up, who authorised this and how far did it go? Nobody knows. There isn't a document authorizing the Holocoust with Adolf Hitler's signature on it either, but in this Iraq case I think we are too close to the history to say for sure who know what and deliberately did what.

Re: Osama bin laden and the general war on terror, I wouldn't disagree with a well planned and executed deception operation designed to fool fundamental supporters of his to turn on him, perhaps ebb away their support, lead to more people informing on terrorist cells around the world, in Europe and abroad, and so on.

I wouldn't have one qualm about doing that, no.

Videos designed to decieve the western population is a different matter. But a video supposedly of OBL talking about buggering little boys is more designed to speak to an Islamic audience.

caseyann · 27-05-2010 2:17pm

Personally this part makes me sick to read.

A third former officer said: "Saddam playing with boys would have no resonance in the Middle East – nobody cares.:eek:

A second former CIA officer said the plots were obviously ludicrous and "came from people whose careers were spent in Latin America or East Asia" and did not understand the Middle East.

No major thing going on there.Who ever suggested to do that was sick in head.

Knarr · 27-05-2010 2:26pm

Nijmegen wrote: »

Well, we have two seperate issues here - Iraq and WMD's, and the Osama bin Laden and more general talk of deception in the war on terror.

Oh war on terror my bum. There is no such thing, unless, that is, states are constantly at war with their people and require constant aiming of deception and propaganda at their subjects to maintain legitimacy.

I am a terrorist if I decide to be. Who is the war aimed at, me? - or me when I decide to be a terrorist? - can this ""war"" ever end?

Eh, no. Complete codswallop.

Re: Osama bin laden and the general war on terror, I wouldn't disagree with a well planned and executed deception operation designed to fool fundamental supporters of his to turn on him, perhaps ebb away their support, lead to more people informing on terrorist cells around the world, in Europe and abroad, and so on.

I wouldn't have one qualm about doing that, no.

To believe that, say, Osama's supporters would turn on him because of some faked video shown in the media is what I would call naive.

It is a highly simplistic view of exactly what terrorists are, and why they turn towards terrorism.

Besides, Osama does not have some type of command structire over Islamic terrorists, or an organisation for that matter, right across the globe, and that if he actually was a child abuser, that they would 'desert'.

Terrorists are terrorists because they believe in some set of principles. What Osama is has no bearing on them committing acts of terrorism.

Videos designed to decieve the western population is a different matter. But a video supposedly of OBL talking about buggering little boys is more designed to speak to an Islamic audience.

I disagree. It is aimed at anyone who is willing to believe it - islamic or otherwise.

Deception by the state against civilians is wrong. The types of deception you are taling about are indiscriminate, potentially decieving both terrorist and civilian alike.

States are meant to be the ultimate authority. If that authority is willing to decieve and falsify information - then that authority looses legitimacy and trust.

Clawdeeus · 27-05-2010 2:58pm

Just to clarify something; the article never says the video was realesed, nor does it say how far this "consideration" went, with regards to the paeodphile. Im no fan of the CIA, but I question how far this can be taken into bashing them, considering it sounds like a brainstorming session. Dont think anyone needs any more ammunition with regards to disliking them anyway.

Liam Byrne · 27-05-2010 3:56pm

Here's a quick question for you, Laminations

What if someone else planned the September 11th attack, and Osama Bin Laden jumped on the bandwagon and made a "fake" video, claiming it was his idea, in order to become a hero to his followers ?

What if Osama Bin Laden wasn't behind September 11th ?

What if the videos to date of Bin Laden claiming responsibility, etc, are actually the same actor that the CIA hired for this video ?

Yes, I know those sound like ludicrous Jim Corr conspiracy theories, but if we can't believe what the CIA are likely to show us in a video, how do we know they're telling the truth about Bin Laden himself ?

Just asking......

Nijmegen · 27-05-2010 4:01pm

Oh war on terror my bum. There is no such thing, unless, that is, states are constantly at war with their people and require constant aiming of deception and propaganda at their subjects to maintain legitimacy.

I am a terrorist if I decide to be. Who is the war aimed at, me? - or me when I decide to be a terrorist? - can this ""war"" ever end?

Eh, no. Complete codswallop.

Alright, to pull it apart a bit, "The war on the loose band of idealogically similar and dangerous fellows who committed, amongst other acts, the 1993 WTC bombings, the US Embassy in Yemen bombings, the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., the 7/7 attack in London and so on" - not the same ring to it, but I'll go with it.

It's rather difficult to define a war where states are rarely directly implicated (such as the Taliban government of Afghanistan, or the Libyan government) in any direct or indirect acts of terrorism. However, there is a war going on out there between the West, some moderate Islamic states the dispirate groups who identify themselves with AQ and would consider people like OBL to be leaders in spirit or idea.

To believe that, say, Osama's supporters would turn on him because of some faked video shown in the media is what I would call naive.

It is a highly simplistic view of exactly what terrorists are, and why they turn towards terrorism.

Besides, Osama does not have some type of command structire over Islamic terrorists, or an organisation for that matter, right across the globe, and that if he actually was a child abuser, that they would 'desert'.

Terrorists are terrorists because they believe in some set of principles. What Osama is has no bearing on them committing acts of terrorism.

I believe that for every terrorist who commits an act of violence, there is a network of people who actively support, indirectly but knowingly support, and/or know of these people and their actions without proffering support other than to remain silent towards the authorities who can prevent these actions.

Such individuals can be swayed, both with carrot and stick - for carrot, look to the efforts in the UK to reach out to disenfranchised Muslim communities. Similarly, for stick, they have upped their game in internal intelligence to root out the fundamentalists amongst them.

Such intelligence actions as the one referenced could be used to sway these people. If we move from this specific idea, which was never put into operation, to the general idea of this sort of misinformation leading to the eroding of terrorist support networks, I wholly agree with the practice.

Why?

Because I'd like to get on a bus or a tube in London without needing to look over my shoulder.

I disagree. It is aimed at anyone who is willing to believe it - islamic or otherwise.

Deception by the state against civilians is wrong. The types of deception you are taling about are indiscriminate, potentially decieving both terrorist and civilian alike.

States are meant to be the ultimate authority. If that authority is willing to decieve and falsify information - then that authority looses legitimacy and trust.

The State is there to protect its citizens as much as anything else. I agree there are lines which one must not cross, also.

In Robert Harris's book "The Ghost", and in the recent film adaptation, in which the author was being quite critical of the Tony Blair government for going to war in Iraq, there was a passage from the "former prime minister":

"If I could do it all again I'd go back and do one thing: I'd have two lines for two aircraft in airports. One line would have regular security. The other would have security aided by all the intelligence we gathered from rendition, torture and everything else. I'd like to see which line you'd put your children in."

irishconvert · 27-05-2010 4:20pm

Nijmegen wrote: »

In Robert Harris's book "The Ghost", and in the recent film adaptation, in which the author was being quite critical of the Tony Blair government for going to war in Iraq, there was a passage from the "former prime minister":

"If I could do it all again I'd go back and do one thing: I'd have two lines for two aircraft in airports. One line would have regular security. The other would have security aided by all the intelligence we gathered from rendition, torture and everything else. I'd like to see which line you'd put your children in."

That's bull though. It's like saying "Here we have two cities, one is controled by a police force which use torture and other illegal methods to get people to admit to crime, but it has a police force nevertheless. The other city has no police force whatsoever. Which city would you put your children in".

Just becuase people choose the former option it does not mean they agree with all the methods used, nor does it mean they can't criticise the authorities and have those responsible for using illegal methods brought to justice.

nacho libre · 27-05-2010 4:35pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes, I know those sound like ludicrous Jim Corr conspiracy theories, but if we can't believe what the CIA are likely to show us in a video, how do we know they're telling the truth about Bin Laden himself ?

Just asking......

because the alternative is too unpalatable. it's basic psychology. we know the american military in the 60s came up with a plan to fly planes into building and blame it on Cuba as a pretext to justify a subsequent invasion of Cuba. now the question arises: why did kennedy veto this plot.
we would like to think it was on moral ground, that he felt it was morally reprehensible to endanger your own citizens as a pretext to invade another country.

you see as much as some people may need to believe in a guiding hands in events, there is also a great desire for humans to believe in the uncomplicated morality tales that are depicted in westerns.

Overheal · 27-05-2010 4:47pm

irishconvert wrote: »

Wow, you couldn't really make this stuff up.

I thought that was the whole point?

Anyway it looks like brainstormed ideas that came from nobody that was really in a high enough position to make it go ahead; and those that were in charge, according to the article, strongly opposed the ideas. Theres something strangely comforting about that, like I can almost believe the CIA think tanks still have some sense of Morals? Maybe not. But I can hope so.

Liam Byrne · 27-05-2010 4:51pm

Nijmegen wrote: »

Alright, to pull it apart a bit, "The war on the loose band of idealogically similar and dangerous fellows who committed.....

Put it like that and you could include a couple of Bushs in the list.

Liam Byrne · 27-05-2010 4:52pm

nacho libre wrote: »

there is also a great desire for humans to believe in the uncomplicated morality tales that are depicted in westerns.

Those would be the movies where the invading cowboys take over the Indians Native Americans' lands and resources, while shooting all the natives that get in their way ?

digme · 27-05-2010 4:53pm

irishconvert wrote: »

Wow, you couldn't really make this stuff up. The CIA considered making a fake video of Saddam Hussein having sex with a young boy to discredit him. Also, they apparently did make at least one fake Osama Bin Laden video.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7768690/CIA-considered-faking-Saddam-Hussein-sex-video.html

I always suspected the Bin Laden videos were fake but for former CIA agents to come out and admit it is astounding. How can anybody trust a word that comes out of these guys mouths?

Makes you wonder who the real terrorists are, doesn't it.
They can copy someone's actual voice perfectly,and create whatever conversation they "require",the CIA are not nice people.

nacho libre · 27-05-2010 5:00pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Those would be the movies where the invading cowboys take over the Indians Native Americans' lands and resources, while shooting all the natives that get in their way ?

Well i was more so thinking of the ones where there was the easily identifable, admirable hero that you can root for v the unredeemable bad guy, but your analogy could work if you have a problem with one country invading another country for expansionist reasons;)

CoalBucket · 27-05-2010 8:30pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think an acronym counts as a single "word".....e.g. a four-letter word like "NAMA" or even an ATM "PIN"....it just reads less well when it has no vowels.

Anyways....back on topic, quick!

I stand corrected

Nodin · 27-05-2010 11:10pm

digme wrote: »

Makes you wonder who the real terrorists are, doesn't it.
They can copy someone's actual voice perfectly,and create whatever conversation they "require",the CIA are not nice people.

In the spirit of fairness, I'm obliged to point out that it's not the tool, but the hand that wields it thats at fault.

Liam Byrne · 28-05-2010 12:03am

Nodin wrote: »

In the spirit of fairness, I'm obliged to point out that it's not the tool, but the hand that wields it thats at fault.

Or....while Bush was in power - the tool that the hand is connected to!

Clawdeeus · 28-05-2010 12:50pm

Just to try and move the conversation on from "the CIA sux", what does everyone think should be done with them? They obviously have one or two purposes that are a must for any nation, like intelligence gathering, but its purview seems to have grown ever since the start of the cold war. I think personally it should be disolved, a new smaller agency should be made to over see intelligence gathering/ counter-spying this time with congressional oversite, and maybe under the eye of the FBI, like local law enforcment. Its clear anyway that they are right now a law unto themselves, remember when they burnt tapes requested by the congress? Cant remember what it was for exactly but not even a single charge was brought against an employee.

Nodin · 28-05-2010 9:19pm

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Its clear anyway that they are right now a law unto themselves, remember when they burnt tapes requested by the congress? Cant remember what it was for exactly but not even a single charge was brought against an employee.

...presumably that was because they didn't fancy being hung out to dry for following orders.....

I'd suggest reading this - though long, it's informative.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/?hpid=specialreports

...and this excellent piece shows what can happen to the good people, even at the top.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

thebman · 29-05-2010 3:44am

Isn't it supposed to be Central Intelligence Agency not Central Propoganda Agency.

It seems they don't know their own jobs anymore.

digme · 29-05-2010 11:38am

Most videos are fake, look at this for god sake,we don't know what is real any more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

Liam Byrne · 29-05-2010 12:01pm

digme wrote: »

Most videos are fake, look at this for god sake,we don't know what is real any more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

For a movie, involving what you know as fiction, not an issue.

For a PR or propaganda stunt, or for news footage, completely unacceptable.

I mean, the stuff in that video would mean that the "plane hits pentagon" story could easily have been manufactured, particularly since no footage exists of the plane.

But lying that Bin Laden rides kids ? Whoever suggested it should be fired.

digme · 29-05-2010 12:08pm

Anything's possible now

Spirit of time · 29-05-2010 1:41pm

The CIA are unaccountable even to the US president,

Just ask JFK,

You would have a very negative outlook on the CIA should you uncover all facts regards MK Ultra.

Do some research,when CIA was set up it was infiltrated with former Nazi's just like Nasa!

The truth hurts but awakens the mind!

irishconvert wrote: »

Wow, you couldn't really make this stuff up. The CIA considered making a fake video of Saddam Hussein having sex with a young boy to discredit him. Also, they apparently did make at least one fake Osama Bin Laden video.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7768690/CIA-considered-faking-Saddam-Hussein-sex-video.html

I always suspected the Bin Laden videos were fake but for former CIA agents to come out and admit it is astounding. How can anybody trust a word that comes out of these guys mouths?

CIA and fake Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein Videos

Comments