CIA is undermining British war effort, say military chiefs

#1
Another example of the terms of our 'special relationship' within the coalition?

Independent Online said:
CIA is undermining British war effort, say military chiefs

Confidential report speaks of 'serious tensions' in the coalition over strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan


British intelligence officers and military commanders have accused the US of undermining British policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, after the sacking of a key British ally in the Afghan province of Helmand.

British sources have blamed pressure from the CIA for President Hamid Karzai's decision to dismiss Mohammed Daud as governor of Helmand, the southern province where Britain deployed some 4,000 troops this year. Governor Daud was appointed in mid-year to replace a man the British accused of involvement in opium trafficking, but on Thursday Mr Karzai summoned him to Kabul and sacked him, along with his deputy.

"The Americans knew Daud was a main British ally," one official told The Independent on Sunday, "yet they deliberately undermined him and told Karzai to sack him." The official said the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, was "tearing his hair out".

Cont/...
Do 'we' have any influence in the decision making process??
 
#2
Another dubious story using invisible people. How can we check the verasity of this story, how can we know this isn't just another lying journalist making things up.

The only name of a source given is that of General Jones who "let it be known" ...... but this is only true if You believe the sources that said he is letting it be known.


This may be true but if it cannot be verified then it is just gossip
 
#3
Sven said:
Another dubious story using invisible people. How can we check the verasity of this story, how can we know this isn't just another lying journalist making things up.

The only name of a source given is that of General Jones who "let it be known" ...... but this is only true if You believe the sources that said he is letting it be known.


This may be true but if it cannot be verified then it is just gossip
Which part of the story do you find "dubious";

1. that Mohammed Daud was the previous governor of Helmand,
2. that Mohammed Daud is no longer governor of Helmand,
3. that he was dismissed by Hamid Karzai,
4. that Hamid Karzai was influenced/pressurised by US (CIA) elements into this decision,
5. that the British military is not 'happy' with this, or
6. that the British military have expressed their concerns off the record to the media - a process of disseminating contentious 'news' that they learned from their political masters.

:x
 
#4
merkator said:
Sven said:
Another dubious story using invisible people. How can we check the verasity of this story, how can we know this isn't just another lying journalist making things up.

The only name of a source given is that of General Jones who "let it be known" ...... but this is only true if You believe the sources that said he is letting it be known.


This may be true but if it cannot be verified then it is just gossip
Which part of the story do you find "dubious";

1. that Mohammed Daud was the previous governor of Helmand,
2. that Mohammed Daud is no longer governor of Helmand,
3. that he was dismissed by Hamid Karzai,
4. that Hamid Karzai was influenced/pressurised by US (CIA) elements into this decision,
5. that the British military is not 'happy' with this, or
6. that the British military have expressed their concerns off the record to the media - a process of disseminating contentious 'news' that they learned from their political masters.

:x

Thought Your ability to disseminate information from the written word was better than that Merkator.

The answer, of course, is none of the above but rather :-

7. That Fox actually spoke to any British Intelligence sources
 
#5
Sven said:
merkator said:
Sven said:
Another dubious story using invisible people. How can we check the verasity of this story, how can we know this isn't just another lying journalist making things up.

The only name of a source given is that of General Jones who "let it be known" ...... but this is only true if You believe the sources that said he is letting it be known.


This may be true but if it cannot be verified then it is just gossip
Which part of the story do you find "dubious";

1. that Mohammed Daud was the previous governor of Helmand,
2. that Mohammed Daud is no longer governor of Helmand,
3. that he was dismissed by Hamid Karzai,
4. that Hamid Karzai was influenced/pressurised by US (CIA) elements into this decision,
5. that the British military is not 'happy' with this, or
6. that the British military have expressed their concerns off the record to the media - a process of disseminating contentious 'news' that they learned from their political masters.

:x

Thought Your ability to disseminate information from the written word was better than that Merkator.

The answer, of course, is none of the above but rather :-

7. That Fox actually spoke to any British Intelligence sources
I consider this to be covered by my option 6.

I notice you don't question the accuracy of the 'news', just the manner in which it has reached the public domain.
 
#6
merkator said:
Sven said:
merkator said:
Sven said:
Another dubious story using invisible people. How can we check the verasity of this story, how can we know this isn't just another lying journalist making things up.

The only name of a source given is that of General Jones who "let it be known" ...... but this is only true if You believe the sources that said he is letting it be known.


This may be true but if it cannot be verified then it is just gossip
Which part of the story do you find "dubious";

1. that Mohammed Daud was the previous governor of Helmand,
2. that Mohammed Daud is no longer governor of Helmand,
3. that he was dismissed by Hamid Karzai,
4. that Hamid Karzai was influenced/pressurised by US (CIA) elements into this decision,
5. that the British military is not 'happy' with this, or
6. that the British military have expressed their concerns off the record to the media - a process of disseminating contentious 'news' that they learned from their political masters.

:x

Thought Your ability to disseminate information from the written word was better than that Merkator.

The answer, of course, is none of the above but rather :-

7. That Fox actually spoke to any British Intelligence sources
I consider this to be covered by my option 6.

I notice you don't question the accuracy of the 'news', just the manner in which it has reached the public domain.
I question the validity of the actuality when there is no evidence to support the supposition. Except the word of a journalist.

And if You think that point six has the same meaning as point seven then You need to brush up on Your English Language skills
 
#7
Sven said:
I question the validity of the actuality when there is no evidence to support the supposition. Except the word of a journalist.

And if You think that point six has the same meaning as point seven then You need to brush up on Your English Language skills
I'm very disappointed Sven. You are now starting to adopt the 'debating' tactics of the GOP blogging wibble-mongers: move the debate onto some infinitely miniscule, irrelevant and tangental issue in order to try to discredit the main argument.

The title of the Independent's piece is, "CIA is undermining British war effort, say military chiefs." Note the word military.

The first line of the article says, "British intelligence officers and military commanders have accused the US of undermining British policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, after the sacking of a key British ally in the Afghan province of Helmand." The word intelligence does not appear again.

Fox refers to his source(s) as, "British" (x1), "the official" (x1) and "diplomatic" (x2). He never refers to his source as being a "British Intelligence source" as you expicitly implied. However, he does also refer to a "confidential assessment of the situation in Iraq" with the implicit understanding that this is a military report.

I deliberately chose not to write a 1,000 word rebuttal that crossed every t and dotted every i, and thought it quite sufficiant to word my point 6 as I did to save time and effort.

The minor picture is, has Fox has received off the record briefings from individuals who include, but are not limited to, military officers in Afghanistan (and Iraq). Whether one of those sources happens to be a "British Intelligence source" is infinitely miniscule, irrelevant and a tangental issue.

The big picture is, did the US (CIA) brief/demand Karzai to dismiss Daud against British wishes?
 
#8
merkator said:
Sven said:
I question the validity of the actuality when there is no evidence to support the supposition. Except the word of a journalist.

And if You think that point six has the same meaning as point seven then You need to brush up on Your English Language skills
I'm very disappointed Sven. You are now starting to adopt the 'debating' tactics of the GOP blogging wibble-mongers: move the debate onto some infinitely miniscule, irrelevant and tangental issue in order to try to discredit the main argument.

The title of the Independent's piece is, "CIA is undermining British war effort, say military chiefs." Note the word military.

The first line of the article says, "British intelligence officers and military commanders have accused the US of undermining British policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, after the sacking of a key British ally in the Afghan province of Helmand." The word intelligence does not appear again.

Fox refers to his source(s) as, "British" (x1), "the official" (x1) and "diplomatic" (x2). He never refers to his source as being a "British Intelligence source" as you expicitly implied. However, he does also refer to a "confidential assessment of the situation in Iraq" with the implicit understanding that this is a military report.

I deliberately chose not to write a 1,000 word rebuttal that crossed every t and dotted every i, and thought it quite sufficiant to word my point 6 as I did to save time and effort.

The minor picture is, has Fox has received off the record briefings from individuals who include, but are not limited to, military officers in Afghanistan (and Iraq). Whether one of those sources happens to be a "British Intelligence source" is infinitely miniscule, irrelevant and a tangental issue.

The big picture is, did the US (CIA) brief/demand Karzai to dismiss Daud against British wishes?
What does the M in MI6 stand for?

My point stands, if Fox has evidence then he should produce it - innuendo and tittle tattle is not good enough
 
#9
Sven said:
What does the M in MI6 stand for?

My point stands, if Fox has evidence then he should produce it - innuendo and tittle tattle is not good enough
Hi Cnut: MI6 does not actually exist outside of fiction novels.

Are you perhaps refering to the Secret Service who recruit most of their personnel direct from university?
 
#10
Dread said:
Sven said:
What does the M in MI6 stand for?

My point stands, if Fox has evidence then he should produce it - innuendo and tittle tattle is not good enough
Hi Cnut: MI6 does not actually exist outside of fiction novels.

Are you perhaps refering to the Secret Service who recruit most of their personnel direct from university?
What is the official site of the Secret INTELLIGENCE Service???

Here's a clue
 
#11
Sven said:
Dread said:
Sven said:
What does the M in MI6 stand for?

My point stands, if Fox has evidence then he should produce it - innuendo and tittle tattle is not good enough
Hi Cnut: MI6 does not actually exist outside of fiction novels.

Are you perhaps refering to the Secret Service who recruit most of their personnel direct from university?
What is the official site of the Secret INTELLIGENCE Service???

Here's a clue
So why did you call them MI6?

Having met several members of the Service I normally drop the I, and should drop the first S as well: most are neither intelligent (or any good at gathering intelligence) and very often are so bleeding obvious about what they are.

From the ones I have met I have arrived at the conclusion that better 'intelligence' would be gained from simply reading the local papers and chatting to people in the local pub.

Dread

PS. You are still a party-line-towing cnut.
 
#12
Sven,

A question.

Is it your self appointed role on this site to act as the "spin master" for our beloved Bliar on this site, to distance Labour from any criticism, including that implied, found here?

You sound like a political lobbyist.

Please get a slightly more balanced and realistic view - I am getting a bit bored of your crap.
 
#13
Dread said:
Sven said:
Dread said:
Sven said:
What does the M in MI6 stand for?

My point stands, if Fox has evidence then he should produce it - innuendo and tittle tattle is not good enough
Hi Cnut: MI6 does not actually exist outside of fiction novels.

Are you perhaps refering to the Secret Service who recruit most of their personnel direct from university?
What is the official site of the Secret INTELLIGENCE Service???

Here's a clue
So why did you call them MI6?

Having met several members of the Service I normally drop the I, and should drop the first S as well: most are neither intelligent (or any good at gathering intelligence) and very often are so bleeding obvious about what they are.

From the ones I have met I have arrived at the conclusion that better 'intelligence' would be gained from simply reading the local papers and chatting to people in the local pub.

Dread

PS. You are still a party-line-towing cnut.
You obviously didn't go to the website - www.mi6.gov.uk
 
#14
Sven said:
merkator said:
Sven said:
What does the M in MI6 stand for?

My point stands, if Fox has evidence then he should produce it - innuendo and tittle tattle is not good enough
Firstly MI6 is the designation left over from WW2 it is not part of the MoD, did you not know this?

Are you so dim that you expect the press to make a full dislcosure which could ultimatley land them in court.

If you object so much for the bunch of moraly bankrupt liars in the Government then why bother reading the posts, am sure you can get a job in their press department.
 
#15
in_the_cheapseats said:
Sven,

A question.

Is it your self appointed role on this site to act as the "spin master" for our beloved Bliar on this site, to distance Labour from any criticism, including that implied, found here?

You sound like a political lobbyist.

Please get a slightly more balanced and realistic view - I am getting a bit bored of your crap.

ITC

Why, bacause I question the journalistic qualities of this report, should I be representing the government. The report isn't even slagging off the government but the septics. Perhaps I'm a CIA lobbyist

:roll:

How about if You give me a pointer as to the validity of the article, perhaps vouch that the information is correct. What's that - You can't do that?? No, and the way it is written, the only people who can are the sources - if they exist, and the reporter who isn't going to
 
#16
Sven said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
Sven,

A question.

Is it your self appointed role on this site to act as the "spin master" for our beloved Bliar on this site, to distance Labour from any criticism, including that implied, found here?

You sound like a political lobbyist.

Please get a slightly more balanced and realistic view - I am getting a bit bored of your crap.

ITC

Why, bacause I question the journalistic qualities of this report, should I be representing the government. The report isn't even slagging off the government but the septics. Perhaps I'm a CIA lobbyist

:roll:

How about if You give me a pointer as to the validity of the article, perhaps vouch that the information is correct. What's that - You can't do that?? No, and the way it is written, the only people who can are the sources - if they exist, and the reporter who isn't going to
As you seem to know something we all dont, how about you showing us the proof that this is false.
 
#17
Malteser said:
Sven said:
merkator said:
Sven said:
What does the M in MI6 stand for?

My point stands, if Fox has evidence then he should produce it - innuendo and tittle tattle is not good enough
Firstly MI6 is the designation left over from WW2 it is not part of the MoD, did you not know this?

Are you so dim that you expect the press to make a full dislcosure which could ultimatley land them in court.

If you object so much for the bunch of moraly bankrupt liars in the Government then why bother reading the posts, am sure you can get a job in their press department.
And where exactly did I say that MI6 is part of the MoD.

I do know that the name of MI6 changed to SIS, that's why I know it is called SIS. I also know that the head of MI6 is known as C and has been since MI6 changed to SIS.

I don't argue only when the government is maligned by using bad reporting, I have similarly argued the case for more mundane causes, the Windsor non riots for instance.

But it so much more comfortable for You, and a select group of others, not to recognise this
 
#18
Malteser said:
Sven said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
Sven,

A question.

Is it your self appointed role on this site to act as the "spin master" for our beloved Bliar on this site, to distance Labour from any criticism, including that implied, found here?

You sound like a political lobbyist.

Please get a slightly more balanced and realistic view - I am getting a bit bored of your crap.

ITC

Why, bacause I question the journalistic qualities of this report, should I be representing the government. The report isn't even slagging off the government but the septics. Perhaps I'm a CIA lobbyist

:roll:

How about if You give me a pointer as to the validity of the article, perhaps vouch that the information is correct. What's that - You can't do that?? No, and the way it is written, the only people who can are the sources - if they exist, and the reporter who isn't going to
As you seem to know something we all dont, how about you showing us the proof that this is false.
Now then, is that my arguement???

I seem to remember ending my first post with "this may be true but...." In fact I know I did because I just checked
 
#19
Any chance we can get this back on topic.

As Merkator has already stated, the big picture is Karzai getting rid of Daud, and the well known 'influence' that the yanks have over his decisions.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top