Iranian Revolutionary Guards

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I disagree with what the govt official said regarding Kahlili’s legitimacy. First of all, what sort of govt official is this? Does he work for the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, or is he a politician who sits on an intelligence committee.

[/quote]

Here’s a thought - read the link to which I am referring and maybe you’ll find out -

I did some checking. And I am happy to report that the author did indeed have a secret relationship with the CIA…Eventually, I found one of Kahlili’s former case officers, who described him as “legit” and “a very brave guy.”

Well, it’s not the latter.

Ignatius spoke to Kahlili’s actual CIA case officer who said he is ‘legit.’

[quote]
It’s an ambiguous quote from a dubious source that says nothing about the actual role Kahlili had. It doesn’t confirm anything.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.

[/quote]

Who were the officials who “rolled their eyes?” Who was the observer present who said they did?

The Compost did a nice job but as they said: “A current U.S. government official did vouch for Kahlili’s role as a spy,” Ignatius added. “I can’t confirm every jot and title in the book,” the official told Ignatius, “but he did have a relationship with U.S. intelligence.” [/quote]

Thousands of suitcase nukes!

THOUSANDS!!![/quote]

He made no such claim. If you go to the actual speech and read it in context you will see he was talking hypothetically and about the strategy. There was never any suggestion that he was talking literally about the numbers. It’s clearly a figure of speech - he said:

‘Now to a lot of people here in the West think this is crazy talk. But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it? The other side of the coin is that, let’s say that they have a rational mind, let’s say that they are interested in survival, let’s say they just want to use it as a source to protect their government, to become untouchable. The proliferation is going to become a disaster, and I was at the front row seats of Mohsen Razaei when they brought out the new strategy which was numbers - meaning a thousand small groups of small boats is going to cause a threat. A thousand suitcase bombs spread around Europe and the US is going to pose a threat. You are not going to get a handle on the proliferation. They are going to be untouchable. They are going to pass it on to Hezbollah, to Syria, to Venezuela. It is going to become a nightmare.’[/quote]

[/i] You know the whole “But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it” spiel was complete bullshit from the getgo.

Yes, there is a chance that the Martians might land in Monaco which will subsequently rise to world domination due to its awesome multiphasic laser Mechs, but in the end it just makes you paranoid, and broke, and paranoid, and a police state, and very, very paranoid.

[/quote]

Very possibly true. On the other hand, I believe you have to have at least a small paranoid streak to work in national security intelligence these days, no matter your country. Besides, if there were one subject to be paranoid about, I’d probably pick nuclear bombs proliferated by rogue states. Just sayin, that’s kind of a bang-for-your-buck subject after all.[/quote]

I don’t think you need to HAVE a paranoid streak to work in intelligence, but I think you inevitably end up acquiring one the longer and deeper you get into it. Paranoia is something that the CIA tries not to encourage at all. It’s a detriment to otherwise sound judgment and can be used against not only a single agent or officer, but against an entire intelligence station if paranoia is allowed to proliferate.
[/quote]

I agree, I think you said what I meant. I was being a bit flippant. Sort of like “if a woman’s not at least a little crazy i don’t look at her” kinda thing. Clearly nobody wants a crazy woman. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I disagree with what the govt official said regarding Kahlili’s legitimacy. First of all, what sort of govt official is this? Does he work for the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, or is he a politician who sits on an intelligence committee.

[/quote]

Here’s a thought - read the link to which I am referring and maybe you’ll find out -

I did some checking. And I am happy to report that the author did indeed have a secret relationship with the CIA…Eventually, I found one of Kahlili’s former case officers, who described him as “legit” and “a very brave guy.”

Well, it’s not the latter.

Ignatius spoke to Kahlili’s actual CIA case officer who said he is ‘legit.’

[quote]
It’s an ambiguous quote from a dubious source that says nothing about the actual role Kahlili had. It doesn’t confirm anything.[/quote]

See above.[/quote]

Again, this means nothing. His case officer says he’s legit? First of all, how do we know this is even his case officer to begin with? Secondly, anything a case officer says in public about a previous agent he handled should be taken with a grain of salt. Revealing anything about a former agent doesn’t advance an operation and if anything, it jeopardizes future ones in Iran. So I wonder what the real motivation is behind revealing anything about Kahlili. For whose benefit is this info? If you say the American people, I would agree, but I would also argue that this smacks heavily of typical CIA efforts to plant stories with favorable journalists designed to bring Americans around to their way of thinking.

Of course, the head of the National Intelligence Agency just came out and essentially said that an Israeli strike, and certainly not an American invasion, of Iran is not in American interests. So perhaps Kahlili is legit after all. All I’m saying is that none of the evidence you’ve held up as evidence means anything. A case officer, according to a journalist who would have everything to lose if his story were inaccurate or embellished. A case officer who says that Khalili is “legit”? Under what context did this alleged case officer say this? What does he mean by “legit”? That could mean anything. Just don’t believe everything you read.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Again, this means nothing.

[/quote]

On the contrary. For one thing it means that when you said this:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I disagree with what the govt official said regarding Kahlili’s legitimacy.
[/quote]

And then went on to say why:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Does he work for the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, or is he a politician who sits on an intelligence committee.

Senators and congressmen sitting on intelligence oversight committees have no fucking clue what is going on from a purely operational standpoint. They’re security risks.
[/quote]

…The your whole reason for not believing this official is now gone. The official was not a politician with ‘no fucking clue’ but was ‘specifically from the CIA’ and specifically identified by Ignatius as Kahlili’s former case officer.

So you’ll need a new line. That’s what it means for starters. So go ahead with the new line…

I’m not vouching for his case officer or for David Ignatius’ claim he that he spoke with him. And I’m not dismissing it either. Anyway, the book doesn’t make any damaging claims about the Iranian regime that aren’t already known - i.e. their involvement in most the major terrorist attacks against the U.S. and the West. That’s on the public record already.

I guess it all depends if it fits the line.