Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts

Monday, January 09, 2023

Louis Wolf and John Stockwell

Friday, August 27, 2021

Recruiting in the American Empire

Monday, June 28, 2021

An Empire in Decline

Sunday, June 06, 2021

4IR



Who's really going to crash the power grid?

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Victim of the Empire or the Oligarchs?

Thursday, February 18, 2021

'Allo 'Allo!

Someone is aware of using someone photogenic to market their ideas.






Friday, February 05, 2021

"Not a Tool"

Saturday, November 28, 2020

Surprise, Kill, and Vanish by Annie Jacobsen



Little, Brown and Company





CSpan



Related:
Black Site: The CIA in the post-9/11 World


CIA Paramilitary Operations Officer Ron Moeller, Ep. 25

CIA SPECIAL ACTIVITIES CENTER

Friday, October 23, 2020

Sarah Carlson on Observations With

Friday, August 07, 2020

Friday, February 22, 2019

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Peter Hitchens Recommends Eye in the Sky

for the questions it raises about droning - trailer

Some may say that it is "realistic" in so far as women have been promoted to such the rank of colonel and higher -- but I wouldn't pay money to watch this. Has the CIA resolved its issues with HUMINT in the Middle East?

Robert Baer: Torture, Drones, and Hollywood
Former CIA Agent Robert Baer on 'The Perfect Kill'

Friday, October 10, 2014

Friday, August 08, 2014

Kill the Messenger

Based on the story of Gary Webb.


Focus Films

What would Mike Ruppert make of the movie?

Monday, January 14, 2013

Zero Dark Thirty


Went to Winchester 21 on Saturday night, after having dinner with xiao Jimmy at Eastridge. It's been... maybe 10 years or more since I last sat in that theater. It wasn't so cold inside, but I was wearing a sweater and a coat over it, plus a hat. However, I don't know this is due to the project or to the reel they received, but the print seemed fuzzy and the resolution was not as good as something you'd see on a smaller screen over at AMC or nearby CinéArts.

I don't have much to say about the technical aspects of the movie, or the visual story-telling. Zero Dark Thirty seemed like it was done proficiently in those respects. But how can one's experience of the movie not be colored by his opinions about its truthfulness or the real-life events it claims to represent? How much artistic license taken in telling the story? I went to the movie more for the last half-hour, with its focus on ST6 and the mission to capture/kill Bin Laden, then the rest of it, which chronicled the efforts of the CIA to find him.

It is pro-American propaganda? We'll probably never know the true story or what really happened (or if we really killed OBL at that point in time). The movie is centered on a "tough" and persistent Uuhmerican female CIA agent, Maya (played by Jessica Chastain), who ultimately finds Osama Bin Laden. In the movie, there is some intra-agency conflict between Maya and the CIA station chief in Pakistan (played by Kyle Chandler). The station chief wants to allocate resources to preventing terror attacks in the U.S., and says that Bin Laden is not important. Maya says that he is still the one in charge. In their debate, there is no explicit mention of targeting Bin Laden because he was the chief mastermind behind 9/11, that this is a question of justice and punishing those who are responsible. Perhaps it is implied, but I thought it strange that it was omitted, as it would have been effective rhetorically. Maya appeals to their superiors at Langley, but it is not clear what priority was given to finding and killing Bin Laden by the CIA or the White House. The movie highlights the importance of HUMINT and how little of it we actually have for that region of the world. (See the book by Robert Baer for an explanation why.)

Might the movie rather be effective propaganda against Uhmerica? It depicts the torture of Muslims and the willingness of Americans to kill Muslims civilians in order to get at high-value targets. (Rf. Mya's comeback to the SEALs during their briefing that she preferred that a bomb be dropped on a house she knows is occupied by women and children over deploying a special ops team.) Moreover, the women seem to be in charge even if they are subordinates in name, and the men have no effective control over them, especially the ones at Langley, who seem whipped. If a man was petulant like that in the workplace, who would be able to tolerate his behavior or continue to respect him? But since Maya is a woman, she can get away with it. No doubt some will interpret her behavior as being of someone who is extremely dedicated and understandably upset that no action is being taken against OBL, even though his location has been ascertained. Her tantrums nonetheless strike me as being unprofessional and border on insubordination.

Indeed, the movie is not very successful in presenting the feminist case for women being in the CIA (even if they can be effective honey traps), despite the possible intention of the filmmakers. While Jessica Chastain can play the b*tch, on-screen she still seems like a vulnerable little girl who is trying to be a man in a man's world. Yet one cannot but help think that the movie makers are advocating that we put such women in charge.

Another example would be Jennifer Ehle's character, who is based on Jennifer Lynne Matthews. The movie seems to put the blame on her for the Camp Chapman attack. (In accordance with one of the official stories put forward by the CIA afterwards?) She is portrayed as an eager beaver seeking a lead to OBL's location and waving off proper security protocols in order for the meeting to go forward. So whose incompetence resulted in the success of the attack? The on-site supervisor? Or the superiors who failed to train their analysts as field operatives properly or placed results above safety?

If this is the reality of the CIA it is rather laughable - even more reason for our enemies to hold us in contempt. They may believe that we are superior not because of culture or character, but only because of technology, and even then our advantage is limited.

Would I recommend the movie? I am not sure why I would want to do so, but this is because I am skeptical of its accuracy. As a tribute to the men and women(?) who brought Osama Bin Laden "to justice"? As a engrossing procedural? I can't say that the portrayal of Operation Neptune Spear is worth the price of admission alone. Those who believe that the story is true may enjoy it more; no doubt there will be those who know very little and will leave the theater convinced that they've learned some real history.

James Howard Kunstler has a rather positive appraisal of the movie. Steve Sailer.

Related:
Zero Dark Thirty: Torturing the Facts by Marjorie Cohn
How 'Zero Dark Thirty' Reminds Americans How Much They Love Torture
Torture in Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty
Former CIA officer Robert Baer offers an alternative to the White House story on bin Laden's death. (mp3)
Revealed: CIA agents envious of glamorous Hollywood treatment of Jessica Chastain's real-life relentless Bin Laden tracker 'Maya'
Peter Bergen and Robert Baer: Zero Dark Thirty Torture Controversy
FLASHBACK: Former CIA Operative: “Of Course Bin Laden is Dead” - Robert Baer: When Will Obama Give Up the Bin Laden Ghost Hunt?
What Awaits John Brennan at the CIA
ABC: Operation Neptune Spear
Zero Dark Thirty — Some Truth, Some Fiction

WATCH: Jennifer Ehle On 'Zero Dark Thirty's' Women 




Before the movie I strolled through Santana Row - what do the patrons there have to offer, besides their youthfulness? One perhaps should not begrudge those who are out enjoying a Saturday night with their intimates and friends, but one could do without the display of wealth and ease. Where else do the local singles go? There was some live music at El Jardin - in Spanish, and the audience was quite enthusiastic. Local Anglos? Or affluent visitors from Ibero-America? A reflection in some ways of the soon-to-be majority for the city of San Jose. The local young SWPLs care very little for traditional Anglo culture.