Talk:Blowback (intelligence)

The official UK Labour Party denial of the entire concept in 2005 after the 7/7 bombings etc
Tony Blair and Hazel Blears etc were totally adamant that the "Blowback" concept doesn't exist at all (in fact that term wasn't even used at the time), and that the only motivation of terrorists is the desire to commit terrorism etc.(Admittedly the Labour Party keeps flip-flopping on the issue depending on who its leader is at any given time) but it should be in the article somewhere since a major denial of the concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bin Laden was funded and supported by the CIA
The article previously stated bin Laden "purportedly also" was supported by the CIA. It's not purported -- it's a documented fact. The CIA built a training facility for bin Laden outside Khost in 1986. This is documented by, amongst other sources, the Chalmers Johnson book referenced in the Wiki article. —207.69.137.15 22:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. Major POV violations on this page.  Had to take it out.  Chalmers Johnson is not a reliable source and his documentation is absurdly bad.  Every major source on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda directly reject this.


 * See: the various books by Peter Bergen, especially "Holy War, Inc.", as well as Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" (the most thorough history of Al Qaeda); as well as the standard works on the 80's in Afghanistan: "Charlie Wilson's War" and "Ghost Wars" and Milt Bearden's "The Main Enemy". And that's just for a start.  These are a heck of a more reliable than some Chomskyite who doesn't even source his claims to anything more than IWW articles.
 * "Every major source on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda directly reject this" please cite I few of them in this discussion then--Waxsin (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it can't stay until it's sourced by a neutral, facutal authority on the subject. Peter Bergen works for a network (CNN) that most conservatives dismiss as far-left and Lawrence Wright works for The New Yorker (the one that originally published Casulaties of War and Brokeback Mountain) which is a publication that doesn't even deny that it's liberal/leftist. You need to have a better sources than a few liberal journalists. Equinox137 07:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Equinox, if you want an book about the connection you can also read the Peter Lance book, the triple cross. Your arguments against CNN even Lawrence wright are unfounded. it really does not matter if someone is liberal or conservative. We are talking about facts. The fact is, that bin laden group was funded by the cia and usa. we fought the russians using them. we did not use our own men. Do you think it makes sense that we were in afganistan but we did not help setup an anti russian government and groups? You cannot say every major source on bin laden and al qeada just it is vague and a poor argument. I do not know any book that goes against this link cia to bin laden link. In addition, it is uncalled for whoever talked about chomsky, and the argument is unfounded because chomsky sources lots of his claims to different things. Basically, that person lied about chomsky.


 * My arguments against CNN or Lawrence are unfounded? Says who? And who said anything about Chomsky? Equinox137 07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * taken from the bin laden article on wikiedpia:
 * Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."[36]
 * Do you have any authority figures who say that there was not a connection Equinox?


 * How exactly does Cook's comments prove anything? Does he have some connection to the U.S. Government or the CIA that isn't public knowledge?  Isn't this the same Robin Cook that was part of the far left Tribune Group in Parliament??  The same Robin Cook that was part of the nuclear freeze crowd in the 80s?  The same Robin Cook that resigned his post as Leader of the House of Commons in protest of the Iraq theatre?  The same Robin Cook that was President of the Party of European Socialists from 2001 to 2004? This jackass is hardly an authority figure that has knowledge of what the U.S. did or didn't do in the 80s.  He didn't even get the translation of the word Al-Qaeda correctly.
 * And by the way, please sign your posts with the four tildes so we know who you are...Equinox137 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Robin Cook is still listed in the reference on that article, and the fact that you're attacking him because of his political position underlines your own.
 * However I think this whole discussion is pointless as the Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden article covers this in detail. I understand the original editor may have wanted to include bin Laden as an example, but until this discussion becomes less politically heated I think it is best to leave just the example of Reagen and the Iran-Contra Affair, which by the way could really use some citations.--Waxsin (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11
This is another example of blowback, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.97.78 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.208.213 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Very much indeed. --386-DX (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Textbook example of extremely deadly blowback.108.211.34.225 (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"reported as news fact"
That's a very 1984 phrase. Daecon (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Updating and not just from covert operations
Obviously it is used now to refer to terrorist and other acts responding to wars of aggression now a days and needs updating with numerous sources on Iraq and Afghan wars and US-Israel relations. It was used a lot after Boston bombing even on CNN(!) so its obviously becoming a mainstream phrase. One more project to add to a long list, but feel free to get busy. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 15:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

use of counterpunch
i am quite surprised carol at your revert here regarding counterpunch. lots of ink spilled about it in wiki rs world. it seems that at best, it can be used for quoted and sourced opinions properly attributed. so, if you want to include ray, go ahead, but then plese quote and source him. neither he nor counter punch is rs for facts being written in wiki's voice. (and, since there are other RS there, why even bother?) Soosim (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that depends on the author. Ray_Hanania is relevant here. But as I say above whole article needs expansion so let's keep that in mind. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden
Can we say?shyjayb 09:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source that talks explicitly about "blowback" using that word regarding the actions of OBL or after the killing of OBL, then it would be relevant. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

simplified introduction
Blowback is a term originating from within the American Intelligence community, explaining the unintended consequences, unwanted side-effects of a covert operation. 46.39.45.165 (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)