Check out some similar questions!

gallivant_fellow · Sep 6, 2007, 03:15 PM

Dark Crow, I assume you're asking if I believe that the CIA uses terrorism sneakier and more effectively than anyone in the world. My answer is yes, but terrorism against other terrorists. Our country's people are masters at getting terrorists and other enemies of ours to fight each other, to try to attack us when we're ready to intercept them, etcetera, using attacks that are technically terrorist attacks. I'm not saying we're worse or even come close to Osama and those guys, but we're more effective and sneaky(Also defensive). We're fighting fire with fire. Let's say some group is definitely going to attack us. They can be provoked by a 'terrorist' attack which makes them launch an unsuccessful strike. Then our country catches them.

Also guys, the paragraph isn't my work. How John Kelly interpreted it isn't my work. I guess pieces of the paragraph are missing too, well I got it out of a book by Russ Kick, I wouldn't edit something this serious. I just asked the last question of the paragraph to see what you think. Again I support the CIA and think that it's probably necessary, it's okay if someone doesn't though. If you hate the info, or think it's twisted, find John Kelly and call him all the stuff you are calling me!

Choux · Sep 6, 2007, 03:28 PM

Sorry girlfriend, if I came across too tough. I apologize. It is an *excellent question. :)

gallivant_fellow · Sep 6, 2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I suppose in some idealist way you personally can separate committing crimes from spying, but given the fact that spying in itself is inherently illegal it cannot be realistically accomplished.:)

I think we can all separate serious crimes like torturing people, from crimes like spying on someone's plans. Sure spying is a crime, but nothing compared to the big stuff. Also, I didn't say spying wasn't a crime. I just said it's not a serious one like this article is about. I was trying to keep everyone on topic with the paragraph and it turned into a battle. You guys are going to give me a heart attack at 19.

Dark_crow · Sep 6, 2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by gallivant_fellow

I think we can all seperate serious crimes like torturing people, from crimes like spying on someone's plans. Sure spying is a crime, but nothing compared to the big stuff. Also, I didn't say spying wasn't a crime. I just said it's not a serious one like this article is about. I was trying to keep everyone on topic with the paragraph and it turned into a battle. You guys are gonna give me a heart attack at 19.

I certainly don't approve of everything the CIA has done, or for that matter America. In fact one of the greatest evils was the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh; Time magazine chose him over Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill as its Man of the Year for 1951.

Yes, unbelievably the CIA on Eisenhower's orders ousted a democratically elected prime minister of Iran, followed by the U.S. government's ardent support of the shah of Iran's repressive dictatorship for the next 25 years.

And the reason, want of oil and fear of Communism. Is it any wonder terrorist are at our door? The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits from Iranian oil. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split; is it any wonder we are called greedy Imperialist.

tomder55 · Sep 6, 2007, 05:16 PM

The overthrow of Mossadegh was also not in the American interest either . But I say that with 20 20 hindsight. The prism of the cold war sometimes made for some strange bed-fellows ;the fallout of which we are still paying for .

gallivant_fellow · Sep 6, 2007, 10:04 PM

Well, thanks for your opinions guys. I found out a lot about your thoughts on our CIA. And guys, this post wasn't a way to degrade our CIA or prove myself as a couch potato general. I just wanted a response to the written information. I'm stating this once again just to make sure you guys don't think Russ Kick and John Kelly's words are mine. I have my own opinions, which I stated.

I also learned a lot on how sneeky writers can be. Speechlesstx pointed out something very important about the IC21 paragraph, which I copied exactly from the book "100 Things You're Not Supposed To Know". It seems the writer of the book, Russ Kick, or someone who works for him cut pieces out of the paragraph to make it really dramatic. Russ Kick's organization is called Disinformation, and he writes all his books about how the gov. dis-informs us. How in hell could he dis-inform his readers, or even let dis-information slip past him from one of his writers? I don't believe a lot of the stuff in this guy's books because it's not well researched, but seriously, how could he go against all he stands for? Overall, it doesn't surprise me that much. I did find out the answer to my question of what you guys think, and I did find out that Russ needed to be kicked, which I did via e-mail. I will also inform his already skeptical customers at BarnesandNoble.com that he dis-informs people in his books. I sense... Book sales... Plummeting...

Speaking of kicks, Google <John Kelly CIA expert> and hope his next employer doesn't (unless you want him to be seen as part of Russ's Disinformation crew.)

The one word for this post: Intense! I think I might have post about Arts and Crafts for a while before I do another one like this.

ETWolverine · Sep 7, 2007, 06:00 AM

I have to apologize to Gallivant Fellow. My rant yesterday was uncalled for. I have just become really, REALLY fed up with people who criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform) for doing their jobs of protecting our rights to criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform). I slipped into full "A Few Good Men" Jack Nicholson mode, and it was unnecessary. Sorry.

Elliot

speechlesstx · Sep 7, 2007, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by gallivant_fellow

The one word for this post: Intense! I think I might have post about Arts and Crafts for a while before I do another one like this.

We like intense... but don't let it drive you over to arts and crafts. Stick around and don't be so apologetic :)

speechlesstx · Sep 7, 2007, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I have to apologize to Gallivant Fellow. My rant yesterday was uncalled for. I have just become really, REALLY fed up with people who criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform) for doing their jobs of protecting our rights to criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform). I slipped into full "A Few Good Men" Jack Nicholson mode, and it was unnecessary. Sorry.

You mean this mode?

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose going to do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. -Col Jessep

What a great line...

excon · Sep 7, 2007, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I have just become really, REALLY fed up with people who criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform) for doing their jobs of protecting our rights.

Hello again:

The problem being, Mr. Wolverine, is that you are unable to distinguish between soldiers (in and out of uniform), and their orders (the government). To me, it's clear that one is doing the bidding of the other.

I have no problem with the ground pounders, and neither does Gallivant. They're just doing their jobs. Of course, I would (and do) argue with you over the right wing proposition that "the government.... is protecting our rights". In fact, it's my position that it’s the government itself, who's taking away my rights.

excon

labman · Sep 7, 2007, 07:31 AM

Was this 1996 report part of the justification for later emasculation of the agency leading to the 911 intelligence failures?

ETWolverine · Sep 7, 2007, 07:36 AM

excon,

It's called the social contract. We give up certain rights and liberties in exchange for the safety and security and rules provided by government. The alternative, of course, is to have NO government, no military, no protection against threats foreign and domestic, no security, no rules. It's called anarchy, and it's a pretty piss-poor way to live. So you get to choose: government, with its protections and occasional limits on your liberties, or anarchy, with its complete freedoms but no protection, no recourse for acts committed against you, and no rules except "might-makes-right". I choose the former, with the caveat that if the limits on my liberties get too burdensome, I will fight to get them back. I choose society over anarchy.

Elliot

gallivant_fellow · Sep 7, 2007, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I have to apologize to Gallivant Fellow. My rant yesterday was uncalled for. I have just become really, REALLY fed up with people who criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform) for doing their jobs of protecting our rights to criticize our government and our soldiers (in and out of uniform). I slipped into full "A Few Good Men" Jack Nicholson mode, and it was unnecessary. Sorry.

Elliot

I thought I recognized some of the stuff you said from that movie, but I didn't know for sure, so I didn't mention it. LOL

Dark_crow · Sep 7, 2007, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You mean this mode?
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. -Col Jessep

What a great line...

What a sick and perverted line coming from a madman.