[quote name='mykevermin']
Want more proof that we not following bin Laden? Here you go: Oh, to hell with it. I gave you that link in the very
ing post you're quoting in this passage of yours. That's, yet again in your post, willfully editing out select things you don't want to deal with.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/w...79ed9b98bb9d22&ex=1309665600&pagewanted=print[/quote]
It's good to know that the CIA provides the Washington Post, the general american public, and wanted terrorists with a complete synopsis of their inner workings and success status. I'm sure when they get a credible lead they will call the Post to make sure new teams' wherabouts are printed in tomorrow's paper so that Osama can get a heads up and dig a new latrine. You don't even take the time to read your own
ing articles:
[quote name='NYT article']Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.
"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."[/QUOTE]
I'm sure next week, they'll print an "up close and personal" interview with their new field commanders in their new assignments with complete job descriptions, and photos. Do you mainline lytocaine or something? 'cause anybody who thinks they know the straight shit on the CIA from the NYT or the Post has got a serious reality problem.
As for palaces and oil for food, that's certainly damnable, but also knowing as "grasping at straws." What does financial exploitation or furthering one's own extravagant lifestyle to the dismay of an impoverished populace (and I will ignore the sheer irony of you chastising someone for using their power to better enhance their lives at the expense of others, Mr. Laissez-Faire Pants) have to do with terrorism? So, given the frequently debunked "Saddam had WMDs" argument (keep trying, though!), would the public have supported a "Saddam has gold-rimmed faucets" as a precursor to invasion and overthrow of the regime? Bitch please
He was isolated, right? So, isolated, in fact, that we had no good intelligence, no good legitimate inspections of his armories to verify his claims that he had destroyed all his contraband. And becuase of his behavior and history of deceit, we should not have taken him at his word that he was in full compliance. Do you really believe that Iran has no intention of making a nuclear bomb too becuase they
said so? Saddam had more than enough opportunities to come clean and all of this could have been avoided well before we started moving troops into the region in 2002. Hell, he could have come clean in 1995 and wouldn't have had to deal with the oil for food restrictions or any sanctions at all. What other possible reason could he have had for toying with the UN, it's inspectors, and the US the way he did?
And as far as using his power to better enhance his life at the expense of others, Mr. stalinist pants, is that his gain was ill-gotten. It was not earned, it was taken by force from his own people. You see, you have the situation reversed. Saddam is the welfare recipient - he uses the threat of force to strip citizens of their wealth and property to finance his own interests. He's exactly the model to which you have crafted your own philosophy.
So, Mr. Philosopher, what kinds of separating lines have you come up with regarding citizens of the Middle East; in particular, the various types of people residing in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and others? How do you delineate people withing and between those nations? Get the
off your high horse and come answer the bullshit I'm calling you on.
The only bullshit here is everything you leave behind. I know much about the ethnicities in the region and their histories. Regardless of their lineage and their culture, I can discriminate between them by their choice to make war on my freedom by threatening my life becuase I am an American. There need not be any other reason, attribute, label, race, color, or creed as a corollary to ascribe to them. Sorry I don't fit into a neat little catagory for you, I know how that
s with your reality.
Your "Myeh, myeh, I'm a philosopher" approach is phony due to the numerous and rampant examples of you showcasing your inability to discern one resident of the middle east from another. You live in the paradoxical world of an American conservative, where you support killing the
out of terrorists and providing freedom and democracy to those who aren't.
Yup, it's a much better plan than leaving them alone and waiting for them to bomb my local restaurant and kill my children when we visit Italy next summer.
By itself, that's a fine mentality. The paradox comes in when you're too
ing ignorant to recognize significant cultural differences within a certain region, and apply that to your philosophy. Do you think Sunnis and Shiites will join together in the same terr'ist organization? How 'bout them Kurds? Will the Iranian Muslims align with the Catholics there?
So, "cultural differences" is a convenient excuse for allowing terrorists to kill me? Tell me, myke when a mother
er is pointing a gun to your head, do you care what country he's from or whether he went to a catholic school ? No, you want to kill him before he kills you, right? Something tells me you've never had a gun pointed at your head, myke. Guess what? You do. When you finally realize that they'll hate you no matter how you can feel their pain, you may find the road to enlightenment instead of your racial proportionate dreamworld you live in.
Sheeeeeit, no, boyo. In the end, the paradox is that you support freedom for most and slaughter of the rest, yet can't discern between whom is deserving of whom: at the end of the day, you are suspicious of every resident of the Middle East.
Actually, I'm more suspicious of people like you who claim to be "educated." I realize that only a small minority of people in the world are terrorists who want to rule by fiat through force. There are ten times as many who wish to rule by chicanery, misdirecdtion, and slight of hand. I'll put you in that latter group.
Now, of course, pointing out that many of the terrorists are racist isn't doing you any favors; if we are to beat terrorists as much as humanly possible, we are to be superior to them, and not justify our shortsightedness with a childish "Myeh, they're doing it too!" You're an American citizen. Act like a reasonable person, and don't act like a terrorist. You're better than that.
I guess they're better at blowing up people at random, too. And better at cutting people's heads off. At least we target specific people and torture the ones who are deserving. But that brings us to the torture part of your world where the mere incarceration is a form of torture, and forcing people to eat broccoli before evening prayer is probably even worse.
Huh? This is the part where you deliberately edited out the WaPo article listed above. It's damning evidence that we aren't focused on bin Laden; it's damning evidence that we should have stressed his capture in Tora Bora, and it's damning evidence that you are too frightened to deal with what really goes on in the world out there, and are unprepared to deal with it. On the other hand, you find it easy to ignore the news, and discredit my lame-ass musings as if they were one and the same. I'll repeat myself: Bitch please
I love the acedemic espousing knowledge of the real world. Try that on some freshman during office hours, myke, that shit don't fly out here in the "real world."
