DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on August 20, 2014, 10:11:05 PM
-
U.S. military tried, but failed to rescue James Foley and other American hostages
The U.S. military earlier this year carried out an attempt to rescue journalist James Foley and other American hostages held in Syria, a U.S. official said on Wednesday, in an operation that the Pentagon said ultimately failed to find the captives.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
I would not like to write off even the most difficult rescues.
-
2 things come to mind
1) why now
2) credibility
It would seem 1) would be to try and placate the masses that something was attempted, but alas, Foley and other captured folks were not located (talk about bad intel)
But 2) is the more cynical and likely accurate scenario, in that how do we know anything was done? This is the same agency that proclaimed if you like your insurance and doctor, you can keep it, ...period. The same agency that proclaimed it was going to be the most transparent administration ever. The same group that drew one line in the sand, after another, only to sit back and watch Syria step all over them.
Without some hard evidence that such an action took place, the "word" of any U.S. official connected to this administration holds no credibility.
-
Yes.
There is a lot of paradox involved.
For instance , the more successful the CIA is , the less you hear of them.
-
So true
-
When the CIA screws up and there are tons of blowback, it also stays hidden for a long, long time. Then they pretend that no, it never happened, they hate us for our freedoms.
-
Examples being..............?
-
When the CIA screws up and there are tons of blowback, it also stays hidden for a long, long time. Then they pretend that no, it never happened, they hate us for our freedoms.
No , that is what we do hear about , when they fail.
-
Deposing Mossadegh in the 50's and installing the nasty little Shah was a prime example.
Teaching the Uruguayan military government to torture citizens in the 1970's was another.
Helping the Brazilian military depose elected governments twice was another.
The CIA does not act to defend the American people. It has acted to defend business interests.
This rescue, by the way, was NOT attempted by the CIA, it was a military operation.
I am all for rescuing journalists, but that is not what the CIA does.
-
Who said it was being run by the CIA??
-
Plane mentioned the CIA.
It should not be difficult for you to figure that one out without playing "Mr Stupid Question Man".
All it would appear to entail is basic literacy.
-
Mentioning the CIA, is not the same as saying this operation was being run by the CIA. You'd think a linguistic professor would grasp the difference. Apparently not
-
I did not say that the CIA was involved in the atten=mpted rescue. I said exactly the opposite, dumbass.
-
You just corrected Plane for something he never said, dumbass
-
I did not say that Plane said that this was a CIA operation.
I said that he was the one who brought it up.
I said he "mentioned" the CIA. I did not say he should have or should not have.
I said you were too effing stupid to see how the topic of the CIA entered this conversation.
Now you wish to demonstrate that you are also too stupid to realize that mentioning the CIA is not the same as correcting him for mentioning it.
You excel at being a contentious moron. You are the stooge that gets hit the most often with the plank and who attracts the most pies.
-
I did not say that Plane said that this was a CIA operation.
I said that he was the one who brought it up.
Yet there you are correcting a point that was never made, that the CIA wasn't behind any alledged rescue attempt, when no one sait or even inferred it was. We thank you for your contributuion
-
I was not correcting anything, you dolt.
-
riiiiiiiight. I'm glad you have yourself convinced
-
You seem to think you know more about what I said than I do myself. This is an erroneous assumption.
-
You are indeed the master of erroneous assumptions, I'll give you that
-
If this rescue had worked I would automatically have credited the CIA for finding the information needed , sometimes it isn't the CIA performing this function, but that is a reasonable assumption.
It did not work, perhaps because of the information being flawed , perhaps for other reasons including plain bad luck.
Since the Church commission and since President Obama is their boss right now.
What is the CIA tasked with ordinarily?
-
It did not work, perhaps because of the information being flawed , perhaps for other reasons including plain bad luck.
Or perhaps......it never happened to begin with
-
It did not work, perhaps because of the information being flawed , perhaps for other reasons including plain bad luck.
Or perhaps......it never happened to begin with
Lets try to survive fifty years.
Secrets get opened on about that scale.
-
The CIA's greatest faults are those of action, which have caused blowback.
They are often fairly good at information gathering, thought they have apparently missed rather a goodly number of events they should have known about.