- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
My friend? Nope.Is your friend a lawyer or a cop or a politician?
My friend? Nope.Is your friend a lawyer or a cop or a politician?
Well, of course the CIA is linked to terrorists. They were linked to communists during the cold war as well. It's what they do. How do you understand your enemy without making a link? And a link with the CIA isn't enough to indicate the purpose of the link. Back in early 2003 Tigger (remember him, where he go?) attempted to convince us that Saddam was working with al-Qaeda because one of the 9/11 attackers (Atta I believe) met with an Iraqi intelligence agent. It was a dubious claim, but even if it were true it would not indicate one way or another if Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack or if his intelligence agency was attempting to infiltrate al-Qaeda.Not so much a plot, but a mess. The CIA has links with terrorists and uses them and stuff happens and sometimes there's blowback.
Sure there are connections, but not always good ones. Some times people stop working for the CIA because of a falling out or a change in personal views, etc. And not even all active CIA agents agree on everything. You're treating the CIA employees as a bunch of mindless droids who all think the same. A connection isn't enough to prove intent. Unless of course you present it the right way, which you've done. With Cheney there was a long list of other evidence that weighted far more convincingly against him. Again you're attempting to use guilt by association, but it's very weak. I'm sure I could provide you a list just as long of people associated with bad groups that were themselves not bad. And what would that prove?Like Cheney quit working for Haliburton before he became vice president, etc. Like Bush senior quite working for the CIA before he became vice president and then president.
Well, of course the CIA is linked to terrorists. They were linked to communists during the cold war as well. It's what they do. How do you understand your enemy without making a link? And a link with the CIA isn't enough to indicate the purpose of the link. Back in early 2003 Tigger (remember him, where he go?) attempted to convince us that Saddam was working with al-Qaeda because one of the 9/11 attackers (Atta I believe) met with an Iraqi intelligence agent. It was a dubious claim, but even if it were true it would not indicate one way or another if Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack or if his intelligence agency was attempting to infiltrate al-Qaeda.
In this particular case, the connection is equally dubious. And the connection isn't just between the CIA and Ruslan, it's pretty much implied the connection extends all the way to the two accused bombers, even if indirectly. That's why it's being posted, to cast doubt about the official story and surely the #FreeJahar movement will run with this.
Sure there are connections, but not always good ones. Some times people stop working for the CIA because of a falling out or a change in personal views, etc. And not even all active CIA agents agree on everything. You're treating the CIA employees as a bunch of mindless droids who all think the same. A connection isn't enough to prove intent. Unless of course you present it the right way, which you've done. With Cheney there was a long list of other evidence that weighted far more convincingly against him. Again you're attempting to use guilt by association, but it's very weak. I'm sure I could provide you a list just as long of people associated with bad groups that were themselves not bad. And what would that prove?
You're treating the CIA employees as a bunch of mindless droids who all think the same.
Jeremy Scahill talks about radicalization and also Gitmo and how Obama has expanded Cheney's wr in this excellent but slightly long interview on RT.