reply to post by Corruption Exposed
CIA spies aren't regular soldiers. They are criminals carrying out crimes against humanity and deserve to be punished if caught. End of story.
I, seriously, have to question whether or not to evoke the warning button on this for a violation of TOS.
Your words are, legally, slander.
Seriously, it's disgusting.
"Blah-blah, spies are criminals, blah blah, lower than dirt, blah blah, deserve what comes to them."
Nations spy on each other and various organizations (particularly those fond of raising and training paramilitary forces). The main reason the U.S.
and Russia never came to blows over many issues was the level of espionage we were carrying out on each other. Fear of the unknown is one of the
greatest factors behind cases of excessive force. When countries and groups do not feel they can trust each other - they spy on each other. If they
do not or cannot, they are far more likely to resort to preemptive hostilities with the justification of self-defense.
Why does spying reduce hostilities? Because you have a better picture of the capabilities and intent of a group/nation. It becomes much more likely
for you to pick up on an impending attack in time to counter it - meaning you can simply remain in a state of alert rather than continuously staring
down your hypothetical sights, being forced into split-second judgment calls.
reply to post by Maxmars
You have a report. Dispute it, affirm it, or ask questions. Again: Do not discuss other members.
I'll go ahead and say I should, honestly, not be bringing this up 'publicly' - but I am going to call this.
The OP posted a report and made the discussion about the character and personality of the spies that were subjects of the report.
This sets a double-standard where the posters are free to berate and degrade people they have never met, and set a hostile forum atmosphere for other
members - and those who call these members on the issue end up with the warnings.
This, is, overall, contributing to a gradual degrade in the quality of ATS discussion. The "stars" say it all in this thread. The extreme,
degrading, unprofessional, disrespectful posts in this thread have gotten the most "thumbs up" - while intelligent discussion (to include the more
reasonable ones from the OP since his needlessly hostile and judgmental intro) has gone more-or-less unrecognized.
This is not the only case of this - and it has become even more common, especially since disputes over the OWS movement.
I'm not attempting to derail this conversation, or start an argument. I'm simply posting my opinion on how this thread has played out, and how
there are some very, very, toxic double-standards being developed within this community - for everyone who reads this to think about.
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
You have proven your lack of intelligence to discuss the topic at hand so you resort to name calling and slandering. You are too much of a
coward to properly debate so you mask your frustration with hostility.
.... Right, I almost forgot about you....
Let's start with the basics:
"Who" are these spies?
What were they doing?
How were they doing it?
There's a number of other questions that can get into the specifics of your reasoning - but your extreme comments to begin with, really, distract
from the conversation at hand.
Spies do many things. It can be very simple, as Maxmars has already pointed out. These, however, are not technically classified as "spies" by our
agencies. They are informants - the sources of information for spies.
"Spies" are actually classified more as "handlers" - they often pretend to be (or -are-) representatives from various technology firms and the
like. They directly observe events, but also try to make contacts in the region to give them more information - more permanent/willing/talkative ones
It is the duty of every handler to protect that informant - particularly ones in 'hot' zones. It really sucks to get caught - so a reputation of
getting people caught tends to turn people off to the idea of being a reliable informant. Our special warfare groups have had massive increases in
manpower over the past few years, and a very substantial amount of time, they are deployed. What are they doing? In many cases - they are extracting
informants and their families - particularly when information from an informant is acted upon in a manner that compromises the informant's
There will be a review of this. Why did the handler's precautions fail? Was he/she negligent? Did the informants compromise the handler? Does
this indicate a failure of policy?