reply to post by flice
But while I commend you for your efforts and feel that you try to bring sound discussion into this, I simply do not believe that one can simply
choose to believe those statements.
I prefer to leave my belief power
to thing's that I value more than the word of politicians or gov. spokesmen.
However, I believe that we should trust, until proven false. I do understand why people don't make the same decision as I do, but this method hasn't
failed me yet. But then again, I'm not afraid of being wrong, or being proven wrong.
I believe that in order to discuss politics and realities associated with it, one must listen to what they are saying, and try to understand "the
game". Only after you understand it, will you know when to yell "illegal move!". (Not addressing you personally)
We are talking about agencies who works for the governments that really would like Iran to take a bad step.
Yes, and what you are saying is true. But in this specific case, it's actually the intel department who is saying for everyone to calm down, almost
reassuring that if something wrong is happening, they will know it.
The NIE report is a meeting point with information from 16 intel agencies, I believe. Maybe that can give some security in relation to their
assessments? For instance, if Israel intel says that Iran is 100 feet tall, and the CIA/whatever says it's 1 inch tall, the consensus might be found
somewhere in the middle.
I'm just assuming, however.
Actions based on intel or fabricated intel has gotten the US into a nasty mess before.
A we know that most of those agencies receive a vast amount of funding to their psy-op programs which also consists of units who create propaganda and
work at destabilising nations.
From what you said in this paragraph I have to ask to which post of mine you are referring to.
I ask you this because in the second, I quoted the following information:
American intelligence officials, however, are wary of relying on information from an opposition group like the M.E.K., particularly after their
experience in Iraq of relying on flawed information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group run by Ahmad Chalabi.
“I’m very suspicious of anything that the M.E.K. provides,” said David A. Kay, who led the C.I.A.’s fruitless effort to find weapons program
in Iraq. “We all dealt with the Chalabis of the world once.”
Those officials are - or were - from the CIA.
I'm not quoting this again to say that you are wrong, I'm actually giving you a source for the comments you made. Making hard decisions on dubious
intel has been proven to be a very dangerous thing to do.
Now, when we know those facts, it is bloody hard seeing the noble work in their so-called intercepted intel.
Notice, I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm saying it's bloody hard believing they are honest.
In my opinion, intelligence agencies aren't honest
in their methods, and often they cross lines that shouldn't be touched. However, I'm sure we
can find several cases in History where those same agencies saved a lot of people.
edit on 10-9-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: (no reason