*YAWN* Thanks for recapping the scene from "Bowling for Columbine"

you should have edited out the post hoc fallacy, instead . . .

nice sig







































(not really)

Wtf IS "Bowling for Columbine"? I know it's a movie, but it's apparently so crappy that even I've never seen it.

I knew all that information. I took a class on the CIA, and am being heavily recruited to work there.

And what fallacy?

That sounds like a pretty solid class - how much of the CIA's past, operations, etc did it deal with? It's an interesting topic, to be sure - the movie "Bowling for Columbine" had a scene that ran through that information, almost verbatim, and I was only referencing it as that: it's pretty common knowledge any more, mostly as a result of classes and media coverage.

The fallacy, to my mind, is saying that because the CIA dealt so heavily with agents, namely Hussein and bin Laden, that came back to haunt US interests, then it must follow that they are the reason for all of our troubles today. Sure, they put these men in a position to become what they are today, but you have to remember that the CIA's function is dynamic, and this dynamism causes rapid fluctuations in their role in protecting American interests.

It is not surprising, then, that what was good for us in 1980 can be bad for us in 2000 - I think this is the point that people are missing, and why I don't understand the argument we're having right now.

More succinctly: Are you arguing against the existence of the CIA? Are you arguing that it has been run poorly, or is ineffectual in its operations? Do you really think that our hindsight take on things carries a whole lot of weight?

The CIA is given an impossible duty - they are essentially required to be prescient with regard to anti-American influences, and root them out before they are a problem. Explain to me a fool-proof method of serving this function without causing problems as well, and I'll gladly sign the petition and march on Washington with you.

------

As an aside, there is certainly some validity in describing the CIA as a 'terrorist organization' when we consider the ultra-loose definitions of 'terrorist' that exist currently. After all, it has long been deemed an 'espianage organization', and the difference is only semantic. But - do you really think that there's any other way for them to exist? Would you really rather be without an organization serving that function? I don't get it.

edited for typos

The class is about half history of formation and operations, and half how they actually function. And I believe that all the facts that I stated should be common knowledge.

I shouldn't have stated that the CIA is THE cause, but they certainly are a cause, or at least a contributing factor. I think that the CIA does need to run some theories on long term effects though. They tend to be very short sighted, and the DIA (same function as the CIA, but run under the military) tends to be correct about more things and they predicted these outcomes. The DIA also provides more accurate intelligence.

I am not in opposition to the CIA, I think that it is a redundant agency, has carried out more than a few operations that were not in the world's best interest, poorly run, and a huge budget breaker.


I'm divided on this, I think that the CIA serves a function, but I think that the DIA is better equiped to handle it, plus the DIA has the authority of the US military behind it, while the CIA just trains rebels, mostly young children to college age students.

When posting my motivation was this: I think that everyone should know that there are two sides to every story, and the patriotic side gets played repeatedly, especially recently, but the other side is rarely heard from intelligent people. Most usually from "Conspiracy Theorists" and madmen.

And as always, I encourage people to take the information I've offered and look it up for themselves. Find your own opinion.

Don't forget the NSA. The problem I have with only DIA being around is that we are supposed to seperate government jobs, so no one group gets too powerful.

Like Civilian vs. Military in this case. We need the CIA around in case the army goes apeshit.

The NSA, although an agency that works with espionage, doesn't go about it the same way the CIA does. The NSA is not allowed to spy on those on American Soil. They are strictly non-domestic. The NSA also does not have operations officers like the CIA does. The NSA is strictly technology. They work on encryption and cyphering, and computer hacking. All the computer encryptions we have to day in the private and public sector have gone through the NSA. The NSA won't release a code until they have something better and they feel comfortable enough that it can't be used against them. Also they have the best computer technology in the world. The stuff we have in businesses and homes is a good 3-5 years behind them. We have fans and water cooling our processors while they us liquid nitrogen to cool their's. Imagine how much faster and how much information they can store compared with the rest of the world.

Awesome.