[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 12:19 PM, said:

.... So let me get this straight. You believe there is a perfect intel agency out there (from what country? most countries with the money for such extravagence have documented intel agencies. But moreover, you believe that there is no evidence of its existence whatever.
Remember that discussion with Civ about having no evidence against something not meaning it has to be considered? If not, here it is anyhow:
- Civ#2

Fine, fine, fine. Let's play your little game. Let's play "where are they now?" but with espionage services and not washed up actors. Can you think of any "intelligence agencies" which were once secret? Obviously they didn't do a good job of it in the end but I'm referring to what they were like before they became known.

[J m HofMarN]

Your view of the intelligence agency is chronologically flawed. Secrecy is a continuation of being secret. It doesnt mean being kept a secret for a month or a year. It could be argued that the OSS was a total secret, though I doubt that very much since it was a joint venture between the US and Britain and Canada as well I believe, but ok. I still fail to see what this has to do with your assertion that the only good intel organization is one that some conspiracist made up, and whose duties usually involve putting chips in the heads of said conspiracists.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 01:40 PM, said:

Your view of the intelligence agency is chronologically flawed. Secrecy is a continuation of being secret. It doesnt mean being kept a secret for a month or a year. It could be argued that the OSS was a total secret, though I doubt that very much since it was a joint venture between the US and Britain and Canada as well I believe, but ok. I still fail to see what this has to do with your assertion that the only good intel organization is one that some conspiracist made up, and whose duties usually involve putting chips in the heads of said conspiracists.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a par of standards. If you know about the existence of an intelligence agency, worse if you know about people who work for it, then it's a shitty intelligence agency. Though I suppose I'd through in the ISI as an example of an efficient intelligence agency.

[J m HofMarN]

First of all, theres a good bit of documentation on them, and they're widely accused of running Pakistan behind the scenes. Secondly, due to the lack of public transparency and oversight, the ISI is widely understood to be one of the most corrupt intel agencies known. Also, they are clearly demonstrated to have links to terrorism in two or three different countries, and if I recall they were blamed for the Mumbai terror attacks.

I don't see how this is A: helpful to anyone ever or B: an example of a good intel agency.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 06 April 2010 - 07:46 AM, said:

First of all, theres a good bit of documentation on them, and they're widely accused of running Pakistan behind the scenes. Secondly, due to the lack of public transparency and oversight, the ISI is widely understood to be one of the most corrupt intel agencies known. Also, they are clearly demonstrated to have links to terrorism in two or three different countries, and if I recall they were blamed for the Mumbai terror attacks.
I don't see how this is A: helpful to anyone ever or B: an example of a good intel agency.

I like how nobody knows whether the ISI had anything to do with whatever happens in the region. Helpful? It keeps order. That's what an intelligence agency is for. If you're looking for saints, the espionage services isn't where you'll find them.

[J m HofMarN]

The fact that people dont know whether ISI is responsible for any given event doesnt automatically mean they ARE responsible for any given event. And I dont believe that training terrorists in 3 different countries really keeps order at all.

[Deucaon]

Hashishins and ninjas were pretty amazing. So were the Byzantine spies. Modern examples would include the ISI and the Mossad before they became shit. The IRA, after they grew brains and stopped targeting civilians. The SAS/MI6 during WW2 even though they sucked at counter-intelligence. And basically any terrorist organization that existed for longer than two decades, like 17N or the JRA. Or any terrorist organization whose members haven't been found out. The early violent anarchists weren't bad either.

By the way, the ISI are basically the only ones keeping a resemblance of order in the region. Which is amazing in of itself. The Mossad were amazing when they could assassinate or kidnap anybody anywhere.

[Zatoichi]

Ninja Duck, on 19 October 2009 - 10:32 AM, said:

The Fields Medal for mathematics is only eligible for people under the age of 40. Partly because the sponsors are crazy, and partly to drive them to do more and keep achieving.

Yeah but isn't there a saying in the field of math that if you haven't made any advances in the field of mathematics by 22 (or something) then you never will? I know this isn't spot on, but it's a math joke I heard somewhere

Q - Who is the best murderer ever?
A - The best is the one who has killed the most without ever being discovered, or even suspected. If there is a pattern of sorts to their murders, it has not been fathomed. In fact no one would even concieve of their being a link to any one of their murders to another. etc etc etc.

You would never know if such a theoretical person ever even existed. But all they are is that, theoretical, possible. Something being possible does not neccesitate it's existance. It's like being afraid of the bogeyman. The bogeyman might be real, but probably isn't.

I'm pretty sure that the CIA has managed more than a few reprehensible things. There's probably some we know of with certainty, some we suspect them of doing, and plenty of crap they pulled that no one's heard of.

[Deucaon]

Also I'm very happy that McCain wasn't elected otherwise America might still be in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan might have been escalated, Gitmo might have never been closed down, America might still have bases in most of the world and America might have needlessly escalated the ongoing crisis between America and Iran and/or North Korea. Wait...

[J m HofMarN]

A most unexpected sensible statement. It might be well to compare a theoretical McCain rule to that of Obama, and I suspect there are indeed fewer major dissimilarities than we might expect.

[Zatoichi]

Oh that just because it's probably one big charade. I do more or less believe that the higher-ups will do whatever they want to, as long as they keep the populace mostly comfortable and slightly appeased. A rebellion would never happen in the US. The majority of it's citizen's are far too comfortable with all of their luxuries and I will assume are also generally unwilling to risk their lives for their ideals. But the same could be said of the citizen's of many other countries as well.