A former CIA operative explains why the terrorist Usama bin Ladin has little to fear from American intelligence.
September 13, 2001 5:33 AM Subscribe
A former CIA operative explains why the terrorist Usama bin Ladin has little to fear from American intelligence. From the Atlantic an inside look at the non-existence of US intelligence in the Afghanistan region:
Unless one of bin Ladin's foot soldiers walks through the door of a U.S. consulate or embassy, the odds that a CIA counterterrorist officer will ever see one are extremely poor.
The point is that if the CIA was watching him, this would not have happened (if indeed he did it). I mean isn't that what US citizens pay these guys for? Also: to drop bombs at him, one has to find him first.
posted by talos at 6:02 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by talos at 6:02 AM on September 13, 2001
we could bomb the whole country couldnt we? and i believe the article was talking about future possible bin laden spies also. but i do completely agree (as does most of the country) the the CIA was lax on its responsibilities.
posted by sadie01221975 at 6:09 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by sadie01221975 at 6:09 AM on September 13, 2001
No you cannot "bomb the whole country". Not unless you want events like Tuesday's to become a regular occurence. I am trying to approach this subject tactfully, because I understand that a lot of people are feeling pretty angry right now. But:
Heading over to Afghanistan and bombing indiscriminately might make you feel better (god only knows why), but it will only escalate the anti-American feelings that led to this happening in the first place.
I don't think the most important question to be answered is "Who did this?", I think it's "Why did they do this?".
posted by astro38 at 6:32 AM on September 13, 2001
Heading over to Afghanistan and bombing indiscriminately might make you feel better (god only knows why), but it will only escalate the anti-American feelings that led to this happening in the first place.
I don't think the most important question to be answered is "Who did this?", I think it's "Why did they do this?".
posted by astro38 at 6:32 AM on September 13, 2001
I wish people would stop talking about acts of war. This was not an act of war but a criminal act. War is one of the very few situations where violence is acceptable in most people's eyes, so as soon as you use the word war you're in trouble. These people are not soldiers but criminals and if they're caught they should be tried. Call it a war and immediately they're prisoners of war with all the rights that go with that. IRA bombers used to call themselves political prisoners. Do you really want that situation?
The British government got into big trouble, not least with Irish Americans, for taking out 3 IRA terrorists who were planning bombing attacks in Gibraltar. Now if that's wrong, and illegal, how much worse is bombing a country's civilians just because its unelected government is harbouring a terrorist.
posted by Summer at 6:38 AM on September 13, 2001
The British government got into big trouble, not least with Irish Americans, for taking out 3 IRA terrorists who were planning bombing attacks in Gibraltar. Now if that's wrong, and illegal, how much worse is bombing a country's civilians just because its unelected government is harbouring a terrorist.
posted by Summer at 6:38 AM on September 13, 2001
The so-called intelligence agency is staffed by rich americans.
They have come from a society that celebrates over-indulgence. They have no understanding of the quotidian suffering that much of the world lives in, and no desire to try.
Much of america lives under the poverty line, many companies rely on cheap immigrant labour to maximise profits.
That is what america brings to the world - the philosophy that the value of human life can should be subsumed by the greater 'need' for capitalist expansion. What you see is a reflection of your own actions.
posted by asok at 7:10 AM on September 13, 2001
They have come from a society that celebrates over-indulgence. They have no understanding of the quotidian suffering that much of the world lives in, and no desire to try.
Much of america lives under the poverty line, many companies rely on cheap immigrant labour to maximise profits.
That is what america brings to the world - the philosophy that the value of human life can should be subsumed by the greater 'need' for capitalist expansion. What you see is a reflection of your own actions.
posted by asok at 7:10 AM on September 13, 2001
asok:
Yet another new user with no email address and an anti-American political agenda.
Is there no originality in the world anymore?
posted by elfgirl at 7:24 AM on September 13, 2001
Yet another new user with no email address and an anti-American political agenda.
Is there no originality in the world anymore?
posted by elfgirl at 7:24 AM on September 13, 2001
asok,
Looks like you share not only a worldview, but cowardice with the suicide bombers.
posted by glenwood at 7:30 AM on September 13, 2001
Looks like you share not only a worldview, but cowardice with the suicide bombers.
posted by glenwood at 7:30 AM on September 13, 2001
Why would i put my email address on here?
You can communicate via this service.
What make the suicide bombers cowards?
I am not un-american. I am simply providing my perception of the situation.
americans on their own come across as generous people. Until you ask them about world affairs.
posted by asok at 7:50 AM on September 13, 2001
You can communicate via this service.
What make the suicide bombers cowards?
I am not un-american. I am simply providing my perception of the situation.
americans on their own come across as generous people. Until you ask them about world affairs.
posted by asok at 7:50 AM on September 13, 2001
"A society that celebrates overindulgence." I wouldn't over-generalise so much, asok. That's just Hollywood. Over-generalisation is what gets us into these messes.
posted by jfinnis at 7:58 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by jfinnis at 7:58 AM on September 13, 2001
What make the suicide bombers cowards?
It takes not bravery to die when your sole motivation is a religious fundamentalism that rewards martyrdom. Killing thousands and thousands of innocent unarmed and unaware civilians anonymously is to be led and controlled by hatred and fear.
posted by glenwood at 8:15 AM on September 13, 2001
It takes not bravery to die when your sole motivation is a religious fundamentalism that rewards martyrdom. Killing thousands and thousands of innocent unarmed and unaware civilians anonymously is to be led and controlled by hatred and fear.
posted by glenwood at 8:15 AM on September 13, 2001
fair comment, jfinnis.
You may admit, however that generalisation or not,
that is the perception of america.
america uses a third of the worlds resources.
does it contain a third of the worlds popluation?
posted by asok at 8:16 AM on September 13, 2001
You may admit, however that generalisation or not,
that is the perception of america.
america uses a third of the worlds resources.
does it contain a third of the worlds popluation?
posted by asok at 8:16 AM on September 13, 2001
so, feel free to de-humanise the suicide bombers.
what-ever motivated them to perform their actions i cannot explain. but to deny them emotions is not helpful in discovering what that motivation was.
it may help in making the situation easier to perceive in the short term. the short term may be all there is left for us as a race if anyone kicks off a nuclear free-for-all.
posted by asok at 8:22 AM on September 13, 2001
what-ever motivated them to perform their actions i cannot explain. but to deny them emotions is not helpful in discovering what that motivation was.
it may help in making the situation easier to perceive in the short term. the short term may be all there is left for us as a race if anyone kicks off a nuclear free-for-all.
posted by asok at 8:22 AM on September 13, 2001
Getting back to the CIA operative article...
I question the veracity of this piece. The policy of the CIA is never to comment publicly on any operation, above or below board, and if a "former" operative is writing this thing, I'm wondering how many security directives he is violating by talking about this.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he was a legitimate embassy employee and that he was walking about in Peshawar. It still doesn't mean that he was privy to what goes on there.
I just don't think we can really assess, accurately, any actions from an intelligence agency because, by its very nature, it is going to be secretive. We just don't know what they know, what they don't, and it is foolish of any of us to assume differently. It's also wise, I think, to point out that CIA failures are often published. CIA successes are not. I liken it to the phone company - we complain when a call doesn't go through, but you don't hear any kudos for the thousands that DO go through.
posted by TeamBilly at 8:41 AM on September 13, 2001
I question the veracity of this piece. The policy of the CIA is never to comment publicly on any operation, above or below board, and if a "former" operative is writing this thing, I'm wondering how many security directives he is violating by talking about this.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he was a legitimate embassy employee and that he was walking about in Peshawar. It still doesn't mean that he was privy to what goes on there.
I just don't think we can really assess, accurately, any actions from an intelligence agency because, by its very nature, it is going to be secretive. We just don't know what they know, what they don't, and it is foolish of any of us to assume differently. It's also wise, I think, to point out that CIA failures are often published. CIA successes are not. I liken it to the phone company - we complain when a call doesn't go through, but you don't hear any kudos for the thousands that DO go through.
posted by TeamBilly at 8:41 AM on September 13, 2001
You may admit, however that generalisation or not, that is the perception of america.
Perception is reality only to those who cannot reason.
america uses a third of the worlds resources. does it contain a third of the worlds popluation?
The human brain weighs about 3 pounds; an average human about 150. Do you restrict the blood supply to your brain to 3 parts out of 150? If you are going to pull some statistic out of your ass about world resources, you can at least specify the resource (I bet the Chinese breathe more oxygen than the US does) or you can consider what the US produces with the resources it uses.
posted by joaquim at 3:06 PM on September 13, 2001
Perception is reality only to those who cannot reason.
america uses a third of the worlds resources. does it contain a third of the worlds popluation?
The human brain weighs about 3 pounds; an average human about 150. Do you restrict the blood supply to your brain to 3 parts out of 150? If you are going to pull some statistic out of your ass about world resources, you can at least specify the resource (I bet the Chinese breathe more oxygen than the US does) or you can consider what the US produces with the resources it uses.
posted by joaquim at 3:06 PM on September 13, 2001
« Older A "World Response Matrix" | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sadie01221975 at 5:56 AM on September 13, 2001