Well, no; last I checked the army and the police make some effort to psychologically screen potential applicants for any sort of background that might be problematic. bin Laden’s anti-US tendencies were either well-hidden or carefully ignored when the CIA recruited him.
Olentzero:
Given the fact that you’re still working on Bin Laden’s training tactics, you really can’t fairly use your conclusions until you’ve supported them. Until you prove otherwise, we did not train Bin Laden to be a terrorist.
Secondly, how can you say what screening techniques were and were not used by the CIA? You’re attempting to make a pretty specific assertion in a total absence of fact.
THe bottom line is that we really don’t know how or if Bin Laden was screened, nor are we likely too. Discussions on that issue are therefore stillborn.
You make a good point about maybe Bin Laden using the US to fight the Russians though maybe he hated us both even then.
Certainly you must concede that if the CIA had any reasonable evidence to suggest he was a threat, they wouldn’t have helped him.
The army did train Timothy McVeigh, though. The army does screen its members. Is the army responsible for his actions as well?
Are police academy’s responsible for corrupt cops?
Unless you can make a case that the CIA had foreknowledge, or was negligent in gathering evidence that would suggest Bin Laden would turn to terrorism, beforethey helped him, and did it anyway, you don’t have much of an argument.
If you succeed in that, then the next step would be to show that that training he received applies to the tactics of terrorism.
Then, and only then would you have a case of US or CIA responsibility that’s worth being considered.
Unless, and until you do both those things, you don’t even have a theory. You’re just speculating.
I don’t think you can expect us to accept reasoning based on speculation at face value.
Do you agree that this is a reasonable stance.
Something for Stoidey to choke on? Hmmmmmm…
No, I really mustn’t touch that line. Got my reputation for probity and restraint to consider…
The recent events sure has let alot of the idiots out.
Stupidest thing I have heard:
A guy I work with (a bigot under normal situations), mentioned that he thinks every muslim in the world should be “rounded” up and gassed.
When I mentioned that he sounded like Hitler, he smiled and calmly said “Maybe Hitler knew something we didnt”.
Fucking Idiot, bigoted assholes. Moron, imbecile…
And the same to this obvious genius that thinks Bush masterminded it 8 years ago.
God, Epi - Where do you work? This guys sounds like a fucking maniac.
I hope you told him what you thought of his fucked-up opinion. To paraphrase:
“The sure-fire way for evil to triumph is for good men (or women) to do nothing.”
Olentzero, you have a real talent for creating straw men.
If you look at the context, I was referring directly to the OP, in which you theorize, basically, that our Middle East position got us into this mess. Nothing to do with bombing anyone into the Stone Age or nuking anyone or anything else like that.
Just for the halibut, let’s line up U.S. foreign policy positions and Islam:
1 - Iraq vs Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and basically the rest of the Arab world: took the side of the rest of the Arab world.
2 - Kosovo: helped the Muslims beat back the Serbs.
3 - Pakistan/India: we’ve always been closer to Pakistan than to India, a fact that at the moment is standing us in good stead.
4 - Israel/Palestine: on the Israeli side, but still giving substantial amounts of aid to all of the players in that area, including the Palestinian Authority.
5 - Afghanistan: helped them kick out the Russians. On the Islamic side, obviously.
6 - Iranian revolution: took the Shah’s side against the Muslim clerics.
Counting it up, that’s 4 out of 6 situations where we took the Muslim and or majority Arab side. Two thirds of the time. So, if we created Bin Laden, please, in the light of all this, explain exactly how we accomplished this. Scylla’s conditions are a reasonable set of goals in this pursuit, IMO.