Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-21-2014, 08:01 PM   #301
longhornfan1234
Local High School Star
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,941
longhornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this boardlonghornfan1234 has one of the lowest reputations on this board
Default Re: Homeland

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinNYC
Do you understand what the euphemism collateral damage means? Also the CIA understands it's at war. Soldiers die when you go to war.



Saul would not be the target of the attack, the terrorists would be the target of the attack and CIA members do die in the service of their country.

The point of my message (which you missed) is that by framing it this way, the makers of Homeland are you making you ask questions.

This is also hilarious because you have a whole shtick going that before 9/11 Clinton should have used cruise missile (waaaaay less precise than a drone) to bomb an entire farm comlex to kill Bin Laden along with lots of women and children and several members of the royal family of an ally of the US. You like to pretend this was an obvious call and the American would have backed Clinton on this move even though children would have died. Both of those contentions are false. It was especially not an easy call because in order to ensure that Bin Laden you would need to bomb a greater area which would kill more people. You also couldn't be sure Bin Laden would be there when the bombs fell because it would have TAKEN HOURS TO GET THE BOMBS TO DROP. Can you imagine the outcry in 2000 if you killed a bunch of women and children and Bin Laden had left hours earlier? Also an attack that missed would have led to Bin Laden going underground like he did after 9/11.

It was only after 9/11 that public support was there for killling Bin Laden regardless of the consequences. The event you keep hyping was even before the USS Cole Bombing. If you remember Bush didn't even do shit against Bin Laden UNTIL 9/11. The Cole Bombing wasn't even enough for the new administration to make him top priority.

I suspect you may be ignorant of the fact that Clinton and CIA tried other ways of getting Bin Laden at Tarnak farms, but failed. You claims are just pure 20/20 hindsight.



Killing an American citizen is different than killing arabs who aren't American citizens. They're not protected by US Constitution.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1514895.html

Former CIA agent:

"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous


The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.

You can't defend this. Clinton failed to capture Bin Laden...period. Multiple CIA agents admitted this. Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise... accepting Bin Laden when offered by the Sudan in 1996 for example, 6,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now injured or dead would be alive today
longhornfan1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 02:11 AM   #302
KevinNYC
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,958
KevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Homeland

Killing an American citizen is different than killing arabs who aren't American citizens. They're not protected by US Constitution
You're still missing the point by a mile. You're confusing a criminal being punished and a soldier fighting on behalf of his county.

A soldier killed while storming the beach at Normandy is not the same thing as a murderer killed in the electric chair. Saul was in danger because he was an active participant in a counter terrorism operation. They didn't stop the drone strike because Saul was an American. They stopped it because it was someone they knew. The head of the CIA was happy they stopped it because it saved embarrassing the agency. Saul as you pointed knew this was the wrong call and as you said acted like a "real *****." Saul knew as soldier, this was the wrong call and if they spared him many more might die.

This is a clever stratagem on behalf of the producers because they know the audience knows and cares for Saul so it personalizes the concept of collateral damage.

US soldiers die in war in service of their country. CIA Agents who die in the line of duty also die in service of their country
Quote:
Originally Posted by longhornfan1234
Former CIA agent:

"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous


The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.

Why do you think a cruise missile attack would have killed Bin Laden in 1999 it failed in 1998. In August 1998, Clinton did launch a missile attack against Bin Laden. He launched 66 missiles against camps in afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan. He missed Bin Laden by a couple of hours. The exact same possibility of being off by hours existed in 1999. If you think that 1999 scenario was a sure thing you're fooling yourself.

You're also fooling yourself if you think the national political will was there to get Bin Laden no matter what cost in 1999 after 12 Americans died in the embassy attacks in 1998. You're acting like Bin Laden was national security priority #1 and the entire country agreed on this. If you read chapter four of 9//11 report you can see the Republicans like Newt Gingrich referred to that 1998 attempt "pinpricks." Other Republicans and particularly the media said Clinton was wagging the dog. A bunch of lefty historians wanted Clinton impeached over these strikes. Christopher Hitchens claimed Clinton had to look presidential for one day to detract from Monica Lewinsky's testimony.

Quote:
You can't defend this. Clinton failed to capture Bin Laden...period. Multiple CIA agents admitted this. Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise... accepting Bin Laden when offered by the Sudan in 1996 for example, 6,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now injured or dead would be alive today
Again, having 20/20 hindsight feels great, but it blinds you to the actual history. The collateral damage in the Kandahar attack was estimated at 2-300 people. For someone who had killed maybe 20 Americans by then AND for a mission with way less than a 50% chance of success (I think General Zinni said 1 in million for the 1998 mission) it was an open and shut case. It certainly was not the case that the military, the NSC, the CIA were all for this and Clinton wasn't By the time, everything was analyzed and presented by "the principals" for authorization, it had been several hours since Bin Laden was in sight. We didn't get the near instantaneous power to act with drones until November 2001. In fact, the higher ups at the CIA were much more hesitant than those further down the chain of command.


That Sudan thing is bunch of hooey. There's no way Turabl would turn over Bin Laden to a non Muslim country. The offer he made was to turn Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, but ONLY IF they offered to pardon him. The US didn't even have evidence that Bin Laden had committed any acts against the US in 1996. There was no indictment of Bin Laden in the US. Turabi had his own reasons for wanting Bin Laden out of the country, he was not following Turabi's orders.
KevinNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 02:56 AM   #303
KevinNYC
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,958
KevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Homeland

Your whole "We would have gotten Bin Laden if not for you meddling kids, I mean President Clinton" shtick is hilarious because it rests on the premise that it was overwhelming obvious that Bin Laden was a danger to the domestic US and no cost should have been spared. And the rest of the country including the Republicans agreed with this assessment

This is just simply false in 1996.

It's false after the embassy bombings in 1998.

The attack on the Cole showed their growing ambitions. It took place the month before George W. Bush was elected president. It would take the CIA a few months to determine it was Al Qaeda. They issued a "preliminary judgement on Dec 21 that it was Al Qaeda. Do you think this was enough to invade Afghanistan? Do you think the Congress or the American would have agreed, especially with a new president about to come it?

And what about that New President. You love to point out how Clinton failed at his obvious tasks. So what did the new administration do? What did they do after being briefed by the Prior Administration that Al Qaeda was the number one threat? Here's Richard Clarke's memo saying it urgent that Principals meet on Al Qaeda. He send it 5 days into the new administration. That urgent meeting was eventually held on September 4th, 2001.

What about the Response the USS Cole Attack? Yesterday's news. Stale.

From the 9/11 report.
Quote:
(National Security Advisor Condoleezza) Rice told us that there was never a formal, recorded decision not to retaliate specifically for the Cole attack. Exchanges with the President, between the President and (Director of Central Intelligence George) Tenet, and between herself and (Secretary of State Gen. Colin) Powell and (Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld had produced a consensus that 'tit-for-tat' responses were likely to be counterproductive."

The report states the new team at the Pentagon didn't push for action.

"On the contrary, Rumsfeld thought that too much time had passed and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, thought that the Cole attack was 'stale.'

The plain truth is the new adminstration did not think Al Qaeda was an urgent threat. Their policy was still being worked on Sept 10, 2001 and that was a three phase effort that would span into 2004. The fact that they didn't treat it as an urgent threat belies your whole point.

Last edited by KevinNYC : 11-22-2014 at 03:04 AM.
KevinNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:04 AM   #304
jaydacris
Rose
 
jaydacris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Knicks101
Posts: 18,667
jaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejaydacris is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Homeland

shit just got real
jaydacris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:18 AM   #305
FatComputerNerd
Decent college freshman
 
FatComputerNerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Believeland
Posts: 2,651
FatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableFatComputerNerd is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Homeland

Wow, what an episode!
FatComputerNerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:24 AM   #306
brandonislegend
Old School Cool
 
brandonislegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,840
brandonislegend is considered somewhat coolbrandonislegend is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: Homeland

brandonislegend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:24 AM   #307
KevinNYC
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,958
KevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKevinNYC is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Homeland

That was a good one.
KevinNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:00 AM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy