Jump to content

teeray

HUDDLER
  • Content count

    25,206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

teeray last won the day on December 8 2017

teeray had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16,461 Fuggin Awesome

About teeray

  • Rank
    THE SWAGNIFICENT
  • Birthday 08/10/1977

Converted

  • Location
    NC

Recent Profile Visitors

20,814 profile views
  1. Going to WAR?

    Just asking. Not being defensive.
  2. Going to WAR?

    I didn't mean that as a dig at you personally. I said "whatever you want to call them" as a throw away line. You can be rebels and terrorists at the same time. One is a more positive connotation and one is negative. I understand that. Wasn't digging you with that phrase. Sorry if it came off that way
  3. Going to WAR?

    Okay. Fair enough. So the terrorists or rebels or whatever you want to call them gassed themselves to get USA and UK and France involved?
  4. Going to WAR?

    Not being defensive here. So you are saying that the rebels staged it and gassed their own people to encourage western folks to get involved against Assad?
  5. Going to WAR?

    The counter-argument to Syrian government carried out these attacks is that the UK and US used gas on these civilians and staged the event to create a false flag operation. So do you guys think the UK, US, and France actually gassed the civilians to falsely blame it on the Syrians? Is that what people are getting at? Just say what you mean.
  6. Going to WAR?

    You are one of my favorite posters so don't mean to offend. But I didn't distort your position. I didn't quote you, tag you, or even mention you. You asked me what I meant and I tried to explain MY position and what I meant. I'm not trying to distort your position but it is possible that I misunderstand your position. But I am drawing a line between bad intelligence which is possible because of human error/bias and overt corruption of all the autonomous intelligence organizations. I also contend that our intelligence community has access to better sources and resources than news organizations both domestic and foreign. Both mainstream and internet. Just because evidence is not publicly known doesn't mean that evidence does not exist and there are checks and balances on the intelligence community to prevent them from just making stuff up. Unfortunately that is politicians which has it's own issues. But still there is oversight because the government knows that evidence like this is not something can be disseminated to the public to maintain intelligence sources but also can't go unchecked. But also, by constantly attempting to discredit our intelligence as deep dark state actors working together for their own gain you are making the case that intelligence communities should not he trusted and therefore should essentially not exist at all. Otherwise, what is their worth? Basically, you guys become internet equivalent of Donald Trump. Getting info from Fox News or some other news organizations that has their own biases or motivations and making all your assessments based on your internet sources. And then calling everything else fake news. Once you get to the next level of these conspiracy theories they usually fall apart under scrutiny. That is how it works. You take isolated incidents or failures and extrapolate that across everything. But let's say we found WMDs and unbeknownst to us it was actually just the CIA planting the material would you he skeptical of their claims on Syria? Maybe but probably not or less so. So why didn't they just corroborate their own lie with another lie? That would be common sense. Then the next war they wanted they would have all the credibility they needed. By admitting failure it allows you and others to cast doubt on ANYTHING intelligence agencies says and makes their job more difficult. That would be a bad plan. Makes no sense to start a lie and not follow through with another lie to corroborate the first lie.
  7. Going to WAR?

    That is an administration and not intelligence community. But that begs the question. If they lied to get there why didn't they plant materials and then lie and say they found it ad hoc? It isn't like we achieved the goals of accessing their oil and all it did is allow you to use this picture to cast doubt on everything which means anything could be a lie. Would make sense for them to follow through on the lie and corroborate their intelligence with another lie. So they knowingly lied saying something existed KNOWING they weren't going to find it. Then didn't follow through and just lie and say they DID find it and plant the material. Or....why didn't the media just lie or not report on it. Most of what we know about the intelligence failures is from media reporting. That doesn't make sense either
  8. Going to WAR?

    That I know the Syrian thing is complicated in terms of all the different factions involved in the Civil War and their other associations. Also, it is complicated in whom you can or cannot trust as intelligence sources within the region I'm also sympathetic to the position that we should just let then sort their own crap out and deal with whoever is left over. I tend to draw the line at the conspiracy theories of Western deep state conspiracy theories that defy logic and reasoning and that this is all made up nonsense and that all the CIA analysts and autonomous intelligence agencies are working together to create false flag operations. If you want to make the point that intelligence is fallible that is a fair observation, but at some point our governmental leaders have to trust the CIA, NSA, NSC, etc or else their very existence is not needed and reliability of ANY intelligence should be deemed as unreliable first and our intelligence should be considered untrustworthy. You can't run a country that way. You can't conduct national security in any measure that way. I assure you that the CIA and NSA has better resources and intelligence than any newspaper organizations whether they be domestic, foreign, mainstream, or off brand. People who continue to pretend that these are all conspiracy theories and that all these autonomous intelligence agencies are working in concert even across nations with a willing participant in all media with no media willing to break stories that would be Pulitzer Prize winning for the sake of taking the country to war have about as much understanding of our institutions as Donald Trump does. For instance, if the goal of the intelligence community was to bamboozle people into believing Saddam had WMDs why didn't they just plant WMD's in Iraq ad hoc? They could said "We found em!!!" What did they achieve by admitting there wasn't WMDs and their intelligence failed? So far it seems by not planting WMD material there or simply claiming they found it they just allowed people to use it to fuel distrust of a deep state canal and we never got access to Iraq oil which was the apparent motive in the first place for lying. If the lied to go to war, why didn't they just like to corroborate their own lie? Why did the media report on the lack of WMDs if the intelligence community knew that would be a black eye if they are working in concert? So in short...my point is that acknowledging fallibility of intelligence assessment is a fair criticism and something we should question. The conspiracy theories fall apart under scrutiny tho. Almost always do.
  9. Going to WAR?

    It's all the media and the deep state, illuminate, and French and UK intelligence They wanted to distract people from their efforts to overthrow Trump by creating another distraction while working with Trump to bomb Syria but also alerted people they want to start World War III with to get personnel out because they want to go to war with Russia like Clinton planned. Trump went along with it in between him knowing they are also actively working to remove him from office with same media and foreign intelligence. Genius shyt here
  10. Going to WAR?

    Unfortunately our president can't even play checkers
  11. Going to WAR?

    Sure this has already been posted but...
  12. Going to WAR?

    Remember when people trying to convince us to vote third party to prevent Hillary becoming president said she was more likely to start a conflict than Trump because of no fly zones. Good call
  13. Three False Myths Americans Believe

    Good for them Maybe they should not have aligned with Hitler, then helped destroy Poland and the mass extermination of the Polish Jews, and also invaded and overtook Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and then treated them like poo. Maybe the poor wittle Russia would have made out better in the peace agreements. Instead they were almost as bad as Hitler/Naziism and were punished as they should have been.
  14. Three False Myths Americans Believe

    We won World War II
  15. If that is what u got out of that then no reason to waste time explaining it to you. Seriously.
×