![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsDuring my years in college I toyed with the idea of working for the CIA in order to spy on the organization for the benefit of the American public. It was a tempting mission, but I decided against it. Some of my friends pointed out how I would not fit in anyway. Since then many insider accounts of the plight of CIA employees has convinced me that I made the correct decision. There is something about an organization where you have to check your brain at the door that does not sit well with me.
In his memoir of his time working at State with the Afghan Muhajeddin, Peter Tomsen recounts many actions on the part of the CIA that he felt showed a poverty of judgment. One of the smaller ones was the desire for the CIA to send ISI (the Pakistani equivalent to the CIA) representatives on a mission to buy back stinger missiles from the Muj. Tomsen opposed the presence of the ISI people on the grounds that it would send the wrong message to the Afghanis. Tomsen says that the CIA replied that they would not include ISI personnel, but Tomsen could not confirm whether they followed his recommendation or not.
Tomsen includes quite a bit of material that ties ISI to terrorism in the Muslim quarters of Central and South Asia. Their initials could easily stand for Islamists Supplying Insurgents. (This game of renaming organizations has come up with gems such as Fuck-ups, Boneheads, and Incompetents.) The involvement of ISI in terrorism is probably why they were admired so much by people like Reagan and Bush.
In our school we held a discussion of why dummies thrive in organizations like the CIA. One of our students pointed out that the admissions requirements tend to deter intelligent people. It is as if you have to kowtow to the flag in order to get in the front door. One of our guys said it was like the Masonic entrance requirement to express belief in the material Creator. Those who know better are simply turned away from the git-go.
Could you see yourself working for an organization with as many publicly documented disasters as has the CIA?
In his memoir of his time working at State with the Afghan Muhajeddin, Peter Tomsen recounts many actions on the part of the CIA that he felt showed a poverty of judgment. One of the smaller ones was the desire for the CIA to send ISI (the Pakistani equivalent to the CIA) representatives on a mission to buy back stinger missiles from the Muj. Tomsen opposed the presence of the ISI people on the grounds that it would send the wrong message to the Afghanis. Tomsen says that the CIA replied that they would not include ISI personnel, but Tomsen could not confirm whether they followed his recommendation or not.
Tomsen includes quite a bit of material that ties ISI to terrorism in the Muslim quarters of Central and South Asia. Their initials could easily stand for Islamists Supplying Insurgents. (This game of renaming organizations has come up with gems such as Fuck-ups, Boneheads, and Incompetents.) The involvement of ISI in terrorism is probably why they were admired so much by people like Reagan and Bush.
In our school we held a discussion of why dummies thrive in organizations like the CIA. One of our students pointed out that the admissions requirements tend to deter intelligent people. It is as if you have to kowtow to the flag in order to get in the front door. One of our guys said it was like the Masonic entrance requirement to express belief in the material Creator. Those who know better are simply turned away from the git-go.
Could you see yourself working for an organization with as many publicly documented disasters as has the CIA?
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/11 18:38 (UTC)I think you and many others who believe in god cannot accept that some things may never be answered. That's fine, I get it. Being irrational and jumping to conclusions is in our nature. As an atheist, my only concern is with the dogma around these concepts that inevitably ends up fucking with the lives of the rest of us.
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/11 19:06 (UTC)and I would disagree, one simply has to re-evaluate what thier concept of god is.
As for some questions being unanswerable, you're right I don't accept it. That said It seems to me that this argument would cut both Believers and Athiests equally as they claim to have found the answer and that answer is "no".
It seems to me that the only people who can claim to be 100% rational are the agnostics.
To quote Socrates, I know that I know nothing.
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/11 19:52 (UTC)That's not really what atheism is. It's a lack of belief in a god. It's not a definite "there is no god," even though some people misrepresent it as such. If proof was offered, you can bet that they would no longer be atheists.
To quote Socrates, I know that I know nothing.
The hypothetical physicist mentioned earlier in the thread should listen to good ol' So-crates.