Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Djinn Raffo · 02-12-2003, 08:47 PM

First of all why does Turkey need to have protection?

Secondly, after that one is answered: why didnt they need protection before right now?

First and Secondly: if what Ar-Cunin says about no.1 is the way it is.. Then i agree totally the treaty does not apply n this instance.. but i do not know what the treaty says or not.. just from Ar-Cunins text.

Thirdly for Ronn and others (this is more of a question and hypothesis i would like to see analyzed a bit).. the whole protection of spies argument really irks me for some reason. I can understand the nature of that reasoning and the plausability of it. But the number of people acting as liasons between the Iraqi government and Al-Queda cannot be very large. that is a total guess on my part and i freely admit it but I can't see it being any other way, i dont think that there could be many operatives interacting between the two sides. That number grows even smaller when you account for operatives who might be able to filter intel to western intelligence agencies. Do you think that is the case? That their would not be many people who would have access to be a liason between secular iraqi government and the hardline islamist terrorists? Does that sound reasonable that it would be a small number of people?

If it does sound reasonable, which it does imo, then just by virtue of the fact that their cannot be that many operatives who would be involved in dubious affairs between the two.. any information, even source protected in the press, would put said spies in danger of being exposed and without doubt imo under intense scrutiny.

Can't tell the people to protect the spies theory is bogus and hereafter this post.. debunked!

02-12-2003, 08:47 PM	#85
Djinn Raffo Ra Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Ant Hill Age: 50 Posts: 2,397	First of all why does Turkey need to have protection? Secondly, after that one is answered: why didnt they need protection before right now? First and Secondly: if what Ar-Cunin says about no.1 is the way it is.. Then i agree totally the treaty does not apply n this instance.. but i do not know what the treaty says or not.. just from Ar-Cunins text. Thirdly for Ronn and others (this is more of a question and hypothesis i would like to see analyzed a bit).. the whole protection of spies argument really irks me for some reason. I can understand the nature of that reasoning and the plausability of it. But the number of people acting as liasons between the Iraqi government and Al-Queda cannot be very large. that is a total guess on my part and i freely admit it but I can't see it being any other way, i dont think that there could be many operatives interacting between the two sides. That number grows even smaller when you account for operatives who might be able to filter intel to western intelligence agencies. Do you think that is the case? That their would not be many people who would have access to be a liason between secular iraqi government and the hardline islamist terrorists? Does that sound reasonable that it would be a small number of people? If it does sound reasonable, which it does imo, then just by virtue of the fact that their cannot be that many operatives who would be involved in dubious affairs between the two.. any information, even source protected in the press, would put said spies in danger of being exposed and without doubt imo under intense scrutiny. Can't tell the people to protect the spies theory is bogus and hereafter this post.. debunked!