CIA Workers Killed in Afghanistan as U.S. Steps Up Spying Role

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Let's try to clear up a few other things while we are at it. Experience vs. book learning.

As was stated book learning teaches only concepts and can only pass on some other persons ideas. All very good and needed, that is how mankind learns and passes on lessons, but it is only one of the ways. That kind of learning is incomplete.

To use on of my other examples, firefighting. As a kid I read all kinds of books, some included things about firefighting. I read that it was dangerous, hot, scary and exciting. I read how other people talked about all those things. Then I went out to fight a forest fire.

I had never seen a forest fire in person, only pictures. I had no training at all. I talked with some of the guys, (sorry ladies, there were no females in that crew) about what to expect, they all gave me good advice. I had no idea how I would react.

It hit the fan that day. About 7 hours into a 19 hour shift we set a backfire, I knew in theory what that was but now, I was handed a drip torch and was told to light off a line about a mile or so long. I was nervous, concerned etc. I went down that levee lighting saw grass on fire. We were defending an Indian village from the head fire.

Not long after we lit off that back fire the wind shifted. In a matter of seconds the two fires merged and became a 100ft high wall of flames, moving straight as us at about 30mph.

I was scared "stuffless" to say the least. It took everything that I could muster to just stand there, not run for my life, and, with that crew of firefighting vets, defend that village from that fire. We were able to stop it, the village is still there to this day and none of us on that crew was hurt or killed.

I could have never, in a million years of reading, known that I would not run when faced with mortal danger. I could never smelled those smells, grasped the awesome power and beauty of that fire and, at the same time, fathom it's power to both create and destroy.

Only personal experience teaches that. I can only guess that it is similar to someone going into combat the first time, but it is only a guess since I have never been there.

Turtle's example of telling me about his French cooking brings up another point, that is what is known as having a "frame of reference.

You are correct Turtle, you could tell me about your cooking and I would have a very good idea of all of it. Why? I know how to cook. Not to the degree that you do but I know how. I have a frame of reference. What I could never understand by your verbal discription or reading about it is how one goes about applying the art of that kind of cooking. That can only be gained by experience.

That is what I meant when I told Cherii that she would not understand most of what I would tell her about the intelligence world. While I would use standard English words to talk about it, much would just be jibberish. Why? No frame of reference. It has nothing to do with brain power.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You can be a butt wipe if you want, OVM, you excel at it!!! LOL!! :D:D By the way, yes, I wrote that. Thanks
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I don't get it?:eek:
No caps...hence no inferred yelling..
No vote the bums out...
No inference of commie leadership...

You ok? or you on a new drug plan? *LOL*:p
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
None of the above, OVM, I just wrote it before I read anything that anyone else wrote!!!
LOL .... now you're getting tricky on us Layout :p

As was stated book learning teaches only concepts and can only pass on some other persons ideas. All very good and needed, that is how mankind learns and passes on lessons, but it is only one of the ways. That kind of learning is incomplete.
Well said.

Not only is it incomplete, but since all learning so acquired in that manner, has the inherent liability of being dependent on another's observations, therefore it is incumbent on anyone who is learning in such a manner, to look and make the observation as to whether what is being asserted is actually true or not.

Accept nothing on the basis of assertion only, and question everything - especially things which are asserted by so-called "authorities".

BTW, I don't disagree at all with what all you assert regarding learning in your last post - from my perspective, you are absolutely correct.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Thanks,

I tried to be lucid for a change!!! Bet you didn't know I could do that did you? LOL!! :p

Someday I might try writing again. I used to write input for briefings but it is not the same as really writing. It might be fun to try it sometime.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Thanks, I tried to be lucid for a change!!! Bet you didn't know I could do that did you? LOL!!
I never had any doubt .... :D

Someday I might try writing again. I used to write input for briefings but it is not the same as really writing. It might be fun to try it sometime.
What the hey - why not ?

You probably have a story or two that you could tell .... ;)

Misawa, eh ? ..... didn't know Pat Shreffler by chance did you ?

He did a tour there .... you guys would be about the same age.
 

Mdbtyhtr

Expert Expediter
I find it interesting that the sources of information are former this or former that, speaking about a real time issue. I would venture a guess that this individual that blew himself up was known to the people that let him through, familiarity being the gateway.

What we are told or what is "leaked" is sanitized to the benefit of the people on the ground and the on going mission and as such, should be paid no heed. The individuals we are fighting are so counter to how Americans are brought up, that our naivete will cause our downfall. This is why the covert community is so absolutely necessary if we are to succeed. These intel people study their counterparts to learn customs, behaviors, reltionships etc.

Why Muslims lieUntitled Document

This will give you an idea of what we are up against and why it is counter to how we have been raised.

Scott
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Quoting from the article:

"When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts. "

Sounds a bit like American politicians...we should be used to this.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Like I said, you have to properly present the experiences within plausible interpretations. That means to present them within a frame of reference the reader or student can understand, whatever that frame might be. Back to the cooking example, before I could properly present and relate my experiences of cooking in a French kitchen to someone, I would first have to determine a frame of reference they can understand, whether it be cooking, working in a harried environment, working for a fanatical nutjob, might be any number of frames of reference, and then frame my presentation accordingly. Or if I were to relate some experiences about playing or writing music. First I would have to determine the level of their musical training, and only then could I frame my presentation into a plausible interpretation. However, if I failed to do that, and jumped feet first into it using industry and inside terms that the person clearly has never heard of before, they wouldn't have a clue as to what I am talking about. If they have near-zero experience and would only hear gibberish, then it would be my responsibility to explain the gibberish within a frame of reference that they can understand, I would have to explain many things in greater detail so as to get the meanings of the references to be understood. It would take some time and effort to do so, I couldn't explain it in sound bites, but I would rather make the effort to explain the experience in an effective plausible interpretation than to dismiss their ability to understand simply because they haven't experienced it themselves. That's how the passing of knowledge occurs.

Another example would be someone from Michigan talking to someone not-from Michigan about the Michigan SOS, as if anyone outside of Michigan would have a friggin' clue what an SOS is other than that of an emergency plea for help. Newbies to EO are hit with doozies bandied about such as PM, and unless it's presented in a frame of reference they can understand, they don't know if it's Preventative Maintenance, a Private Message, or simply, duh, afternoon. Don't get me started on 3PL.

Repeating again, having the knowledge of an experience related to you is not the same as experiencing it yourself, nor is it expected to be. In many cases it is far better to reap the rewards of the knowledge of the experience rather than suffer through the experience itself. The knowledge of the experience, if properly relayed, can be understood, used and applied without necessarily having to experience it, regardless of whether the knowledge is incomplete with regard to the actual experience.

RLENT stated:
"Not only is it incomplete, but since all learning so acquired in that manner, has the inherent liability of being dependent on another's observations, therefore it is incumbent on anyone who is learning in such a manner, to look and make the observation as to whether what is being asserted is actually true or not.

Accept nothing on the basis of assertion only, and question everything - especially things which are asserted by so-called "authorities".


Weeeellll, maybe yes, maybe no. To accept nothing from a teacher (be it in academia, or an instructor, or a simple relater of information) on the basis of the teacher's assertion, and to question everything simply on the basis that you yourself have not yet had the experience that is being related would cause all passages of knowledge to grind to a screeching halt. Everyone would instead be spending their time trying to reinvent the wheel, among other things.

If you ever get the chance, go to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and sign up for a donkey ride down into the Canyon. Before you embark on the trip, a so-called person of "authority" (you know, the "authority", who is not to be trusted because they are an alleged "authority" and you haven't personally verified that they are, in fact, an "authority") will give you some instructions that you are absolutely to follow blindly and without question. There is no need to take a really close look and have to experience the ramifications of not following the instructions precisely to the letter simply because those instructions are based upon another's observations and experiences that you yourself have not personally observed or experienced, since he will present his instruction in a very plausible interpretation within a frame of reference you can absolutely understand. If you choose to ignore his authoritatively experienced instruction, and instead decide to enjoy the experience yourself of what he is instructing you to avoid, that's fine, but it's a mile straight down and there's nothing other than his instruction to slow you down or stop you until you get... all the way.... down.

To further illustrate, I can tell you from experience that you should not connect 3400 cold cranking amps worth of 12-volt batteries together, and then lay a drop-forged steel wrench across the positive and negative terminals of one of the batteries. If you like, I can relate the experience (actually, several of them) to you in such a manner that you will not have to actually experience it in order to fully understand the knowledge to be gained from such a plausible interpretation. Not only that, I am a self-professed, so-called "authority" on the subject. Now what?

Certainly, whether or not you trust the "authority" and experience of the instructor plays a factor, as it should, but even if you don't trust the instructor, if the knowledge of the experience is properly presented in a plausible interpretation, within a frame of reference you can understand, then your own understanding, reasoning, and critical thinking would allow you in most cases to be able to understand the knowledge gained from having the experience related to you.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Pilgrim,

Good point :D

This will give you an idea of what we are up against and why it is counter to how we have been raised.
Scott,

I was right there with ya ..... until you posted the link from Islamic Review ..... with your apparently made up "title" (which I consider somewhat irresponsible) :rolleyes:

Needless to say, one would do well to vet one's sources - from the "About This Site" portion of Islamic Review:

"This site is about Islam, not Muslims. It is to demonstrate that the fundamental teachings of Islam are incompatible with the Christian faith, and the American way of life.

Well, that pretty much lays clear the agenda ..... :rolleyes:

The site's purpose is not to foster understanding and tolerance between religions, but to foment discord.

This isn't the first time I've encountered such folks - in fact, I know quite a few of them - some with names that might be fairly recognizable to anyone that has a TV set.

Further:

"We realize, however, that there are Muslims who may have different interpretations, and thus do not follow these teachings to the letter."

Anybody wanna figure whether or not this aspect gets much treatment ?

Finally:

"Nothing in this site is written with the intention of offending anyone. Our objective is only to present the truth with love and humility."

Yeah ... sure ...... uh-huh ....... love and humility ..... :rolleyes:

As with most folks who find themselves compelled to attack others religions, I suspect there is very little love or humility involved ..... and probably not much in the way of real truth either .......

There is little doubt that there are murderers, liars, and scumbags who adopt the mantle of many religions, Islam included - to justify their actions.

If anyone wants a little more objective view, National Geographic is running a series of specials right now called "Inside the Koran" - which probably gives a slightly more balanced view ..... of course, if you have a preordained worldview that your educational content must fit, then IslamReview.com might be your cup of tea .....

Inside the Koran

I watched what I believe was the first of these specials tonight. One of the interesting things that they covered was the fact of a discovery of texts made relatively recently (last 20 or so years) in, I think, Yemen. Sort of a Dead Sea Scrolls of Islam.

Among the texts was the earliest currently known copy of the Koran - written only 70 years after the death of Mohammed - and predating other versions by around 50 years I think. Apparently, the text was recorded entirely lacking any vowels, and certain diacritical marks (dots). (The lack of the diacritical marks is a huge deal - because they can alter a letter to be another letter - which alters meaning) So it's possible that the actual meaning of that text could be far, far different than the currently accepted versions which are predominant in the Islamic world.

There is a big lack of critical scholarship in terms of the Koran, and it's history (unlike Judaism and Christianity, where the texts, have been largely researched for a long time) It could be that, if such scholarship ever takes place in the future, that the understanding of what was written will end up being far different than what currently prevails.

Finally, in the matter of the pot calling the kettle black, if one assumes that we are a "Christian" nation, founded on "Christian" principles - as one often hears proclaimed - how does one square the fact of numerous, successive administrations and entities of the United States government (going back many, many years) lying not only to foreign governments and peoples, but to their own people, who they are sworn to serve ?

Indeed, it is a known fact that as part of their modus operandi, intelligence agencies will, in fact, lie and use disinformation.

Certainly there were some "Christians" among the lot ....... quite a few, if I had to guess .....
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Weeeellll, maybe yes, maybe no. To accept nothing from a teacher (be it in academia, or an instructor, or a simple relater of information) on the basis of the teacher's assertion, and to question everything simply on the basis that you yourself have not yet had the experience that is being related would cause all passages of knowledge to grind to a screeching halt. Everyone would instead be spending their time trying to reinvent the wheel, among other things.
I'm afraid you miss the point utterly and completely - I didn't say to dismiss everything out-of-hand on the basis of assertion - the point was to not merely accept it wholesale, on the basis of supposed "authority". Take it in, evaluate it, and make your own observation along the way.

Certainly, whether or not you trust the "authority" and experience of the instructor plays a factor, as it should, but even if you don't trust the instructor, if the knowledge of the experience is properly presented in a plausible interpretation, within a frame of reference you can understand, then your own understanding, reasoning, and critical thinking would allow you in most cases to be able to understand the knowledge gained from having the experience related to you.
It's my guess that was pretty much the ways things were operating ...... back when the Earth was flat ...... and then someone bothered to actually look .......
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Just like many who follow Islam, many Christians can easily justify lying if the lie is for the greater good, or at least the greater good as they perceive it. The bаstаrdization of religious interpretations is not unique to Islam, Christianity or any other religion. It's all about power and control, which is ironically what religions are all about in the first place. There I go again, offending somebody.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I'm afraid you miss the point utterly and completely...
Possibly, but I rarely miss much of anything utterly and completely. I may misunderstand a few things now and again, but I'm merely responding to what you typed, and what you typed seemed to me to read like a set of absolutes more than anything. "Accept nothing on the basis of assertion only, and question everything..."

"Nothing" and "everything" leave little wiggle room for qualification. :D

- I didn't say to dismiss everything out-of-hand on the basis of assertion...
Yes, I know you didn't say that, and that's why I didn't address it in that manner. To "dismiss everything" and to "accept nothing" are actually two very different concepts, and I'm aware of the differences. You said, "Accept nothing on the basis of assertion only, and question everything - especially things which are asserted by so-called "authorities". To "dismiss everything" means to not even consider it, much less to question it, but to refuse to accept something means it would have to have at least been considered before rejecting it, generally speaking. The two terms could be, I suppose, semantical for each other, if that was the intent, tho I doubt it was, to wit:

- the point was to not merely accept it wholesale, on the basis of supposed "authority". Take it in, evaluate it, and make your own observation along the way.
Shouldda said it that way, then, and it would have been a lot clearer, and a lot less absolute. :D


It's my guess that was pretty much the ways things were operating ...... back when the Earth was flat ...... and then someone bothered to actually look .......
Not only back then, but it's the very foundation of how wacko Blogs survive today, by presenting things within a plausible interpretation that fits within a frame of reference that its readers can understand, and no one bothers to take an objective, skeptical look at it (because doing so would question their own beliefs).

Do take the donkey ride, tho. It's very kewl. Just don't question the guy who is instructing you on how to stay on the donkey. Trust me. hehe
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Shouldda said it that way, then, and it would have been a lot clearer, and a lot less absolute.
I should have and I could have been clearer on what I intended. :rolleyes:

Just don't question the guy who is instructing you on how to stay on the donkey.
Oh, I won't question him (unless I fail to understand the instructions and then I'll ask for clarification) ..... but I will look and make my own observation along the way :D
 

Mdbtyhtr

Expert Expediter
RLent

I was right there with ya ..... until you posted the link from Islamic Review ..... with your apparently made up "title" (which I consider somewhat irresponsible) /QUOTE]

There was no irresponsible intent...I was trying to title the link and have the gist of what was written paraphrased. The original intent was to research the root of Islamic lies, which occurred with Ishmael, and I could not find the reference. Obviously I failed and for that I humbly apologize. The link is self explanatory and I took no credit for what was written or offered the link as the only accepted reference of the thought that I was trying to convey.

My intent and the accompanying message remains intact, regardless of political speak to soften the blow. The point is clear, that the truth is often veiled or non-existent, and is meant to incite, subdue, motivate, justify, passify or unite the intended recipient. Just because it appears in print does not make it true or complete, and could very well be mis-information.

Remember the Glomar Explorer? The Time magazine article that described the ship's development and Howard Hughes desire to corner a commodity with it was a CIA plant, totally false, and intended to veil the real mission. The people that planted the story with operatives thought it quite a coo, especially when corporate America spent millions trying to keep Hughes from mining something that didn't exist.

Often times the meaning that is trying to be conveyed is lost in the superfluous minutia designed to detract from the message as presented. That is my fault as well, for leaving the door open.

To Turtle's point, I had a professor that taught the art of communication is to speak at the level of the person you are communicating to. Speaking over the intended recipient's level of understanding makes the communicator the ignorant one. Speaking in analogies, however, can often be received as condescending and the resulting offense will discount the communication attempt entirely.

Scott
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
Mdbtyhtr said:

To Turtle's point, I had a professor that taught the art of communication is to speak at the level of the person you are communicating to. Speaking over the intended recipient's level of understanding makes the communicator the ignorant one. Speaking in analogies, however, can often be received as condescending and the resulting offense will discount the communication attempt entirely.

You are correct if the analogies are intended to be condescending but for the most part I believe that most of the analogies that some of our more enlightened forum members use, is because they are trying to insure that we heathens :p have a better grasp of what point they are trying to convey.

I'm pretty sure that there are more than a few here that can write at level that would not be easily understood by the majority here,(at least me) and they might come off as being snooty or snotty.;)

There have been occasions here in the Soapbox that I have had to lookup in the dictionary or Wikipedia, or just a regular Google search to get what they are saying. And I for one don't mind doing it. A recent example would be when a member (identity to remain a secret) came up with the crazy idea that there was some big explosion that then created everything. I'm still working that one out in my head. How anyone can believe that everything came from nothing is just silly ;)
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
It appears that the CIA got something right this week. Iranian media: Iran suspects Israel, U.S. behind scientist's killing - CNN.com

Tehran, Iran (CNN) -- The Iranian Foreign Ministry said the nuclear scientist killed in a bombing Tuesday was assassinated and the act "revealed signs of the involvement of the Zionist regime, the U.S. and their allies in Iran," state media reported.
Strongly condemning the killing of Massoud Mohammadi, ministry spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said the participation of Israeli and American agents "runs counter to international regulations," Press TV reported.
Mehman-Parast said such actions would not affect Iran's nuclear program, emphasizing such "terrorist moves and apparent omission of Iranian nuclear scientists will definitely cause no obstacle in the way of the country's scientific and technological development. Rather they will speed up it."
See full coverage of the recent protests in Iran
News agencies reported conflicting accounts of the death. Fars News Agency said the bomb was placed in a garbage can outside the professor's house. Press TV said the bomb was placed inside a motorbike parked outside his house in the Qeytariyeh neighborhood in northern Tehran and was remotely detonated.
Not long after the killing, Iranian media were reporting a claim of responsibility from the Royal Association of Iran, which Press TV characterized as an "obscure monarchist group that seeks to reestablish the Pahlavi reign in Iran," a reference to the Shah of Iran's regime toppled in 1979.
After the monarchy was overthrown, Ayatollah Khomeini seized power declaring Iran an Islamic Republic with himself as supreme leader.
Press TV said the Royal Assocation of Iran is headed by Foroud Fouladvand, and is responsible for a deadly bombing in the southern city of Shiraz in April 2008 that killed 13 people and wounded hundreds more.
Fars reported that "members of this association had infiltrated into the country and had been active in the post-election riots of last June and played a part in setting public property on fire and inciting people to riot.
"It had been established during trials (of some of the members of this association) that they were in charge of showing people how to make Molotov ****tails and setting public places on fire."
Tehran's Prosecutor Abbas Jafari-Dolatabadi said Mohammadi taught neutron nuclear physics at Tehran University, Press TV reported, and the network said Mohammadi was a staunch supporter of the Islamic Revolution.
Head of the Science Complex of the University of Tehran Ali Moqari told Mehr News Agency Tuesday that Mohammadi "was a prominent international figure, but had not been involved in any political activities." He said the professor was prominent in his field and had written books.
According to Fars, the Royal Association's statement said Mohammadi played "an active role during the recent disturbances in Tehran, dresses as a plainclothesman," a common reference to police and others working with security forces to quell riots.
"We declare with pride that we are Mohareb (those who wage war against God), yes, we are Mohareb," the association said, according to Fars.
Grass-roots outrage has swept Iran over the disputed presidential elections in June, when incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a second term. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets to demonstrate against the official result, and that prompted a forceful and sometimes deadly government crackdown.
 
Top