ScottRezaLogan:

You must have missed the advice I gave to Martinfaczio about his aquaintence that stocked weapons, but not food.

If caught in a no-win position, neutralize the blankety-blank first, immediately, on-the-spot. If he has a second in command present who then neutralizes you, at least you took the problem with you before you left, if not, it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I saw the Brosman film, and it was better than any of his Bond films, but he didn't figure to be the patsy until the key to the bomb cover didn't fit and he took the right key off the body of the woman he killed that was with him.

In the Egyptian scenerio, we are talking about soldiers killing workers, then being killed by other soldiers who were probably told a coup was being planned by the soldiers they were being ordered to kill.

In "Three Days of the Condor", the assasin is always available at the beck & call of "The Company" and he also contracted out to other Government "Companies". In real life, if the assasin is not a soldier who believes he is doing it for his countries beliefs, he is a dangerous "loose end" that is best removed so as not to turn in his superior.

To those of you who have ever thought being a "free agent" assasin might be exciting, the second person you terminate after your assigned target should be your employer or superior who gave the order. You might live a little longer depending on how deep the system involved is.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

You're right about the Pierce Brosnan film, but the point remains the same - if you start killing the killers, and then killing the killers who killed the killers, ad infinitum, you're going to run out of loyal supporters in short order.

I've never worked with the CIA but I did spend 7 years in Canadian military intelligence. The people I worked with may not have been the brightest bulbs but they weren't particularly stupid either, and they certainly weren't a bunch of sociopaths; they were pretty much a cross-section of regular people.

Because organisations like the CIA and NSA are subject to such secrecy requirements, there's a lot of natural curiosity about them. Hollywood and the conspiracy crowd are only too happy to fill the void on this, and the requirements of national security prevent these organisations from setting the record straight, so there's a lot of misinformation being spread about what they do.

(Having said that, the Maher Arar inquiry in Canada is exposing a lot of questionable practices, such as the US and Canadian Intelligence authorities' reliance on information that has been extracted under torture by "friendly" regimes.)

As far as some of your other examples go, I'm not sure how much evidence there is to support them. "Ancient Egypt" ceased to exist in the days of Augustus Caesar, and I find it hard to believe that anyone kept detailed records of something that was so hush-hush that people were murdered simply to prevent them talking about it. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And "Three Days of the Condor" was a movie, not a documentary <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Aardwolfe:

Unfortunately, there are people out there who believe in movies or stupid writings as portraying real life all the time.

A perfect example is the idiot who bought a copy of "The Hitman" from Paladin Press and then actually hired out and killed someone. The civil trial suing Paladin Press for printing a "do-it-yourself"? book took the book out of legitimate publication because some mental dipstick couldn't figure out fantasy from reality.

You are never going to get me to believe that the lawyer (An anti-gun individual.) who worked for the Clintons walked to a park with a .38 snub nose revolver, stood next to a cannon in the park and shot himself, then died slumped over the cannon.

Likewise I do not believe Timothy McViegh was by himself and even with help from the supposedly known co-conspirators intelligent enough and focused enough to do what he did. There is one thing in that series of events that convinced me "he believed he was properly sanctioned" to blow up the Federal building. When a Sheriff pulled him over for a vehicle stop, he had a sidearm in a shoulder holster.

Governments, Militaries, Intelligence communities, and regular individuals have, do, and will kill their own if the benefit to loss ratio is acceptable.

Bountyhunter

Of course such a Highly Trained Killer, -or any Old Executioner, -Isn't typically Told What they might have in Store for him! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As to the Iraqi-Kuwaiti Incubators, -Perhaps that particular Incident may have been a Lie / Fabrication / or Other Mistruth. But the Sdm. Type Iraqis have been Doing these sorts of things Right and Left! For Many Many Years! It's Perfectly Like Them to!, Perfectly in Character!

It's sorta like the Dog who's Always Barking! And a Rare Time Comes Along, -When Indeed he has *Not* been Barking! But Someone either Misunderstands, or Mis-Accuses it of Barking! If that Dog could Speak, -He might say something like!, -"Hey!, -Wait a Minute!, (John Madden Style!), -I Didn't Bark!"

True!, -He Did Not Bark that Specific Time! But Untrue!, -as regards any Seeming Notion Stemming from that, -That he Did Not Bark on Many, Many Another Times and Occasions!

Its Occurred to me in the course of Writing this, -That it could also Seem that I'm Alluding to the Sdm. Iraqis as Dogs! I'm Simply Not! (I've Noticed a Possible Appearance of Such). Though Such Ones who Can and Do Routinely Do Such to Others!, -Have Got to be Pretty Low!

However, -Beyond that Unintended Possible Appearance, -The Larger Analogy as I've Given, -Very Well Applies and Holds!

For Iraqi Occupiers may Not Have "Barked" on that One Occasion. (As Well as any Rare Others). But They've So Barked and Bitten on Many Many Others! Years Both Before and Since! -That Gulf War One Incubator Incident. [color:"black"] [/color] [email]aardwolfe[/email]

makes me think of the old latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

who will watch the watchmen?

That's one starting point.

The Bay of Pigs was a Fine Thing Itself in Concept! -If They Only Wouldn't have Muffed it Up! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]bountyhunter[/email]

Well, the "moderate" Iraqi that the US is planning to turn over control to has gone on record as saying that he plans to "cut off their (terrorists) hands and behead them" once he takes power. Do you think President Bush has issues with that? Or is that kind of behaviour okay as long as it's done by a US-friendly "moderate"?

If Such Sterner Measure is Really Whats Called For in the Situation, -Then So Be It! Sometimes you Just Have to Get Tuffer! Softness Won't Do It! Especially with the Likes of Zarquari and Co!

His Likes Can Avoid This Very Easily! By Just Not BeHeading People and Otherwise Terrorizing their Own Country!

*They* BeHead!, -and Does Anyone Really Expect a "Be-Heading of the Be-Headers" Themselves, -Not to be Considered or Entertained?! Especially in the Serious Circumstances their Country so Faces! Sauce for Goose could Well be Sauce for Gander!

Whether our Bush has Issues with that or Not, -is at Least Somewhat Irrelevant to That! And Certainly to me!

Now I'm Not For Unneccessary Ruffness or Force! But to the Contrary, -I Think a Certain Measure of Real, Stern, and Due Force, -IS in All Liklihood now Neccessary! They of Zarkawi and Co Now Make It So!, -For Themselves!

Such would be an Internal Iraqi Matter. They are now Sovereign.

In their New Prime Minister's and President's Best Judgements, -a Strong, Stern, "Mean Business!", Response may Be the Best!, Most Appropriate Way to now Go! They Perhaps Know!, -That Such Stern Measures may now Well be in Order! That!, -and Not Softness!, -May Get various Party's Respect!, -Over There. [color:"black"] [/color] [email]aardwolfe[/email]