Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Al Qaeda works for the CIA..why shouldn't I believe this?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 4269
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 08:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

coldelephant wrote:
As to the failure to dispose of Castro - I say again, why did they not just do another JFK?

They could have done it, and they did not.

I do not agree with the idea that they could not. Wink


Well setting aside the other contentious implications of that statement, Castro doesn't tend to ride around the middle of large American cities in an open topped car.

I'm sure the US intelligence services would be flattered by the almost religious faith certain people show in their ability to carry out the will of their political masters with seamless efficiency and without any tiresome real-life elements added to the mix - like the fact that their actions have to be hidden not only from their enemy but also from significant elements of the system they represent, fuck-ups, the fact that their targets might not feel all that comfortable with the idea of being offed and therefore might even employ the fiendish and decidedly not cricket tactic of protecting themselves, or that they may be hidden under a few billion tons of sun scorched rock in a desert that invading armies haven't been able to police since the days of Alexander the Great.

What seems to be being argued is that the CIA are a god-like entity, omniscient and infallible (and the Bay of Pigs never happened) and that if they, or their political masters wish something to be, then it will be. Is that the case or am I misinderstanding something?


Last edited by Spookdaddy on 30-05-2007 08:41; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 08:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spookdaddy wrote:
...

What seems to be being argued is that the CIA are a god-like entity, omniscient and infallible (and the Bay of Pigs never happened) and that if they, or their political masters wish something to be, then it will be. Is that the case or am I misinderstanding something?

Certainly not. Just that they may not be as incompetent as their 'defenders' are apparently making them out to be and that semi-secret organisations, along with their various sub-departments, may occasionally have aims and objectives which are not necessarily as stated on the label...
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 4269
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 08:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:

Certainly not. Just that they may not be as incompetent as their 'defenders' are apparently making them out to be and that semi-secret organisations, along with their various sub-departments, may occasionally have aims and objectives which are not necessarily as stated on the label...


Okay, don't disagree with that at all, but there are people in this discussion whose attitude appears a little less tempered than your own.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Seventh_PilotOffline
grey man
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Total posts: 67
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 08:59    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never said your constant demands for “logically composed argument”, as you put it, was my reason for claiming you have a tendency for intellectual snobbery Ted. Thank you for making the assumption though. I agree with your claim of not living in the real world though, it was a desire to get away from that that brought me to remote Australia. Are you claiming to have a grasp on what really goes on in the world Ted? If so you really should share it with us but more importantly why you seem to have the knowledge no one else has. With respect to the thread subject I’d like to go against the grain of the majority of posters when I say that Al Quaeda as a single international group does not exist and the only difference between the CIA/ Al Quaeda position post 9/11 is that those insignificant Islamic radicals have now become rather more significant but Al Quaeda is still just a blanket term. I’m sure if the majority of Iraqis fighting the illegal occupation of their country found out how the western media is portraying them as Al Quaeda they would be a little offended, if not amused, as would the Taliban / Mujahideen fighters in the illegal occupation of Afghanistan. Jerry perhaps you’d like to expand on your claims of proxy assassinations during the Cold War, have you ever heard of SOXMIS?
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 09:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:

Certainly not. Just that they may not be as incompetent as their 'defenders' are apparently making them out to be and that semi-secret organisations, along with their various sub-departments, may occasionally have aims and objectives which are not necessarily as stated on the label...


Nobody's claiming that they're completely incompetent and therefore incapable of carrying out assassinations, including their 'defenders' (I'd say it was a misreading to conclude that those who claims incompetence on the part of an organisation are defending it).

The point here is claims are made that because Bin Laden has not been assassinated this implies the CIA haven't been trying and given their overwhelming record of success in this field we must assume that if they had tried he'd be dead right now. The problem is that the information regarding the CIA's track record of assassination is sketchy at best and that we don't actually know whether, like the Mounties, they always get their man. The details regarding any failed attempts will generally be kept away from the eyes of the public. Given that claims about the CIA's links with Bin Laden are equally unrecorded in official terms we can't really conclude much in terms of their record of failed assassinations.
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 4269
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 09:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before we all get warm under the collar might we not actually be kind of agreeing that simply because an individual remains at large does not automatically imply that the US intelligence services wish them to. And that equally, it might. But that, even given the latter scenario this desire does not therefore imply an infallibility in the path between will, prosecution and result on the part of the CIA. Does that seem reasonable?

Seems silly to replace one orthodoxy with another.


Last edited by Spookdaddy on 30-05-2007 09:19; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 929
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 09:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Relating to the search for OBL in Afghanistan, I watched recently a french documentary on the resort Planète. Its author was very cautious. He had gathered confirmations from a number of Afghan officers that OBL was given an escape end 2001. He couldn't conclude if it was deliberate or accidental. But a number of Afghan and French sources told him that such occurences happened at least four times. One time could be a mistake; four, this is much less likely. It seems that military forces stationed in Afghanistan do not try to capture OBL (if he is alive at all, of course), whatever the reason. What happens in this country is a black hole.

I believe too that Al Qaida does not exist as such. OBL (if he was alive) and Zawahiri had little control of Zarqawi in Irak. And the existence of "Al Qaida in Maghreb" is uncertain. Algerian Salafists are supposed to have joined Al Qaida at least on two different occasions (many Algerian political analysts and journalists believe they are only a front cover of Algerian secret services)...
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8265
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 09:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obviously the Coalition intelligence services get things right on occasion, and 'get their man' - various insurgent leaders in Iraq have been killed as a result, one quite recently (last week) IIRC.

The point is that there seems to be a idea in some camps that the CIA always knows what's going on and are steering everything behind the scenes. This seems to me to be simply another bit of mythology, used to prop up various theories. It also exists in UFO lore. So it seems that certain belief systems rely on the CIA being so powerful, at the expense of ignoring real-life examples where CIA operations have failed, to the detriment of US interests.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 09:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seventh_Pilot wrote:
I never said your constant demands for “logically composed argument”, as you put it, was my reason for claiming you have a tendency for intellectual snobbery Ted. Thank you for making the assumption though. I agree with your claim of not living in the real world though, it was a desire to get away from that that brought me to remote Australia. Are you claiming to have a grasp on what really goes on in the world Ted? If so you really should share it with us but more importantly why you seem to have the knowledge no one else has.


Well unless you explain your (slightly offensive) observation I'll be unaware what to you constitutes snobbery. I can only assume it's based on what I've done so far which is to present my views in the ways that I have. I don't make a special claim to know what happens in the real world but I do understand what most people in that world would consider the best way to make a point ie to back it up with evidence rather than conjecture.

Seventh_Pilot wrote:
With respect to the thread subject I’d like to go against the grain of the majority of posters when I say that Al Quaeda as a single international group does not exist and the only difference between the CIA/ Al Quaeda position post 9/11 is that those insignificant Islamic radicals have now become rather more significant but Al Quaeda is still just a blanket term.


I think most, if not all, posters have expressed that view themselves so it's certainly not a minority view.

Seventh_Pilot wrote:
I’m sure if the majority of Iraqis fighting the illegal occupation of their country found out how the western media is portraying them as Al Quaeda they would be a little offended, if not amused, as would the Taliban / Mujahideen fighters in the illegal occupation of Afghanistan.


I suspect they're probably already offended enough if they're prepared to fight the occupying troops, let alone killl their own people, though (the occupation of Iraq is not illegal and in Afghanistan both the war and the occupation are not illegal, btw).
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8265
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 10:04    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seventh_Pilot wrote:
Jerry perhaps you’d like to expand on your claims of proxy assassinations during the Cold War, have you ever heard of SOXMIS?


I've heard of SOXMIS, but am unsure of what relevance it has to this thread. Perhaps you could enlighten us...?

As for proxy assassination - there has been a mix of ways of disposing of those elements in the CIA's sights. For example, Allende was toppled from power in Chile by a military coup, sponsored by US interests (supposedly 'Operation Track II'). CIA elements trained Hmong tribesmen in weapons and assassination techniques in order to fight the Pathet Lao. This failed, and the Hmong were left out to dry (and as a result, are to this day facing a precarious future). 'Operation Phoenix', which was aimed at dealing with 'pro-Communist' elements in Vietnam in the late '60s to mid-'70s still did ultimately not work in favour of US policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Seventh_PilotOffline
grey man
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Total posts: 67
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 11:14    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah Ted, you say tomato... For your information both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal under international law as is the continued occupation in both those countries. This goes without mentioning the major breeches of the Geneva Conventions, as I understand them, during both these campaigns (I received weekly lessons on the Geneva Conventions during my service with an electronic warfare unit during the Cold War in Germany). Bullshit excuses and media spin do not override these laws set in place by many lives sacrificed during the Second World War, possibly members of your family Ted, definitely members of mine. Your denial offends me so I'm sure you'll understand my reluctance to feel any remorse for my own slightly offensive remark, especially as I stand by it.

Jerry, it seems our views as to what constitutes the "Cold War" differ, as I served in Germany during this time and you didn’t this maybe the reason. As you were setting yourself up to be an expert on the Cold War I was wondering as to what extent that expertise went. I asked about SOXMIS in the hope you would demonstrate some knowledge of what they were about, in the context of your statement they have relevance, if you knew much about them you would see that. I have no desire to enlighten you or anybody else, I come to this forum to read the ideas and theories of other people, and both you and Ted offer nothing but regurgitated nonsense, from my rather unworldly view of course. You can paint a turd gold chap and it may look pretty but its still a turd.
Back to top
View user's profile 
coldelephant
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 12:03    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like mine?

Look, how hard is it to pay somebody or send somebody with a rifle to shoot him in Cuba?

Wink
Back to top
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 12:22    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seventh_Pilot wrote:
Yeah Ted, you say tomato... For your information both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal under international law as is the continued occupation in both those countries. This goes without mentioning the major breeches of the Geneva Conventions, as I understand them, during both these campaigns (I received weekly lessons on the Geneva Conventions during my service with an electronic warfare unit during the Cold War in Germany). Bullshit excuses and media spin do not override these laws set in place by many lives sacrificed during the Second World War, possibly members of your family Ted, definitely members of mine. Your denial offends me so I'm sure you'll understand my reluctance to feel any remorse for my own slightly offensive remark, especially as I stand by it.

Jerry, it seems our views as to what constitutes the "Cold War" differ, as I served in Germany during this time and you didn’t this maybe the reason. As you were setting yourself up to be an expert on the Cold War I was wondering as to what extent that expertise went. I asked about SOXMIS in the hope you would demonstrate some knowledge of what they were about, in the context of your statement they have relevance, if you knew much about them you would see that. I have no desire to enlighten you or anybody else, I come to this forum to read the ideas and theories of other people, and both you and Ted offer nothing but regurgitated nonsense, from my rather unworldly view of course. You can paint a turd gold chap and it may look pretty but its still a turd.


For the word 'desire' replace ability.

You defend unfounded accusations of snobbery by pretending to be offended by remarks that appear later on. You misrepresent what posters say and make claims which are simply not true (the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are legal, next to nobody in the international community is disputing this and the arbirters of the United Nations recognise this fact). Rather than accusing others of regurgitating nonsense try getting your own information straight first.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8265
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 12:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seventh_Pilot wrote:
Jerry, it seems our views as to what constitutes the "Cold War" differ, as I served in Germany during this time and you didn’t this maybe the reason. As you were setting yourself up to be an expert on the Cold War I was wondering as to what extent that expertise went. I asked about SOXMIS in the hope you would demonstrate some knowledge of what they were about, in the context of your statement they have relevance, if you knew much about them you would see that. I have no desire to enlighten you or anybody else, I come to this forum to read the ideas and theories of other people, and both you and Ted offer nothing but regurgitated nonsense, from my rather unworldly view of course. You can paint a turd gold chap and it may look pretty but its still a turd.


The idea that I'm setting up myself as some sort of 'expert' on the Cold War is something which is purely a phantom in your mind, IMHO. Where have I said that I'm an 'expert' on anything in this thread, hm? All I've done thus far is to note examples of CIA operations within the Cold War period. If that somehow makes me anything like an 'expert' in your eyes, I can only assume you're easily pleased Wink

So, please, if in your eyes any of us are wrong about certain things, please actually enlighten us as to the reasons why. For example, please explain why the SOXMIS stuff is relevant - I would be very interested to know. After all, if you come here 'to read the ideas and theories of other people', why on earth don't you point out the fallacies you think are contained in what any of us say? If you instead refuse to point out our errors, what is the point of you actually taking part in this discussion?

Put simply, if you think we're wrong please point out why.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2007 13:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spookdaddy wrote:
Before we all get warm under the collar might we not actually be kind of agreeing that simply because an individual remains at large does not automatically imply that the US intelligence services wish them to. And that equally, it might. But that, even given the latter scenario this desire does not therefore imply an infallibility in the path between will, prosecution and result on the part of the CIA. Does that seem reasonable?


Yes, very reasonable. The point I've been trying to make is that ultimately the non capture or assassination of Bin Laden neither proves or disproves anything about the CIA's actions. There are no absolutes to be drawn from this whole affair.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 6 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group