Originally posted by Ronson
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
CIA Secretly Plotted To Kidnap And Potentially Assassinate Julian Assange
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
I'm inclined to believe it because for one: it's CIA, thus perfectly plausible (and the intelligence community absolutely hated him), and two: the political left has no reason to make something like this up since they now hate Assange, especially when Trump commended wikileaks at one of his rallies, hence, that was the moment the political left completely flipped against wikileaks. In fact, you even had Cenk and Ana of TYT claim he was working for Russia. If it had been about Trump, I might be a little suspect.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
It doesn't pass the smell test for me. Here's why:
1) Risk vs gain. If the CIA attempted to kill or kidnap Assange and anything went wrong and the operation was exposed, it could easily start a war. It would be a huge risk with little to gain. Assange wasn't causing much trouble while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Why risk starting a war, alienating allies, just to get hold of some who was basically hamstrung?
2) Ridiculous planning. US agents crashing their car into a Russian vehicle to kidnap Assange? Seriously? Did the plan also call for Tom Cruise to hang onto the wing of a jet and shoot the pilot with his pistol? This is pure Hollywood stuff. Putin has Novichok slipped into their drink. As we've seen, that's the way it's done in the real world.
3) Anonymous sources. Admittedly, this is one case where I would expect anonymous sources - but 30 of them? And these are 30 people with classified security clearance and likely work for the CIA? Some Yahoo! reporters simply approached them and they all spilled their guts? This sounds more like some Deep Throat told them about a molehill, and then it evolved into a fanciful mountain from 29 other secret agents. I mean, where does one find 30 loose-lipped CIA agents anyway? And this isn't even going into the anonymous stinkhole that the NYT and WaPo pushes at us every day and what those usually amount to.
4) Who Benefits from This? Assange. The US is still trying to extradite him - and now his attorneys are crying "See! See! The Americans are going to kill our client!"
I am saying this as someone who sympathizes with Assange and feels he's being persecuted. And I have no love for Pompeo. But, again, it just isn't passing the smell test.
And these arent some 'Yahoo! reporters' just making things up. These are actual seasoned reporters, with two being investigative reporters, IIRC. One almost broke the Monica Lewinsky story before his employer shut down the story just before it was published. Another has worked for numerous news outlets on foreign policy. The third worked for Army Times for years. This isn't some bunch of liberals making something up. Your denial simply doesn't make sense.Last edited by Gondwanaland; 09-30-2021, 03:33 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
Pompeo literally admitted to it with his attempted defense of it, my dude.
And these arent some 'Yahoo! reporters' just making things up. These are actual seasoned reporters, with two being investigative reporters, IIRC. One almost broke the Monica Lewinsky story before his employer shut down the story just before it was published. Another has worked for numerous news outlets on foreign policy. The third worked for Army Times for years. This isn't some bunch of liberals making something up. Your denial simply doesn't make sense.
I don't put it past the CIA to kill and maim and kidnap, or to attempt to overthrow governments. That's the business they're in. But the details aren't adding up for me. Assange isn't Castro (a then-immediate threat allowing missiles to be installed in Cuba aimed at the US), or some hostile autocracy with enough vulnerabilities for the CIA to infiltrate. The guy ran a renegade website, went into hiding, and became a non-threat while growing a beard with a bunch of Ecuadorians.
Snowden, OTOH, would be more believable as a target. He had (still has) firsthand access to government secrets - not yet revealed!, and is holed up in Moscow as a guest of a US adversary.
But Assange?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
It doesn't pass the smell test for me. Here's why:
1) Risk vs gain. If the CIA attempted to kill or kidnap Assange and anything went wrong and the operation was exposed, it could easily start a war. It would be a huge risk with little to gain. Assange wasn't causing much trouble while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Why risk starting a war, alienating allies, just to get hold of some who was basically hamstrung?
2) Ridiculous planning. US agents crashing their car into a Russian vehicle to kidnap Assange? Seriously? Did the plan also call for Tom Cruise to hang onto the wing of a jet and shoot the pilot with his pistol? This is pure Hollywood stuff. Putin has Novichok slipped into their drink. As we've seen, that's the way it's done in the real world.
3) Anonymous sources. Admittedly, this is one case where I would expect anonymous sources - but 30 of them? And these are 30 people with classified security clearance and likely work for the CIA? Some Yahoo! reporters simply approached them and they all spilled their guts? This sounds more like some Deep Throat told them about a molehill, and then it evolved into a fanciful mountain from 29 other secret agents. I mean, where does one find 30 loose-lipped CIA agents anyway? And this isn't even going into the anonymous stinkhole that the NYT and WaPo pushes at us every day and what those usually amount to.
4) Who Benefits from This? Assange. The US is still trying to extradite him - and now his attorneys are crying "See! See! The Americans are going to kill our client!"
I am saying this as someone who sympathizes with Assange and feels he's being persecuted. And I have no love for Pompeo. But, again, it just isn't passing the smell test.
2) Just google and read about Operation Northwoods, and how they planned to stage a false flag in order to justify a war with Cuba and you'll see how planning such a scenario isn't farfetched for these folks.
3) They may have embellished it a bit there.
4) Cui bono? That's exactly what I say. I can't see which political side would benefit from this if it was made up, and why. Certainly not the political left, because, as I stated, they hate Assange. The political right doesn't benefit because, though they seem to be indifferent about Assange, they tend to side with the intelligence community.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
I am not "denying" it, I am saying I am having trouble believing this - as presented. Like atheists often claim: I don't disbelieve in God(s), I just don't believe it as presented.
I don't put it past the CIA to kill and maim and kidnap, or to attempt to overthrow governments. That's the business they're in. But the details aren't adding up for me. Assange isn't Castro (a then-immediate threat allowing missiles to be installed in Cuba aimed at the US), or some hostile autocracy with enough vulnerabilities for the CIA to infiltrate. The guy ran a renegade website, went into hiding, and became a non-threat while growing a beard with a bunch of Ecuadorians.
Snowden, OTOH, would be more believable as a target. He had (still has) firsthand access to government secrets - not yet revealed!, and is holed up in Moscow as a guest of a US adversary.
But Assange?
As to Snowden, as I noted, I would not be surprised if they had similar plots against him. And he's a 'guest' there only in that the US forced him there.Last edited by Gondwanaland; 09-30-2021, 04:05 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
1) a war with whom? Everyone in the establishment hated Assange. Ecuador protected him for awhile, but eventually betrayed him. Why would CIA be afraid of Ecuador anyway? Are you saying a war between the establishment and the populists? I think CIA could care less about that. In fact, they may have even wanted populist reactions to further demonize them.
2) Just google and read about Operation Northwoods, and how they planned to stage a false flag in order to justify a war with Cuba and you'll see how planning such a scenario isn't farfetched for these folks.
Operation Northwoods is a lesson in immorality, not really recklessness.
3) They may have embellished it a bit there.
4) Cui bono? That's exactly what I say. I can't see which political side would benefit from this if it was made up, and why. Certainly not the political left, because, as I stated, they hate Assange. The political right doesn't benefit because, though they seem to be indifferent about Assange, they tend to side with the intelligence community.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
A proxy war with Russia, if the CIA intentionally crashed a car into one of their government vehicles to kidnap or kill a passenger, that would be really serious business if uncovered. And Britain would be royally pissed off about it too.
The far-fetched component of my argument wasn't regarding its immorality, but its recklessness. All the CIA needed to do was pay an Ecuadorian embassy worker a couple $million to dump cyanide into Assange's lemonade. All done; lots cheaper, no mess, little risk.
Operation Northwoods is a lesson in immorality, not really recklessness.
I always look to see who benefits from these stories. Yahoo! benefits from the publicity, and it could be nothing more than that: Sales/Advertising. Assange (or his lawyers) benefits from the sinister implications of extradition. It's not necessarily a Left / Right thing.
Yahoo is establishment news, perhaps not as bad as cnn, but establishment nonetheless, so I still don't see it, in fact, I'm surprised assuming the story is true that they even reported it. Making it up from scratch is too farfetched for me to believe of an establishment news site. If it had been specifically about Trump, that would have set off red flags for me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
I don't know how the planning processes work in cia, but I would imagine they have optional plans and strategies. Just because that may have been an option on the table doesn't mean they would have executed it that way. The point is that they wanted to kill Assange, and I find that perfectly plausible. However, considering how much the US establishment also hates Russia, and the tension between US and Russia over Syria and Ukraine, I also find it perfectly believable they'd want to start a war with Russia, or at least not go out of their way to avoid one. In fact, if they believed Assange was working for the Russians, that would have been a satisfying blackeye to them against Russia.
Yahoo is establishment news, perhaps not as bad as cnn, but establishment nonetheless, so I still don't see it, in fact, I'm surprised assuming the story is true that they even reported it. Making it up from scratch is too farfetched for me to believe of an establishment news site. If it had been specifically about Trump, that would have set off red flags for me.
1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
Yes. CIA intent to kidnap or kill Assange can reasonably be accepted. Running all sorts of scenarios, including brainless ones like running gun battles on the streets of London without any intent to actually put the scenario into practice is also believable. Disregard for honour or legality -
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, Today, 01:20 PM
|
8 responses
42 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 07:31 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Today, 09:42 AM
|
65 responses
249 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 09:46 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Today, 05:32 AM
|
12 responses
71 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Terraceth
Today, 08:55 PM
|
||
Started by Slave4Christ, Yesterday, 07:59 PM
|
13 responses
105 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 04:33 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 06-29-2024, 03:49 PM
|
32 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 03:32 PM
|
Comment