Anonymous blue__wave 28w

… you dunno why someone who Isn’t a member of the administration and Is a huge fan of fox news would let something slip to one of his favorite reporters?

29

Anonymous OP 28w

If people who aren’t part of the admin know about the conspiracy then I don’t believe that many people could keep it a secret. They’re just telling random people? I would expect more evidence than the 1 quote we don’t even get the full context for.

-1

Comment Deleted

0

I’m not believing what the admin says I’m just not believe you guys blindly. Just bc someone lies that doesn’t mean you make up a random story. I’m sure Trump would say unicorns aren’t real does that mean I have to believe unicorns are real?

0

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous blue__wave 28w

“Then I don’t believe that many people could keep it a secret” these are the Signal Chat Administration guys! Exactly!!!!

1

Why would the assumption be this is staged none of the other shooting were proven to be staged. I’m not accepting their position Trump is already saying it was probably bc of the Iran war, he’s saying that 0 evidence.

4

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous OP 28w

Yes that was exposed so if this is fake and their telling everyone I imagined it was also get exposed.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Why was pa staged?

6

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

No, I’m looking at what would be the most likely explanation given the known facts. Just bc someone lies that doesn’t mean you can fabricate whatever story it just means you take their account with skepticism. I’m not even considering Trump’s account in my understanding of the event.

5

Ok think about what you’re saying. Instead of someone mad at Trump -> shots Trump. Your saying he faked the bleeding on his ear, they also shot a random firefighter even though the bleeding was fake, so maybe the firefighter death was fake or maybe they used real rounds but the ear thing was fake, so then the fake rounds would be pointless. This is an admin that can’t keep an attack on Yemen secret btw.

4

*real rounds would be pointless*

3

Comment Deleted

0

Do you see how your exploration requires multiple unlikely things to be true? Vs mine needs one odd thing to be true? That’s how I evaluate events, I don’t look at one odd thing and assume an entire narrative that would be even more unlikely.

3

Comment Deleted

0

No, bc if it was found out they staged a shooting that would have massive blow back and would also be hard to fake seeing as this admin is full of leaks. Do I think this admin is too good or too honest to do a fake shooting? Of course not.

6

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

I never said you said the firefighters death was fake. I’m saying it complicates your story more making it more unlikely. So they shot into the crowd but the bleeding on Trump’s ear was fake? From a report from a New York times reporter his ear does look off up close but not by a lot.

1

So who’s involved in this conspiracy? Trump is, so is the CIA, I’m assuming so is the secret service, so is the shooter, idk if you think he was the real shooter or not, The media is involved to some extent. Do you see how large of a story you’re creating to explain his ear?

1

I think the context you’re adding makes your story even less likely.

1

Comment Deleted

0

The Biden admin investigated the shooting wdym? Is the Biden admin also involved?

1

So ok let’s look at your explanations so either 1. They somehow planned the perfect staged event it hasn’t been exposed but they somehow killed a random person for no reason despite the bleeding being fake. 2. They convinced multiple institutions to engage in a plot to kill a random American with zero leaks.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Ok so Biden is also involved, or at the very least somehow his FBI is without his knowledge.

1

Again this to explain was his ear btw.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Just bc the CIA has done crazy things in the past that doesn’t mean they can do anything. You can literally explain anything away with CIA then.

1

Just bc Joe Biden doesn’t order his doj to do illegal things like Trump. That doesn’t mean they’re planning a muti agency conspiracy theory without his knowledge.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

No I’m not interested in the CIA schzio posting. I just want to make it clear to other people, bc you’re gone. You’re saying there was plot that would have to include the CIA, the FBI, The ATF, the Secret service, the Biden admin, the media and local officials at the butler hospital and there was zero leaks. Bc his ear doesn’t look weird enough in your opinion. Do see how large of a story you crafted for maybe one thing that seems odd?

0

You’re not skeptical you said it “was obviously staged” you very confidently believe in this.

1

Comment Deleted

0

You do, you’re saying him or his admin was involved. That’s huge hole in your story that you’re just hand waving by saying “who cares” you’re not even critically engaging.

1

Comment Deleted

0

No I made an argument and I insulted you. I think you should be made fun of bc this is nonsense. I’m not appealing to their authority I’m appealing to the fact that your conspiracy would involve people potentially in the thousands or at the least the hundreds, all of who would have some incentive to blow the whistle. I just don’t want to hear you ramble about more nonsense tbh. I’ll engage in relevant info but I’m not gonna walk through your grand narrative about the CIA.

1

Comment Deleted

0

You said bc of events like putler we should assume this is also staged without evidence . No I don’t care that you’re attacking Biden I’m saying it would be nearly impossible for the CIA to organize a muti institutional and multi agency conspiracy without the president or one of his political appointees knowing.

0

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Who said I have zero levels of skepticism? I like how you’re trying to change the framing so you’re the skeptic despite saying it was “obviously staged”. Again just bc you don’t trust someone that doesn’t mean you invent a less likely explanation.

1

I agree you’re not attacking Biden I didn’t mean to imply you were. That’s not my point at all, I feel like it’s very telling that what you’re focusing on. Ok this should be easy then when did the CIA stage an event without the presidents knowledge across multiple agencies inside and outside of the federal government. Just give me one example do not ramble about multiple things please.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Your making an argument that is not compartmentalized your saying it’s a multi agency conspiracy.

1

Saying something isn’t proven isn’t the same as not being skeptical. You moved the topic deeper you said pa makes it so that we should assume this is staged. You were the first one to bring up PA, we can all scroll up.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

The second one doesn’t meet the standard your setting, neither does the first. The first only contained the CIA, not other agencies, and it took place outside of the U.S. it just seems like they advised the group that overthrew the Ghana leader. Neither of these are close to the standard your narrative meets.

1

What was I reacting to you? said they used the staged shooting tactic before. Again everyone can scroll up.

1

Capability is not culpability. Past misconduct is not proof of current guilt. Suspicion is not evidence. If your entire case is “they’ve done bad things before, therefore they did this,” then by that logic every crime involving a car was committed by Ford. Show actual evidence tying the CIA to the attack, or admit you’re presenting distrust as fact.

5

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

I’m just curious what your confidence level on this recent event being staged. 100% is there’s no reasonable doubt it’s staged. 0% is there’s no evidence it’s staged. You can do the same for pa I’m just curious.

1

Comment Deleted

0

I would say it happening domestically would 100% be relevant. Theres greater consequences to doing something in the U.S. versus a developing country. Sure they maybe cooperated with rebel group according to I think 1 book and some anonymous source from that I’ve seen. That’s obviously a different standard than a conspiracy across multiple agencies and U.S. institutions.

1

Comment Deleted

0

I also don’t think there’s any evidence it was done without the president’s knowledge. The only thing I’ve seen is that their one plan was rejected by whatever committee there was never an order for them to never cooperate with the rebel group. But I just went through things quickly if I’m missing anything let me know.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Yeah so nothing really meets what your laying out here so idk why your appealing to past CIA activity if this doesn’t match previous CIA activity. Also the CIA has more oversight now than it did in the 1960s.

1

Ghana.

1

So you think it’s most likely staged bc of the Fox News statement and PA?

1

Comment Deleted

0

Since you didn’t read it, here’s my comment again: Capability is not culpability. Past misconduct is not proof of current guilt. Suspicion is not evidence. If your entire case is “they’ve done bad things before, therefore they did this,” then by that logic every crime involving a car was committed by Ford. Show actual evidence tying the CIA to the attack, or admit you’re presenting distrust as fact.

1

Comment Deleted

0

But you haven’t provided anything that meets the standard you outlined for pa. It doesn’t line up unless you have better examples but just haven’t shown them yet for some reason.

1

Comment Deleted

0

I mean it doesn’t there’s a reason all of your examples are from the 1960s or before.

1

The CIA has actively funded (and still do) BOTH far-left and far-right groups. Most of them happen indirectly.

1

That's true, that's the claim in one book that it was carried out despite authorities rejecting one plan. That's my understanding.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Is funding palantir the same as a false flag event what is this comparison lol?

1

I’m not avoiding it lol. I just don’t see how it has any relevance.

1

Comment Deleted

0

The Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), Italian Social Democratic Party (PSDI), Solidarity (group in Poland), International Student Organization (ISO), National Student Association (different NSA)

5

If it’s not then it’s not relevant to the convo. No I don’t see how that relevant to seeing if this specific event is a false flag or not.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #4 28w

National Endowment for Democracy (NED), many different Labor Unions, Open Technology Fun (OTF), they fund lot of minor organizations during events like Arab Spring or Euromaidan in Ukraine. Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).

1

Your logic fails quite a bit bc at of those happened BEFORE the Cold War.

1

Anonymous #4 28w

Many* not at

1

Comment Deleted

0

Everything is used as a means to an end. How did that change anything? They do that EXACT same thing as you mentioned above. And it DOES lead to death like in other cases mentioned. One case specifically is, long before we fought against them, the CIA funded Ho Chi Ming, giving them weapons and supplies to fight Japan.

1

Anonymous #4 28w

Also, one thing I need to point out, Communism is far left, NOT far right. I absolutely hate that it’s called the red scare bc it’s not a far right thing. It’s further left on the spectrum than socialism.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

We were funding Minh since the end of WW2. It wasn’t until we sided with French colonialism, that we turned against the Viet Minh and they ran to Russia and China for help. That wasn’t to “justify a proxy war”. Also again, how does the intentions change the fact that they funded orgs on both sides? Both sides were simply means to an end. The CIA is an agency that essentially operates above the law and always has. That doesn’t mean it unequally applies to both sides.

1

Furthermore, before the OSS became the CIA, it was anti-socialist but William Donovan, would intentionally hire leftists and communists specifically, and even Marxists like Frankfurt School.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Also, fun fact about the Vietnam war, Ho Chi Minh based his Declaration of Independence heavily off of the American declaration of independence because we are allies with them before the war.

2

Comment Deleted

0

I’m not dismissing anything. My stance is that it’s an organization outside the standard political spectrum and can’t be held to it. The CIA isn’t right, left, or center. It’s ambiguous and an organization specifically designed to do exactly what has been said in this entire post.

1

Again, we turned against Ho Chi Minh in 1945 when we sided with the French, NOT during the Cold War or to justify fighting communism. I won’t deny the Vietnam war was a proxy war, but it wasn’t us just instantly turning around and pointing fingers. You are trying to condense 50 years of history into 1 thing.

1

Anonymous #4 28w

You already stated that there are fact here that were otherwise unaware of, please go research history before trying to argue against facts.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Political ideology is irrelevant. Like I already stated, a black ops agency like the CIA, operates outside of the standard political spectrum or ideology. The only thing that matters in the intentions because that’s their whole point. The agencies whole purpose is means to an end. Everything they’ve done follows this. The OSS was created just to spy on other countries.

1

That already an issue. Capitalism isn’t inherently right-wing. Capitalism is their very definition of a centric idea. While you may not agree with it (and there are loophole in OUR capitalist structure), capitalism favors the person who is willing to work for what they want. It doesn’t limit who can work or why, it gives everyone the opportunity to succeed as long as they keep working towards that goal.

1

Yes it was the driving factor, in the late 60s and early 70s, long after we had cut relations with Ho Chi Minh. There is no argument there because the reason we cut ties wasn’t communist related. We sided with a different ally in a war between two of our allies. The French were trying to colonize Vietnam and they didn’t like that. We sided with the French.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Capitalism is the core of liberalism, a centric ideology. Here in the “bubble”, both parties support capitalism, the difference is how much they want to regulate it. The right-wing approach is to deregulate it and the left-wing approach is to have heavy state regulation. When go to a global scale, it’s only anti-capitalist because of ideas like Socialism and Communism, which can push it to the right. However, many “liberal” countries still have capitalist systems.

1

Anonymous #4 28w

Moreover, when you go too far right, you get a new system as well called protectionism, which is very different than capitalism (while still rooted in it).

1

No we didn’t, because Vietnam didn’t turn communist until AFTER we sided with the French. We back up the French and Minh ran to the Soviet Union with his tail between his legs. One of the conditions for Soviet support was becoming communist. The Soviet Union manipulated Minh before the U.S. joined the South in the War again Minh.

1