Anonymous blue__wave 2w

… 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 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

why do you insist on believing everything that comes out of this administrations mouth? you’d think that a “blue” wave would be suspicious of a fascist actively consolidating power?

3

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

no one said to believe us blindly or some shit, just to have skepticism when talking about a known fascist actively consolidating power. they’ve used this staged assassination tactic multiple times now, each time justifying some type of policy or ideology goal for his cabinet. Right now it seems like that’s the bunker, but what downstream effects does that have?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

like it’s valid to not think this was staged unless you get more evidence, but all I’m saying is maybe don’t immediately accept the position of the US federal government…

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

butler pa was obviously staged, obviously they won’t be officially proven to be a false flag since, if true, the US government is responsible for said false flag; but independent orgs can investigate them

0

Anonymous OP 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Regarding butler, where is his scarring in the cartilage tissue? with all due respect, you seemingly just accept everything they’re saying as long as there’s a large enough sense of authority behind it. the reason why I mention cartilage tissue is it has a very limited capability for healing, due to low blood circulation if he was truly shot in the ear where they claimed he was, he would have a scar displaying that for years to come.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Why was pa staged?

6

Anonymous #3 2w

and before you entirely discredit it, take a minute to look into the healing of cartilage tissue.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

our comment timing clashed a bit but if you refresh you should see my response!

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

*real rounds would be pointless*

3

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Except you don’t have any skepticism whatsoever; and nothing to say regarding butler?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Let me rephrase and ask a different question as well: do you think a staged assassination attempt is something this administration would be willing to do, for whatever reason?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

did I say that the firefighters death was faked? no, in fact I’d argue they intentionally put people’s lives at risk, resulting in the death of said firefighter. Okay, this could be settled with a simple question: does he have scarring on his ear?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

its easy to try and dismiss someone’s argument when you attempt to minimize it down to a single point, ignoring all other context; but then again its not like you wanted to genuinely engage in this topic of discussion.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

it’s less about the admin and more about the CIA tbh. people forget about the CIA and their documented history, including in this exact topic (staging false flags); they’re also deeply embedded within Hollywood with editorial rights over nearly every major production company (it’s why our government funds Hollywood, for financial leverage over media; a bit off topic but interesting nonetheless)

-4

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

like this admin is spearheading the fascist consolidation of power, but our CIA has always done the fuck shit to us citizens, I have no doubt they’re also supporting trumps (or the heritage foundations) long-term goals.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

if we take the assumption that my skepticism is 100% true, then I’d say that the firefighters death was likely out of either 1. Negligence/poor planning, or 2. Intentional disregard for the lives of citizens via ensuring at least one death to help solidify the claim of an assassination attempt There needs to be independent investigation imo, but the only way to achieve that is digital forensics because no independent organization would likely gain access to any direct evidence

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

I did say independent organizations, and if the CIA is involved at all, it wouldn’t matter who is in office during time of investigation.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Again this to explain was his ear btw.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Like I said, if we take the assumption of this skepticism being 100% true (which relates back to my call for independent investigation) And yes, our government has indeed murdered our own citizens and gotten away with it Why do you think I keep bringing up the CIA?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Who gives a fuck about Biden lol; no I don’t think he was involved in anything, and he admittedly was not as close to the justice department as this admin is (as it was tradition to maintain distance) do you not want to discuss the CIA or something?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

that’s valid, but you do also recognize that they have committed crimes similar to what I’m skeptical of, right? like do you at least understand why I am skeptical, given its well-documented history (AND, I might add, how it’s deeply embedded within the far-right political sphere via its intentional funding of certain extremist orgs and companies (Palantir, being a major one via the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel)

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

and with all due respect, who gives a fuck about biden?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

so your entire argument relies on ad hom and the fallacy of authority? I know you’re not interesting in discussing the CIA, otherwise you’d actually have to recognize its behavior as problematic, but you’re too much of an institutionalist for that, right? it’s also quite interesting that you immediately pivoted to “cia schizoposting” the second I called out their financial ties to Palantir.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

butler, yeah, but this topic of conversation didn’t start on just butler, now did it? I specifically said it didn’t matter who was in the presidency of the CIA was involved, but you needed to twist that to make it seem like this is somehow a dig on biden? is that why you’re so upset? do you perceive me as attacking your good ol’ pres?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

if the*

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

you know that our government is heavily compartmentalized, right? meaning the distribution of information per topic is very limited per person to avoid any potential breaches in national security; in which this concept and implementation was expanded upon heavily after the leaks from Snowden. you’re directly appealing to authority, while also falling back to ad hominem, as the entire premise of your rebuttal.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

I started this out with “no one is asking you to blindly believe us”, if you’d remember. the entire point was about you blindly accepting the first narrative released by the federal government without any level of skepticism, since you seemingly can’t comprehend that.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

I’m quite literally not attacking Biden, you dipshit. I’ve repeatedly moved the topic away from Biden after you repeatedly brought him up, purely saying “who the fuck cares about Biden” and that’s where you’re fundamentally wrong, the CIA has already committed these exact crimes, both abroad and at home, as per their own admission via declassified documents. you *dont want* to believe that there is a chance your beloved institutions actually betrayed you.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

you did directly say that “why would this one be fake if none of the others were proven to be”, implying a lack of skepticism; and let’s not forget how that was my entire initial point until you moved the topic deeper and deeper

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Ghana 1966, we (the CIA) orchestrated a coup without seeking approval from the 303 committee Guatemala 1952, originally an authorized operation to overthrow arbenz (authorized by Truman), but officially canceled; the cia continued their efforts while Truman believed it was indeed canceled, without authorization. that’s just 2 of many.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

with all due respect, my direct reference of butler was a response to you mentioning that none of the other events, aka including butler, were proven to be staged technically you brought up the topic of the other assassinations, I expanded upon your topic of whether they were proven to be staged or not. we can all indeed scroll up.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #4 2w

hence why I mentioned their current and active funding in the far-right wing, specifically tech companies associated with them, such as Palantir. The CIA still engages in those same tactics, regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not. I also specifically stated how these claims and my views require independent investigation, outside of the influence of our federal government.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

you never necessitated that the referenced events happened domestically, you said “when did the CIA stage an event without the presidents knowledge across multiple agencies inside and outside of the federal government” Cooperating with foreign governments for the goal of overthrowing another without the approval of the sitting president does indeed qualify under your terms.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

touché though, I can admit that I see how my earlier comment regarding reusing this tactic acted as a trigger for the topic expansion; thank you for pointing that out.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

as I repeatedly stated how it needs investigation, that should imply there is no certainty in my claims. my belief regarding this being a tactic likely being reused, does not outweigh a need for independent investigation. as I’ve repeatedly said, this argument fundamentally relies upon being skeptical and not taking the government at its word (especially during a time of fascistic consolidation of power within our institutions)

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

if you want a hard number, I’d give it 60/40 or 70/30 (in favor of being staged)

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

and I wouldn’t disagree, but you did not ask for that.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

(it’s why I directly quoted your request back to you)

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

I’m not personally sure of many times that are publicly known regarding a domestic event, aside from the most notable forced intervention into the black panthers and murder of Fred Hampton and other revolutionaries; but those were likely approved from the top so it’s not exactly qualifying under our terms.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

which event are you talking about, Ghana or Guatemala?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

Ghana.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

this inherently lines up with past CIA activity if we assume that it is indeed staged? our CIA has repeatedly intervened domestically when community organization has grown too far, and has been repeatedly involved in various forms of coups. And Ghana indeed was carried out without high level authorization, hence why I mentioned how they did not reach out to the 303 committee for approval.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

what tf would lead you to that assumption? Firstly, what Fox news statement? Secondly, I’ve repeatedly explained my reasoning for skepticism throughout this post, most of which entirely disregarded. I’ve also repeatedly explained how the cia is actively and presently funding the far-right organizations we see destabilizing this country, and essentially attempting a coup; yet no one wants to discuss its relevance in this topic seemingly.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

It’s kinda hard to claim the CIA has changed its ways when it repeatedly engages in the same methodology.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

my example of funding Palantir and utilizing in-q-tel is quite modern day, since you are still avoiding that

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Let’s see some examples of those far-left groups then? because they primarily have a history in intervening in far-left orgs once too much community organizing occurs.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

did I say they were? or was it a reference to how the CIA is still actively manipulating politics and funding extremist organizations for their own goal? you cant see how the CIA manipulating the market in favor of the fascists isn’t relevant?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

is relevant**

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #4 2w

you’re equating the weaponization of certain groups during the Cold War as equivalent to fueling the rise of far-right regimes and orgs?

1

Anonymous #4 2w

we funded groups like that out of disdain for communism, their goals were still motivated by the Cold War and spreading the red scare. do you seriously believe that is the same as directly funding (and orchestrating) right-wing coups in various nations, as well as various right wing organizations domestically (while preventing any leftist organization here at home)

1

Anonymous #4 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Many* not at

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

I see them as relevant in having the same goals and outcomes, especially considering how closely related the CIA is to this current scenario we’re experiencing.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

(I’ll admit I had no idea the OTF was also funded by them, but god does that make sense) it isn’t just about the Cold War though, it’s about their intentions. Do you think they fuel left-wing orgs for the same reason (or at the same intensity as) they do right-wing ones? nearly all of the organizations you listed were funded and utilized by the CIA for their own goals, not for the purpose of promoting left-wing ideology (especially considering they, once again, repeatedly infiltrate and

1

Anonymous #3 2w

dismantle left-wing orgs that gain enough traction or organization)

1

Anonymous #3 2w

I will admit though they funded a bit more than I was aware of though, and I’m sure the list goes on; so I appreciate you informing me of them. thinking about OTF again it really does make a lot of sense given their relationship with major tech companies too….

1

Anonymous #4 2w

labor unions make a lot of sense tho, a big priority for the CIA is preventing mass worker organization and demonstration, as it’s internally seen a detrimental to national security if they infiltrate and/or create the unions, it inherently solves their issue of unions starting mass general strikes

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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 2w

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

Anonymous #4 2w

the “red scare” is just terminology given the aesthetic of the USSR, it isn’t meant to imply place on the political spectrum (bc you’re right, it is far-left politically, if how does the terminology imply otherwise aside from our distinct duality in the American political sphere (red = republican = right; blue = democrat = left (despite both being ideologically right-wing)) I already touched on the topic of intentions, meaning the ends in which the CIA is seeking.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Also, one could argue we funded minh as a means to an end of justifying a proxy war in Vietnam

1

Anonymous #3 2w

(not claiming that the Vietnam war was justified, but we did back the south while ho Ching minh was revolutionary and a part of the north Vietnam forces

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #4 2w

unless you take the position that the CIA is some centrist organization, why would we ignore their intentions? I conceded that they funded more left-wing organizations than I was initially aware of, but you’re seemingly attempting to dismiss their intentions and reasoning for funding organizations of any ideology.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

The reason why I keep mentioning intentions is because they’ve shown that there is a clear bias in favor of certain ideologies, despite their willingness to weaponize any ideology as a means to achieve an end. Vietnam was indeed a proxy war during the Cold War, and unless you know of any examples in which we directly funded communist revolutionaries and did NOT turn around and vilify them as an enemy, then I’m not sure why we wouldn’t analyze it as such?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #4 2w

(that is a pretty interesting fact, I must admit)

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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 2w

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

1

Anonymous #4 2w

ah, I’ll admit that’s an interesting perspective on the matter, but I guess it comes down to how we determine political ideology and analyze their intentions

1

Anonymous #3 2w

personally I’ve always seen them as right-wing due to their systemic reinforcement of capitalism, but I do suppose that could be explained via their inherent nationalism and “upholding the institutions” (which are inherently capitalist); so i can absolutely see where you’re coming from with the “politically ambiguous” comment, even if may explicitly agree with it.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

I was not trying to claim that it was the sole reason, but yes anti-communist sentiment was a driving factor behind our alliance with south Vietnam during the war, hence why I said “one could argue” that temporarily funding a communist revolutionary served as a means to an end of justifying a war in the long term I apologize if it came off as attempting to imply that was the definitive or sole reason for the Vietnam war?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #4 2w

I’d argue it absolutely is not irrelevant if they show time and time again a clear bias. additionally, as I said, that depends entirely on how we determine political ideology; in the limited American political sphere you’re absolutely correct, but on a global standard they’re essentially right-wing (I’d say) given their inherent support for capitalism. in other words, what ends are they seeking out?

1

Anonymous #4 2w

would you say the OSS was also politically ambiguous, or do these organizations naturally reinforce the existing political hierarchy of their nation?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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

Anonymous #4 2w

many political scholars do indeed differentiate leftwing ideologies from right wing ones based on their support, or lack thereof, for capitalism. it seems as if you’re assuming that the American political sphere is representative of the world, when in fact we live in a distinctly catered “bubble”, sort of speak.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

and did we then turn around and vilify the communist movement the CIA once funded, as a means to an end in our support for France’s goal of colonization?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

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 2w

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

Anonymous #3 2w

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