KGB has Infiltrated CIA

[Stryder]

Welcome to Pseudoscience,
Currently this forum doesn't just deal with the absence of Science but the "Art" to conspiracy. Considering none of the Statements by the OP had any shred of proof (and technically evidence suggests a completely different story) it's obvious that it should be housed in the right area of the Forum's.

 

[Simon Anders]

Welcome to Pseudoscience,
Currently this forum doesn't just deal with the absence of Science but the "Art" to conspiracy. Considering none of the Statements by the OP had any shred of proof (and technically evidence suggests a completely different story) it's obvious that it should be housed in the right area of the Forum's.

While I sympathize, pretty much every political discussion is pseudoscience.

 

[Stryder]

While I sympathize, pretty much every political discussion is pseudoscience.

I agree, unfortunately though I can't dump it all in Pseudoscience

 

[Diode-Man]

Mod Note: Diode-- there's a rule about the "scientific method" here at Sciforums. You are required to substantiate with actual facts, peer reviewed and scrutinized by contrasting authorities before you call it a fact. Just because you've created some Rube Goldberg Machine of logic, connecting disparate facts peppered with assumptions, doesn't mean the rest of us are required to gasp in excitement at the stretch of logic you've provided. Falling back on pretty quotes by famous authors doesn't absolve you from the obligation to substantiate your claim.

Please back up your claims, or refrain from creating conspiracy threads that serve no purpose.

There was no intelligence failure about Saddam. The administration wanted to invade Iraq, and deliberately ignorned any information to the contrary. The intelligence was "cherry picked" as it has become known, by Cheney himself.

There have been several high profile cases of US agents giving information to the Russians, that much is well known.

The CIA had nothing to do with putting Saddam "into" Iraq, whatever that means.

Because they wanted an ally in the region in a large oil producer. Because they could have him instigate war with Iran. Then a more open intervention in the region seemed possible and thus more direct control - no middle man - of the oil and a base of operations for more expansion and control.
The wars have been very profitable for members of the administration and companies they have worked at or will work at.

The basic answer is that in a cynical machine the steps that were taken seemed logical.

Welcome to Pseudoscience,
Currently this forum doesn't just deal with the absence of Science but the "Art" to conspiracy. Considering none of the Statements by the OP had any shred of proof (and technically evidence suggests a completely different story) it's obvious that it should be housed in the right area of the Forum's.

A successful infiltration of any organization is successful because it remains UNDISCOVERED. I can see why you would say "art" to conspiracy, but perhaps you should consult your black budget before thinking there is nothing going on that your TV isn't saying.

I wrote a response to each of these quotes and it disappeared from the post. And now feeling too lazy to rewrite it.

 

[Read-Only]

A successful infiltration of any organization is successful because it remains UNDISCOVERED. I can see why you would say "art" to conspiracy, but perhaps you should consult your black budget before thinking there is nothing going on that your TV isn't saying.

I wrote a response to each of these quotes and it disappeared from the post. And now feeling too lazy to rewrite it.

No problem there, it most likely wasn't worth reading anyway. So after you get ove rthat lazy feeling there's still no reason to post any of it.

Thing is, anyone can come up with any sort of conspiracy theory they choose to fabricate. And just because a lot of them also write books about it doesn't lend a bit of credibility to their stories.

What if someone told you that the world is really being run by a group of 15 little old Jewish ladies? and they get it all done through the Mossad and the agents they have planted in governments all across the world. Would you believe that, too?

 

[countezero]

Simon, you're full of shit.

The CIA put Saddam into Iraq because it wanted an ally and large oil producer who could instigate a war with Iran? What a fool you are. . .

Do you know anything of history? The US was allies with Iran when the Baathists came to power in Iraq. They didn't need an "ally" or a war with Iran. Unless, of course, you're alleging that the US intelligence community is so prescient that it set the Baathists up with the foreknowledge that one day the Shah, who they would fail to support, would tumble from the Peacock throne?

Yeah, that seems totally possible. . .

 

[countezero]

A successful infiltration of any organization is successful because it remains UNDISCOVERED. I can see why you would say "art" to conspiracy, but perhaps you should consult your black budget before thinking there is nothing going on that your TV isn't saying.

I wrote a response to each of these quotes and it disappeared from the post. And now feeling too lazy to rewrite it.

So you're proof is the absence of proof? What a crock of shit.