Documentary about the CIA

[victor]

I saw the first part of a French (whadd'ya know) documentary on the CIA yesterday, and it was mighty interesting. Aside from explaining the very famous Chile (bloody coup) and Vietnam situations (using the same excuse for war as Hitler did, strategic preparation by the CIA by murdering about 20,000 vietnamese "enemies"), it clarified some things about the Kennedy assassination (consequence of the Bay of Pigs, maybe) and the event that lead to the creation of the CIA by a fruit company.

They didn't even mention the OSS, though, which was quite a shame. Overall, I liked the documentary, and it gave me a perspective of the CIA being much like the mafia, which wasn't unexpected, but interesting nevertheless. Two more parts of the documentary which I'm looking forward to. Anybody seen it?

 

[Sander]

Nope, but from what you're saying it sounds like a rather one-sided documentary. And therefore, it probably treads a little light with the facts. It also seems to be a bit hasty on making comparison ("Oh no, the same excuse Hitler used, they're eviiiiilll!!"). But still, I haven't seen it, so I could be wrong.

 

[victor]

The documentary didn't say "they used the same tactic as Hitler" but aynyone with basic historical knowledge can draw that conclusion. In case you didn't know, the CIA faked a North Vietnamese attack on a US Navy ship, using it as an excuse to declare war. Hitler used the same tactic to declare war on Poland, when German soldiers in Polish uniforms fired on German borderguards. Anyone using that tactic is evil. You can't say it's a fair tactic without being wrong.

Are you saying that the CIA, that might be spying on you right now, is good? Are you saying that any Intelligence agency is good? That's not true. As long as you order the assassination of someone, even if that person is a cruel dictator, you are inherently evil.

And they did. Oh yes, they did. So did US presidents at least up until Nixon, who didn't hesitate to use the CIA against troublesome political opponents.

The documentary wasn't "one-sided". They interviewed all the CIA directors that were still alive, and plenty of agents and employees. All of them had valid arguments, both for and agains the CIA.

First part was 1947-77, and as I said, I'm looking forward to the rest.

 

[Sander]

The documentary didn't say "they used the same tactic as Hitler" but aynyone with basic historical knowledge can draw that conclusion. In case you didn't know, the CIA faked a North Vietnamese attack on a US Navy ship, using it as an excuse to declare war. Hitler used the same tactic to declare war on Poland, when German soldiers in Polish uniforms fired on German borderguards.

*nods*

Anyone using that tactic is evil.

Have you not heard of a thing called "nuance" at all? Sjeesj.

You can't say it's a fair tactic without being wrong.

Fair is a very subjective concept. Personally, I wouldn't call anything pertaining to war "fair". At the most "necessary".

Are you saying that the CIA, that might be spying on you right now, is good? Are you saying that any Intelligence agency is good? That's not true. As long as you order the assassination of someone, even if that person is a cruel dictator, you are inherently evil.

And they did. Oh yes, they did. So did US presidents at least up until Nixon, who didn't hesitate to use the CIA against troublesome political opponents.

The documentary wasn't "one-sided". They interviewed all the CIA directors that were still alive, and plenty of agents and employees. All of them had valid arguments, both for and agains the CIA.

First part was 1947-77, and as I said, I'm looking forward to the rest

Will you stop giving me half of the info then? All you said was that it showed that tyhe CIA was evil, and that's ALL you said. generally, that means that that then is all a documentary mentions, in which case it would be one-sided. I can't make decent judgements based on half of the info, you know.
Plus, I never bloody said that the CIA was good. Everything pertaining to the CIA you just said is well-known to me, you know.

 

[John Uskglass]

Are you saying that the CIA, that might be spying on you right now, is good? Are you saying that any Intelligence agency is good? That's not true. As long as you order the assassination of someone, even if that person is a cruel dictator, you are inherently evil.

And I'm the one who lacks an understanding of the greys of international policies?

 

[Brother None]

And I'm the one who lacks an understanding of the greys of international policies?

Hahahaah! Considering the source, that's really funny

CC seeing greys...ehehehe

 

[Sander]

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan

Ehehe. Reagan=teh stupid. That bit of text states that Marx and Lenin don't understand themselves. Nice one, Reagan.

 

[victor]

With "evil" I meant "bad", "not good". I didn't want to go into the Bush type of fantasy/Tolkien/antichrist evil, which he loves to quote. Just couldn't find a better word at the time, sorry. Think conspiratory, sneaky, gangster-ish and such. Yeah, actually replace my previous use of "evil" with any of those words.

 

[John Uskglass]

And I'm the one who lacks an understanding of the greys of international policies?

Hahahaah! Considering the source, that's really funny

CC seeing greys...ehehehe

Gher, what? I see some greys.....Turkey is the world's sole Islamic democracy, yet it was responsible for the death of hellanism and Armenian civilization and Pontic civlization and gheyified the Greeks.

I see some. More then Baboon.

 

[victor]

Turkey did indeed murder a large part of the Armenian population during the early years of the 20th century. Genocide. Death of hellanism, perhaps. Long time ago though. But gheyified the Greeks?? I thought the Greeks invented ghey millenia ago (Mykonos, Lesbos... Lonely people on islands...). Overall, there's something about the Turks and disliking their neighbours.

 

[Brother None]

Gher, what? I see some greys.....Turkey is the world's sole Islamic democracy, yet it was responsible for the death of hellanism and Armenian civilization and Pontic civlization and gheyified the Greeks.

Oh, right, yeah, real grey there

(gheyified the Greeks? What?)

Ehehe. Reagan=teh stupid. That bit of text states that Marx and Lenin don't understand themselves. Nice one, Reagan.

Lenin might've been a communist, mayhap, but are you saying Marx was a communist?

 

[John Uskglass]

(gheyified the Greeks? What?)

Gave them a sense of ethnic victumhood like the African Americans or the Arabs. Sapped up wealth and education.

Lenin might've been a communist, mayhap, but are you saying Marx was a communist?

Well......yeah......he kind of was.......hell, he founded it. And I know, there was the "I AM NOT A COMMUNIST" thing, but that was just silly.

I tend to give Marx credit for a few things: he was the first guy to approach history with modern economic ideas, and kind of blended the two to a nice extent unknown before. He used that for dubious reasons, but he was right to do it.

Secondly, his commentary on the Civil War was dead on.

 

[Brother None]

Well......yeah......he kind of was.......hell, he founded it. And I know, there was the "I AM NOT A COMMUNIST" thing, but that was just silly..

He founded communism? No he didn't. He founded marxism, that was bastardized into communism. No, I can't call Marx a communist.

 

[John Uskglass]

Well......yeah......he kind of was.......hell, he founded it. And I know, there was the "I AM NOT A COMMUNIST" thing, but that was just silly..

He founded communism? No he didn't. He founded marxism, that was bastardized into communism. No, I can't call Marx a communist.

Last I checked Marxism was a branch of Communism, like Maoism or Trotskyism (is that a word)?

It still has way to much in common with any of the Sino-Soviet branches that it could (and should) be considerd Communist. Violent revolution to take the means of production to the everyman, kill off the educated classes, historical inevitability.....I'd even argue that Social Democracy ala Eduard Bernstien could be considerd a branch of Communism until the dominance of the "third way", as it's goal was ultimately Communism.

 

[FR33K]

Fair is a very subjective concept. Personally, I wouldn't call anything pertaining to war "fair". At the most "necessary".

"All is fair in love and war".

Probably not. Like Sander sid, 'fair' is very subjective. It depends entirely on your eerception on a subject compared to others'.

 

[quietfanatic]

Last I checked Marxism was a branch of Communism, like Maoism or Trotskyism (is that a word)?

It still has way to much in common with any of the Sino-Soviet branches that it could (and should) be considerd Communist. Violent revolution to take the means of production to the everyman, kill off the educated classes, historical inevitability....

The idealogy of Marx was to be applied to western industrialised nations and did not want to involve killing off the educated classes, unlike what Communism was. Although there are similarities, Marxism is not a branch of Communism. It is like saying Anarchism is the same as Communism. Marx did not seek to have totalitarian regimes influenced by his ideas. It would be just as 'true' to say that Communism is a branch of Marxism, although the actions of powerful 'Communist' nations seem to have made this application the reference point. What is Communism anyway? The idealogy, aims or the reality of the Communist nations.

 

[l0s7 4 lyf3]

Nope, but from what you're saying it sounds like a rather one-sided documentary. And therefore, it probably treads a little light with the facts. It also seems to be a bit hasty on making comparison ("Oh no, the same excuse Hitler used, they're eviiiiilll!!"). But still, I haven't seen it, so I could be wrong.

hmm i'm guessing you're american... Since Americans on average are clueless about the entire history of their country compared to other countries populaces. Not to mention in this day and age in the US everyone has a stereotype that gets totally blown out of proportion (for example the french, so many people in the US crack jokes about the French and hate them because they wouldn't help us in the war which was totally unnecessary for the French to help us since they had no reason to be involved. For gods sake! they helped us enough in the past and we haven't come close repaying that. they helped us gain our independence[without their help we most definitely would have lost], recoginized us as an independent nation, and gave us the statue of liberty. Just because we helped liberate them during ww2 doesn't mean we're even. One way or the other we would have gone to war with Germany since they declared war on us before we declared war on them[if i recall correctly they even declared war on us BEFORE pearl harbor]. France was just another occupied country in ww2 which happened to be really important to our history and was our ally.) If anyone is getting a one sided story it's the Americans. American news tends to always just report news about events in the US by US residents and citizens which in many cases gives an unintentional bias on the news and they say them in a way that further extentuates that bias. Before you start babbling things out your ass please take into consideration other things.

 

[quietfanatic]

hmm i'm guessing you're american...

Sander is not a biased American. He is a well informed and disenchanted lefty from Holland, as you must know if you noticed his location or actually read more of his posts. You must therefore be attempting to provoke an offensive reaction in addition to your American bashing (which I mostly agree with by the way). He is just wondering if the doco is balanced or is merely sensationalist propaganda.

The CIA and America in general is always concerned with its self first and foremost (as has been discussed here before). I think that the continual mistakes in foreign policy have been very negative for America's well being. I hold the view that American's cannot understand other cultures or systems, which causes many of their problems.

Read things before you comment on them, although many have this same problem. So the question is, are you American?

 

[Sander]

Lenin might've been a communist, mayhap, but are you saying Marx was a communist?

Kharn, that was my bit of text. And yes, I am calling him a communist. Mainly because this is just a play of words: you feel that communism is the same as leninism, stalinism or maoism depending on the type, I don't. I still equate Marxism with Communism, and my guess is that Reagan did the same.
So then I check the dictionary(.com):
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Which gives way for both interpretations. I'll still stick to my Marxism=Communism, though, and call all specific forms of Communism (Marxism) (Stalinism, Leninism etc.) branches of it.

Now, time to go flame:

hmm i'm guessing you're american.

Oh, yeah, you're right. I must've filled out my profile wrongly.

Since Americans on average are clueless about the entire history of their country compared to other countries populaces.

Now this starts off nice. You're generalising about an entire population from which a lot of historians stem, and then you're accusing me of ignorance. Nice one.
Plus, you must've missed this bit of text I just wrote a couple of posts up as well:

Plus, I never bloody said that the CIA was good. Everything pertaining to the CIA you just said is well-known to me, you know.

Not to mention in this day and age in the US everyone has a stereotype that gets totally blown out of proportion

BWAHAAAA! Wait, you're talking about Americans having bad views of other people, and you're generalising about Americans yourself. There's a word for that: hypocrisy.

(for example the french, so many people in the US crack jokes about the French and hate them because they wouldn't help us in the war which was totally unnecessary for the French to help us since they had no reason to be involved.

Nope, they didn't I completely agree. Then again, not helping was still in their advantage. No-one is free from blaim. Remember that word "nuance" I talked about earlier? Learn what it means.

For gods sake! they helped us enough in the past and we haven't come close repaying that.

Wait, you mean liberating a country from oppression and a murderous dictator doesn't really matter?

they helped us gain our independence[without their help we most definitely would have lost],
they we recoginized us as an independent nation, and gave us the statue of liberty. Just because we helped liberate them during ww2 doesn't mean we're even.

You keep talking about debts and repaying as if such a thing really exists or should exist in politics. It's an archaic and silly notion. You can't just have a debt to someone and therefore always support them, that'd mean that whoever had a debt to Hitler would have had the moral responsibility to aid him. Now that's a nice way of thinking!

One way or the other we would have gone to war with Germany since they declared war on us before we declared war on them

Yeah, as if the French haven't been self-serving in helping you.

[if i recall correctly they even declared war on us BEFORE pearl harbor].

....
Wow, you just established your own prejudice for yourself. You really are historically ignorant.

France was just another occupied country in ww2 which happened to be really important to our history and was our ally.)

Yeah, and the USA was a nice way to bug the English. It all means nothing, Lost for Life (I despise 1337-speech.

Sander is not a biased American. He is a well informed and disenchanted lefty from Holland, as you must know if you noticed his location or actually read more of his posts. You must therefore be attempting to provoke an offensive reaction in addition to your American bashing (which I mostly agree with by the way). He is just wondering if the doco is balanced or is merely sensationalist propaganda.

Gracias, quietfanatic. Much appreciated.

 

[l0s7 4 lyf3]

hmm i'm guessing you're american...

Sander is not a biased American. He is a well informed and disenchanted lefty from Holland, as you must know if you noticed his location or actually read more of his posts. You must therefore be attempting to provoke an offensive reaction in addition to your American bashing (which I mostly agree with by the way). He is just wondering if the doco is balanced or is merely sensationalist propaganda.

The CIA and America in general is always concerned with its self first and foremost (as has been discussed here before). I think that the continual mistakes in foreign policy have been very negative for America's well being. I hold the view that American's cannot understand other cultures or systems, which causes many of their problems.

Read things before you comment on them, although many have this same problem. So the question is, are you American?

By no means am i trying to provoke anything, his post was just stated in a way that made it sound very american minus the acutal logical part of "I could be wrong". I am american, though i'm not all that proud of it in this day and age. Rampant discrimination, racial jokes are coming back, crime going up, flaws in the education system, moronic president, moronic people thinking that marriage is only "between a man and a woman", and many many other issues, which makes me want to get the hell out of this place ASAP. Though i have been going to this site for years i havent been active in the forums since about a month ago or so, because of that i have no clue as to what the background and such is of many people, not to mention i didn't think of looking at his profile

I despise 1337-speech.

ay so many of you do, but my name is old from when i did use 1337 speech, i never changed it, and i can't change my username in the forums!