3 ms·

I couldn't agree more. The US' spying changed world events, including the Iran hostage crisis.. Imagine how much better they could have done without overconfid

I couldn't agree more. The US' spying changed world events, including the Iran hostage crisis.. Imagine how much better they could have done without overconfidence, tampering, and such jewels as Reagan colluding with Khomeini in order to secure his own election. Virtually any behavior other than their sabotage using data that undermined internal trust in actual pro-democracy politicians would not have caused the Iranian switch to batshit crazy religious leadership as a J-curve defense to not be in Latin Americas situation. The US is very happily winning a GDP points war that will end with our extinction, and any opposition will be tortured into submission. People ask me why I don't get happier when one or the other of the American political parties is in office.. Even an idiot falling down the stairs isn't stupid enough to declare the flat of each step they hit their saviour.

opo 6y ago
>...and such jewels as Reagan colluding with Khomeini in order to secure his own election. This has been a common conspiracy theory, but there is little evidence of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiatio...
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  The wikipedia link to it is here and states a pretty neutral description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th... I don't consider congress deciding they lacked enough evidence to act against a president a strong case for it not having occurred.
  - opo 6y ago
    From your source: >...The US Senate's November 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages." >...The House of Representatives' January 1993 report concluded "there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran".[39] The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,[40] who claimed to be a CIA agent. >...The first printed instance of the October Surprise conspiracy theory has been attributed to a story in the December 2, 1980, issue of Executive Intelligence Review, a periodical published by followers of Lyndon LaRouche Alex Jones wasn't the first conspiracy theorist. Here is some background on on Lyndon LaRouche: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche The link I gave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiatio...) illustrates how long and drawn out the negotiations were for the release of the hostages.
    - foolmeonce 6y ago
      By neutral I meant it reports quotes from different perspectives, so obviously some are denials and refutations of people embellishing. LaRouche being a weirdo doesn't make it less likely that the Reagan Administration committed essentially the same crime with the same people twice, and the CIA was the primary benefactor of the second sequence of crimes. A fear of blackmail from parties who knew the first crime is a better explanation of the Reagan administration choosing to sell arms to Iran, given that any other choice besides Libya would have been less antagonistic. I mean sure maybe they didn't do the first crime but they found the crime they were accused of too clever not to do. Aside from that possibility, what are the odds of being accused of a crime before you commit it, later in an entirely documented fashion? That's more Hitchcock than the reality I observe.

opo 6y ago

>...and such jewels as Reagan colluding with Khomeini in order to secure his own election. This has been a common conspiracy theory, but there is little evidence of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiatio...

foolmeonce 6y ago
The wikipedia link to it is here and states a pretty neutral description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th... I don't consider congress deciding they lacked enough evidence to act against a president a strong case for it not having occurred.
- opo 6y ago
  From your source: >...The US Senate's November 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages." >...The House of Representatives' January 1993 report concluded "there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran".[39] The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,[40] who claimed to be a CIA agent. >...The first printed instance of the October Surprise conspiracy theory has been attributed to a story in the December 2, 1980, issue of Executive Intelligence Review, a periodical published by followers of Lyndon LaRouche Alex Jones wasn't the first conspiracy theorist. Here is some background on on Lyndon LaRouche: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche The link I gave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiatio...) illustrates how long and drawn out the negotiations were for the release of the hostages.
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
    By neutral I meant it reports quotes from different perspectives, so obviously some are denials and refutations of people embellishing. LaRouche being a weirdo doesn't make it less likely that the Reagan Administration committed essentially the same crime with the same people twice, and the CIA was the primary benefactor of the second sequence of crimes. A fear of blackmail from parties who knew the first crime is a better explanation of the Reagan administration choosing to sell arms to Iran, given that any other choice besides Libya would have been less antagonistic. I mean sure maybe they didn't do the first crime but they found the crime they were accused of too clever not to do. Aside from that possibility, what are the odds of being accused of a crime before you commit it, later in an entirely documented fashion? That's more Hitchcock than the reality I observe.