4 ms·
I personally believe it's somewhat possible that there was some CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. I did not watch the entire video, but the part that addr
by pliesfan97 3y ago
I personally believe it's somewhat possible that there was some CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. I did not watch the entire video, but the part that addresses potential CIA involvement seems to have 2 main flaws IMO:
1. It only addresses the Vietnam War as a potential motive and "debunks" this motive. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are countless other potential motives, especially surrounding Cuba and the CIA's involvement there (Bay of Pigs, etc). The parts of the video I watched (including part 2) did not seem to address this at all. Eliminating one motive does not by any means eliminate the possibility of CIA involvement.
2. The video's creator seems to assume that CIA's involvement would consist of "hiring" Oswald to perform the assassination and that Oswald would have full awareness of the plans, etc. This is not the only scheme in which a conspiracy may have taken place, and in fact seems like a highly unlikely and unsophisticated scheme. It seems much more likely that Oswald was "used" rather than "hired" and that he was either convinced or coerced to shoot Kennedy. This is how murderous intelligence organizations do their dirty work (the CIA is known to have killed people) - via coercion, power, politics, propaganda, and not via direct orders or contracts. Assuming my theory is correct (of which I do not have certainty), Oswald likely had his own motives to wanting to shoot Kennedy, but it required a conspiracy to actually get him to carry through with it. This model of the relationships and dynamics involved seems entirely foreign to the video's creator and is completely unaddressed.
In general, discourse around the JFK assassination and potential conspiracies focuses way too much on the shooting itself - ballistic physics, positions of possible shooters, analysis of film. This is a complete distraction from the more important question which is around Lee Harvey Oswald's incredibly suspicious relationships and contacts with known CIA people.
- mulmen 3y agoThis is what’s fascinating and terrifying about conspiracy theories. You’re clearly an intelligent person who can articulate their thoughts. But none of this is well reasoned. In the face of compelling evidence you propose vague, unsubstantiated alternative theories. This is a bottomless pit. It’s not hard to make up a fantasy to explain reality. But that way lies madness. Reasonable people can disagree and arrive at the truth. But constantly inventing unsubstantiated counter arguments simply delays the inevitable conclusion to the detriment of everyone.
- irrational 3y agoThis seems to presuppose the “inevitable conclusion” is true.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- harry8 3y ago>But none of this is well reasoned. Conjecture: A is not the culprit because motive xyz does not check out. Reasoning: That doesn't exonerate A, who could have other motives. Without agreeing with it, that looks perfectly well reasoned to me. Compelling evidence exonerating the CIA you say? Well ok, I'll believe that when I see it, just like any other evidence from gravity onward. The CIA's docs haven't been declassified and released.
- mulmen 3y agoThe meta argument is the one which is unreasonable. Forming reasonable small arguments is easy. People engage them easily. But because so many can be created so cheaply it’s possible for people’s minds to cloud.
- harry8 3y agoOk so you acknowledge it was well reasoned and you are apologising to op for saying it wasn't. And moving forward you've come to: So many well reasoned arguments can be created so it is possible for people's minds to cloud. I have no idea what you are trying to say here but it seems like it's not contributing anything much to the discussion. Perhaps your mind clouded before you wrote it? edit: did you edit your original post /after/ I replied?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mc32 3y agoJFK was forced to go along with the bay of pigs (he was against it) on the other hand he got us too close to the brink of annihilation --one can imagine these two things would displease some people --whether that rises to assassination by an internal faction is unknown --though maybe if they released all material that was supposed to be released we'd maybe have a better idea.
- jasonm23 3y ago> This is a complete distraction from the more important question which is around Lee Harvey Oswald's incredibly suspicious relationships and contacts with known CIA people. Distraction is the point. Distraction from several key points which beg a series of questions. - Dulles formed the CIA from the OSS. - Dulles hated Castro and thought he'd trigger a full scale invasion by launching the Bay of Pigs "raid" - Dulles was not all that happy when that plan, not only failed, but triggered his dismissal from the agency he formed and headed up, by JFK. - Dulles, may not have been a psychopath, but he calmly watched his sister almost drown in the ocean, before their finally mother rushed to save her.