7 ms·

I agree that probably they currently have many illegal programs ongoing or in the works. But that does not tell you the exact purpose of these programs. Which o

I agree that probably they currently have many illegal programs ongoing or in the works. But that does not tell you the exact purpose of these programs. Which of these conspiracies actually hit upon an accurate piece of information and which extrapolated a bit too far? I have zero trust in the CIA but that does not really help to judge which leaks have merit. Just because the CIA lies 95% of the time does not mean that other people cannot lie and fake documents.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> I have zero trust in the CIA but that does not really help to judge which leaks have merit. Fair. So when somebody shares their pet theory about the CIA doing some shit and they don't have evidence on hand, how do you respond? "I don't know if that's true. It might be true but I'm not persuaded of it." "That's a conspiracy theory, it isn't true. Take your meds, schizo/troll." I'm not accusing you personally of this, but the second kind of response is very common.
- almatabata 3y ago
  > Fair. So when somebody shares their pet theory about the CIA doing some shit > and they don't have evidence on hand, how do you respond? Me personally i would listen just out of curiosity as long as it stayed civil. Most of the time it does so most of the time you can just listen and decide if you want to take it on board. > I'm not accusing you personally of this, but the second kind of response is > very common. I agree yes. People forget just how crazy certain theories sounded at the time. With MKULTRA you had the government giving hard drugs to citizen to see if they could brainwash them. If i came out today and said that the government operates an underground clinic to create super soldiers people would think i have lost my marbles.
  - lazide 3y ago
    The takeaway I guess is that it’s best for any unethical top-secret programs to have as outlandish and ridiculous a premise as possible. Even if there is a leak, no one would believe it! That would explain why Operation Condor leaked. It needed something more outlandish. Like instead of assassinations and regime change, perhaps replacing key South American leaders with American body doubles with allegiance to the CIA?
  - ConceptJunkie 3y ago
    Well, with the recent discovery and harnessing of Vita-Rays, I might be inclined to think that's not so far-fetched.
- lazide 3y ago
  It’s a variant of ‘Dad didn’t molest you, he loves us!’, unfortunately. And frankly, what are they supposed to do about it anyway? Unlike said molestation case, calling the cops is definitely not going to help re: the CIA.
avgcorrection 3y ago
> Just because the CIA lies 95% of the time does not mean that other people cannot lie and fake documents. What material difference does this make? You're just muddying the waters. I presented a case for what kind of default stance is reasonable to take based on the available evidence. Not that one should believe everything anyone says about the CIA. Say that the CIA provably (documented) killed 20 particular innocent people (hypothetically). Then there are five people who each claim that the CIA killed whoever (their cousin, their wife) innocent people based on no evidence. The takeaway from that is that the CIA has killed innocent people (and by extension: can do it again), not that you should believe your uncle when he says that the CIA killed his dog.
- redeeman 3y ago
  hmm very good point, that being said, I would probably tend to put more stock in the word of an honest normal person, than a proven murderous organisation accountable to nobody, but that may just be me

mcpackieh 3y ago

> I have zero trust in the CIA but that does not really help to judge which leaks have merit. Fair. So when somebody shares their pet theory about the CIA doing some shit and they don't have evidence on hand, how do you respond? "I don't know if that's true. It might be true but I'm not persuaded of it." "That's a conspiracy theory, it isn't true. Take your meds, schizo/troll." I'm not accusing you personally of this, but the second kind of response is very common.

almatabata 3y ago
> Fair. So when somebody shares their pet theory about the CIA doing some shit > and they don't have evidence on hand, how do you respond? Me personally i would listen just out of curiosity as long as it stayed civil. Most of the time it does so most of the time you can just listen and decide if you want to take it on board. > I'm not accusing you personally of this, but the second kind of response is > very common. I agree yes. People forget just how crazy certain theories sounded at the time. With MKULTRA you had the government giving hard drugs to citizen to see if they could brainwash them. If i came out today and said that the government operates an underground clinic to create super soldiers people would think i have lost my marbles.
- lazide 3y ago
  The takeaway I guess is that it’s best for any unethical top-secret programs to have as outlandish and ridiculous a premise as possible. Even if there is a leak, no one would believe it! That would explain why Operation Condor leaked. It needed something more outlandish. Like instead of assassinations and regime change, perhaps replacing key South American leaders with American body doubles with allegiance to the CIA?
- ConceptJunkie 3y ago
  Well, with the recent discovery and harnessing of Vita-Rays, I might be inclined to think that's not so far-fetched.
lazide 3y ago
It’s a variant of ‘Dad didn’t molest you, he loves us!’, unfortunately. And frankly, what are they supposed to do about it anyway? Unlike said molestation case, calling the cops is definitely not going to help re: the CIA.

avgcorrection 3y ago

> Just because the CIA lies 95% of the time does not mean that other people cannot lie and fake documents. What material difference does this make? You're just muddying the waters. I presented a case for what kind of default stance is reasonable to take based on the available evidence. Not that one should believe everything anyone says about the CIA. Say that the CIA provably (documented) killed 20 particular innocent people (hypothetically). Then there are five people who each claim that the CIA killed whoever (their cousin, their wife) innocent people based on no evidence. The takeaway from that is that the CIA has killed innocent people (and by extension: can do it again), not that you should believe your uncle when he says that the CIA killed his dog.

redeeman 3y ago
hmm very good point, that being said, I would probably tend to put more stock in the word of an honest normal person, than a proven murderous organisation accountable to nobody, but that may just be me