4 ms·

yep!! people tend to overlook how powerful the CIA is. it's probably the only gvt agency which can fully fund itself, answers to no one. can probably take down

by dzonga 1y ago

yep!! people tend to overlook how powerful the CIA is. it's probably the only gvt agency which can fully fund itself, answers to no one. can probably take down the president, or the whole congress and judges. what has saved americans is the CIA has been focused on foreign issues. once that might is turned internally there's hell to pay.

NoGravitas 1y ago
> can probably take down the president It is extremely likely but not proven that they have done so at least one time in the past.
aredox 1y ago
Good thing the current CIA director helped the current president avoid accountability for his first putch attempt.
pjc50 1y ago
Foreign abuses eventually rebound on the imperial core. The establishment of more and more internment camps and the snatch squads to fill them is extremely alarming, even if it doesn't have a "CIA" label on it but "ICE" instead. America built a machine for overthrowing democratic governments in South America because they didn't align with corporate interests, and somehow pretends that this can be contained to only operate south of the Rio Grande? Ironically I think the extremely indiscriminate nature of Trumpism might be its downfall when the security agencies finally turn on him. I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, and if they're offended that it was burned down without consulting them.
- dontlaugh 1y ago
  Just because Trump represents a slightly different faction of capital doesn’t mean he seriously threatens the one the CIA is the paramilitary arm of, though.
- gadders 1y ago
  >>America built a machine for overthrowing democratic governments in South America because they didn't align with corporate interests, and somehow pretends that this can be contained to only operate south of the Rio Grande? It's been used in Ukraine and other Eastern Europe countries as well.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    This is a slur against the genuine demands for freedom from those countries, and not one you'd say if you listen to people from there. (while I'm happy to condemn the CIA, the existence of one bad actor does not disprove the existence of other bad actors out there)
    - gadders 1y ago
      So countries in Latin America didn't want to be "free" as well?
      - pjc50 1y ago
        I don't think people wanted Pinochet and his torture and murder spree, no. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14584095 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14584095
        bloudibop 1y ago
        You are correct, originally people of Chile voted for Salvador Allende, A leftist politician. But that has been deemed unfit by the CIA and somehow Pinochet coup d'etat succeeded. Backing from the US helped a lot there.
        skeezyboy 1y ago
        man youve got to be borderline retarded to believe that shit. what about Jacobo Árbenz? And Americans have the fuckin cheek to cry over Russian election interference - richest country in the world crying about how "unfair" everything is
        1y ago
- Applejinx 1y ago
  That would explain a lot about how aggressively it was nuked. Trump's operators hate the CIA with a memetic passion, to the point it's like a joke. I would be shocked if the CIA hadn't registered what was happening, isolated its would-be minder, and gone totally dark. If they hadn't been running an American imperialist plot to conquer their Cold War enemy, by now they've got no choice but to do that. And we won't be hearing about it unless they had a complete collapse of opsec. They don't have operational control of the ICE camps, though maybe they'd rather take them over than take them down.
- NickC25 1y ago
  > I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, This needs to be shouted from the rooftops to the crazed Trumpers who think that USAID is a waste of money. It's a jobs program for midwestern farmers to grow unprofitable legacy crops and then it morphs into an intelligence operation by giving those crops to the poorest of the poor as food donations in some resource rich but economically poor and geopolitically strategic areas, all while creating tremendous goodwill and ground-level intel. And somehow, this combo deal that puts money in poor farmers' pockets AND creates tremendous political goodwill AND serves as a fountain of continuous strategic information in vital localities is seen as a bad thing by Trump fans. I don't get it. It's probably one of the most economically beneficial operations the CIA has ever taken part of outside of trafficking cocaine.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    The counterargument is pretty simple - it was directly funding propaganda. One of the truly fascinating aspects of the USAID budget cuts was a lot of journalists suddenly looking for new funding including an astonishing 9/10 Ukrainian outlets who were drawing funding from foreign sources like USAID [0]. As a matter of principle it just isn't possible to run a democracy where the government, in its official capacity, is working to shape the narrative. I can't deny that is what has been happening for decades, but the result is a toxic soup of lies and would explain a lot about why the journalist community seems to have been slowly unmooring from reality - they're attached to the money printing pipe. People shouldn't be paying for political propaganda with their taxes; particularly not in the US where it is probably leaking into domestic politics. Those NGO networks USAID was pushing money towards appear to be hostile in the main to the Trump voter base and their political objectives. [0] https://rsf.org/en/usa-trump-s-foreign-aid-freeze-throws-journalism-around-world-chaos https://rsf.org/en/usa-trump-s-foreign-aid-freeze-throws-jou... - I note they put in an erratum, although given that the US is almost certainly trying to obscure where its propaganda funding there are still a lot of questions. Their source in imi.org.ua was quoting some eyebrow-raising numbers.
    - pjc50 1y ago
      Quite. Only billionaires should own propaganda organizations. The toxic soup of lies should be fully private.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >Ironically I think the extremely indiscriminate nature of Trumpism might be its downfall when the security agencies finally turn on him. I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, and if they're offended that it was burned down without consulting them. If it was a swamp/intel front I don't think it could've gotten burned down. I think the CIA laughed the whole time "this is what those idiots get for not doing their stuff under our umbrella and letting us take our cut".
- CaptWillard 1y ago
  Huh? Most of the point of killing USAID was because it was a CIA front. And yes, they've been operating domestically as well with the same color revolution tactics. Particularly to try to keep Trump out of office. Trying to project this onto ICE is cute.
gadders 1y ago
>>can probably take down the president, or the whole congress and judges. As the latest release of docs from the DNI shows, the CIA certainly tried to do this with Obama instigated Russian collusion hoax.
dontlaugh 1y ago
They did take down JFK, famously.
- DaSHacka 1y ago
  "Allegedly"
coldtea 1y ago
>what has saved americans is the CIA has been focused on foreign issues That doesn't really fit with "answers to no one", which can be understood as "it can focus on whatever it pleases".
- simonh 1y ago
  That's true to a point, but it has no legal mandate to operate domestically. That doesn't mean it has no domestic operations, it exists domestically after all, but it means it does so at the discretion of the entire rest of the executive and judicial branch. The FBI, police services and Homeland Security have jurisdiction, which the CIA doesn't.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Of course an agency which specializes in performing illegal actions without getting caught (often in places where even their mere presence would warrant their agents being quite literally shot) would never violate the law.
gatlin 1y ago
You mean when they fund domestic media projects, have their patsies write articles in domestic media, or impose regime change in our presidents?
1oooqooq 1y ago
probably now enjoying some fentanyl profits too

by dzonga 1y ago

NoGravitas 1y ago

> can probably take down the president It is extremely likely but not proven that they have done so at least one time in the past.

aredox 1y ago

Good thing the current CIA director helped the current president avoid accountability for his first putch attempt.

pjc50 1y ago

Foreign abuses eventually rebound on the imperial core. The establishment of more and more internment camps and the snatch squads to fill them is extremely alarming, even if it doesn't have a "CIA" label on it but "ICE" instead. America built a machine for overthrowing democratic governments in South America because they didn't align with corporate interests, and somehow pretends that this can be contained to only operate south of the Rio Grande? Ironically I think the extremely indiscriminate nature of Trumpism might be its downfall when the security agencies finally turn on him. I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, and if they're offended that it was burned down without consulting them.

dontlaugh 1y ago
Just because Trump represents a slightly different faction of capital doesn’t mean he seriously threatens the one the CIA is the paramilitary arm of, though.
gadders 1y ago
>>America built a machine for overthrowing democratic governments in South America because they didn't align with corporate interests, and somehow pretends that this can be contained to only operate south of the Rio Grande? It's been used in Ukraine and other Eastern Europe countries as well.
- pjc50 1y ago
  This is a slur against the genuine demands for freedom from those countries, and not one you'd say if you listen to people from there. (while I'm happy to condemn the CIA, the existence of one bad actor does not disprove the existence of other bad actors out there)
  - gadders 1y ago
    So countries in Latin America didn't want to be "free" as well?
    - pjc50 1y ago
      I don't think people wanted Pinochet and his torture and murder spree, no. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14584095 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14584095
      - bloudibop 1y ago
        You are correct, originally people of Chile voted for Salvador Allende, A leftist politician. But that has been deemed unfit by the CIA and somehow Pinochet coup d'etat succeeded. Backing from the US helped a lot there.
      - skeezyboy 1y ago
        man youve got to be borderline retarded to believe that shit. what about Jacobo Árbenz? And Americans have the fuckin cheek to cry over Russian election interference - richest country in the world crying about how "unfair" everything is
      - 1y ago
Applejinx 1y ago
That would explain a lot about how aggressively it was nuked. Trump's operators hate the CIA with a memetic passion, to the point it's like a joke. I would be shocked if the CIA hadn't registered what was happening, isolated its would-be minder, and gone totally dark. If they hadn't been running an American imperialist plot to conquer their Cold War enemy, by now they've got no choice but to do that. And we won't be hearing about it unless they had a complete collapse of opsec. They don't have operational control of the ICE camps, though maybe they'd rather take them over than take them down.
NickC25 1y ago
> I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, This needs to be shouted from the rooftops to the crazed Trumpers who think that USAID is a waste of money. It's a jobs program for midwestern farmers to grow unprofitable legacy crops and then it morphs into an intelligence operation by giving those crops to the poorest of the poor as food donations in some resource rich but economically poor and geopolitically strategic areas, all while creating tremendous goodwill and ground-level intel. And somehow, this combo deal that puts money in poor farmers' pockets AND creates tremendous political goodwill AND serves as a fountain of continuous strategic information in vital localities is seen as a bad thing by Trump fans. I don't get it. It's probably one of the most economically beneficial operations the CIA has ever taken part of outside of trafficking cocaine.
- roenxi 1y ago
  The counterargument is pretty simple - it was directly funding propaganda. One of the truly fascinating aspects of the USAID budget cuts was a lot of journalists suddenly looking for new funding including an astonishing 9/10 Ukrainian outlets who were drawing funding from foreign sources like USAID [0]. As a matter of principle it just isn't possible to run a democracy where the government, in its official capacity, is working to shape the narrative. I can't deny that is what has been happening for decades, but the result is a toxic soup of lies and would explain a lot about why the journalist community seems to have been slowly unmooring from reality - they're attached to the money printing pipe. People shouldn't be paying for political propaganda with their taxes; particularly not in the US where it is probably leaking into domestic politics. Those NGO networks USAID was pushing money towards appear to be hostile in the main to the Trump voter base and their political objectives. [0] https://rsf.org/en/usa-trump-s-foreign-aid-freeze-throws-journalism-around-world-chaos https://rsf.org/en/usa-trump-s-foreign-aid-freeze-throws-jou... - I note they put in an erratum, although given that the US is almost certainly trying to obscure where its propaganda funding there are still a lot of questions. Their source in imi.org.ua was quoting some eyebrow-raising numbers.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Quite. Only billionaires should own propaganda organizations. The toxic soup of lies should be fully private.
potato3732842 1y ago
>Ironically I think the extremely indiscriminate nature of Trumpism might be its downfall when the security agencies finally turn on him. I wonder to what extent USAID really was a CIA front, and if they're offended that it was burned down without consulting them. If it was a swamp/intel front I don't think it could've gotten burned down. I think the CIA laughed the whole time "this is what those idiots get for not doing their stuff under our umbrella and letting us take our cut".
CaptWillard 1y ago
Huh? Most of the point of killing USAID was because it was a CIA front. And yes, they've been operating domestically as well with the same color revolution tactics. Particularly to try to keep Trump out of office. Trying to project this onto ICE is cute.

gadders 1y ago

>>can probably take down the president, or the whole congress and judges. As the latest release of docs from the DNI shows, the CIA certainly tried to do this with Obama instigated Russian collusion hoax.

dontlaugh 1y ago

They did take down JFK, famously.

DaSHacka 1y ago
"Allegedly"

coldtea 1y ago

>what has saved americans is the CIA has been focused on foreign issues That doesn't really fit with "answers to no one", which can be understood as "it can focus on whatever it pleases".

simonh 1y ago
That's true to a point, but it has no legal mandate to operate domestically. That doesn't mean it has no domestic operations, it exists domestically after all, but it means it does so at the discretion of the entire rest of the executive and judicial branch. The FBI, police services and Homeland Security have jurisdiction, which the CIA doesn't.
- lazide 1y ago
  Of course an agency which specializes in performing illegal actions without getting caught (often in places where even their mere presence would warrant their agents being quite literally shot) would never violate the law.

gatlin 1y ago

You mean when they fund domestic media projects, have their patsies write articles in domestic media, or impose regime change in our presidents?

1oooqooq 1y ago

probably now enjoying some fentanyl profits too