Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 124 posts

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#61

Post by knowaveragejoe »

chernevik wrote: post #28

That's quite a headline. But the article is mostly about delegations of authority (and that not in any real detail), a story of US contractors conducting assassinations, and one (1) corroborating opinion -- that corroboration in no detail, and almost certainly second-hand. There's a paragraph about the "terrifying background", in absolutely no detail whatsoever. This sort of thing has become a subgenre of its own, on…

I fully agree. I got to the bottom and thought, "This is it?". There's absolutely no story about the guy. This article just serves to become more noise.

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#62

Post by Volpe »

cynicalkane wrote: post #59
Volpe wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iraq, and Afghanistan are also apparently "terrorist nations"... but not Pakistan? Or Yemen? (Despite Al-Qaeda having proven links to both). But why is NK having nukes a problem? There is no proof they want to use them. Just posturing... Very similar to India and Pakistan. Edit: Did the CIA get upset when France developed and tested nuclear weapons? Do some countries deserve trust while others don't? What has North K…

This is absurd. A nuke can kill millions in one go. I'd sooner let Joe the Plumber have nukes than North Korea. "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine.

> "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine.

That's literally what the measure of allowing countries nukes is.

Though, granted, North Korea withdrew from the "pinkies crossed" promise. But there are other countries (India, Pakistan, Israel) that have nuclear weapons but haven't promised to use them responsibly. Which no one seems to phased about, so why North Korea?

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#63

Post by _delirium »

gareim wrote: post #46
Volpe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not sympathetic to the plight of those who associate with terrorists (even if they themselves haven't committed a terrorist act) and find themselves it Gitmo or dead. I see, you've fallen for the pro-U.S propaganda. Where random groups are designated 'terrorists' and thus deserving of your hatred. > Iranian and North K nuke programs have been slowed and countless people AREN'T dead because of CIA. 100% pure sp…

There's nothing "random" about picking on Al-Qaeda. Also, the facts are that NK has nuclear capabilities. So yes, we believe the CIA about that.

Al-Qaeda isn't random, but a lot of the people in Guantanamo do seem to be pretty random, mostly low-level Taliban schmucks who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were inaccurately sold out by someone looking for a reward. Even the U.S. has admitted that in a few cases.

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#64

Post by dredmorbius »

Volpe wrote: post #58
taligent wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North Korea having nukes is a huge problem if you are South Korea or Japan or Hong Kong or anyone else in the region. They don't want a child dictator who is clearly bored and with a point to prove having nuclear weapons. I just came back from North Korea and it is like stepping back 50 years. But one thing is very clear they very much believe in a reunified Korea under Kim Jong Un. And as has been demonstrated with…

> North Korea having nukes is a huge problem if you are South Korea or Japan or Hong Kong or anyone else in the region. I'm not sure I accept that premise. But the U.S isn't listed there? So where is the U.S interest here? Or are we going to go with "stability in the region is in the USes interest"? North Korea, by and large, is a problem for South Korea. Just as Taiwan is a problem for China (or vice versa). Where d…

The US isn't within current strike range of NK. The other countries are. South Korea, notably, has its capital (and 25 million inhabitants) within 35 miles of the North Korean border.

There's some debate as to how much of the NK artillery force is capable of striking Seoul, but there's no doubt that at least some of it can.

And that's just conventional weaponry (explosives, possibly chemical and biological weapons).

Nukes are a completely different ballgame.

NK could disrupt affairs in countries in which the US has significant economic and strategic relationships. But its ability to directly affect the US is somewhat less. At least so long as you're thinking in terms of artillery and missile launches. A ship-board nuke could still make for a really bad day in New York, LA, Houston, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, or even Chicago or other Great Lakes ports.

http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-kore... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/seoul-image...

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#65

Post by taligent »

Volpe wrote: post #62
cynicalkane wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absurd. A nuke can kill millions in one go. I'd sooner let Joe the Plumber have nukes than North Korea. "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine.

> "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine. That's literally what the measure of allowing countries nukes is. Though, granted, North Korea withdrew from the "pinkies crossed" promise. But there are other countries (India, Pakistan, Israel) that have nuclear weapons but haven't promised to use them responsibly. Which no one seems to phased about, so…

You keep bringing this up and I keep answering you.

North Korea has repeatedly attacked its neighbours with no good cause. Those other countries haven't.

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#66

Post by Volpe »

taligent wrote: post #65
Volpe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine. That's literally what the measure of allowing countries nukes is. Though, granted, North Korea withdrew from the "pinkies crossed" promise. But there are other countries (India, Pakistan, Israel) that have nuclear weapons but haven't promised to use them responsibly. Which no one seems to phased about, so…

You keep bringing this up and I keep answering you. North Korea has repeatedly attacked its neighbours with no good cause. Those other countries haven't.

I answered you directly (where you brought it up).

Israel repeatedly attacked/s its neighbours (even occupying them). North Korea is timid in comparison.

Good cause is debatable (for both Israel, and North Korea).

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#67

Post by ra »

fpp wrote: post #24
mcantelon wrote: post #2

Having NGOs conduct killing on behalf of the government is a tried-and-true method of counterinsurgence (South American paramilitary death squads for example). The plausible deniability introduced by working through a proxy allows the government to conduct more politically risky operations (including false flag attacks if public support is waning). Criticizing the government becomes riskier. And, if not held in check…

Well said - similar happened in Europe during the 1970s with people being classified as (left-wing) terrorists (and a few might have certainly been) and being "transported" between countries by so-called freelancers - TMK quite a few did not survive the travel and definitely no obituaries in the press.

There's a great movie set in this context, "Munich"

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#68

Post by bdunbar »

Volpe wrote: post #51
gareim wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing "random" about picking on Al-Qaeda. Also, the facts are that NK has nuclear capabilities. So yes, we believe the CIA about that.

Iraq, and Afghanistan are also apparently "terrorist nations"... but not Pakistan? Or Yemen? (Despite Al-Qaeda having proven links to both). But why is NK having nukes a problem? There is no proof they want to use them. Just posturing... Very similar to India and Pakistan. Edit: Did the CIA get upset when France developed and tested nuclear weapons? Do some countries deserve trust while others don't? What has North K…

Did the CIA get upset when France developed and tested nuclear weapons?

France at the time was a member of NATO. So, no, probably not.

Do some countries deserve trust while others don't?

I would rephrase it 'do some governments deserve trust ...

Yes.

Intent matters. The UK is not possibly going to blow up New York City. For a while there in the 50s and 60s the same could not be said for the USSR.

What has North Korea done, that caused the mistrust?

In no particular order ...

Last remaining Stalinist regime in the world.

Kidnap foreigners for entertainment purposes.

Started a war in 1950. One that isn't officially over.

In that war executed tens of thousands of citizens of the country they invaded.

Once in a while they do insane stuff like shell their neighbor' land, blow up parts of their navy.

Constantly dig tunnels under their border with ROK in order to bypass border defenses.

Re: The Terrifying Background of the Man Who Ran a CIA Assassination Unit

#70

Post by refurb »

heretohelp wrote: post #54
briandear wrote: post #38

It's almost ridiculous how some people get so indignant about CIA; I can almost feel their spittle as they shout at their computer screens. At the same time, people get equally outraged when terrorists kill people and then want to blame CIA for their failings. It's a bad world. I am not sympathetic to the plight of those who associate with terrorists (even if they themselves haven't committed a terrorist act) and fin…

>Reagan forcing the issue by spending the Soviets into insolvency because of the arms race I agreed with most of what you said but you're wrong here, the Saudis forced the Soviets into insolvency because they didn't like the Soviet actions in Iran and Afghanistan. The Saudis were able to sell oil at a lower price than the USSR, took advantage of that and broke them. Any extra spending incurred by Reagan is a drop in…

"A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan’s massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels."

http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm

Post reply on HN