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

51–60 of 124 posts

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

#51

Post by Volpe »

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.

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 Korea done, that caused the mistrust?

[Edit Typos]

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

#52

Post by gareim »

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…

I can't speak about everything because I don't keep up with most of this.

But frankly, the situation is shaky. Pakistan is fairly developed considering the region it's in. It's also unstable because of the military from what I can understand. So it's reasonable not to label them as a terrorist nation and possibly pushing them into a more unstable state. That's the analysis that I've heard, but I don't know much about Pakistan.

We have problems with North Korea having nuclear weapons because they are extremely volatile. Their interactions with the South prove it. Those tunnels into SK that they used to send commandos in an assassination attempt? Or maybe the sinking of the South Korean warship? The shelling of an island? The list is LONG and a cursory glance of their Wikipedia page will prove that. Can you honestly tell me that you'd feel safe if North Korea had nukes?

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

#53

Post by jorahmormont »

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…

Reading the comments here, you wouldn't be blamed for thinking we (the side of rational thinking and intelligence) have lost. The question you should ask yourselves is whether the CIA, or even a big chunk of our government are working to protect us or working to protect their own interests. They do these things in our name. Murder civilians and call it collateral damage. They make up fake dossiers and our media swallows it whole. What have we come to? We used to be the shining city on the hill. We didn't need to invade people to "protect" ourselves.

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

#54

Post by heretohelp »

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 the ocean compared the complete destruction of their revenue source.

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

#55

Post by wpietri »

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…

Personally, I'm more worried about getting blown up because somebody has ended up incorrectly killed by a government contractor.

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

#56

Post by taligent »

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…

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 their previous tunnel attempts under the DMZ they are willing to do this by force.

Show me where France has on repeated occasions attacked their neighbours and destabilised the region.

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

#57

Post by bmelton »

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…

This article might illuminate some of your questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation...

The simple answer about France vs India and Pakistan is that France signed and supposedly adheres to the Non-Proliferation Treaty on Nuclear Weapons, but has joined as a 'nuclear weapon state', and are one of the five members of the UN Security Council. Being on the council means that they can have weapons, but agree to use them responsibly, and their adherence to the treaty means that they can verify the safety of their devices, that they are adhering to the treaty's requirements on inspection by the IAEA, and that they are abiding all disarmament requirements specified therein.

India and Pakistan, having not ever accepted the treaty in the first place, are in a different position. Their nukes are treated with skepticism naturally, but they haven't ever agreed to anything so are exempt from its guidelines.

North Korea is a unique case, in that it did sign the treaty, but later withdrew its acceptance and are now, as you say, 'posturing', after never having come into compliance when they were abiding the treaty and having acceded. That there are questions as to their governmental leadership, and that they are testing nuclear devices in secret only exacerbates that, at the very least, we need to keep our eyes on what they are doing.

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

#58

Post by Volpe »

taligent wrote: post #56
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…

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 does a country draw the line of "national interest"? Because it seems (in the case of the CIA) to have gotten out of hand.

Edit:

> Show me where France has on repeated occasions attacked their neighbours and destabilised the region.

Substitute France with Israel then. There is no consistency with the U.Ses labeling of 'Evil'/'terrorist' regimes.

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

#59

Post by cynicalkane »

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…

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.

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

#60

Post by fatbird »

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…

The CIA was responsible, under Eisenhower's direction, for overthrowing Mosaddegh in Iran, leading to the Shah, and then the hostage crisis and the current regime. When you wave your hands and pretend to be adding up wins and losses like this, do you consider where the CIA is a net liability? How did their arming of the Afghans who would later become the Taliban work out, in your accounting?
Post reply on HN