[Epstein] Hello madda / Hello fadda / Gotta syndrome / Called Havana!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Epstein] Hello madda / Hello fadda / Gotta syndrome / Called Havana!

«‹›1450 »

Moridin920: Nov 15, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Ate My Balls Redux posted:

Has anyone said "The Island of Doctor Chomeau" yet?

# ? Jul 28, 2019 16:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 08:24

Segata Sanshiro: Sep 10, 2011; we can live for nothing
baby i don't care

lose me like the ocean
feel the motion

But Rocks Hurt Head posted:

Dershs public extended meltdown is restoring balance to the universe, one insane tweet at a time

fun isn't something one considers when exposing pedophiles

but this does put a smile on my face

# ? Jul 28, 2019 16:57

Ramrod Hotshot: May 30, 2003

I've definitely got Epstein brain. Last night I watched JFK for the first time. I had never heard of Jim Garrison or the New Orleans characters involved. Anyway, now I'm convinced the CIA is behind everything.

Any recommendations for a good history of the CIA? Something that's a sober analysis that sticks to known facts, yet also is not any way apologetic. I want to get into the real poo poo.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 17:23

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the joint chiefs of staff and department of defense made such proposals as first striking the USSR or getting the cia to false flag a cuban attack against civilians and military targets in the US to justify an invasion of cuba which kennedy rejected

william blum's killing hope catalogues cia operations abroad during the cold war

# ? Jul 28, 2019 17:32

Noam Jones: Jul 13, 2019; by Smythe

Ramrod Hotshot posted:

I've definitely got Epstein brain. Last night I watched JFK for the first time. I had never heard of Jim Garrison or the New Orleans characters involved. Anyway, now I'm convinced the CIA is behind everything.

Any recommendations for a good history of the CIA? Something that's a sober analysis that sticks to known facts, yet also is not any way apologetic. I want to get into the real poo poo.

research the Dulles brothers

# ? Jul 28, 2019 17:35

Fiend: Dec 2, 2001

I have to say, if Jeffrey Epstein was so smart, why did he name Little Saint James "Pedophile Island"?

# ? Jul 28, 2019 17:37

duomo: Oct 9, 2007; Soiled Meat

I think Legacy of Ashes is supposed to fit that bill.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 17:37

MeatwadIsGod: Sep 30, 2004; Foretold by Gyromancy

Ramrod Hotshot posted:

I've definitely got Epstein brain. Last night I watched JFK for the first time. I had never heard of Jim Garrison or the New Orleans characters involved. Anyway, now I'm convinced the CIA is behind everything.

Any recommendations for a good history of the CIA? Something that's a sober analysis that sticks to known facts, yet also is not any way apologetic. I want to get into the real poo poo.

Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner

Covers the CIA from its founding to about 2010 with loads of source material that had only recently been declassified at the time. Probably the most thorough overview imo. There are loads of books that delve into specific operations but this gives you a good timeline of everything and goes into a lot of the agency infighting and how the agency's relationship with presidential administrations got more strained and duplicitous over time.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 17:40

shame on an IGA: Apr 8, 2005

Ramrod Hotshot posted:

I've definitely got Epstein brain. Last night I watched JFK for the first time. I had never heard of Jim Garrison or the New Orleans characters involved. Anyway, now I'm convinced the CIA is behind everything.

Any recommendations for a good history of the CIA? Something that's a sober analysis that sticks to known facts, yet also is not any way apologetic. I want to get into the real poo poo.

Legacy of Ashes, Veil, and When Presidents Lie

# ? Jul 28, 2019 17:42

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Literally came here to say don't read Legacy of Ashes, especially if your interest was piqued by JFK.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 17:53

Chumbawumba4ever97: Dec 31, 2000; by Fluffdaddy

https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1155184707467825152

edit: oops, this was already posted 3 pages ago. Sorry!

Chumbawumba4ever97 has issued a correction as of 18:44 on Jul 28, 2019

# ? Jul 28, 2019 18:00

MeatwadIsGod: Sep 30, 2004; Foretold by Gyromancy

Helsing posted:

Literally came here to say don't read Legacy of Ashes, especially if your interest was piqued by JFK.

What don't you like about it?

# ? Jul 28, 2019 18:04

eschaton: Mar 7, 2007; Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

bloom posted:

I can't wait for the dersh, the most obviously guilty man after the president, to face some consequences

ᴀ ʜ ᴡ ᴇ ʟ ʟ ɴ ᴇ ᴠ ᴇ ʀ ᴛ ʜ ᴇ ʟ ᴇ s s

he�s already facing the worst consequences possible for him: he�s been ostracized by his social peers

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:09

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Legacy of Ashes is quite good. Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 200 is also worth reading.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:14

Atrocious Joe: Sep 2, 2011

It's been a while, but from what I remember Legacy of Ashes leans pretty heavily into the idea that the problem with the CIA was that they were brutal and incompetent. It's this sort of liberal understanding that the concept of the CIA as an instrument of US imperialism is fine, but it was just run badly.

For example, the books critiques the CIA smuggling fascist guerrillas into the USSR after WW2 on the grounds that the fascists were caught, not that the plan was evil in the first place.

Also, I think it sort of implied the Cubans killed JFK.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:18

Gazpacho: Jun 18, 2004; by Fluffdaddy; Slippery Tilde

gh0stpinballa posted:

the dyncorp stuff, one of his victims (and eventual conspirator) being from yugoslavia, and that poo poo with the plane ID tag has truly, completely broken me. my brain is leaking. i am getting schizophrenia. this is a legitimate global conspiracy.

https://www.wired.com/story/global-girl-jeffrey-epstein-and-the-lolita-express/

That�s the same columnist who wrote the �Hillary is light itself� piece lol. I can never forget

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:25

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Ramrod Hotshot posted:

I've definitely got Epstein brain. Last night I watched JFK for the first time. I had never heard of Jim Garrison or the New Orleans characters involved. Anyway, now I'm convinced the CIA is behind everything.

Any recommendations for a good history of the CIA? Something that's a sober analysis that sticks to known facts, yet also is not any way apologetic. I want to get into the real poo poo.

Legacy of Ashes, period.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:31

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Helsing posted:

Literally came here to say don't read Legacy of Ashes, especially if your interest was piqued by JFK.

on the contrary, read the Weiner.

but also read Waldron's book after you do

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:32

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

the best and most salient part of Stone's movie was a coked-up Joe Pesci screaming "even the shooters don't know who the shooter is, man!"

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:33

Gazpacho: Jun 18, 2004; by Fluffdaddy; Slippery Tilde

Ramrod Hotshot posted:

I've definitely got Epstein brain. Last night I watched JFK for the first time. I had never heard of Jim Garrison or the New Orleans characters involved. Anyway, now I'm convinced the CIA is behind everything.

Any recommendations for a good history of the CIA? Something that's a sober analysis that sticks to known facts, yet also is not any way apologetic. I want to get into the real poo poo.

Re JFK It�s always possible to present into so as to persuade the otherwise uninformed of dumb nonsense.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:39

bird with big dick: Oct 21, 2015

There's a book about JFK called 11/22/63 that's pretty good.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:56

Ramrod Hotshot: May 30, 2003

Gazpacho posted:

Re JFK It�s always possible to present into so as to persuade the otherwise uninformed of dumb nonsense.

From the bit of googling I did it's clear that Stone exaggerated some aspects and left out others, and I don't buy that LBJ signed off on it and especially not that it was about military contracts. I've also read equally compelling arguments for and against Oswald being the only shooter.

But it's plainly obvious that there was a conspiracy of some kind, and that conspiracy likely involved both the mafia and the CIA.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 19:59

Gazpacho: Jun 18, 2004; by Fluffdaddy; Slippery Tilde

Ramrod Hotshot posted:

But it's plainly obvious that there was a conspiracy of some kind, and that conspiracy likely involved both the mafia and the CIA.

nah

# ? Jul 28, 2019 20:03

freckle: Apr 6, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

Gazpacho posted:

nah

this fucker is CIA

# ? Jul 28, 2019 20:04

Gazpacho: Jun 18, 2004; by Fluffdaddy; Slippery Tilde

i'm mafioso *gestures*

# ? Jul 28, 2019 20:08

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

MeatwadIsGod posted:

What don't you like about it?

Ooook but strap on your tinfoil hat.

I think that because Weiner's book was so otherwise critical of the CIA and because he didn't want to sound like a lunatic and lose out on book sales he consciously decided not to cover details about Oswald's biography and the circumstances of his time in New Orleans and Mexico City in the summer of 63. The book doesn't even mention that Hoover and the FBI told Lyndon Johnson that the man claiming to be Oswald who showed up in Mexico City was an imposter and not the real Oswald (this is extremely serious since it implies somebody was actively trying to frame Oswald 6 weeks before the assassination, implying a conspiracy with significant resources and planning, and while there's evidence going both directions about whether it was really Oswald in Mexico City, the fact Weiner skips the controversy altogether is indicative of his general reluctance to deal with the subject). He also ignores the really weird circumstances of Oswalds career from his time in the Civil Air Patrol up through his time at Atsugi Air Base, Japan or his strange friendship with George de Mohrenschildt. No mention of David Ferrie (oh look another pedophile air plane pilot, what is it with these guys?) or Guy Bannister or the fact that Frontline actually discovered pictures of Oswald and Ferrie together in the CAP when Oswald was 16.

Years later US Senator Richard Schweiker, one of members of the Church Committee which took a second look at the JFK assassination among several other incidents, wrote that "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are fingerprints of intelligence." Weiner was too cowardly to go there, even if only to explain why he thought it was wrong. Instead he spent the entire chapter on Oswald speculating about how the real cover up was that Castro had JFK killed and the real scandal is that the CIA was unwilling to investigate thoroughly. This is, needless to say, an incredibly charitable account of the CIA's activity.

Oswald was, at bare mininum, of much greater interest to the CIA than they were ever willing to admit. It may be the case that Oswald was a genuine Marxist who was being monitored by the CIA as part of one of Angleton's mole hunts and they had to cover this all up because it was so embarrassing. Or maybe the truth is a lot more sinister. Either way I think Wiener recognized that even discussing this stuff would make his book sound like a loony conspiracy tract so he made the self interested decision to just not talk about the really weird and difficult to explain stuff that a lot of people would interpret as circumstantial evidence of a cover up.

Just to give an example of what you won't find in Weiner's account, I highly recommend reading this transcript of a Frontline interview of G. Robert Blakely, who was chief council for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The transcript is fascinating because it includes both the original interview from 93 and an addendum 10 years later in 03 where Blakely candidly outlines why he has now realized that the CIA was very actively covering something up. As you read this keep in mind that this transcript comes from several years before the publication of Legacy of Ashes:

quote:

G. Robert Blakey�s 2003 Addendum to this Interview:

I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:

The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission�s investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee�s investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency�s DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?

I don�t believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.

During the relevant period, the committee�s chief contact with the Agency on a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with me from Cornell, was anything but �happy.� Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that he create a new point of contact person who might �facilitate� the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to Joannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to help us. He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he thought he would be of help to us.

I was not told of Joannides� background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.

That the Agency would put a �material witness� in as a �filter� between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.

The committee�s researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.

They were certainly right about one question: the committee�s researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency�s integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.

For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

Significantly, the Warren Commission�s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

I am now in that camp.

Anyone interested in pursuing this story further should consult the reporting by Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post. See, e.g., Jefferson Morley, �Revelation 19.63� Miami New Times (April 2001).

To be very clear: the cover up may be that Oswald was being monitored by James Jesus Angleton as part of a counter intelligence mole hunt. In that case the reason for the cover up would be the CIA's massive embarrassment that someone they were actively following killed the President. Or it could be that Oswald was working for Carlos Marcelo or David Ferrie or someone else that the CIA was in bed with but not directly controlling, in which case, again, the motivation for the cover up would be standard CYA procedures. But at this point the fact there was a significant cover up - much greater than the one Weiner describes in his book - is well documented and attested to by senior US government investigators and legislators who have since looked into these events. So Weiner has no excuse here. If this was a story that he thought would distract from his larger history of the CIA I think it would have been more honest if he simply avoided the topic and admitted it was too vast and weird to cover in a single chapter.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 20:33

But Rocks Hurt Head: Jun 30, 2003; by Hand Knit; Pillbug

https://twitter.com/kbriquelet/status/1155529599016742914?s=20

Not great

E: lmao

https://twitter.com/kbriquelet/status/1155532201410420740?s=20

# ? Jul 28, 2019 21:07

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

Ramrod Hotshot posted:

I've definitely got Epstein brain. Last night I watched JFK for the first time. I had never heard of Jim Garrison or the New Orleans characters involved. Anyway, now I'm convinced the CIA is behind everything.

Any recommendations for a good history of the CIA? Something that's a sober analysis that sticks to known facts, yet also is not any way apologetic. I want to get into the real poo poo.

Killing Hope.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 21:10

Segata Sanshiro: Sep 10, 2011; we can live for nothing
baby i don't care

lose me like the ocean
feel the motion

it's my personal suspicion that chris cillizza wants to have intimate relations with someone his own speed (aka a literal child) more than anything else in life

but even the elite devil pedo cabal doesn't want his nerd rear end so he's stuck either cranking it to cp or trying desperately to work up the nerve to ask a 4th grader if they wanna "netflix and chill, as you youngins like to say :aatrek:

# ? Jul 28, 2019 21:34

Gazpacho: Jun 18, 2004; by Fluffdaddy; Slippery Tilde

martin luther king had kennedy assassinated because he believed johnson would be more effective at pushing through civil rights reform. prove me wrong.

# ? Jul 28, 2019 23:03

Fiend: Dec 2, 2001

Gazpacho posted:

martin luther king had kennedy assassinated because he believed johnson would be more effective at pushing through civil rights reform. prove me wrong.

Jesse Ventura said the same thing - this checks out.

# ? Jul 29, 2019 00:01

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

if King got the CIA to work with him then he was more persuasive than I thought

# ? Jul 29, 2019 00:11

MeatwadIsGod: Sep 30, 2004; Foretold by Gyromancy

Helsing posted:

Ooook but strap on your tinfoil hat.

drat. I didn't know any of this. I'm honestly not well versed on the JFK assassination beyond what I've read in a couple books.

# ? Jul 29, 2019 00:20

Eat This Glob: Jan 14, 2008; God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Who will wipe this blood off us? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent?

Ate My Balls Redux posted:

Has anyone said "The Island of Doctor Chomeau" yet?

# ? Jul 29, 2019 00:22

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Helsing posted:

It may be the case that Oswald was a genuine Marxist who was being monitored by the CIA as part of one of Angleton's mole hunts and they had to cover this all up because it was so embarrassing

I forget the author's name, but the relatively-new Angleton bio called "The Ghost" basically confirms this. IIRC, they have Angleton memos with Oswald in them as early as 1960.

and BTW you're basically totally correct, with the addition that they got a ton of info about this from a cellmate spy program in the 80s while Marcello was on the inside.

# ? Jul 29, 2019 02:06

Egg Moron: Jul 21, 2003; the dreams of the delighting void

CharlestheHammer posted:

if King got the CIA to work with him then he was more persuasive than I thought

King was months away from being installed as president by his CIA masters but the FBI took him out first

# ? Jul 29, 2019 02:55

dew worm: Apr 20, 2019

my 8th grade social studies teacher showed us the �back and to the left� scene from JFK as it were 100% pure fact

# ? Jul 29, 2019 03:23

Moridin920: Nov 15, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

The back and to the left thing is predicated on a misunderstanding of how ballistics work and I'm glad my 8th grade us history teacher showed us the zapruder film and explained it.

Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 05:09 on Jul 29, 2019

# ? Jul 29, 2019 05:04

HerraS: Apr 15, 2012; Looking professional when committing genocide is essential. This is mostly achieved by using a beret.

Olive drab colour ensures the genocider will remain hidden from his prey until it's too late for them to do anything.

gently caress reading about the CIA from a western perspective, dig up some eastern bloc sources that show how the entire agency is a bunch of dumb fucks that the KGB played like a fiddle

# ? Jul 29, 2019 05:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 08:24

yellowcar: Feb 14, 2010

kyoon, come back

pls

# ? Jul 29, 2019 05:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Epstein] Hello madda / Hello fadda / Gotta syndrome / Called Havana!

«‹›1450 »