The CIA Killed Michael Hastings

Kobie · May 22, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
I wonder if you and Calamity are also skeptical of what McCoy, Webb and a host of others have written about documenting CIA involvement in the drug business? I wonder if I'll get a straight answer....

The CIA involvement in the drug business is pretty well documented. I guess that means they also invented technology to remotely KILL DRIVERS and nobody knows about it!

Of course, I haven't seen a conspiracy theory yet that you haven't eaten up like mama's meatloaf.

Kobie · May 22, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Which mode you in today? The 'I luv & trust my gubmint' mode? Looks like it. You'll be screamin' and hurlin' conspiracies tomorrow when there's another Trump iz Russhin Spy thread. :lol:

And herein lies the most dishonest argument of your thread -- that "teh CIA killed Michael Hastings" and "Trump had real shady contacts with some real shady Russians" are on par with each other regarding, yanno, evidence.

They're not. There is ZERO evidence the CIA killed Michael Hastings.

Fishking · May 22, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
And I believe that your theory is nonsense. Seeing as we didn't whack people like Snowden, Assange or Manning--- people who have done far more damage to the US than this Hastings individual--- there is no logical reason why the US government would have done so.

1. Snowden moved out of country and ultimately to Russia before he was found out. He was known to the public before there was a chance and the info was already leaked.
2. Assange has been hiding out in the Columbian embassy for years. He was also known to the public.
3. Manning wasn't known about until after the leaking and it was high profile.

These are all different things than someone who may have had information yet to release. The closest is Assange, but he is merely a middle man and it very well may happen if he ever leaves the embassy.

truthatallcost · May 22, 2017

Kobie said:
And herein lies the most dishonest argument of your thread -- that "teh CIA killed Michael Hastings" and "Trump had real shady contacts with some real shady Russians" are on par with each other regarding, yanno, evidence.

They're not. There is ZERO evidence the CIA killed Michael Hastings.

Please reply to the comment I addressed to you. I realize this isn't the European forum, but do try to show some decorum please.

Tigerace117 · May 22, 2017

Fishking said:
1. Snowden moved out of country and ultimately to Russia before he was found out. He was known to the public before there was a chance and the info was already leaked.
2. Assange has been hiding out in the Columbian embassy for years. He was also known to the public.
3. Manning wasn't known about until after the leaking and it was high profile.

These are all different things than someone who may have had information yet to release. The closest is Assange, but he is merely a middle man and it very well may happen if he ever leaves the embassy.

But he still could have been assassinated by the "secret shadow government" if such a thing existed.

South American countries are not known for their rigourous integrity. Bribe the right guy, and.....

But the "secret shadow government" would have known who he was.

Kobie · May 22, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Please reply to the comment I addressed to you. I realize this isn't the European forum, but do try to show some decorum please.

I'll reply to whichever comment I please.

Tigerace117 · May 22, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Killing Snowden now would be the equivalent of the Alexander Litvenenko murder. And the good ol' Murrican govment is so much more moral than the evil Russians, right? They would never commit such a blatant political assassination, wight?

Well, if they whack Snowden, they'd have to admit they're no better than the Russians. See?

Which is?

Because he's a helluva lot more of a truth seeker than you, or most of the lock- step Dems are. *Message*

I bet we can pin this on some poor black kid from the wrong side of town, amirite? Yeah, that's it. Then we can give a speech about BLM and the unfair profiling practices of the police tomorrow! Whoohoo, DNC 2017. Not your grandpa's Democratic Party!

Well at least the DNC's victim's deaths aren't being ruled a 'suicide' anymore. In the bad old days, someone would get whacked out in a park somewhere in DC, either by stabbing or gunshot wound to the back of the head, and the police would rule it a suicide.

They're slowly but surely getting more professional in how they kill people.

Why do you think a "secret shadow government" would care about public opinion? They are an imaginary evil cabal. And since the US government doesn't whack dissidents, it's a safe bet we are more moral than Putin's regime.

Anti US in general; Anti Democratic Party in more moderate terms; Anti Hilary Clinton in specific(since he blames her for him being bound by the law and having to hide to wait out the statue of limitations.

"Truth seeker" in your vocabulary seems to equate to "gullible".

That whole little rant right there? Doesn't actually rebut anything I said.

And, yet again, you have yet to prove the DNC has killed anybody. Occam's Razor says your case is full of it.

Fishking · May 22, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
But he still could have been assassinated by the "secret shadow government" if such a thing existed.

South American countries are not known for their rigourous integrity. Bribe the right guy, and.....

But the "secret shadow government" would have known who he was.

I'm not saying happened but it's obviously much more difficult of a procedure when someone is already known and high-profile. You start knocking off everyone that is high profile, no matter how sneaky and slick it you are, it starts adding up and people can figure it out.

Tigerace117 · May 22, 2017

Fishking said:
I'm not saying happened but it's obviously much more difficult of a procedure when someone is already known and high-profile. You start knocking off everyone that is high profile, no matter how sneaky and slick it you are, it starts adding up and people can figure it out.

But they can't prove anything. As I said before, I don't believe this half baked conspiracy theory. I find it highly implausible.

Regardless, it's a bit of a moot point--- if the government can't cover up a simple burglary, how are they supposed to cover up dozens of murders?

Fishking · May 22, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
But they can't prove anything. As I said before, I don't believe this half baked conspiracy theory. I find it highly implausible.

Regardless, it's a bit of a moot point--- if the government can't cover up a simple burglary, how are they supposed to cover up dozens of murders?

No one has proved Putin has had any people killed, either, buuuuuutt.....

Tigerace117 · May 22, 2017

Fishking said:
No one has proved Putin has had any people killed, either, buuuuuutt.....

There's a much higher likelyhood that he did than that he didn't.

That likelyhood doesn't seem to exist here in America.

Fishking · May 22, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
There's a much higher likelyhood that he did than that he didn't.

That likelyhood doesn't seem to exist here in America.

Aaannd...that's where bias comes to play. Everyone always excludes themselves and thinks their side is better than the other. I mean, we've supported genocide in Guatemala, installed dictators, ect...Yet somehow it's not a conceivable thing?

Tigerace117 · May 22, 2017

Fishking said:
Aaannd...that's where bias comes to play. Everyone always excludes themselves and thinks their side is better than the other. I mean, we've supported genocide in Guatemala, installed dictators, ect...Yet somehow it's not a conceivable thing?

Because it's never been proven to have happened before. Ever. And the US government simply isn't that good at hiding things that word doesn't eventually get out.

Fishking · May 22, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
Because it's never been proven to have happened before. Ever. And the US government simply isn't that good at hiding things that word doesn't eventually get out.

This passed thought the Joint Chiefs of Staff and went to the President's desk. And these types of things wouldn't be something that would be done with the knowledge of a larger group. It's perfectly within the realm of reasonable supposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Tigerace117 · May 22, 2017

Fishking said:
This passed thought the Joint Chiefs of Staff and went to the President's desk. And these types of things wouldn't be something that would be done with the knowledge of a larger group. It's perfectly within the realm of reasonable supposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

So.....you use a plan which never happened--- was rejected somewhat vehemently--- as proof that US government does such activities?

Kobie · May 22, 2017

Fishking said:
Aaannd...that's where bias comes to play. Everyone always excludes themselves and thinks their side is better than the other. I mean, we've supported genocide in Guatemala, installed dictators, ect...Yet somehow it's not a conceivable thing?

Of course the CIA has done some pretty awful stuff. However, in this thread, we're talking about the CIA inventing Star Trek technology to take over a car's computer remotely and use it to crash and kill the driver, and it's been used apparently ONCE in four years, to kill a reporter. The idea is preposterous.

Fishking · May 22, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
So.....you use a plan which never happened--- was rejected somewhat vehemently--- as proof that US government does such activities?

Apparently you don't know what the Joint Chiefs of Staff is, if you think this wasn't at a level that should be very concerning.

Fishking · May 22, 2017

Kobie said:
Of course the CIA has done some pretty awful stuff. However, in this thread, we're talking about the CIA inventing Star Trek technology to take over a car's computer remotely and use it to crash and kill the driver, and it's been used apparently ONCE in four years, to kill a reporter. The idea is preposterous.

I don't think it's really that crazy. You can put a device on there that kills the breaks remotely, I'm sure that's not difficult to pull off. I think that's how it would have to have been done since the technique in the article I'm linking probably wasn't in play a couple of years ago.

Here?s how hackers can turn off your car as you drive | PBS NewsHour

Parrish · May 22, 2017

Just another diversion from 45's defenders. Hastings, Seth Rich, the DNC "lawsuit" ...

I agree with Elise Jordan, his widow. She called Geraldo a sick bastard and those who push these CT's abound are more of the same.

Kobie · May 22, 2017

Parrish said:
Just another diversion from 45's defenders. Hastings, Seth Rich, the DNC "lawsuit" ...

I agree with Elise Jordan, his widow. She called Geraldo a sick bastard and those who push these CT's abound are more of the same.

That's the other thing ... if there was any actual evidence that Hastings was murdered by the CIA's death ray or what have you, don't you think his family would be SCREAMING FROM THE GODDAMN RAFTERS about it? Same with Seth Rich! His family actively denies that he had anything to do with Wikileaks or the jabroni who's trying to implicate him from New Zealand while he hides from extradition on piracy charges (not the cool kind of piracy either). Why on earth would they do that if there was a shred of evidence to the contrary? Cowed into silence? Hardly -- I have a hard time believing the CIA or the DNC hit squads are going to just disappear an entire family with nobody asking questions.

Maybe their "families" are just paid crisis actors like those Sandy Hook frauds, amirite?

zyzygy · May 23, 2017

Fishking said:
I don't think it's really that crazy. You can put a device on there that kills the breaks remotely, I'm sure that's not difficult to pull off. I think that's how it would have to have been done since the technique in the article I'm linking probably wasn't in play a couple of years ago.

Here?s how hackers can turn off your car as you drive | PBS NewsHour

There are easier ways to kill somebody and make it look like an accident. This seems far-fetched. Maybe his brakes just failed.

Thoreau72 · May 23, 2017

Kobie said:
The CIA involvement in the drug business is pretty well documented. I guess that means they also invented technology to remotely KILL DRIVERS and nobody knows about it!

Of course, I haven't seen a conspiracy theory yet that you haven't eaten up like mama's meatloaf.

And I haven't seen an official government story that YOU haven't eaten up like mama's meatloaf.

As to the comparison, my point was that an agency known for its violent overthrowing of legitimately elected governments, known for all the "Charlie's War" type scenarios, known for importing cocaine and making and distributing crack, would have no problem offing some uppity journalist who was about to embarrass some big wigs.

But we don't know the truth. Maybe it wasn't the CIA. Maybe it was DIA or any of the other many such agencies. Spies and assassins R' US.