Also, Bay of Pigs was far from an invasion. We didn't even send in air support!
Yes, so take what they say or do with a grain of salt. For instance, as I wrote, they told us they had proven Iraq had WMDs but that was later found to not be true.
> Also, Bay of Pigs was far from an invasion. We didn't even send in air support!
You're manipulating the definition of invasion. An invasion is an invasion. Yes we did not send air planes.
And I already agreed with your point that the CIA is an organization whose intentions are allied with US national interests, I wrote that in my post actually.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/world/europe/vladimir-puti...
And it looks like the people working in our US intelligence agencies also get toyed with from time to time. Either that or there is a bigger pedophile ring in the intelligence agencies than the Vatican:
How was it even ruled suicide? How does one shoot ones own head and then shoot it again for a second time? No, am not going to try it and I mean it, so don't make me suicide for questioning this.
> Funded Jihad and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups
If CIA did it, then isn't CIA a terrorist organization? And if its doing it with support of the president, then ..?
I was unable to find any other details of this case, or of other cases of multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head.
I'm not sure that's the case. A second round consciously fired would be practically impossible, sure - but if the person is using a semi-automatic handgun (the most common type) and their finger muscles contract automatically upon the disruption to their CNS, I can totally see a second round being fired.
> there is, however, no doubt that they have also made contributions to the public good. I am merely pointing out that the CIA is not a purely altruistic and infallible source.
The rest were just facts that are in the public domain already, not opinions or personal attacks.
If you are being asked to take someone's or an organization's word on something, their credibility is a reasonable thing to address, so that's why the post is relevant.
Your post, however, comes across as attacking the argument with insult without substantiation.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.
-Funded and militarized terrorists in foreign countries^6
-Funded Blood and Crips gangs in California through drug smuggling^1
-Facilitated distribution of crack cocaine, contributing to the explosion of crack cocaine in America (The reporter who broke this story was later found to have died to two gunshot wounds to the head. It was ruled a suicide)^2
-Influenced media and created propaganda through Operation Mockingbird^3
-Claimed 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.' No such weapons were ever found
-Funded Jihad and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups^4
-Carried out an illegal and failed invasion of Cuba^5
Sources: 1 https://oig.justice.gov/special/9712/ch01p1.htm 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb#Dark_Alliance_series 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
Unfortunately, this list only covers errors of the CIA, and while it is far fall inclusive of all of them, there is, however, no doubt that they have also made contributions to the public good. I am merely pointing out that the CIA is not a purely altruistic and infallible source.