CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela

A couple of points here. First, to those who equate all the hippies with some pervasive "spit on the soldiers" phenomenon. You're just wrong. But if you didn't live through that era, then you're just regurgitating the sound bites that the media have made available to a gullible generation.

I was against the war, but I went anyway. So I have earned the right to say what I chose, and some bile from those who toady to the party line can in no way diminish a citizens right to question the actions of rouge elements and agencies that are our employees.

And I'm one "senior citizen" that will NOT go quietly into that good night. Bear in mind that Watergate was the action of my generation. To hear some on these boards, there should have been no repercussions for one political party playing dirty tricks on another to steal an election. To them Tricky Dick is a hero and role model.

No matter the evil of some dictator, he isn't the point. The point is ; Do American agencies have a divine right to use whatever tactics they so choose to subvert the political path of other nations? Are such tactics OK as long as we do it to "them", but not to other Americans? How is an action justified for democracy, when it isn't democratic in it's very approach?

Now personally, I have found no evidence that the CIA is doing anything for or against Chavez. But considering their track record, it ought to be worth considering. The US, the country that I love, has long used the CIA and other means to subvert and topple governments around the globe, all the while claiming to stand up for freedom. Afghanistan is a good example of one that came back to bite us in the ass.

The fact is, many in the government, as well as on this forum, want only the freedom they approve of. They want the power to choose for others. They want to play at being democratic while behaving like a dictator. They want to use fear as a goad to the American people to achieve their personal goals of being in total control.

And just as Chavez calls it being a traitor not to see things his way, so too does our government want to label anyone that disagrees with their actions as unpatriotic. And it would seem , from the venom of those posters on this board, that the hypocrisy of justification is alive and well.

In the end, no one can justify criminal actions by saying that it is for the good of mankind. Mankind is never raised, but only lowered, when a crime is committed, be it a crime by the individual or an agency or a nation. There is no middle ground wherein a crime is a good thing as long as you do it to someone else.

Questions:

If other governments practice espionage, dirty tricks, or whatever you want to call it, that causes harm to the U.S. and/or its citizens, should the U.S.

a) Turn the other cheek and just take what they dish out and it's consequences, or

b) Basically respond in kind?


If the U.S. (CIA) is aware of activites occuring in another country that could cause harm to the U.S. and/or its citizens, should the U.S

a) do nothing and try to minimize the damage once it occurs, or

b) actively try to disrupt and stop those activities before anything happens here to harm the country or its citizens?

[edit on 11/29/2007 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by welivefortheson
reply to post by Hot_Wings

 

you obviusly have no knowledge of the history of the cia.

vietnam
comabodia
panama
nicaragua
iraq
somalia
columbia
el salvador
philippines
east timor
indonesia

i could go on

WELL SAID!!

Indeed, the previous poster thanking the CIA for our lack of a World War seems to be a bit naive.

I would make the argument that we seem to have been in a perpetual World War since the mid 1950's.

As my support for this thought, see the above list and include the "Cold War".



Jasn

Originally posted by centurion1211
Questions:

If other governments practice espionage, dirty tricks, or whatever you want to call it, that causes harm to the U.S. and/or its citizens, should the U.S.

a) Turn the other cheek and just take what they dish out and it's consequences, or

b) Basically respond in kind?

But it cannot be respond until an action is taken. You cannot preemptively respond, the very concept has no logic.


[quote]If the U.S. (CIA) is aware of activites occuring in another country that could cause harm to the U.S. and/or its citizens, should the U.S

a) do nothing and try to minimize the damage once it occurs, or

b) actively try to disrupt and stop those activities before anything happens here to harm the country or its citizens?

[edit on 11/29/2007 by centurion1211]

The key word here is "could". Just because your car could back over my rosebush because it's a massive 4X4 with a lot of blind spots and the turning radius of a Sherman Tank, should I go over into your yard and put sugar in the tank to protect interests?

You, and others, confuse the desire with the action. Because a person, or a nation, has desires, is not enough justification for a civilized people to attack them, either openly or covertly. You might right now be angry enough to rip my lungs out because I refuse to knuckle under to your will in this matter. That would be a desire. (Vengeance as pleasure:lol

But you would find it a bit overboard of me to try to have you banned for just feeling those desires, though I could justify it as being an action to protect myself from you.

As hard as it is to face, certain actions, while they may be justifiable under the idea of safety, are neither right nor profitable.

No matter the evil of some dictator, he isn't the point.

Really? Well that shows your lack of brilliance doesn’t it. The dictator is precisely the point. Do you want to know why you would say that. Its called denial. Denial of reality and the truth. Your comments are akin to the lowest form of hypocrisy and lies.

You live in a society that is the absolute byproduct of treachery, warfare, spying, and assassinations and much more. The freedoms that you enjoy were bought and paid for by people who did these things against their own government and even their fellow neighbors. These people were called the Colonists, our forefathers. They committed acts of terrorism, thievery, bribing, spying, and assassinations in order to form their own government, The United States of America.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

But you choose to deny the truths of life. You chose to lie about the truth because that’s the only way that you can continue to live in “La La Land” thinking that the world is some little fairy place where “Good People” only do religious acts of kindness and charity.

You obviously don’t believe in God or religion. Because if you did, you would have accepted what warfare is and what it means. Yes, I’ll say it again for those in denial, “Warfare”. You obviously don’t understand the concept and want to deny that it exists.

Here is what America needs very badly. We need another 9/11. We need another terrorist attack that is so devastating that people like you in this country, living in denial of the realities of warfare, will be shaken to their foundations with the undeniable truth that branches of our government do what is “Necessary” for peace and prosperity.

The irony of this entire thread is that so many of you have been living in such a dream world of peace and freedom that you have forgotten the realities of life that other people have had to do to give those freedoms and peace to you. Your entire stance is a spit in the face of every American who has gone “Above and Beyond the Call of Duty” for his country.

reply to post by SimiusDei

Sorry, but I am NOT going to believe or trust anything coming out of a paper in Venezuela. Chavez controls everything there like the dictator he is.

Whats really sad is how most here immediately believe anything coming from countries which are trying to hurt America. However, when its a U.S. source, the same people immediately denounce it as propaganda. Those who think like this, sadly, have their beliefs twisted.

reply to post by NGC2736


This highlights a basic philosophical divide between us, because I don't believe we have to wait until a crime is actually committed before acting on a tip in order to stop it.

I think it was you that liked to use personal analogies earlier. OK, so if you are trained and have a concealed carry permit and someone walks up to you and your family and pulls a knife, do you wait to see if they really do stab your wife (BTW it's been proven that you won't have time to stop them if you wait until they actually make their move), or do you do whatever it takes to protect your family?

IMO what we're discussing is nothing more than a scaled up version of the scenario I wrote above. And I prefer that the potential perpetrators be taken care of before they do harm to innocents.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
reply to post by SimiusDei

 

Sorry, but I am NOT going to believe or trust anything coming out of a paper in Venezuela. Chavez controls everything there like the dictator he is.

Whats really sad is how most here immediately believe anything coming from countries which are trying to hurt America. However, when its a U.S. source, the same people immediately denounce it as propaganda. Those who think like this, sadly, have their beliefs twisted.

Exactly. No one wants to even consider that a U.S. media source might be telling the truth, but here's a venezuelan news source controlled by chavez - remember, he's already shut down all the opposition media there - and many of you are just swallowing it whole (just because it conveniently meets your personal beliefs?) without even considering the source.

Deny ignorance indeed ...

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


Hey, that's your right.

The beauties of "freedom to choose" no?


However, denouncing it outright simply because it comes from a Venezuelan paper is a bit of a rush to judgement, IMHO.

Surely it can't be anymore biased or controlled than our own "major" newspapers can it?





Jasn

Originally posted by centurion1211

Exactly. No one wants to even consider that a U.S. media source might be telling the truth, but here's a venezuelan news source controlled by chavez - remember, he's already shut down all the opposition media there - and many of you are just swallowing it whole (just because it conveniently meets your personal beliefs?) without even considering the source.

Deny ignorance indeed ...

Well, we have made the choice to accept the possibility of this news story being true through a process of deductive reasoning based on the track record of the CIA.

You see, operations such as this have become the norm in countries much like Venezuela over the past several decades and, therefore, we feel that there is a VERY good chance that this is nothing but another thing to add to the long list of of CIA "policies" in regards to foreign countries and their leaders/citizens.



It is not as if the CIA hasn't been doing this exact same thing in virtually ANY country they choose since their inception.

Given the choice between the CIA and a Venezuelan newspaper, I'm sorry, but I must give the paper the benefit of the doubt.

In fact, I would probably trust the musings of an ultra imaginative 5 year old over anything the CIA says or does.



Jasn

reply to post by centurion1211


The difference is about 3000 miles-our shore to theirs.

Sure the knife fight scene is good. But be logical with it. To pull a weapon onsomeone means that you are in their space. Now society would take a dim view of me shooting someone in his own yard for pulling a knife. No matter how loud he talked, while he's in his yard, he can say what he likes.

But then, we are seeing a mindset in the west against free speech by our own citizens, so I can understand where our government would think it had a right to stifle it in another nation.

And I'm NOT defending that a-hole Chavez by pointing out the wrong way of going about this. All these pity me and all the dead heroes crap is a smokescreen to cover the fact that it is wrong. If Chavez needs to be stopped, then do so, but don't hide the fact that you're doing it and why. And if you do it, then make sure you really have a reason, unlike Iraq and those WMDs. Nobody trusts a sneak.

And I'll say again, because it's so hard for people to believe that someone can be against a course of action on principles, that I don't yet have any knowledge to make me think that the CIA has done anything wrong in thi instance.

Originally posted by SimiusDei

CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela

www.venezuelanalysis.com

In the memo, the CIA proposes the following tactics and actions:

* Take the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation
* Generate a climate of ungovernability
* Provoke a general uprising in a substantial part of the population
* Engage in a "plan to implode" the voting centers on election day by encouraging opposition voters to "VOTE and REMAIN" in their centers to agitate others
* Start to release data during the early hours of the afternoon ...

(visit the link for the full news article)

I wonder if these tactics can be used in retaliation in our modern day society to create positive and permanent change? Fight fire with fire, obviously it's been working for the negative manipulation of foreign countries for the past 60 years, or so.

reply to post by centurion1211

Exactly. No one wants to even consider that a U.S. media source might be telling the truth, but here's a venezuelan news source controlled by chavez

Good point, I agree many americans seem to blame everything on their gov't which is odd considering that the gov't is for the people by the people.. so they should be blaming themselves.

However, I would point out that the revolving door between the CIA and the wire news services has been historically documented. It's a fact.

I think the point is we have to ask who's side we are on? Tehran is cause for concern, but I think Chavez is all bark and no bite. Chavez could become an ally with new leadership within the USA. Let's not forget we tried to kill him. Despite ideological differences, it's logical for anyone to be critical of those who seek their demise.

Backgrounder:

Perhaps no world leader is better placed to challenge the global authority of the United States than Hugo Chavez, the populist leader of Venezuela. As the head of one of the world's largest oil-producing countries, Chavez has been instrumental in raising world oil prices, undermining the control and profits of the multinational oil companies, and introducing innovative plans to use the wealth from this natural resource to help the impoverished-rather than the already powerful-in his own country and around the world. As the popularly elected president of one of South America's largest democracies, his strong resistance to the Bush administration's Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) has severely set back, if not derailed entirely, the US's long-held hemispheric agenda.

When in 2005 Bush ally and Christian fundamentalist Pat Robertson called for Chavez's assassination ("It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war"), public outcry forced some questions: Was that, in fact, a CIA goal? Did the US have plans to invade Venezuela (as Chavez alluded to receiving intelligence about on Nightline in September 2005)? And exactly what was the extent of US knowledge of or involvement in the April 2002 coup against Chavez? (He was back in power within two days, after 250,000 took to the streets in Venezuela to protest.)

Venezuelan-American attorney Eva Golinger and journalist Jeremy Bigwood have used the US Freedom of Information Act to obtain government documents about US intervention in Venezuela. The Chavez Code contains this irrefutable evidence that, at the very least, the US knew about the plot to overthrow Chavez before it happened. The history of US interventions across Latin America, the suspicious blacked-out lines and pages, and the ongoing investigation suggest an even darker tale.

Eva Golinger was educated at Sarah Lawrence College and the City University of New York Law School. Her investigation into US involvement in the coup against Chavez has been covered by major media throughout the US and in Venezuela. She divides her time between New York and Caracas. The Chavez Code is her first book.

www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by Scramjet76


Good point, I agree many americans seem to blame everything on their gov't which is odd considering that the gov't is for the people by the people.. so they should be blaming themselves.

The point of the government being "of the people, by the people, for the people" is one that is open to dispute.

Many of us feel that our elections and "choice" were hijacked long ago.

Just as a small example of this, look at the tremendous number of "Bonesmen" who manage to obtain high places within the government.

What is more likely? That we, the people, just happen to love these guys? Or that they got their foot in the door and have insured that fellow "brothers" get in as well?

J

reply to post by SimiusDei

Many of us feel that our elections and "choice" were hijacked long ago.

Yes but there's a difference between "many" and "majority."

If there were more people who read books instead of watching bogus reality TV shows, maybe we could vote the right people in. You can't force people to turn off Jerry Springer and pick up a book on politics, the CIA, UFOs, or whatever subject you think is important. Quite frankly I think the majority are too busy "keeping up with the Joneses." When americans come home from a hard days work they want to drink a beer and watch a goofy tv show. There's no time in the day for broad conspiracy topics. Thus you see our species is fundamentally lined with weakness.

redacted by poster ...

[edit on 11/29/2007 by centurion1211]

FILM-VENEZUELA: Documentary Revolution
By Alejandro Kirk

MONTEVIDEO, Apr 26 (IPS) - For Venezuelan documentary maker Angel Palacios, truth is not impartial, but it is possible for the media to be independent, as long as they do not try to be ”independent of the world.”

Source

Just to throw this into the mix... i sure a lot of you have seen Aaron Russos' interview where he talks about the Rockerfellers' plans, one of the last being to "go into" Venezuela.
Just a thought....

Just because one nation doesn't like the way things are going in another country doesn't mean you have the right to interfere. Who's to say you're right in the first place? its subjective.

To think any intelligence agencies don't have agendas and have your best interests in mind all the time is plain naive.