Was Michael Hastings targeted by the CIA?

[frank ryan]

If I'm a spook and I want to disappear someone, I'm not going to orchestrate an explosive one-man accident with a tree...way too complicated. I'm going to get me an umbrella and a teaspoon of ricin.

Yeah, I agree but it isn't silly to think that an investigative reporter who has pissed people off and expresses worry about his well-being before he dies in a firey single car accident, might have been done in.

I don't think he was murdered. I also hope the CIA/FBI/NSA/Whole damn government is smart enough to know creating martyrs is less than pragmatic.

[Non Sequitur]

Yeah, I agree but it isn't silly to think that an investigative reporter who has pissed people off and expresses worry about his well-being before he dies in a firey single car accident, might have been done in.

I don't think he was murdered. I also hope the CIA/FBI/NSA/Whole damn government is smart enough to know creating martyrs is less than pragmatic.

I have no trouble believing the CIA/FBI/NSA would kill someone. I'm confident our intelligence community is just as sinister as any other. I just like to think that when we kill people, we're good enough at it that it would never occur to someone that foul play was involved.

[myboynoah]

There would need to be a presidential finding, so Obama is behind this; obviously.

[woot]

It's a question worth asking. It seems like too public and a high profile a death though for a covert assassination.

Sometimes people who believe in conspiracies are right. I don't think it is an irrational thought to suspect foul play. The more I hear the less inclined I am to believe that but it doesn't equate to having some mental deficiency.

It's ok Il pad, YOhio holds me in poor esteem for my world views.

I think it's perfectly rational to ask questions if you don't know the answer. The problem among the conspiracy crowd is that they continue to ask the same questions over and over again even after those questions have been answered, or in a few cases, when it's essentially unknowable but for which there are plausible answers that are way more likely than conspiracy.

People are still asking why WTC7 came down or who killed JFK. These are not mysteries. We know the answers to these questions. And yet the "hey I'm just asking questions!" crowd isn't satisfied because the right answers don't involve their pet theories. They're not just asking questions; they're convinced of their evidence-free conspiracies and will accept no substitute.

[il Padrino Ute]

To clarify why I started this thread, it was only for discussion. I really don't have an opinion one way or the other as I've not heard of any kind of investigation and findings into it.

YO may be the only one here who might think that I believe in a conspiracy, but that's because he enjoys mocking me for his own personal amusement.

[venkman]

I think it's perfectly rational to ask questions if you don't know the answer. The problem among the conspiracy crowd is that they continue to ask the same questions over and over again even after those questions have been answered, or in a few cases, when it's essentially unknowable but for which there are plausible answers that are way more likely than conspiracy.

People are still asking why WTC7 came down or who killed JFK. These are not mysteries. We know the answers to these questions. And yet the "hey I'm just asking questions!" crowd isn't satisfied because the right answers don't involve their pet theories. They're not just asking questions; they're convinced of their evidence-free conspiracies and will accept no substitute.

The problem with the anti-conspiracy crowd is that nothing is a conspiracy. I mean, conspiracies exist, you'd think every once in a while, the anti-conspiracy crowd (ie. the establishment, the respectable people) would come out and say, "ok, this one really was a conspiracy". Instead, they only look at evidence that fits their preconceived notion that it can't be a conspiracy. Just like many conspiracy theorists only look for evidence the supports their theory that there was a conspiracy.

And the JFK assasination was a conspiracy. Please.

[venkman]

I have no trouble believing the CIA/FBI/NSA would kill someone. I'm confident our intelligence community is just as sinister as any other. I just like to think that when we kill people, we're good enough at it that it would never occur to someone that foul play was involved.

Great point.

But a teaspoon of ricin is too easy. Maybe they get bored and want to challenge themselves sometimes.

[woot]

The problem with the anti-conspiracy crowd is that nothing is a conspiracy. I mean, conspiracies exist, you'd think every once in a while, the anti-conspiracy crowd (ie. the establishment, the respectable people) would come out and say, "ok, this one really was a conspiracy". Instead, they only look at evidence that fits their preconceived notion that it can't be a conspiracy. Just like many conspiracy theorists only look for evidence the supports their theory that there was a conspiracy.

And the JFK assasination was a conspiracy. Please.

When I refer to the conspiracy crowd, I'm mostly referring to the crazy kook crowd. The Lochness monster isn't a conspiracy (as far as I know) but it's the same gullible people that believe in stuff like that. Of course conspiracies actually exist! Thousands of people have apparently been conspiring to spy on us for years, the cause of Pat Tillman's death was covered up via a fairly large conspiracy of silence, etc. It isn't the conspiracy that makes these nutters wrong, it's their insistence in the face of evidence that makes them wrong.

Furthermore, the fact that we are aware of so many actual conspiracies is not evidence that any given nutter's pet theory is more plausible. Conspiracies fail (or are discovered afterward, at least) because there are always leaks. If thousands of people conspired to bring down the WTC, we would know all about it by now.

And no, the JFK assassination was not a conspiracy. I strongly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-His...ref=pd_sim_b_1 Or the abbreviated version, if you like: http://www.amazon.com/Four-Days-Nove.../dp/0393332152

[Guest]

Couldn't religion be considered a conspiracy theory? Religion is just a bunch of people asking question with other people giving answers they can't prove. I know I'm not the first with this idea but I see lots of similarities between religion and conspiracy theories.

[Non Sequitur]

And no, the JFK assassination was not a conspiracy. I strongly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-His...ref=pd_sim_b_1 Or the abbreviated version, if you like: http://www.amazon.com/Four-Days-Nove.../dp/0393332152

Wow, there's a book that gives an explanation of the JFK assassination? It's about time.

[woot]

Couldn't religion be considered a conspiracy theory? Religion is just a bunch of people asking question with other people giving answers they can't prove. I know I'm not the first with this idea but I see lots of similarities between religion and conspiracy theories.

There's a lot of similarity is most every form of pseudoscience. From chem trails to UFOs to certain religious beliefs, it's all about believing strongly in a conclusion that makes you feel good and then working to make any available evidence fit your narrative. I don't think this applies to all styles of religious belief, but definitely to some.

[il Padrino Ute]

When I refer to the conspiracy crowd, I'm mostly referring to the crazy kook crowd. The Lochness monster isn't a conspiracy (as far as I know) but it's the same gullible people that believe in stuff like that. Of course conspiracies actually exist! Thousands of people have apparently been conspiring to spy on us for years, the cause of Pat Tillman's death was covered up via a fairly large conspiracy of silence, etc. It isn't the conspiracy that makes these nutters wrong, it's their insistence in the face of evidence that makes them wrong.

Furthermore, the fact that we are aware of so many actual conspiracies is not evidence that any given nutter's pet theory is more plausible. Conspiracies fail (or are discovered afterward, at least) because there are always leaks. If thousands of people conspired to bring down the WTC, we would know all about it by now.

And no, the JFK assassination was not a conspiracy. I strongly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-His...ref=pd_sim_b_1 Or the abbreviated version, if you like: http://www.amazon.com/Four-Days-Nove.../dp/0393332152

I don't buy the Kennedy assassination conspiracies, but I don't know if this book is as credible as you would have us believe, considering it's the same guy who wrote this book. He's a left-wing nut.

[Guest]

There's a lot of similarity is most every form of pseudoscience. From chem trails to UFOs to certain religious beliefs, it's all about believing strongly in a conclusion that makes you feel good and then working to make any available evidence fit your narrative. I don't think this applies to all styles of religious belief, but definitely to some.

I agree but I think this to 99% of the religions out there. Not just some.

[woot]

I don't buy the Kennedy assassination conspiracies, but I don't know if this book is as credible as you would have us believe, considering it's the same guy who wrote this book. He's a left-wing nut.

I know his politics will be an issue for people like you, but he really is one of the greatest living experts on the JFK assassination. I don't think this is a partisan issue anyway. Unless you're of the opinion that someone who isn't a republican lacks credibility in general, it's not clear to me why his politics would matter on this issue.

[il Padrino Ute]

I know his politics will be an issue for people like you, but he really is one of the greatest living experts on the JFK assassination. I don't think this is a partisan issue anyway. Unless you're of the opinion that someone who isn't a republican lacks credibility in general, it's not clear to me why his politics would matter on this issue.

For people like me?

No, I believe there can be credibility on either side. I'm just saying that this is a guy who wrote a book about prosecuting a POTUS for a war that was conducted only after Congress approved it. Bush went through the proper legal channels, as per the US Constitution, but this author is claiming that Bush broke the law. He didn't.

I'm just asking how a guy who wanted to illegally prosecute Bush -under the guise of a hypothetical court - can claim that the Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts are completely out of touch with reality.