• Hellfire103@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I thought the CIA always maintained that they had nothing to do with Lee Harvey Oswald or the JFK assassination?

    • SMillerNL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      If “intelligence agency caught lying” is all that’s needed to make it onion-y it would be a lot busier here.

      For satire I’d expect something like “CIA accidentally publishes message thanking Lee Harvey Oswald for his service”

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Well. That’s not changed by anything in your article …

      It’s interesting and all, but it’s more about how the people they were investigating under pseudonyms were eventually installed over the efforts to get investigate themselves…

      Like, that’s fucking huge. And definitely implies they were really involved in it, but it’s not a smoking gun

      Edit:

      To be clear the most likely explanation has always been the same as Cheney and 9/11…

      They knew it was coming, in general if not specific, and they choose to let it happen because that was what was best for their interests.

      That’s a billion times more likely than the CIA taking explicit actions to lead to the assassinations of a US president. It takes a lot to make something like this happen, very little to know it’s gonna happen and intentionally let it happen.

      • KnitWit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I also saw something at one point that claimed the solution to the magic bullet theory was just that a secret service member accidentally shot jfk after Oswald shot. And that the conspiracy/cover up is more along the lines of they didn’t want that getting out, either to protect the agency and/or the individual. In my mind this explanation makes sense, but I’m not really invested in any of it.