-Oswald did not have the training to headshot a moving target at extreme range
-Everyone associated with the killing "conveniently" disappeared or died shortly after the events
-Oswald was not an isolated or anonymous figure to the American intelligence establishment but a known if unstable variable connected to their own assets
-Oswald's disjointed but purposeful behavior was consistent with the mental programming methods developed by the CIA
-The Oswald assassination was without direct motive and impossible without inside assistance
-The CIA was known to be intensely disgruntled over JFK's intention to shitcan the agency and had a long history of knowing no bounds in their activities
Battletard wrote:
Okay, so some elements of our military acted immorally and hindered, hassled and annoyed the democratic process and impacted the state of the US to a minor degree.
Some elements? lol. The military, like all militaries, is organized on the principle of blind obedience and blind loyalty. The mindless hordes that snap to its defense and the brainwashed homunculi that scream "WE'RE FIGHTIN FOR UR FREEDOM" whenever their motives or actions are questioned is proof enough that the very danger of the military to the democracy is its monolithic nature.
A $12T debt is hardly "minor". Thousands of Americans dead in Vietnam, and the political and social changes that resulted, were hardly "minor". The enormous cost and political and cultural influence of the military that they have chosen to claim for themselves is hardly "minor".
What the military decided to do can be considered "minor" only presuming there were no alternatives.
It's also worth noting that the military unanimously recommended dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis by direct application of force. If we did what they said, because obviously the military knows best about war, you can damn well bet we'd live in a very different world.
Battletard wrote:
Mainstream belief for decades has been that Oswald did it, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Majority opinion is not factual evidence of anything. Facts are supported by logic and evidence, not just people saying so.
The very fact that what you claim is a simple rogue killing has not been conclusively resolved is itself proof that there is more to it than meets the eye.
Quote:
While I do think what you refer to are legitimate concerns (apart from the bogus claim that the CIA killed Kennedy), I do not believe for one second that the military would go rogue and completely disregard Presidential orders. If he said GTFO, shut down those bases, stop funding research for defense contractor welfare projects, they couldn't and wouldn't do shit about it.
They've done it before in the examples I gave.
What makes our military somehow different than every other military ever? What makes them somehow infinitely inclined to obey orders they have the means to disregard?
