> What’s more, unlike other intelligence activities – such as cyberattacks, which are characterized by their discretion, the attack on the North Korean embassy was especially violent. On February 22 at 3pm, 10 masked men carrying alleged imitation weapons broke into the embassy, located north of the capital in the residential area of Aravaca. They tied up the eight people inside and put bags on their heads. The victims were beaten and interrogated. A woman managed to escape from a window on the second floor and her screams for help were heard by a neighbor, who contacted the police.
> Officers arrived at the scene but when they tried to enter the embassy a man opened the door to them and told them that there was nothing going on. Minutes later, two luxury vehicles sped out of the embassy. The cars used for the getaway belonged to the diplomatic mission and were later abandoned in a nearby street.
This doesn't add up at all. An operation like this would be guaranteed to blow up into a major diplomatic incident with repercussions far more negative than whatever the US could hope to gain. Surely real CIA agents understand that.
This "operation" literally sounds like some James Bond plot.
So they've pissed off Spain. So what? Arrogance is a characteristic. Maybe they assumed Spain was like other Latin American countries where they could operate freely.
The Saudi murder of Khashoggi was similarly blatent, and that's not really affected US support for them.
* He isn't particularly concerned with pissing off allies.
* He has taken a particular interest in North Korean negotiations so is likely taking more direct control on this front.
* These actions demonstrate a desire to increase US negotiating leverage especially in light of the last failed summit.
Spain is a European country.
I don't follow the argument that this makes the CIA implication less probable.
Surely all the spook agencies of any country understand that and yet it happened.
If something, we could ask ourselves "who's is arrogant enough to do something like that in a foreign country?"
North Korea just isn't that important. Seems to be connected to a top DPRK diplomat who is involved in the Trump meetings, but roughing up an embassy doesnt have any obvious benefit.
Which doesnt mean the CIA wasnt involved, but the comment you are replying to seems to be largely reacting to how curious this event seems.
No question, like none at all?
The fact that this is only making bigger news after weeks, and only because the police was actually called to the scene, ultimately leading to the CIA connection, does kinda contradict that idea.
Who knows if the Koreans would even have been willing to call local police themselves, embarrassment can play a very big role here, just like having a foreign police force go through your embassy isn't without its own set of very relevant security issues.
Trump constantly insist on "not taking any options from the table" to stay "unpredictable" as such this would fit neatly right in there along the lines of "We can do this to you, and there's literally nothing you can do about it, don't forget who's holding all the cards here!"
Something tells me the Spanish govt will do nothing about it besides issuing a non-consequential statement of disapproval just like when Merkel found out her blackberry was being tapped by the five eyes. Gotta love sovereignty,
Fun side-fact about that particular thing: Not much did happen there because nothing about that was actually illegal. The NSA totally had and still has, the right to spy on Merkel .
Exceptions for this kind of surveillance were already lobbied into the German constitution by NSA surveillance interests decades ago . Couldn't have German constitutional rights be in the way of winning the intelligence Cold War.
The German BND gladly goes along with it all of this, as their origin traces right back to the CIA .
They don't seem to know who actually did this... not at this point.
Maybe some folks involved had some "connection" at some point in their lives, but this seems really weird as an official or even non official operation.
Like what do you get interrogating these folks anyway, you automatically give away what you're asking for. Strange.
If the CIA or anyone was armed with fake guns breaking into embassies and trying to extract information by force regularly ... we'd hear about it.
Something slower, more covert, and less out of a blockbuster spy movie. More John Le Carré and less James Bond.
Some have claimed that their secrecy is less about national security, and more about job security. If the public knew their mistakes, they would have been disbanded a long time ago (although similar claims have been made about the UK's SIS).
Are you serious? That example is a far cry from acting like a bunch of incompetent bank robbers, like whoever conducted this present attack on the NK embassy.
I can't convince you otherwise, or even explain my own POV, if you have some strong belief that this must be them, even without much of any evidence.
I also don't think people care like you think they care.
That wasn't something I said.
> if you have some strong belief that this must be them
Literally never said nor implied that.
> I also don't think people care like you think they care.
I don't know what this is in response to.
Did you reply to the wrong post?
What do you actually know about anything CIA-related that makes you believe you know if this or that is or isn't a CIA thing?
It's rather odd framing this as a right vs. left discussion when traditionally it's been the other way round. FBI harassment of MLK, or COINTELPRO, are traditional examples of the deep state against the left. The left could write a very long charge sheet against the CIA.
Of course, this is consistent with the argument that the people complaining about the deep state on the right aren't "organic" but instead funded by a foreign intelligence service.
>The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.
>America doesn’t have coups or tanks in the street. But a deep state of sorts exists here and it includes national security bureaucrats who use secretly collected information to shape or curb the actions of elected officials.
But the whole "deep state" term seems to imply a great deal more. We have people here claiming the CIA is doing this to undermine the president. That's not at all backed up or necessary follows bureaucracy operating on its own.
I don't know what you mean by that.