CIA sabotaged Soviet Union in 1982 - Page 2

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
You forgot to mention the exploding TV's

Didn't know about that.

Q Classic · February 27, 2004, 17:32

and suitcase nukes.

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and suitcase nukes.

Suitcase nukes are a misnomer. They are still quite large, too large to be lugged around by a single person. Anyway, what do suitcase nukes have to do with Western terrorism against the Communist states.

edit: D'oh!

Imran Siddiqui · February 27, 2004, 17:40

Quote:

Cuitcase nukes are a misnomer.

Indeed they are

JohnT · February 27, 2004, 17:45

Well, I'm still glad Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse!

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 17:47

Yer tryin' ta bait someone.

JohnT · February 27, 2004, 17:49

Me?

Q Classic · February 27, 2004, 17:49

Quote:

Suitcase nukes are a misnomer. They are still quite large, too large to be lugged around by a single person. Anyway, what do suitcase nukes have to do with Western terrorism against the Communist states.

beats me.

exploding tvs, suitcase nukes... i'm sure they have some connection.

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 17:50

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Me?

I've eatin' well today. I don't need no free meals dangling from a hook.

mrmitchell · February 27, 2004, 17:53

The CIA also sabatoged them in

1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
twice in 1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
January 1963
February 1963
March 1963
April 1963
May 1963
June 1963
July 1963
August 1963
September 1963
October 1963
November 1963
December 1963
1964 four times. dates classified.
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982: concinced USSR that Reagan would act rationally.
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
and already this year. the collapse of the SU is only a propoganda myth. It lives on and we still sabotage it.

JohnT · February 27, 2004, 18:01

Well, at least we got what we paid for.

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 18:04

An expensive, wasteful Cold War that killed tens of millions and threatened our democracy as well as the existence of humanity

I want a refund.

Shogun Gunner · February 27, 2004, 18:09

I think its fair to say that both sides were going after each other pretty aggressively for 40+ years.

I do think it's pretty ironic that the technology the Soviets wanted so bad...they got it so bad.

Regarding terrorism. This word gets used a lot now -- especially to paint the enemy as the "bad guys". However, couldn't any guerrila conflict, air based strike attack, etc that is not aimed directly at an enemy combatant (i.e. soldier, tank, military HQ) be called terrorism? To me, nuclear war is terrorism. "Terrorism" has a very loose definition - it's left to an individual's interpretation.

So we can say the US/NATO and USSR/Warsaw Pact engaged in terrorism against each other.

mrmitchell · February 27, 2004, 18:17

terrorism--directly fighting civilians to influence them into fear or a belief.

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 18:18

I've never seen any proof that the Eastern block engaged in similar acts against the West. I've seen allegations, always from extreme right publications, usually made by some ex-Soviet defector. If they were true, however, I'd expect to see the government talk more about it and the mainstream press to pick it up.

As for guerilla war, I only consider that terrorism when the targets are civillians, as in the cases of the Contras, UNITA, RENAMO, etc.

Shogun Gunner · February 27, 2004, 18:26

Guerilla warfare essentially uses civilivan populations as shields. That's putting non-combatants into harm's way.

regarding mrmitchell's definition, would the Allied bombing campaign in Germany/Japan AND the Germany V1/V2 campaign be terrorism? The attempt was to influence the population into giving up the fight - specifically supporting the war effort by working in factories, etc.

The Andy-Man · February 27, 2004, 18:26

why didn't they do anything in 1996?

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Guerilla warfare essentially uses civilivan populations as shields. That's putting non-combatants into harm's way.

That's a tactic, not a rule. Many guerilla armies did not do that, like the American army that fought the Brits, the Chinese Red Army, etc. The Contras didn't hide among civilians, but they did attack them. Same with UNITA and RENAMO. The two latter organizations both killed about a million people each. The Contras were kinda small potatoes, "only" killing 40,000.

Quote:

regarding mrmitchell's definition, would the Allied bombing campaign in Germany/Japan AND the Germany V1/V2 campaign be terrorism?

Hence the term, terror-bombing. Yes, it was terrorism.

Zylka · February 27, 2004, 18:37

See, 1982 was a wonderful year. It was also when I was born!

ON THIS VERY DAY

Shogun Gunner · February 27, 2004, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's a tactic, not a rule. Many guerilla armies did not do that, like the American army that fought the Brits, the Chinese Red Army, etc. The Contras didn't hide among civilians, but they did attack them. Same with UNITA and RENAMO. The two latter organizations both killed about a million people each. The Contras were kinda small potatoes, "only" killing 40,000.

Hmmm...seems like a thin line. American guerillas would attack, melt back into the population and re-emerge during revolutionary. That put civilians at risk. I admit, this doesn't rise to the same standard of the other guerilla organizations you list -they are obviously much worse. I would say the Vietnamese resistance would be quite similar to the American resistance to the British. No Viet Cong terrorism in the US or against US citizens outside of Vietnam during the war.

Gatekeeper · February 27, 2004, 19:58

Fascinating article.

As to what caused the Soviet Union to implode, I'd say it was a mixture of internal *and* external factors, not either exlusively.

Gatekeeper

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 20:03

The main factor, however, was the internal contradiction of socialist economy without a socialist government. Most of the rest of the stuff merely hastened the end.

Oncle Boris · February 27, 2004, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

a covert mission, approved by Reagan, for the CIA to covertly sell technology to the Soviet Union that would malfunction.

Brilliant!

Indeed. Stalin was going with police state no matter what was going on.

No it's not. USSR was not a threat, and never did this to America. America is the imperialist power of the 20th century.

Shogun Gunner · February 27, 2004, 20:17

OB Troll

Imran Siddiqui · February 27, 2004, 20:18

And a bad one. 0.1/10

Shogun Gunner · February 27, 2004, 20:24

Generous, Imran.

PLATO · February 27, 2004, 20:24

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The US has been doing stuff like this ever since the end of the 2nd World War. I don't know how extensive it was, but the USSR and Eastern Europe suffered some serious problems due to Western terrorism. This in turn fueled Eastern paranoia and made the security state necessary. The East ended up devouring itself trying to defend itself.

How is it terrorism when they STOLE the stuff?

chequita guevara · February 27, 2004, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO

How is it terrorism when they STOLE the stuff?

Read on, McDuff.

mrmitchell · February 27, 2004, 20:51

happy birthday Zylka

Harry Tuttle · February 27, 2004, 21:11

Read that one in the paper today. Now that is some deeeeep black ops thinking.

Kind of lends some fuel to the whole sabotaged Challenger and Chernobyl retaliation story.