Irish 'involved' in Bolivia 'assassination attempt'

[liamfoley]

They also continue to insist he was on a security course, not part of a mercenary gang. It seems obvious, however, that they were a mercenary gang,

No evidence for this and more importantly there is no evidence of what a such a mercenary group were up to.

[toxic avenger]

No evidence for this and more importantly there is no evidence of what a such a mercenary group were up to.

Have you read any of the thread? I'm afraid there's more than enough evidence. The only thing in dispute is the manner of their deaths (which, as I was the first to state a year ago, was clearly a shoot-to-kill operation despite what the Bolivians say). But what they were up to, it's not even in dispute. All that can be argued is that Dwyer was a naive stooge who didn't get how out of his depth he was...

[liamfoley]

Have you read any of the thread? I'm afraid there's more than enough evidence. The only thing in dispute is the manner of their deaths (which, as I was the first to state a year ago, was clearly a shoot-to-kill operation despite what the Bolivians say). But what they were up to, it's not even in dispute. All that can be argued is that Dwyer was a naive stooge who didn't get how out of his depth he was...

If I am looking for evidence i will not look in this hysterical thread I will look for primary sources elsewhere. The problem is talking about conspiracies outside of the context of the killings. To do this is to come close to justifying the killing. Nothing conclusive until an independent investigation is concluded.

[toxic avenger]

If I am looking for evidence i will not look in this hysterical thread I will look for primary sources elsewhere. The problem is talking about conspiracies outside of the context of the killings. To do this is to come close to justifying the killing. Nothing conclusive until an independent investigation is concluded.

Nonsense. Only a relativist thinks in such a way. It is quite possible to come to a conclusion on the one while coming to a separate conclusion on the other. Having a view on the one does not reflect a judgment (let alone justification) of the killings. Again, you seem to be judging this thread without having read it. You describe it as 'hysterical' (as if it is just the one poster or viewpoint anyway...) and have no reason to do so. If you had read it you'd know that (a) there's quite a bit of evidence, including primary evidence (for example, the photos with the bullets, the testimony of the surviving members, etc.) and (b) that I had already dismissed the Bolivian 'firefight' story within about 24 hours of it emerging (as can be seen if you read the first few pages only), in fact before anyone else here or elsewhere did.

If you're going to insist on not jumping to conclusions, apply the principle evenly, not just when it fits in more neatly with a certain ideological world-view...

[liamfoley]

Nonsense. Only a relativist thinks in such a way. It is quite possible to come to a conclusion on the one while coming to a separate conclusion on the other. Having a view on the one does not reflect a judgment (let alone justification) of the killings. Again, you seem to be judging this thread without having read it. You describe it as 'hysterical' (as if it is just the one poster or viewpoint anyway...) and have no reason to do so. If you had read it you'd know that (a) there's quite a bit of evidence, including primary evidence (for example, the photos with the bullets, the testimony of the surviving members, etc.) and (b) that I had already dismissed the Bolivian 'firefight' story within about 24 hours of it emerging (as can be seen if you read the first few pages only), in fact before anyone else here or elsewhere did.

If you're going to insist on not jumping to conclusions, apply the principle evenly, not just when it fits in more neatly with a certain ideological world-view...

Do not tell me that I have not read. I contributed at the early stages and have not done so for a long time, mainly because of the fanaticism of some posters. This does not mean that I have not been reading.

[TimBuckII]

(b) that I had already dismissed the Bolivian 'firefight' story within about 24 hours of it emerging (as can be seen if you read the first few pages only), in fact before anyone else here or elsewhere did.

Pick a toy from the top shelf.

I haven't read the thread but would apreciate a quik summary from the deaths if you've the time? Cheers.

[toxic avenger]

Do not tell me that I have not read. I contributed at the early stages and have not done so for a long time, mainly because of the fanaticism of some posters. This does not mean that I have not been reading.

If you had read it, you'd know it's not hysterical. You might disagree with some posters' interpretation of what happened on it, but the posts have tended to be articulate, researched and discussed in detail, and generally civil. It has been followed by people from around the world, and media organisations, and has generally treated the subject seriously (though obviously it has necessarily gone off the boil in recent months).

[toxic avenger]

Pick a toy from the top shelf.

I haven't read the thread but would apreciate a quik summary from the deaths if you've the time? Cheers.

Irish Walter Mitty-type character with delusions of being a hard man meets Central-Eastern European mates who really are hard men while working with IRMS in Mayo at the Shell site. These turn out to have links with the Croatian war and the European far Right, and through these people Irishman meets Bolivian-Hungarian Croatia veteran with fantasy of using violence to overthrow Bolivian rule in wealthy mineral-rich white European part of Bolivia (essentially because they're racist towards the natives and don't like being ruled by the newly elected native Bolivian President). Irishman goes out to Bolivia, hangs around with these people, 'trains' with guns with them, becomes involved in 'false flag' bomb attack on Cardinal's house. Then Irishman, and others including the Hungarian-Bolivian, are shot dead in their hotel rooms one night. The authorities claim there was a half-hour firefight - there wasn't - it was a clinical shoot-to-kill operation. Wealthy right-wing 'European' Bolivians, some with links to the CIA, are alleged to have funded the mercenaries. Now it's left to find out definitively (a) what really happened in the hotel that night, and (b) who else was organising and bankrolling the secessionists.

[Ecoguy]

Irish Walter Mitty-type character with delusions of being a hard man meets Central-Eastern European mates who really are hard men while working with IRMS in Mayo at the Shell site. These turn out to have links with the Croatian war and the European far Right, and through these people Irishman meets Bolivian-Hungarian Croatia veteran with fantasy of using violence to overthrow Bolivian rule in wealthy mineral-rich white European part of Bolivia (essentially because they're racist towards the natives and don't like being ruled by the newly elected native Bolivian President). Irishman goes out to Bolivia, hangs around with these people, 'trains' with guns with them, becomes involved in 'false flag' bomb attack on Cardinal's house. Then Irishman, and others including the Hungarian-Bolivian, are shot dead in their hotel rooms one night. The authorities claim there was a half-hour firefight - there wasn't - it was a clinical shoot-to-kill operation. Wealthy right-wing 'European' Bolivians, some with links to the CIA, are alleged to have funded the mercenaries. Now it's left to find out definitively (a) what really happened in the hotel that night, and (b) who else was organising and bankrolling the secessionists.

+ 1

LF must have also missed the recent Prime Time programme which strongly suggested "big oil" bankrolled alot of this which is very relevant given the SHELL connection

[liamfoley]

strongly suggested

"Strongly suggested" is not evidence, why not come back when you have some primary sources.