noemon wrote:But if that is not enough I gave you even more( .ie the removal of the army from Cyprus, the dictator being an official CIA agent) than that because the LSE paper ignores a couple of things to reach to its prefered conclusion. Nevertheless, any person reading that entire paper from start to finish reads so many evidentiary details that the author is trying to explain away, that there is absolutely no chance that a thinking person can come out of this reading with the same conclusion as the paper.
Read those 10-15 pages from start to finish and then tell me if you are convinced or not.
How do you explain the fact that the Greek dictator was an official CIA agent? The paper explains it away as "coincidence and no smoking gun, mmmkay" How does one explain that the same dictatorship removed the 20k strong Greek army from Cyprus and then instigated a coup to remove the Greek President of Cyprus? The paper does not even mention that because that would be too much to explain.
How does one explain the fact the US embassy had [fully-published] detailed plans of a coup in Greece involving the same people who actually carried out the coup? The paper says it, makes no excuse for it and just bypasses it.
How does one explain the fact that President Johnson openly threatened the Greek ambassador with a coup just 2 years before the coup?
There is quite a lot of convincing argument here there to tackle.
Eh...did we read the same paper? An official CIA agent? You mean a liaison officer at the KYP? Also nothing about detailed coup plans of the embassy.
I haven't read all parts yet though, I will.