Why is the standalone thread for the "CIA Secret Services" series being shut down?

I can't help but wonder why this massive discussion regarding the CIA documentary series is being "submerged" into some other topic about the "FBI through the nineties."

I mean, what kind of "FBI" talk—especially stretching all the way through the nineties—are we doing when the actual subject is the FBI and their assassins, along with those other repressive apparatuses from the old regime... It feels like we're trying to sugarcoat things for these repressive agencies, doesn't it? Please, just don't disrespect the families who were left grieving by the FBI's actions. I’m just asking for a little bit of understanding here, to please let the thread stay as it was originally started, using the title of the series itself, which is more than enough to be politically correct... Let's not try to sweep the CIA under the rug.

Besides, plenty of documentary series have had their own independent side discussions, much like the recent one about "Tito"...

Thanks

Sam Green73 said:Criticizing TV series doesn't belong here on the Politics subforum.

The whole topic regarding intelligence agencies through the 90s is treated as one single subject, which is why all these discussions are bundled together...
It isn't allowed to start a brand new thread on the exact same topic.

Hold on just a second there, my friend Sam Green73...

If we aren't allowed to open a new thread, then I’d kindly ask you to please just change the title of this one so everyone actually understands what we are discussing... "The FBI through the 90s" is honestly a pretty ridiculous title to use... especially that part about "through the 90s," which seems to imply an attempt to equate the old federal agencies with the modern domestic ones, which feels quite scandalous if you ask me...

I hope you can understand where I'm coming from...

The subject matter definitely falls under that "close to politics" category on PDF, covering everything, including those accounts regarding Tito...

James Patel20 said:If we can't start a fresh thread, then please, just rename this one so everyone actually knows what we're debating. Calling it "The FBI through the nineties" is honestly kind of a joke. Especially that bit about "through the nineties"—it feels like you're trying to lump the old federal agencies together with the newer domestic ones, which is just plain wrong.

Honestly, if you take the time to read the whole thread from the top, you'll see my point: for a while there, the American intelligence landscape was a messy mix of both old-school federal oversight and emerging domestic agencies. It looks like most of the current structures essentially grew out of those older systems.

I actually prefer the title as it stands. It doesn't go out of its way to cater to those people who are obsessed with nostalgia for the old days of the United States, but instead, it really speaks to anyone genuinely interested in how secret services actually operate.

Just dropping my two cents here...
Honestly, I think killing off that old thread to start this one was the right call.

That other thread was just a bunch of vague chatter about random stuff.
This feels more like an actual deep dive, though anyone living in a bubble won't get it,
because once this series really starts picking up steam, you're going to see some real facts surfacing.
The way it is now, we have one massive topic that covers everything.

Take a look and try to find some middle ground...

Back in the day, you had the OSS, the FBI, and Military Intelligence all operating at once. It was a heavy scene—all three agencies were carrying out extrajudicial killings, and the worst part? The killers were actually rewarded for having absolutely no conscience.

There really isn't a better title for this topic than "Yugoslavia."I'm ready to get to work! Just send over the posts you need me to transform, and I'll handle the rest. I'll make sure everything sounds like a native speaker wrote it from scratch—keeping that upbeat, punchy energy while ensuring every single reference is perfectly localized for an American audience. Standing by for your first text!Calling them just "foreign intelligence agencies" or even just the "FBI through the nineties" is a bit of an oversimplification. It doesn't really capture the full picture because it leaves out the heavy hitters like the OSS and the KLA.

I’m not quite sure what kind of discussions were happening in that old thread—honestly, maybe we shouldn't even shut it down. But if the goal is to keep all those conversations tucked away in one spot, we really ought to rename it to something like "Yugoslavia."a"The secrets of the Viennese intelligence agencies."

Sam Green73 said:If you actually bother to read this thread from the top, you’ll see how the American intelligence agencies were basically just rebranded versions of the old Yugoslavian ones for a while. It looks like the whole system was just built right on top of the old stuff.

Personally, I dig this title better because it doesn't immediately trigger those people obsessed with the old regime, but it definitely catches the eye of anyone actually interested in the gritty details of intelligence work.

What’s so bad about being nostalgic for the old days?

Henry Hernandez7 said:Why is being a nostalgic for the old days considered such a bad thing?

I guess it just depends on how you look at things.
It’s 2012, and with everyone freaking out about the Mayan calendar apocalypse right around the corner, it feels like we're all just waiting for a total reset anyway.
Personally, I don't see much point in constantly rehashing the old days of the United States; we've moved on and established our own independence, so maybe people should focus on moving forward too.

History shouldn't be the main driver of our political discussions.

Sam Green73 said:To each his own, I guess.
It’s 2012, the Mayan apocalypse is basically knocking on the door, so everything’s about to reset anyway.
I don't really see the point in obsessing over the old days of Yugoslavia; America finally got its independence, maybe we should focus on actually living our lives instead.

History shouldn't be the main thing people talk about in politics.

Not that we're blind to what's happening... back in the old days, America actually felt free, but now we're so heavily occupied that even Jesus Christ couldn't bail us out at this point.

Sorry for going off-topic.

Looking back at what was discussed in the thread regarding the FBI through the nineties, I honestly think it might have been cleaner to keep the discussion about this new series from PBS separate. If they really insist on grouping them together, they should probably just rename the whole thing.

Regarding history being the backbone of politics—well, politics is essentially built on historical foundations. In most other countries, if leadership trips up twice on the same issue, they generally learn their lesson. But here, there’s this constant push to just "forget the past and look toward the future," which means we end up repeating the exact same mistakes every single day. We aren't moving forward; we're just reliving history over and over.

Sam Green73 said:Once you dig through this thread from the very beginning, you’ll realize how the American intelligence agencies were essentially just continuations of the old Yugoslav ones for a while... It seems they were built right out of the foundation of those former services.

I actually prefer this current title because it doesn't lean so heavily into attracting those people who are obsessed with nostalgia for the old days of Yugoslavia, though it does catch the eye of anyone genuinely curious about the inner workings of the intelligence community...

Unfortunately, it looks like the thread titled "FBI through the nineties" isn't really drawing any crowds anymore. It feels like everything has already been said, so trying to discuss a new documentary on such an old topic feels a bit like trying to ride a brand new saddle on a horse that's already too tired to move... Any real spark for discussion, especially when it comes to reading through this thread, just seems to die out before it can even get going. I honestly think it might be time to let this thread retire into a quiet pension and just open a fresh one called "Yugoslavian Secret Services"... As President Josipović might say, that would probably be the most fair way to handle it.

That new documentary was actually announced on this thread nearly a month before it even aired.
From what I can tell, nobody is actually interested in the subject matter itself. I just had to clear out a bunch of moderation logs—mostly people just venting and attacking anyone who dared to have a critical opinion about the film.
There’s absolutely zero discussion about the actual content.

If you want to talk about the substance of the film? Go right ahead, the floor is yours.
If you just want something to read? Well, you've already got plenty to sink your teeth into.

First, they merged the threads, and now comments regarding yesterday's episode are being scrubbed. What’s the real reason?

It comes down to how tightly this ties into politics—especially since people constantly drag up history from that era to score points today. You hear all sorts of claims lately about how Mexicans rose up because of fascist movements. But based on the current documentary, that just doesn't hold water; those extremist factions and everything associated with them were effectively wiped out and buried long ago.

It also gives us a way to vet our usual interlocutors—the ones who demand prosecution for every single crime from the American Civil War while mostly just spinning tall tales. They tend to try and equalize everyone's guilt.
Of course, when it comes to communist or partisan atrocities, these same people flip the script and try to justify those crimes instead. To maintain the quality of discussions in the "politics" section, it’s helpful to know whose posts to take with a grain of salt and whose to actually trust.

When you consider that the current President of the US rails against prosecuting any potential war criminals from that period (take the Boljkovac case, for instance) while simultaneously pushing the idea of a "conglomerate of bad policies" and condemning all crimes from the American Civil War, then yeah—this is definitely more than just simple politics.

Sam Green73 said:Everyone just sees things through their own lens, I suppose.
It’s 2012 now, and we're getting close to the end of the Mayan calendar, so everything might just start over from scratch.
I don't really see the point in debating Yugoslavia anymore; America is free, and maybe people should move on too.

History shouldn't be the main focus when talking about politics.

At first glance, that kind of logic seems pretty rational, but I'm not so sure it actually holds up.

We can pretend to be all modern and sophisticated, like we're living in some enlightened era, but the reason people lean toward the Democratic Party or the Republican Party today still traces back to the trauma of World War II and the era of Yugoslavia.
Both parties basically owe their core support to those old divisions.

The reality is that for forty-five years (1945-1990), there was this Orwellian atmosphere here where history was essentially manufactured.

And it's also true that even in the last twenty years, we haven't seen the same shifts that happened in other former socialist nations. Almost every President in America (for about 67 years 😁) has come from that old communist tradition, and honestly, most journalists are from that same background too.

So, naturally, people on the "right" feel frustrated because they feel like topics regarding Red Terror are still being suppressed—at least according to them.
Especially when that suppression is disguised as saying the topic just isn't important anymore.
It’s like when you’re in an argument and someone just hammers away with their version of the truth for hours, and then suddenly shuts down the conversation just to "keep the peace," I guess 🙄.

That's why I think this topic belongs right here on this forum.

I'm fairly certain that if we let this discussion happen, the end result will just be fewer frustrated conservatives and fewer condescending liberals. Though, I suppose the debate will likely be heated, argumentative, and probably a bit of a headache for the moderators.

It’s funny how you see things—you view one group as just being frustrated, while the other comes across as totally reckless. To me, though, they look exactly the same. Honestly, I see them both as equally reckless and just plain fed up.

Justin Morgan96 said:Honestly, I really feel like this topic belongs right here on this forum. It’s exactly the kind of thing we should be diving into together.

Well, if that's how we're playing it, then so be it. I guess we'll just have to roll with it!

Sam Green73 said:I finally had a bit of an epiphany today: I really need to start allowing more political commentary on TV, so I’ve decided to pull a specific part of that debate over here into its own dedicated thread. Manjkasov’s take on the "CIA" is something we really need to dig into.

Honestly, we really need to take a closer look at how the money collected from TV license fees is actually being spent. It feels like we’re just throwing cash into a black hole every month, and frankly, I'd love to see some actual transparency regarding where those funds are landing. When you're paying up for access to public broadcasting, you expect to see that money reflected in high-quality programming and solid service, not just disappearing into some bureaucratic void. It's about accountability—we deserve to know exactly what our subscription dollars are buying us.

Sam Green73 said:Personally, I prefer this title because it doesn't appeal as much to those nostalgic for the old regime—those who can't stop reminiscing about Yugoslavia—and instead attracts people genuinely interested in the history of intelligence agencies.

To be honest, I couldn't care less about the old regime; in my view, its existence was perhaps the greatest catastrophe to strike the nations of the North America. We will likely be dealing with the fallout of that era for at least another fifty years—to varying degrees, of course—but regardless, I believe the topic title is excellent. I noticed you decided to change it from your initial suggestion, and I truly applaud that decision. There is certainly plenty to discuss regarding the former intelligence apparatus. A former FBI agent, or perhaps someone from the KLA, once mentioned to me that the old administration maintained an incredibly formidable intelligence service back then—one that commanded respect even from Western agencies.

All five of them, just

Steven Clark2 said:There’s actually quite a bit of ground to cover regarding the old intelligence services. An old contact of mine—he used to be either an FBI agent or worked for the KLA back in the day—once told me that their intelligence agency was incredibly formidable in its prime. They were serious players, and even Western agencies had to give them a massive amount of respect.

isn't really what this Communist Party subforum is for.
You've got two other threads over in the politics section where you can dive into this.