[parsimo2010]

I get what you're saying, but there is a difference between discussing conspiracies that we know the CIA participated in, such as the overthrow of various governments, vs. theorizing about things such as framing someone with child porn. Both actions meet the definition of conspiracy, but we can discuss the facts of CIA conspiracies to overthrow governments without theorizing- the historians that wrote books about this aren't conspiracy theorists (well, not all of them). The second is actually being a conspiracy theorist- it's awful convenient to find child porn on someone's hard drive but we don't have any facts to support the idea.

[AmericanChopper]

We can also discuss the trustworthiness of the CIA when deciding whether to believe anything they claim to be true.

They have the power to do that sort of thing. They would have a clear motive to do it. It’s not any different from the regular business-as-usual sort of thing they get up to. What reason would I have trust this?

[parsimo2010]

I was addressing GP's assertion that anyone contemplating the actions of the CIA is a "conspiracy theorist," which is not true. Some people are solidly defined as historians, where they use official documents and trustworthy interviews as source material rather than speculation.

You are perfectly normal to be suspicious of the actions of the CIA, and some of the theories are likely to be true, but that was not the point I was making.