3 ms·
You still haven't provided the evidence needed though to support the conclusion of a majority given some or even many. Also, we are talking about an endeavour
by EdwardCoffin 11y ago
You still haven't provided the evidence needed though to support the conclusion of a majority given some or even many.
Also, we are talking about an endeavour in which deception is the norm, so even evidence like this is more than a little bit questionable.
- hugh4 11y agoWhat evidence would you like? Embassy payroll documents annotated with "spy" and "not a spy"? Given the privileged status of the embassy and the protections offered by diplomatic status (eg the diplomatic pouch) you'd be crazy not to staff your embassy with spies, at least in any country worth spying on. You'll probably get a few actual diplomats to do the actual diplomacy too, and the occasional low-level passport stamper, but the default assumption should be that they're pretty much all spies.
- EdwardCoffin 11y agoMy point is that this is the kind of evidence you would need to support the original claim. If the top-level comment I was pursuing had, instead of making the claim that the majority of the spies posing as diplomats were known as spies to the host nation, had rather claimed that many of them were known, I wouldn't have pursued it. Edit: fixed language
- Cacti 11y agoWhat are you talking about? Look it up if you're not going to believe anyone here.
- EdwardCoffin 11y ago> What are you talking about? I think you need to read this comment thread starting at the top: my point is that the original claim I was asking for a citation in is essentially unsupportable, so no citations exist.