4 ms·
>Also the story on heavy.com is reporting about an unnamed source who reported it to another publication(the Washington Post.) So in effect you have - someone s
by marcoperaza 9y ago
>Also the story on heavy.com is reporting about an unnamed source who reported it to another publication(the Washington Post.)
So in effect you have - someone saying that someone told someone else this. That's hardly counts as a credible intelligence. That's what I would third-hand news. It's like the children's game of "Telephone."
This is a rather disingenuous argument. You're making a big fuss about heavy.com linking to WaPo, but why not just disregard the heavy.com article and look at the WaPo article? Further, it's pretty standard for news reports concerning intelligence matters to originate from anonymous sources.
- bogomipz 9y agoPlease read the entire context. I was originally responding to the statement: >"The government has made pretty clear over the last few months that the reason for the ban was intelligence that jihadist groups had made progress towards developing a laptop bomb." A Washington Post article citing an anonymous source is not the government making it "pretty clear." I'm not being disingenuous at all. The US Government making it pretty clear would be via a press briefing or some other such official statement.