2 ms·
If they want their claims to be taken seriously, then they really should. Without that, it's just hearsay, hearsay by agencies who have deceit as part of their
by freeflight 8y ago
If they want their claims to be taken seriously, then they really should.
Without that, it's just hearsay, hearsay by agencies who have deceit as part of their job description and as such should be taken with a massive grain of salt.
Imho they've also become shy about openly sharing sources because it allows them plausible deniability, they don't want an Iraq style curveball [0] all over again, where the attribution of the misinformation can be too easily traced back straight to them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
- threeseed 8y agoThis argument is illogical. They don’t share sources because simply it would reveal the sources. It has nothing to do with plausible deniability because they don’t care whether you believe them or not. The governments do and that’s all that matters.
- scottlocklin 8y agoI dunno, maybe they've (who is "they" anyway?) become shy because when their claims are examined, they so often turn out to be nonsense? When was the last time anonymous "government sources" or even "five eyes official" told us something which is demonstrably true? Cuban missile crisis?