5 ms·

This story has been going on in the background for about 2 years now. I get that the obvious suspects here are Russia and China, but I can't pin down what exact

This story has been going on in the background for about 2 years now. I get that the obvious suspects here are Russia and China, but I can't pin down what exactly either of them would gain that is worth the risk of a major international incident. It most certainly is either Russia or China as no one else is sophisticated and adversarial enough to pull it off, but there are still more questions than there are answers.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
selivanovp 6y ago
Yeah, just like with the story that Russia is paying taliban to murder US soldiers. In both stories we had zero actual facts, no sense, just rumors and anonymous sources. The first story is already a proven fake news, the story with mysterious weapon is gonna be just another.
- throwaway6734 6y ago
  Source that the first story was not proven to be false? I am under the impression that confidence in it occurring was downgraded, not proven to be false
  - Dah00n 6y ago
    You can't prove it was false unless someone can prove they started the rumour. That it is true is what should be proven, not that it is false or unlikely. Without proof it should be considered fake news.
    - throwaway6734 6y ago
      Proof that it was a rumor? I am under the impression that it was intel with less confidence than originally thought.
      - namelessoracle 6y ago
        Whats the difference between low confidence intel and a rumor?
        ryandvm 6y ago
        Whether it smears your tribe or not...
        throwaway6734 6y ago
        The level of veracity of the claim.
steve_taylor 6y ago
They get to disrupt the US government and make them look like hapless chumps while maintaining plausible deniability. There are still only hypotheses about the nature of these attacks and doubt as to whether these attacks are actually happening and, if so, whether each victim is legit, an attention-seeker, a hypochondriac, or is faking it to gain some benefit. If this is actually real, it’s diabolically clever.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

selivanovp 6y ago

Yeah, just like with the story that Russia is paying taliban to murder US soldiers. In both stories we had zero actual facts, no sense, just rumors and anonymous sources. The first story is already a proven fake news, the story with mysterious weapon is gonna be just another.

throwaway6734 6y ago
Source that the first story was not proven to be false? I am under the impression that confidence in it occurring was downgraded, not proven to be false
- Dah00n 6y ago
  You can't prove it was false unless someone can prove they started the rumour. That it is true is what should be proven, not that it is false or unlikely. Without proof it should be considered fake news.
  - throwaway6734 6y ago
    Proof that it was a rumor? I am under the impression that it was intel with less confidence than originally thought.
    - namelessoracle 6y ago
      Whats the difference between low confidence intel and a rumor?
      - ryandvm 6y ago
        Whether it smears your tribe or not...
      - throwaway6734 6y ago
        The level of veracity of the claim.

steve_taylor 6y ago

They get to disrupt the US government and make them look like hapless chumps while maintaining plausible deniability. There are still only hypotheses about the nature of these attacks and doubt as to whether these attacks are actually happening and, if so, whether each victim is legit, an attention-seeker, a hypochondriac, or is faking it to gain some benefit. If this is actually real, it’s diabolically clever.