4 ms·

There's been much skepticism in recent years about whether microwaves were the cause of these officers' conditions. This news confirms that govt agencies are t

There's been much skepticism in recent years about whether microwaves were the cause of these officers' conditions. This news confirms that govt agencies are taking the microwave theory seriously as a confirmed explanation for these conditions. It's reasonable to agree with the conclusion at this point.

tsimionescu 5y ago
Its never reasonable to agree with the opaque conclusions of spy agencies in any country, especially when the conclusion points the finger at a hostile pwoer. There is literally no reason to believe public communications from a spy agency against their enemies (note: that does not mean that they can't be true, it just means that the truth of them is never the reason why the communication is put out).
- whereis 5y ago
  This presumes a conspiracy amongst officers forced into early retirement to create a convincing false narrative. What reason would the USIC have for lying about this? It seems unlikely that we would ever retaliate in kind, especially not after bringing attention to these incidents.
  - macinjosh 5y ago
    Throwing off other intelligence agencies. These people never deal in the truth that’s the whole game.
    - whereis 5y ago
      It's categorically false to say intel agencies (or the slight "these people") never deal in truth. That is not how misinfo/disinfo works. Additionally, intel agencies play an integral role in providing truthful and accurate products, for govt and industry partners.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        It would be more correct to say that they never deal in truth with the public. Of course they are a source of well researched and painstakingly obtained truths for government decision makers, but never for the public.
        whereis 5y ago
        Not true. Take cyber threats for instance. Govt makes public disclosures all the time
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        They are also known to hoard 0-days for years, and use some of them in their own attacks against others (such as, quite likely, Stuxnet). So, even there, the reason why they release information about some cyber threats isn't the simple fact of their existence, it is some other calculation of the effect of releasing this information. The good part about releasing information about exploits and such is that they can be easily verified to exist, so there is no need to trust the spy agency. Any claims they make about the source of those exploits is not easily verifiable, and since you can't trust them, should be ignored.
        whereis 5y ago
        Tech has been too premature to achieve "fluorescent purple" while simultaneously achieving mission objectives. Besides, the hoarding all got burned last decade and the agencies have clearly evolved. What's the significance of attribution of exploit source?
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        > Besides, the hoarding all got burned last decade and the agencies have clearly evolved. You claim this based on what? Kaspersky has recently found what they claim is (another) massively complex US malware in the wild. > What's the significance of attribution of exploit source? As in my example above, people always look for the source of an exploit and claim various actors created them. This creates certain reputations for these actors, just as in the claim from Kaspersky above (which may or may not itself be true - Kaspersky is a private company, but it is also known to work with the Russian government, which is clearly antagonistic to the US).
  - l332mn 5y ago
    > What reason would the USIC have for lying about this? There's an entire industry revolving around blaming geopolitical enemies of wrongdoing without evidence, where the intelligence community plays a key part. This is done in order to control the narrative, steer the public perception and to keep a semblance of adherence to international law, in order to justify unilateral political, economic or military hostility. The reality is always more nuanced, and it's definitely a safe bet to not believe whatever empty accusations they come out with. Controlling the narrative like they do, the cumulative effect of it is that they are able to convince the public of quite crazy assertions, which would be rightly treated as conspiracy theories had they come from some other source. These crazy assertions of course requires equally crazy political reactions. E.g. people genuinely believe that most US geopolitical enemies are literally rogue, bandit states, requiring draconic policing by the US. It's a children's view of the world, leading people to look the other way when it harms innocents. The intelligence community has a looong history of doing this. It's a central part of the playbook which is readily admitted in more casual contexts.
    - whereis 5y ago
      again, what specifically would the US be trying to justify with such a false narrative around rew's? Not seeing the cost/benefit.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        Their continued unilateral embargo of Cuba, deemed illegal by the UN, needs some constant justification. Especially in light of Cuba's diplomatic efforts in the rest of the world (most recently, dispatching Cuban doctors to help care for Covid19 patients all over the world, starting with the outbreak in Lombardia).
        whereis 5y ago
        So according to this conspiracy theory, part of the mission was to evacuate all of our diplomats from Cuba to create the appearance that we were fleeing these supposed REW attacks?
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    What reason would they have for telling the truth? A spy agency's official communications are always meant to elicit some response, it is never simply to disclose some information, since their default mode is to hoard information. In this case, their motive is obviously to create an image of Cuba as a devious enemy of the United States who is willing to hurt low level officers in chronic ways, a dishonorable enemy. This probably comes in the context of generally improving relationships with Cuba on almost the entire American continent, while the USA is still maintaining its illegal embargoes. Now, is it possible that they chose to use a true story to advance this narrative? Yes, it is, absolutely. But if they want to spread this message and don't have a true story they are willing to share, nothing would stop them from sharing a false one instead.
    - tro7ghor4 5y ago
      It's funny that we treat intelligence agencies' statements as unassailable truths when these people have committed to lying to everyone they know about what they do.

tsimionescu 5y ago

Its never reasonable to agree with the opaque conclusions of spy agencies in any country, especially when the conclusion points the finger at a hostile pwoer. There is literally no reason to believe public communications from a spy agency against their enemies (note: that does not mean that they can't be true, it just means that the truth of them is never the reason why the communication is put out).

whereis 5y ago
This presumes a conspiracy amongst officers forced into early retirement to create a convincing false narrative. What reason would the USIC have for lying about this? It seems unlikely that we would ever retaliate in kind, especially not after bringing attention to these incidents.
- macinjosh 5y ago
  Throwing off other intelligence agencies. These people never deal in the truth that’s the whole game.
  - whereis 5y ago
    It's categorically false to say intel agencies (or the slight "these people") never deal in truth. That is not how misinfo/disinfo works. Additionally, intel agencies play an integral role in providing truthful and accurate products, for govt and industry partners.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      It would be more correct to say that they never deal in truth with the public. Of course they are a source of well researched and painstakingly obtained truths for government decision makers, but never for the public.
      - whereis 5y ago
        Not true. Take cyber threats for instance. Govt makes public disclosures all the time
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        They are also known to hoard 0-days for years, and use some of them in their own attacks against others (such as, quite likely, Stuxnet). So, even there, the reason why they release information about some cyber threats isn't the simple fact of their existence, it is some other calculation of the effect of releasing this information. The good part about releasing information about exploits and such is that they can be easily verified to exist, so there is no need to trust the spy agency. Any claims they make about the source of those exploits is not easily verifiable, and since you can't trust them, should be ignored.
        whereis 5y ago
        Tech has been too premature to achieve "fluorescent purple" while simultaneously achieving mission objectives. Besides, the hoarding all got burned last decade and the agencies have clearly evolved. What's the significance of attribution of exploit source?
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        > Besides, the hoarding all got burned last decade and the agencies have clearly evolved. You claim this based on what? Kaspersky has recently found what they claim is (another) massively complex US malware in the wild. > What's the significance of attribution of exploit source? As in my example above, people always look for the source of an exploit and claim various actors created them. This creates certain reputations for these actors, just as in the claim from Kaspersky above (which may or may not itself be true - Kaspersky is a private company, but it is also known to work with the Russian government, which is clearly antagonistic to the US).
- l332mn 5y ago
  > What reason would the USIC have for lying about this? There's an entire industry revolving around blaming geopolitical enemies of wrongdoing without evidence, where the intelligence community plays a key part. This is done in order to control the narrative, steer the public perception and to keep a semblance of adherence to international law, in order to justify unilateral political, economic or military hostility. The reality is always more nuanced, and it's definitely a safe bet to not believe whatever empty accusations they come out with. Controlling the narrative like they do, the cumulative effect of it is that they are able to convince the public of quite crazy assertions, which would be rightly treated as conspiracy theories had they come from some other source. These crazy assertions of course requires equally crazy political reactions. E.g. people genuinely believe that most US geopolitical enemies are literally rogue, bandit states, requiring draconic policing by the US. It's a children's view of the world, leading people to look the other way when it harms innocents. The intelligence community has a looong history of doing this. It's a central part of the playbook which is readily admitted in more casual contexts.
  - whereis 5y ago
    again, what specifically would the US be trying to justify with such a false narrative around rew's? Not seeing the cost/benefit.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Their continued unilateral embargo of Cuba, deemed illegal by the UN, needs some constant justification. Especially in light of Cuba's diplomatic efforts in the rest of the world (most recently, dispatching Cuban doctors to help care for Covid19 patients all over the world, starting with the outbreak in Lombardia).
      - whereis 5y ago
        So according to this conspiracy theory, part of the mission was to evacuate all of our diplomats from Cuba to create the appearance that we were fleeing these supposed REW attacks?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  What reason would they have for telling the truth? A spy agency's official communications are always meant to elicit some response, it is never simply to disclose some information, since their default mode is to hoard information. In this case, their motive is obviously to create an image of Cuba as a devious enemy of the United States who is willing to hurt low level officers in chronic ways, a dishonorable enemy. This probably comes in the context of generally improving relationships with Cuba on almost the entire American continent, while the USA is still maintaining its illegal embargoes. Now, is it possible that they chose to use a true story to advance this narrative? Yes, it is, absolutely. But if they want to spread this message and don't have a true story they are willing to share, nothing would stop them from sharing a false one instead.
  - tro7ghor4 5y ago
    It's funny that we treat intelligence agencies' statements as unassailable truths when these people have committed to lying to everyone they know about what they do.