4 ms·
Can you explain a bit more? Are you telling us that you ran counter-intel operations? In America? And, American domestic news would report on something your cou
by notavalleyman 5y ago
Can you explain a bit more? Are you telling us that you ran counter-intel operations? In America? And, American domestic news would report on something your counter-intelligence asset was saying? Because neither of those make sense
- sennight 5y agolol, no - in almost every sense. I was intentionally cryptic, but hopefully only to a degree that reduces the likelihood of prosecution without making a productive discussion impossible. Security classification can be weird, and it rarely aligns with any kind of sensible risk management posture. This is why Snowden, despite disclosing some of the most highly restricted material that exists (ELINT TS/SCI, only topped by nuke stuff), is viewed much more positively than Manning (who dumped low level secret material) by the military rank and file. One disclosed strategic information and the other dumped operational details of no whistleblowing value. No joke - a couple of years ago I spotted a fragment of an inconsequential patrol report I filed in Fallujah, totally useless to anyone but jihadists. So I've got no interest in discussing operational stuff - which is what 99.9% of CI falls into. Anyway, it wouldn't really change anyone's pre-existing opinion if I directly made any kind of claim without evidence... teach a man to fish, etc. So with that in mind: can you think of any really silly stories, published by an American... uh, "science" magazine, that purported something totally impossible - and then never got brought up again? Something of the GWOT vintage? Something scientifically impossible, due to the way radio propagation works? Ah, I'm so tempted to do a "rhymes with"... but I know better. Actually I can think of something I can openly discuss as an example - because it was pulled by those damn dirty ruskies, not our boys, and I was long out of the know when it happened: cell tower upgrades to combat cruise missiles [0], and super advanced ballistic calculators being used against ISIS [1]. Can you see what these things have in common? Despite technically impossible claims (15m CEP for unguided munitions dropped from 6km... lol, anybody know how Kalman filters work?) - the message is uncritically spread by western media. [0] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-plans-turn-cell-phone-towers-cruise-missile-jammers-18067 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-plans-turn... [1] https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/news/defense-aviation-news/2020/july/6485-naval-sukhoi-su-24m-to-get-svp-24-gefest-sighting-system.html https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/news/defense-aviati...
- jessaustin 5y ago"Collateral Murder" was of no value? Yikes. So much for the judgment of the "rank and file", if we can actually credit your opinions on that. If anyone had ever been harmed as a result of Manning's disclosures, the war media would have trumpeted that story for the last decade. We've never heard a peep about that, so apparently the "jihadists" didn't find anything useful at Wikipedia. ps. I'm guessing you're referring to the silly "sonic embassy attacks" as the "science" story, but it could have been basically anything else published by the war media in the last several decades.
- sennight 5y agoOh boy, you might actually be in for a very rewarding moment of personal development if you can muster the will to follow that thought through to the logical conclusion! So, what happened next with "Collateral Murder"? Then what happened in that region? What about the US public, the supposed beneficiaries of a whistleblower's labors? What about policy changes? I genuinely hope you can read that as intended - written with zero sarcasm. Because it seems obvious to me that you've actually just reinforced my point. Unfortunately it is the least interesting point in all of what I wrote that you chose to latch onto, so thats a bummer. RE sonic attacks: nah - you have to consider it from an operational, boots on the ground, strategic perspective: what purpose is being served, what is being protected by way of misdirection (CI is primarily defensive in nature and misdirection is the absolute best way to lie). I can't think of anything useful to lie about in the sonic attack story... which wouldn't really have had anything to do with anyone outside of DoS. DoS hasn't gotten along with anyone but the CIA for a very long time - so I'd have a hard time trying to guess at their motives for anything anyway.
- jessaustin 5y agoIn general I eschew "personal development". Of course we haven't left Iraq yet; we haven't even left Afghanistan yet. That ain't Wikileaks' fault. Next you'll be telling us about the important work we've been doing there: something about women's rights no doubt! Guesses at the hidden meanings of pseudo-spook ramblings are rarely accurate; even if they're exactly correct the story will change in the next comment. Maybe that's how "CI" people convince themselves they ever do anything useful. To spell it out, the entire thing is a lie from the top to the bottom. USA military murdering children on the other side of the world only ever harms USA interests and USA security. Our wars are evil, done for the sake of evil. We fear brown people so that we might enrich armaments manufacturers by murdering brown people. Dress it up however you want, but that doesn't change what it is and what any thinking person who has actually spent any time doing this evil knows it to be.