3 ms·
I didn't read the above to mean "Knowingly trying to claim at attack that did not happen". I read it as "We aren't sure there's someone there, but please just s
by jvanderbot 3y ago
I didn't read the above to mean "Knowingly trying to claim at attack that did not happen". I read it as "We aren't sure there's someone there, but please just shoot anyway we need to be aggressive", and political officials portrayed that as "Attack" without proof.
These are congruent accounts with different interpretations, and I tend to believe public speakers are opportunistic spin doctors, not world-shaping conspirators.
As for "never trust a 3 letter agency", that's quite an extreme viewpoint. CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good, even if their findings can be spun ( or are even directed to be spun ).
- cies 3y ago> CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good What do you think is the good? Maybe the FBI to some extend (my point was quite a hyperbole I know). But under the line they mostly do bad imho. And they spin their own "findings", that's how we got into this conversation. I the plan was to invade Vietnam/Iraq, and the attack are propped up to "allow" then to invade. If you think they govt was deceived by it's own speakers, that to my is quite a stretch... The plan was to invade, and the story was made to match. That is a conspiracy in and of itself.
- jvanderbot 3y agoIf you're writing off CDC and EPA entirely then I think there's no common ground here.