3 ms·

> CIA produced a fantastic book during the peak of World War 2 called Simple Sabotage. Not quite right. The Office of Strategic Services did that. The CIA was

> CIA produced a fantastic book during the peak of World War 2 called Simple Sabotage. Not quite right. The Office of Strategic Services did that. The CIA was created only in 1947 several years after the end of the second World War in 1945.

hinkley 2y ago
The head of the OSS also founded the CIA, so is it really that big of a stretch?
- krisoft 2y ago
  > is it really that big of a stretch? I don’t know what is a big or a small stretch. I just know it is just not true. If you studied the history of the second World War, or the history of the CIA, or the history of the Cold War then that sentence sticks out like a sore thumb. It makes as much sense as describing how many Gatling guns Hannibal mounted per elephant. I guess in a certain post-truth sense it is a smaller stretch of the truth to say that the CIA published it, than to say that the KGB did it. And in turn attributing it to the KGB would be a smaller stretch of the truth, than attributing it to the elves of Middle Earth. But what is common between all those three is that they haven’t authored this document, because it was the OSS who did it. (As the document itself conveniently, and very prominently states.)
  - maxbond 2y ago
    I think you overstate. It's an ellision ("written by OSS, the predecessor of the CIA" to "CIA"). They're as common as weeds and as old as the hills. It's all well to point out that it's factually inaccurate, but it's directionally correct and gives people who aren't familiar with OSS the right impression. You don't have to like it to recognize it isn't a "post truth" phenomenon or anything comparable to Hannibal crossing the alps with Gatling guns, or even that the document was authored by the KGB.
llm_trw 2y ago
> 4. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. Excellent. Continue the good work.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  Let's keep talking about this. How is two years "several"? That's "a couple" literally and maybe "a few"
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  So while we're here: anyone know if Sonia Brownell ever worked with PWE before working with IRD? (or have suggestions as to where to look for this sort of thing?)
- throwawayqqq11 2y ago
  Sorry, but i have to flag your comment. 1) dang has to decide whether this is too snarky or not. 2) Please stay on topic, its about CIA or not. 3) Its hardly "frequently bringing up irrelevant issues". Have i missed something?
  - oopsallmagic 2y ago
    A sense of humor?
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure the post you're replying to is a joke. We need to form a sub comittie to figure out if it is.
  - jwilk 2y ago
    You missed https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: > If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
    - c0balt 2y ago

hinkley 2y ago

The head of the OSS also founded the CIA, so is it really that big of a stretch?

krisoft 2y ago
> is it really that big of a stretch? I don’t know what is a big or a small stretch. I just know it is just not true. If you studied the history of the second World War, or the history of the CIA, or the history of the Cold War then that sentence sticks out like a sore thumb. It makes as much sense as describing how many Gatling guns Hannibal mounted per elephant. I guess in a certain post-truth sense it is a smaller stretch of the truth to say that the CIA published it, than to say that the KGB did it. And in turn attributing it to the KGB would be a smaller stretch of the truth, than attributing it to the elves of Middle Earth. But what is common between all those three is that they haven’t authored this document, because it was the OSS who did it. (As the document itself conveniently, and very prominently states.)
- maxbond 2y ago
  I think you overstate. It's an ellision ("written by OSS, the predecessor of the CIA" to "CIA"). They're as common as weeds and as old as the hills. It's all well to point out that it's factually inaccurate, but it's directionally correct and gives people who aren't familiar with OSS the right impression. You don't have to like it to recognize it isn't a "post truth" phenomenon or anything comparable to Hannibal crossing the alps with Gatling guns, or even that the document was authored by the KGB.

llm_trw 2y ago

> 4. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. Excellent. Continue the good work.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
Let's keep talking about this. How is two years "several"? That's "a couple" literally and maybe "a few"
082349872349872 2y ago
So while we're here: anyone know if Sonia Brownell ever worked with PWE before working with IRD? (or have suggestions as to where to look for this sort of thing?)
throwawayqqq11 2y ago
Sorry, but i have to flag your comment. 1) dang has to decide whether this is too snarky or not. 2) Please stay on topic, its about CIA or not. 3) Its hardly "frequently bringing up irrelevant issues". Have i missed something?
- oopsallmagic 2y ago
  A sense of humor?
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure the post you're replying to is a joke. We need to form a sub comittie to figure out if it is.
- jwilk 2y ago
  You missed https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: > If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
  - c0balt 2y ago