3 ms·
Sounds like he received the message purposefully and pretends it was an mistake? 2h is a lot but also not that much time, everything is prepared already it’s m
by sharpshadow 2y ago
Sounds like he received the message purposefully and pretends it was an mistake?
2h is a lot but also not that much time, everything is prepared already it’s more a countdown I would say. What would be a usual timeframe to inform the people you want to inform about an immediate event which is going to happen?
- Jtsummers 2y ago> Sounds like he received the message purposefully and pretends it was an mistake? Why would he have been added to the group? For what purpose would the current National Security Advisor have to bring in an outsider to discussions that ended up involving almost certainly classified data? > 2h is a lot but not that much time He was added to the group two days (13 March) before the strikes (15 March), not two hours.
- iszomer 2y agoMy guess is as a honeypot: see who would publish this alleged "leak" and give the administration justification to "open an investigation" on them.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Jtsummers 2y agoThat would make a lot more sense if the information hadn't been accurate. You don't leak real operational data deliberately to try and catch someone who might publish it. Because if they do, you've compromised your real mission (the attacks on the Houthis in this case).
- iszomer 2y agoI meant it from the common assumption for mass media propagation: get it out there as fast as possible and correct later if needed. On a related note, how often do consumers of news go back to read on retractions, if any?
- shitpostbot 2y ago[dead]