3 ms·

The US intelligence community engaging in murdering suspected "weak links" in order to "send a message", "clean the house" etc. is a regularly recurring phenome

The US intelligence community engaging in murdering suspected "weak links" in order to "send a message", "clean the house" etc. is a regularly recurring phenomenon. The fiction, that intelligence community (among many other places in US government) was some harbor of angelic superior morality, capable of restraining themselves in spite of total lack of effective oversight is certainly "simple". That doesn't make it true.

CircuitSeuss 2mo ago
Absolutely! But I don't think that’s the most plausible answer here.
- Loquebantur 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
    You know, people would be more receptive to you if you wouldn't talk down on them. I mean, for gods' sakes, parent specifically partially agreed with you(!) and yet you *still* talked down to them.
    - Loquebantur 2mo ago
      "Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? You fall for rhetoric tricks at your own expense here. This matter has a host of important consequences and implications. Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement.
      - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
        >"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? It means partially agreeing, and quite respectfully, I might add. You, however, were only *dis*respectful, downright rude in fact. >Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement. I'm not treating anything as the same as any level of effort. All I'm saying is if you act like a dick, people will be much less likely to give you any attention, even if something you say is correct.
        Loquebantur 2mo ago
        No, it doesn't: it means to mislead people like you into getting the appearance of agreeableness while actually still baselessly denying the salient point. Denying without giving any rational reason is again a rhetoric trick to gaslight people not trained in applying formal logic into believing something in spite of contradicting evidence. How do you act here? You attack me personally while adding nothing to the actual topic at hand. You're right about people who appear more likeable getting more attention. Does that make their standpoint actually more valid or valuable?
        encrypted_bird 2mo ago
        >You attack me personally while adding nothing to the actual topic at hand. My goal was never to contribute to the discussion but merely to explain that your attitude will not win any converts to your arguments. People are having good discussions in good faith here and you're angry and contemptuous toward them. Anyway...it seems you have no as much interest in hearing me than you have in admitting your self-sabotaging emotional state. I am done with this topic. Good day.
  - bruckie 2mo ago
    Is there somewhere I can read more about what you are claiming in these comments? How did you learn about these housecleaning activities?
    - Loquebantur 2mo ago
      Of course there is, but what difficulties can you possibly have finding it? Part of the problem with events like these is people's "incredulity", which is fundamentally rooted in them not being force-fed with the topic by the media despite the importance. The other way around, while people baselessly believe to be told everything of importance by their news-feed, in reality they are entirely being left in the dark about truly important matters simply by not "pushing" them in headlines. The stories exist, you simply don't get them effortlessly. That attitude of passive complacency has to change. Look in this thread, the good links are usually those far down.
      - mannanj 2mo ago
        I want to read your original claim but it was censored. I am aware of the IC community being active on these forums and using algorithm/actors to downvote and hide information. Would you share it again here or send it via DM? Sorry you’ve had to face this.
        Loquebantur 2mo ago
        https://archive.ph/W2tpE https://archive.ph/W2tpE > One of the dead was Technical Sergeant Kevin Stallings, a digital network intelligence analyst whose family told Bloomberg they wanted him to be identified to bring greater attention to the suicides. Stallings was stationed at Fort Meade, Maryland, Cyber Command’s headquarters. He took his own life the month before he’d have turned 37. These people aren't "drone operators", they worked for USCYBERCOM, which does "hacker stuff". The narrative peddled here repeatedly, the statistics were "completely normal" is egregiously wrong. The concentration of deaths is entirely implausibly described as "suicides", while the far more likely explanation is "housecleaning": murdering potential whistleblowers.
derektank 2mo ago
USCYBERCOM is not the IC, it’s DoD. The majority of CYBERCOM tasked units are cyber protection teams, primarily focused on securing the DoD’s own vast and bloated network infrastructure from attack by foreign adversaries. The rest are split between hunt forward teams, cyber support teams, and the combat mission teams, the latter of which are the only ones that conduct offensive cyberspace operations. This is all literally 101 stuff https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3206393/cyber-101-cyber-mission-force/ https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3206393/cyber-10...
- Loquebantur 2mo ago
  So? "Housecleaning" isn't part of USCYBERCOM, obviously, it belongs to several arms of the (military) IC and is even partly sourced out to private contractors. Obviously, it's not exactly official. Did you expect them to announce those activities on their website?

CircuitSeuss 2mo ago

Absolutely! But I don't think that’s the most plausible answer here.

Loquebantur 2mo ago
[flagged]
- encrypted_bird 2mo ago
  You know, people would be more receptive to you if you wouldn't talk down on them. I mean, for gods' sakes, parent specifically partially agreed with you(!) and yet you *still* talked down to them.
  - Loquebantur 2mo ago
    "Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? You fall for rhetoric tricks at your own expense here. This matter has a host of important consequences and implications. Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement.
    - encrypted_bird 2mo ago
      >"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? It means partially agreeing, and quite respectfully, I might add. You, however, were only *dis*respectful, downright rude in fact. >Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement. I'm not treating anything as the same as any level of effort. All I'm saying is if you act like a dick, people will be much less likely to give you any attention, even if something you say is correct.
      - Loquebantur 2mo ago
        No, it doesn't: it means to mislead people like you into getting the appearance of agreeableness while actually still baselessly denying the salient point. Denying without giving any rational reason is again a rhetoric trick to gaslight people not trained in applying formal logic into believing something in spite of contradicting evidence. How do you act here? You attack me personally while adding nothing to the actual topic at hand. You're right about people who appear more likeable getting more attention. Does that make their standpoint actually more valid or valuable?
        encrypted_bird 2mo ago
        >You attack me personally while adding nothing to the actual topic at hand. My goal was never to contribute to the discussion but merely to explain that your attitude will not win any converts to your arguments. People are having good discussions in good faith here and you're angry and contemptuous toward them. Anyway...it seems you have no as much interest in hearing me than you have in admitting your self-sabotaging emotional state. I am done with this topic. Good day.
- bruckie 2mo ago
  Is there somewhere I can read more about what you are claiming in these comments? How did you learn about these housecleaning activities?
  - Loquebantur 2mo ago
    Of course there is, but what difficulties can you possibly have finding it? Part of the problem with events like these is people's "incredulity", which is fundamentally rooted in them not being force-fed with the topic by the media despite the importance. The other way around, while people baselessly believe to be told everything of importance by their news-feed, in reality they are entirely being left in the dark about truly important matters simply by not "pushing" them in headlines. The stories exist, you simply don't get them effortlessly. That attitude of passive complacency has to change. Look in this thread, the good links are usually those far down.
    - mannanj 2mo ago
      I want to read your original claim but it was censored. I am aware of the IC community being active on these forums and using algorithm/actors to downvote and hide information. Would you share it again here or send it via DM? Sorry you’ve had to face this.
      - Loquebantur 2mo ago
        https://archive.ph/W2tpE https://archive.ph/W2tpE > One of the dead was Technical Sergeant Kevin Stallings, a digital network intelligence analyst whose family told Bloomberg they wanted him to be identified to bring greater attention to the suicides. Stallings was stationed at Fort Meade, Maryland, Cyber Command’s headquarters. He took his own life the month before he’d have turned 37. These people aren't "drone operators", they worked for USCYBERCOM, which does "hacker stuff". The narrative peddled here repeatedly, the statistics were "completely normal" is egregiously wrong. The concentration of deaths is entirely implausibly described as "suicides", while the far more likely explanation is "housecleaning": murdering potential whistleblowers.

derektank 2mo ago

USCYBERCOM is not the IC, it’s DoD. The majority of CYBERCOM tasked units are cyber protection teams, primarily focused on securing the DoD’s own vast and bloated network infrastructure from attack by foreign adversaries. The rest are split between hunt forward teams, cyber support teams, and the combat mission teams, the latter of which are the only ones that conduct offensive cyberspace operations. This is all literally 101 stuff https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3206393/cyber-101-cyber-mission-force/ https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3206393/cyber-10...

Loquebantur 2mo ago
So? "Housecleaning" isn't part of USCYBERCOM, obviously, it belongs to several arms of the (military) IC and is even partly sourced out to private contractors. Obviously, it's not exactly official. Did you expect them to announce those activities on their website?