I mean I can't rule out that you are wearing diapers and sucking on a pacifier until I can actually rule it out.
While I wouldn't rule it out, I can assign probabilities, and come to some reasonable conclusions, based on imperfect data.
1) Such claims about CIA/Massad plots are continually made by the Iranian goverment, to hide from their own people just how unliked and incompetant they are.
2) Such actions as leaking confidential memos from foreign rulers are incimal to US interests.
3) The unproven, and most tenuous underlying assumption here is that the US can "prevent the leaks", but since the leaks are happening it must be purposeful.
I think the US government is doing what it can to shut it down, but Mr. Assange has been very savvy legally and technically.
The US government has limits to what it can accomplish openly. Despite what you probably think, no small part of those limits are put on it by what the American people as a whole will tolerate its government doing/saying.
Until some additional data comes to the surface, your diaper/pacifier scenario is somewhere near the overall % of adults that engage in this behavior. I am assuming less than 1%. The odds would be the same with you.
how does that jibe with someone making a claim that the US govt is involved in covert activities, and the odds being assumed (by you and chump) to be 0?
ANd the reaction is typical.
Here RG. Have some fun. this one is on me.
http://theintelhub.com/2010/08/07/wi...rs-cointelpro/
I never said the odds were zero.
I think it is more likely, especially given what I know of Iranian state-controlled media, that they are making up self-serving lies, than US intelligence services doing something that damages diplomatic efforts.
... and by "more likely" I mean almost certainly.
Which do you think is more likely?
That the Iranian state media is making up some self-serving lies,
or
US intelligence agencies are feeding this to some unknown purpose?
Reality through conspiracy-colored glasses.
He downplays the damage of the leaks, and plays up the ways in which they are "good" for "the establishment to make his case.
Hand-wavy dismissals, and an example of ad hominem logical fallacy. Hardly indicative of someone trying to get at the truth.Perhaps the most sinister information brought forth by the war logs is the claim that the Pakistani ISI are working in cohesion with the Taliban. The suggestion by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the ISI has known and hidden the whereabouts of top Al Qaeda members is nothing more than a ploy to push for more drone attacks, as well as a possible troop deployment inside Pakistan. As reported in the New York Times, the logs go as far as claiming that members of the ISI have worked with the Taliban to organize groups of militants! War propaganda anyone?
The entire article is rife with unproven, and unsupported assertions. It is little more than some hack regurgitating other hacks' claims.
If this is the kind of source you rely on to tell you the truth, it does not surprise me that you find Iranian state media is credible.
Perfect example of confirmation bias on your part.
I trust US intel about 3% more than Iranian press...so 53%-47% Iran is lying.
I googled that 2 seconds before I posted.
Hence the reference to having fun.
Based on your unproven assertion that the US could stop the leaks if it wanted to?
Link?
Your claim, your burden of proof.
Based on the CIA's track record for telling the truth being comparable to Irans.
Indeed.
I dont see the use in kicking the info about your possible fetish out completely from the very beginning, though.
Does the CIA have to be responsible to Congressional oversight?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote