One can apply more tools to judge a source than "is it info from an intelligence service"?
-is there evidence of bias? Steele - yes, US intel folks - yes. Dutch intel folks - what's your claim to them having a bias
-does the story make sense - why were the Dutch there - because their civilians were shot down over the Ukraine. Credibl…
One can apply more tools to judge a source than "is it info from an intelligence service"?
-is there evidence of bias? Steele - yes, US intel folks - yes. Dutch intel folks - what's your claim to them having a bias
-does the story make sense - why were the Dutch there - because their civilians were shot down over the Ukraine. Credible that they would undertake a program
-is it reported by biased media? Reported by Dutch media, not US MSM.
-(not relevant to the Dutch but often useful since you mention the Hunter Laptop was disinfo) - is the position a public position from a sitting official or agency, like a public statement or Congressional testimony (strong), is it a leaked claim from behind the scenes (weak sauce), or is it a letter signed by a bunch of retired idiots wearing their bias openly like you cite as somehow representing a "US Intelligence" position (absolute bunk)?
What is my claim of bias for Dutch intelligence? They are a fucking intelligence agency, a spy agency. Why would anyone simply accept their claims? We can’t know how shaded, exaggerated, or contrived they are. Sorry. I’m not accepting naked claims by foreign intelligence agencies as fact. Does it make sense that Dutch intelligence would spy on Russia? Sure. Lots of spying going on out there by lots of intelligence agencies from lots of nations. That doesn’t mean I should just accept their representations about what they observed and how they interpret it or represent it. I don’t know what they saw, why they believe it was FSB involved, upon what they claim it lines up with an alleged DNC hack, or whether they actually have evidence of exfiltration.
Your distinction on retired intelligence agencies is valid. I went for that simply because you brought Hunter’s laptop into the discussion. But, sure. Not the same. That said, there are lots of reasons to not accept intelligence agency proclamations at their word. I’m shocked so many people accept intelligence agency info. (Though I suspect it is simply because they want to.). Again, if you want to take a foreign intelligence service at their word for something, knock yourself out— many of us are more skeptical.
Great, so I can discount everything we know that Brennan, Comey, and Clapper said under oath that gave us the insights about their deception through media leaks, because it still came out of their mouths. Got it.
One can apply more tools to judge a source than "is it info from an intelligence service"?
-is there evidence of bias? Steele - yes, US intel folks - yes. Dutch intel folks - what's your claim to them having a bias
-does the story make sense - why were the Dutch there - because their civilians were shot down over the Ukraine. Credible that they would undertake a program
-is it reported by biased media? Reported by Dutch media, not US MSM.
-(not relevant to the Dutch but often useful since you mention the Hunter Laptop was disinfo) - is the position a public position from a sitting official or agency, like a public statement or Congressional testimony (strong), is it a leaked claim from behind the scenes (weak sauce), or is it a letter signed by a bunch of retired idiots wearing their bias openly like you cite as somehow representing a "US Intelligence" position (absolute bunk)?
What is my claim of bias for Dutch intelligence? They are a fucking intelligence agency, a spy agency. Why would anyone simply accept their claims? We can’t know how shaded, exaggerated, or contrived they are. Sorry. I’m not accepting naked claims by foreign intelligence agencies as fact. Does it make sense that Dutch intelligence would spy on Russia? Sure. Lots of spying going on out there by lots of intelligence agencies from lots of nations. That doesn’t mean I should just accept their representations about what they observed and how they interpret it or represent it. I don’t know what they saw, why they believe it was FSB involved, upon what they claim it lines up with an alleged DNC hack, or whether they actually have evidence of exfiltration.
Your distinction on retired intelligence agencies is valid. I went for that simply because you brought Hunter’s laptop into the discussion. But, sure. Not the same. That said, there are lots of reasons to not accept intelligence agency proclamations at their word. I’m shocked so many people accept intelligence agency info. (Though I suspect it is simply because they want to.). Again, if you want to take a foreign intelligence service at their word for something, knock yourself out— many of us are more skeptical.
Great, so I can discount everything we know that Brennan, Comey, and Clapper said under oath that gave us the insights about their deception through media leaks, because it still came out of their mouths. Got it.
Better than taking the word of foreign spies for explosive claims. 👍
And easier than thinking!
Exactly. Just taking the word of a Dutch spy is so much easier than thinking. I understand the appeal of your take.
now we're on to sophistry, see you later
Bye! Been fun!