Par for the course, 100% opinion, 0% facts.
The Captain
4 Likes
Deniers have an astonishing lack of self awareness.
7 Likes
I don’t discount that it’s possible . I do think it’s exceptionally unlikely, given that we have almost no skin in the game in Ukraine. We would have to devise a plan so devilishly clever, leave (faked) top secret reports lying around, hoping that a disaffected 21 year old would find them, memorize them (at first) and later photograph them, repeat them only a gaming channel with barely a few members, and hope that one of those would ‘leak’ the documents onto more popular channels where they could be discovered? This is next order LeCarre convolution, for a war in which we have quite a minor stake. Certainly less than Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam.
Some things are a stretch of reality, and this chain is one of them. The far more likely explanation is that this kid had access and wanted to impress his friends.
No, the gold standard is scientific and forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony is often used because it exists, but a complaint of modern prosecutors is that juries expect to see fingerprints, DNA, and scientific analysis, which is often hard to come by, post facto.
5 Likes
That. Plus the requisite number of extra characters.
2 Likes
I see the video as showing the difference between theists and non-theists: one is willing to accept new evidence, even if it conflicts with previous thought, the other is not.
Maybe where you are, in socialistical Europe. In Shiny-land religion is used to separate “us” from “them”. I saw a piece on my news feed yesterday, from Fox Noise (who else?..well, could have been OAN) claiming the current administration is “hostile to Christians”. What a pantload! But that is how “thought leaders” use religion here.
Steve
6 Likes
Is it?
Let’s say some scientist discovers that a large asteroid will hit Earth in 5 months. That would certainly trigger hundreds, if not thousands, of other scientists to confirm or prove wrong the observation.
After a week, 97% of scientists agree the meteor will probably hit Earth, having a life changing impact (pun intended).
3% of scientists agree that asteroids have hit Earth thousands of times in the past, so no big deal.
However, 4% of the population will blame George Soros for not using the Jewish space lasers to destroy the asteroid.
10% of the population will will spend 5 months in their place of worship hoping they get first dibs at the pearly gate. The devil will expand his domain because that’s where 99.9% of people are really heading (looking forward to meeting all you guys).
1% of the population will send money to a politician who claims only he can fix the problem.
30% of the population will think it’s a political ploy by one political party to stay in power and divert funds for an unproven theory, thereby causing damage to the economy and the loss of jobs.
1 person will go absolutely hog wild eating dark chocolate, cadmium and lead notwithstanding, and smoking illegal Cuban cigars.
55% of the people will support trying to divert the asteroid, even if it causes major economic changes because the vast majority of scientists think the alternative would destroy life as we know it.
But what if try to divert the asteroid and it turns out that the 3% of scientists were correct? Well, we will drop to our knees and thank our good luck. Sure beats the alternative.
Just because one political party doesn’t believe in science and the other political party does, doesn’t make it a political choice. It’s still a scientific choice.
12 Likes
YES!
The Captain
9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 happy now?
3 Likes
That! AlphaWolf. That. All that.
Seriously Captain, where are you getting this dribble from?
9 Likes
Oh I can field this.
The difference is in spending money to do the right thing. Or in fact to do anything else but building the military.
Captain actually doing important things is washing away those who simply want nothing of the US government…because that means a nothing US economy. We are so done with supply side bull.
1 Like
Some are calling for the death penalty. I say life in prison. A message needs to be sent and it needs to be loud and clear.
The scientific method works perfectly fine. But it’s not relevant to testimony ABOUT results of the scientific method.
History, you should try studying it.
The Captain
3 Likes
The other historians weighting in on the comment about dribble have done their study in full.
1 Like
FADE IN:
INT. CIA HEADQUARTERS, LANGLEY - DAY
A group of CIA agents, dressed in suits, are sitting in a conference room. They are all tense and seem to be in a heated debate. One of them, AGENT SMITH, is holding a folder.
SMITH: We have some disinformation about the Ukraine war. But we can’t figure how to get it into Russian hands without our finger prints all over it. We’ve tried all the normal avenues, but nothing works.
AGENT ANDERSON: I’ve got an idea. It is a longshot but hear me out. There is this guy, Teixeira, in the Mass National Guard. He’s young and dumb as post. He and his teenage buddies like to drink Old E and play Call of Duty on X-Box. We’ll infiltrate his group and ask him about classified information. He’s dumb enough he’ll take some home and post it online.
SMITH: But how do we give him the false information, as opposed to the info he needs for his job?
ANDERSON: He sucks at his job. It won’t make a difference.
SMITH: Won’t he wind up getting arrested and spend hard time in the big house? This is basically entrapping one of our own citizens.
ANDERSON: What is the life of one man compared to a war?
SMITH: Make it happen.
FADE OUT
7 Likes
I have no problem with the idea that we have young people in the military all over the world with access to highly classified information. I am deeply disturbed that some of them may take their oaths so lightly that they would share that information to for such an apparently trivial motive.
1 Like
Wont just be Teixeira. It would be a dozen or so guys who were young and of a mindset. Meaning trying to be taken seriously online no matter what.
Sound familiar?
1 Like
Age has nothing to do with it. It could be anybody who likes to brag, saying “look at the neat stuff I have”.
Steve
3 Likes
Age to a degree has to do with it. But yes it could be anyone. The big thing about age is someone who is ultra naive in a sense. Someone who does not take the rules into account.
I have seen much older guys talking classified documents in the armed forces. You’d be surprised the older guys are extremely serious. You do not mess with classified documents. Taking them home etc is a no no.
The young guys are not fully networked into the rule system.
BTW a top official having them in a home office for study is okay. But arguing with the archive changes how the laws get applied. Also there is studying for foreign policy purposes and not really studying at all.
1 Like
Sounds feasible, could be used to make blockbuster movie. They got away with Saddam’s WMD hoax to start a war. How many others we don’t know about?
The Captain
2 Likes