[flagged]
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.
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.
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?
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.
I have first hand experience being targeted by the CIA after negatively criticizing them and having a former clearance (Pakistani American also, we know how the brass feels about Muslims in terms of racism and the like).
Curious if you’ve heard of the documentary everything is a rich man’s trick and the author who published it spent a lot of effort investigating for it. There’s probably content you can read from him. Do you trust that sort of information?
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.
I also did a web search for "intelligence community housecleaning" and looked through the top 60 results. I didn't find much. Several references talked about people being fired, but I didn't find any about them being killed.
I'd like to think I'm reasonably intelligent and web-literate, but after 15-20 minutes I didn't find what I was looking for. Maybe I'm just going about it the wrong way? Given how much you've posted on the topic, it seems like you want to convince people; if so, could you post some sources directly?
You missed, for instance, this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormwood_%28miniseries%29
It's (perhaps surprisingly) based on true events and might give some idea of the difficulties with even discussing the topic.
There are also various links like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_scientists_conspiracy_...
If you dig there, you'll sooner or later hit upon the weird discrepancies from reality that Wikipedia article has. It mixes unrelated cases with genuinely disturbing ones like McCasland. Who wasn't demented at all.
"Housecleaning" refers to the practice of killing prospective leaks. It doesn't make much sense to kill them once they've talked.
Killing is a last resort, mundane leaks are retaliated against by revoking clearances and destroying careers that way.
Note that the Espionage Act of 1917(!) allows to treat whistleblowers like foreign spies and deprives them of arguing, their leak would serve the common interest.
Actual cases are usually ruled "suicides" or "accidents", but obviously aren't:
Danny Casolaro (1991): "The Octopus" Investigation
Gary Webb (2004): The "Dark Alliance" Expose
Dr. David Kelly (2003): Iraq War WMD Leaker
John P. Wheeler III (2010): Pentagon Insider
... there are many others. You only find what you look for.
Would you share it again here or send it via DM?
Sorry you’ve had to face this.
> 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.
Did you see my posts?
I was targeted by the CIA or an intel agency, as a pakistani-american US citizen who has committed no crimes and only spoke up against calling my own government's agency terrorists. I saw what I could describe as behavior online resembling deep state astroturfing and fake accounts, and later agents showed up to experiment on me. I have been wondering if the odd behavior is that resembling a group that wants to try to houseclean me. This isn't a made up instance and you can look through my comment history for examples of how accounts that seem odd show up and in lock-step discredit and attack me. I think this is more evidence for your perspective being possible and not to feel gaslight and made out to be crazy.