“The Russians claim ISIS is a CIA front group that the agency uses for its murderous, illegal black operations. The CIA calls that “misinformation.”
Ahhh misinformation. The code word that tells us they are hiding the truth, which means Russia is probably right.
Incidentally, other code words you should be aware of are “you need to make sure you’re using credible sources”, which actually means, “you should only use our sources that we control”
The better wisdom is: “you should check with multiple sources and choose those without a conflict of interest”
Sources: Sources I like are wrong about some things. Sources I don't like are occasionally correct. One has to look past who is giving the information. The giver of information usually only gives that which agrees with the bias of the presenter. Good to keep in mind, but that isn't a valid reason to disagree.
As it stands the Russian claim doesn't present any supporting evidence though there may be some available that wasn't given. Rationally, this would not really be given any thought at all until one hears the response of the accused. "Misinformation" is not denial. It feels like a dodge and adds credence to the accusation. No response would have been better.
“The Russians claim ISIS is a CIA front group that the agency uses for its murderous, illegal black operations. The CIA calls that “misinformation.”
Ahhh misinformation. The code word that tells us they are hiding the truth, which means Russia is probably right.
Incidentally, other code words you should be aware of are “you need to make sure you’re using credible sources”, which actually means, “you should only use our sources that we control”
The better wisdom is: “you should check with multiple sources and choose those without a conflict of interest”
Was it not alleged that BHO is the father of Isis? Certainly makes sense.
I think yes, and also relates to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama started funding ISIS/ISAL in 2010 (if memory serves). The "B" team (in his words) to protect us from "terrorism".
Sources: Sources I like are wrong about some things. Sources I don't like are occasionally correct. One has to look past who is giving the information. The giver of information usually only gives that which agrees with the bias of the presenter. Good to keep in mind, but that isn't a valid reason to disagree.
As it stands the Russian claim doesn't present any supporting evidence though there may be some available that wasn't given. Rationally, this would not really be given any thought at all until one hears the response of the accused. "Misinformation" is not denial. It feels like a dodge and adds credence to the accusation. No response would have been better.