iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,920
- 1,600
The FBI's fractured fairytale
more from sharyl attkisson on the overall thought process behind what the FBI did. we all really need to step back, remove names / emotions from this / and is what they did correct or wrong?
keep in mind if you say "correct" then you set a precedence that the other side can and will use these same methods. so "correct" means it's fair for all sides to act in this manner, not just your own.
from the article:
Once upon a time, the FBI said some thugs planned to rob a bank in town. Thugs are always looking to rob banks. They try all the time. But at this particular time, the FBI was hyper-focused on potential bank robberies in this particular town.
The best way to prevent the robbery — which is the goal, after all — would be for the FBI to alert all the banks in town. “Be on high alert for suspicious activity,” the FBI could tell the banks. “Report anything suspicious to us. We don’t want you to get robbed.”
Instead, in this fractured fairytale, the FBI followed an oddly less effective, more time-consuming, costlier approach. It focused on just one bank. And, strangely, it picked the bank that was least likely to be robbed because nobody thought it would ever get elected president — excuse me, I mean, because it had almost no cash on hand. (Why would robbers want to rob the bank with no cash?)
Stranger still, this specially-selected bank the FBI wanted to protect above all others happened to be owned by a man who was hated inside and outside the FBI.
----------
so we remove the names and suddenly it does look suspicious.
like this paragraph:
Instead, the FBI secretly sent at least one spy — er, “informant” — to commingle with the bank employees and get info. Yes, you are thinking, it would seem to make a lot more sense to spy on the would-be robbers than their intended victims. But the FBI chose to spy on the victims. You know, for their own good.
more from sharyl attkisson on the overall thought process behind what the FBI did. we all really need to step back, remove names / emotions from this / and is what they did correct or wrong?
keep in mind if you say "correct" then you set a precedence that the other side can and will use these same methods. so "correct" means it's fair for all sides to act in this manner, not just your own.
from the article:
Once upon a time, the FBI said some thugs planned to rob a bank in town. Thugs are always looking to rob banks. They try all the time. But at this particular time, the FBI was hyper-focused on potential bank robberies in this particular town.
The best way to prevent the robbery — which is the goal, after all — would be for the FBI to alert all the banks in town. “Be on high alert for suspicious activity,” the FBI could tell the banks. “Report anything suspicious to us. We don’t want you to get robbed.”
Instead, in this fractured fairytale, the FBI followed an oddly less effective, more time-consuming, costlier approach. It focused on just one bank. And, strangely, it picked the bank that was least likely to be robbed because nobody thought it would ever get elected president — excuse me, I mean, because it had almost no cash on hand. (Why would robbers want to rob the bank with no cash?)
Stranger still, this specially-selected bank the FBI wanted to protect above all others happened to be owned by a man who was hated inside and outside the FBI.
----------
so we remove the names and suddenly it does look suspicious.
like this paragraph:
Instead, the FBI secretly sent at least one spy — er, “informant” — to commingle with the bank employees and get info. Yes, you are thinking, it would seem to make a lot more sense to spy on the would-be robbers than their intended victims. But the FBI chose to spy on the victims. You know, for their own good.
