Would you be asking these questions if Republicans were targeted?
-
-
-
Any hot new leads in your investigation today Geoffrey?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is one of those ironic posts you mention in your profile! I get it. It makes it easy to dispense with the idea that your tweets are thought out and credible.... or DOES it? I am not good at irony, so will just say I think investigating is way more useful than speculating.pic.twitter.com/4t9Jisd4Hj
-
I wasn't speculating. Just pointing out a historical pattern and calling for full investigation with due skepticism about likely culprits. If you read anything else into my tweet, that's on you.
-
Why didn’t you raise the Big Bird hypothesis, then? You know, that Carroll Spinney retired from playing the iconic children’s television character so that ge could start this bombing campaign? It’s just as rational as the baloney you actually floated.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Really awesome to see an avowed Bayesian jump straight to false flags, because that’s surely the most likely explanation for a terrorist attack. https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/906283267103498240?s=21 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
I'm making the Bayesian point that false flags have been common and should be considered as one possibility. That's all. Not presuming either way.
-
That's not Bayesian. A Bayesian point would start by looking at the relative rates of ordinary attacks versus "false flag" attacks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is the promoting of conspiracy theory under the guise of open-mindedness. 1) False flag attacks are much more rare than overt attacks, so any Bayesian analysis has to start with that prior. 2) The voicers of this theory are largely partisans:https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1055175217641865216 …
-
It is most definitely true to say that we don't have any evidence yet, and obviously correct to wait for that evidence. Saying, "Hey you know what this could be? A leftist conspiracy" is NOT waiting for evidence. It's speculating against probability.
-
The purpose of speculation like this, specifically by partisans, is to advance conspiracy theories in the minds of the public, largely to muddy the truth rather than to seek it. As
@Kasparov63 observes, Putin does the same thing routinely in order to make truth seem unknowable. -
I've seen a lot of rebuttals to the effect that False Flaggers are simply saying the possibility "should be considered." This is disingenuous; they are *advancing the notion* while appealing to open-mindedness. This is akin to saying Obama's foreign birth "should be considered."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Name the 5 most recent in the US. Because they are not common here.
-
Ill give u 3: Gulf of Tonkin Incident, https://bit.ly/2ldcoes , pretext for escalating the Viatnam War Operation Northwoods, https://bit.ly/1fMDwHg , proposed, but never executed Project TP-Ajax, https://bit.ly/1snDH2Q , FF attacks on mosques and key public figures by CIA in Iran
-
All of which were organized by the State. Got a single non-governmental one? (And Northwoods never was attempted)
-
This is kind of the point. Unless you're entertaining the insanity that the US government was behind it, there is virtually no precedent for considering it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.