Franklin Lamb says he has a leaked US intelligence report that depicts US support for Israel in the intelligence community is disappearing, but we have only ”his word” on it. His source is anonymous and the report referred to by Lamb, is full of grammatical errors and shoddily slapped together. I had first become aware of it on a Facebook Middle’East forum run by a Finnish professor of Semitic languages, he was all pumped up about it, said it shows….
“that a kind of consensus of almost unlimited support for Israel, concerning its usefulness to the United States itself is possibly broken.”
Bwhahahahahahaha
NOTE: As I stated on the Facebook page, I state once again: “The whole story smells of rotted fish”. Besides, it natural for me to hold anyone with a deep sense of skepticism that aligns himself with a bunch of Islamonazis.
”Why does the article not pass the smell test? The problems are manifest: the way the scenario is written, the author, the lack of sources, the litany of over-the-top accusations against Israel, and the poor writing and editing. For that last problem, just read the article.”
There is an article in the August 28th edition of Foreign Policy Journal entitled, “US Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East.” The source for the leaked document described in the article is referred to as a Central Intelligence Agency staffer, and the document was allegedly commissioned by the US Intelligence Community, comprised of all four branches of the military, the Coast Guard, the Departments of State, Treasury, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI, the National Security Agency and the Ministry of Magic. Just kidding about that last one.
The document allegedly reveals that the CIA has concluded that tiny Israel is the greatest threat on the face of the Earth to the interests of the United States.
What? Is the article credible? Is anyone paying attention to it?
You are bang on. I read this story on “Before it’s News”, where it was surrounded by stories about UFOs and how Fema was going to start imprisoning stupid people (that got the sites readers real scared for some reason).
But this article was my favorite: “Is The US being Silently Invaded By Russian Soldiers Who Speak English?”
I can agree whole heartedly that the article is bullshit. It’s written at a highschool level of reading comprehension. Not for the level you would expect from people who have multiple advanced degrees and speak to each other in proffessional jargon.
This article might seem intelligent but was written specifically for dumb or uneducated people to read. Sort of like an Aaron Sorkin script.
It is filled with arab propoganda talking points that are written in the exact wording we’ve seen a zillion times. Not in CIA language, or policy wonk-ese.
It was like an illiterate trying to recite Dickens – “it wuz duh times and it wuz, um, duh other times.”
And when did you ever hear of something being leaked from the CIA?
Doesn’t happen.
Also AND THIS IS IMPORTANT all this wierd little fiddly “it came from here and was going to be there and part of it was leaked by bla bla” This makes the provenance of the story a little confusing-that’s intentional and always means it’s propoganda. The source is meant to be confusing and hard to remember precisely- also that confusion is meant to fuck your head up and cause you to absorb the propoganda better.
When there is confusing stuff about the source of an article itself. It’s bullshit.
Horowitz describes how hard core leftists do similar just before pumping a crowd with propoganda. I thought he was going off the deap end but recalled that I’d seen it myself done by a socialist candidate for mayor in Chicago And in a few other situations.