well, there's a few things i'd like to know about that 95% number.
is that saying that 95% of unique data is from open sources, that 95% of the data processed (by volume) comes from open sources, or that 95% of the data used is from open sources.
for example:
if 95% of the unique data were to come from open sources, it would mean that of the 1,000 items the CIA took into account, 950 were open source, each regarding a seperate matter.
if you go by volume, of those same 1,000 items, open sources could still account for 95% by volume, but might only account of 50% of the unique data.
or you could say that of the data used, 95% is from open sources.
i'm inclined to believe that the 95% figure is coming from straight volume of data. if there are 500 articles available on a subject via open source, but only 5 have unique information, do you consider that 500 pieces of intel or 5?
i would guess the rate of unique data coming from non-open sources would be astronomically higher.
Go to google, type in anything see how much comes up that is really relevant to the original search. This would be the same in the intelligence community. The amount of info that is available on one given subject is almost overwhelming. A lot of it may be related but not relevant to what you want to know. Some may be utterly false. Some may just be conjecture.
Police investigations are the same way. Most of the info gathered is useless, despite it may be related.
To assume that the Intel community is different than real life would be silly. So the 95/5 split makes a lot of sense to me because it reflects real life.
well, there's a few things i'd like to know about that 95% number.
is that saying that 95% of unique data is from open sources, that 95% of the data processed (by volume) comes from open sources, or that 95% of the data used is from open sources.
for example:
if 95% of the unique data were to come from open sources, it would mean that of the 1,000 items the CIA took into account, 950 were open source, each regarding a seperate matter.
if you go by volume, of those same 1,000 items, open sources could still account for 95% by volume, but might only account of 50% of the unique data.
or you could say that of the data used, 95% is from open sources.
i'm inclined to believe that the 95% figure is coming from straight volume of data. if there are 500 articles available on a subject via open source, but only 5 have unique information, do you consider that 500 pieces of intel or 5?
i would guess the rate of unique data coming from non-open sources would be astronomically higher.
You can't just come to the generalized conclusions. There is too much detail concerning all the ways intel services work to make these kinds of broad sweeping inferences. You have to ask what the question is, environment, tools, etc.
I notice there is an extreme tendency for folks to keep trying to formulate conclusions on limited info, and this is clearly happening here. It's like playing a video game. You read the box quake comes in and think you know how to play, but until you get in there and actuall play a lot of deathmatch, you really have no clue how it works.
I guess what I am saying is that an inferred, simplified model like the one above really has little to do with understanding the issues involved.
OK, that was uneccessary. Let me put it simply, we had all the info on Iraqi WMD, and the war was based on lies and mistakes.
I notice you erased some how that attempt to marginalize me.
I am not affiliated with any political party or position. I am simply trying to argue from a commonsense POV. I do lean to the conservative side but am open to all thoughts if they make sense.
As far as lies, you are pushing it. Mistakes we all make those. But you see, you are push this OSI thing past absurdity. Do us all a favor and make brief bulleted list of what you know for sure about WMD so that in the next few months as intel is released to the public we all can see what you really knew and did not. This way we can judge for ourselves if you have some special insight on the subject.
Then you can shut us all up with your superior intellect. Simple.
Go to google, type in anything see how much comes up that is really relevant to the original search. This would be the same in the intelligence community. The amount of info that is available on one given subject is almost overwhelming. A lot of it may be related but not relevant to what you want to know. Some may be utterly false. Some may just be conjecture.
Police investigations are the same way. Most of the info gathered is useless, despite it may be related.
And that's why there are methods for dealing with it and putting it in a large context to reveal truth, and cooperative research does a good job with parts of this, but you only really start to understand it when you really munch on all of the info there and get rid of this blockage
And I don't think you guys fully appreciate how extreme the intel community hates the Bush admin for lying and distorting intel. Some recent headlines from OSS of aspin-brown fame: MILITARY-ETHICS OF INTELLIGENCE: Lies Lead to Unjust Unsound Wars, and Further Lies Lead to Impossible Destructive Post-War Decisions and MILITARY INTELLIGENCE: When Will Our Veterans Figure Out that Cheney-Bush Are Soft on Defense and Stupid on Strategy?
As far as lies, you are pushing it. Mistakes we all make those. But you see, you are push this OSI thing past absurdity. Do us all a favor and make brief bulleted list of what you know for sure about WMD so that in the next few months as intel is released to the public we all can see what you really knew and did not. This way we can judge for ourselves if you have some special insight on the subject.
You are new here, but just do a search. This has been already beaten to death on these boards before, during and after the war.
Quote:
Then you can shut us all up with your superior intellect. Simple.
It has nothing to do with intellect. It has to do with actually being interested in something enough to study it in depth an using the resources at my disposal.
And I don't think you guys fully appreciate how extreme the intel community hates the Bush admin for lying and distorting intel.
Just to add to this, most folks in the intel community now theorize that the Niger docs were created by disgruntled former intel analysts that wanted to expose how much the Bush admin distorted intelligence and latched onto even patently and clearly false intel to support their position.
You are new here, but just do a search. This has been already beaten to death on these boards before, during and after the war.
It has nothing to do with intellect. It has to do with actually being interested in something enough to study it in depth an using the resources at my disposal.
Oh, and not being a completely gullible fvck.
Quote:
I notice there is an extreme tendency for folks to keep trying to formulate conclusions on limited info, and this is clearly happening here.
isn't that what you're doing when coming to your conclusions based off the information available to you, seeing as it's not complete info?
Giant, I don't know you and you do come across as very smart, despite the pompous air.
You quoted an article that I read pretty thoroughly. The conclusion I came up with differs from yours and it differs along idealistic lines. You seem to be looking for anything that supports your theory that Bush-Cheney admin lied and misled. Where I am looking for what makes sense.
Am I saying that it's not possible? No. I am saying you better have absolute indisputable proof to support those serious accusations. These are too serious issues to throw accusations out like they are candy.
The problem with conspiracy theories, is that they are hard to prove either way. Theorist throw out so many accusations and facts that presuppose guilt and require the believer to accept so many intangibles, that it renders them unbelievable.
Just to add to this, most folks in the intel community now theorize that the Niger docs were created by disgruntled former intel analysts that wanted to expose how much the Bush admin distorted intelligence and latched onto even patently and clearly false intel to support their position.
The line I heard was that it was very nearly a kind of JOKE that got completely out of control.
It has nothing to do with intellect. It has to do with actually being interested in something enough to study it in depth an using the resources at my disposal.
You really need to get a life. Might help a little with your depression..
Or maybe you can do a little research on Prozac.. LOL
You really need to get a life. Might help a little with your depression..
Or maybe you can do a little research on Prozac.. LOL
Yeah, only a dumb little teenager would think I have less of a life than him. I've done more and gone farther in each five year chunk than you could hope to in your first 30. Get a clue.
Someday a girl might even let you touch her titties.
Yeah, only a dumb little teenager would think I have less of a life than him. I've done more and gone farther in each five year chunk than you could hope to in your first 30. Get a clue.
Someday a girl might even let you touch her titties.
Hey, a more exciting search would be one trying to find something you have actually been correct on. From shale to IAEA sealed uranium, only SDW and trumptman have been more consistently wrong than you.
Yeah, only a dumb little teenager would think I have less of a life than him. I've done more and gone farther in each five year chunk than you could hope to in your first 30. Get a clue.
Someday a girl might even let you touch her titties.
Like always, you're making assumptions. And like always, your assumptions are wrong..
And I really mean it. You come across as clinically depressed. And I'm saying this as a health care professional.
The conclusion I came up with differs from yours and it differs along idealistic lines.
That right there should tell you something about your reading of the article.
Quote:
You seem to be looking for anything that supports your theory that Bush-Cheney admin lied and misled. Where I am looking for what makes sense.
This argument here is a pretty much standard line these days that the right is putting out there about Democrat challenges and attacks upon the admin. "They just plain don't like him." "They hate Bush. They just absolutely hate him." "They'll do anything to destroy him." Bollocks. That's effectively an ad hominem attack that paints democrats and liberals and anyone who opposes this admin's policies as immature, unsophisticated, and vengeful. You'd be best served by dropping this entire line of thought from your barrel of stock responses in debates like this before someone accuses you of liking to watch American men and women get shot at and die in combat.
Because I swear to God if anyone else accuses me to be childish or unAmerican, that's the line I'm going to give them.
This has nothing to do with supporting some conspiracy theory. Remember: We were at war in Afghanistan, and then OUT OF THE BLUE this Admin shifted gears and starting sabre rattling about Iraq. People asked them to clarify. They responded with claims about Iraq and WMD, but they never would offer any evidence. To anyone. They implied, over and over, that SH was a terrorist. They even stated, and then backed off the claim, that SH had ties to al Qaeda.
The point is that the Admin seems to have lied, and deliberately used faulty intelligence in order to sell this war to the American people. Now, if they'd simply laid out the neo-con agenda (which is mighty compelling), they'd have been perfectly fine, and they could still have used 9/11 as a way of getting support for the plan.
But they didn't. They talked about yellowcake and imminent threats and al Qaeda-like organizations and taking the fight to the terrorists.
If you can't see that none of the reasons the Admin gave for going into Iraq are being realized--most importantly, where are the WMD that could be deployed in 45 minutes?--you really need to re-think why it is YOU support this conflict and this Admin. Is it because they gave you very clear evidence (that has not been totally debunked), or is it because you AGREE with them and their agenda. I don't havea problem with the latter. The former, however, would be telling.
Quote:
Am I saying that it's not possible? No. I am saying you better have absolute indisputable proof to support those serious accusations. These are too serious issues to throw accusations out like they are candy.
I'll tell you what: before a president sends American boys and girls into one of the most dangerous places in the world, he'd by God better show me "absolute indisputable proof to support his accusations" about the country we're attacking. Even more, before a president uses the American military to launch a PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE against another sovereign country, he'd batter damned well show me "absolute indisputable proof to support his" claims that this is the thing we need to do.
Comments
is that saying that 95% of unique data is from open sources, that 95% of the data processed (by volume) comes from open sources, or that 95% of the data used is from open sources.
for example:
if 95% of the unique data were to come from open sources, it would mean that of the 1,000 items the CIA took into account, 950 were open source, each regarding a seperate matter.
if you go by volume, of those same 1,000 items, open sources could still account for 95% by volume, but might only account of 50% of the unique data.
or you could say that of the data used, 95% is from open sources.
i'm inclined to believe that the 95% figure is coming from straight volume of data. if there are 500 articles available on a subject via open source, but only 5 have unique information, do you consider that 500 pieces of intel or 5?
i would guess the rate of unique data coming from non-open sources would be astronomically higher.
Police investigations are the same way. Most of the info gathered is useless, despite it may be related.
To assume that the Intel community is different than real life would be silly. So the 95/5 split makes a lot of sense to me because it reflects real life.
Originally posted by alcimedes
well, there's a few things i'd like to know about that 95% number.
is that saying that 95% of unique data is from open sources, that 95% of the data processed (by volume) comes from open sources, or that 95% of the data used is from open sources.
for example:
if 95% of the unique data were to come from open sources, it would mean that of the 1,000 items the CIA took into account, 950 were open source, each regarding a seperate matter.
if you go by volume, of those same 1,000 items, open sources could still account for 95% by volume, but might only account of 50% of the unique data.
or you could say that of the data used, 95% is from open sources.
i'm inclined to believe that the 95% figure is coming from straight volume of data. if there are 500 articles available on a subject via open source, but only 5 have unique information, do you consider that 500 pieces of intel or 5?
i would guess the rate of unique data coming from non-open sources would be astronomically higher.
You can't just come to the generalized conclusions. There is too much detail concerning all the ways intel services work to make these kinds of broad sweeping inferences. You have to ask what the question is, environment, tools, etc.
I notice there is an extreme tendency for folks to keep trying to formulate conclusions on limited info, and this is clearly happening here. It's like playing a video game. You read the box quake comes in and think you know how to play, but until you get in there and actuall play a lot of deathmatch, you really have no clue how it works.
I guess what I am saying is that an inferred, simplified model like the one above really has little to do with understanding the issues involved.
Originally posted by giant
OK, that was uneccessary. Let me put it simply, we had all the info on Iraqi WMD, and the war was based on lies and mistakes.
I notice you erased some how that attempt to marginalize me.
I am not affiliated with any political party or position. I am simply trying to argue from a commonsense POV. I do lean to the conservative side but am open to all thoughts if they make sense.
As far as lies, you are pushing it. Mistakes we all make those. But you see, you are push this OSI thing past absurdity. Do us all a favor and make brief bulleted list of what you know for sure about WMD so that in the next few months as intel is released to the public we all can see what you really knew and did not. This way we can judge for ourselves if you have some special insight on the subject.
Then you can shut us all up with your superior intellect. Simple.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Go to google, type in anything see how much comes up that is really relevant to the original search. This would be the same in the intelligence community. The amount of info that is available on one given subject is almost overwhelming. A lot of it may be related but not relevant to what you want to know. Some may be utterly false. Some may just be conjecture.
Police investigations are the same way. Most of the info gathered is useless, despite it may be related.
And that's why there are methods for dealing with it and putting it in a large context to reveal truth, and cooperative research does a good job with parts of this, but you only really start to understand it when you really munch on all of the info there and get rid of this blockage
And I don't think you guys fully appreciate how extreme the intel community hates the Bush admin for lying and distorting intel. Some recent headlines from OSS of aspin-brown fame: MILITARY-ETHICS OF INTELLIGENCE: Lies Lead to Unjust Unsound Wars, and Further Lies Lead to Impossible Destructive Post-War Decisions and MILITARY INTELLIGENCE: When Will Our Veterans Figure Out that Cheney-Bush Are Soft on Defense and Stupid on Strategy?
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as lies, you are pushing it. Mistakes we all make those. But you see, you are push this OSI thing past absurdity. Do us all a favor and make brief bulleted list of what you know for sure about WMD so that in the next few months as intel is released to the public we all can see what you really knew and did not. This way we can judge for ourselves if you have some special insight on the subject.
You are new here, but just do a search. This has been already beaten to death on these boards before, during and after the war.
Then you can shut us all up with your superior intellect. Simple.
It has nothing to do with intellect. It has to do with actually being interested in something enough to study it in depth an using the resources at my disposal.
Oh, and not being a completely gullible fvck.
Originally posted by giant
And I don't think you guys fully appreciate how extreme the intel community hates the Bush admin for lying and distorting intel.
Just to add to this, most folks in the intel community now theorize that the Niger docs were created by disgruntled former intel analysts that wanted to expose how much the Bush admin distorted intelligence and latched onto even patently and clearly false intel to support their position.
Originally posted by giant
You are new here, but just do a search. This has been already beaten to death on these boards before, during and after the war.
It has nothing to do with intellect. It has to do with actually being interested in something enough to study it in depth an using the resources at my disposal.
Oh, and not being a completely gullible fvck.
I notice there is an extreme tendency for folks to keep trying to formulate conclusions on limited info, and this is clearly happening here.
isn't that what you're doing when coming to your conclusions based off the information available to you, seeing as it's not complete info?
You quoted an article that I read pretty thoroughly. The conclusion I came up with differs from yours and it differs along idealistic lines. You seem to be looking for anything that supports your theory that Bush-Cheney admin lied and misled. Where I am looking for what makes sense.
Am I saying that it's not possible? No. I am saying you better have absolute indisputable proof to support those serious accusations. These are too serious issues to throw accusations out like they are candy.
The problem with conspiracy theories, is that they are hard to prove either way. Theorist throw out so many accusations and facts that presuppose guilt and require the believer to accept so many intangibles, that it renders them unbelievable.
You are falling into that trap, IMO.
Originally posted by giant
Just to add to this, most folks in the intel community now theorize that the Niger docs were created by disgruntled former intel analysts that wanted to expose how much the Bush admin distorted intelligence and latched onto even patently and clearly false intel to support their position.
The line I heard was that it was very nearly a kind of JOKE that got completely out of control.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by giant
It has nothing to do with intellect. It has to do with actually being interested in something enough to study it in depth an using the resources at my disposal.
You really need to get a life. Might help a little with your depression..
Or maybe you can do a little research on Prozac.. LOL
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am saying you better have absolute indisputable proof to support those serious accusations.
Hell, I've already provided enough sources just in this thread to keep you busy for months. It's not my job to do your research for your.
conspiracy theories
Oh, great.
Originally posted by aapl
You really need to get a life. Might help a little with your depression..
Or maybe you can do a little research on Prozac.. LOL
Yeah, only a dumb little teenager would think I have less of a life than him. I've done more and gone farther in each five year chunk than you could hope to in your first 30. Get a clue.
Someday a girl might even let you touch her titties.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, only a dumb little teenager would think I have less of a life than him. I've done more and gone farther in each five year chunk than you could hope to in your first 30. Get a clue.
Someday a girl might even let you touch her titties.
very intelligent
Originally posted by alcimedes
Hey, a more exciting search would be one trying to find something you have actually been correct on. From shale to IAEA sealed uranium, only SDW and trumptman have been more consistently wrong than you.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, only a dumb little teenager would think I have less of a life than him. I've done more and gone farther in each five year chunk than you could hope to in your first 30. Get a clue.
Someday a girl might even let you touch her titties.
Like always, you're making assumptions. And like always, your assumptions are wrong..
And I really mean it. You come across as clinically depressed. And I'm saying this as a health care professional.
Originally posted by aapl
And I'm saying this as a health care professional.
Then you really need to take yourself back to school.
Originally posted by midwinter
The line I heard was that it was very nearly a kind of JOKE that got completely out of control.
Cheers
Scott
Yeah, Hersh's stovepiping article talked a bit about it, and since he broke it I've seen it pop up elsewhere.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The conclusion I came up with differs from yours and it differs along idealistic lines.
That right there should tell you something about your reading of the article.
You seem to be looking for anything that supports your theory that Bush-Cheney admin lied and misled. Where I am looking for what makes sense.
This argument here is a pretty much standard line these days that the right is putting out there about Democrat challenges and attacks upon the admin. "They just plain don't like him." "They hate Bush. They just absolutely hate him." "They'll do anything to destroy him." Bollocks. That's effectively an ad hominem attack that paints democrats and liberals and anyone who opposes this admin's policies as immature, unsophisticated, and vengeful. You'd be best served by dropping this entire line of thought from your barrel of stock responses in debates like this before someone accuses you of liking to watch American men and women get shot at and die in combat.
Because I swear to God if anyone else accuses me to be childish or unAmerican, that's the line I'm going to give them.
This has nothing to do with supporting some conspiracy theory. Remember: We were at war in Afghanistan, and then OUT OF THE BLUE this Admin shifted gears and starting sabre rattling about Iraq. People asked them to clarify. They responded with claims about Iraq and WMD, but they never would offer any evidence. To anyone. They implied, over and over, that SH was a terrorist. They even stated, and then backed off the claim, that SH had ties to al Qaeda.
The point is that the Admin seems to have lied, and deliberately used faulty intelligence in order to sell this war to the American people. Now, if they'd simply laid out the neo-con agenda (which is mighty compelling), they'd have been perfectly fine, and they could still have used 9/11 as a way of getting support for the plan.
But they didn't. They talked about yellowcake and imminent threats and al Qaeda-like organizations and taking the fight to the terrorists.
If you can't see that none of the reasons the Admin gave for going into Iraq are being realized--most importantly, where are the WMD that could be deployed in 45 minutes?--you really need to re-think why it is YOU support this conflict and this Admin. Is it because they gave you very clear evidence (that has not been totally debunked), or is it because you AGREE with them and their agenda. I don't havea problem with the latter. The former, however, would be telling.
Am I saying that it's not possible? No. I am saying you better have absolute indisputable proof to support those serious accusations. These are too serious issues to throw accusations out like they are candy.
I'll tell you what: before a president sends American boys and girls into one of the most dangerous places in the world, he'd by God better show me "absolute indisputable proof to support his accusations" about the country we're attacking. Even more, before a president uses the American military to launch a PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE against another sovereign country, he'd batter damned well show me "absolute indisputable proof to support his" claims that this is the thing we need to do.
Bush did neither.
Cheers
Scott