I posted "conjecture"?
"Getting along with Russia is a good thing - not a bad thing"
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
I posted "conjecture"?
Sea-lioning to stall.
I think you are.
"Finally, the Committee notes that, as is the case with all intelligence questions, information continues to be gathered and analyzed. The Committee believes the conclusions of the ICA are sound, and notes that collection and analysis subsequent to the ICA's publication continue to reinforce its assessments."
Looks like opinion based on the January 2017 ICA report that contains the following disclaimer: "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”
You fail again.
No proof, no truth.
From July 2018, after 18 months of investigating and producing evidence.
It's very clearly saying it's based on intelligence questions, information continues to be gathered and analyzed.
So you're saying unequivocally that you don't believe Russia attacked us?
I'm so glad you posted this because it speaks entirely to the heart of your lies and deception.
Here's that January 2017 report, in it, you cannot find the phrase "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." anywhere.
So they say.
Based on the January 2017 ICA report that contains the following disclaimer: "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”
Just because they say they "believe" something, I am not obligated to agree.
BTW, you don't seem to have noted this tidbit:
"The Committee found the ICA's treatment of the historical context of Russian interference in U.S. domestic politics perfunctory. The unclassified ICA cites efforts to collect on the 2008 election and the Soviet recruitment of an activist who reported on Jimmy Carter's campaign in the 1970s, demonstrating two examples of Russian interest in U.S. elections. The ICA failed entirely to summarize historic collection by U.S. agencies as well as extensive open-source reporting -significant elements of
which are derived from Russian intelligence archives - to present a more relevant historical context".
Looks like the Committee isn't as enthralled with the ICA report as you'd like people to think.
No proof, no truth.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
.. and the Russian economy is still in the toilet .. while the Russian people live like paupers.
You think selling a few missiles changes that?
So my instincts were telling me that this was fishy...that it was probably being distorted or ripped from context. Only, it's neither of those things because that disclaimer doesn't appear anywhere in the ICA report from January 2017, like you're quoting.
So what that means is either you lied, or you unwittingly went along with propaganda.
I think it's the former because of how arrogant you were about it.
So this quote of yours isn't from the ICA January 2017 report like you were claiming, is it?
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Certainly is not working out that way in america where we drop one every 12 minutes and supply the world with war industry goods and services.
That covers "Estimative language", not the entire report.
You cut off the whole first part of that paragraph because it was speaking about Estimative Language, and not broadly to events that aren't estimated.
So not only did you lie, but you tried to misrepresent that lie.
Delete your account.
where did I say it did?
Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution
“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President. The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future. Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as “we assess” or “we judge,” they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment."
The whole report is based on estimation.
You fail again.
No proof, no truth.
So this is your red herring to try and avoid the conclusions the report, and the Senate Intel Committee, and Mueller's indictments all show and prove.
What you're saying is that you don't trust what our Intelligence Agencies say, and you're clinging onto a pretty weak qualifier to do that.
It's obvious why.
They prove nothing. They "believe", assess, and accuse.
That's supposition bases on guesses that have been neither proven nor disproved based on factual evidence.
You fail again.
No proof, no truth.
Based on the evidence and intel they've collected, which you seem unable to refute other than along the lines you're doing here.