• KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    You’re making the mistake that the CIA is one homogeneous blop where everyone thinks the same. Where once something gets evaluated and approved it’s their party line. The document fits into the historical account of Stalin seamlessly. Even if it’s chatted someone heard from s friend of a friend (and I don’t think the CIA works this sloppily), it contains enough valuable information for the CIA to compile this document and to keep it.

    • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      CIA collects all sort of hearsay. Then they evaluate it to create coherent and credible information (as far as they know). This is unevalued without any sort of metainfo we might use ourselves to consider the credibility. All it seems to have is to agree with already held sentiment from you. That’s all.

      If you are being honest to youtself, if this didn’t agree with whatever you already believed, you wouldn’t give it the time of day for the exact reasons I’ve mentioned. Nor should you since there’s exactly nothing in this document itself that would support it.

      • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        If you are being honest to youtself, if this didn’t agree with whatever you already believed, you wouldn’t give it the time of day for the exact reasons I’ve mentioned.