Dilbert_X wrote:
Oh, wait. You don't have any of that. You're making a comparison from an uninformed position but expecting people to accept it as incontrovertible.
Doesn't really matter that I have direct experience or not, neither do you.
Actually, I do. Hence the argument.
And since you don't and I do, it does really matter...unless you're going to throw out your "I've read some books" argument again.
Dilbert_X wrote:
It is if it doesn't involve the topic under discussion.
If you make logical leaps based on something you know little about, based on briefing docs which may or may not be accurate (and US intel is remarkably poor these days) you're free to do so. I'm just pointing out some alternative views and providing other information you're apparently lacking.
Are you mirror-imaging now?
I'm not the one making logical leaps based on something I know little about. I work daily with intel sources and methods. I spent quite a bit of the past five-six years working on counter-IED issues. You've done neither...yet you feel imminently qualified to argue the issue with someone who has.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Some of the stuff FEOS comes out with, supposedly on the basis of up to the minute intel and crack analysis, is just plain wrong.
Feel free to point one out with sources for your conclusions.
