That's a claim that I don't think you can support.
That's argument from incredulity. And, it's not true in at least one case — here's a woman who made waves a couple of years ago by giving a press conference at the Lincoln Memorial. She's a former intelligence officer, and she has spoken to "the beings." (She has also written openly about having been hospitalized for a mental-health crisis some years ago.)
Or people are simply wrong; their sincere beliefs are mistaken, or they've been misquoted or misunderstood. It happens. Haven't you ever just been wrong about anything? Calling every mistake a lie or a mental illness is counterproductive, and a very good way NOT to get any clarification or cooperation from them. Your assumption that they were "misinformed" just pushes back the point at which the information was mistaken to another person in the chain, but you don't have any evidence that was deliberate either.
Hyperbole, and a completely unwarranted conclusion on your part.
Your claim was, "Not to mention the origin of all these conspiracy theories is from misinformation from our own national security agencies." Grusch (whose name you keep misspelling) lost his job with his agency, and was never an official spokesperson for them. The agency is not the origin of that misinformation, an ex-employee is. We do not know why he no longer holds this job.
The scenario where Grusch's leadership took appropriate action is the one that doesn't warrant wasting time and resources on his outlandish TV claims.
He is neither the first nor likely to be the last example of people within the intelligence community who may not be living up to your standard. Think of the young man who was leaking classified documents to his friends on a gaming channel. Or a ex-President who steals classified documents and refuses to give them back to the government. I'm sure there are many more examples if you look into it.
So, to be clear, the scenario where Grudch's superiors say "this guy has gone off the deep end end, let's get rid of him" needs investigation? Why?
There aren't, Grusch lost his job.
There's 3 things (I see) wrong with this:
Neither you nor I know what he "believes". We know what he says, but as yet we don't know the motivation for saying it. It may be belief, it may be ego, it may be a search for attention, it may be retaliation for what he perceived as an unjust downgrading of his security clearance, it may be simply a profit motive. You've taken a hair-on-fire giant leap to things for which we have no definitive answer, and used that to denigrate everyone from the US congress to the military to the security services. Take a deep breath, and let the matter unfold with a little more factual content.
I'm not trying to "win points". Any organization populated by humans will have susceptibility to human weaknesses.
To a degree I think I agree with you. If Grusch is not telling the truth, whether that be due to a misunderstanding on his part (or a chain of rumour and misunderstanding), or delusion, or (for the sake of argument- sorry Mr Grusch) deliberate deception, then it is a matter of concern that he was where he was.
Well, a minority of airmen who fly aircraft which could carry nuclear weapons might believe the Earth is being visited by aliens.
"Satanism In The Royal Navy", Forces Net 17 March 2016 https://www.forces.net/services/tri-service/satanism-royal-navyExternal Quote:
Why is that remarkable? Is that inherently any different from other religious beliefs? As you say, "As long as their beliefs don't impede their operational efficiency or compromise security, I'm sure their service is welcome."The Royal Navy (of the UK) allows practising Satanists to serve
Wait until you find out the last commander in chief (The highest position in the USA land) was/is a pathological liar.
You've misunderstood his modal. Given that he's not even getting Grusch's name correct, you can't expect 100% precision in communication, but still, it's a far from incorrect use of the auxiliary. I suspect "X can't happen" is a sloppy degrading of "We can't let X happen", which probably no-one would bat an eyelid at, and if you accept that intermediate construct, then you've already accepted that that "can't" is used where "shouldn't"/"oughtn't" would be better.
There's less cognitive dissonance in "Hail Satan! Bang , bang, bang!" than there is in "Kum-by-yah, my Lord, bang, bang, bang!"
However, the "fix" has the side effect of reinforcing the strength of conspiratorial beliefs, perhaps even the number of people who hold such beliefs at all. It's the old "If we kill him, we create a martyr" situation - and they killed him. Everything's an equilibrium, and the more you push things out, the more the outside will push back.
Grusch is alive. Grusch was not fired.
Grusch presented his case to Congress. The DoD cleared him to speak with the press.Article: Grusch left the government on April 7, 2023, in order, he said, to advance government accountability through public awareness.
But the "reprisal or threat of reprisal" predated him leaving his job, no? Didn't he have his security clearance reduced? They may not have booted him out of the door, but they certainly held the door open for him and encouraged him to leave. However, most importantly, your or my perspective (which are almost certainly in almost complete alignment) on what went on - or any actual facts - are irrelevant, all that matters is the *perception* of those whom Grusch and Grusch's popular in-crowd, has influence over; that's what's behind the force that is doing the resisting. All that matters is the playing of the victim card, not whether you actually are a victim.
Yes and no.
What is the perception, though? The reporting and Grusch himself didn't really play up that angle, using the ICIG complaint mostly to establish Grusch's credentials as a bona fide whistleblower, with the "gave evidence under oath" line.
Anyone wanna brave reddit? That's one of the holes you want to be sticking the thermometer into.
Just as a clarification, "they" is deliberately ambiguous. There is a positive incentive for his in-group to enable his victim narrative and help set him up. As @Mendel correctly points out, it doesn't seem to have done him any harm, they might have done him a favour if they were involved. Alas, we'll probably never (thanks Mendel for the PM correction!) know the machinations behind what happened.
You've really got a way with words, Phil!
Agreed.
Not sure -- if, IF, the truth would serve his needs, seeking it would be worthwhile, yeah?
Regarding a number of members of congress, Hawley among them, their interest is also to distract from the prosecution of Trump AND their own possible complicity in the events surrounding the election shenanigans and the Jan 6 riots. Hawley was notable among the vocal Trump supporters who objected to the election results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_HawleyExternal Quote:
External Quote:
