[notahacker]

Maybe he read the accompanying document and saw that wasn't a document recording any instance of "the US faking attacks on its own citizens for political purposes", merely a document about possibly acquiring MiGs which noted in passing that if such aircraft were acquired or replicas built without it becoming known there would be more potential for use in "a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy operations or a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for US intervention".

[simion314]

But it shows again that attacking your own citizen and blaming the enemy is a tactic that was considered a few times(or maybe more times) by the US government, this seems disgusting to start a war with false motives, it puts everything to doubt, so some people around the world doubt that US interventions had any other motivation then self interest and not self defense

[notahacker]

I really don't think a passing reference to a hypothetical use of MiGs the US never actually manufactured is of any evidential value whatsoever in concluding that US interventions were motivated primarily by perceived self interest (which is already well-established fact)

The title is lurid clickbait.

[simion314]

My point is that this operation or similar ones are bad and the citizens should condemn them and not try to minimize the importance. As a citizen I would also disagree with my government to start a war and send my family members to die for false motives and for political reasons.

[megous]

Why fake anything when propaganda works well enough.

[catshirt]

“a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention”

what is that, if not a fake attack for political purposes?

[notahacker]

Did the document record anything happening? No

Did it happen? No.

Did you (initially) falsely imply it did? Yes.

This is the equivalent of shouting that a startup is proven to be on the brink of failing and lying about their finances because you've discovered a memo which notes that one of many advantages of contractors over employees is that you can get rid of them at short notice.

[catshirt]

sorry, I’ve edited the word “planned” into my post as to not seem misleading. (forgive me for paraphrasing the title of the thread incorrectly).

unsurprisingly, it doesn’t actually change my point in the slightest. maybe we can have a more interesting conversation now.

[notahacker]

I've also edited. It's the third on a list of three hypothetical examples of a situation in which undisclosed MiGs are of more potential use than disclosed MiGs.

This is a "plan" to attack its own citizens in the same sense as a document noting "contractors are better from the point of view of flexibility, workforce mobility and the ability to downsize the work force" is a plan for mass firings.

[catshirt]

i don't think your analogy is strong. but instead of continuing to mince words... s/*/plan/ for literally whatever word you choose. and my point stands. discussed? evaluated? none of it makes me feel better.

[notahacker]

I'd say "took into account the possibility of as a factor in the usefulness of something they didn't actually make" if we're splitting words here.

I mean, the hypothetical considerations of the advantages of continuous offshore nuclear deterrents over land-based ICBMs are considerably more detailed and ugly in their implications, but I'd still consider a headline arguing "$NuclearPower planned to exterminate every man woman and child living in $RivalState after watching millions of its own citizens die" to be rather misrepresenting the intent of such documents.