[FirmwareBurner]

>But yea, it's well designed, so it's supposed to be "hard to believe".

It's so "well designed" that it makes no sense :) Reminds me of Rick and Morty's heist plot developed by that robot. At the end of the day you can come up with endless conspiracy theories and plots if your imagination is good enough and you watched all the Mission Impossible movies, and then then when people question it you just tell them "it's so well thought out that it's hard to believe" and you win every argument.

Why is it so hard to accept that Snowden really walked out with confidential info and sent it to the press out of his own accord over his own worries of privacy violations he was in charge of? The simplest expatiation is usually the right one, no need to come up with false flag spy plots.

FFS, some teenager working for the Airforce leaked military intelligence on the war in Ukraine on some Discord server just to win an online argument. Do you think that was some false-flag op too? Intelligence blunders happen all the time, it's a wonder we don't get even more leaks.

[keepamovin]

So your critique of Snowden being a patsy is: I (the person saying it) am like a robot from some cartoon that sees everything conspiratorially just to win arguments, is that right?

Doesn't it sound like you're being too negative? It does seem more like you're trying to 'win arguments' by calling anything besides an official take a conspiracy theory, and disparaging anyone who says such, so nothing else can be said, right?

[FirmwareBurner]

No, I didn't call anything besides the official take a conspiracy theory, I only called your take a conspiracy theory because it seemed like hard to believe fantasy written for a show, and your only argument to support it was "it's well designed, so it's supposed to be hard to believe", which is just more fantasy designed to shut up any and all arguments against it, just like your last comment I'm currently replying to.