And suddenly the conspiracy theorists are wondering if Taylorious works for the NSA ;)
Your points are well organized and I tend to agree (especially that there would be an easier way to get rid of him), but I don't think you'll stop those that see a conspiracy around every corner.
I tend to see our government (today) as a very mismanaged large corporation. There are people over-reaching and those above them are trying to hide the damage and spin the conversation.
I am afraid Taylorious misses the point. I am afraid sage_joch misses the point in an even worse way. You may be surprised to hear this: it does not matter politically one tiny iota whether the FBI killed Michael Hastings. He's just one journalist, there are many like him.
What matters is what happens after Mr. Hastings' death. If the FBI is to be trusted, they will deny involvement on the low and the high: a trustworthy organization does not want to create even the slightest perception that they would kill a journalist. A trustworthy organization does not wish to instill fear in Hastings' colleagues. If, however, the FBI is not to be trusted, they will spread rumors that they are responsible: even if they did not kill him, it benefits them that journalists would be nervous to investigate them. This was the tactic of the KGB in the Soviet Union: they would stoke rumors of their ferocity by claiming responsibility for the otherwise-natural deaths of political contrarians.
What is truly to be feared is not that the FBI killed Michael Hastings, but that the FBI would like people to believe they killed Michael Hastings. Therefore, a rational yet paranoid individual might suspect sage_joch of being an NSA provocateur, but not Taylorious. That is the sort of corruption that will send a country into the dark ages for a century.
Well, this comment made me think. It's not every day you get called a potential NSA provocateur. But I'm not sure what you're suggesting with respect to my future comments. When I comment on political topics, I have a couple motivations: to shine light on a potentially bleak-looking situation, and to bounce ideas off a community of incredibly smart people. Are you saying I should avoid any kind of speculation? That might be reasonable, but sticking to hard facts doesn't make the situation look much better. If you count Julian Assange as a journalist, high-ranking members of the government have not been shy about making death threats against him. And the recent story about Barrett Brown should give anyone pause. I'm not asking rhetorically; I'd seriously like to know what you're suggesting.
Since you're not answering I'm going to take a guess: you're suggesting that since the actual reality of this whole situation is murky, I should tone down my speculation. And the more I think about it, the more I think you are right (if that's what you're saying).
> I tend to see our government (today) as a very mismanaged large corporation.
I don't know, I think the US government seems pretty ruthlessly efficient at toppling Middle Eastern governments, transferring wealth from taxpayers to big banks and large corporations, increasingly centralizing power into the federal government and large corporations, and breaking down families and increasing reliance on the state. And spying on it's own citizens.
I suppose, if you automatically dismissed any such thoughts to the contrary as "ridiculous conspiracy theories", it could look like it is all a problem of mismanagement. Maybe.
To be more accurate, the general brought down himself: McCrystal had developed an extremely inflated sense of self and irreplaceability, and was openly dismissive of civilian oversight (which is kind of worrisome coming from a man who directs weapons). The reporter simply reported how McCrystal was openly acting around him, leading to the administration taking action.
I only say this because people often talk about that as if the reporter had done deep black ops to gain covert information, thus making enemies throughout the establishment, when in reality he simply reported quotes directly fed to him, and in some ways acting on behalf of the establishment.
Your points are well organized and I tend to agree (especially that there would be an easier way to get rid of him), but I don't think you'll stop those that see a conspiracy around every corner.
I tend to see our government (today) as a very mismanaged large corporation. There are people over-reaching and those above them are trying to hide the damage and spin the conversation.