Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippikos
... but in the very unlikely event that it is true that you were an intelligence professional other than working on the post room, than you certainly would remember rule numero uno in intelligence: only rely on multiple and corroborated sources.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
I see you know nothing of intelligence work.
|
I concur with UG's assessment of Hippikos. UG states that his experience is in SIGINT (signal intelligence). My experience is in HUMINT (human intelligence).
Terrorist operations can be highly compartmentalized. There may be few sources, possibly only a single source, with useful information about specific activities. Sources are roughly rated using an alpha-numeric scale with A-G representing the reliability of the source (from totally reliable to completely unreliable; or, of unknown reliability due to lack of history) and 1-7 representing how well the source is known (from an open book to anonymous). A single source of high reliability may be more important than multiple sources of low reliability. A single well known source may be more important than multiple anonymous sources. All ratings are in the context of the relationship of the source(s) to the specific information gathering person/agency. While having
multiple / well known / reliable sources with information that can be
corroborated by other means is preferred, this doesn't always happen in the real world. The statement " ... rule numero uno in intelligence:
only rely on multiple and corroborated sources." [bold type mine] is blatently false and reflects either fantasy; or, adherence to the old adage "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
Nothing a quick trip to Wikipedia can't fix.
|
I
nonconcur with Flint's statement.
The Wikipedia and other open sources are not particularly good for learning
contemporary tradecraft.