Unless of course that skepticism is as a result to the deductions/conclusions not being what you want to hear.

Important to always remember this:

If a man is offered a fact, which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something, which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. – Bertrand Russell

Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
That is definitely a poor assumption on your part. I wonder what basis you have for that assumption given what I have posted, to include a link to data from the US federal government's Office of the Director of National Intelligence's (ODNI)Open Source Center in my last post.

The guiding principle of intelligence analysis must always be a healthy dose of skepticism. Analysts must always remember to consider the source, to include the analysts themselves. Publishers/producers of so-called open source data often have agendas of their own. To consider the published information in any article found in the NY Times, Hurriyet, BBC, Pravda, Allgemeine Zeitung, Paris Match, Asia Timeset. al. as without an agenda and, therefore, distortion free is the height of folly in my opinion. Analysis should include assessing the motivations of those behind the data sources. Quite often open source stories and "leaks" are targeted at a country's own populace more than at the rest of the world.