Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Everything we know about spies is wrong

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#101

Post by mdhb »

rramadass wrote: post #100
mdhb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could find the source now where Barsky was very patiently trying to explain to some right wing podcast bro exactly WHY Bezmenov was full of shit because it was fairly definitive for any person with even a basic understanding of intelligence but I assure you it really wasn’t a “both sides” kind of issue.

Jack Barsky himself is suspect, Nothing is ever definitively "True" to an outside observer in these subjects. The "Deception" book mentioned above says this; ... Rocca now switched to a more conditional and hypothetical tone. "Soviet intelligence had demonstrated with the Trust a capacity for future deceptions." He spoke almost proudly of the Soviet adversary, as if he were discussing what a magician had proven he co…

I’m not trying to be rude about this at all, I’m just going to point out that this particular topic is one that I’m absolutely certain I know of in much more detail than you do.

I’m obviously familiar with what a dangle is and how it works both in theory and in practice but if you’re trying to imply Barsky was somehow a dangle I wouldn’t politely say you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

I’m not trying to give you a hard time about this but if you have some kind of compelling evidence beyond what you’ve read in a single book I’d ask you to share it.

To suggest Barsky is somehow suspect is really at odds with not only all of the details of his story and his eventual arrest but also the entire professional community on the subject. It’s just not true.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#103

Post by octopoc »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #57
pwillia7 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is classism not more real than race?

I mean, classism is about as real as racism but I don't know why one would ask about classism vs race. Class is about as not real as race; they're both things that people made up to justify their disrespectful behavior towards others.

In what way is race not real? Race is determined by DNA.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#104

Post by digging »

ziddoap wrote: post #94
digging wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this title is clickbait. It's a lie . It could have been "How real spies were nothing like movie spies."

Yes, yes. I've counted about 15 different submissions today alone that have someone complaining about the title being clickbait. Your complaint makes 16. It's always clickbait. If the title was your suggestion, someone else would say it's clickbait because spies are somewhat like the movies.

Good point, although I wasn't the first to complain on this submission so I don't think I contributed to your count.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#105

Post by rramadass »

mdhb wrote: post #101
rramadass wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jack Barsky himself is suspect, Nothing is ever definitively "True" to an outside observer in these subjects. The "Deception" book mentioned above says this; ... Rocca now switched to a more conditional and hypothetical tone. "Soviet intelligence had demonstrated with the Trust a capacity for future deceptions." He spoke almost proudly of the Soviet adversary, as if he were discussing what a magician had proven he co…

I’m not trying to be rude about this at all, I’m just going to point out that this particular topic is one that I’m absolutely certain I know of in much more detail than you do. I’m obviously familiar with what a dangle is and how it works both in theory and in practice but if you’re trying to imply Barsky was somehow a dangle I wouldn’t politely say you don’t know what you’re talking about at all. I’m not trying to…

I am not being rude either but your claims do not mean anything (this is The Internet after all). As i point out no outside observer can know the "Definitive Truth" in these sort of subjects. That is why i pointed to resources which give you a framework to understand the domain and perhaps maybe have some level of confidence in the validity of your own understanding.

The individual episodes like Jack Barsky etc. are not useful unless you have a bigger puzzle into which you can slot in these episodes to arrive at a bigger more complete and more meaningful picture. That was what i was hinting at above.

You can believe whatever you want but then it is up to you to figure out how closely your "beliefs" themselves are real well before you use them to "interpret" the "Real World".

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#106

Post by mdhb »

rramadass wrote: post #105
mdhb wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not trying to be rude about this at all, I’m just going to point out that this particular topic is one that I’m absolutely certain I know of in much more detail than you do. I’m obviously familiar with what a dangle is and how it works both in theory and in practice but if you’re trying to imply Barsky was somehow a dangle I wouldn’t politely say you don’t know what you’re talking about at all. I’m not trying to…

I am not being rude either but your claims do not mean anything (this is The Internet after all). As i point out no outside observer can know the "Definitive Truth" in these sort of subjects. That is why i pointed to resources which give you a framework to understand the domain and perhaps maybe have some level of confidence in the validity of your own understanding. The individual episodes like Jack Barsky etc. are…

That bigger puzzle you are talking about is a topic I’m extremely familiar with. You appear to have read 3 random books (none of which were written by anyone who worked in that field) at some point and are now relying on excessive use of quotation marks to make it seem more mysterious than it is.

I’m not looking to debate you on this one, I was pointing out that I happen to know with an incredibly high level of confidence that what you are saying isn’t correct.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#107

Post by oska »

slowmotiony wrote: post #19
romanhn wrote: post #12

Highly recommend watching The Americans, an incredible show about Soviet spies pretending to be a regular American family. Based somewhat on real people, and very well-researched.

I can recommend the french show "Le Bureau des Legends". It's written with the help of various consultants from the intelligence community and tries to be as realistic as possible, with most actual spies in the show being regular university students, office workers, psychologists, or even cafeteria staff. It's a fantastic show, although not very hollywood, so don't expect explosions or shootouts.

I differ on this recommendation. I watched some of it and found the show very mediocre and what 'help there was from the intelligence community' would have been provided to put a positive spin on the work done by Western intelligence agencies, which is mostly to protect Western corporate interests and neo-colonialism.

It's naive to think that any mass entertainment portrayal of intelligence agencies gives any real idea of how these agencies really function and what kind of work they actually do.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#108

Post by seba_dos1 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #84
poincaredisk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with correcting someone? It requires some effort from the person doing the correcting, but it facilitates information sharing and lends itself to a more productive environment. If course it can be done in an shooting way, especially if the correcter is a jerk, but most people aren't.

Depends on the context. Correcting impertinent details comes off as pedantic and detracts from the conversation at hand. Like, if you and your partner are talking about how delicious your meal at a restaurant was with another couple, it's not worth correcting your partner over the name of server, or if they got the price wrong by a few bucks. Maybe it's worth correcting your partner if they say you got the halibut wh…

This is absurd. If I mention the name of the server or the price it's because it's supposed to mean something to what I'm saying, as otherwise I wouldn't be mentioning those things at all. If I get them wrong, I would surely appreciate my partner correcting me.

Correcting typos when everyone can see what was supposed to be there may be pedantic as it serves no communication value, but correcting facts?

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#109

Post by Der_Einzige »

bitcharmer wrote: post #98
0x0203 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another incredible agent in WWII was Virginia Hall, aka the limping lady, who managed some pretty incredible feats, escapes, and rescues and did so with only one leg. For a (hopefully entertaining) rundown of her exploits, you can watch this 22m video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRdGS5ia2OQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Hall

I wish Hollywood used these amazing women's stories to give us great movies instead of gender swapping male stories. There's plenty of people who would love to watch.

The Russian sniper women still don’t have a good Hollywood movie about them. Russian government would be upset for bringing it up but the female snipers often worked in pairs and you can totally find some truthful bits of lesbianism to include…

But instead of looking to really history that actually happened, we get the BF5 trailer fake history nonsense

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#110

Post by rramadass »

mdhb wrote: post #106
rramadass wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not being rude either but your claims do not mean anything (this is The Internet after all). As i point out no outside observer can know the "Definitive Truth" in these sort of subjects. That is why i pointed to resources which give you a framework to understand the domain and perhaps maybe have some level of confidence in the validity of your own understanding. The individual episodes like Jack Barsky etc. are…

That bigger puzzle you are talking about is a topic I’m extremely familiar with. You appear to have read 3 random books (none of which were written by anyone who worked in that field) at some point and are now relying on excessive use of quotation marks to make it seem more mysterious than it is. I’m not looking to debate you on this one, I was pointing out that I happen to know with an incredibly high level of confi…

You can claim whatever you want on the Internet. I have seen no evidence from you (links/articles/books etc.) regarding your knowledge of the subject domain and hence do not have to take you seriously at all.

The resources i have listed are for the general public to get an idea of how to think about the overall subject domain and not some rah-rah storybook. People who study strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfare/operant conditioning etc. will understand what i am driving at while the others can ignore it as they please.

Post reply on HN