Sibel Edmonds Speaks!

[Peter Lemkin]

[size=12]I think this whole tale is ripe pickins for the DPF crowd.

I'm still largely an untried and unvetted newbie in this bidness, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this whole long tale smells like a very well put-together, very subtle bit of disinformation.

There is an awful lot of what she alleges and says that seems coherent and consistent with what is known (gosh, I hope I don't start sounding like Donald Rumsfeld here), but I just have this little gnawing sense in my gut that something is wrong.

This stems in part on the basis of who, in the outer world and in other discussion forums, advances the case and keeps drawing attention to it, as if there is something there that they want us to pick up on, drive, or believe.

It makes for some very intriguing stuff... which makes it somehow even more suspect.

My sense is that the real accurate deep stuff is more plain and less Hollywood.

I think also, speaking as a newbie and from a bit more distance than the more experienced folks here, that the art of this science (or the science of the art) from their perspective keeps evolving; they keep learning ( we've already seen that they have 'lessons learned' meetings and are students of deep strategy e.g. the OODA loop), and they keep tightening their internal feedback loop.

So I leave it to you all to say 'there, there, Ed... you have it wrong, and here's why'; otherwise, I'm still in the watching-and-waiting queue.
[/SIZE]

I sense Sibel is the real deal and a real whistleblower - and that there are thousands of potential others like her that know other such. [i.e., this kind of corruption and abuse of power is not - as the public is led to believe - a few bad apples - but almost the whole lot and as common among the ruling class as junk mail is to all]

[David Guyatt]

I also think that Sibel Edmonds is the real deal.

I can, likewise, wholly understand her going with a journalist she knows and trusts. I can't see anything intrinsically harmful in getting the story out to Conservative circles as they very well might have the necessary clout to do something about it - whereas the liberal Establishment are busy ignoring her. And I would imagine the Lesbian sex angle is rendered as a simple "hook" to try to attract MSM attention - who might be expected to run the story, and then have to provide some necessary background to her more important claims in order to establish context.