It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by reugen
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
It makes no logical sense.
In international politics, when country A does not want country B to perform a certain action it is because that will hurt the interests of country A. In the scenario you present, the United States does not want France to disclose an alien presence on Earth. The United States tries to intimidate France by way of downing AF 447. But would this be intimidation or provocation? What better way for France to get back at the United States (ie; hurt the US) but by doing exactly what the United States did not want to happen?
See how the logic breaks down?
I think its called Plausible deniability.
Originally posted by skibtz
The question I am posing is whether it is plausible that a US government would down a French asset in order to silence a French government that was teetering on the brink of disclosure?