So as I look around ATS I see something that is kind of disturbing. People on all sides of the debate toss 'Disinfo Agent' around quite a lot. It
smacks of McCarthy era finger pointing and gets us nowhere. Now I don’t pretend to be a super active ATS poster, but I try to get out my opinion and
some facts as they go. I like to think that my job (Which deals with ammo for the DoD) gives me a small amount of authority when it comes to talking
about what the US is doing with weapons and ammo. So if I were to correct someone does that make me a DIA (Disinfo agent)? I mean really, how can you
know if I am who I say I am? I promise that I do what I say I do, but other than that how can you be sure.
And on the other hand I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt until they go and say something very silly. For example if someone was on
here talking about physics and then goes and says something about how Thermodynamics is hog wash I would start to question them on the whole.
But that brings me to my next point, are they DIAs? How can we as a group know who is talking out of their ass to get stars and flags, and who is on
here to cause confusion for confusions sake. I think it is important to know which is which. It seems to me that if you look close you can find them
in all of the fields that we cover here. Be in the NWO, which I think must have more than a few DIAs to the 9/11 side which has enough confusion on
its own to not require organized DIAs. (For the record I think that 9/11 was a terrorist attack brought on by our on hubris, and not some inside job).
To that end I think we as a whole should look at a person’s history here on ATS prior to calling them out for something that will only tarnish and
detract from the debate at large, a tactic which would be right at home in Disinfoland. For the sake of shortness I will address two groups, Trolls
Trolls: We all know and love the troll. He is the dark abyss of the internet and lurks within us all. Everyone has the potential to troll, and it is
nice that ATS is tough on trolling, but the occasional stealth troll does get in. Stealth
. Look at that post, and then the user. It looks to me like this post was an attempt to collect some stars and flags and cause a
bit of a stir. 14 pages last time I looked and 20 flags! That is food for the stealth troll. It is next to impossible to police this kind of troll as
it is on topic and who are the mods to say who is BS and who is genuine? Be aware that this is done for fun, and not to muddy the waters. It should be
clear in the example that this guy just wanted people to read and star him. I do not believe that it goes beyond that at all.
Disinfo Agents: The DIA is the true threat. Some of the hallmarks are low post count, recent account creation, citation of sites that are hoaxes.
Referenced officials who do not show up on the wider public record, and the use of cloaked logical traps to detract from the argument at hand. Unlike
a skeptic who will point out holes in a theory or hoaxed material, the DIA will force holes in an argument. They have the funding and drive to build
whole disinfo sites to 'prove' a point that they alone make. This of course will start to attract people who are looking for actual information and
due to the DIAs site being the top of a search (You can do this for a fee on google) they may take it as fact with no other checking. The DIA counts
on you being lazy about fact checking. The DIA will take every advantage. Do not give them anything they can use. A DIA will use your past against
you. If you mention in a post something personal, like you’re a recovering alcoholic or something like that, they will use your past to discredit
you. Because the world knows that one mistake ruins you and your evidence for the rest of eternity.
In closing, please be aware of what you call someone. If you think someone is a disinfo agent, shame then in a thread open to the public. Make your
case clear and open to review. Allow the accused DIA to defend themselves. And never use the term just to discredit someone so you can win an argument
with someone. We all want the truth here, and sometimes that means admitting when you’re wrong, and yielding to evidence and fact, not emotion and