@raphjd Other thing is: ISIS is known CIA asset.
As is CNN.
& CIA media technique is often to embed technical truths in a false narrative arc.
So - again I'm just spitballin' - who knows? - but the following could happen:
A. Sneaky Toria goes to Kiev and in a vague general way, says, hey, let's use asymmetric warfare to give Putin nasty surprises. (All phrases from her)
B. CIA-Ukraine alliance (existence admitted by New York Times) says, OK, but let's have plausible deniability.
-
get our ISIS asset to hire some Tajik assets, stage them for an attack, but they're not really suicidal, so promise them an escape route to Ukraine.
-
since we know all about it - we're planning it, after all - we'll "share intelligence" specifics to Russia & others. Only tell them wrong date.
-
so now we warned them, but we didn't really warn them, but later we can pretend we warned them.
-
reschedule our attack to slightly later date
-
do it
-
get our media assets to state, CORRECTLY (but incompletely haha), that attack was by ISIS & not CIA because CIA "warned" Russia
C. If anyone sees pattern: CIA media efforts activate their dumbest supporters in populace - like @jaroonn - to blather all incoherent & irrelevant, for instance say "Tucker Tucker" randomly out of blue, with foaming spittle.
See?
That CNN says it was ISIS!! & CIA sorta-warned Russia!! - those things might even be true - yet, still leave clever CIA as central planner.
BUT, we'll see. More info will drift out.
journalist Aaron Mate saying ISIS is CIA asset
"But why would CIA warn Russia of CIA's own attacK? That's crazy." - because plausible deniability. They gave Russia mostly-correct specifics except wrong date
"But why would CIA want such a dumb attack? That's crazy." - because Sneaky Toria said in a vague general way, hey, let's use asymmetric warfare to give Putin nasty surprises. Her words - Go ask her.