Why do you come to this conclusion, instead of, say, that they're looking for something to hand to the US that they can use for diplomatic and ideological cover?
> Why do you come to this conclusion, instead of, say, that they're looking for something to hand to the US that they can use for diplomatic and ideological cover?
Does your hypothesis (to be clear, I'm not sure what it is) change given the new suspect [1]? (If not, is there any information which would change it?)
If I had to draw an inappropriately-broad delineation on types of thought, one might be between faith and science. Something held on faith cannot be disproven. This includes good things, like values. It includes bad things, like a single cause for all evil in the world. I find the category error between these particularly interesting, i.e. when someone believes they rationally, empirically and objectively hold an article of faith. (The inverse is the proving of a strongly, perhaps compulsively, held hypothesis.)
Why do you come to this conclusion, instead of, say, that they're looking for something to hand to the US that they can use for diplomatic and ideological cover?