Their continued unilateral embargo of Cuba, deemed illegal by the UN, needs some constant justification. Especially in light of Cuba's diplomatic efforts in the rest of the world (most recently, dispatching Cuban doctors to help care for Covid19 patients all over the world, starting with the outbreak in Lombardia).
So according to this conspiracy theory, part of the mission was to evacuate all of our diplomats from Cuba to create the appearance that we were fleeing these supposed REW attacks?
I have no idea what the truth is. My only point is that we (as the general public) should never take the word of spy agencies for anything, especially not about what their perceived enemies are doing.
Perhaps what they said happens to be absolutely true. Perhaps they have withdrawn their diplomats for fear of other attacks (e.g. poisoning, as Canadian authorities have apparently claimed). Perhaps they have withdrawn their diplomats in order to create some impression that they are in danger. Perhaps they have withdrawn their diplomats because they intend to do something that they think could put them in danger.
There are myriad possibilities, but until we get a chance to see classified reports or we get some independent reports about what is going on, we shouldn't speculate based on nothing more than the claims of spy agencies.
Edit to add: if the story would have been "Cuban intelligence agency reports how US diplomats faked symptoms to claim they were being attacked", would you believe this claim? Even as a Cuban? I for one would not - and just as I wouldn't believe this claim, I will also not believe the opposite claim from US intelligence.
The only "conspiracy" is that it is called an attack without evidence. It's so easy to do that, and is hardly conspiratorial in nature. No one's making any claims about the real causes or what really happened here. It is the usual ordeal, you take some happenstance, often heavily distorted, and frame your enemies for it. This is especially common with regards to cybercrime. People will eat it up, often no matter how little it conforms to common sense.
There have been instances of false-flag operations, most notably the Gulf of Tonkin incident which served as pretext for an escalation of the Vietnam war. But it doesn't have to be to serve its purpose.
Clearly there's evidence. You can contact the vets who are currently suffering. Plz look on SOCMED and ask them for an interview, then draw your own conclusion.
Evidence comes in many forms. There doesn't appear to be evidence in the form of a recovered weapon or technical recording/logging of an attack as it happened, at least nothing that has been disclosed.
However, the injuries are real and ongoing. It took a long time for consensus agreement that these events were malicious targeting by hostile govts against our diplomats, using remote energy weapons. Even just with the evidence made public, it's the most plausible explanation.
>Even just with the evidence made public, it's the most plausible explanation.
It's not the most plausible explanation, but it is the most convenient one. It shifts the blame and reinforces the narrative. They don't even have a coherent idea regarding how such a weapon would work in practice, it's pure speculation.
No they haven't, it's simply one possible explanation. It's still be "best" (i.e. most convenient) theory. Besides, these "attacks" even happened in Washington DC. Was that Russia also? Who did it, how did they do it, and where are the weapons? Russia is the US's favorite boogeyman, and I'm sure they will "retaliate" through economic sanctions or military intervention. In all likelihood, the Havana Syndrome is a fabricated narrative and mere pretext for unilateral aggression.
Consider the last paraphraph of the article:
> "Most importantly, if and when more evidence is gathered, Putin, Nikolai Patrushev, and their officers must be held to account."
This is not "news", it is war propaganda. Besides, it's immensely hypocritical. When was American government and intelligence officials ever held to account for orchestrating and instigating violent aggression abroad?
