Is it actually less plausible than the story currently being presented by the FBI and the media?
The US fabricated the case for war against Iraq. There was no yellowcake, there were no WMDs. And it's known that the NSA has programs in play to attempt to influence popular opinion through social media sites, and propaganda. There is at least circumstantial evidence that the US might hack Sony in order to win popular and political support for either a military action against a perceived enemy, or some kind of domestic "security" crackdown, or something which would otherwise be politically unpopular.
The least plausible argument here seems to be the one the US is presenting, and the most plausible is that the US is responsible.
Well, yes, I think it is orders of magnitude less plausible as it is not plausible at all. I am also unaware of any evidence, circumstantial or not, that the US has fabricated the Sony attack. An invented incentive is not motive, which is what I assume you to be referencing as circumstantial evidence.
There has been no talk of military action, nor do I see an upside for the US to undertake any. Basically, your argument is "The US doesn't like NK, so the attack most likely a conspiracy of the US government." Using that line of reasoning I can list off at least twenty other countries who are equally as likely to have pulled off the attack.
Sure, none of us have proof that it was NK, and I have my doubts as well, but expecting the US to hand over all evidence is naive and shows a lack of understanding as to how such evidence may be obtained.
I'd also like to hear your reasoning for the statement:
"The least plausible argument here seems to be the one the US is presenting"
NK is the _least_ plausible explanation? Really? How so? And then:
"and the most plausible is that the US is responsible"
Again, how so? What is the motive hear? You think that the Fed likes the idea of movies being pulled over a vague threat? Honestly, you come off as a complete tin-foil hat wearer and you have yet to provide a compelling argument for such large claims. You obviously don't like the US government, which is fine. They certainly provide enough reason to do so based upon things we _know_ to be true. However, you are making a huge logical leap here and your position is simply intellectually lazy.
The US fabricated the case for war against Iraq. There was no yellowcake, there were no WMDs. And it's known that the NSA has programs in play to attempt to influence popular opinion through social media sites, and propaganda. There is at least circumstantial evidence that the US might hack Sony in order to win popular and political support for either a military action against a perceived enemy, or some kind of domestic "security" crackdown, or something which would otherwise be politically unpopular.
The least plausible argument here seems to be the one the US is presenting, and the most plausible is that the US is responsible.