So Assange is a Russian puppet.
So I ask you, at the end of the day, what difference does it actually make if Russia is behind him?
So because the info came from Russia we shouldn't care about Gitmo procedures, murder of Iraqi civilians by our millitary, TPP, etc? Is that what you all are saying?
On the one hand - we have the CIA saying it was Russia - the same CIA that lied to us about WMD, lied about torture, killing civilians, and a bunch of other shit.
And on the other hand we have Assange/Wikileaks - who has been exposing the CIA and other government agencies for their lies. Add to that the fact that no one, to my knowledge, has been able to discredit anything released by Wikileaks up to this point.
As far as I know, no one in this tread has influenced foreign elections so they're free to be pissed.
Again, I'll go with the simplest explanation - which is a Bernie-or-buster.Is it really the simplest explanation? So what is it? A false flag or a Bernie-or-buster sabotaging the party?
Again, the fact that the documents they're leaking are real is irrelevant to the question of the origin of those documents and the goal of the leak.
We do that shit all the time. Again, I'm not happy with the idea (assuming it was Russia) - but seriously... the outrage of our leaders is really something to behold. I mean pot meet kettle? If they should be surprised by anything it should be that it wasn't done sooner.It's an attack on US institutions by a foreign nation.
NSA has lied too (surveillance).No, we have the US Intelligence Community -- 17 US intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA ...) -- saying it was Russia.
They're accused of withholding "evidence of €2 billion transfer from Syria to Russia" by the hackers that sent the Syria Files to WikiLeaks.
No one has a link to Assange pushing the Pizzagate conspiracy theory?
This fucker is all kinds of sad and grumpy that he doesn't get same respect as Snowden.https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/809516449823883264
Hannity tells Julian Assange that America owes him a debt of gratitude" for exposing that we have no cybersecurity."
Again, I'll go with the simplest explanation - which is a Bernie-or-buster.
Thanks for the links. Yep, Putin's tentacles have horrifyingly far reach.Not just from that - Russia Today and Sputniknews were also posting anti-EU stuff throughout the buildup to Brexit as well - http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...exit-vote.html - and there were pointed denials about involvement after the vote that actually are pretty similar to current ones (or, for that matter, the denials about having invaded Crimea)
In general it's tied to Russia's policy of supporting populist and nationalist parties/individuals in Europe (and also the United States, it seems!) to undermine opposition - supporting people like Le Pen, releasing documents to support Trump, etc,
Even Californian and Texan separatists are hosted in Russia: http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=42395066
Oh wow. I knew about the Panama papers thing but I didn't know about the triple parenthesis tweet (that they deleted because "oops! we're outed as racist!" I guess) and I didn't know they had tweeted about the pizzagate and spirit cooking conspiracy theories.As for Wikileaks - they also tried to make money by selling anti-Clinton stuff in their store, tweeted using the anti-Semitic triple parentheses ((source), tweeted conspiracy theories from The_Donald, attacked the Panama Papers leaks as an unfair attack on Putin, stupid tweets about Podesta/spirit healing, etc. They pretty clearly have an agenda, and the reason opinions on Wikileaks have changed isn't solely due to which "team" it is supporting but also due to increased concerns about what Wikileaks decides is worth leaking and how it goes about curating the information it does get.
Gross.It wasn't Assange, but wikileaks Twitter that links to the Donald which links to 4chan: https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks...47777756860417
Fuck Wikileaks for real, man.
Is it unfair to hold Assange responsible for what Wikileaks tweets? He might not be the one in charge of that twitter account but surely he tacitly endorses them to a certain extent?
You're consistently handwaving away the analysis provided by both US national security agencies and private internet security firms that show the DNC hack was done from Russia because it doesn't fit with your preferred theory. Occam's razor isn't an excuse to ignore all contradictory evidence.
And what is my preferred theory? I'm skeptical - that's all. I think a little skepticism is healthy at this point. All of the information that's been presented has come from 2 anonymous sources - and they don't even agree with each other on everything. The analysis that's been done does not have any conclusive evidence to back it up.
I've said this in other threads, but if they have evidence then I'm ready to accept it and say "OK - so now what?" But they don't. I'm not even saying they should show us the evidence - but they should at the very least show congress.
See I keep seeing the whole "Where is the proof?" question come up. While that is a valid question the answer is so complex and if given proof it could reveal details about sources who put their lives on the line, tactics we use to trace the hackers and patterns we look for when investigating the hacks. So in short you may never get your evidence and you will be disappointed in the end. However the skepticism is exactly what Russia wants to have. They dont want you to have too much faith in the IA's because that stops Putin from doing what he wants to do to accomplish his goal. Russia does this in other countries through their media empire like RT and Sputnik. It was briefly mentioned in a book I am reading called "Nothing is True and Everything is Possible".
That's why I said to show congress. Surely they can show the folks on the intelligence committee and not put anyone at risk?
If I'm skeptical its because of things our own government has done/said. Russia really has nothing to do with it. I have no doubt that Russia wants this skepticism but then our agencies should have thought about that before lying to us time and time again.
I'll research the book - I'm always looking for stuff to read.
Yeah, that's how I feel too, but I don't know how much, if at all, he has distanced himself from the Wikileaks twitter. Unless he disavows the garbage the WL twitter account spews, I hold him responsible.Now that is the real question. I'd say it's completely fair.
We do that shit all the time. Again, I'm not happy with the idea (assuming it was Russia) - but seriously... the outrage of our leaders is really something to behold. I mean pot meet kettle? If they should be surprised by anything it should be that it wasn't done sooner.
NSA has lied too (surveillance). And the FBI and the CIA do not agree that it is Russia.
That doesn't refute my point. Again - what they have released has been accurate. Whether or not they release everything they are given is a separate discussion. I never said they were impartial... just that when they release something its (afawk) always on the nose.
Again, I'll go with the simplest explanation - which is a Bernie-or-buster.
The actual scenario is verifiably the opposite of what you stated.
The moment he set foot out of the embassy, the British were prepared to extradite him to Sweden. So he stayed inside. He offered four times to conduct the interview inside the embassy, and was told by the Swedes that would not be an option. Ultimately the Swedes only relented when they saw the clock ticking on the statute of limitations, and then Ecuador who were not amused by the behavior of the Swedes chose to stall on approving it.
Oh, odd, I was going by the timeline as presented by one of the more reputable newspapers. I guess I read it wrong? Or they got it wrong? Or an intern did the timeline?
I'm going with option #3 in that case
On November 20, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Mr Assange's arrest. A week later he gave himself up, appeared before a judge in Westminster, and in December 2010 was granted bail after his supporters paid £240,000 in cash and sureties.
Shameless assange aligning with the right now. Lmao an interview with hannity.
...WikiLeaks, which after a long, sad slide into paranoia, conspiracy theorizing, and general internet toxicity has made no attempt to mask its affection for Vladimir Putin and its crazed contempt for Hillary Clinton.
There was a report of russia in October. It didn't just appear out of nowhere.Russia is the most convenient boogeyman ever and the "WMD" of late 2016. Let's talk about the why the DNC lost the el---HEY LOOK OVER THERE, aren't you scared of Russia? No? Please be afraid.