• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Julian Assange: Wikileaks emails were not from Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Jun 8, 2004
31,504
0
0
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.
Who is saying it's only one or the other?
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Apr 7, 2008
12,712
0
0
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.

Ah yes, the good 'ole WMD talking point straight from r/the_donald.
 

chadskin

Member
May 27, 2013
13,086
3
0
So Assange is a Russian puppet.

No, just a useful idiot. Russia would've found (and actually did) other avenues to publish the data they've obtained. I mean, Gawker published the DNC's oppo research on Trump that was sent to them by Guccifer 2.0 and Russia is believed to have set up DCLeaks.com and other faketivist websites itself.

It would've gotten out regardless but WikiLeaks obviously had a wide reach already, was longing for new 'explosive' material to publish and, you know, likes to take your donation to fight The Man.

So I ask you, at the end of the day, what difference does it actually make if Russia is behind him?

It's an attack on US institutions by a foreign nation.

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?

No, don't conflate previous leaks from whistleblowers with state-sponsored hacking.

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.

No, we have the US Intelligence Community -- 17 US intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA ...) -- saying it was Russia.

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.

They're accused of withholding "evidence of €2 billion transfer from Syria to Russia" by the hackers that sent the Syria Files to WikiLeaks.
 

tiredheadcrab

Member
Jun 1, 2014
2,265
0
430
People in this thread do realize that the CIA WMD thing was mostly the Bush administration wrong doing right? Do I need to explain the Valarie Plame story to prove my point?

To those same people, you realize that Assange had a talk show on Russia Today. Which is run by the Russian Government. Which is an oligarchy under an Ex KGB agent. The only thing thats changed in Russia since the SU fell was the people had to adobt to a capitalist system. Russia is still being run by a dictator who is currently bombing woman and children in Syria.
 

SerAardvark

Member
Jun 16, 2016
385
0
0

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/articles/2016/06/08/why-putin-is-meddling-in-britain-s-brexit-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,

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/23/why-europe-is-right-to-fear-putins-useful-idiots/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-is-wooing-and-funding-populist-9883052.html

Even Californian and Texan separatists are hosted in Russia: http://abcnews.go.com/International...tend-pro-kremlin-conference/story?id=42395066

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.
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Jun 10, 2004
8,442
0
1,655
As far as I know, no one in this tread has influenced foreign elections so they're free to be pissed.

No, but they are parroting people who do - and those are the people to whom I was referring. And if you really want to go down the rabbit hole you could argue that everyone bears some responsibility since they are the ones who put those people in power.

Is it really the simplest explanation? So what is it? A false flag or a Bernie-or-buster sabotaging the party?
Again, I'll go with the simplest explanation - which is a Bernie-or-buster.

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.

And what I'm saying is that the question of the origin of the documents is what's really irrelevant here. It doesn't matter what the source is if the information being presented can be independently verified.

It's an attack on US institutions by a foreign nation.
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.

No, we have the US Intelligence Community -- 17 US intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA ...) -- saying it was Russia.
NSA has lied too (surveillance).

They're accused of withholding "evidence of €2 billion transfer from Syria to Russia" by the hackers that sent the Syria Files to WikiLeaks.

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.
 

Roland_Gunner

Member
Dec 20, 2014
4,810
0
0
Again, I'll go with the simplest explanation - which is a Bernie-or-buster.
.

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.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Jul 23, 2010
30,991
13
720
www.metal-archives.com
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,

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/23/...useful-idiots/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-9883052.html

Even Californian and Texan separatists are hosted in Russia: http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=42395066
Thanks for the links. Yep, Putin's tentacles have horrifyingly far reach.

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.
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.

Fuck Wikileaks for real, man.

It wasn't Assange, but wikileaks Twitter that links to the Donald which links to 4chan: https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks...47777756860417
Gross.
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?
 

TheBahaBlast

Member
Feb 18, 2010
343
0
0
Fuck Wikileaks for real, man.


Gross.
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?

Now that is the real question. I'd say it's completely fair.
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Jun 10, 2004
8,442
0
1,655
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.
 

tiredheadcrab

Member
Jun 1, 2014
2,265
0
430
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".
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Jun 10, 2004
8,442
0
1,655
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.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
595
Burnaby, BC
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.

This Congress?
 

FireBeaver

Banned
Jul 4, 2015
1,216
1
0
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Jun 10, 2004
8,442
0
1,655
This Congress?

I was mainly thinking of the select committee on intelligence, which is the senate, but yes. Do you have any alternatives? Obviously I'd like them to share it with us but I don't expect that to happen. But its kind of a moot point because again, they don't even have any evidence to show at this point.
 

chadskin

Member
May 27, 2013
13,086
3
0
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.

Can we please stop with these kinds of idiotic statements? You're falling for the exact thing Putin wants you to.

Not to mention that the US is not 'my' government anyway.

NSA has lied too (surveillance). And the FBI and the CIA do not agree that it is Russia.

For the umpteenth time, all 17 US intelligence agencies agree it was the Russian government. Where there are disagreements is the motivation -- did they do it just to fuck with the US and erode the trust in US institutions or did they specifically do it to get Trump in the White House. Actually, the FBI now backs the CIA's view it was to get Trump elected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html

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.

It doesn't concern you at all they're potentially actively withholding information, in this case information that might be damaging to, of all countries, Russia? That concerns me greatly, especially for an organization that has no issue dumping bucketloads of personal, irrelevant information otherwise.

Again, I'll go with the simplest explanation - which is a Bernie-or-buster.

We know hacks of the White House, the State Department, the DNC, the RNC, John Podesta, Democrat and Republican politicians (including Russia hawk Lindsey Graham), the German parliament, NATO, a French TV station, the World Anti-Doping Agency, Bellingcat and others were attempted and in some cases successfully carried out by two groups: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, both believed to be of Russian origin (not least because of their targets).

Look no further than Wikipedia to find a comprehensive list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_Bear

Documents from the WH and the State Dept. surfaced on DCLeaks.com, documents from the DNC, John Podesta and the German parliament surfaced on WikiLeaks, documents from the WADA surfaced on Fancy Bears's website, ...

Was that all a Bernie-or-Buster, too? A coincidence? Come on.

Here's what we, the public, don't know: We don't know if these groups, Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, are tied to the Russian government as the US intelligence agencies assess or if they just happen to be bored 400lb teenagers from Russia.
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
Jan 5, 2008
23,619
2
0
The actual scenario is verifiably the opposite of what you stated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ange-still-inside-the-embassy-of-Ecuador.html

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
 
Dec 14, 2008
34,010
2,652
1,360
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

There's a lot of misinformation going on regarding Assange and there has been for a long time. The rape charges are blatantly false and trumped up and the Swedes have been incredibly dishonest about their true intentions. It's a good thing Ecuador seems to like him a lot and have been sheltering him or he would have either ended up behind bars like Bradley/Chelsea Manning or hiding in Russia like Snowden.
 

Ponn

Banned
Mar 10, 2005
22,854
1
0
Florida
I'm wondering if those suddenly skeptical of the Russia connection and wanting proof were that skeptical and fervent for proof when the leaks first came out or pizzagate for that matter. Selective skepticism?
 

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
3,514
648
690
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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ange-still-inside-the-embassy-of-Ecuador.html

I've still not seen any decent explanation why the US did not grab him when he was in a UK jail from the people who claim such a thing will 10000% certainly happen when he leaves the embassy. Except for the obvious one that Assange is not in fact Public Enemy No. 1.
 

Malfunky

Member
Mar 28, 2007
1,355
0
1,245
Shameless assange aligning with the right now. Lmao an interview with hannity.

I don't think the network a person is being interviewed on should necessarily discredit or legitimize them. Even liberals and left-leaning folks find an outlet in Fox News interviews.

You should, however, judge folks by their actual incriminating behavior. Because Assange has been aligning with the right for years. He identifies with "American libertarianism" and is a believer in the mythical free market. Meaning he'll more than likely side with the deregulating forces of Republicans and Trump than the dire necessity of anything but.

I like what the Intercept said about him and WikiLeaks recently,

...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.
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Jan 21, 2007
29,475
3
1,300
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.
There was a report of russia in October. It didn't just appear out of nowhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.