-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
WikiLeaks founder falsely accused of rape (Tin Foil Hat Thread)
- Thread starter Forsete
- Start date
- Status
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
2San said:
Because he was posting what he was doing as he was doing it on 4Chan? *shakes head*
empty vessel
Member
Amir0x said:
Are you at all familiar with either (1) the declassified military and intelligence history of the United States; and (2) the leaked classified history related specifically to Wikileaks?
To equate eminently reasonable speculation that the military/intelligence bureaucracy of the US may be behind this for the purpose of discrediting Wikileaks--an agenda the US government is known to have adopted in secret--with the belief, rooted in irrational bigotry, that Obama is a Muslim is, in my opinion, terribly irresponsible.
me thinks amirox needs a little history lesson on the CIA.
legacy of ashes is a good place to start, i think.
legacy of ashes is a good place to start, i think.
Tin-foil hatters like empty vessel are being irresponsible by claiming the CIA must have done it when not a single shred of evidence is present.
Its like they never heard the terms "empirical" or "evidence". What the CIA have done in the past is not evidence of current deeds - thats a logical fallacy.
I think empty vessel put the women up to it to discredit the CIA - you can't prove me wrong!
Its like they never heard the terms "empirical" or "evidence". What the CIA have done in the past is not evidence of current deeds - thats a logical fallacy.
I think empty vessel put the women up to it to discredit the CIA - you can't prove me wrong!
DennisK4 said:
Precisely. There were many things the CIA has done in past times and in modern times, that does not even remotely apply to how they operate in this specific case or in this time period. Furthermore, if the CIA wanted to hurt this guy this way, it's safe to say they would have done it in a manner that was far tighter. This story wasn't fit for JBaird.
And even further STILL, if you think the CIA is capable of this, there is zero evidence at all for them being involved here. A memo from 2008 (LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS LOL?) that they should discredit him? It's basically believing in God, since that's about as much truth as there is to that irrational belief.
empty vessel
Member
Amir0x said:
Your out-of-hand dismissal of the possibility of US intelligence/military agencies (not at all limited to the CIA, which seems to me unlikely to be responsible) being behind this is no less irrational than anybody who insists it is.
Amir0x said:
(1) I don't know why you are making this about the CIA.
(2) You have no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. What evidence do you have that US intelligence/military agencies no longer engage in covert operations. That is naive to an extreme, especially since we know they were doing these same things just this decade with respect to Iraq. This stuff is standard operating procedure for all governments. I am curious to hear your reasons for thinking the US is excepted from this rule.
Amir0x said:
It's not remotely safe to say that. The US has expressed an intent to discredit Wikileaks, and smearing its founder and public face with allegations of rape--even if subsequently proved false--will have the effect of lessening its credibility. There is scientific evidence of this phenomenon, and it is well understood by public relations specialists and, of course, propagandists.
Amir0x said:
Well, the US propaganda campaign against Wikileaks appears to have successfully influenced you, at least. Now you doubt the legitimacy of the leaked document expressing the US's intent to discredit Wikileaks? Are you serious? You sound like an irrational right-winger right now.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
Jerk 2.0 said:
That's pretty much the definition of hacking. It's really just a matter of complexity in how you do it.
BertramCooper
Banned
The burden of proof is on you, buddy.empty vessel said:
Show us something.
theignoramus
Member
Evidence no, implication, yes. Why do you have to be so dogmatic about the entirely reasonable suspicions?DennisK4 said:
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
So...the CIA framed him. But they did so in an utterly transparent way, and in such a manner that it fell through in less than a day. If they were this bad on their jobs, we wouldn't exist as a country.
WikiLeaks has targeted corporate interests, smaller governments and basically everything in between. IF somebody was attempting to frame him, it certainly wasn't the CIA. It's amazing to me how GAF can be so logical in 99% of discussions but have that intelligence completely fall apart like this.
If this was anybody else, people would be attacking the women for bringing a flimsy rape charge to the police in an attempt to ruin some guy's life. Even by the same "logic" that puts this on the CIA, this makes more sense, as we've seen this scenario played out over and over again.
However, as of right now, we have zero evidence putting the blame on anybody, save the girls, due to the fact that the warrant was canceled so very, very quickly.
WikiLeaks has targeted corporate interests, smaller governments and basically everything in between. IF somebody was attempting to frame him, it certainly wasn't the CIA. It's amazing to me how GAF can be so logical in 99% of discussions but have that intelligence completely fall apart like this.
If this was anybody else, people would be attacking the women for bringing a flimsy rape charge to the police in an attempt to ruin some guy's life. Even by the same "logic" that puts this on the CIA, this makes more sense, as we've seen this scenario played out over and over again.
However, as of right now, we have zero evidence putting the blame on anybody, save the girls, due to the fact that the warrant was canceled so very, very quickly.
Technosteve
Banned
CIA still owes me OSAMA's HEAD ON A FUCKING PLATTER
empty vessel
Member
Enosh said:
There are two parts to the argument, one of which you ignored for the sake of trying to make it look like you made a point. Get back to me when you can address a whole argument.
And, for the record (this is addressed to everybody), I am not trying to prove that US intelligence/military agencies are behind this. I am only demonstrating the utter irrationality of those dismissing it out of hand.
You're jumping to conclusions yourself when you call the girls liars. The one confirmed screw up here is by the prosecutor. Assange isn't safe yet, either. He could still be found guilty of molestation (or whatever the English term would be), the investigation regarding that is still ongoing.WanderingWind said:
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
I don't understand this debate that's taking place. No one can deny the questionable factors related to this rape allegation, and its timing and context only adds weight to the suspicion many have that it may have been a character assassination job. When people are referring to the CIA, it doesn't necessary translate as to a a statement that the CIA itself was behind some kind of smear job. Instead it's an extension of that working theory that it may well have been a "smear job", and for that, people immediately think of the CIA.
I don't understand the need to then respond "show me the proof" when the nature behind this isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a matter of factual statement but a hypothesis. Obviously no one has classified documents pertaining to the activies of the Bureau, however that does not as a result weaken the opinion that someone (or group) may be acting against Wikileaks.
notsureifserious.jpg
I don't understand the need to then respond "show me the proof" when the nature behind this isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a matter of factual statement but a hypothesis. Obviously no one has classified documents pertaining to the activies of the Bureau, however that does not as a result weaken the opinion that someone (or group) may be acting against Wikileaks.
Enosh said:
notsureifserious.jpg
ElectricBlue187
Member
Dabanton said:
i see no reason not to
WickedAngel
Banned
Calling this guy a 'hacker' was pretty damned generous by any stretch of the imagination. He's a social engineer at best.
empty vessel said:
Strawman. Nobody said the CIA does not engage in convert operations. Just that the type of covert operations and the way they go about them are DEMONSTRATIVELY different than they were then. CIA policies and in-action techniques changes based on who heads it, who the administration is and what the threat is.
So, even if they engaged in a type of activity in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s that were condemnable or hints at the possibilities, it is not relevant remotely to how the current CIA would choose to operate today.
Naturally, this is about the CIA because half the tin foil hat duders ITT are saying it was some hilarious CIA plot.
empty vessel said:
Except not. I know the difference between something that is self-serving and something that is not. When they leaked the video of the US soldiers bombarding those innocent Iraqi civilians while making jokes about it, I was in that thread shaking my head and condemning it.
But this wikileaks self-serving shit about how the US wants to DISCREDIT them is not something I'm going to hold with much weight. Even if it were true, none of it remotely leads to logically conclude this is related to that. If anything, if they were planning to discredit Wikileaks over that period of time, they would have come up with a better fucking plan than this.
Get fucking real.
Burden of Proof is on the people trying to claim it was the CIA, not those of us who are claiming there isn't any evidence of that and that it's ridiculous - since there ISN'T any evidence of that.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Does anybody remember the huge expose recently about how there is a giant fucking chain of homeland security/defense/counterintelligence agencies, so many that Colbert was able to fill up the whole screen with the logos of just a small selection of them? Any one of those could have had a hand in this, if indeed there is a U.S. hand in this, so choosing a specific organization like the CIA to blame is baseless.
Considering how much money the US spends on counterintelligence, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that, at least on some level, this had US involvement; I'm not saying it's LIKELY because I don't really know that there's a formula you could use to compute a numerical probability, but to dismiss it in total, especially when we know for sure that the U.S. government is running a campaign to discredit WikiLeaks by any means necessary, is naive.
Considering how much money the US spends on counterintelligence, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that, at least on some level, this had US involvement; I'm not saying it's LIKELY because I don't really know that there's a formula you could use to compute a numerical probability, but to dismiss it in total, especially when we know for sure that the U.S. government is running a campaign to discredit WikiLeaks by any means necessary, is naive.
Amir0x said:
Had the CIA invested more time say into coming up with a plot to desolate Julians credentials and/or company in stature and credibility, there would always be the assumption that he is being set up. There will always be this kind of theory in discussion because we're all expecting the American government to act against Julian in some way. A weak plan is a good plan, because they're going to have people like you defending them because you think they could come up with something better based on the image they've presented to the public. That's really not the case when it comes down to how the media portrays people. For them to file and warrant against Julian for rape and then suddenly retract based on unfounded accusations is clearly illustrative of how ignorant they must think we are.
It could be the CIA, it might not be specially the CIA, but US related... sure, but I wouldn't completely throw these theories out the window.
empty vessel
Member
Amir0x said:
You don't have a shred of information or knowledge to support these suppositions, nor is it true. Intelligence and military agencies are composed mostly of career professionals and their agendas are remarkably stable from administration to administration. Moreover, even US foreign policy is remarkably the same from administration to administration, even between Republican and Democratic administrations.
Amir0x said:
Is this, like, an Obama defense? Because it's difficult for me to understand this argument any other way. There were Republican and Democratic administrations across the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Now, suddenly in 2010, intelligence and military agencies are acting completely differently based on ... what? Your wish that it were so?
Amir0x said:
So your assertion, then, is that this leaked US government document, posted by Wikileaks, is fake? But just this one, and none of the other documents Wikileaks has posted that it has alleged were leaked US government documents?
Amir0x said:
Agreed. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your out-of-hand dismissal of the possibility that it is related to that and your equation of reasonable speculation, based on evidence, that it might be so related to beliefs rooted in irrational bigotry that Obama is a Muslim. That false equivalency is what I am challenging. You are, for some reason, attempting to discredit those who do not immediately rule out that a US intelligence/military agency may be behind this by equating it to birtherism, even thought there is currently no rational basis on which to rule out such a hypothesis. And the question is, why?
Amir0x said:
The burden of proof is on anybody who makes a claim and wishes to persuade another to accept it. And you did make a claim. You asserted that it was not a US intelligence/military agency that was responsible for these allegations, i.e., you affirmatively ruled it out. That is what I have contested. I contend neither that it was nor that it was not a US intelligence/military operation. But given what I know (1) about the US historical declassified intelligence/military record; (2) about the US leaked classified record with respect to Wikileaks; and (3) the timing and circumstances of the allegations, I think US intelligence/military involvement is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Time may rule that hypothesis out but, for now, ruling it out is as irrational as insisting it true.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
To dismiss the possibility of CIA involvement would require proof to push it beyond speculation. As it is with broaching such involvement as a possibility. Neither party is ensconced in certainty. And the latter party can certainly broach a compelling theory due to the history of the particular organization it is speculating upon.
Any explanation for anything can be dismissed until there's evidence to suggest it may be true. No one is dismissing the possibility it could happen, they are dismissing it as an explanation for this event simply because we have absolutely no reason currently to consider it based on the evidence.
empty vessel
Member
KHarvey16 said:
You do have reason to consider it, and I've already provided it. Dismissal of that evidence based on nationalist sentiment is irrational.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Indeed. Perhaps it would have been wiser to say: Broaching the possibility of CIA involvement is a form of speculation. And a compelling theory can certainly be brought about due to the history of the particular organization being speculated upon. Since it is only speculation, it can be dismissed as mere puff, but the possibility nevertheless remains - and some would say there is enough historical equivalence to justify consideration.
empty vessel
Member
KHarvey16 said:
I don't understand this. So if I express an intent to kill X, and then X is subsequently killed, you can consider that I killed X as a possibility, but have no reason to consider it as an explanation for X's death? My prior expression of intent should not be considered evidence in support of the hypothesis that I killed X?
The US government has expressed an intent to discredit Wikileaks. Julian Assange, the public face of Wikileaks, has been hit with suspicious and fraudulent rape allegations just a few weeks before he is about to publish 15,000 sensitive US classified documents and just a few weeks after he published 90,000 classified documents.
Your argument is incoherent.
empty vessel said:
I read the section where it says they want to prosecute those leaking classified information. Where does it suggest they want to accuse the founder of crimes he didn't commit? Do you have a section in mind? I ran a search for marginalize and discredit and nothing relevant to this point comes up.
However even granting you that they said what you claim they said, if I say I am going to kill someone I am making a specific threat of committing an illegal act. If I say I am going to discredit something I have done absolutely no such thing, since that is vague and open to a million possibilities.
His reputation will be fine.Vespasian said:
1. Not everyone knows about the military leak to begin with. They do not know the name of the founder in any event.
2. Very few know about the rape allegation and it's been dismissed within hours. Nearly all the news stories on Google are about the witdrawal of it.
3. No one really cares. Maybe if he played golf or something.
This is true.Mumei said:
BertramCooper
Banned
Relying on circumstantial evidence isn't an effective way to bolster your position.empty vessel said:
theignoramus
Member
what is his position?BertramCooper said:
Looking over this document more, what they are highlighting in a couple small sections is that wikileaks relies on whistle blowers and those leaking classified information trusting the organization's ability to keep their identities a secret. It says if the government could charge these individuals with releasing classified information, it would erode that trust and make them less of a potential threat to national security.
Haven't found anything beyond that.
Haven't found anything beyond that.
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
The problem I have with believing that this was pentagon/CIA based is just because "discredit" isn't really in their playbook. Coup, tactical strike, assassination, that is the MO. Why discredit someone that most of the country already doesn't like that much anyway?
BertramCooper
Banned
The U.S. wants to stop Wikileaks and Julian Assange gets accused of rape. Coincidence??????theignoramus said:
This is absurd.
Fox News wants there to be a culture war in the US and a fundamentalist group threatens attacks against the US, coincidence? Is it?
While it's possible the US may have been behind the allegations it's equally as possible they weren't, there's just no use in speculating, all it does by even speculating on this is show which side of the brainwashed spectrum you reside on, you either have a complete disdain for the government and readily accept them as the culprit for all evil or you think they're a great entity spreading freedom and democracy and only act fairly while everyone else just sits in the middle wondering how either side came to their conclusions.
Fox News wants there to be a culture war in the US and a fundamentalist group threatens attacks against the US, coincidence? Is it?
While it's possible the US may have been behind the allegations it's equally as possible they weren't, there's just no use in speculating, all it does by even speculating on this is show which side of the brainwashed spectrum you reside on, you either have a complete disdain for the government and readily accept them as the culprit for all evil or you think they're a great entity spreading freedom and democracy and only act fairly while everyone else just sits in the middle wondering how either side came to their conclusions.
Meus Renaissance said:
An open-ended hypothesis in the same vein as 9/11 being a false-flag operation. A hypothesis isn't just a guess, there must be some sort of evidential reasoning to support it.
Stating that it could have been a character assassination ploy and thus if we were to assume that it is correct, then it could be the CIA is utter nonsense. We hardly agree to such correlation/causation reasoning in religious debate threads, so why succumb to it now?
CrocMother
Banned
People in this thread should read Sherlock Holmes. The best way to try and figure out what is going on is form what is the most likely conclusion based on the facts at hand. Then, as new evidence comes along, see if it fits into your previous conclusion. If it does, that means it is more likely that you are correct. The less biased you are, the more clearly you are able to see the truth.
Today we got the news that Assange, the face of wikileaks, had been charged with rape in Sweden. The story is at the top of every news feed all across the country. Assange immediately claims innocence, and since the case was dropped several hours later when it got to the prosecutor, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Assange was telling the truth.
Considering the celebrity status of the accused, foul play is something that must be considered. The leaked document stating the intention to damage Mr. Assange's credibility makes the US government a logical suspect.
Today we got the news that Assange, the face of wikileaks, had been charged with rape in Sweden. The story is at the top of every news feed all across the country. Assange immediately claims innocence, and since the case was dropped several hours later when it got to the prosecutor, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Assange was telling the truth.
Considering the celebrity status of the accused, foul play is something that must be considered. The leaked document stating the intention to damage Mr. Assange's credibility makes the US government a logical suspect.
- Status