Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war. By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant tow…

Given his attitude, Trump seems way more likely to invade other countries and n general sable rattle. Also, I wouldn't call what Obama did sable rattling. Russia did invade several countries in the last years (Georgia, Ukraine, and maybe I'm missing one more?). If you don't have a good response for that, then how can you be trusted to defend your other allies (Poland, etc.)

Georgia attacked first, after the US-sponsored 'Rose Revolution', and the US also sponsored 2 'revolutions' in Ukraine. Crimea was hardly invaded, it was a region which had tried in the past to separate from Ukraine.

Again, both actions you cite were reactions to US meddling in the region in the first place.

The fact Trump hasn't threatened any new invasions is already an improvement.

PS. Do you know who Mikheil Saakashvili is, what he did, where he is now, and why he's exiled from his own country? And have you seen Victor Yushchenko's face recently, what it looks like? The answers to both of these questions give a lot of insight into US actions in the region.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#632
post #43

A little more unsubstantiated info from Reddit [0]. [0] https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vu5l/red_alert...

Unsubstantiated indeed.

That sounds like the ramblings of someone unhinged.

"Thermal imagery" - in the middle of the day.

"I wanted to take pictures but a policeman told me I'd be prosecuted, and in any case, they are digitally obfuscating all pictures" "All I know is I can't upload photos and all my camera images don't work" - huh, what? Which is it, you wanted to take pictures, but were told not to, or you did, but they didn't work, or ...

"Military surrounding the entire blocks aiming guns at people." - and no word of this on ... anywhere

"... so I went and had a coffee." - "Oh man, I just saw a military operation to grab Assange. We had guns pointed at us and they're messing with our phones and cameras so we can't even take a picture without it being corrupted, so I'm gonna go get me some Starbucks, and post on The_Donald about it..."

"D-notice so media won't report" but apparently the block / street shutdown was so close to the embassy that anyone in the area could watch the whole operation...

I'm going to call BS, like the sibling says, you could make millions selling tinfoil to /r/The_Donald subscribers

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#633
post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The magnitude of the falseness of this equivalence tells you everything you need to know about Wikileaks role in this election. Implied in it is the idea that the Clinton campaign had an obligation to release their opposition research on Trump as soon as they had it. But of course, they have no such obligation: they're not journalists! On the other hand, Wikileaks clearly is structuring their releases to draw out the…

I think Wikileaks is definitely anti-Clinton but it's a stretch to say they're pro-Trump.

I beg to differ.

In a two horse race, throwing stones in front of one horse has an obvious and calculated effect.

There was a time when I believed in Wikileaks.

But collusion, orchestrated or not, with Putin and Trump crosses a clear line.

When you sell your services or align your actions with fascists, you are not longer serving the public interest, merely your own.

Let's not equivocate. Trump is an opportunistic fascist, apparently with aspirations to become America's analog to Putin the authoritarian fascist thug.

The cynic in me wonders what Putin has on Assange.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#634

We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…

Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. Sure, there is some amusing stuff and quipes by aggressive campaign staff about opponents but nothing that can points to big corruption directly on Clinton's part. The media coverage is unexpectedly very low but I can see why media will want to put these rather boring emai…

There are really damaging things -- although nothing surprising and that's why I think nobody is talking about it. E.g. in one email HRC talks about how Qatar is funding ISIS, and in the next they're giving Bill Clinton a $1m check for his birthday. The wallstreet stuff would've definitely tilted the balance to Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Finally, the level of involvement with the press is far more than I could've ever imagined (the NYT is sending the HRC campaigns drafts of stories for approval before they come out, and promise complete support).

I found this site which summarizes the finding (tweeted by a Trump supporter): http://www.vaskal.ca/podestafiles

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#635
post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To further what you're saying. Wikileaks announced for weeks when they were releasing the emails. It was a pre-planned event that the entire world was waiting for. The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day, was trotted out to distract from the pre-announced Wikileaks release. This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate at this point, since the very emails they ar…

I'd like to suggest a more significant conclusion. The trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS, Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged. I've been a cord cutter for over a decade. This year I graduated to pitying people who repeat the latest front page story as naive fear-junkies. Everything is suspect. Why burn processing cycles reading stories that on their fa…

I've been there for a while. I only trust a few people who thanklessly go through materials and study issues in detail. If I want to verify further I can only then trust primary sources and direct evidence.

For a long time now, all forms of traditional media have had a bent. It's just gotten very monied and politicized as of late.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#636

We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…

Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. Sure, there is some amusing stuff and quipes by aggressive campaign staff about opponents but nothing that can points to big corruption directly on Clinton's part. The media coverage is unexpectedly very low but I can see why media will want to put these rather boring emai…

> Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes.

The Trump tapes? You mean that one 11-year-old video that shows him talking very crudely about sexual escapades?

Sure, that's reprehensible. Is it worse than what past presidents have done while in office? If not, why is it a problem now?

Why is one candidate's personal sex life a bigger problem than collusion with the media during the campaign and using a cabinet-level position to enrich oneself? That is, why is his sex life a bigger problem than her corruption exhibited while in public office, as well as her criminal mishandling of classified material, which directly harmed U.S. interests abroad, when many have been jailed for less (including since Comey's press conference)?

> PS: As far as voting is concerned, I'm still in information collection mode and don't support any candidate at this point.

That's nice. A suggestion: if you really care about who wins, look less at the candidates and more the platforms of them and their parties. The media makes it appear that this election is a contest between two people--but it's actually a contest between two competing worldviews which are vastly different from one another. You could swap any other Democrat for her and any Republican for him (though any actual Republican would differ much more from Trump than any other Democrat would differ from Clinton), and the underlying issues would be the same. The individual candidates are virtually a facade, a distraction from the real issues at stake.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's pretty well known that Assange claims to have a vendetta against HRC. The details of that vendetta don't make much sense. It's clearly easier for him and his supporters to claim that they're acting out of enmity towards Clinton --- a minor figure in virtually all of Assange's dealings with the US --- than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly supporting Donald Trump. Nerddom and the…

FWIW, he's said he'd be happy to publish damaging info regarding Trump, too. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29176...

And I'm sure, were his sources to give him a cache of (ostensibly) damaging documents about Trump, he'd drip-drip it out along with teasers and editorialized (and falsely contextualized) snippets, too.

Of course, that's not what's going to happen, because Wikileaks is in effect if not design a propaganda organ of the Russian Federation.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war. By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant tow…

Given his attitude, Trump seems way more likely to invade other countries and n general sable rattle. Also, I wouldn't call what Obama did sable rattling. Russia did invade several countries in the last years (Georgia, Ukraine, and maybe I'm missing one more?). If you don't have a good response for that, then how can you be trusted to defend your other allies (Poland, etc.)

Trump's tone is abrasive, but do you remember the time he sucker punched someone he was yelling at instead of continuing to debate? Me neither. Despite what we want to infer from his personality, you don't get to his level by being out of control or incredibly impulsive. Besides, he's already started sabre rattling, but the threats are usually for the US to stop doing X, rather than to start doing Y. It creates a whole new set of incentives, and that's really the only way to change the world situation.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the double standards on that thread: "This happened! Why? We said so! Gospel truth!" Interfering with the election? "Why? Because they said so? Fool!"

I know man this is crazy, people are considering persecuted OpenGov activists as more trustworthy and credible than the fricking US Government i.e the most ethical institution in the free world. By the way, did you hear the news? CIA has proof that the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK is hiding WMDs in their basement. What a world!

That's entirely not what I said.

People who say "You should trust what I say, because I said it. And not trust them, because I said it." holds little credence with me, regardless of who says it (activist, government, individual) - it's an appeal to authority or sympathy.

How much persecution are these people facing, these WikiLeaks activists, day to day?

Post reply on HN