191–200 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikileaks believed at the time that Clinton was ready to send a drone to get rid of Assange. Between due process and a drone attack, I take due process any day.
'Believed' is a loose term, you'd have to be deluded to believe something like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty absurd. That said, the Saudi government just straight up murdered a journalist in one of their embassies, the whole world knows it and politically it appears things are still business as usual...
How is that comparable at all? And no, things aren't business as usual, there have been lots of developments on that story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clinton?
Yep. She certainly appears to be there. https://businessinsider.com/situation-room-bin-laden-2016-5
By your logic and the parent poster's logic ~13 people aside from the President and the laptops and coffee cups were also just as responsible for sending the team to kill him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I apologize if I missed something in the thread and misinterpreted it. I did read the link, can you please enlighten me with your interpretation?
Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are stil…
If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me.
If true then disgusting and completely unacceptable. The way in which legal systems have been cynically abused to ruin this man's life reflects extremely poorly on the people and institutions concerned. Wikileaks' revelation of the disgusting behavior of the US armed forces in Baghdad was an extremely valuable contribution to society.
I thought hacker news was more rational and logical than my twitter feed - maybe not.
Assange and WL is the last bastion of free speech and genuine joirnalism left in our modern age.
If you dont see that, then youre a fool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is there any indication that he would not publish information critical of Putin if it was sent to him? Yes. We have examples of exactly that happening. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
That's not quite an example - it's an unnamed source, and Assage defends himself by saying that it was unverifiable (which we can neither confirm nor deny).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medieval? It's what every country has been doing forever. Every spy agency on earth does this and has done this since their inception. It's practically their MO. So... you do live in that world.
The world is not always a zero sum game, it progresses approximately monotonically forward at the edges, ever so slightly but significantly. Believing that no change ever happens is a medieval worldview.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The indictment referenced in your first link literally doesn't mention WikiLeaks or Assange. It's pure speculation. Pompeo is a liar, and Clapper was to. Check out all of Clapper's statements he'd make before being nearly immediately contradicted during the whole Snowden thing. After paying attention to statements from national security heads for decades, they are just straight up lying an alarming amount of the time…
Ahh, so you're just going to ignore the evidence when presented after you asked for it and attack the people who said it to the country. Got it.
And do I need to track down the lies CIA directors have told congress for you, or Pompeo specifically?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I apologize if I missed something in the thread and misinterpreted it. I did read the link, can you please enlighten me with your interpretation?
Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are stil…
No...they are not protecting themselves. Their crimes have already been exposed. They are prosecuting someone for something that was criminal.
> who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.
Ok, and how does that bear on the issue of Assange's extradition? Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you though? The State Dept under Clinton played fast and loose with it's own procedures and regulations and I have a friend who died in the Benghazi attack if you want to fight with me on this point. More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission. False flag operations are part of our history and three-letter agencies…
"Would you though?" Yes. There's a difference between drone programs 'crossing the line' say, in a hunt for known terrorists, they blow up a building that has civilians next door our just outside ... and arbitrary targeting of 'annoyances of the state'. There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'. And besides - t…
What's the difference between "purposefully misrepresented" and a false flag?
I am honestly not sure -- I thought the concept of a false flag was a purposeful misrepresentation of an event.