271–280 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When do you think the war started? When do _you_ think the war started? Annexation of Crimea was ordered by Putin.
Do you remember what happened right before he annexed Crimea?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you remember what happened right before he annexed Crimea?
No. What? Ukrainian nazis invaded Belgorod or something?
1) The last (but not only) time was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34977835 While it is amusing to read the rhetorical beating that they took repeatedly in response, this does not stop them from trying it another time. If they're not well paid, then someone is getting value for money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is a narrative. Not all narratives are true, but calling something a narrative doesn't in any way disprove it. Would you like to actually call out anything in Collateral Murder that you think wasn't exposing the truth? I'm old enough to remember Collateral Murder. I'm old enough to remember it's video footage. Of members of the US military murdering people, and laughing about it. You can't dismiss that as "…
I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime, I make no claim that the release of collateral murder was a bad thing, rather, I am claiming that Julian Assange was never a noble person releasing leaked footage to expose the truth, he was a political performer, creating the narrative that he wanted to create, using leaks as props. Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congratulations, you’ve managed to construct this into a classic “with us or against us” framework, a popular tool among authoritarians.
It's two diametrically opposed political ideals, with most people (and governments) falling somewhere in between the two extremes. That's the framework that already exists, not something I've constructed to divide people. If you truly support democracy, then you accept that even the authoritarians should be given a voice, and you just pray they're not in the majority. That's very different than the "with us or agains…
Heh Heh Heh
That sounds like you just did the "with us or against us" thing the commenter above you just pointed out.
Very ironic. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was also the released GCHQ emails declaring it "an obvious fit up" because of the timing of the prosecution.
This is fairly meaningless. It’s just some random people at GHCQ saying that they think it looks like a fit up, on the basis of the same publicly available information that everyone else had at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Release the information when you get it and say, “do with this what you will.” Not at all what they did. They released in batches, for maximum effect, right up until the election. They knew exactly what they were doing.
> They released in batches, for maximum effect, right up until the election. They knew exactly what they were doing. There is absolutely no way to know the intent here, and there are plenty of rational reasons to release things in batches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fairly meaningless. It’s just some random people at GHCQ saying that they think it looks like a fit up, on the basis of the same publicly available information that everyone else had at the time.
> random people at GHCQ
The emails were handed over because they weren’t considered to be classified information. So it’s quite unlikely that they reveal discussions among people who had any inside knowledge about the Assange case.
> The records were revealed by Assange himself in a Sunday night interview with Spanish television programme Salvados in which he explained that an official request for information gave him access to instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange...
I don’t know anything about the internal workings of GCHQ, but one would hope that information is shared on a need to know basis. Assuming this to be the case, the vast majority of GHCQ employees would know no more about Assange than you or me.
There's authoritarianism, where government knows what's best for everyone and keeps secrets to "protect" its citizens. Then there's democracy, where the government is open and honest so the people can make informed decisions on how best to run their government. In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.
Isn't Putin nowadays for Assange and definitely for Snowden? This is a stupid test.
There is an important missing detail. The Swedes agreed to interview Assange about the rape allegations in London but the British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) put pressure on the Swedes not to. The CPS deleted the emails they sent to the Swedes and we only know of their existence because of a FOI request on the Swedish side. Why were the supposedly politically independent CPS so keen to get Assange extradited to S…
The entire "had sex with a broken condom" saga is ridiculous and built up to be an Assange smear campaign. Neither women went to the police to report a rape, they only wanted him to get tested for STDs, neither wanted charges pressed against Assange, and they both later retracted their stories. If Assange did what was alleged, then that's awful and horrible and abusive and those women are victims. However the entiret…
It's pretty clear what happened. People started to view the reporting of Wikileaks as evil or fake as soon as it negatively impacted $theirpoliticalside. Once these perceptions fell into place it was easy to disregard all the good, villify him personally, and ignore the authoritarian and illegal actions taken against him.
From the start, wikileaks was a partisan project masquerading as a righteous cause. Those of us old enough to remember their original releases (like “Collateral Murder”) remember that wikileaks was always about building a narrative rather than exposing the truth. Suggesting that people started thinking negatively about wikileaks once it came for “their side” is painfully revisionist. Many people believe wikileaks is…
Which party were the Collateral Murder footages meant to benefit? (Is "partisan" the right word here?)