interesting that Sinclair media would run this story. That ironically means its less likely to be US gov related.
That isn't how manufacturing consent works. The journo that published this will just silently harder go at it in the future.
'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
291–300 of 505 posts
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
withinboredom seems to be making the similar but tangential point that, in the same way that absence of gunpowder is evidence [of something] while presence of gunpowder isn't evidence of anything, it's possible to demonstrate that a death was not by suicide, but it isn't possible to demonstrate that a death was by suicide. Same idea, but reversing "which part of the sentence is the variable".
I understand what they're saying, I just don't know why they keep explaining it when its irrelevant to what I'm saying.
If you fire a gun inside a car, both people and the car would be full of gun powder residue, not just the hand that shot - I think.
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#293While I can't see "Boeing" (as a whole command structure) can be blamed for his death I do see the possibility of some corrupt person in a high position fearing what he had on him personally and ordered a strike against him.
Part of the issue is that many defense contractors are sucked into the idea that they're doing something for the 'greater good', and the moment people en masse enter that thoughtspace, it's actually pretty easy to get them to commit terrible deeds.
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing is also deeply entwined with state/political entities with a strong vested interest in preserving the status quo who may not be squeamish about direct action. Against the general backdrop of Boeing’s woes, suiciding a whistleblower is low-hanging fruit. Who knows. Maybe he has a deadman’s set up.
Contrary to popular belief, there is not a readily and highly available supply of assassins and hitmen in the world. The problem with this whole "he totally didn't kill himself" thing is...okay, so how did they kill him? Because you can't just put a gun in the hand of an unwilling person and force them to shoot themselves without leaving evidence.
The good news is that you only need one assassin. It's not like you're trying to mass-produce dead people...
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when powerful people want to show off their power it tends to be less fatal and more drag-through-the-mud style tactics. Like what happened to Julian Assange. Killing him was an option on the table as far as I recall, but it wasn't what they ended up doing. Although that being said, I wouldn't rule this out as being organised by Boeing's management or a major shareholder or something. It is a company in the milit…
Julian Assange has invalidated so much about modern America for me. Even when I think I should sort of trust the US government, his name seems to echo through my mind and I think, nahhhh, too much hypocrisy. If the US government pardoned him they’d be doing themselves a massive favor.
Julian stopped being credible the moment he had intel on two parties but decided to only release info on one to damage them
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because in Russia it is an open message to the public 'don't mess with the KGB or we kill you and maybe your children'. Everybody knows and understands who is the sender and the message. Classic mafia move of intimidation. It is a message to the living. In the Western World the secret services kill to silence people, not to broadcast messages to the public. Quite the opposite PR strategy.
And when powerful people want to show off their power it tends to be less fatal and more drag-through-the-mud style tactics. Like what happened to Julian Assange. Killing him was an option on the table as far as I recall, but it wasn't what they ended up doing. Although that being said, I wouldn't rule this out as being organised by Boeing's management or a major shareholder or something. It is a company in the milit…
> Killing him was an option on the table as far as I recall, but it wasn't what they ended up doing.
Because this time wasn't about silencing him (too late for that), but making an example. And for this, a blatant enough assassination would likely tarnish the image the US government wants to project too much. Going through the courts, making a show of "due process", now that's looking pretty good: "hey journalists, we can't kill you if you babble too much, but we can make you wish we did, and since it's all legal good luck about rousing public opinion about it".
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Julian Assange has invalidated so much about modern America for me. Even when I think I should sort of trust the US government, his name seems to echo through my mind and I think, nahhhh, too much hypocrisy. If the US government pardoned him they’d be doing themselves a massive favor.
Julian stopped being credible the moment he had intel on two parties but decided to only release info on one to damage them
Do you have a source for this? I recall he asked for intel on both parties, but ended up getting it only for one. The conundrum then became releasing only the one, or release nothing.
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
withinboredom seems to be making the similar but tangential point that, in the same way that absence of gunpowder is evidence [of something] while presence of gunpowder isn't evidence of anything, it's possible to demonstrate that a death was not by suicide, but it isn't possible to demonstrate that a death was by suicide. Same idea, but reversing "which part of the sentence is the variable".
I understand what they're saying, I just don't know why they keep explaining it when its irrelevant to what I'm saying.
I'm not "keeping explaining." I made a counter-point, and you redirected me to your point; I acknowledged that I got your point and explained I was making a counter-point, and you reiterated your point. I upvoted your final reiteration to ack that the conversation was over.
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#299John Barnett appears to be the recently deceased Boeing whistleblower, in case anyone else wonders.
“Appears to be”? It’s right there in the article’s original title:
> 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death
Re: 'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my view, almost all of these are accidents or suicides and people watch way too many hollywood films. The Hastings thing is classic mania for those of us who know people who have experienced that.
But people _do_ die when exposing corruption of the rich. Such as Daphne Caruana Galizia and Ján Kuciak for the Panama papers. Would you call their deaths "hollywood films"? And it'd be natural to think killers would try to hide their traces, such that most such deaths would look like an accident or suicide.
Daphne was exposing corruption long before the Panama Papers. She was already a target.