rigorousintuition.ca

seemslikeadream » 20 Apr 2019 21:02 wrote:Seth Rich did not disclose the DNC emails, why did you say that?

You know what "putative" means. Right?

RocketMan » 20 Apr 2019 21:17 wrote:

seemslikeadream » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:02 am wrote:Seth Rich did not disclose the DNC emails, why did you say that?

be careful Jack's on watch he doesn't like misrepresenting things

Assange did not interface with the GRU, why do you keep saying that?

That is a blanket statement for which there is no evidence backing it up. It is simply impossible to comprehensively state that Seth Rich DID NOT leak the e-mails.

The entire edifice of the Assange conspired with the Russkies to hack the Clinton e-mails case rests on the assertion of state organs supposedly based on secret evidence PROVIDED BY A PRIVATE SECURITY FIRM HIRED BY THE DNC THAT HAD EVERY MOTIVE TO MISREPRESENT THE RESULTS ITS INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING THE WISHES OF THE COMMITTEE WHO PAID ITS INVOICES that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian government front. That's it.

^^^FIFY

you are misrepresenting again Jack ..you have misrepresented 3 times today complaining about the one time I misrepresented something but you accuse me of lying

I won't accuse you of that but of course you asked me to start this thread



SLAD, great work on the Wikileaks stuff - can you be persuaded to put it all in one thread for easy reference? (I know that's not your usual thing, please don't be annoyed.

JackRiddler » Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:14 pm wrote:

seemslikeadream wrote:

The boring truth about those Julian Assange smears


MICHAEL C. MOYNIHAN

According to prosecutors in Sweden, authorities in Stockholm will pursue a vague "molestation" charge against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

There is precious little evidence available in the public domain, though the few details circulating make me extremely sceptical of both the rape (which seems 100 per cent false) and molestation charges against Assange. More on that in a minute. But for the wild-eyed, spittle-flecked conspiracists bloggers - and Assange himself - the charges reeked of a U.S. government plot.

Automatic forfeit for leading with cliche ridicule. I see no reason to proceed.

SLAD, great work on the Wikileaks stuff - can you be persuaded to put it all in one thread for easy reference? (I know that's not your usual thing, please don't be annoyed.)

Ah, those were the carefree, freewheeling days before the election of Trump and then Russiagate shattered friendships, exploded heads and caused generally perceptive and critical people to completely fucking lose their minds.

seemslikeadream » 20 Apr 2019 21:20 wrote:

Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn’t his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia’s GRU months after Seth Rich’s death. At the same time he was publicly working to shift blame onto the slain staffer “to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing,” Special Counsel Robert Mueller asserts in his final report on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election.

“After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by WikiLeaks had come from Russian hacking,” the report reads. “According to media reports, Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an ‘inside job,’ and purported to have ‘physical proof’ that Russians did not give materials to Assange.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-r ... r-russians

So the fact that Assange has continuously denied that he got the leaks from Russians, despite what "the US intelligence community publicly announced" somehow proved to Mueller that Assange must have been working with the Russians “to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing.”

But what does it actually prove in reality other than either Assange is lying or "the U.S. intelligence community" is lying or mistaken? I mean, considering its past history, is anybody willing to place all of his or her bets on the truthfulness and accuracy of "the U.S. intelligence community"?

stickdog99 wrote:So the fact that Assange has continuously denied that he got the leaks from Russians, despite what "the US intelligence's community publicly announced" somehow proved to Mueller that Assange must have been working with the Russians “to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing.”

But what does it actually prove in reality other than either Assange is lying or "the U.S. intelligence community" is lying or mistaken? I mean, considering their past histories, is anybody willing to place their bets on the truthfulness and accuracy of the "the U.S. intelligence community"?

This is EXACTLY what must constantly be elided and dodged lest the whole fucking RUSSIA DID IT plotline collapse. There really is no valid comeback to this. Not one.

The only thing that could be said is, "But SURELY they would give us the truth". And no one REALLY believes that, right?? Not HERE, right???? And of course, the old standby, "But Assange is a smelly rapist" gambit.

It is absolutely mind-boggling to me how this elemental fact can be so widely be blanked out. It must be partly psychological, like Caitlin Johnstone says. Much of it is of course the the Mockingbird Media.

It's a little hypocritical to me that Brown has taken to castigating Assange for trying to cultivate a relationship with law enforcers to get out of prison rather than directly threatening law enforcers to stay out of prison as Brown did under similar circumstances.

Brown refuses to sympathize with any gambits Assange has made to try to save his own skin. Brown's argument is that Assange knew the risks of angering the US Empire and thus needs to be prepared to pay the price for doing so without compromise. Well, that's great if your standard for solidarity is sainthood. But I don't personally demand sainthood as a condition of my personal support for a wrongly imprisoned political prisoner. YMMV

SLaD, you've spent three pages dodging a retraction of your flat assertion that Wikileaks withheld a document that it published.

The endless bad-faith strawmen, diversions, misrepresentations and irrelevant "whatabouts" are really tiresome. The repeated appeals to MIC authority on this question are, for very good reasons, never likely to find broad acceptance here.

You need to address the question.

This thread is not the problem.

Wikileaks BURIED the paper.

They continued to make claims ("USA HELLBENT ON REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA") that they knew weren't true.

I mean, do they even read the crap they "expose"?

SLAD owes you absolutely nothing except the contempt you so richly deserve due to your being constitutionally incapable of being fair, continuing to be part of a bully squad who engages in personal attacks, and thus manifestly unfit for duty as a moderator.

YOPJ

Jerky » 23 Apr 2019 06:40 wrote:Wikileaks BURIED the paper.

They continued to make claims ("USA HELLBENT ON REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA") that they knew weren't true.

I mean, do they even read the crap they "expose"?

SLAD owes you absolutely nothing except the contempt you so richly deserve due to your being constitutionally incapable of being fair, continuing to be part of a bully squad who engages in personal attacks, and thus manifestly unfit for duty as a moderator.

YOPJ

Do you care to back your claim that Wikileaks knew or anyone actually knows for sure that the US did not want any part in a regime change in Syria because of a single document that we know about only because Wikileaks made it available to us?

I never read Wikileaks' supposedly purposefully false characterizations of US intentions in Syria. Could you provide evidence of anything Wikileaks said about Syria that is directly contradicted by documents Wikileaks released?

Jerky » Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:40 am wrote:Wikileaks BURIED the paper.

Not to call you anything, as that would be against the rules, but I believe only a lying and blindly stupid sack of shit would insist on repeating this, or even be capable of insisting. You are choosing an interesting hill to die on, since it is indefensible. As a liar might, not to call you that, you don't defend, merely repeat. But in this case, it's like Black Knight stupid. "Just a scratch."

Where was this government classified paper before Wikileaks "buried" it? Was it on the front page somewhere? And then that terrible Assange came and buried it? With his magical retroactive classification powers? Is that what happened?

.

Where was this government classified paper before Wikileaks "buried" it? Was it on the front page somewhere? And then that terrible Assange came and buried it? With his magical retroactive classification powers? Is that what happened?

This is truly getting bugfuck kerraazy. Where did this start? Was it when Obama was supposed to erase the last eight years and proceeded to double down on the persecution of whistleblowers and the drone assassination program? Did that finally flip the switch with some people who thought they were leftist or progressive? Did the cognitive dissonance just blow up all over the walls?

The demonization of Assange by Bush-era anti-fascist/freedom of speech warriors is truly something to behold.

RocketMan » Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:50 am wrote:

Where was this government classified paper before Wikileaks "buried" it? Was it on the front page somewhere? And then that terrible Assange came and buried it? With his magical retroactive classification powers? Is that what happened?

This is truly getting bugfuck kerraazy. Where did this start? Was it when Obama was supposed to erase the last eight years and proceeded to double down on the persecution of whistleblowers and the drone assassination program? Did that finally flip the switch with some people who thought they were leftist or progressive? Did the cognitive dissonance just blow up all over the walls?

The demonization of Assange by Bush-era anti-fascist/freedom of speech warriors is truly something to behold.

Isn't it? You address the "where did this start" in the broadest sense.

But where did this specific, crazy idea start? Wikileaks was the first and only outlet to publish this previously classified, unknown document, and we are told that this should be described, in proper Newspeak, as "withholding" or "burying" the document although no one otherwise would have ever seen it?

And then both of our local Assange-Killers fight to the bitter end, one insisting on this nonsense, the other pulling out every device to avoid talking about it.

I do not know, but my guess is that the idea that Wikileaks "withheld" a document it published has been dispensed as a talking point by some higher-level sophist: a sophist with the authority of being a priest or wizard in the church of conventional "liberal" or "resistance" wisdom. I'm guessing this went "viral" and was seen by or eventually filtered down to our local self-appointed believers. It's hard to believe in it as a spontaneous thing, it's too specific and, really, exotic. It's also a case of trying to attack the enemy's evident, greatest strengths -- Wikileaks releases documents that should not be secret, and that you would never have otherwise seen. But in this case the "swiftboating" is done with total incompetence.

Anyway, the thing to do if I were of the same mold of thinking, if I were like Hamilton68 or I.I. or New Knowledge, would be to create a giant (and meaningless) chart of connections showing how the tweets and posts making this claim branched out from just a few sources.

.

JackRiddler » 23 Apr 2019 15:15 wrote:

RocketMan » Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:50 am wrote:

Where was this government classified paper before Wikileaks "buried" it? Was it on the front page somewhere? And then that terrible Assange came and buried it? With his magical retroactive classification powers? Is that what happened?

This is truly getting bugfuck kerraazy. Where did this start? Was it when Obama was supposed to erase the last eight years and proceeded to double down on the persecution of whistleblowers and the drone assassination program? Did that finally flip the switch with some people who thought they were leftist or progressive? Did the cognitive dissonance just blow up all over the walls?

The demonization of Assange by Bush-era anti-fascist/freedom of speech warriors is truly something to behold.

Isn't it? You address the "where did this start" in the broadest sense.

But where did this specific, crazy idea start? Wikileaks was the first and only outlet to publish this previously classified, unknown document, and we are told that this should be described, in proper Newspeak, as "withholding" or "burying" the document although no one otherwise would have ever seen it?

And then both of our local Assange-Killers fight to the bitter end, one insisting on this nonsense, the other pulling out every device to avoid talking about it.

I do not know, but my guess is that the idea that Wikileaks "withheld" a document it published has been dispensed as a talking point by some higher-level sophist: a sophist with the authority of being a priest or wizard in the church of conventional "liberal" or "resistance" wisdom. I'm guessing this went "viral" and was seen by or eventually filtered down to our local self-appointed believers. It's hard to believe in it as a spontaneous thing, it's too specific and, really, exotic. It's also a case of trying to attack the enemy's evident, greatest strengths -- Wikileaks releases documents that should not be secret, and that you would never have otherwise seen. But in this case the "swiftboating" is done with total incompetence.

Anyway, the thing to do if I were of the same mold of thinking, if I were like Hamilton68 or I.I. or New Knowledge, would be to create a giant (and meaningless) chart of connections showing how the tweets and posts making this claim branched out from just a few sources.

That's why I am most disappointed that my old pal seems to be taking his ball home. I would love to see the provenance of this gospel truth so that I could attempt to grasp its chain of logic. Is there any there there?

Let's take this to the The Wikileaks Question thread and leave this unfortunately named one to be an archive.