9 ms·

How ... convenient all of Wikileaks were damaging to the government of the USA and somehow never to the government of Russia. And, of course, Mr Assange had his

by chx 9y ago

How ... convenient all of Wikileaks were damaging to the government of the USA and somehow never to the government of Russia. And, of course, Mr Assange had his show on RT (Russia Today). No way he is a Russian agent. No way.

tway923423 9y ago
>convenient all of Wikileaks were damaging to the government of the USA and somehow never to the government of Russia How about judging the information on its merits, not its source? Why does it matter one wink if you don't like the leakers?
- atonse 9y ago
  Intent matters. There's a difference between a whistleblower wanting to expose things that violate the constitution because they want those things to stop, and a foreign agent exposing the same actions, but with the intent to destabilize people's trust in their government. The end result might be the same. But to say it doesn't matter where a leak came from, is to also say that whistleblowers are no different from foreign spies. Update to add my bias here: This is why I can respect the actions of Edward Snowden, but find Julian Assange completely untrustworthy.
  - tway923423 9y ago
    >But to say it doesn't matter where a leak came from, is to also say that whistleblowers are no different from foreign spies. Well I guess we have to agree to disagree then. If a "foreign spy" reports that Dow Checmial is dumping pollution in the river, I'm gonna question Dow first, not the spy.
    - Sangermaine 9y ago
      You're being either extremely naive or intentionally obtuse. No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. To use your example, if there were reason to believe that this spy was revealing this information on behalf of Dow's competitors to influence the market and shield/draw attention away from their own malfeasance, that's a concern. The source and the intent of the source does actually matter.
      - crdoconnor 9y ago
        >No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. That was precisely the intention behind characterizing Assange as a Russian spy during the election.
        Sangermaine 9y ago
        No, it wasn't at all. The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers for the purpose of swaying the election in favor of Trump, or at least severely damaging Clinton. The issue was never that the information was false. Even the DNC itself confirmed that the emails were theirs. More broadly, it's that Assange uses the guise of a seemingly-neutral Teller of Truths to dole out information for the purpose of manipulation, either for his own or other people's agendas.
        crdoconnor 9y ago
        >The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers Exactly. This accusation was intended to be equal parts distraction from the contents and ad hominem. They also mooted the idea that he was a pedophile for a while, but it didn't really take. >either for his own or other people's agendas. But of course. She literally expressed a desire to see him murdered because of him doling out secrets. Who would take kindly to that?
  - colordrops 9y ago
    I don't find most sources of information trustworthy. I just want to get info from opposing sources with conflicting goals, which helps put together the whole picture. I full support Russia Today (RT) despite being obviously backed by the Russian government because they are willing to talk about things that no US media outlet will touch. It's despicable that Google publicly and vocally denounces them and de-rates their results in search and news.
    - s2g 9y ago
      You fully support a propaganda agency?
      - colordrops 9y ago
        Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting.
        jacquesm 9y ago
        > Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. No, it isn't. There is a lot of pretty good journalism and then there is a bunch of trash. But the balance - for now - is still on the good side. If Rupert Murdoch kicked the bucket it might get a bit better still. > I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. Such as? FOX vs Russia Today is not 'alternate' by any definition. But if you want to compare the Washington Post with the BBC or Al Jazeera then you might find some balance between those. > What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Agreed, but which narratives you pick still makes a huge difference even when you are trying to discount for bias. > Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting. Or maybe they just don't subscribe to your views and are letting you know their disagreement by downvoting you. If you think HN is full of brainwashed people or actual agents because of a couple of downvotes I suspect the problem is on your end.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Intent doesn't matter. It's information. Judge it on evidence and truth and take it or leave it. No amount of twisted logic will make intent relevant.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      Intent is how we judge the veracity of the information and whether it's slanted or not. I could tell you that Argentina sank a Chinese fishing vessel. Or I could tell you that Argentina sank a Chinese fishing vessel that was fishing in Argentine territorial waters. Both are true statements. One of them is incomplete and can lead you to judging the event differently. And unfortunately you, like most of us, aren't in a position to have personally witnessed the event. Thus you cannot objectively validate the veracity of what I have stated. So we have to rely on various heuristics, things like reputation of the speaker and what we understand about that speaker's biases and intention as well as historical context of the information presented.
      - colordrops 9y ago
        Your example is perfect. You can judge the truth value of whether the boat actually went below the water line regardless of who said it. If you make further judgements on other aspects based on the source that's your own mistake and nothing to do with whether the boat actually sank or not.
  - cup-of-tea 9y ago
    Wait, so if a foreign agent discovers corruption he should keep quiet because he has a conflict of interest and that's not fair?
  - musage 9y ago
    > One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
- mavdi 9y ago
  I'll question the information merit of any rotten source. I suggest you do the same.
  - tway923423 9y ago
    >I'll question the information merit of any rotten source. Go ahead and question it. Have you come up with any evidence that it's fabricated?
    - Sangermaine 9y ago
      The concern isn't fabrication. The concern is that the information is being intentionally selectively provided to influence events.
      - Sag0Sag0 9y ago
        How terrible. They’re telling us the truth at inconvenient times. Disgusting.
        Sangermaine 9y ago
        No, they're telling us selective elements of the truth (e.g., releasing only information on one political party during an election to sway that election) to destabilize our society and government to increase their own power and shield themselves from scrutiny and criticism. Yes, that is pretty disgusting.
- fipple 9y ago
  Selectivity of rule-enforcers is a major tool of warfare. If sneezing in public is made illegal, but only Bangladeshis are arrested for it, that's not OK.
alacombe 9y ago
Aren't we getting enough Russia bashing from the MSM ?
- s2g 9y ago
  No. Not nearly enough.
  - antocv 9y ago
    Yes I did get the memo. This is 2018, now Russia takes the place of "axis of evil" Iraq and Taleban. A greater axis of evil. Much feared bear.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      No, Russia is looking after its own interests in much the same way that America did for many years. After all, it's not as if the Americans are lily white when it comes to influencing other people's elections, deposing properly elected governments abroad and funding revolutions when it suited their best interests. So there is a huge amount of hypocrisy there. But that does not excuse Russia for meddling in the affairs of The USA or Europe either. They're all guilty of this, some more than others.
      - antocv 9y ago
        That is so, which is why I see Russia no more evil than USA. In fact, less so, given the historial record. Funding revolutions, killing 100 000 civilians in another country on other side of the planet from them, was not on Russias list of deeds for past 25 years. Yemen.
        jacquesm 9y ago
        Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Chechenya...
- cpursley 9y ago
  Yes, it's tiring.
vondur 9y ago
Do you really need something like Wikileaks to expose how corrupt Russia’s government is? I’m pretty sure it’s common knowledge now.
- sdhgaiojfsa 9y ago
  That would kinda seem to be the point of it.
  - robotrout 9y ago
    From three seconds of googling. Wikileaks releases documents it claims detail Russia mass surveillance apparatus https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/19/wikileaks-releases-documents-it-claims-detail-russia-mass-surveillance-apparatus/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/19/wikileaks-releases-documen...
    - gandhium 9y ago
      And this link clearly says: > It’s the _first_ time the organization has leaked (what it claims is) material directly pertaining to the Russian state. So... first time for how many years? And as, article points out, the leak itself is rather minor.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        That may simply be a function of how little leaks out of Russia. Reasonably closed states that tend to murder their opposition have a bit of an advantage here. If Snowden or Manning had been Russian I would totally expect them to be killed to serve as an example to other potential leakers.
- toss1 9y ago
  The point is that Assange/Wikileaks, while he/it may not have (and is unlikely to have, IMO) started out as a Russian asset, he was clearly compromised and has behaved as one for the last 6 years or so. He was getting low on funds, and then was cutoff from the credit card system for contributions. shortly after that, he started getting RU appearances. RUS influence likely a combination of providing critical funding and also developing Kompromat - compromising, coercing information, whether true or not. In short, he's not a free, independent agent working to strengthen democratic principles and institutions. (note that 'asset' does not mean necessarily the classic willing spy, could be merely duped or coerced)
dxhdr 9y ago
The USA is the strongest country in the world politically, economically and militarily. Who better to criticize than the USA if the goal is to change the status quo? "Damaging" Russia makes no sense. They don't make the rules!
- wang_li 9y ago
  "Changing the status quo" is a moronic goal. You should be aiming to make life better for the most people in the world. Does increasing the relative power and status of political regimes that provide less freedom and lowering the relative power and status of regimes that provide more freedom going to accomplish that?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Having a moronic goal doesn't make one a Russian agent, though.
colordrops 9y ago
And you appear to be a (probably unwitting) agent of US propaganda. Edit: I'm getting down voted to hell, so I'll clarify: the narrative that Assange is a Russian agent is absolutely US propaganda. The US government has been smearing Assange and Wikileaks for at least 8 years, and was even caught red-handed hiring Palantir and HBGary to enact a media and infiltration campaign to destroy Wikileaks: http://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-2011-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-20...
cup-of-tea 9y ago
I don't even know where to begin with this. Is the goal of Wikileaks to be "damaging to governments"? Or is it to reveal corruption and help the people? Why do you care about corruption in Russia? If you're American you should be glad there is so much focus on your government. It sounds like you're describing a game with two players where one is being disproportionally punished for breaking the rules.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  It started out as 'reveal corruption and help people' and somewhere along the way morphed into 'USA antagonists-R-us', or even just plain old 'anti-establishment'. There is a good chance that reviewing all that Iraq war footage resulted in some good old radicalization.
Yver 9y ago
By the same logic, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein would be russian agents too.
- robotrout 9y ago
  Max Keiser also must be a Russian agent.
ows_vs_obama 9y ago
Please stop with the McCarthyism red-scare nonsense. It's time to admit that all this Russia nonsense serves only to take the spotlight off of Hillary's corrupt campaign. Any Russian election "interference" was negligible compared to Citzen's United (the real source of propaganda) and DNC corruption.
jacquesm 9y ago
No, he definitely wasn't/isn't a Russian agent. You'd have known because then he would have fled to the Russian embassy instead. Assange basically did what he could to damage the interests of the USA, and probably succeeded wildly beyond his dreams. He's made a whole bunch of stupid calls and he's blown his own credibility and that of WikiLeaks by showing an overt agenda instead of just being a 'dumb pipe'. Funny though, the one time that he did act as a dumb pipe everybody was screaming blue murder about how irresponsible that was.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > No, he definitely wasn't/isn't a Russian agent. You'd have known because then he would have fled to the Russian embassy instead. If Assange is a Russian asset, he is one that it is critical for Russia to conceal it's connection to if he is to continue to have value. Not running to Russia's embassy has helped him continue to spread propaganda that serves Russian interests, so it's not incompatible with him being an (even actively managed) Russian asset.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Sure, but it overcomplicates something that doesn't need to be made more complicated to be understood. If the simplest explanation works then that is usually the right one. In this case: Assange/WikiLeaks have an agenda: to hit America where it hurts, by exposing their actions on the world stage and by creating as big a rift between the different political sides in the United States as they could manage. In that they are no different from Al Queada or the Russians, their goals align and so you get some pretty strange bedfellows. Assange is a 'useful idiot' to Russia when he's go between for content hacked from US servers by the Russians that they can't be seen to release directly. I agree with you that it is not incompatible but it is too paranoid for me to take into account until there is some actual proof. He could be a double agent too, he could be anything. But my money is on him being an idealistic, narcissistic hacker with a political agenda that amounts to 'Reduce American Influence in any way possible'. And if that involves cooperating with the Russians (knowingly or otherwise) that does not necessarily mean he is a Russian agent. By contrast, Paul Manafort, who made many millions of dollars working for the Russians and who has his hands all over the 2016 election cycle and the damage done to Ukraine to me would qualify as a Russian agent. I'm pretty sure if there was any proof that Assange was an actual Russian agent it would have been used to pressure Ecuador to turn him over since the Ecuadorians would definitely not want to be seen as 'harboring a Russian agent' versus 'harboring a left wing anti-American hacker'. The former doesn't play nearly as good at the home front as the latter.
shiado 9y ago
Given this statement, it is important to remind people not to fall into an appeal to motive. It is important to bring into question the motives for presenting information, but not to dismiss it as false due to such a motive being present.
lawnchair_larry 9y ago
You realize that they can only release what is given to them, right? This criticism only makes sense if they are sitting on a pile of leaked material that is unflattering Russia. There’s no reason to believe that is the case.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > You realize that they can only release what is given to them, right? So, you mean, WikiLeaks is merely a useful-but-innocent tool of Russian intelligence, rather than an active collaborator?
  - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
    You'd have to put absolutely zero effort into researching their history and earlier leaks to come to the conclusion that they have anything to do with Russia. Even the crazy conspiracy theory that they are actually a CIA operation themselves makes more sense than this, and that one is pretty silly.
- grzm 9y ago
  Once you start down this hole it can be hard to know what to believe by it's very nature. Hard evidence is hard to come by, and absolutes like "no reason to believe" become hard to justify. There are at least some reports that Assange turned down leaks related to the Kremlin. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...
codedokode 9y ago
What's wrong with damaging USA? They use military to damage other countries.

by chx 9y ago

tway923423 9y ago

>convenient all of Wikileaks were damaging to the government of the USA and somehow never to the government of Russia How about judging the information on its merits, not its source? Why does it matter one wink if you don't like the leakers?

atonse 9y ago
Intent matters. There's a difference between a whistleblower wanting to expose things that violate the constitution because they want those things to stop, and a foreign agent exposing the same actions, but with the intent to destabilize people's trust in their government. The end result might be the same. But to say it doesn't matter where a leak came from, is to also say that whistleblowers are no different from foreign spies. Update to add my bias here: This is why I can respect the actions of Edward Snowden, but find Julian Assange completely untrustworthy.
- tway923423 9y ago
  >But to say it doesn't matter where a leak came from, is to also say that whistleblowers are no different from foreign spies. Well I guess we have to agree to disagree then. If a "foreign spy" reports that Dow Checmial is dumping pollution in the river, I'm gonna question Dow first, not the spy.
  - Sangermaine 9y ago
    You're being either extremely naive or intentionally obtuse. No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. To use your example, if there were reason to believe that this spy was revealing this information on behalf of Dow's competitors to influence the market and shield/draw attention away from their own malfeasance, that's a concern. The source and the intent of the source does actually matter.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. That was precisely the intention behind characterizing Assange as a Russian spy during the election.
      - Sangermaine 9y ago
        No, it wasn't at all. The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers for the purpose of swaying the election in favor of Trump, or at least severely damaging Clinton. The issue was never that the information was false. Even the DNC itself confirmed that the emails were theirs. More broadly, it's that Assange uses the guise of a seemingly-neutral Teller of Truths to dole out information for the purpose of manipulation, either for his own or other people's agendas.
        crdoconnor 9y ago
        >The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers Exactly. This accusation was intended to be equal parts distraction from the contents and ad hominem. They also mooted the idea that he was a pedophile for a while, but it didn't really take. >either for his own or other people's agendas. But of course. She literally expressed a desire to see him murdered because of him doling out secrets. Who would take kindly to that?
- colordrops 9y ago
  I don't find most sources of information trustworthy. I just want to get info from opposing sources with conflicting goals, which helps put together the whole picture. I full support Russia Today (RT) despite being obviously backed by the Russian government because they are willing to talk about things that no US media outlet will touch. It's despicable that Google publicly and vocally denounces them and de-rates their results in search and news.
  - s2g 9y ago
    You fully support a propaganda agency?
    - colordrops 9y ago
      Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        > Most of what comes out of US mainstream media is propaganda. No, it isn't. There is a lot of pretty good journalism and then there is a bunch of trash. But the balance - for now - is still on the good side. If Rupert Murdoch kicked the bucket it might get a bit better still. > I support alternate sources in conjunction with those. Such as? FOX vs Russia Today is not 'alternate' by any definition. But if you want to compare the Washington Post with the BBC or Al Jazeera then you might find some balance between those. > What I don't support is getting all your info from a single narrative. Agreed, but which narratives you pick still makes a huge difference even when you are trying to discount for bias. > Edit: there are obviously a lot of brainwashed people or actual agents in this thread doing some unfair downvoting. Or maybe they just don't subscribe to your views and are letting you know their disagreement by downvoting you. If you think HN is full of brainwashed people or actual agents because of a couple of downvotes I suspect the problem is on your end.
- colordrops 9y ago
  Intent doesn't matter. It's information. Judge it on evidence and truth and take it or leave it. No amount of twisted logic will make intent relevant.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    Intent is how we judge the veracity of the information and whether it's slanted or not. I could tell you that Argentina sank a Chinese fishing vessel. Or I could tell you that Argentina sank a Chinese fishing vessel that was fishing in Argentine territorial waters. Both are true statements. One of them is incomplete and can lead you to judging the event differently. And unfortunately you, like most of us, aren't in a position to have personally witnessed the event. Thus you cannot objectively validate the veracity of what I have stated. So we have to rely on various heuristics, things like reputation of the speaker and what we understand about that speaker's biases and intention as well as historical context of the information presented.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      Your example is perfect. You can judge the truth value of whether the boat actually went below the water line regardless of who said it. If you make further judgements on other aspects based on the source that's your own mistake and nothing to do with whether the boat actually sank or not.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  Wait, so if a foreign agent discovers corruption he should keep quiet because he has a conflict of interest and that's not fair?
- musage 9y ago
  > One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
mavdi 9y ago
I'll question the information merit of any rotten source. I suggest you do the same.
- tway923423 9y ago
  >I'll question the information merit of any rotten source. Go ahead and question it. Have you come up with any evidence that it's fabricated?
  - Sangermaine 9y ago
    The concern isn't fabrication. The concern is that the information is being intentionally selectively provided to influence events.
    - Sag0Sag0 9y ago
      How terrible. They’re telling us the truth at inconvenient times. Disgusting.
      - Sangermaine 9y ago
        No, they're telling us selective elements of the truth (e.g., releasing only information on one political party during an election to sway that election) to destabilize our society and government to increase their own power and shield themselves from scrutiny and criticism. Yes, that is pretty disgusting.
fipple 9y ago
Selectivity of rule-enforcers is a major tool of warfare. If sneezing in public is made illegal, but only Bangladeshis are arrested for it, that's not OK.

alacombe 9y ago

Aren't we getting enough Russia bashing from the MSM ?

s2g 9y ago
No. Not nearly enough.
- antocv 9y ago
  Yes I did get the memo. This is 2018, now Russia takes the place of "axis of evil" Iraq and Taleban. A greater axis of evil. Much feared bear.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    No, Russia is looking after its own interests in much the same way that America did for many years. After all, it's not as if the Americans are lily white when it comes to influencing other people's elections, deposing properly elected governments abroad and funding revolutions when it suited their best interests. So there is a huge amount of hypocrisy there. But that does not excuse Russia for meddling in the affairs of The USA or Europe either. They're all guilty of this, some more than others.
    - antocv 9y ago
      That is so, which is why I see Russia no more evil than USA. In fact, less so, given the historial record. Funding revolutions, killing 100 000 civilians in another country on other side of the planet from them, was not on Russias list of deeds for past 25 years. Yemen.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Chechenya...
cpursley 9y ago
Yes, it's tiring.

vondur 9y ago

Do you really need something like Wikileaks to expose how corrupt Russia’s government is? I’m pretty sure it’s common knowledge now.

sdhgaiojfsa 9y ago
That would kinda seem to be the point of it.
- robotrout 9y ago
  From three seconds of googling. Wikileaks releases documents it claims detail Russia mass surveillance apparatus https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/19/wikileaks-releases-documents-it-claims-detail-russia-mass-surveillance-apparatus/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/19/wikileaks-releases-documen...
  - gandhium 9y ago
    And this link clearly says: > It’s the _first_ time the organization has leaked (what it claims is) material directly pertaining to the Russian state. So... first time for how many years? And as, article points out, the leak itself is rather minor.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      That may simply be a function of how little leaks out of Russia. Reasonably closed states that tend to murder their opposition have a bit of an advantage here. If Snowden or Manning had been Russian I would totally expect them to be killed to serve as an example to other potential leakers.
toss1 9y ago
The point is that Assange/Wikileaks, while he/it may not have (and is unlikely to have, IMO) started out as a Russian asset, he was clearly compromised and has behaved as one for the last 6 years or so. He was getting low on funds, and then was cutoff from the credit card system for contributions. shortly after that, he started getting RU appearances. RUS influence likely a combination of providing critical funding and also developing Kompromat - compromising, coercing information, whether true or not. In short, he's not a free, independent agent working to strengthen democratic principles and institutions. (note that 'asset' does not mean necessarily the classic willing spy, could be merely duped or coerced)

dxhdr 9y ago

The USA is the strongest country in the world politically, economically and militarily. Who better to criticize than the USA if the goal is to change the status quo? "Damaging" Russia makes no sense. They don't make the rules!

wang_li 9y ago
"Changing the status quo" is a moronic goal. You should be aiming to make life better for the most people in the world. Does increasing the relative power and status of political regimes that provide less freedom and lowering the relative power and status of regimes that provide more freedom going to accomplish that?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Having a moronic goal doesn't make one a Russian agent, though.

colordrops 9y ago

And you appear to be a (probably unwitting) agent of US propaganda. Edit: I'm getting down voted to hell, so I'll clarify: the narrative that Assange is a Russian agent is absolutely US propaganda. The US government has been smearing Assange and Wikileaks for at least 8 years, and was even caught red-handed hiring Palantir and HBGary to enact a media and infiltration campaign to destroy Wikileaks: http://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-2011-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-20...

cup-of-tea 9y ago

I don't even know where to begin with this. Is the goal of Wikileaks to be "damaging to governments"? Or is it to reveal corruption and help the people? Why do you care about corruption in Russia? If you're American you should be glad there is so much focus on your government. It sounds like you're describing a game with two players where one is being disproportionally punished for breaking the rules.

jacquesm 9y ago
It started out as 'reveal corruption and help people' and somewhere along the way morphed into 'USA antagonists-R-us', or even just plain old 'anti-establishment'. There is a good chance that reviewing all that Iraq war footage resulted in some good old radicalization.

Yver 9y ago

By the same logic, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein would be russian agents too.

robotrout 9y ago
Max Keiser also must be a Russian agent.

ows_vs_obama 9y ago

Please stop with the McCarthyism red-scare nonsense. It's time to admit that all this Russia nonsense serves only to take the spotlight off of Hillary's corrupt campaign. Any Russian election "interference" was negligible compared to Citzen's United (the real source of propaganda) and DNC corruption.

jacquesm 9y ago

No, he definitely wasn't/isn't a Russian agent. You'd have known because then he would have fled to the Russian embassy instead. Assange basically did what he could to damage the interests of the USA, and probably succeeded wildly beyond his dreams. He's made a whole bunch of stupid calls and he's blown his own credibility and that of WikiLeaks by showing an overt agenda instead of just being a 'dumb pipe'. Funny though, the one time that he did act as a dumb pipe everybody was screaming blue murder about how irresponsible that was.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> No, he definitely wasn't/isn't a Russian agent. You'd have known because then he would have fled to the Russian embassy instead. If Assange is a Russian asset, he is one that it is critical for Russia to conceal it's connection to if he is to continue to have value. Not running to Russia's embassy has helped him continue to spread propaganda that serves Russian interests, so it's not incompatible with him being an (even actively managed) Russian asset.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Sure, but it overcomplicates something that doesn't need to be made more complicated to be understood. If the simplest explanation works then that is usually the right one. In this case: Assange/WikiLeaks have an agenda: to hit America where it hurts, by exposing their actions on the world stage and by creating as big a rift between the different political sides in the United States as they could manage. In that they are no different from Al Queada or the Russians, their goals align and so you get some pretty strange bedfellows. Assange is a 'useful idiot' to Russia when he's go between for content hacked from US servers by the Russians that they can't be seen to release directly. I agree with you that it is not incompatible but it is too paranoid for me to take into account until there is some actual proof. He could be a double agent too, he could be anything. But my money is on him being an idealistic, narcissistic hacker with a political agenda that amounts to 'Reduce American Influence in any way possible'. And if that involves cooperating with the Russians (knowingly or otherwise) that does not necessarily mean he is a Russian agent. By contrast, Paul Manafort, who made many millions of dollars working for the Russians and who has his hands all over the 2016 election cycle and the damage done to Ukraine to me would qualify as a Russian agent. I'm pretty sure if there was any proof that Assange was an actual Russian agent it would have been used to pressure Ecuador to turn him over since the Ecuadorians would definitely not want to be seen as 'harboring a Russian agent' versus 'harboring a left wing anti-American hacker'. The former doesn't play nearly as good at the home front as the latter.

shiado 9y ago

Given this statement, it is important to remind people not to fall into an appeal to motive. It is important to bring into question the motives for presenting information, but not to dismiss it as false due to such a motive being present.

lawnchair_larry 9y ago

You realize that they can only release what is given to them, right? This criticism only makes sense if they are sitting on a pile of leaked material that is unflattering Russia. There’s no reason to believe that is the case.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> You realize that they can only release what is given to them, right? So, you mean, WikiLeaks is merely a useful-but-innocent tool of Russian intelligence, rather than an active collaborator?
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  You'd have to put absolutely zero effort into researching their history and earlier leaks to come to the conclusion that they have anything to do with Russia. Even the crazy conspiracy theory that they are actually a CIA operation themselves makes more sense than this, and that one is pretty silly.
grzm 9y ago
Once you start down this hole it can be hard to know what to believe by it's very nature. Hard evidence is hard to come by, and absolutes like "no reason to believe" become hard to justify. There are at least some reports that Assange turned down leaks related to the Kremlin. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...

codedokode 9y ago

What's wrong with damaging USA? They use military to damage other countries.