4 ms·

> The question of whether or not Snowden was a Russian asset all along has been raised and debated. No evidence has been found that he was, just as no evidence

> The question of whether or not Snowden was a Russian asset all along has been raised and debated. No evidence has been found that he was, just as no evidence has been found that he was a spy for China. ... We can’t know. Wikipedia: Fear, uncertainty and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a disinformation strategy...

skybrian 8y ago
Uncertainty and doubt are not actually bad. There are a whole lot questions we don't have good answers for, and so we should be comfortable admitting what we don't know. You can keep questions in mind without immediately answering them. On the other hand there are what I call the "instant experts" who are quick to take sides on something they were ignorant of yesterday, just because they read something about it in the news.
- ivanhoe 8y ago
  You're confusing the scientific rational doubt, and projected, induced, completely irrational and paranoid feeling of doubtful fear and uncertainty that distorts peoples' perception and makes them panic and act irrational, and do and accept things and compromises they otherwise never would. The fear of the dark, if you will. And whether it's government pushing for more control, or pimps/mafia/molesters pushing their victims into submission, the mechanisms are very similar, they always first sell you the fear and then offer the protection from it (if you do as told, of course).
  - skybrian 8y ago
    One person's rational doubt is another's paranoid doubt. I thought the original article expressed rational doubt. Without evidence, I lean towards assuming Snowden's motives are what he says they are. But after all, none of us (I assume) actually know him. He's a person in the news.
notafraudster 8y ago
This claim struck me as especially dumb. We can easily determine whether or not he was a Russian asset by asking the question "Why is he in Russia?" He is in Russia because the U.S. cancelled his passport after he left China and before he got to Ecuador. He hasn't been able to leave because the U.S. won't restore his passport. And he's still on a temporary Russian visa. And even if he found a way to fly, the last time the United States thought (incorrectly) he was on a plane, they forced the plane (which was registered as a diplomatic flight) to land. The conspiracy that he was flipped by Russia after he got there is at least not contradicted by the obvious facts, but a claim that he was a Russian agent all along is asinine.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  If we posit that his being in Russia is not good evidence for him being a Russian agent all along, that does not mean it is good evidence he was not a Russian agent all along.
  - notafraudster 8y ago
    Parsimony would dictate that a plan that involves them getting their asset back through a convoluted series of timing decisions the U.S. made that were completely beyond Russia's control is a terrible plan, and one that could have easily been replaced with him simply flying directly to Russia the first time and not leaving.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      Why assume that things happened according to a/the plan? Things often don't happen according to plan. I was just reading that some people think Guccifer 2.0 was actually a response to blown cover.
Grue3 8y ago
People used to say Wikileaks is independent and definitely not propped up by the Kremlin. And now it's plainly apparent that they are. For me, living in Russia and knowing the kind of rhetoric our government likes to push, it was obvious all along. Once Snowden will be revealed working for the Kremlin, I'm looking forward to gloat about that too.
- dandare 8y ago
  Can you present any solid evidence to support your "plainly apparent" claim?
  - Grue3 8y ago
    See, the typical tactic of Kremlinbots is to deny all existing evidence as fake, and then ask for proofs. So, I have to ask you first: do you find the current evidence that MH-17 was shot down by a Russian Buk launcher, and that Skripals were poisoned by Russian GRU agents "solid" enough? If you don't think the evidence for these two events is "solid" (I think it is solid), then I will be unable to provide you "solid" evidence that Wikileaks cooperates with Kremlin.
    - donkeyhot 8y ago
      I’m a long time reader but just registered to ask this. Could you share what evidence that Kremlin poisoned Scripals is solid in your view?
      - Grue3 8y ago
        The interview of Petrov and Boshirov on Russia Today. They basically confirm that all evidence previously revealed by UK side is not made up, but was actually real all along. And their excuses for their itinerary are laughable. This was basically Russian government confirming "yes, we did it, and we don't give a shit". There's no way to spin that interview into Russia not being somehow involved with the poisoning.

skybrian 8y ago

Uncertainty and doubt are not actually bad. There are a whole lot questions we don't have good answers for, and so we should be comfortable admitting what we don't know. You can keep questions in mind without immediately answering them. On the other hand there are what I call the "instant experts" who are quick to take sides on something they were ignorant of yesterday, just because they read something about it in the news.

ivanhoe 8y ago
You're confusing the scientific rational doubt, and projected, induced, completely irrational and paranoid feeling of doubtful fear and uncertainty that distorts peoples' perception and makes them panic and act irrational, and do and accept things and compromises they otherwise never would. The fear of the dark, if you will. And whether it's government pushing for more control, or pimps/mafia/molesters pushing their victims into submission, the mechanisms are very similar, they always first sell you the fear and then offer the protection from it (if you do as told, of course).
- skybrian 8y ago
  One person's rational doubt is another's paranoid doubt. I thought the original article expressed rational doubt. Without evidence, I lean towards assuming Snowden's motives are what he says they are. But after all, none of us (I assume) actually know him. He's a person in the news.

notafraudster 8y ago

This claim struck me as especially dumb. We can easily determine whether or not he was a Russian asset by asking the question "Why is he in Russia?" He is in Russia because the U.S. cancelled his passport after he left China and before he got to Ecuador. He hasn't been able to leave because the U.S. won't restore his passport. And he's still on a temporary Russian visa. And even if he found a way to fly, the last time the United States thought (incorrectly) he was on a plane, they forced the plane (which was registered as a diplomatic flight) to land. The conspiracy that he was flipped by Russia after he got there is at least not contradicted by the obvious facts, but a claim that he was a Russian agent all along is asinine.

perl4ever 8y ago
If we posit that his being in Russia is not good evidence for him being a Russian agent all along, that does not mean it is good evidence he was not a Russian agent all along.
- notafraudster 8y ago
  Parsimony would dictate that a plan that involves them getting their asset back through a convoluted series of timing decisions the U.S. made that were completely beyond Russia's control is a terrible plan, and one that could have easily been replaced with him simply flying directly to Russia the first time and not leaving.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    Why assume that things happened according to a/the plan? Things often don't happen according to plan. I was just reading that some people think Guccifer 2.0 was actually a response to blown cover.

Grue3 8y ago

People used to say Wikileaks is independent and definitely not propped up by the Kremlin. And now it's plainly apparent that they are. For me, living in Russia and knowing the kind of rhetoric our government likes to push, it was obvious all along. Once Snowden will be revealed working for the Kremlin, I'm looking forward to gloat about that too.

dandare 8y ago
Can you present any solid evidence to support your "plainly apparent" claim?
- Grue3 8y ago
  See, the typical tactic of Kremlinbots is to deny all existing evidence as fake, and then ask for proofs. So, I have to ask you first: do you find the current evidence that MH-17 was shot down by a Russian Buk launcher, and that Skripals were poisoned by Russian GRU agents "solid" enough? If you don't think the evidence for these two events is "solid" (I think it is solid), then I will be unable to provide you "solid" evidence that Wikileaks cooperates with Kremlin.
  - donkeyhot 8y ago
    I’m a long time reader but just registered to ask this. Could you share what evidence that Kremlin poisoned Scripals is solid in your view?
    - Grue3 8y ago
      The interview of Petrov and Boshirov on Russia Today. They basically confirm that all evidence previously revealed by UK side is not made up, but was actually real all along. And their excuses for their itinerary are laughable. This was basically Russian government confirming "yes, we did it, and we don't give a shit". There's no way to spin that interview into Russia not being somehow involved with the poisoning.