4 ms·

He tried to help Chelsea Manning brute force hack passwords on government computers. He's also suspected of being and taking part as Gucifer 2.0. I don't thin

by gjmacd 7y ago

He tried to help Chelsea Manning brute force hack passwords on government computers. He's also suspected of being and taking part as Gucifer 2.0. I don't think people can call a person a "journalist" who fronts as one but is really doing illegal activities to obtain documents and data. Receiving them from someone else and publishing is a different issue. Getting them yourself and breaking the law... very fine line. My issue with this whole WikiLeaks thing is that they are clearly a Russian operation that posed as a "truth seeker" early on and then started to steer their operation 100% at damaging the US. If you're truly a journalist operation, you'd do more to publish and "seek truth" in other countries. You won't find a single story about Russia that's damaging. Bottom line for me? I think the US believes he's a Putin sympathizer. Or worse, he's a Russian asset.

onetimemanytime 7y ago
Personally I also think that he is now a Russian asset or whatever its called. Maybe he needed their help and they were glad to welcome them into their arms, but that's besides the point. No love lost between him and 3 letter agencies BUT, as I said they could have charged him with a lot of other things that carry a long prison sentence.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  What evidence is there he’s a Russian asset?
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    He released completely true but negative information about Hillary Clinton. That seems to be enough for some people.
  - rfugger 7y ago
    He seems to have published no embarrassing or damaging information on Russia (at least in latter years?), and seemed willing to serve their purposes when it came to the 2016 election, by releasing hacked Democratic Party emails timed to do maximum damage to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Prior to that, I had considered Wikileaks a brave experiment in radical transparency. Since then, I've considered Wikileaks a somewhat biased source. The truth is the truth, yes, but every truth is partial, and context matters. "Asset" is perhaps too strong a word, but "useful idiot" may apply, or "the enemy of my enemy".
- rfugger 7y ago
  Or maybe he was threatened.
roenxi 7y ago
> My issue with this whole WikiLeaks thing is that they are clearly a Russian operation that posed as a "truth seeker" early on and then started to steer their operation 100% at damaging the US The theory here seems to be that Russia is perfidiously undermining the US by exposing the truth to the cold light of day, by nefariously revealing primary sources with limited editing. I'm not sure I'd rate that as the most successful strategy in their playbook, but maybe it'll work. If it were me, I'd go with more traditional propaganda. That is not a good theory.
- ajross 7y ago
  > nefariously revealing primary sources Russia deliberately targeted, hacked and stole the email of a US presidential campaign manager. What kind of crazy spin is this? Whether Assange specifically should be culpable here is an open question. Whether the act was criminal is not.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Nobody disputed that the emails were genuine. What if Russians had just released them via RT - or indeed the New York Times? It is still a story even if the source is shady. Even more impressive if the Russians are known to be involved. Releasing the emails via Wikileaks isn't evidence of anything. Someone as well resourced as the Russian Intelligence service could have released them on The Pirate Bay and had a similar effect. On my original point, Russia does not have a scary scheme to reveal the truth to unwitting Americans via Wikileaks. The idea is absurd.
    - ajross 7y ago
      > shady There's no "shade" here. It's straight up criminal. He got phished, deliberately, via a targetted human engineering operation. Again I just don't understand the desire to hide the underlying crime here. It's possible to be very uneasy with the direct prosecution of Assange for this stuff, to view Manning as having been unfairly targetted, but to also recognize that there's a really serious underlying crime here that we need to address. But no, everyone wants to pick sides here and stand with... Putin. Seriously?
rudiv 7y ago
>My issue with this whole WikiLeaks thing is that they are clearly a Russian operation that posed as a "truth seeker" early on and then started to steer their operation 100% at damaging the US. If you're truly a journalist operation, you'd do more to publish and "seek truth" in other countries. You won't find a single story about Russia that's damaging. Were you aware of Wikileaks prior to 2016? I can't help but think that you're unaware of their work prior to the 2016 US election cycle. Granted, you mention Chelsea Manning. But the idea that Wikileaks was a shell organisation for Russian intelligence all the way back from 2006 beggars belief, if only because of the diverse range of sources they have received material from. Regarding Guccifer 2.0, I've seen the information linking that account to Russian intelligence, but I haven't seen any evidence that Assange himself is suspected of being Guccifer and essentially orchestrating the conversation(s) between Guccifer and Wikileaks. Could you share your information with the rest of us?
- behringer 7y ago
  How does one know propaganda works? When everyone on the internet starts spewing the same line at the same time.
  - rudiv 7y ago
    Are you addressing me? Or is that just for the benefit of other readers?
andy_ppp 7y ago
You’ve just made up loads of stuff with no evidence haven’t you? We should consider Collateral Murder much more damaging than the release of the video, the act itself has caused much more harm to your beloved American interests.
- 420codebro 7y ago
  Fuck those journalists in that clip. I’m so fucking tired of the virtue signaling around this. Don’t hang around armed fighters when an American Bradley unit is getting fucked up 2 blocks away and apaches are circling. Common sense. Or rather the lack there of.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  What is collateral murder?
  - andy_ppp 7y ago
    https://youtu.be/HfvFpT-iypw https://youtu.be/HfvFpT-iypw A video some claim was leaked by Chelsea Manning (to Wikileaks) showing what I believe to be war crimes by US military.
- lixtra 7y ago
  > We should consider Collateral Murder much more damaging I think it was right to release the video. But to me, with no military experience and and non-native speaker, it seemed totally possible that the pilots took the reporters for combatants. I wouldn’t want to judge them. In comparison, I found the video of a cop shooting a fellow American crying in fear with an automatic rifle because he was reaching for his pants much more disturbing. Or the autistic kid tazed to death in the shower.
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    What about when they came back to shoot people who were helping the wounded? Also, "it was a war zone" is a shitty excuse given that the war was illegal and we had no business positioning helicopters over civilian marketplaces in Iraq, period.
hutzlibu 7y ago
Assange a russian asset? Why is he not in russia then? For plausability he let himself being locked in for years? Being the selfish narcisst that he is? Not likely. Assange is a kind of internet-anarchist. He published some kind of manifest a while ago. Crypto-anarchism. Basically the idea (if memory serves right) that people need crypto etc. to balance the power with total governments. So he really is not a supporter of the russian government, except maybe as a counter to the US. He hates the US as super power number one, so thats why he might accepted help from the enemies of his enemy, but Wikileaks also published documents about russia.

by gjmacd 7y ago

onetimemanytime 7y ago

Personally I also think that he is now a Russian asset or whatever its called. Maybe he needed their help and they were glad to welcome them into their arms, but that's besides the point. No love lost between him and 3 letter agencies BUT, as I said they could have charged him with a lot of other things that carry a long prison sentence.

andy_ppp 7y ago
What evidence is there he’s a Russian asset?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  He released completely true but negative information about Hillary Clinton. That seems to be enough for some people.
- rfugger 7y ago
  He seems to have published no embarrassing or damaging information on Russia (at least in latter years?), and seemed willing to serve their purposes when it came to the 2016 election, by releasing hacked Democratic Party emails timed to do maximum damage to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Prior to that, I had considered Wikileaks a brave experiment in radical transparency. Since then, I've considered Wikileaks a somewhat biased source. The truth is the truth, yes, but every truth is partial, and context matters. "Asset" is perhaps too strong a word, but "useful idiot" may apply, or "the enemy of my enemy".
rfugger 7y ago
Or maybe he was threatened.

roenxi 7y ago

> My issue with this whole WikiLeaks thing is that they are clearly a Russian operation that posed as a "truth seeker" early on and then started to steer their operation 100% at damaging the US The theory here seems to be that Russia is perfidiously undermining the US by exposing the truth to the cold light of day, by nefariously revealing primary sources with limited editing. I'm not sure I'd rate that as the most successful strategy in their playbook, but maybe it'll work. If it were me, I'd go with more traditional propaganda. That is not a good theory.

ajross 7y ago
> nefariously revealing primary sources Russia deliberately targeted, hacked and stole the email of a US presidential campaign manager. What kind of crazy spin is this? Whether Assange specifically should be culpable here is an open question. Whether the act was criminal is not.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Nobody disputed that the emails were genuine. What if Russians had just released them via RT - or indeed the New York Times? It is still a story even if the source is shady. Even more impressive if the Russians are known to be involved. Releasing the emails via Wikileaks isn't evidence of anything. Someone as well resourced as the Russian Intelligence service could have released them on The Pirate Bay and had a similar effect. On my original point, Russia does not have a scary scheme to reveal the truth to unwitting Americans via Wikileaks. The idea is absurd.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > shady There's no "shade" here. It's straight up criminal. He got phished, deliberately, via a targetted human engineering operation. Again I just don't understand the desire to hide the underlying crime here. It's possible to be very uneasy with the direct prosecution of Assange for this stuff, to view Manning as having been unfairly targetted, but to also recognize that there's a really serious underlying crime here that we need to address. But no, everyone wants to pick sides here and stand with... Putin. Seriously?

rudiv 7y ago

>My issue with this whole WikiLeaks thing is that they are clearly a Russian operation that posed as a "truth seeker" early on and then started to steer their operation 100% at damaging the US. If you're truly a journalist operation, you'd do more to publish and "seek truth" in other countries. You won't find a single story about Russia that's damaging. Were you aware of Wikileaks prior to 2016? I can't help but think that you're unaware of their work prior to the 2016 US election cycle. Granted, you mention Chelsea Manning. But the idea that Wikileaks was a shell organisation for Russian intelligence all the way back from 2006 beggars belief, if only because of the diverse range of sources they have received material from. Regarding Guccifer 2.0, I've seen the information linking that account to Russian intelligence, but I haven't seen any evidence that Assange himself is suspected of being Guccifer and essentially orchestrating the conversation(s) between Guccifer and Wikileaks. Could you share your information with the rest of us?

behringer 7y ago
How does one know propaganda works? When everyone on the internet starts spewing the same line at the same time.
- rudiv 7y ago
  Are you addressing me? Or is that just for the benefit of other readers?

andy_ppp 7y ago

You’ve just made up loads of stuff with no evidence haven’t you? We should consider Collateral Murder much more damaging than the release of the video, the act itself has caused much more harm to your beloved American interests.

420codebro 7y ago
Fuck those journalists in that clip. I’m so fucking tired of the virtue signaling around this. Don’t hang around armed fighters when an American Bradley unit is getting fucked up 2 blocks away and apaches are circling. Common sense. Or rather the lack there of.
hutzlibu 7y ago
What is collateral murder?
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  https://youtu.be/HfvFpT-iypw https://youtu.be/HfvFpT-iypw A video some claim was leaked by Chelsea Manning (to Wikileaks) showing what I believe to be war crimes by US military.
lixtra 7y ago
> We should consider Collateral Murder much more damaging I think it was right to release the video. But to me, with no military experience and and non-native speaker, it seemed totally possible that the pilots took the reporters for combatants. I wouldn’t want to judge them. In comparison, I found the video of a cop shooting a fellow American crying in fear with an automatic rifle because he was reaching for his pants much more disturbing. Or the autistic kid tazed to death in the shower.
- astazangasta 7y ago
  What about when they came back to shoot people who were helping the wounded? Also, "it was a war zone" is a shitty excuse given that the war was illegal and we had no business positioning helicopters over civilian marketplaces in Iraq, period.

hutzlibu 7y ago

Assange a russian asset? Why is he not in russia then? For plausability he let himself being locked in for years? Being the selfish narcisst that he is? Not likely. Assange is a kind of internet-anarchist. He published some kind of manifest a while ago. Crypto-anarchism. Basically the idea (if memory serves right) that people need crypto etc. to balance the power with total governments. So he really is not a supporter of the russian government, except maybe as a counter to the US. He hates the US as super power number one, so thats why he might accepted help from the enemies of his enemy, but Wikileaks also published documents about russia.