10 ms·

Assange was directly working with Russian intelligence so let’s not pretend that they were somehow above politics.

by luma 4y ago

vintermann 4y ago
That is just a lie pushed by western intelligence agencies, popular because it deflects blame for a well-known electoral defeat. But I did not say they were above politics. On the contrary, they had very strong anti war, anti establishment politics, which they were credible about from their long public history as non-anonymous actors. (Which is also why we laugh at your unsubstantiated accusations that he worked for Putin.) DdoSecrets will never have that. God knows what they actually believe. They don't think it's important that you know, at least we know that.
aa-jv 4y ago
Utter lies. You have zero evidence of this. This nonsense narrative is merely designed to deflect from the very real, heinously evil, war crimes that Americans commit on the regular, every twenty minutes, for the last twenty years - for which there is a lot of evidence you Americans choose to ignore in the rush to maintain pride in yourselves...
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  Americans, Frenchmen, Germans, Turks, Chinese, Bri'ish, Kenyans, Iranians... Pick any national origin, and you will see a fraction of them commit war crimes. So why focus on one nation, when those crimes are commited by individuals, and often ordered by entrenched unelected bureaucratic government interests? Why blame all Americans, all Chinese, for the crimes of a few of them? All Chinese didn't force Uighurs into organ harvesting camps. All Turks didn't genocide Armenians, All Americans don't commit war crimes every 20 minutes, although some gangs in Chicago come close if you loosen your definition of "war crimes".
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    Americans are responsible for the crimes of their state. As are Russians responsible for the crimes of their state. Such is the nature of citizenship. Are you American? Then fix the crimes of your state. Are you not-Russian? You can do nothing about Russia for as long as you are unable to jail your own war criminals. The moral authority you claim is non-existent.
    - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
      Americans* are literally extorted by their state, democratic accountability is a myth, as the bureaucracy remains, and the results are imposed even if you refuse to participate. Courts take years and decades, and do not judge against themselves. A more direct method of accountability, has, every time, been used to expand the surveillance state and the militarization of police. The only remaining effective option is to identify the source of the problem, and shift public opinion to recognize it; With further draconian measures, more people notice the corruption and overextension of the state, and with enough people alternate means of accountability become viable. Until then you're mushed crabs dispersing amongst the waves and cliffs. Where have I claimed moral authority? *all citizens of all nations are
      - aa-jv 4y ago
        >democratic accountability is a myth Then your nation is a farce and you should be rioting. The fact you aren't is due to the decadence that the military-industrial complex provides. Too bad its dependent on the death of innocent people around the world. Or, just perhaps, you should hold yourselves accountable, and resist the anti-Wikileaks agitprop that is clearly coming from the very war criminals, themselves, in order to escape justice from public oversight. >Where have I claimed moral authority? Justifying American war crimes and crimes against humanity, whatabout-ma'-Russia, is a particular type of posturing designed to elevate the moral authority to commit those crimes over any other nation. The USA is not a moral nation, by any stretch of the imagination - it does not take care of its own people, even, and is murdering innocent people, on average, every twenty minutes .. If that is not the #1 priority for your political mind to address, then you do not have any moral authority to address the Russia situation.
throwawaythekey 4y ago
If the story is of public interest then it's fair game to run it regardless of the source (once verified)
OtomotO 4y ago
I imagine a world were this is confirmed truth and wonder: So what? As long as the published work is the truth, even if just "one side" of it, it's better than lies all the way down. Would it be better if we had leaks about every regime? Sure! Wouldn't it even be better if we had no regimes and no need for Wikileaks at all? Definitely! But "one-sided" truth is still (part of the greater) truth.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  The obvious answer is that you end up as a useful idiot for the United States's enemies. Yes, the Podesta leaks were probably largely true, but this one-sided airing of dirty laundry in the lead up to the 2016 election obvious impacted the result. So if you endorse this, aren't you just opening the door for every election cycle whereby the US's enemies get to wade in and strategically release information that they've obtained through espionage? And don't you also therefore, start to create a dynamic in the election that candidates have to attempt to appease foreign adversaries in order to avoid damaging their election hopes? What if Hilary had come out in February of 2016 and said "Hey, Putin's not so bad, he's got legitimate interests in Ukraine and I think we should leave Europe to stand on it's own" - do you think the campaign of leaking hacked material to wikileaks would've happened? Or do you think maybe Trump's tax returns might have come out instead?
  - o_1 4y ago
    Accountability is paramount. Where it came from is far less important.
  - OtomotO 4y ago
    I don't really care about the geopolitical aspect of this. I have no stakes in it so to speak. What I care about is the truth and the truth alone. And if it turns out both Trump and Clinton were bad candidates for the US maybe the US should finally change their voting system. I mean if it's that easy to topple an election in the most powerful country in the world, we should really make democracy more resilient
    - 4y ago
chaosbolt 4y ago
Yeah Assange was directly working with Russian intelligence, Trump was directly working with Russian intelligence, Elon Musk is directly working with Russian intelligence and Kanye West is also directly working with Russian intelligence. That's like seeing a weird shaped airplane and saying it's UFO's instead of the obvious explanation that a 3 year old can come up with: "maybe they just believe what they say and the corruption in the government is both real and bad".
- scrollaway 4y ago
  Give the parent credit (as the HN rules ask you to do): the poster said nothing about people who aren’t assange. Second, it’s possible to believe that statement and still follow Occam’s razor: if Assange says something convenient for Russia, it makes sense for Russia to offer its support. It also follows that over time, Russia could “convert” Assange. I never liked Assange, but someone with a similar story that I did like is Snowden. I am under no belief that he was a Russian spy “all along” as implied by many conspiracy theories, and I have a huge amount of respect for him (even now…). But it only takes a glance at his Twitter feed to realise that in his time being hosted by Russia (who likely just offered its help to someone convenient for them to help), the guy got turned. Propaganda is a hell of a drug. In other words, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Occam’s razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The simple explanation is that these people had no idea about each other, since identifying and coordinating that effort would be tantamount to a grand conspiracy theory; and I don't buy that people are so extremely competent as to have working apparatus to catch this. That it was politically convenient for Russia doesn't necessarily mean there was any collusion and I think it's odd to jump directly to that conclusion. There are lots of things that are politically convenient for Russia, like the way the wind is blowing in Ukraine right now. -- that does not mean the wind is colluding with Russia.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    > It also follows that over time, Russia could “convert” Assange. It does not. Do you truly not understand that people can be principled? Assange has a long history of anti war and anti establishment activism. He is dying in jail for his convictions as we speak. He was arrested within days of publishing evidence of war crimes, and hasn't been a free man since. And he knew exactly what he was getting into, too. If you think a man like that can be "turned" by extending a little sympathy and server space, well, it says a lot about what kind of person YOU are. And Snowden was prepared to sacrifice everything too, except that Assange, who Snowden didn't even trust at the time, set heaven and hell in motion to save his life and get him to Latin America. (The US preferred to strand him in Russia, which should tell you a lot about what they really feared.)
Timwi 4y ago
The correct response to this is more whistleblowing representing more diverse interests, not less.

Assange was directly working with Russian intelligence so let’s not pretend that they were somehow above politics.

by luma 4y ago

Assange was directly working with Russian intelligence so let’s not pretend that they were somehow above politics.

That is just a lie pushed by western intelligence agencies, popular because it deflects blame for a well-known electoral defeat. But I did not say they were above politics. On the contrary, they had very strong anti war, anti establishment politics, which they were credible about from their long public history as non-anonymous actors. (Which is also why we laugh at your unsubstantiated accusations that he worked for Putin.) DdoSecrets will never have that. God knows what they actually believe. They don't think it's important that you know, at least we know that.

aa-jv 4y ago

Utter lies. You have zero evidence of this. This nonsense narrative is merely designed to deflect from the very real, heinously evil, war crimes that Americans commit on the regular, every twenty minutes, for the last twenty years - for which there is a lot of evidence you Americans choose to ignore in the rush to maintain pride in yourselves...

EdwardDiego 4y ago
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
Americans, Frenchmen, Germans, Turks, Chinese, Bri'ish, Kenyans, Iranians... Pick any national origin, and you will see a fraction of them commit war crimes. So why focus on one nation, when those crimes are commited by individuals, and often ordered by entrenched unelected bureaucratic government interests? Why blame all Americans, all Chinese, for the crimes of a few of them? All Chinese didn't force Uighurs into organ harvesting camps. All Turks didn't genocide Armenians, All Americans don't commit war crimes every 20 minutes, although some gangs in Chicago come close if you loosen your definition of "war crimes".
- aa-jv 4y ago
  Americans are responsible for the crimes of their state. As are Russians responsible for the crimes of their state. Such is the nature of citizenship. Are you American? Then fix the crimes of your state. Are you not-Russian? You can do nothing about Russia for as long as you are unable to jail your own war criminals. The moral authority you claim is non-existent.
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    Americans* are literally extorted by their state, democratic accountability is a myth, as the bureaucracy remains, and the results are imposed even if you refuse to participate. Courts take years and decades, and do not judge against themselves. A more direct method of accountability, has, every time, been used to expand the surveillance state and the militarization of police. The only remaining effective option is to identify the source of the problem, and shift public opinion to recognize it; With further draconian measures, more people notice the corruption and overextension of the state, and with enough people alternate means of accountability become viable. Until then you're mushed crabs dispersing amongst the waves and cliffs. Where have I claimed moral authority? *all citizens of all nations are
    - aa-jv 4y ago
      >democratic accountability is a myth Then your nation is a farce and you should be rioting. The fact you aren't is due to the decadence that the military-industrial complex provides. Too bad its dependent on the death of innocent people around the world. Or, just perhaps, you should hold yourselves accountable, and resist the anti-Wikileaks agitprop that is clearly coming from the very war criminals, themselves, in order to escape justice from public oversight. >Where have I claimed moral authority? Justifying American war crimes and crimes against humanity, whatabout-ma'-Russia, is a particular type of posturing designed to elevate the moral authority to commit those crimes over any other nation. The USA is not a moral nation, by any stretch of the imagination - it does not take care of its own people, even, and is murdering innocent people, on average, every twenty minutes .. If that is not the #1 priority for your political mind to address, then you do not have any moral authority to address the Russia situation.

throwawaythekey 4y ago

If the story is of public interest then it's fair game to run it regardless of the source (once verified)

OtomotO 4y ago

I imagine a world were this is confirmed truth and wonder: So what? As long as the published work is the truth, even if just "one side" of it, it's better than lies all the way down. Would it be better if we had leaks about every regime? Sure! Wouldn't it even be better if we had no regimes and no need for Wikileaks at all? Definitely! But "one-sided" truth is still (part of the greater) truth.

SilverBirch 4y ago
The obvious answer is that you end up as a useful idiot for the United States's enemies. Yes, the Podesta leaks were probably largely true, but this one-sided airing of dirty laundry in the lead up to the 2016 election obvious impacted the result. So if you endorse this, aren't you just opening the door for every election cycle whereby the US's enemies get to wade in and strategically release information that they've obtained through espionage? And don't you also therefore, start to create a dynamic in the election that candidates have to attempt to appease foreign adversaries in order to avoid damaging their election hopes? What if Hilary had come out in February of 2016 and said "Hey, Putin's not so bad, he's got legitimate interests in Ukraine and I think we should leave Europe to stand on it's own" - do you think the campaign of leaking hacked material to wikileaks would've happened? Or do you think maybe Trump's tax returns might have come out instead?
- o_1 4y ago
  Accountability is paramount. Where it came from is far less important.
- OtomotO 4y ago
  I don't really care about the geopolitical aspect of this. I have no stakes in it so to speak. What I care about is the truth and the truth alone. And if it turns out both Trump and Clinton were bad candidates for the US maybe the US should finally change their voting system. I mean if it's that easy to topple an election in the most powerful country in the world, we should really make democracy more resilient
  - 4y ago

chaosbolt 4y ago

Yeah Assange was directly working with Russian intelligence, Trump was directly working with Russian intelligence, Elon Musk is directly working with Russian intelligence and Kanye West is also directly working with Russian intelligence. That's like seeing a weird shaped airplane and saying it's UFO's instead of the obvious explanation that a 3 year old can come up with: "maybe they just believe what they say and the corruption in the government is both real and bad".

scrollaway 4y ago
Give the parent credit (as the HN rules ask you to do): the poster said nothing about people who aren’t assange. Second, it’s possible to believe that statement and still follow Occam’s razor: if Assange says something convenient for Russia, it makes sense for Russia to offer its support. It also follows that over time, Russia could “convert” Assange. I never liked Assange, but someone with a similar story that I did like is Snowden. I am under no belief that he was a Russian spy “all along” as implied by many conspiracy theories, and I have a huge amount of respect for him (even now…). But it only takes a glance at his Twitter feed to realise that in his time being hosted by Russia (who likely just offered its help to someone convenient for them to help), the guy got turned. Propaganda is a hell of a drug. In other words, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
- dijit 4y ago
  Occam’s razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The simple explanation is that these people had no idea about each other, since identifying and coordinating that effort would be tantamount to a grand conspiracy theory; and I don't buy that people are so extremely competent as to have working apparatus to catch this. That it was politically convenient for Russia doesn't necessarily mean there was any collusion and I think it's odd to jump directly to that conclusion. There are lots of things that are politically convenient for Russia, like the way the wind is blowing in Ukraine right now. -- that does not mean the wind is colluding with Russia.
- vintermann 4y ago
  > It also follows that over time, Russia could “convert” Assange. It does not. Do you truly not understand that people can be principled? Assange has a long history of anti war and anti establishment activism. He is dying in jail for his convictions as we speak. He was arrested within days of publishing evidence of war crimes, and hasn't been a free man since. And he knew exactly what he was getting into, too. If you think a man like that can be "turned" by extending a little sympathy and server space, well, it says a lot about what kind of person YOU are. And Snowden was prepared to sacrifice everything too, except that Assange, who Snowden didn't even trust at the time, set heaven and hell in motion to save his life and get him to Latin America. (The US preferred to strand him in Russia, which should tell you a lot about what they really feared.)

Timwi 4y ago

The correct response to this is more whistleblowing representing more diverse interests, not less.