Free Assange

[Rubashov]

How does the source of the information change the substance of the allegations? Do i give a **** if the Rusaians are behind exposing my governments criminality? Not in the slightest.

To use the whorey old line dragged out every time they impose another draconian law limiting personal and press freedom. If our governments had done nothing wrong they'd have nothing to fear. The real difference is that unlike the rest of us these people have committed crimes and atrocities and will never face consequences for them.

Im not a fan of the Russians but are they substantially worse than the US? Ask the Kurds.

 

[Rubashov]

So honest question. Why are people like @Jazzta and @Eenie-Meenie so susceptible to Russian disinformation? Like what’s the attraction to figures like Assange? What’s the draw of reading deeply into the disinformation campaigns that RT and WikiLeaks spin?

They’re clearly not alone.

Are they finding a community in these counter culture propaganda sites and the online forums they produce?

Is it feeding some need to rebel or go against the grain of mainstream news sources?

Does it make them feel smarter?

I just don’t get it. I’ve watched RT from time to time. It’s unbearably dumb and ridiculously biased. I find its propaganda and spin to be interesting in much the same way I find Tucker’s White Nationalist Hour. It’s more shocking that educational. Shocking in that the hosts and producers think so little of their audience that they put such fact free **** on the air while their viewers slurp it up as doctrine.

Is it disinformation? The overwhelming majority of the allegations released by wikileaks and various newspapers are true. Assange isn't being charged with lying he's being charged with espionage.

At the moment Australian journalists and newsrooms are being investigated and homes raided because they dared to break a story on war crimes committed by Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan. Will the government ever get a conviction? Almost certainly not but that is not the goal, they are trying to intimidated the press into silence. Idiots are trying to make this about a bill of rights, the reality is that a bunch of these antiterrorism laws are likely unconstitutional, who wants to go to the high court to find out tho?

 

[Getting Traded]

Read. The. Report.

View attachment 8410

Wikileaks always claims to take pride in never publishing anything "false." This **** is false. The implication that the Democrats murdered a staffer in cold blood is a lie.

Assange is not a journalist.

You sure you trust your sources? In an interview with Dutch TV shortly after the Rich murder which is or was available online, he strongly suggested Rich was the source. But there have been others associated with Wikileaks who actually identified Rich as the source. Not a journalist -- the greatest journalist of our time because he has given up his life to tell the truth, defying the most powerful nation in the world. Not many journalists like him.

 

[Getting Traded]

So honest question. Why are people like @Jazzta and @Eenie-Meenie so susceptible to Russian disinformation? Like what’s the attraction to figures like Assange? What’s the draw of reading deeply into the disinformation campaigns that RT and WikiLeaks spin?

They’re clearly not alone.

Are they finding a community in these counter culture propaganda sites and the online forums they produce? And you know, Redacted Tonight, is a satire, so it's meant to be humorous but it is more truthful than anything you will find on MSM.

Is it feeding some need to rebel or go against the grain of mainstream news sources?

Does it make them feel smarter?

I just don’t get it. I’ve watched RT from time to time. It’s unbearably dumb and ridiculously biased. I find its propaganda and spin to be interesting in much the same way I find Tucker’s White Nationalist Hour. It’s more shocking that educational. Shocking in that the hosts and producers think so little of their audience that they put such fact free **** on the air while their viewers slurp it up as doctrine.

Why are you susceptible to the disinformation that has been going on in the U.S. since 1963? You know, you need to cite exactly what is so unbearably dumb and ridiculously biased, so I can rebut your butt.

 

[Getting Traded]

Are you kidding? It says that they are clearly interested in dunking on the US in any way they can. If you can’t acknowledge that the Russian government is a festering pile of autocratic **** then you should do everyone a favor and not speak.

I am generally supportive of Snowden, but absolutely not of Assange or Russia.

You know who was responsible for gaining asylum for Snowden, don't you? Assange. Yes, Wikileaks was clearly interested in exposing the corruption of Clinton in the 2016 election, but let's face it, the U.S. government has been totally corrupted since 1963 when a couple detat occurred. The best President we've had since then was Carter, who did try to implement some positive reforms like the shift away from fossil fuel energy and demilitarizing economy, but the recession killed his Presidency and the right wingers took over and we got Reagan and the conservatives haven't looked back. Both Clinton and Obama were centrists who went along with the Deep State.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Is it disinformation? The overwhelming majority of the allegations released by wikileaks and various newspapers are true. Assange isn't being charged with lying he's being charged with espionage.

At the moment Australian journalists and newsrooms are being investigated and homes raided because they dared to break a story on war crimes committed by Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan. Will the government ever get a conviction? Almost certainly not but that is not the goal, they are trying to intimidated the press into silence. Idiots are trying to make this about a bill of rights, the reality is that a bunch of these antiterrorism laws are likely unconstitutional, who wants to go to the high court to find out tho?

Yes, it’s disinformation when you’re using stolen or hacked information to hurt western democracy, fuel conspiracies (like Seth rich), and lie in order to defend Russian authoritarianism. Do you call that... Journalism?

 

[Deleted member 365]

Why are you susceptible to the disinformation that has been going on in the U.S. since 1963? You know, you need to cite exactly what is so unbearably dumb and ridiculously biased, so I can rebut your butt.

You just had your *** handed to you by sirkickyass in post 21. And you want to talk about credibility?

 

[Getting Traded]

Yes, it’s disinformation when you’re using stolen or hacked information to hurt western democracy, fuel conspiracies (like Seth rich), and lie in order to defend Russian authoritarianism. Do you call that... Journalism?

It's not disinformation; it's the truth. What do you call the two Iraq wars but the result of authoritarianism. What do you call 70 years of CIA covert operations? Authoritarianism. What do you call the assassination of a democratically-elected President -- Fugging tyranny!

You call the Manning video disinformation? Sirkicky, my butt. He has nothing to support his allegations, nothing.

 

[Miggs]

You know that joke you used when you were younger, and said, “What? Did you hit your head when you were a child?” Yeah, @Eenie-Meenie had to have heard that a few dozen times.

 

[Deleted member 365]

You sure you trust your sources? In an interview with Dutch TV shortly after the Rich murder which is or was available online, he strongly suggested Rich was the source. But there have been others associated with Wikileaks who actually identified Rich as the source. Not a journalist -- the greatest journalist of our time because he has given up his life to tell the truth, defying the most powerful nation in the world. Not many journalists like him.

Yes, I listened to Yahoo’s Conspiracyland podcast about this, you could learn something. The Dutch TV Interviewer was shocked by Assange spewing such rhetoric on his show. In fact, he felt bad because he felt like he was being used by Assange to promote disinformation. So clearly, this interviewer didn’t feel confident about Rich being Assange’s source. So why did you bring this up? You think this... builds your case?

Not only is there zero evidence to support that Rich was Assange’s source, there’s plenty of evidence to show that the hacked emails came from Russian attackers. These teams in Russian intelligence were called Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. We don’t need to speculate. Like we know it was them due to tactics and malware that Russian intelligence uses.

For those who want to learn about Russian intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_Bear

for those wanting to learn about the Seth Rich story (I don’t have the time to debunk all the crap Ernie has in his head):

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-th...acy-a-yahoo-news-investigation-100000831.html

And of course there’s the Mueller report that dunks on Eenie too. I could tell you which pages to look up on the Mueller report but I see kicky already posted a page and it hasn’t stopped these imbeciles from posting their garbage.

 

[Jazzta]

Someone’s hit a nerve here.

 

[Rubashov]

Yes, it’s disinformation when you’re using stolen or hacked information to hurt western democracy, fuel conspiracies (like Seth rich), and lie in order to defend Russian authoritarianism. Do you call that... Journalism?

The truth is the truth. You surprise me by being so wedded to your failing institutions.