I honestly don't give a shit what happens to this guy. Not because I care about what he did to the US government, but because he just exposed himself as a hyper-partisan loon and destroyed whatever credibility he had, and along with it, wikileaks.
Oh wait I know this one; Russian bot Putin operative Hillary was robbed collusion collusion election interference.
If you have information no one else has that discredits the actual content of what Wikileaks publishes then the world would love to see it, but otherwise I'm not sure how you not liking the guy is relevant to...anything.
If something is wholly true, without editing or tampering, then it's true regardless of who publishes it or why they published it. Including that damning leak they published on Russia's surveillance program. But yeah man hyper-partisan exposed or whatever something something FSB FSB Podesta.
In order for Wikileaks to be trusted in the content they release, there must be no agenda. When you keep certain emails private and spread absurd conspiracies you know are false, you reveal yourself to have an agenda, which means you no longer have any credibility.
Or has Jochen Bittner said:
At times Mr. Assange seems to let his anti-West ideology take over completely. On the night of the Paris attacks last year, which left 130 people dead, @wikileaks tweeted: “At least 39 dead tonight in Paris terror attacks. 250k dead in Syria & Iraq. Both a direct result of US, UK, France feeding Sunni extremists.” Aside from being deeply offensive, this sort of language could easily undermine WikiLeaks’s central goal: It’s hardly the sort of rhetoric that would encourage patriotic Americans to blow the whistle on their government.
But then maybe that’s not Mr. Assange’s goal, anymore. In 2010, one of his closest partners, the German Daniel Domscheit-Berg, quit his work for WikiLeaks. One reason, he told Spiegel Online, was the “one-dimensional confrontation with the U.S.A.” that Mr. Assange had sought.
Sometimes the world need radicals, even radicals with aggressive egos, to root out evils. But those radicals require a balance. Mr. Assange has none. WikiLeaks, which is a great and noble idea, must be decoupled from its inventor, who is neither.
Saying "but the information is true" ignores the elephant in the room: Assange releases emails out of context to smear people and frame false narratives because he's partisan loon. He also keeps certain emails from being released because they make his allies look bad.
And as one of the Syrian hackers concluded:
A few days after discovering the Syrian–Russian bank emails, one of RevoluSec’s principal hackers—the others often sought this individual’s permission before making any drastic moves—offered up another idea: “It’d be so funny to change some details on these mails and send a hundred million to WikiLeaks,” they said. “I know in theory it shouldn’t work, but they’re so stupid about email.”
he tried to spread the Seth Rich conspiracy he knew was bullshit.
Why don't you explain that in any way that doesn't involve him being a hyper-partisan loon.
To be clear, I'm not saying Assange isn't a fucking weirdo, I'm saying it doesn't matter when the documents leaked are real. Which I said repeatedly.
Still, to my knowledge that lawsuit has gone nowhere since November, and whilst both Mueller and Seth's brother say he had nothing to do with it, I've not been able to find out why, but to be fair to them, it's hard to prove a negative I guess.
I don't know why Assange would offer $20,000 for information on his death -- maybe to protect the real source? Or you know, because he's crazy. Still wouldn't undo what's been leaked.
Again, I've not said Assange isn't a loon, just that wikileaks dumps info that so far has held up under incredibly intense scrutiny, and that their leaks cover far more than US politics -- let alone partisan right wing US politics.
Saying "but the information is true" ignores the elephant in the room: Assange releases emails out of context to smear people and frame false narratives because he's partisan loon
Have you even read Wikileaks releases? It's hard to argue they are released out of context when they are often huge dumps of documents. If anything, it can be hard to find context in the first place there's so much of them.
That said, again, not saying Assange himself isn't a cooped-up crazy asshole, but in my opinion it doesn't matter as long as their leaks contain accurate information. It's more transparency than we'd ever normally have, and unless you can be more specific about Wikileaks intentionally creating false information, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
“At least 39 dead tonight in Paris terror attacks. 250k dead in Syria & Iraq. Both a direct result of US, UK, France feeding Sunni extremists.” Aside from being deeply offensive, this sort of language could easily undermine WikiLeaks’s central goal: It’s hardly the sort of rhetoric that would encourage patriotic Americans to blow the whistle on their government.
Even the quote you provided just says "it's offensive and will upset patriotic Americans" -- that has nothing to do with whether the leaks are credible or not. Shit, that even includes my own country in there; not only is it a fair if crass statement, it in no way demonstrates to me that the leaks are falsified, or so heavily edited that they might as well be falsified. It's shitty to say it on the night of the attacks, but if your issue is "it makes muh 'Merica look bad" then...sure?
And as one of the Syrian hackers concluded
Really? One Syrian hacker says they're not credible, when most intelligence agencies in the West have a vested interest in debunking the leaks, but haven't.
This is just a stupid point. A discussion on whether Assange's hate boner compromises Wikileaks is a worthwhile discussion and I do see where you're coming from, but "this Syrian hacker said they're big stupid" makes it seem like you're reaching.
Let me put it this way, with someone else as an example; you could prove to me that Snowden was actually a psychotic NazBol that hated the West, beat his girlfriend and murdered hookers whilst snorting coke off their corpses and that still wouldn't affect whether his leaks on government surveillance were true or not, and his leaks were so extensive that arguing 'context' would seem disingenuous at best.
Even if it turned out that Snowden intentionally ignored how bad, say, China's surveillance was, and didn't leak anything on China, we would still have leaks on every other mass surveillance project, and someone else can do the leaking on China. It's still true information, regardless of how Snowden intended to use it.
I wrote all this shit on mobile, pizza. I kinda hate you right now. Stop weaponizing my tism.
To be clear, I'm not saying Assange isn't a fucking weirdo, I'm saying it doesn't matter when the documents leaked are real. Which I said repeatedly.
Still, to my knowledge that lawsuit has gone nowhere since November, and whilst both Mueller and Seth's brother say he had nothing to do with it, I've not been able to find out why, but to be fair to them, it's hard to prove a negative I guess.
I don't know why Assange would offer $20,000 for information on his death -- maybe to protect the real source? Or you know, because he's crazy. Still wouldn't undo what's been leaked.
Again, I've not said Assange isn't a loon, just that wikileaks dumps info that so far has held up under incredibly intense scrutiny, and that their leaks cover far more than US politics -- let alone partisan right wing US politics.
You're missing the point. If Assange has a political agenda (which he clearly does as shown by 2016) then wikileaks, with him in charge, can no longer be trusted. You're also ignoring the fact Wikileaks curates emails and decides what to release and what not to release, this process is fine if no bias exists - and bad if a bias does exist.
Have you even read Wikileaks releases? It's hard to argue they are released out of context when they are often huge dumps of documents. If anything, it can be hard to find context in the first place there's so much of them.
I have, here's the problem - most people don't, which Assange himself has admitted. This is why he posts misleading headlines, because he knows almost nobody will read the actual content of those emails.
A good example would be the 'Clinton wants to ring China with missiles" quote he posted, conveniently leaving out the context, which is that Clinton said she'd ring China with missile defenses if they didn't rein North Korea in.
The headline sounds worse than the reality.
Another example might be collateral murder, and Assange even admitted to editing the headlines to make them seem worse during a Colbert interview:
Really? One Syrian hacker says they're not credible, when most intelligence agencies in the West have a vested interest in debunking the leaks, but haven't.
I think you aren't following me. Those hackers are a wikileaks source. A wikileaks source said these things.
Even if it turned out that Snowden intentionally ignored how bad, say, China's surveillance was, and didn't leak anything on China, we would still have leaks on every other mass surveillance project, and someone else can do the leaking on China. It's still true information, regardless of how Snowden intended to use it.
You keep pushing this narrative that something can be factual without context. As I've shown above, it's easy to mislead by taking things out of context and writing misleading headlines, which wikileaks does, because wikileaks knows most people won't read the emails, but the headlines.
Yes, I believe that if true information is published with clear bias or ulterior motive, it is still true. More information can be found later, other sources with a competing bias can present further information, and so on.
Misleading context and false spin happen after the fact and, in my opinion, only matter in a vacuum. Wikileaks publish true information, then Assange spins it, whilst others spin back to correct course or further mislead. The information at its foundation is still true or false. If only Assange got to talk about it, I'd care more, but people correct him in turn. The leaks themselves have yet to be corrected.
Maybe we have a different idea on what credible means? Chomsky describes himself as a dissident, does that mean he's automatically not a credible source on US politics? I wouldn't say so, it just means you need to view any claims he makes with that bias in mind. Everyone has a bias, that doesn't mean they have to be lying.
For information to not have credibility to me it would need to be both falsified/heavily edited and would need to be inaccessible. Even if most people didn't read the Podesta emails, I still did, and we still can, so it's hard for me to seriously entertain issues with context beyond the fact that Assange is a loon with an agenda. We can critically examine the actual information, as people have, and the leaks seem to be entirely real, even if Assange uses them in bad faith. To me that means the information itself is credible. As long as we can do that Assange can't really change that, despite his best efforts. He can spin but he can't warp reality.
I really do get it, I just don't agree because Wikileaks doesn't exist in a vacuum, with a monopoly on sources. Everything on its own is incomplete, curated, and published with motive, but it can still be true or false.
To me it's the adversarial process that matters much more; when Assange is a piece of shit, people find out and prove it. I believe they'd have done the same with at least one of the leaks themselves, as the sources would simply find another publisher, or other organizations would leak competing information.
If anything, the fact that Assange gets called out but his information doesn't is in itself my point. If his curation was such a problem, his information would have been demonstrated false by scrutiny or leaks from elsewhere. It would only take one.
Manning for instance would have said that Wikileaks mislead the public, or another whistleblower would have provided further, clearly contradictory information that discredited Wikileaks. If Assange was curating as heavily as you think, it would make it very easy for other organisations and sources to ruin Wikileaks.
It happens in every other sphere of public discourse and it would happen here, as it has happened with Assange as a person over and over again.
I just can't agree with you, trusting a hyper-partisan loon to curate private data and release the full context is just not something I will ever do.
Even more so when the guy was proven to be saying shit like:
WikiLeaks, and particularly its founder Julian Assange, privately expressed opposition to
candidate Clinton well before the first release of stolen documents. In November 2015, Assange
wrote to other members and associates of WikiLeaks that “[w]e believe it would be much better
for GOP to win . . . Dems+Media+liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst
qualities. . . . With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities.,
dems+media+neoliberals will be mute. . . . She’s a bright, well connected, sadisitic sociopath.”
This reveals a deep and extreme bias, which is probably why they were so often releasing mundane emails out of context and timing them to damage Clinton.
On July 27, 2016, Unit 26165 targeted
PP
email accounts connected to candidate Clinton’s
personal office . Earlier that day, candidate Trump made public statements that
included the following: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails
that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”183 The “30,000
emails” were apparently a reference to emails described in media accounts as having been stored
on a personal server that candidate Clinton had used while serving as Secretary of State.
1
Within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement, GRU officers targeted for the first
time Clinton’s personal office. After candidate Trump’s remarks, Unit 26165 created and
PP
sent
malicious links targeting 15 email
PP
accounts at the domain including an email
account belonging to Clinton aide The investigation did not find evidence of earlier
GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain. It is unclear how the GRU was
able to identify these email accounts, which were not public.
Lol at believing that despite an intelligence goldmine being literally on newspaper front pages, Russia never tried to access them until asked to by trump.
I will admit that senseless killing is a “thing” for certain DC demographics and the killing is probably not related to the clintons. Still the list of people close to the clintons who met weird deaths is super high and there’s probably something to it , and the official explanation defies belief. After all, remember that the clintons are likely owed tons of favors by ghoulish people for their role in protecting an important CIA operation to run drugs guns and money out of Arkansas.
Lol at believing that despite an intelligence goldmine being literally on newspaper front pages, Russia never tried to access them until asked to by trump.
Do you have any reason or evidence to suggest the Mueller report and the underlying investigations are wrong?
Still the list of people close to the clintons who met weird deaths is super high and there’s probably something to it
The best part of this line is you probably actually believe this is a coherent argument. The Clinton's are one of the most well connected, powerful political families in America. At any given time there are likely many thousands of people in their orbit or connected to them in some way.
To put this into perspective for you and why your argument is incoherent:
What? You want me to disprove the Wikileaks dumps? Something that, to my knowledge, they have a perfect track record on?
Could you at least narrow it down to one leak, I'm just one r-slur after all, but thank you for believing in me. I'll try to do what the Clinton campaign couldn't I guess.
You're claiming that all of it is true and none of it was edited. How do you know that? Since the Russian intelligence services have a history of releasing forged documents for disinformation going back at least a century, the burden of proof is on you to show that they suddenly can be trusted now.
You're claiming that all of it is true and none of it was edited. How do you know that?
Because most governments in the Western world would benefit from shredding Wikileaks a new asshole and they've yet to demonstrate a single leak has been fabricated.
If even one document was faked that would be a huge win for Western governments. There's no way they haven't tried.
Russian intelligence services have a history of releasing forged documents
Dude just Google the Russian dump. Wikileaks even stressed that Russia were particularly bad when it comes to surveillance. If Wikileaks are pro Russia they have a funny way of showing it by singling them out and saying they're even worse than most other governments.
the burden of proof is on you to show that they suddenly can be trusted now.
Again, the idea that I can debunk these leaks when intelligence agencies can't is a pretty incredible demand, let alone that I can sneak into FSB headquarters for you. The only proof I have is that it would be international news and months of smug posting if someone had managed to prove wikileaks were publishing false documents.
If the leaks alleged false information, the West could readily prove that, even on small isolated incidents. Does that mean Russia is a fair, balanced source? God no, but it doesn't mean the leaks aren't true, even if they were leaked with ulterior motives.
To use your own example; how come Russia don't just fake new documents to discredit the leaks that make them look bad? It's a pointless discussion.
I've already responded way too much on this, I wrote a damned book report for pizza, I need to go do something else, even my spergery has limits.
Wikileaks even stressed that Russia were particularly bad when it comes to surveillance.
Good for them. There were several years where they were conspicuously silent about Russia despite it being obviously the biggest threat to privacy of any government in the world. And if you count Glen Greenwald, he's got about 20 years of silence about Russia.
If the leaks alleged false information, the West could readily prove that, even on small isolated incidents.
They can't. It's their word against the Russians.
how come Russia don't just fake new documents to discredit the leaks that make them look bad?
Because nobody would believe it and it would just attract more attention to it. The Russians know that they're not going to be loved by the West and they're not trying to be. They just want America to be hated more.
Arnie's maid found his juice closet. And that woman actually is ideal as someone to have kids with. Best piece of advice my great grandfather ever gave me was to marry a 6, and cheat with a 9.
52 comments
5 texanapocalypse33 2020-07-11
Lmao ur virgin ass can't even get a tinder match and this Chad is breeding in custody
2 ironicshitpostr 2020-07-11
Incels and imprisoned women
Tge govt knows what needs to happen next
3 Platycel 2020-07-11
This guy is having a stable family after like 6 years of not leaving his home, what's your excuse dramacels?
3 Redactor0 2020-07-11
So they were just... keepin' it real? 🤔
2 Skobtsov 2020-07-11
It was either that or Japanese cartoon girls...
2 KetchupStewedFries 2020-07-11
Keepin It Real with Julian
1 SnapshillBot 2020-07-11
womp womp
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-11
I honestly don't give a shit what happens to this guy. Not because I care about what he did to the US government, but because he just exposed himself as a hyper-partisan loon and destroyed whatever credibility he had, and along with it, wikileaks.
8 Crook_and_Crank 2020-07-11
Oh wait I know this one; Russian bot Putin operative Hillary was robbed collusion collusion election interference.
If you have information no one else has that discredits the actual content of what Wikileaks publishes then the world would love to see it, but otherwise I'm not sure how you not liking the guy is relevant to...anything.
If something is wholly true, without editing or tampering, then it's true regardless of who publishes it or why they published it. Including that damning leak they published on Russia's surveillance program. But yeah man hyper-partisan exposed or whatever something something FSB FSB Podesta.
7 professorshillphd 2020-07-11
No, more like he tried to spread the Seth Rich conspiracy he knew was bullshit.
Why don't you explain that in any way that doesn't involve him being a hyper-partisan loon.
There's also the fact wikileaks has been proven to narrative frame/keep certain emails private:
In order for Wikileaks to be trusted in the content they release, there must be no agenda. When you keep certain emails private and spread absurd conspiracies you know are false, you reveal yourself to have an agenda, which means you no longer have any credibility.
Or has Jochen Bittner said:
Saying "but the information is true" ignores the elephant in the room: Assange releases emails out of context to smear people and frame false narratives because he's partisan loon. He also keeps certain emails from being released because they make his allies look bad.
And as one of the Syrian hackers concluded:
5 Crook_and_Crank 2020-07-11
To be clear, I'm not saying Assange isn't a fucking weirdo, I'm saying it doesn't matter when the documents leaked are real. Which I said repeatedly.
Still, to my knowledge that lawsuit has gone nowhere since November, and whilst both Mueller and Seth's brother say he had nothing to do with it, I've not been able to find out why, but to be fair to them, it's hard to prove a negative I guess.
I don't know why Assange would offer $20,000 for information on his death -- maybe to protect the real source? Or you know, because he's crazy. Still wouldn't undo what's been leaked.
Again, I've not said Assange isn't a loon, just that wikileaks dumps info that so far has held up under incredibly intense scrutiny, and that their leaks cover far more than US politics -- let alone partisan right wing US politics.
Have you even read Wikileaks releases? It's hard to argue they are released out of context when they are often huge dumps of documents. If anything, it can be hard to find context in the first place there's so much of them.
That said, again, not saying Assange himself isn't a cooped-up crazy asshole, but in my opinion it doesn't matter as long as their leaks contain accurate information. It's more transparency than we'd ever normally have, and unless you can be more specific about Wikileaks intentionally creating false information, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Even the quote you provided just says "it's offensive and will upset patriotic Americans" -- that has nothing to do with whether the leaks are credible or not. Shit, that even includes my own country in there; not only is it a fair if crass statement, it in no way demonstrates to me that the leaks are falsified, or so heavily edited that they might as well be falsified. It's shitty to say it on the night of the attacks, but if your issue is "it makes muh 'Merica look bad" then...sure?
Really? One Syrian hacker says they're not credible, when most intelligence agencies in the West have a vested interest in debunking the leaks, but haven't.
This is just a stupid point. A discussion on whether Assange's hate boner compromises Wikileaks is a worthwhile discussion and I do see where you're coming from, but "this Syrian hacker said they're big stupid" makes it seem like you're reaching.
Let me put it this way, with someone else as an example; you could prove to me that Snowden was actually a psychotic NazBol that hated the West, beat his girlfriend and murdered hookers whilst snorting coke off their corpses and that still wouldn't affect whether his leaks on government surveillance were true or not, and his leaks were so extensive that arguing 'context' would seem disingenuous at best.
Even if it turned out that Snowden intentionally ignored how bad, say, China's surveillance was, and didn't leak anything on China, we would still have leaks on every other mass surveillance project, and someone else can do the leaking on China. It's still true information, regardless of how Snowden intended to use it.
I wrote all this shit on mobile, pizza. I kinda hate you right now. Stop weaponizing my tism.
1 [deleted] 2020-07-11
[removed]
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-11
You're missing the point. If Assange has a political agenda (which he clearly does as shown by 2016) then wikileaks, with him in charge, can no longer be trusted. You're also ignoring the fact Wikileaks curates emails and decides what to release and what not to release, this process is fine if no bias exists - and bad if a bias does exist.
I have, here's the problem - most people don't, which Assange himself has admitted. This is why he posts misleading headlines, because he knows almost nobody will read the actual content of those emails.
A good example would be the 'Clinton wants to ring China with missiles" quote he posted, conveniently leaving out the context, which is that Clinton said she'd ring China with missile defenses if they didn't rein North Korea in.
The headline sounds worse than the reality.
Another example might be collateral murder, and Assange even admitted to editing the headlines to make them seem worse during a Colbert interview:
He's an admitted propagandist.
I think you aren't following me. Those hackers are a wikileaks source. A wikileaks source said these things.
You keep pushing this narrative that something can be factual without context. As I've shown above, it's easy to mislead by taking things out of context and writing misleading headlines, which wikileaks does, because wikileaks knows most people won't read the emails, but the headlines.
3 Crook_and_Crank 2020-07-11
I feel like I made my stance clear on this;
Yes, I believe that if true information is published with clear bias or ulterior motive, it is still true. More information can be found later, other sources with a competing bias can present further information, and so on.
Misleading context and false spin happen after the fact and, in my opinion, only matter in a vacuum. Wikileaks publish true information, then Assange spins it, whilst others spin back to correct course or further mislead. The information at its foundation is still true or false. If only Assange got to talk about it, I'd care more, but people correct him in turn. The leaks themselves have yet to be corrected.
Maybe we have a different idea on what credible means? Chomsky describes himself as a dissident, does that mean he's automatically not a credible source on US politics? I wouldn't say so, it just means you need to view any claims he makes with that bias in mind. Everyone has a bias, that doesn't mean they have to be lying.
For information to not have credibility to me it would need to be both falsified/heavily edited and would need to be inaccessible. Even if most people didn't read the Podesta emails, I still did, and we still can, so it's hard for me to seriously entertain issues with context beyond the fact that Assange is a loon with an agenda. We can critically examine the actual information, as people have, and the leaks seem to be entirely real, even if Assange uses them in bad faith. To me that means the information itself is credible. As long as we can do that Assange can't really change that, despite his best efforts. He can spin but he can't warp reality.
3 professorshillphd 2020-07-11
You still aren't following me.
Assange curates the data he receives, that means he decides what to release.
That is what makes him not credible because he is dealing in private data. Someone with an extreme bias can not be trusted to curate private data.
Especially not when context can completely change the nature of a story.
3 Crook_and_Crank 2020-07-11
I really do get it, I just don't agree because Wikileaks doesn't exist in a vacuum, with a monopoly on sources. Everything on its own is incomplete, curated, and published with motive, but it can still be true or false.
To me it's the adversarial process that matters much more; when Assange is a piece of shit, people find out and prove it. I believe they'd have done the same with at least one of the leaks themselves, as the sources would simply find another publisher, or other organizations would leak competing information.
If anything, the fact that Assange gets called out but his information doesn't is in itself my point. If his curation was such a problem, his information would have been demonstrated false by scrutiny or leaks from elsewhere. It would only take one.
Manning for instance would have said that Wikileaks mislead the public, or another whistleblower would have provided further, clearly contradictory information that discredited Wikileaks. If Assange was curating as heavily as you think, it would make it very easy for other organisations and sources to ruin Wikileaks.
It happens in every other sphere of public discourse and it would happen here, as it has happened with Assange as a person over and over again.
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-11
I just can't agree with you, trusting a hyper-partisan loon to curate private data and release the full context is just not something I will ever do.
Even more so when the guy was proven to be saying shit like:
This reveals a deep and extreme bias, which is probably why they were so often releasing mundane emails out of context and timing them to damage Clinton.
1 [deleted] 2020-07-11
[removed]
1 [deleted] 2020-07-11
[removed]
1 lionstomper68 2020-07-11
How can we know this when as far as I know, we know nothing about the killer?
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-11
The Mueller report soundly refuted the Seth Rich conspiracy, even mentioned Assange spreading it.
Because we know Russia hacked the emails, we can conclude Seth Rich was not the source, meaning the entire conspiracy was baseless.
1
2 lionstomper68 2020-07-11
Lol at believing that despite an intelligence goldmine being literally on newspaper front pages, Russia never tried to access them until asked to by trump.
I will admit that senseless killing is a “thing” for certain DC demographics and the killing is probably not related to the clintons. Still the list of people close to the clintons who met weird deaths is super high and there’s probably something to it , and the official explanation defies belief. After all, remember that the clintons are likely owed tons of favors by ghoulish people for their role in protecting an important CIA operation to run drugs guns and money out of Arkansas.
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-11
Do you have any reason or evidence to suggest the Mueller report and the underlying investigations are wrong?
The best part of this line is you probably actually believe this is a coherent argument. The Clinton's are one of the most well connected, powerful political families in America. At any given time there are likely many thousands of people in their orbit or connected to them in some way.
To put this into perspective for you and why your argument is incoherent:
Statistically, they're likely to know many hundreds of people that die. There's nothing statistically unlikely here, nothing nefarious.
3 Canadapoli 2020-07-11
LOl he made you sperg out you fucking loser.
5 Crook_and_Crank 2020-07-11
Everything makes me sperg out bb
1 Redactor0 2020-07-11
He eats soup with his hands.
[citation needed]
3 DuckSosu 2020-07-11
What is he supposed to do? Levitate it into his mouth with his mind powers or something?
2 Platycel 2020-07-11
They have special agents stealing his spoons and he can't leave the building or he'll be arrested.
3 Crook_and_Crank 2020-07-11
What? You want me to disprove the Wikileaks dumps? Something that, to my knowledge, they have a perfect track record on?
Could you at least narrow it down to one leak, I'm just one r-slur after all, but thank you for believing in me. I'll try to do what the Clinton campaign couldn't I guess.
-1 Redactor0 2020-07-11
You're claiming that all of it is true and none of it was edited. How do you know that? Since the Russian intelligence services have a history of releasing forged documents for disinformation going back at least a century, the burden of proof is on you to show that they suddenly can be trusted now.
4 Crook_and_Crank 2020-07-11
Because most governments in the Western world would benefit from shredding Wikileaks a new asshole and they've yet to demonstrate a single leak has been fabricated.
If even one document was faked that would be a huge win for Western governments. There's no way they haven't tried.
Dude just Google the Russian dump. Wikileaks even stressed that Russia were particularly bad when it comes to surveillance. If Wikileaks are pro Russia they have a funny way of showing it by singling them out and saying they're even worse than most other governments.
Again, the idea that I can debunk these leaks when intelligence agencies can't is a pretty incredible demand, let alone that I can sneak into FSB headquarters for you. The only proof I have is that it would be international news and months of smug posting if someone had managed to prove wikileaks were publishing false documents.
If the leaks alleged false information, the West could readily prove that, even on small isolated incidents. Does that mean Russia is a fair, balanced source? God no, but it doesn't mean the leaks aren't true, even if they were leaked with ulterior motives.
To use your own example; how come Russia don't just fake new documents to discredit the leaks that make them look bad? It's a pointless discussion.
I've already responded way too much on this, I wrote a damned book report for pizza, I need to go do something else, even my spergery has limits.
-1 Redactor0 2020-07-11
Good for them. There were several years where they were conspicuously silent about Russia despite it being obviously the biggest threat to privacy of any government in the world. And if you count Glen Greenwald, he's got about 20 years of silence about Russia.
They can't. It's their word against the Russians.
Because nobody would believe it and it would just attract more attention to it. The Russians know that they're not going to be loved by the West and they're not trying to be. They just want America to be hated more.
2 DayyyTripper 2020-07-11
Nipponcels eternally BTFO
4 WhyAmILikeThis24 2020-07-11
Gonna cry?
1 chuck_portis 2020-07-11
This dude has declared war on domes
1 BoomersForYang2024 2020-07-11
I mean, what else are you gonna do???
7 whenweriiide 2020-07-11
Seriously lol
I am shocked, appalled, and alarmingly aroused.
3 Skobtsov 2020-07-11
Like what did they expect?
1 Chetnik-Chad 2020-07-11
Based
1 Osterion 2020-07-11
Lol, anyone remember the articles about how disgusting he was .what a dirty broad!
6 snallygaster 2020-07-11
sleeping with someone as repulsive as him is definitely veering into fetish territory 🤢🤢🤢🤮
2 hardon_of_fukkad 2020-07-11
jbw
1 MrRightIsWhite 2020-07-11
She probably makes Schwarzenegger's goblina housekeeper look like a solid 10 in comparison.
5 misu52 2020-07-11
She's no supermodel, but she's a million times better than Schwarzenegger's maid.
10 MrRightIsWhite 2020-07-11
Huh. That is rather shocking. Also, I never want to see Arnie's maid again 🤮
6 D_Legare 2020-07-11
Arnie's maid found his juice closet. And that woman actually is ideal as someone to have kids with. Best piece of advice my great grandfather ever gave me was to marry a 6, and cheat with a 9.
He died when I was 10. RIP.
7 Platycel 2020-07-11
He should have cheated with you
6 whenweriiide 2020-07-11
Wholesome r/drama 🤗🤗
3 Platycel 2020-07-11
No he said he was 10
3 D_Legare 2020-07-11
Between his last wife being 35 years younger and his dementia fueled ramblings, I think he did a fair amount.
2 whenweriiide 2020-07-11
First link is a little lumpy, but with a cute face. she's a new mom, so totally expected - shed the babyweight and I bet she's very attractive.
Second link is the queen of post-dwarf Moria. Or maybe pre goblin-Moria, tbh. woof.
2 superscout 2020-07-11
Honestly, she’s not that bad. If I was locked in an Ecuadorian embassy for six years I would have zero complaints