WikiLeaks: Discussion Thread

[TheVileOne]

How do you know for a fact he doesn't know for a fact Kyle? Considering your politics, you might just have confirmation bias.

 

[Kyle]

How do you know for a fact he doesn't know for a fact Kyle? Considering your politics, you might just have confirmation bias.

KGB trained or influenced operatives wouldn't reveal and say what their motivations are. Unless Assange got the information himself, he got it from a middle man who isn't bound to tell Assange the truth about why he's giving him the information unless Assange can read minds - the motives of said person can't be definitive. In my estimate he was used.

I don't know for a fact. But seeing as what those who worked for Assange, the FBI, CIA, and etc. have to say about him and the later for this case. It's one voice against many, I'm more apt to believe the many.

As said, to me Assange isn't a villain just fallible. He's human basically. No one can know for a fact what a middle man's motivations are unless there's a sworn confession.

 

[TheVileOne]

KGB trained or influenced operatives wouldn't reveal and say what their motivations are.

What does this even mean? You do know the KGB were dissolved over 25 years ago, right?

I don't know for a fact. But seeing as what those who worked for Assange, the FBI, CIA, and etc. have to say about him and the later for this case. It's one voice against many, I'm more apt to believe the many.

As said, to me Assange isn't a villain just fallible. He's human basically.

Why should we trust the CIA, when these are the ones getting exposed by Assange? Is the CIA suddenly a bastion for truth and justice?

Didn't a little while ago the FBI and James Comey do the same thing Wikileaks was accused of with the Clinton investigation and reopening it right before the election?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/us/politics/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-letter-feeds-partisan-exaggeration/92954986/

So who's fault is it now? Wikileaks or the FBI Kyle?

 

[Kyle]

Putin worked for the KGB. You are aware of that right? That Putin and those close to him have KGB know-how. They're smart. They're brilliant. They know how to create a believable middleman. To spy agencies that's simple.

As said - even Assange's employees have spoken out about his fallibilities - one of them that he wants attention and craves it, he's a good guy for leaking otherwise unknown information but the guy does have flaws. I see him as human and I see this as a very human mistake and he shouldn't be hanged for this. If Putin used a middle man, Assange would have no way of knowing. That doesn't make him guilty, just makes him fallible (which every human is) - especially this, we'd all fall for.

 

[TheVileOne]

Putin worked for the KGB. You are aware of that right? That Putin and those close to him have KGB know-how. They're smart. They're brilliant. They know how to create a believable middleman. To spy agencies that's simple.

As said - even Assange's employees have spoken out about his fallibilities - one of them that he wants attention and craves it, he's a good guy for leaking otherwise unknown information but the guy does have flaws. I see him as human and I see this as a very human mistake and he shouldn't be hanged for this. If Putin used a middle man, Assange would have no way of knowing. That doesn't make him guilty, just makes him fallible (which every human is) - especially this, we'd all fall for.

Hypothetically, if what you say is true. Why is that wrong?

 

[Kyle]

Hypothetically, if what you say is true. Why is that wrong?

Read what I'm saying, I'm not saying he's a villain or evil. I'm saying he's human. I have more sympathy for him than anger over doing this. In this scenario, the guy was used. I used to see him as infallible, now I view him as human.

 

[TheVileOne]

Read what I'm saying, I'm not saying he's a villain or evil. I'm saying he's human. I have more sympathy for him than anger over doing this. In this scenario, the guy was used. I used to see him as infallible, now I view him as human.

OK, you believe he was used by Russia. So even if Russia was involved, why is that wrong?

 

[Kyle]

OK, you believe he was used by Russia. So even if Russia was involved, why is that wrong?

Why is what wrong?

All I'm saying is him stating as though he knows for a fact "the person who gave me this information was not motivated by Putin" is wrong. There is no way in knowing the motivations of a middle man unless you did it yourself or you can read minds. That's the only thing that is wrong, since if it was a middle man and he can't read minds it's impossible to know for sure the motivations of a second party. What their stated motivations are doesn't need to be the truth, just the truth they want you to believe.

I'd go as far to say, unsure of relations, if Assange is running into trouble with Putin it might even have been an intended double edged sword smear campaign.

 

[TheVileOne]

Why is what wrong?

All I'm saying is him stating as though he knows for a fact "the person who gave me this information was not motivated by Putin" is wrong. There is no way in knowing the motivations of a middle man unless you did it yourself or you can read minds. That's the only thing that is wrong, since if it was a middle man and he can't read minds it's impossible to know for sure the motivations of a second party. What their stated motivations are doesn't need to be the truth, just the truth they want you to believe.

I'd go as far to say, unsure of relations, if Assange is running into trouble with Putin it might even have been an intended double edged sword smear campaign.

Do you have any proof it is wrong beyond your own opinion though?

Consider that FBI was recently accused of making political decisions to tamper with the election with the Clinton investigations.

 

[Kyle]

Let me put it this easy way, can you know for a fact what the motivations of a middle man are if you can't read people's minds?

 

[TheVileOne]

Let me put it this easy way, can you know for a fact what the motivations of a middle man are if you can't read people's minds?

[YT]I2V1Z64DggA[/YT]

Nope. Which means you can't know either. You are the one making the accusations.

 

[Kyle]

[YT]I2V1Z64DggA[/YT]

Nope. Which means you can't know either. You are the one making the accusations.

Exactly. So if Assange didn't do it, which if that was the case he'd know as a fact what the motives are since there wouldn't be a middle man. It's impossible for him to know for a fact what the motivations of the middle man. If he did it, then it's a fact. If not, mere speculation.

 

[TheVileOne]

Exactly. So if Assange didn't do it, which if that was the case he'd know as a fact what the motives are since there wouldn't be a middle man. It's impossible for him to know for a fact what the motivations of the middle man. If he did it, then it's a fact. If not, mere speculation.

Then it's just as easily possible his motivations might not even be for Russia and Putin at all. Maybe one of his sources was the Clinton staffer who got murdered.

http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084

 

[Kyle]

Then it's just as easily possible his motivations might not even be for Russia and Putin at all.

That is possible. That's not what's wrong. It's coming forward and saying "nope, who gave me this was not motivated by Putin." Unless he did it himself, there is no way he knows that 100% to be the case. No one would without mind reading powers. Could he have looked the person up? Yes, but we're also talking about the KGB - there are many ways to covering one's tracks including creating not real people. If you don't know something for sure, don't state like you know for sure. The report didn't even blame him nor are the officials the only thing being said is the basic "It's impossible to know as a fact the motives of a middle man" which unless you can read minds (or did it) - it is impossible to know what someone else is thinking.

 

[TheVileOne]

That is possible. That's not what's wrong. It's coming forward and saying "nope, who gave me this was not motivated by Putin." Unless he did it himself, there is no way he knows that 100% to be the case. No one would without mind reading powers. Could he have looked the person up? Yes, but we're also talking about the KGB - there are many ways to covering one's tracks including creating not real people. If you don't know something for sure, don't state like you know for sure. The report didn't even blame him nor are the officials the only thing being said is the basic "It's impossible to know as a fact the motives of a middle man" which unless you can read minds (or did it) - it is impossible.

You're talking about the KGB like they still exist man. KGB is over. You make it sound like KGB is still in business and training a legion of Natasha Romanoff Black Widow spys in the Red Room.

[YT]rxvTQXn3A0s[/YT]

 

[Kyle]

As said you do know PUTIN and those close to him are ex KGB right? Putin, at the very least, has KGB training and know how. It may be closed down, that doesn't erase his training.

 

[TheVileOne]

As said you do know PUTIN and those close to him are ex KGB right? Putin, at the very least, has KGB training and know how. It may be closed down, that doesn't erase his training.

What is your point man? Like beyond Assange is flawed and doesn't know blah blah, what is your general problem here?

 

[Kyle]

What is your point man? Like beyond Assange is flawed and doesn't know blah blah, what is your general problem here?

I already said this countless times and this is the last time I say it.

I see it as wrong coming forward basically saying "the middle man was not motivated by Putin" as though it is a fact. If he didn't do it, there is no fact since he can't read minds. Personally, I would have just released the information without trying to jump into the spotlight. There's a difference between stating one believes a middle man didn't come from such and such and saying as a fact it didn't come from such and such. If one can't read the minds of others it's impossible to know the motives of others as a fact. Last time I state it cause this circle is wearing me down.

 

[TheVileOne]

Maybe he knows more than you do. He is the founder of Wikileaks.

 

[Kyle]

Maybe he knows more than you do. He is the founder of Wikileaks.

He knows more but nobody can read minds. Only way he'd know as a fact is if he got the info himself. Otherwise it's reading other people's minds.

Even if he traced it, he'd be up against KGB trained operatives who could have done many things to cover their tracks. Putin could make it look like anybody and even if it came from in-state there's such things as Russian moles, Robert Hanssen being the most famous example (so that as well couldn't be taken for granted as being a fact of not having ties to Putin). Then the question becomes, how much knowledge does Assange personally have in governmental espionage versus those that he's up against in tracking it down. Does he know for a fact he didn't follow the bread crumbs, if he traced it, that Putin had left for him to follow?

 

[TheVileOne]

Honestly, I don't really care if his sources had KGB training, which stopped over 25 years ago, or not.

 

[Kyle]

Honestly, I don't really care if his sources had KGB training, which stopped over 25 years ago, or not.

So you don't care that the middle man could have played him like a puppet for Putin? And now he's claiming for a fact that it wasn't Putin (but how could he know for a fact if he didn't do it himself?) It is Assange vs those trained by the KGB. And Putin? The guy's smart, you don't get to where he is by not being brilliant - the KGB training played and plays a large role in the power he has. The most blatant example is people disappearing left and right and no one can track it down.

As said, in this area it was much better to just stay out of it or just say he doesn't believe Russia was behind it.

 

[TheVileOne]

So you don't care that the middle man could have played him like a puppet for Putin? And now he's claiming for a fact that it wasn't Putin (but how could he know for a fact if he didn't do it himself?) It is Assange vs those trained by the KGB. And Putin? The guy's smart, you don't get to where he is by not being brilliant.

As said, in this area it was much better to just stay out of it or just say he doesn't believe Russia was behind it.

Nope. You can believe what you want. You can trust who you want. You are entitled to that.

 

[Kyle]

Nope. You can believe what you want. You can trust who you want. You are entitled to that.

You asked what I'm saying is wrong, to me it's that simple. I can understand why Assange would say it, from that perspective once again he's human it'd be defense pure and simple. But if this is case I don't think he needed to be defensive since no one is saying he had a role outside of releasing it, the guy is innocent.

My main questions at this point are, if Putin:
1) Did he choose Assange because he cares more about coverage than info? (as his employees state, that personality flaw would make him an ideal target to leak it - that doesn't make him evil, just human we're all flawed)
2) Does Putin have something against Assange and is trying to change how people view him? I'm unsure about Russia and Assange relations, but that could be trouble. If there is conflict there, if I was Assange I'd be very careful since Putin may have just tried to kill two birds with one stone.
3) Just wikileaks, nothing else to it.

 

[TheVileOne]

If he believes it, which you clearly don't, and if he wants to respond to the accusations, he's more than welcome to do so.