'It's time': Edward Snowden just issued a cryptic message on Twitter
168 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sableye;50825964]its kind of a joke that he's still going to be prosecuted for espionage at this point. What he did 100% fits the definition of whistleblowing and has dramatically changed the course of dialogue in the US and around the world for that matter. He should be pardoned, welcomed home and given an apology from the state department, baring that at least pardon him[/QUOTE]
No, there is a difference between whistleblowing and illegally leaking information, at least legally there is a big difference.
[QUOTE=geel9;50839042]Eh, not really. If he mysteriously goes missing, everyone will know the government did it, without the government having to admit they did it.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you're right. There's no arguing with the circular logic of conspiracy theorists.
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B]
[I]"Why? He's already blown his wad. What would killing him now accomplish?"[/I]
[B]"It would send a message!"[/B]
[I]"So the government is going going to let people know they killed him?"[/I]
[B]"No, they'll do it in secret."[/B]
[I]"But then they're not sending a message. If his death just looks like an accident, then there's no reason to think the government is behind it. Some guy having a car accident doesn't send a message. That happens thousands of times per day."[/I]
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B]
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50839265]No, there is a difference between whistleblowing and illegally leaking information, at least legally there is a big difference.[/QUOTE]
Whistleblowing didn't work and some people before Snowden ended up being fucked.
If the people you work for are fucked up, sorry not sorry.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50839307]Sorry, you're right. There's no arguing with the circular logic of conspiracy theorists.[/QUOTE]That's a dick thing to say BDA, geel9 isn't some nutbar and is actually on to something if you took five minutes to listen. Snowden is wanted by the government for his high profile release of secrets that detail them doing something wrong, so is it really so hard to believe that if he died people would suspect the big, massive superpower of being behind it? I don't, those dots aren't very far apart.
[editline]6th August 2016[/editline]
I don't even see why somebody has to be a ~conspiracy theorist~ to guess that yeah, maybe the government did kill the guy if he just suddenly wound up dead. I think a [I]lot[/I] of regular, normal people would say that.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50835106]Um
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kmLw95i.png[/IMG]
posted that then deleted it.
[url]https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/761641490246283264[/url][/QUOTE]
Some people are concerned that this was his dead man switch.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50839265]No, there is a difference between whistleblowing and illegally leaking information, at least legally there is a big difference.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50826448]Give [url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers]this[/url] article a read. It explains exactly why not utilizing those protections was his only option if he wanted anything to happen other than losing his job.[/QUOTE]
What he did was actually whistleblowing regardless of legality since going through the proper channels would accomplish nothing other than ruining his career, as stated in my quote.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50839307]Sorry, you're right. There's no arguing with the circular logic of conspiracy theorists.
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B]
[I]"Why? He's already blown his wad. What would killing him now accomplish?"[/I]
[B]"It would send a message!"[/B]
[I]"So the government is going going to let people know they killed him?"[/I]
[B]"No, they'll do it in secret."[/B]
[I]"But then they're not sending a message. If his death just looks like an accident, then there's no reason to think the government is behind it. Some guy having a car accident doesn't send a message. That happens thousands of times per day."[/I]
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B][/QUOTE]
Killing him to send a message in a way that isn't legally traceable to them. It's done by the mafia in real life, everyone "knows" it was them but they can't actually be arrested for it because there isn't enough evidence.
It's not [I]that[/I] much of a stretch.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50839307]Sorry, you're right. There's no arguing with the circular logic of conspiracy theorists.
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B]
[I]"Why? He's already blown his wad. What would killing him now accomplish?"[/I]
[B]"It would send a message!"[/B]
[I]"So the government is going going to let people know they killed him?"[/I]
[B]"No, they'll do it in secret."[/B]
[I]"But then they're not sending a message. If his death just looks like an accident, then there's no reason to think the government is behind it. Some guy having a car accident doesn't send a message. That happens thousands of times per day."[/I]
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B][/QUOTE]
I used to respect you, BDA, but you're kind of a pretentious prick. You know exactly what I meant and how I meant it, and if you didn't, I'm concerned for your mental state.
It's not a big stretch to say that [b]if Edward Snowden goes missing, people will assume that the government did it[/b] and [b]because people assume the government did it, potential whistleblowers will also assume the government did it[/b] (because they're also people; keep up now), and [b]if they do it correctly, or if they didn't do it themselves at all, there's no evidence that the government did it.[/b] Therefore, they can [b]send a message without being tied to the message.[/b]
Whoah!
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50839307]Sorry, you're right."[/B][/QUOTE]
BDA, the Russians poisoned a dude of their own in the UK years after he betrayed them.
Remember the Hungarians poisoning the journalist with that super powerful poison?
Assassinations as retribution/message happen everyday. Come on, you just can't dismiss the notion that some parts of the government would like him to be dead.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50838974]That only really works if the government officially announces it as an assassination though. If the guy just goes missing or has a death that looks accidental or natural, then the warning is lost because there's nothing to indicate that he was intentionally killed for his role in the leaks. If the message you're trying to send is, "don't do what he did, or this will be you," then there will need to be indisputable evidence that the reason he died was because of what he did, else you haven't accomplished anything by killing him.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko[/url]
I don't really know anything about this outside of what's on this page, but this example of intentional radiation poisoning comes to mind. Here's his statement to Putin:
[quote]…this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition. You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women. You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.[/quote]
I don't think anything has to be explicitly said so long as the word gets around to the people who understand the severity of what's happening. It's actually a bonus if normal people don't take notice - all that matters are the potential whistleblowers who are on the fence and get the idea that they'll face the same fate.
[QUOTE=rilez;50839340]Some people are concerned that this was his dead man switch.[/QUOTE]
addendum to this, greenwald says he's fine:
[media]https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/761995125824360448[/media]
[QUOTE=geel9;50839502]I used to respect you, BDA, but you're kind of a pretentious prick. You know exactly what I meant and how I meant it, and if you didn't, I'm concerned for your mental state.[/QUOTE]
This is BDAs bread and butter. He purposely misrepresents other positions. It's a pain. This isnt the first time he's done it, and it won't be the last.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50839307]Sorry, you're right. There's no arguing with the circular logic of conspiracy theorists.
[/QUOTE]
Is this the thing you're going to do in every thread now? Refuse to listen to anyones argument and put words in their mouth? Then follow that up with some label in some attempt to devalue them and everything they say?
Dude, come on.
[editline]6th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=DuCT;50841626]This is BDAs bread and butter. He purposely misrepresents other positions. It's a pain. This isnt the first time he's done it, and it won't be the last.[/QUOTE]
Ive personally seen him do it in two other threads where people very clearly and concisely explained their positions on the subject AND why they thought that and he still pulled that shit. Its infuriating.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50841631]
Ive personally seen him do it in two other threads where people very clearly and concisely explained their positions on the subject AND why they thought that and he still pulled that shit. Its infuriating.[/QUOTE]
Eh, he's not the only one that does it...
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50841728]Eh, he's not the only one that does it...[/QUOTE]
True enough but he stands out because he's in many of those threads and consistently refuses to listen.
[editline]6th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=rilez;50841609]addendum to this, greenwald says he's fine:
[media]https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/761995125824360448[/media][/QUOTE]
Yeah i heard those rumors earlier. Good to see he didnt suffer a sudden heart attack while driving near a cliff.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50841728]Eh, he's not the only one that does it...[/QUOTE]
He's not. But that doesn't excuse him.
And him being mod doesn't help either.
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;50833155]Assuming he's given a fair trial with a jury, it'd be completely out of the governments hands. They're the perpetual bad guy in this story.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately he'd probably lose with a jury: [url]http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowden-unpopular-at-home-a-hero-abroad-poll-finds[/url]
Americans have drank the kool-aid that he is a traitor spy, most people have no understanding or appreciation for what he did.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50839307]Sorry, you're right. There's no arguing with the circular logic of conspiracy theorists.
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B]
[I]"Why? He's already blown his wad. What would killing him now accomplish?"[/I]
[B]"It would send a message!"[/B]
[I]"So the government is going going to let people know they killed him?"[/I]
[B]"No, they'll do it in secret."[/B]
[u][I]"But then they're not sending a message. If his death just looks like an accident, then there's no reason to think the government is behind it. Some guy having a car accident doesn't send a message. That happens thousands of times per day."[/I][/u]
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B][/QUOTE]
This is the part where your ridiculously condescending yet naive post falls apart. If he dies under circumstances that are even remotely suspicious, even of natural causes, people will speculate and some will assume some degree of foul play. You're being silly if you think the government has to literally announce their assassination of a political dissident to get the point across. People will get the message regardless of whether or not it's actually being sent.
[QUOTE=srobins;50841797]Unfortunately he'd probably lose with a jury: [url]http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowden-unpopular-at-home-a-hero-abroad-poll-finds[/url]
Americans have drank the kool-aid that he is a traitor spy, most people have no understanding or appreciation for what he did.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
This is the part where your ridiculously condescending yet naive post falls apart. If he dies under circumstances that are even remotely suspicious, even of natural causes, people will speculate and some will assume some degree of foul play. You're being silly if you think the government has to literally announce their assassination of a political dissident to get the point across. People will get the message regardless of whether or not it's actually being sent.[/QUOTE]
I would hope that his defense would be able to properly educate the jury on what exactly the NSA was doing and why what he did was important.
[QUOTE=srobins;50841797]Unfortunately he'd probably lose with a jury: [url]http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowden-unpopular-at-home-a-hero-abroad-poll-finds[/url]
[/QUOTE]
God that's depressing
That people unironically think Snowden wouldn't be sleeping with the fishes even if he was pardoned and return home speaks volumes about the current self awareness of most U.S. citizens.
I also agree that the dramatics aren't needed, but I guess timing and theatrics has it's use if he has an end goal in mind.
[QUOTE=DuCT;50841626]This is BDAs bread and butter. He purposely misrepresents other positions. It's a pain. This isnt the first time he's done it, and it won't be the last.[/QUOTE]
i only seen him do this a handful of times, usually his responses to threads are very well thought out. though he is often sarcastic
that being said,could this be the hash key to something?
who's got the rainbow table for government secrets?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50839307]Sorry, you're right. There's no arguing with the circular logic of conspiracy theorists.
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B]
[I]"Why? He's already blown his wad. What would killing him now accomplish?"[/I]
[B]"It would send a message!"[/B]
[I]"So the government is going going to let people know they killed him?"[/I]
[B]"No, they'll do it in secret."[/B]
[I]"But then they're not sending a message. If his death just looks like an accident, then there's no reason to think the government is behind it. Some guy having a car accident doesn't send a message. That happens thousands of times per day."[/I]
[B]"The government is going to kill Edward Snowden."[/B][/QUOTE]
Damn I didn't realize it was just a conspiracy
Someone should tell Snowden so he knows it's safe to come home
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50843524]Damn I didn't realize it was just a conspiracy
Someone should tell Snowden so he knows it's safe to come home[/QUOTE]
Poor guy, all this time and he never knew!
[QUOTE=srobins;50841797]Unfortunately he'd probably lose with a jury: [url]http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowden-unpopular-at-home-a-hero-abroad-poll-finds[/url]
Americans have drank the kool-aid that he is a traitor spy, most people have no understanding or appreciation for what he did.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
This is the part where your ridiculously condescending yet naive post falls apart. If he dies under circumstances that are even remotely suspicious, [B]even of natural causes[/B], people will speculate and some will assume some degree of foul play. You're being silly if you think the government has to literally announce their assassination of a political dissident to get the point across. People will get the message regardless of whether or not it's actually being sent.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do. No matter what, if anything bad ever happens to Snowden, conspiracy nutters will blame the government There's no arguing with the logic of conspiracy theorists because they automatically look for extravagant explanations for simple situations in order to twist them to fit their worldview.
Edward Snowden dies in a car crash? Doesn't matter that 3000 people a day die in car crashes. It was the government.
Edward Snowden gets cancer? I wonder which agent was slipping him the poisons that gave it to him?
Edward Snowden trips walking down the stairs and breaks his neck? Hillary pushed him!
Edward Snowden writes a suicide note and shoots himself in the head? Set up! Somebody else forced him to pull the trigger!
So, again, what point is there in the government doing [B]anything[/B] to him, assuming they do decide to pardon him and allow him back into the country? They don't need to "send a message" when people are already scanning tea leaves looking for one.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50843739]Yeah, this is what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do. No matter what, if anything bad ever happens to Snowden, conspiracy nutters will blame the government There's no arguing with the logic of conspiracy theorists because they automatically look for extravagant explanations for simple situations in order to twist them to fit their worldview.
Edward Snowden dies in a car crash? Doesn't matter that 3000 people a day die in car crashes. It was the government.
Edward Snowden gets cancer? I wonder which agent was slipping him the poisons that gave it to him?
Edward Snowden trips walking down the stairs and breaks his neck? Hillary pushed him!
Edward Snowden writes a suicide note and shoots himself in the head? Set up! Somebody else forced him to pull the trigger!
So, again, what point is there in the government doing [B]anything[/B] to him, assuming they do decide to pardon him and allow him back into the country? They don't need to "send a message" when people are already scanning tea leaves looking for one.[/QUOTE]
No one is saying that Snowden can only be killed by the government, but the government has quite the probable cause to do so
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50843739]Yeah, this is what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do. No matter what, if anything bad ever happens to Snowden, conspiracy nutters will blame the government There's no arguing with the logic of conspiracy theorists because they automatically look for extravagant explanations for simple situations in order to twist them to fit their worldview.
Edward Snowden dies in a car crash? Doesn't matter that 3000 people a day die in car crashes. It was the government.
Edward Snowden gets cancer? I wonder which agent was slipping him the poisons that gave it to him?
Edward Snowden trips walking down the stairs and breaks his neck? Hillary pushed him!
Edward Snowden writes a suicide note and shoots himself in the head? Set up! Somebody else forced him to pull the trigger!
So, again, what point is there in the government doing [B]anything[/B] to him, assuming they do decide to pardon him and allow him back into the country? They don't need to "send a message" when people are already scanning tea leaves looking for one.[/QUOTE]
It's not only about message.. he betrayed government and he still hold important info. Why wouldn't they want to get rid of him?
And message is simple: "mess with us and we will kill you"
[QUOTE=da space core;50844042]No one is saying that Snowden can only be killed by the government, but the government has quite the probable cause to do so[/QUOTE]
And what cause is that? He already leaked the info, did what damage he could do. Maybe I could see the government killing him to prevent a leak like that, but in retaliation for it many years later? That's pointless. It doesn't accomplish anything. I just don't see that order coming down.
Furthermore, if they really wanted him dead, do you think him being in another country would prevent that from happening?
The US government has nothing to gain and quite a lot to lose in an attempt to assassinate Snowden. I don't see why they would bother.
It's not even just about messages it's also the principle of the matter. Mob doesn't just kill people over showing their power, or because the person is an immediate threat. They also assassinate to get even, for peace of mind that the person got theirs for it. It's retribution. Revenge is a thing. Sending a message and the fact he's still a possible danger to the secrecy are valid reasons but there's also the fact that it doesn't need to be that logical. He hurt them, they hurt him.
Also of course they wouldn't announce they did it lol. That's how you guarantee a fucking martyr. Especially since that seems like it'd be highly illegal. Now maybe a trial he loses then "hangs himself" in his cell, but they would be in danger of making him a martyr if they showed they were involved.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844218]
Furthermore, if they really wanted him dead, do you think him being in another country would prevent that from happening?[/QUOTE]
First of all this is Russia we're talking about, besides the fact the UN would be PISSED to find American government operated on foreign soil to do something like this, Russia is probably the worst to do something like this to since its begging for tensions to rise to war levels
Quite literally would be poking the bear.
Besides that I don't think anyone said this- it took 10 years to get rid of Osama after all. It doesn't stop it but it delays it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.