'It's time': Edward Snowden just issued a cryptic message on Twitter
168 replies, posted
what if he has more to leak?
we don't even know what intel he has, both in terms of pure information and physical data on his own person.
hell i bet detaining him and trying to get him out of a country like RUSSIA, for example, would be very difficult for the U.S. with much more to risk and lose.
Hell if anything I'd expect the exact opposite; that they would walk on eggshells and be VERY vigilant and protective of Snowden because of the dangers of anything happening to him in US custody looking incredibly suspect.
That's accurate too, but they could always wait till it's less suspicious. Maybe a couple months after he's released as a free man. But that's assuming they get him in custody and don't have him killed before or during the transfer somehow
[QUOTE]
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda. A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world. The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives. The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same. The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries". Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said: "The technology supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US."
[/QUOTE]
One of the tools from Snowden leak
Holy shit. The Patriots?
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
Funny enough there's an old forum post from Snowden back when mgs2 was new where he said he didn't find Solidus to be much of a bad guy.
Solidus did nothing wrong.
[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]
Is it possible for you to make a single post that isn't totally condescending and self righteous? You used to be such a thoughtful and respectable poster, now you just run into threads and make a big joke out of anyone who even remotely disagrees with you. Yeah, those crazy conspiracy nutters, what kind of idiot could believe that the man who brought about arguably the most significant US intelligence leak in history might possibly be targeted by the US government at some point, whether for revenge or to prevent him from leaking any other data he might be sitting on? People have already posted examples of other incidents in history where a major world power assassinated one of its own people years after-the-fact for retribution or silencing purposes, but clearly you're [I]so[/I] much smarter than everyone else here that you have some sort of magic explanation as to why the US government is immune from participating in foul play. You just keep stammering out "b-but why? he already leaked it!" as if you need a master's degree in political science to understand how a government could send a message to other whistleblowers without [I]literally announcing[/I] their assassination of a political dissident. I'm not saying the government is plotting to kill Snowden, but do you think maybe you could quit being so arrogant and insulting whenever you express your doubts about that possibility? Jesus Christ.
Not to mention those who are against Hillary Clinton are killed in mysterious way :downs: (those officials that had evidence against her)
I dont think BDA understands that Governments kill people.
He better have a time bomb in case he dies in mysterious ways.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844218]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?[/QUOTE]
There could be a ton of reasons why they haven't killed him. There may be some difficulty in how snowden is hiding, since he knows how spy agencies work so he would have a better clue of how to hide, or maybe our spy agencies currently do not want to kill him, or never will. Im not ruling that out.
Killing him sends a warning to other potential whistle-blowers. It may not seem entirely logical, but even our spy agencies haven't always been the shining [URL="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance"]example of keeping it cool[/URL].
They already have Manning for "message show-off"
[QUOTE=srobins;50844451]Is it possible for you to make a single post that isn't totally condescending and self righteous? You used to be such a thoughtful and respectable poster, now you just run into threads and make a big joke out of anyone who even remotely disagrees with you. Yeah, those crazy conspiracy nutters, what kind of idiot could believe that the man who brought about arguably the most significant US intelligence leak in history might possibly be targeted by the US government at some point, whether for revenge or to prevent him from leaking any other data he might be sitting on? People have already posted examples of other incidents in history where a major world power assassinated one of its own people years after-the-fact for retribution or silencing purposes, but clearly you're [I]so[/I] much smarter than everyone else here that you have some sort of magic explanation as to why the US government is immune from participating in foul play. You just keep stammering out "b-but why? he already leaked it!" as if you need a master's degree in political science to understand how a government could send a message to other whistleblowers without [I]literally announcing[/I] their assassination of a political dissident. I'm not saying the government is plotting to kill Snowden, but do you think maybe you could quit being so arrogant and insulting whenever you express your doubts about that possibility? Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]
I think you're reading a little bit too much into my tone, because I'm not trying to insult or offend you. The only one being smarmy right now is you.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844678]I think you're reading a little bit too much into my tone, because I'm not trying to insult or offend you.[/QUOTE]
People might not think you're condescending them if you actually listened to what they were saying and thought about it for more than a few seconds.
[QUOTE=da space core;50844526]There could be a ton of reasons why they haven't killed him. There may be some difficulty in how snowden is hiding, since he knows how spy agencies work so he would have a better clue of how to hide, or maybe our spy agencies currently do not want to kill him, or never will. Im not ruling that out.
Killing him sends a warning to other potential whistle-blowers. It may not seem entirely logical, but even our spy agencies haven't always been the shining [URL="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance"]example of keeping it cool[/URL].[/QUOTE]
They didn't kill Bradley/Chelsea Manning, despite having had unlimited ability and access to do so. Snowden has to fear imprisonment, not assassination. I simply don't buy the logic of your "sending a warning" argument, because there's no warning to be sent anymore. He is, in all likelihood, permanently exiled from the United States on threat of life imprisonment if he ever returns. That's fairly substantial as far as warnings to other would-be whistleblowers go.
The government is not a drug cartel or the mafia. They stand nothing to gain from assassinating him, and plenty to lose. So, why would they kill him?
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50844685]People might not think you're condescending them if you actually listened to what they were saying and thought about it for more than a few seconds.[/QUOTE]
Like, you levy this argument against me in damn near every thread we're in. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I'm not listening to you. Stop with this nonsense.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844700]They didn't kill Bradley/Chelsea Manning, despite having had unlimited ability and access to do so. Snowden has to fear imprisonment, not assassination. I simply don't buy the logic of your "sending a warning" argument, because there's no warning to be sent anymore. He is, in all likelihood, permanently exiled from the United States on threat of life imprisonment if he ever returns. That's fairly substantial as far as warnings to other would-be whistleblowers go.
The government is not a drug cartel or the mafia. They stand nothing to gain from assassinating him, and plenty to lose. So, why would they kill him?
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
Like, you levy this argument against me in damn near every thread we're in. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I'm not listening to you. Stop with this nonsense.[/QUOTE]
That'd be a fair thing you're saying if you didn't also post this:
[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]
But hey, what do I expect arguing with a brainwashed military drone? Oorah, am I right patriot brother?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844700]They didn't kill Bradley/Chelsea Manning, despite having had unlimited ability and access to do so. Snowden has to fear imprisonment, not assassination.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if im wrong, but isnt Manning in "indefinite solitary confinement", tantamount to 24/7 psychological torture? That sounds like a big improvement to having your breaks cut out on an afternoon drive and ending up wrapped around a tree.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844700]Like, you levy this argument against me in damn near every thread we're in. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I'm not listening to you.[/QUOTE]
No, i say that because you dont listen, ever, you label people and then put words in their mouths constantly. Im kind of surprised you're having a hard time considering the possibility even one government agency would've been rubbed the wrong way be somebody leaking a bunch of government secrets. I guarantee you the CIA has killed people for less, i dont have any notable examples on hand but its not like anyone should be shocked that the government does awful things.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50844727] I guarantee you the CIA has killed people for less.[/QUOTE]
CIA has also done experiments on it's own citizens.
[QUOTE=geel9;50844715]That'd be a fair thing you're saying if you didn't also post this:[/quote]
You mean when I explained why I found the logic flawed and pointless to argue against? It's broken, circular logic.
[quote]But hey, what do I expect arguing with a brainwashed military drone? Oorah, am I right patriot brother?[/QUOTE]
Chill. I get what you're trying to do, but I was [I]not[/I] trying to call [B]you[/B] a conspiracy theorist. I was referencing conspiracy theorists in general.
[QUOTE=Fourier;50844735]CIA has also done experiments on it's own citizens.[/QUOTE]
MKUltra comes to mind.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844738]You mean when I explained why I found the logic flawed and pointless to argue against? It's broken, circular logic.[/QUOTE]
How is it flawed to think a government with powerful spy agencies capable of destabilizing countries would kill a man for leaking shit?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844738]Chill. I get what you're trying to do, but I was [I]not[/I] trying to call [B]you[/B] a conspiracy theorist. I was referencing conspiracy theorists in general.[/QUOTE]
Who WERE you calling a conspiracy theorist then? If not directed at him, why bring up the topic of conspiracy theorists? You responded to him. You implied he was a conspiracy theorist with the way you worded your post. You called him one.
You're backpedaling because people are calling you out.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50844738]You mean when I explained why I found the logic flawed and pointless to argue against? It's broken, circular logic.
Chill. I get what you're trying to do, but I was [I]not[/I] trying to call [B]you[/B] a conspiracy theorist. I was referencing conspiracy theorists in general.[/QUOTE]
So you were just going on a random tangent the [i]totally wasn't targeted at me[/i] even though you were [i]responding to my argument[/i]?
[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]
That's implicitly what people are suggesting though. The "to send a message" motivation is irrational because there is no other, more rational motivation to compel the US government to assassinate Snowden. You have to keep in mind that as we have these discussion, the government is as well, and must surely understand that any measure designed to "send a message" to other whistleblowers (that isn't somehow sent with serious prison charges and a possible espionage conviction) would backfire almost immediately. Your "probable cause" is self-defeating.
[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]
How do you define mysteriously? Because it seems to me that mysteriously covers basically everything that isn't old age.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50844740]
How is it flawed to think a government with powerful spy agencies capable of destabilizing countries would kill a man for leaking shit?[/QUOTE]
There is huge advantage to establishing friendly regimes in other countries, and no advantage whatsoever in killing a US citizen for no other reason to "send a message", in which the message would be inherently self-defeating.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50844727] Im kind of surprised you're having a hard time considering the possibility even one government agency would've been rubbed the wrong way be somebody leaking a bunch of government secrets. I guarantee you the CIA has killed people for less, i dont have any notable examples on hand but its not like anyone should be shocked that the government does awful things.[/QUOTE]
And you guys get all bent out of shape when your logic is compared to conspiracy theorists. This is the exact sort of statements that are made about 9/11 being an inside job. You use rhetoric like "I can't believe you don't think the US has done bad things in the past!" in order to chain those seperate actions to the asssassination of someone they have nothing to gain at all in assassinating. And you cap it with "I'm sure the CIA has killed before for less but I don't have examples".
It's literally what BDA is saying. [I]Anything [/I]could happen to Snowden and it would be pinned on the US government.
[QUOTE=Fourier;50844335]One of the tools from Snowden leak[/QUOTE]
I gotta ask, do you have any sort of link to like official documentation of this? I know the military has done some weird ass experiments and has some weird ass projects but this seems a bit much. Wouldn't someone notice that suddenly there's shitloads more people commenting on stuff and swinging one way than there were before?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50844904]
There is huge advantage to establishing friendly regimes in other countries, and no advantage whatsoever in killing a US citizen for no other reason to "send a message", in which the message would be inherently self-defeating.[/QUOTE]
"Dont leak our shit or you die" doesnt sound self defeating. It deters people from leaking things because... Uh... Well i dont know about you but i like breathing.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50844904]
And you guys get all bent out of shape when your logic is compared to conspiracy theorists. This is the exact sort of statements that are made about 9/11 being an inside job. You use rhetoric like "I can't believe you don't think the US has done bad things in the past!" in order to chain those seperate actions to the asssassination of someone they have nothing to gain at all in assassinating. And you cap it with "I'm sure the CIA has killed before for less but I don't have examples".
It's literally what BDA is saying. [I]Anything [/I]could happen to Snowden and it would be pinned on the US government.[/QUOTE]
Im not saying thats what would happen. Im saying its foolish to outright deny its even possible, because it happens. Can i prove theres a link between the murder and the US? No, not if they do their job right, but if he went to the US, and a month or two later turned up death, theres enough reason to suspect he was killed by the US because he fucked them.
I know of a story from a few months ago where a vocal Anti-Putin dude in Russia was found mysteriously dead only a mile or so out from the Kremlin. You cant prove theres any direct connection, but i'd bet you thats the case. Thats just how things are.
Also, comparing thinking a dude who leaked government secrets being in danger of assassination due to that to thinking the government planned and staged 9/11 is ludicrous, they're not even remotely comparable.
[QUOTE=greasemunky;50844944]I gotta ask, do you have any sort of link to like official documentation of this? I know the military has done some weird ass experiments and has some weird ass projects but this seems a bit much. Wouldn't someone notice that suddenly there's shitloads more people commenting on stuff and swinging one way than there were before?[/QUOTE]
Found by Googling a quote from his post: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks[/url]
And to answer your question, I don't think anybody would really notice. That's the great thing about social media manipulation and why social media is such a powerful propaganda tool. How the hell is anyone supposed to spot a shill? It's borderline impossible unless they go out of their way to make it painfully obvious propaganda, and even then, it's 50/50 the way some people talk about politics online. I think we're just barely beginning to recognize a propaganda machine that has likely been employed for a long time, not necessarily by the government or anyone specific, but just as a generalized tactic in the wake of social media's explosion as a platform for people to learn things and form opinions. We've already seen the Clinton campaign employing these techniques to sway online debates in a certain direction, so hearing the US government jumping on board is no surprise to me.
[QUOTE=srobins;50845026]Found by Googling a quote from his post: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks[/url]
And to answer your question, I don't think anybody would really notice. That's the great thing about social media manipulation and why social media is such a powerful propaganda tool. How the hell is anyone supposed to spot a shill? It's borderline impossible unless they go out of their way to make it painfully obvious propaganda, and even then, it's 50/50 the way some people talk about politics online. I think we're just barely beginning to recognize a propaganda machine that has likely been employed for a long time, not necessarily by the government or anyone specific, but just as a generalized tactic in the wake of social media's explosion as a platform for people to learn things and form opinions. We've already seen the Clinton campaign employing these techniques to sway online debates in a certain direction, so hearing the US government jumping on board is no surprise to me.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the article, it seems to undermine your argument. The army is talking about this publicly and using it to try and stem the flow of terrorist recruits. This seems like some pretty basic propaganda but adapted for the modern age. There's no evidence that it's being used domestically and Clinton doesn't need to resort to some sort of grand conspiracy to sway online debates, her opposition's stupidity and abrasiveness does that for her.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50845021]"Dont leak our shit or you die" doesnt sound self defeating. It deters people from leaking things because... Uh... Well i dont know about you but i like breathing. [/QUOTE]
It's inherently self defeating because people who believe the government was behind it (even if they weren't) will pay more attention to the case, possibly leading to [I]more [/I]leaks. It also wouldn't deter leaks from people who don't think the government orchestrated his demise. It's circular, self-defeating logic that serves as an excuse for the government to do literally anything because it safisfies peoples inherent distrust in the state, rather than their interest in logical deduction.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50845021]Im not saying thats what would happen. Im saying its foolish to outright deny its even possible, because it happens. Can i prove theres a link between the murder and the US? No, not if they do their job right, but if he went to the US, and a month or two later turned up death, theres enough reason to suspect he was killed by the US because he fucked them.[/QUOTE]
Again though you have implicitly said that's pretty much what would happen. No one has ever said it's not possible, you are blatantly misconstruing their arguments. They are saying your argument for why it would be [I]probable [/I]is based on faulty logic.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50845021]I know of a story from a few months ago where a vocal Anti-Putin dude in Russia was found mysteriously dead only a mile or so out from the Kremlin. You cant prove theres any direct connection, but i'd bet you thats the case. Thats just how things are.[/QUOTE]
Again, trying to use two wholly different scenarios to build a narrative that says "governments do bad things, so the US government will do a bad thing to Snowden" with literally no motivations or precedence given.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50845021]Also, comparing thinking a dude who leaked government secrets being in danger of assassination due to that to thinking the government planned and staged 9/11 is ludicrous, they're not even remotely comparable.[/QUOTE]
I agree they aren't comparable, but that's not what I was comparing, I was comparing the rhetoric, and the fact that people will do or say anything to satisfy their narrative, as people are in this thread.
[QUOTE=greasemunky;50844944]I gotta ask, do you have any sort of link to like official documentation of this? I know the military has done some weird ass experiments and has some weird ass projects but this seems a bit much. Wouldn't someone notice that suddenly there's shitloads more people commenting on stuff and swinging one way than there were before?[/QUOTE]
No? If they did it right how would you discern it from just another rando?
BDA was absolutely right and I can't see why people are getting so bent out of shape by his post. Maybe you don't like being called a conspiracy theorist but if you just going to assume that if, god forbid, something happened to Edward Snowden the United States had a hand in it with nothing more than your gut feelings then sorry, but the shoe fits.
[QUOTE=greasemunky;50845063]Thank you for the article, it seems to undermine your argument. The army is talking about this publicly and using it to try and stem the flow of terrorist recruits. This seems like some pretty basic propaganda but adapted for the modern age. There's no evidence that it's being used domestically and Clinton doesn't need to resort to some sort of grand conspiracy to sway online debates, her opposition's stupidity and abrasiveness does that for her.[/QUOTE]
I never said anything about a grand conspiracy, but you are [url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html]factually wrong about Clinton[/url] and her use of paid posters on social media. I specifically went out of my way to avoid accusing the US government of using this for nefarious domestic purposes, all I'm saying is that it is possible and we would have basically no way of detecting it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.