'It's time': Edward Snowden just issued a cryptic message on Twitter
168 replies, posted
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50845101]No? If they did it right how would you discern it from just another rando?[/QUOTE]
Because people rarely change their opinions online even when confronted with loads of evidence that they're wrong? They could construct utterly flawless profiles in the dozens but they're still pissing into the sea of piss.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=srobins;50845147]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.[/QUOTE]
My bad I misconstrued some of what you said.
All I am going to say is that I hope Snowden stays safe and gets his pardon before hes too old to live a normal life. I think the dude will be harassed for life though, by both supporters and enemies.
[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50845180]Can you not say anything contrarian without being damned and called a conspiracy theorist? Even when you have proof and past evidence of a subject. The people like BDA are the brainwashed ones here. If you think the government has never assassinated/tortured anyone for espionage, you're delusional. The government is not going to sit back and let him continue to release information or simply receive no punishment for doing so. The government has killed people for less.[/QUOTE]
Saying something contrarian doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist.
Saying that the United States is going to kill Snowden like all these other people they killed (that I'm going to neglect to mention) and believing that anything that happens to Snowden is by default an action by the US government to assassinate him makes you sound like one though.
As a computer security professional, Snowden seems more like a hoax to me every action he takes. Conspiring to what end? I don't know but you could come up with a lot of theories if you tried.
I mean, just look at the Prism slides, those alone are the fishiest stuff I have ever seen. I mean, who the fuck were they even presenting those slides to, with all that visual sensationalism like logos of all the big IT companies and explanations of how one could go about blackmailing citizens and stuff by using information gathered from their online presence? Those slides have heavy MLM-scheme-recruting-slides vibes to them, you would know what I'm talking about if someone ever tried to recruit you into MLM.
Just throwing this here, not saying I'm correct but you should think about this before considering him hero or something.
[QUOTE=greasemunky;50845158]Because people rarely change their opinions online even when confronted with loads of evidence that they're wrong? They could construct utterly flawless profiles in the dozens but they're still pissing into the sea of piss[/QUOTE]
What does this have to do with people noticing government plants?
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
How is thinking Snowden would be totally dead if he wasn't under Putin Protection even contrarian lol
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50845190]All I am going to say is that I hope Snowden stays safe and gets his pardon before hes too old to live a normal life. I think the dude will be harassed for life though, by both supporters and enemies.[/QUOTE]
Realistically even with a pardon he'd still be looking over his shoulder rest of his life. I like to think he knew the sacrifice he was making when he did it though.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50845274]
How is thinking Snowden would be totally dead if he wasn't under Putin Protection even contrarian lol[/QUOTE]
It's not contrarian. It is absollutely conspiratorial though.
[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50845290]It sure seems like it on this forum atleast.
They never claimed that Snowden's death would be by the U.S. Government, but BDA is ruling it out completely saying that the possibility of them killing Snowden is a conspiracy theory, and that's certainly not true.
People are thinking the government are just going to be nice and sweet to Snowden and pardon him for espionage. They're delusional, the government would not welcome him back if they were not planning to do something to him. They don't roll that way.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the government would pardon him, I think they would prosecute him to the full extent of the law, even if he doesn't necessarily deserve it.
I don't believe they have plans in place to assassinate him because as already stated there is no gain and too much to lose from such an operation occurring.
Also lmao like the people in this thread are talking about "possiblities" when the entire mood has thus far been taking it for granted that if Snowden died of anything short of old age it would [I]obviously [/I]be the government behind it.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50845274]What does this have to do with people noticing government plants? [/quote]
I just said, it's irrelevant if they're government plants people aren't going to listen to what they have to say.
I don't know why since your first post and my response to it was related to you asking about people noticing it
[QUOTE=chatrifral;50845255]As a computer security professional, Snowden seems more like a hoax to me every action he takes. Conspiring to what end? I don't know but you could come up with a lot of theories if you tried.
I mean, just look at the Prism slides, those alone are the fishiest stuff I have ever seen. I mean, who the fuck were they even presenting those slides to, with all that visual sensationalism like logos of all the big IT companies and explanations of how one could go about blackmailing citizens and stuff by using information gathered from their online presence? Those slides have heavy MLM-scheme-recruting-slides vibes to them, you would know what I'm talking about if someone ever tried to recruit you into MLM.
Just throwing this here, not saying I'm correct but you should think about this before considering him hero or something.[/QUOTE]
No offense, but are you really saying that the PRISM leak was a hoax just because they used low-quality graphics on their slides? I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
Government slideshows aren't really known for their production value.
[QUOTE=srobins;50845411]No offense, but are you really saying that the PRISM leak was a hoax just because they used low-quality graphics on their slides? I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.
[editline]7th August 2016[/editline]
Government slideshows aren't really known for their production value.[/QUOTE]
Nothing to do with quality.
Just saying that they look like something that wasn't actually ever used for any genuine purpose since I can't really imagine who the target audience would be. It all honestly looks like something made to incite emotions, not communicate information for some internal purposes and definitely not present the information about the product/endeavour, surely doesn't look like something made for getting grant or something either. Not only it incites emotions but it pushes to creating fear as well. Skim through those slides again and you might see my point.
[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50845290]It sure seems like it on this forum atleast.
[B]They never claimed that Snowden's death would be by the U.S. Government, but BDA is ruling it out completely saying that the possibility of them killing Snowden is a conspiracy theory, and that's certainly not true. [/B]
People are thinking the government are just going to be nice and sweet to Snowden and pardon him for espionage. They're delusional, the government would not welcome him back if they were not planning to do something to him. They don't roll that way.[/QUOTE]
That's, like, the literal definition of a conspiracy theory though? Despite the negative connotations being labeled as a conspiracy theorist has, if you have a theory about a government conspiracy to extrajudicially murder a US citizen then you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. I hate arguing semantics, but ya'll are jumping down my throat for using a word you don't like being associated with even though I am using the word in the correct context.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50845602]That's, like, the literal definition of a conspiracy theory though? Despite the negative connotations being labeled as a conspiracy theorist has, if you have a theory about a government conspiracy to extrajudicially murder a US citizen then you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. I hate arguing semantics, but ya'll are jumping down my throat for using a word you don't like being associated with even though I am using the word in the correct context.[/QUOTE]
The term almost universally has a negative connotation and even if it fits the textbook term, you were using it as a negative label.
[QUOTE=chatrifral;50845255]As a computer security professional, Snowden seems more like a hoax to me every action he takes. Conspiring to what end? I don't know but you could come up with a lot of theories if you tried.
I mean, just look at the Prism slides, those alone are the fishiest stuff I have ever seen. I mean, who the fuck were they even presenting those slides to, with all that visual sensationalism like logos of all the big IT companies and explanations of how one could go about blackmailing citizens and stuff by using information gathered from their online presence? Those slides have heavy MLM-scheme-recruting-slides vibes to them, you would know what I'm talking about if someone ever tried to recruit you into MLM.
Just throwing this here, not saying I'm correct but you should think about this before considering him hero or something.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure the US government would either be saying it's fake or flat out ignoring him rather than getting pissed and wanting to convict him of treason if that were the case.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50845602]That's, like, the literal definition of a conspiracy theory though? Despite the negative connotations being labeled as a conspiracy theorist has, if you have a theory about a government conspiracy to extrajudicially murder a US citizen then you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. I hate arguing semantics, but ya'll are jumping down my throat for using a word you don't like being associated with even though I am using the word in the correct context.[/QUOTE]
Generally, being a conspiracy theorist means that you have a totally unfounded belief in a government conspiracy that goes against available evidence.
Nobody calls people who believe that watergate happened conspiracy theorists, for example, because the evidence is good that it happened, even though it was a government conspiracy.
[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]
Im just going to ask one question: how much have you read about the intelligence services world?
[QUOTE=Problem;50825999]No he'll just die in a "car crash" in which he spontaneously has a heart attack, loses control of his vehicle, and crashes into a tree.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that if he even died in an actual accident then i'd still explode all conspiracy theorists
[QUOTE=sgman91;50845861]
Nobody calls people who believe that watergate happened conspiracy theorists, for example, because the evidence is good that it happened, even though it was a government conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
Which means it's not a theory, just a conspiracy. "The US will kill Snowden" [i]is[/i] a theory, because it's speculating with very little (if any) evidence.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50845866]Im just going to ask one question: how much have you read about the intelligence services world?[/QUOTE]
Was literally a member of it lol
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;50845890]Which means it's not a theory, just a conspiracy. "The US will kill Snowden" [I]is[/I] a theory, because it's speculating with very little (if any) evidence.[/QUOTE]
I mean, it's still a theory. We can't have a perfect understanding of what happened. The evidence is good. So it's rational to believe it.
People weren't even saying that the US WILL kill Snowden. They just said that it wouldn't surprise them if it happened.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50845630]The term almost universally has a negative connotation and even if it fits the textbook term, you were using it as a negative label.[/QUOTE]
So, even though it's an accurate and appropriate summary of the situation, you have chosen to inject sinister intentions into my usage of it, and then spend a couple pages angrily complaining about it?
This is silly. Please, just take a step back from this. I don't want to sit here and argue semantics with you.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50846113]Was literally a member of it lol[/QUOTE]
In what capacity? Weren't you a remote drone operator? It's ridiculously misleading to say you were "literally a member of" US intelligence services when I'm pretty positive you had no involvement in the CIA or NSA.
[QUOTE=srobins;50846149]In what capacity? Weren't you a remote drone operator? It's ridiculously misleading to say you were "literally a member of" US intelligence services when I'm pretty positive you had no involvement in the CIA or NSA.[/QUOTE]
Military intelligence as a UAS Operator and imagery analyst, top secret security clearance.
I'm hardly CIA, but I have firsthand experience and insight into intelligence operations at least. I also have firsthand experience being on the other side of conspiracy theories surrounding my duty station. This shit is rarely as exciting and mysterious as you think.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50846183]Military intelligence as a UAS Operator and imagery analyst, top secret security clearance.
I'm hardly CIA, but I have firsthand experience and insight into intelligence operations at least.[/QUOTE]
So.. Yeah, a drone operator? How does being a drone operator in any way clue you in to some secret understanding of intelligence operations, specifically an understanding that would give you the authority to say it's unrealistic for the US government to target a political dissident for retribution or silencing? Having access to top secret bombing locations doesn't make you any more educated than anybody else here.
[editline]8th August 2016[/editline]
Nobody is implying the entirety of intelligence operations that take place within the US government are fascinating spy-movie content. The only thing people are saying is that there is a hypothetical motive for assassinating Snowden.
[QUOTE=srobins;50846200]So.. Yeah, a drone operator? How does being a drone operator in any way clue you in to some secret understanding of intelligence operations, specifically an understanding that would give you the authority to say it's unrealistic for the US government to target a political dissident for retribution or silencing? Having access to top secret bombing locations doesn't make you any more educated than anybody else here.
[editline]8th August 2016[/editline]
Nobody is implying the entirety of intelligence operations that take place within the US government are fascinating spy-movie content. The only thing people are saying is that there is a hypothetical motive for assassinating Snowden.[/QUOTE]
As long as we're qualifying professional experience then... what's yours?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50846210]As long as we're qualifying professional experience then... what's yours?[/QUOTE]
Non-intelligence, just like you. The difference here being I didn't try to use my irrelevant work experience to feign some authority when talking about something that nobody here has first-hand experience with.
[QUOTE=srobins;50846200]So.. Yeah, a drone operator? How does being a drone operator in any way clue you in to some secret understanding of intelligence operations, specifically an understanding that would give you the authority to say it's unrealistic for the US government to target a political dissident for retribution or silencing? Having access to top secret bombing locations doesn't make you any more educated than anybody else here.
[editline]8th August 2016[/editline]
[B]Nobody is implying the entirety of intelligence operations that take place within the US government are fascinating spy-movie content. The only thing people are saying is that there is a hypothetical motive for assassinating Snowden.[/B][/QUOTE]
i think the point bda is trying to make is that while in theory there's a hypothetical motive for assassinating snowden, there's no point in the government needing to
the people who think that the government will assassinate snowden will see any form of death other than old age as an assassination, so why bother?
gets hit by a bus and dies? us kill team. falls off a cliff taking selfies? us kill team.
they can go to all this trouble to perform an extrajudicial murder, or they can just do nothing
[QUOTE=srobins;50846200]
Nobody is implying the entirety of intelligence operations that take place within the US government are fascinating spy-movie content. The only thing people are saying is that there is a hypothetical motive for assassinating Snowden.[/QUOTE]
Not to say that you said it, but the majority of posters in this thread supporting the idea have gone a bit further than purporting a hypothetical motive, basically saying that if anything happens to Snowden it was obviously an assassination because reasons.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50846238]Not to say that you said it, but the majority of posters in this thread supporting the idea have gone a bit further than purporting a hypothetical motive, basically saying that if anything happens to Snowden it was obviously an assassination because reasons.[/QUOTE]
Who has said that? The impression I've gotten is that people wouldn't be surprised it the government did something. The original statement that sparked this whole train of discussion said almost exactly that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50846320]Who has said that? The impression I've gotten is that people wouldn't be surprised it the government did something. The original statement that sparked this whole train of discussion said almost exactly that.[/QUOTE]
Most of the people who I have quoted in this thread.
The entire "to send a message" narrative is predicated on the fact that the general population and intelligence community in particular understand that if Snowden dies or disappears it was due to the actions of the US government and using typically circular logic suggest that because there is no evidence means that it has to be the US government, conveniently confirming their suspicions. The original statement may have been "not surprised" but then people picked that up and ran with it as a serious narrative built on a foundation of shaky circular reasoning and a latent distrust of the state.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.