• 'It's time': Edward Snowden just issued a cryptic message on Twitter
    168 replies, posted
[QUOTE=srobins;50846218]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] Except he does have intelligence experience and you dont. Youre assuming intelligence operators are shady CIA types who physically infiltrate foreign agencies and shit like a shitty Tom Clancy book or a James Bond movie. BDA was an imagery analyst, thats about as exciting and shady US Intelligence gets Quit discrediting him because he doesnt fall in line with your conspiracy theories
[QUOTE=srobins;50846218]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] And yet, it was an attempt to discredit me personally that brought this up in the first place, not me bringing up my history unprovoked to argue from a position of authority. "Have you even read anything about intelligence services?" Yeah. I was military intelligence. In addition to my job-specific training in imagery analysis, reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and UAS operations, I read many classified intelligence reports as part of my training that expanded in scope well beyond my specific role in the process in order to understand the relationships between various roles in HUMINT and SIGINT services and see examples of them in action. Intelligence operations are not one man shows. So, help me out here, because I'm a little confused: If the argument made was, "I know more than you because I've read some stuff," why is kosher until suddenly it turns out that I have some firsthand experience too? Then it's, "well, wait a second, that's not really fair. That's not even the right kind of intelligence. Your experience is irrelevant!"
[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] Dood, look at the Mossad or even the KGB. When the Mossad wants someone drad, they throw a bomb into the guys car or a guy drives by on a bike and blows him away with a double barrel shotgun. When the KGB wants someone dead, the poison him with thallium or throw him out a window. All this happens in other countries where thwy have no right to operate. There is literally no need for secrecy, as long as they cant be officially tied to the killings. If the US Govt wantes Snowden dead, he would have been dead years ago, and very blatantly killed by the US.
Why is so much discussion devoted to the likes of Snowden and Assange [I]potentially[/I] being assassinated? Grand theories and debates as to the morality and integrity of the US government abound. And yet, when Litvinenko was murdered in the most blatant and horrific way possible, nobody gives a shit or the argument takes a tone shift to "burden of proof".
Can we please stop bitching about who is and is not a conspiracy theorist? I keep checking back thinking Snowden's revealed something substantial and it's being discussed, seeing like fifty new posts, and instead it's just this pointless bickering.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50846417]Except he does have intelligence experience and you dont. Youre assuming intelligence operators are shady CIA types who physically infiltrate foreign agencies and shit like a shitty Tom Clancy book or a James Bond movie. BDA was an imagery analyst, thats about as exciting and shady US Intelligence gets Quit discrediting him because he doesnt fall in line with your conspiracy theories[/QUOTE] I'm not assuming that at all, in fact my discrediting of BDA hinges on the fact that not everyone involved with intelligence knows something significant or interesting, a lot of them just do mundane intelligence work that has literally zero connection to parties which would influence the assassination of a whistleblower. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50846422]And yet, it was an attempt to discredit me personally that brought this up in the first place, not me bringing up my history unprovoked to argue from a position of authority. "Have you even read anything about intelligence services?" Yeah. I was military intelligence. In addition to my job-specific training in imagery analysis, reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and UAS operations, I read many classified intelligence reports as part of my training that expanded in scope well beyond my specific role in the process in order to understand the relationships between various roles in HUMINT and SIGINT services and see examples of them in action. Intelligence operations are not one man shows. So, help me out here, because I'm a little confused: If the argument made was, "I know more than you because I've read some stuff," why is kosher until suddenly it turns out that I have some firsthand experience too? Then it's, "well, wait a second, that's not really fair. That's not even the right kind of intelligence. Your experience is irrelevant!"[/QUOTE] I never said Cutthecrap knows more than you from "reading some stuff", I pointed out that you claiming to be a member of the intelligence community is a total joke in the context of this thread. Like I already said, knowing top secret bombing locations as a drone operator doesn't give you any authority to talk about how stupid conspiracy theorists are for examining the possibility of a Snowden assassination. Your experience is literally irrelevant because it provides you zero insight into operations that would involve assassinating a whistleblower, so there's no need to pretend you have some special information that the rest of us aren't privy to.
[QUOTE=srobins;50846681]I'm not assuming that at all, in fact my discrediting of BDA hinges on the fact that not everyone involved with intelligence knows something significant or interesting, a lot of them just do mundane intelligence work that has literally zero connection to parties which would influence the assassination of a whistleblower. I never said Cutthecrap knows more than you from "reading some stuff", I pointed out that you claiming to be a member of the intelligence community is a total joke in the context of this thread. Like I already said, knowing top secret bombing locations as a drone operator doesn't give you any authority to talk about how stupid conspiracy theorists are for examining the possibility of a Snowden assassination. Your experience is literally irrelevant because it provides you zero insight into operations that would involve assassinating a whistleblower, so there's no need to pretend you have some special information that the rest of us aren't privy to.[/QUOTE] Well, since none of us are CIA assassins, that brings us right back to the beginning of this ridiculous discussion: why? What do they have to gain from killing Snowden? Despite whatever you think of my professional qualifications, it doesn't really change the fact that the logical foundation of the argument is cracked. I've got to agree with archangel here. This conversation really isn't going anywhere. We are just going to keep going in circles.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50846661]Can we please stop bitching about who is and is not a conspiracy theorist? I keep checking back thinking Snowden's revealed something substantial and it's being discussed, seeing like fifty new posts, and instead it's just this pointless bickering.[/QUOTE] Came here to post this. Boy am I disappointed.
I cant believe i came back to this thread with 50 unread messages thinking "oh boy, i guess someone figured it out" but its just you guys bickering like children... What a massive letdown.
[url]http://libertyviral.com/update-hex-code-tweet-snowden-traces-cryptic-bitcoin-911/#axzz4GkSGa6LU[/url] [QUOTE]User Bobanaut, on the bitcoin subreddit, tested Snowden’s message as a private key hash on the bitcoin blockchain, which traced to transactions between two addresses on Sunday. The first transaction logged was in the amount of 0.000911 BTC, suggesting that Snowden was using the cryptocurrency to convey a cryptic 911 distress signal, after the emergency telephone number used in the United States. “I think the transaction sum of 0.000911 BTC could be a call for help,” opined Bobanaut. Other commenters pointed out the statistical impossibility that the 64-character hex code used by Snowden could be an unintentional hash in a bitcoin transaction.[/QUOTE] the dude is either dead or in hiding.
[QUOTE=Wii60;50883074][url]http://libertyviral.com/update-hex-code-tweet-snowden-traces-cryptic-bitcoin-911/#axzz4GkSGa6LU[/url] the dude is either dead or in hiding.[/QUOTE] can't be just a coincidence
[QUOTE=blah2;50883106]can't be just a coincidence[/QUOTE] It actually is possible, be it unlikely.
[QUOTE=Wii60;50883074][url]http://libertyviral.com/update-hex-code-tweet-snowden-traces-cryptic-bitcoin-911/#axzz4GkSGa6LU[/url] the dude is either dead or in hiding.[/QUOTE] This is interesting, especially the part where the source (A dude from reddit) posts that this transaction was done "up to two days after the tweet... depends on the timezones of the dates you view". Snowdens tweet has been out for a while, someone probably is just fucking with everyone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.