WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for help finding DNC staffer’s killer amid conspiracy rumors
150 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50862326]Because obviously no mugger could accidentally shoot someone twice in the back of the head. Only the spies and contract killers do that! I've seen James Bond and Bourne, I know what I'm talking about![/QUOTE]
Holy fuck are you even trying anymore.
A woman was killed by a stray round while getting out of the shower, it was declared attempted rape because the woman was found naked.
Literally what you are doing.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862081]It's good to see more and more people realising that Assange isn't just a good guy looking for the truth but in reality is an unhinged narcissist in contact with Russia, and to see more and more people turning against them and him.[/QUOTE]
2016, when western liberals lumped in whistleblowers/internet activists, leftists, trump/brexit supporters, basically anyone that opposes the status quo in some way as working for Russia. Vote lesser evil!
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50862328]Because it drums up anti-hillary nonsense that only works to hurt her campagin unrightfully.[/QUOTE]
"We shouldn't look into a murder because it makes my political candidate look bad!!!"
Jesus Christ.
[QUOTE=Conscript;50862350]2016, when western liberals lumped in whistleblowers, leftists, trump/brexit supporters, basically anyone that opposes the status quo in some way as working for Russia.[/QUOTE]
It's like the Red Scare but with reversed political parties. How interesting.
Lemme understand this: Is Hillary a murderous chessmaster dealing death on peeps like she's dealing cards? OR is she an incompetent chick incapable of deleting emails correctly who would put our country in danger?
[QUOTE=Conscript;50862350]2016, when western liberals lumped in whistleblowers, leftists, trump/brexit supporters, basically anyone that opposes the status quo in some way as working for Russia.[/QUOTE]
I'm a western neoconservative, not a liberal.
there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that hilary clinton's imaginary hit squad killed him; to even begin to insist that it's the most plausible story instead of a robbery gone wrong is far into the realm of batshit insane fantasy
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50862328]Because it drums up anti-hillary nonsense that only works to hurt her campagin unrightfully.[/QUOTE]
I want off this wild ride, man. Fuck this whole election, I cannot believe we've reached the point where people are condemning the investigation of a murder just because it might make Hillary look bad to people [I]who already hate Hillary[/I]. You guys are living in another universe and I want nothing to do with it.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50862353]You're right, we should stop all investigations relating to Hillary Clinton, because going against her is clearly going against the right side of history![/QUOTE]
Boy did you not read that at all. I specifically said [I]unrightfully[/I], as in stuff that has little to no basis in reality such as this. If something genuinely damning came out and it hurt her campaign, then that's obviously fair. I'm just against stuff like Wikileaks pushing unfounded [I]hey guys w-what if he was killed cause hillary bad???? [/I]​shit.
[QUOTE=srobins;50862377]I want off this wild ride, man. Fuck this whole election, I cannot believe we've reached the point where people are condemning the investigation of a murder just because it might make Hillary look bad to people [I]who already hate Hillary[/I]. You guys are living in another universe and I want nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
Im pretty sure the point being made is that Wikileaks is not helping the investigation with their reward and is just stoking the flames of conspiracy theorists.
Let the police do their job.
[QUOTE=srobins;50862377]where people are condemning the investigation of a murder[/QUOTE]
I'm not condemning the investigation of a murder, I'm condemning Wikileaks riling up the conspiracists and fueling the false beliefs that Hillary is some murderous political mastermind silently assassinating anyone against her.
[QUOTE=Cructo;50862409]No shit?
Wikileaks thinks there might be a conspiracy. They're trying to get people to investigate a conspiracy that they think is real.
Sane people won't think there is a conspiracy behind this murder, but they would at least want a proper investigation on a murder.[/QUOTE]
Which is why the police should be left to handle things and not some nutjob from reddit gobbling up every tweet from Wikileaks like it's the objective truth twisting evidence to suit his pre-formed conclusions.
[QUOTE=Cructo;50862222]"conspiracy theories"
The dude is literally complaining about people calling for a thorough investigation on a suspicious murder.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=srobins;50862241]
God forbid we investigate a murder, oh my heavens! [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Monkah;50862353]"We shouldn't look into a murder because it makes my political candidate look bad!!!"[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying the police shouldn't investigate a homicide, they are saying it's disingenuous for Assange to offer a $20,000 for information regarding his murder and subtly hint at the fact that he may have been killed by the DNC or Clinton herself to cover up the leaks.How much do you guys get paid to shitpost in SH?
[QUOTE=Cructo;50862429]A rich conspiracy nutjob trying to get his theories confirmed. Stop the fucking presses. Of course it hints at that, but should that stop an investigation from taking place?[/QUOTE]
If the "investigation" is being run by conspiracists who've already decided big bad Hillary had him killed, absolutely. Nobody's going to keep the police from investigating the murder, you know.
This anti-hilary crusade has reached a level where I can't begin to rationalize it, she's apparently both hopelessly incompetent, but also an evil, James Bond mastermind who can commit hundreds of murders without anybody finding out. Every week it's something new and more idiotic than the last, oh, now she has parkinsons, she's being hypnotised by her guard, she actually had a seizure during her speech! She's murdering people left right and centre!
Riddle me this, despite the constant investigations and leaks, how come absolutely nothing has arisen to suggest that the DNC is actually killing people for e-mail leaks, that let's be honest, aren't exactly the most earth shattering thing in the world?
and where's my fucking shill check
[QUOTE=Cructo;50862429]A rich conspiracy nutjob trying to get his theories confirmed. Stop the fucking presses. Of course it hints at that, but should that stop an investigation from taking place?[/QUOTE]
Literally nobody said the police should not investigate.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862359]I'm a western neoconservative, not a liberal.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't change my point at all, globalization has put you on the same page. There's a reason american neocons and the koch brothers are going to hillary, fearing people like bernie and trump. Hillary herself blurs the line between American liberalism and neoconservatism.
Face it, you have many enemies, left, right, and apolitical (like wikileaks) but they do not serve russia. The only reason you mention russia is because it exists outside of the political mainstream for reasons similar to why more and more people in the West are polarizing. They're disillusioned with the centrist consensus that came after the 90s, for different reasons
You link them all together as working for one 'side' because we are in the midst of an election, nothing more.
[QUOTE=Streecer;50862435]
Riddle me this, despite the constant investigations and leaks, how come absolutely nothing has arisen to suggest that the DNC is actually killing people for e-mail leaks, that let's be honest, aren't exactly the most earth shattering thing in the world?[/QUOTE]
They're [I]just that good!!!![/I]
[QUOTE=Conscript;50862438]That doesn't change my point at all, globalization has put you on the same page. There's a reason american neocons and the koch brothers are going to hillary, fearing people like bernie and trump. Hillary herself blurs the line between American liberalism and neoconservatism.
Face it, you have many enemies, left, right, and apolitical (like wikileaks) but they do not serve russia. The only reason you mention russia is because it exists outside of the political mainstream for similar reasons more and more people in the West are. They're disillusioned with the centrist consensus that came after the 90s, for different reasons[/QUOTE]
I don't know about Assange's links to Russia.
I do know he is a liar deliberately targeting the DNC and Clinton's campaign with half-baked conspiracy theories that people greedily gobble up thanks to an inherent dislike of her character.
They are burning all of their integrity in an attempt to manipulate this election and going well beyond the bounds of reason in doing so.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50862177]Generally, the police don't leap to "IT WAS ORDERED BY A POLITICAL CANDIDATE" when someone is shot to death in a region with a noted increase in robberies.[/QUOTE]
Normally yes, but this article seems weird... The Chief of police did not wish to comment which is understandable considering it is still probably early in the investigation, and they're likely aware of how sensitive the situation is.
But immediately after mentioning the "no comment" response from the police chief, this article shoehorned in some claims that "the police have said this was likely a robbery". It just seems odd that literally right after the police chief says "At this time we don't have any information to suggest", the article somehow already found a possible motive from straight from the police.
[QUOTE=Conscript;50862438]That doesn't change my point at all, globalization has put you on the same page. There's a reason american neocons and the koch brothers are going to hillary, fearing people like bernie and trump. Hillary herself blurs the line between American liberalism and neoconservatism.
Face it, you have many enemies, left, right, and apolitical (like wikileaks) but they do not serve russia. The only reason you mention russia is because it exists outside of the political mainstream for similar reasons more and more people in the West are. They're disillusioned with the centrist consensus that came after the 90s, for different reasons[/QUOTE]
It is curious how communists, disillusioned with the utter failure of their ideology worldwide, seeking for something dangerous and hostile to their own nation, start to support homophobic nationalists like Putin, or racists like Trump. They don't even need to be left wing anymore! They just need to seek to destroy and undermine the society they live in because they're super edgy and horny for political breakdown and revolution.
Ultimately, the links of Wikileaks and Russia are unproven. But given the likely Russian involvement in the DNC leaks, it is in turn likely they have a hand in the direction of Wikileaks as well, given the implacably anti-western attitudes of Assange and the fact he seems to avoid leaking anything on Putin and Russia like the plague. But that's surely just a coincidence. As is, I'm sure, the game of smoke and mirrors and distraction through the vomiting of Russian propaganda garbage in the West through Russia Today and Sputnik.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50862459]I don't know about Assange's links to Russia.
I do know he is a liar deliberately targeting the DNC and Clinton's campaign with half-baked conspiracy theories that people greedily gobble up thanks to an inherent dislike of her character.
They are burning all of their integrity in an attempt to manipulate this election and going well beyond the bounds of reason in doing so.[/QUOTE]
I can't speak on the conspiracy theories, but there's a reason groups like anonymous and wikileaks have become viciously anti-clinton and ignoring trump. It's the same reason many of the same people who despised the republican party for being a party of capitalist hawks in the 2000s now hate the Democrats.
The fault isn't with these people, it's with our two party system and the money in it. That's the real threat to things like net neutrality, privacy, and of course peace.
That's what bothers Flashmarsh, the left, right, the millenials and the internet have gone anti-establishment, 'anti-globalist', and a neocon and a third way liberal are in the exact same boat in this scenario. Case in point:
[quote]t is curious how communists, disillusioned with the utter failure of their ideology worldwide, seeking for something dangerous and hostile to their own nation, start to support homophobic nationalists like Putin, or racists like Trump. They don't even need to be left wing anymore! They just need to seek to destroy and undermine the society they live in because they're super edgy and horny for political breakdown and revolution.[/quote]
You can just sense the butthurt as he realizes the 'end of history' never happened and the political consensus of the post-cold war era is falling apart, with existing divisions brought to the fore by globalization. You can tell he just wants to scream 'horseshoe theory!' because both sides are 100% okay with the decline of people like him, getting them and their money out of the way so real change can occur
I love how you even appeal to my leftism. Because the fact I'm pro-LGBT means I need to support the 'progressive' west against reactionary Russia, or a 'lesser evil' democratic party versus populist/nationalist/reactionary Trump. Clinton does the same, exact shit. It worked in the 2000s, not buying it anymore.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50862488]Normally yes, but this article seems weird... The Chief of police did not wish to comment which is understandable considering it is still probably early in the investigation, and they're likely aware of how sensitive the situation is.
But immediately after mentioning the "no comment" response from the police chief, this article shoehorned in some claims that "the police have said this was likely a robbery". It just seems odd that literally right after the police chief says "At this time we don't have any information to suggest", the article somehow already found a possible motive from straight from the police.[/QUOTE]
Not really? I don't get what's so strange about the cheif not wanting to comment, but the police in general thinking it's a robbery. Unless I'm missing something, those two things don't really conflict.
[QUOTE=Conscript;50862498]I can't speak on the conspiracy theories, but there's a reason groups like anonymous and wikileaks have become viciously anti-clinton and ignoring trump. It's the same reason many of the same people who despised the republican party for being a party of capitalist hawks in the 2000s now hate the Democrats.
The fault isn't with these people, it's with our two party system and the money in it. That's the real threat to things like net neutrality, privacy, and of course peace.
That's what bothers Flashmarsh, the left and right have gone anti-establishment, and a neocon and a third way liberal are in the exact same boat.[/QUOTE]
Okay then Wikileaks doesn't get to hide behind the neutral aegis of whistleblower. You readily admit that they are an anti-establishment outfit targeting Clinton.
You can't or won't speak on conspiracy theories, because your boy Assange here is using a conspiracy theory as a political cudgel against Clinton and I feel like your attempts to use political labels to discredit people ("Oh you are a neocon/liberal, of course you don't believe in baseless claims Assange makes :downs:") is deflection.
[editline]10th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;50862498]
You can just sense the butthurt as he realizes the 'end of history' never happened and the political consensus of the post-cold war era is falling apart, with existing divisions brought to the fore by globalization. You can tell he just wants to scream 'horseshoe theory!' because both sides are 100% okay with the decline of people like him, getting them and their money out of the way so real change can occur[/QUOTE]
Something tells me an ends justifies the means sort of person. You really do deserve to live in a communist "utopia."
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50862512]Not really? I don't get what's so strange about the cheif not wanting to comment, but the police in general thinking it's a robbery. Unless I'm missing something, those two things don't really conflict.[/QUOTE]
Please read again, I was trying to say that the police chief understandably wanted to not comment on it and risk causing a shitstorm of conspiracy theories. But then the article goes beyond that and somehow provides a possible motive to the attack, waaaay early into the investigation before we really know anything. And from an uncited source at that.
Basically I think this article is going to have the Streisand effect by calling attention to this incident and trying to explain things away.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862141]Can you really not see what they're trying to do by offering this reward? It's pretty transparent even by Wikileaks standards. They're not really trying to solve it. They're trying to stir conspiracy to benefit Trump by implying it was a Clinton murder without any evidence. Why else would they be offering a reward other than for these implications? I don't think they're routinely interested in ordinary murders.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so now WikiLeaks is actually a Trump conspiracy, out to make Hillary look bad and out to specifically benefit Trump?
Who is the one with the conspiracy theories again, now?
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50862310]Right, 2 shots to the back of the head is a common mistake muggers commit.
Like, I'm not even saying that it was the Clintons. But it's flat out retarded to say that it was an attempted robbery, for all we know he could have been in debt with the mafia.[/QUOTE]
To the [I]back[/I], not to the [I]back of the head.[/I] Pretty marked difference. One implies a literal execution, whereas the other could be damn near anything.
Don't know or care what your personal thoughts on the subject are, but this is how misinformation feeds conspiracy theorists. Something is misread, miscommunicated, misinterpreted, or exaggerated, and rumors and speculation take hold.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50862488]Normally yes, but this article seems weird... The Chief of police did not wish to comment which is understandable considering it is still probably early in the investigation, and they're likely aware of how sensitive the situation is.
But immediately after mentioning the "no comment" response from the police chief, this article shoehorned in some claims that "the police have said this was likely a robbery". It just seems odd that literally right after the police chief says "At this time we don't have any information to suggest", the article somehow already found a possible motive from straight from the police.[/QUOTE]
So basically whoever wrote the article is pulling it out of their ass on the motive?
[quote]Okay then Wikileaks doesn't get to hide behind the neutral aegis of whistleblower. You readily admit that they are an anti-establishment outfit targeting Clinton.
[/quote]
Actually they do, because the neutral aegis of a whistleblower necessarily pits you against the system and therefore the center. You don't get to paint them as agents of the left, right, or Russia just because they benefit. That's flashmarsh-tier bullshit
The politicization of something like Wikileaks is down to wider polarization and is a necessary step, not to mention in response to political developments at the top. It is not wikileaks that made our party of the left shills for restricting privacy, regime change, and so on. They are anti-establishment because with this election cycle it is abundantly clear that both parties serve the same interests based on their own behavior.
In 2016 the question has changed from left or right to something else for different people
Nationalists: nationalism or globalism
Socialists/leftists: socialism or globalism
Wikileaks/anonymous: humanism/transparency or globalism
And clinton legitimately represents this nebulous 'globalism' essentially because Bill created the 'third way' by pushing for NAFTA/repeal of glass steagall while being an interventionist abroad, and Hillary is no less a bought out neoliberal hawk. They both got rich off going around the world forging ties with very powerful people who agree on one, detached consensus, and as rockefeller-tier philanthropists all of them have taken it upon themselves to institute it.
Without saying it, people are thinking liberalism's end of history is a dystopia. That's the source of recent polarization. To different people it's associated with either a decline of the west, a gutting of left parties and the power of labor, or growth of state power while reducing transparency and freedom. We judged fascism and communism as being on the wrong side of history, but we never had a chance to do so with liberalism as plutocratic 'democracy'.
Now, as the sole survivor the 20th century, it is happening and thank god for that.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50862210]"He doesn't belive in my conspiracy theories! Someone must be paying him!"[/QUOTE]
What the fuck
The idea that reward money for a murder is secretly a Russian plot to hurt Clinton is the conspiracy theory here
So fucking backwards
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50862591]Oh, so now WikiLeaks is actually a Trump conspiracy, out to make Hillary look bad and out to specifically benefit Trump?
Who is the one with the conspiracy theories again, now?[/QUOTE]
In fairness he didn't link Wikileaks to Trump, just saying that such a conspiracy would benefit Trump. Not really a conspiracy nor a theory.
[QUOTE=Conscript;50862632]Actually they do, because the neutral aegis of a whistleblower necessarily pits you against the system and therefore the center. You don't get to paint them as agents of the left, right, or Russia just because they benefit. That's flashmarsh-tier bullshit
The politicization of something like Wikileaks is down to wider polarization and is a necessary step, not to mention in response to political developments at the top. It is not wikileaks that made our party of the left shills for restricting privacy, regime change, and so on. They are anti-establishment because with this election cycle it is abundantly clear that both parties serve the same interests based on their own behavior.
[/QUOTE]
But they aren't whistleblowing anymore, they are now an outfit of political operators and activists attacking purely the Democrats and their nominee, not both parties, as you seem to imply is their mission. I'm not painting them as agents of the left, right, or Russia I'm painting them as disingenuous hostile actors who's credibility should be taken into serious consideration given that they are currently using lies and baseless claims to further a political narrative.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.