• WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for help finding DNC staffer’s killer amid conspiracy rumors
    150 replies, posted
i find the death to be suspicious and doubt the claims that it was a robbery gone wrong but beyond that i will accuse nobody of anything. i will not discount it being a random robbery gone wrong, but i will also not discount it being performed by someone with a purpose. whether that someone be a secret DNC assassin, a crazed ex-lover, or someone just looking to stir the pot and fuck with everyone, i suggest keeping the mind open to all possibilities until evidence surfaces to begin ruling some out. while something may not be a likely possibility, it [i]is[/i] still a possibility and thus a possible avenue to the truth. let the investigation play out and the cards fall where they land before making guesses as to what those cards may hold.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50862645]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] I agree. It's more likely that they just don't like people who murder their (possible) sources.
[QUOTE=Jcw87;50862666]I agree. It's more likely that they just don't like people who murder their (possible) sources.[/QUOTE] But we don't know that he was Assange's source. In fact everything seems to indicate that it wasn't an internal leak from someone at the DNC. If Assange just offered $20,000 for information that would be one thing. It's quite another to offer this bounty days after insinuating that he was the source, and saying that their other sources are in danger, all but saying that the DNC (and by extension Clinton) are willing to assassinate people.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50862655]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] He didn't say that these shenanigans would happen to benefit Trump, he explicitly said "They're trying to stir conspiracy to benefit Trump ". In other words, "They're trying to stir conspiracy (in order) to benefit Trump." His claim is that their purpose for doing this, or at least part of their purpose for doing this, is to benefit Trump. Which sounds like a big fat stinking conspiracy theory to me!
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50862655] 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.[/QUOTE] If that's true then they will fall to the wayside, someone will fill the void doing what they originally did, then realize once again someone like Clinton is the greater evil because she's a legitimate candidate of the elite, of the status quo. Not an inexperienced joke with a tiny, lower class constituency like Trump. These apolitical groups only take sides in response to political developments, not the other way around
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50862693]He didn't say that these shenanigans would happen to benefit Trump, he explicitly said "They're trying to stir conspiracy to benefit Trump ". In other words, "They're trying to stir conspiracy (in order) to benefit Trump." His claim is that their purpose for doing this, or at least part of their purpose for doing this, is to benefit Trump. Which sounds like a big fat stinking conspiracy theory to me![/QUOTE] They are trying to benefit Trump. Trump isn't involved himself. He is a big fat retard who would give it away in twenty seconds in one of his bizarre stream of consciousness speeches. My argument is that Wikileaks, either due to a direct link with Russia or due to anti-Western motives, are purposefully trying to undermine Clinton to the benefit of Trump, which is in turn to the benefit of the enemies of the West.
[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] The amount of people like you who failed to read that even the father of the deceased is upset at Wikileaks ulterior motives is astounding.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50862686]But we don't know that he was Assange's source. In fact everything seems to indicate that it wasn't an internal leak from someone at the DNC. [/quote] I never claimed he was. Hence, "possible" source. I just know that if I were to run an organization like Wikileaks, I would want to aid the capture of any individual that could be a threat to sources. I think these accusations that wikileaks is just targeting the DNC are unfounded. What they report on is largely determined by what information gets leaked to them. They probably don't report on trump because his awfulness is already out in the open, so nobody feels inclined to 'leak' information that is already public knowledge.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862713]They are trying to benefit Trump. Trump isn't involved himself. He is a big fat retard who would give it away in twenty seconds in one of his bizarre stream of consciousness speeches. My argument is that Wikileaks, either due to a direct link with Russia or due to anti-Western motives, are purposefully trying to undermine Clinton to the benefit of Trump, which is in turn to the benefit of the enemies of the West.[/QUOTE] Well, you're right in that it's not a Trump conspiracy theory at least. It's just a Russian conspiracy theory now, which doesn't help matters. Just show me your proof then, and I'll be on my merry way.
[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] [QUOTE]On Tuesday, Joel Rich said that the WikiLeaks reward seemed to legitimize the rumor mill. “I don’t think I want to comment,” he said at first, then added, “I hope the additional money helps find out who did this.” But, he said, “I don’t want to play WikiLeaks’ game.”[/QUOTE] I can't believe the murder victims father is condemning the investigation because he's skeptical of Wikileaks motives!
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50862786]Well, you're right in that it's not a Trump conspiracy theory at least. It's just a Russian conspiracy theory now, which doesn't help matters. Just show me your proof then, and I'll be on my merry way.[/QUOTE] Russian conspiracy is possible, due to the highly likely direct Russian involvement in the DNC leaks. More likely is that Assange is just personally extremely anti-western (this is out in the open and very public and easy to find if you care to look) and is doing this for his own ideological reasons, which in turn benefits Russia which are the main enemy of the West at this time.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862824]Russian conspiracy is possible, due to the highly likely direct Russian involvement in the DNC leaks. More likely is that Assange is just personally extremely anti-western (this is out in the open and very public and easy to find if you care to look) and is doing this for his own ideological reasons, which in turn benefits Russia which are the main enemy of the West at this time.[/QUOTE] If it was a Russian conspiracy, Wikileaks would be pretty fucking bad at their job. Seeing as they put out dirt on Russia before. Unless, they were [I]paid[/I] by Russia to put out that dirt, to divert suspicion! Brilliant! Oh wait, that's fucking stupid. This whole theory is stupid without any proof. So the new claim: Assange is just incredibly anti-western and incredibly misguided. Now we're getting to a theory that actually makes some goddamn sense! One dude is an idiot! I think we found our most likely theory.
[QUOTE=Cructo;50862851]What, you want more proof than baseless conjecture? Maybe he should give you a back rub as well?[/QUOTE] I am not ruling out direct Russian involvement with Wikileaks. Before the DNC leaks I didn't think there was any link at all. Afterwards, it is certainly possible. Whether it is direct Russian involvement or simply personal ideological motivations which benefit Russia, it doesn't matter. Wikileaks has no credibility and is obviously trying to stir conspiracy bullshit with this. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50862862]If it was a Russian conspiracy, Wikileaks would be pretty fucking bad at their job. Seeing as they put out dirt on Russia before. Unless, they were [I]paid[/I] by Russia to put out that dirt, to divert suspicion! Brilliant! Oh wait, that's fucking stupid. This whole theory is stupid without any proof. So the new claim: Assange is just incredibly anti-western and incredibly misguided. Now we're getting to a theory that actually makes some goddamn sense! One dude is an idiot! I think we found our most likely theory.[/QUOTE] What dirt did they put on Russia? They have put almost no dirt on Russia at all.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862868]What dirt did they put on Russia? They have put almost no dirt on Russia at all.[/QUOTE] You're right, I don't actually have any proof of Wikileaks putting out any dirt on Russians on hand. I was in error. I'll shut up and not push the claim when I don't have any actual proof then.
Maybe if your only source on politics is a Bill Clinton kill list written by the American Freedom and Second Amendment Association. Russia has been meddling in Western politics to undermine us for many years through Russia Today and Sputnik acting as smoke and mirrors disinformation channels of Kremlin propaganda. Russia has a very strong motivation to meddle in this eletion, and after the DNC leaks likely already has. They have a very strong motivation to be anti-Clinton and pro-Trump. They have likely already leaked something (DNC) to Wikileaks before. They have a easy to use vehicle for their actions in Wikileaks, with an ideologically friendly founder and leader. It isn't so much a 'conspiracy' that Russia may be directly involved but is a possibility to explore, which I am leaving open.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862824]Russian conspiracy is possible, due to the highly likely direct Russian involvement in the DNC leaks. More likely is that Assange is just personally extremely anti-western (this is out in the open and very public and easy to find if you care to look) and is doing this for his own ideological reasons, which in turn benefits Russia which are the main enemy of the West at this time.[/QUOTE] Assange's primary agenda is keeping his face in the news and attracting a cult of personality around himself consisting of people who keep stroking his massive ego.
I like how this conversation shifted from "This is a conspiracy to get Trump elected" to "This is a Russian conspiracy to get Trump elected, to harm the USA" to "G-guys, maybe Russia is possibly involved?!?!?!"
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50862946]I like how this conversation shifted from "This is a conspiracy to get Trump elected" to "This is a Russian conspiracy to get Trump elected, to harm the USA" to "G-guys, maybe Russia is possibly involved?!?!?!"[/QUOTE] You misread what I was saying in my early posts. I never said it involved Trump himself or even implied it. You just decided I said it. I mean, this isn't surprising given that you seem to misread what everyone else says in almost every thread on this forum (just now you completely made up something that I wrote in a thread about free speech, for example, because your comprehension skills are poor), then threadshit fifteen pages getting upset about it, but regardless.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862974]You misread what I was saying in my early posts. I never said it involved Trump himself or even implied it. You just decided I said it. I mean, this isn't surprising given that you seem to misread what everyone else says in almost every thread on this forum (just now you completely made up something that I wrote in a thread about free speech, for example, because your comprehension skills are poor), then threadshit fifteen pages getting upset about it, but regardless.[/QUOTE] You're right, you never implied it. [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. [B]They're trying to stir conspiracy to benefit Trump by implying it was a Clinton murder without any evidence. [/B]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] You only outright positively claimed that getting Trump elected was the primary reason for this happening. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] Sorry I misread that too, you didn't say Trump, you meant to type Tpump, the unknown independent candidate from Alaska, but your finger slipped. You didn't mean to imply Trump had anything to do with this knowingly or not at any point. My bad. Also, A: Don't bring up shit from different threads, nobody cares, go to that thread and talk about it there, B: I merely used your post as a springboard to talk about general shit and never put words in your mouth, and C: don't bring up shit from different threads, nobody cares, go to that thread and talk about it there.
[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] Of course, but generally two shots to the back and running away without the victims wallet or valuables is hardly enough to be considered a robbery.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50862992]You're right, you never implied it. You only outright positively claimed that getting Trump elected was the primary reason for this happening. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] Sorry I misread that too, you didn't say Trump, you meant to type Tpump, the unknown independent candidate from Alaska, but your finger slipped. You didn't mean to imply Trump had anything to do with this knowingly or not at any point. My bad.[/QUOTE] But that isn't the same as saying Trump or the Trump campaign is directly involved. We already know that Wikileaks support Trump and despise Clinton, and will want to benefit Trump! We already know that Assange is ideologically anti-West and that Trump being elected will immensely benefit those who are anti-West. None of this is in dispute. Yet you decide that just because I suggest (and stick by) the idea that Wikileaks are acting to try and help Trump get elected, that I am suggesting Trump is directly involved.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50863034]But that isn't the same as saying Trump or the Trump campaign is directly involved. We already know that Wikileaks support Trump and despise Clinton, and will want to benefit Trump! We already know that Assange is ideologically anti-West and that Trump being elected will immensely benefit those who are anti-West. None of this is in dispute. Yet you decide that just because I suggest (and stick by) the idea that Wikileaks are acting to try and help Trump get elected, that I am suggesting Trump is directly involved.[/QUOTE] I only did that at first, and immediately withdrew that though when you explained yourself. After that, my claim was that you said "This is a conspiracy to get Trump elected". Which is what you said! That doesn't say Trump is the mastermind, it just means that it's a conspiracy to get Trump elected. :v:
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50863064]I only did that at first, and immediately withdrew that though when you explained yourself. After that, my claim was that you said "This is a conspiracy to get Trump elected". Which is what you said! That doesn't say Trump is the mastermind, it just means that it's a conspiracy to get Trump elected. :v:[/QUOTE] Yes, it is a 'conspiracy' (as if a blatant stirring of flames of conspiracy theorists in plain view of everyone is a 'conspiracy' by any standard) to help to elect Trump, and transparently so.
I have to admit that Trump is milking Seth's death and the whole conspiracy deal, but I doubt they are willing to gamble the election results on something this, well, common thing.
I'm almost 100% convinced that Assange is working with the Kremlin now. When was the last time WikiLeaks published [i]anything[/i] that implicated Russia in any way? Assange [i]criticized the fucking Panama Papers[/i] and said there was a "pro-Western bias" and accused it of "Putin-bashing." He recommended Snowden flee to Russia instead of South America. I do like what WikiLeaks does and I think that whistleblowing and transparency are important, but Assange and the Kremlin/Putin have been agreeing on [i]everything[/i] lately. Why is Assange so focused on the US elections being a fraud when the Russian elections have been falsified for [i]decades[/i]? Why hasn't WikiLeaks released shit about that? It's a conspiratorial view, I'll admit it, but I honestly think Assange and the Kremlin are working together.
Not only that, but Assange [i]has a goddamn television show on RT[/i], which he got after threatening to release sensitive documents about major Russian political figures. He blackmailed the Russian government into hosting a TV show for him on their government-run propaganda channel, and then [i]he didn't release the leaked information that would incriminate Russian politicians[/i]. Some fucking transparency right there.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862824]Russian conspiracy is possible, due to the highly likely direct Russian involvement in the DNC leaks. More likely is that Assange is just personally extremely anti-western (this is out in the open and very public and easy to find if you care to look) and is doing this for his own ideological reasons, which in turn benefits Russia which are the main enemy of the West at this time.[/QUOTE] His own ideological reasons, and it would seem that he blames Clinton personally for the predicament he's in now. It's why he's supposedly holding out on releasing the other DNC documents he has (if he really has them) so he can maximize the potential damage they could do to her campaign, rather than, you know, releasing all of them at once in the interest of informing the public, which was supposed to be Wikileak's purpose.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50863240]I'm almost 100% convinced that Assange is working with the Kremlin now. When was the last time WikiLeaks published [i]anything[/i] that implicated Russia in any way? Assange [i]criticized the fucking Panama Papers[/i] and said there was a "pro-Western bias" and accused it of "Putin-bashing." He recommended Snowden flee to Russia instead of South America. I do like what WikiLeaks does and I think that whistleblowing and transparency are important, but Assange and the Kremlin/Putin have been agreeing on [i]everything[/i] lately. [B]Why is Assange so focused on the US elections being a fraud when the Russian elections have been falsified for [i]decades[/i]?[/B] Why hasn't WikiLeaks released shit about that? It's a conspiratorial view, I'll admit it, but I honestly think Assange and the Kremlin are working together.[/QUOTE] Probably because people were already quite aware of the facade of Russian elections, but the anti-Sanders campaign revealed in the DNC leaks was something people weren't yet aware of?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50863285]Not only that, but Assange [i]has a goddamn television show on RT[/i], which he got after threatening to release sensitive documents about major Russian political figures. He blackmailed the Russian government into hosting a TV show for him on their government-run propaganda channel, and then [i]he didn't release the leaked information that would incriminate Russian politicians[/i]. Some fucking transparency right there.[/QUOTE] If this is true than I don't see how anyone could take Assange and by extension Wikileaks serious again.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50863240]I'm almost 100% convinced that Assange is working with the Kremlin now. When was the last time WikiLeaks published [i]anything[/i] that implicated Russia in any way? Assange [i]criticized the fucking Panama Papers[/i] and said there was a "pro-Western bias" and accused it of "Putin-bashing." He recommended Snowden flee to Russia instead of South America. I do like what WikiLeaks does and I think that whistleblowing and transparency are important, but Assange and the Kremlin/Putin have been agreeing on [i]everything[/i] lately. Why is Assange so focused on the US elections being a fraud when the Russian elections have been falsified for [i]decades[/i]? Why hasn't WikiLeaks released shit about that? It's a conspiratorial view, I'll admit it, but I honestly think Assange and the Kremlin are working together.[/QUOTE] There's no liberal-democratic smokescreen for the state of russian politics? People believe they have representation in the West? Being opposed to Russia is common, whereas (as flashmarsh exhibits) being 'anti-Western' is taboo? No seriously, from the standpoint of anyone humanist concerned with democracy and capitalism, Russia isn't a top priority. It's a given, a closed case, actually. Why have alternative journalists investigate something mainstream media and your own government have already made conclusions on? [quote]Why shouldnt we document Russian wrongdoings in great detail just because we know they happen?[/quote] For the same reason many people in this thread are anti-Assange, they see a political edge to criticizing liberal democracy as plutocratic, opaque, and working contrary to national and working class interests. On another note, I hate to Godwin and I never do it, but there's an interesting parallel. Nobody could talk about, during the last struggle with modernity, international communism and capitalism without mentioning Jews, and after this election nobody will be able to talk about 'anti-globalism' whether in a left, right, or apolitical form without mentioning Russia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.