https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Third and fourth entires down are posts about Wikileaks.
Printable View
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Third and fourth entires down are posts about Wikileaks.
He waffles a lot about Scottish indepedance, which I tend to ignore, but he is Scottish so fair enough!
Does Assange have some claim to be a perfectly reliable source of information? I'm just curious as to why I should believe everything he says.
For all we know he's working for someone else who has a vested interest in fucking with our heads. Same goes for this Murray guy.
Face it, we'll never know any of this for sure. All we'll know are the various narratives we hear about, probably none of which are true.
It's a question of who you wish to put your trust in. I might come across as a skeptic, but I'm not that paranoid that I refuse to trust anyone. Now, when it comes to Assange, well who the fuck was he before Wikileaks? What has he done to gain my trust? Fuck all. He could be in this for the fame and money for all I know. But Murray, well this is a man who blew a career in politics. He's not in it for the fame and money, because he's not very famous, and he already had a well paid job with huge prospects. He blew that to expose the British government. He has earned my trust.
If you wish to put your trust in career politicians rather than those who put their neck on the block to expose lies and corruption, that's your call.
Can I be certain that Murray is the real deal? Of course not, I haven't met him. But I prefer to trust him over the British government.
Have wikileaks been proven to be wrong yet?Quote:
Does Assange have some claim to be a perfectly reliable source of information? I'm just curious as to why I should believe everything he says.
How would that ever be possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's worth pointing out that British ambassadors get some serious perks. The one which Craig claims keeps a lot of his former collegaues quiet is that the British Govt pay the provate school fees of their kids. That's quite a perk, if you understand how British politics works. It's very difficult to have a high profile career in politics here if you didn't go to the right school.
Murray has to sell books and give talks to make ends meet.
Um... I dunno, perhaps by getting successfuly sued?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Imo there isn't much question if they were hacks or leaks. There were two intrusions to the DNC servers... an intrusion is a hack yeah? Someone in there that isn't supposed to be?
The question is who the hackers are. If it's at all plausible that it's from an outside country then all avenues of investigation should be explored. I guess that's true even if it came from within the DNC. But whether the intrusions came from inside or outside the DNC they are still hacks.
I don't really think those hacks played a key roll in the election though. I think the Russians played a key roll and definitely meddled with the purpose of getting Trump elected but that was more through using professional trolls on social media than hacking.
You have to have proof to sue someone. How do you prove leaked docs are false? Because they don't say 'this is real' on them?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Here's a theory (just a theory): Assange is a stooge of a foreign power trying to undermine the West. Could be China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran -they all hate us. His job is to create a whistleblower persona and 'leak' phony docs that make our gov'ts look bad. Our side can't just say 'that's fake' because no-one will believe us and there's no way to prove it anyways.
Again, just a theory. For all I know he could be legit and either way it doesn't change the fact that our rulers are assholes. It's just interesting to ponder who 'wins' when our gov't gets publicly shamed.
And it's not like ambassadors aren't prime targets for espionage. So, how do you know Murray is living hand-to-mouth? 'Cause he says so in his blog?
Do you have the evidence for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by supa
As per paid shilling, the only one I know about is CTR (Correct the Record). Democrat shills.
If Russian Trump shills exist, they would be on r/The_Donald or /pol/. Go ahead and trust me that is not remotely close to a significant part of The_Donald. Unless you think Russian pleb-wage workers have superior memeology and memetics than the rest of the world.
Never forget that the US mainstream media is the most sophisticated propaganda machine in world history.
Originally I saw it on one of those "fake news" shows. Actual Russians saying they were paid for doing this and went into pretty good detail. Evidence is tricky because it's hard to know what to believe anymore. I can try to scrounge some stuff up but it would be on the observer to decide whether or not it's evidence. I'm pretty satisfied with there being a good amount of truth to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Really it makes sense knowing the facts we have and how gullible people are on social media. Even if it wasn't russia social media was a huge catalyst in trump winning. Definitely not as big as mainstream media and we can't take away the fact that the dems ran a horrible campaign.
I saw it back when he gave the interview. It's worth noting, but Assange doesn't exactly have credibility on this. I like the guy and I love Wikileaks, but we would need third party corroboration when it comes to statements made by Assange. Let me put it this way, if I were him and if it were the Russians, I would say it's not the Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotglass
This goes for Guccifer 2.0, who yesterday claimed that he did the hack (IIRC). Okay, cool, but still he doesn't have enough credibility for us to believe him with certainty.
I also recall Obama giving a possible Freudian slip when he called them leaks in a press conference.
Regardless, I don't really have a position on this because it doesn't change anything where they came from. Like I stated earlier, all the claims Fake News is making about how this is bad for Trump are not true regardless of whether or not Russia did it. It's just a smear campaign and obfuscation from their own foul play.
This is a petty good read although again it's hardly proof.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...6bWtFIv_CPeL-w
When they talk about social media shills for Trump, when they talk about all the alt-right stuff, they're basically talking about r/The_Donald, /pol/, and Breitbart (and InfoWars). My experience on those is that the claim is lol. It's all just a bunch of shitposting and the occasional very important news that is being censored everywhere else (like when the Orlando club terrorist attack happened). As for the conspiracy part, there is a decent amount of that (thanks Alex Jones), but it really doesn't go anywhere. People not deeply embedded in the pro-Trump circles tend to not see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by supa
BTW CTR loves mucking those places up. The_Donald is vastly more popular on reddit than it appears just by going on reddit, but the administrators actively suppress it and CTR does as well. And yet The_Donald still kicks their butts. It's because of the meme magic. Even the most ardent hater of Trump, if he spends a decent amount of time on The_Donald, will soften a lot. Shitposting can be hilariously fun. Plus there's a section of real news people get there that is wholly censored in the mainstream.
The real story of the week is that fake intel dossier. In fact, that's one of the biggest stories in years. It's so bad that CNN and others should be in the process of bankruptcy by now. But they're not, you know, because their propaganda is so incredibly strong that most don't know about their lie and most who do view it with cognitive dissonance.
Oh well. Maybe the next time the entire mainstream media runs with a false story about the nation's leader that is shown to be false within hours people will realize they're being had.
Indirectly, yeah. You haven't seen how much he's plugging his book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you think the life of a whistleblower and bloggist is somehow more profitable than the life of an ambassador, then perhaps I can see where you're coming from.
I would have thought it was a question of access. Someone who has access to state secrets, and shares them is leaking. Someone who doesn't have access and gains it is hacking. But that's just the way I see it, I didn't get the dictionary out.Quote:
Originally Posted by supa
I think access is exactly the term in question and from what I understand if it did come from inside the DNC it was done by someone without access. Again, there were two separate "intrusions" implying that someone who was not supposed to be in there was.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Two questions,Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Has the dossier actually been proven to be false? If so I've missed something.
What do you consider real news?
That'd be a helluva lotta fakery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't think it's actually been proven false...more like unable to be substantiated. Kinda dif to prove a negative. IMO, it's really sayin something if the clinton news network won't run with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by supa
The life of a spy can be pretty profitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So why does he do it then? And why doesn't he hack other countries outside the West? I've never seen a Russian or Chinese wikileak, have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotglass
Also, it's not like no-one has ever faked documents before, especially if they can access the originals.
Again, not saying it's true, just saying you can't assume everything that comes from Assange is the gospel truth just 'cause he projects a certain image.
I don't think I'm following you. It's pretty much the only thing CNN's been covering for days. Also, it isn't at all difficult to prove a negative. It either happened or it didn't. As far as I know every intelligence agency in america is currently investigating it so until someone comes back as fake I have a hard time considering it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotglass
The Director of National Intelligence said it was not a document that came from the intelligence community. Also BuzzFeedBen, when breaking the "story" also said "there is serious reason to doubt the allegations." Based on everything that has happened so far, the "story" is almost certainly fake, except it hasn't been "proven" fake since that's really hard to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by supa
Regarding what news source I think isn't fake, none. Every source has a big bias, even the ones that try hard at neutrality. The best I can come up with is consuming sources that disagree with each other and using my brain to the best of my ability. I tend to ignore tabloids like Huffpaint, Certainly Not News, and The Young Communists.
Excellent, succinct rundown of the false allegations on Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ9eNAEbkU4
Buzzfeed owned, CNN owned, the CIA owned, Rick Wilson owned. Owned by whom? The unstoppable tag team of their own bloodlust to de-legitimize Trump at all costs and a 4chan troll.
This is some Oedipus Rex level irony. CNN et al. have been hammering on for over a month about all the fake news that originates from places like 4chan, only for 4chan to feed them enough rope that they hang themselves with their own fake news scandal.
Of course, the life of an ambassador is shit in comparison. Travelling the world, all expenses paid, having your kids' private education fees paid for by the govt, juicy pension, not having to worry about jail etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I mean I do appreciate your use of the word "spy" here, it didn't go unnoticed. If Murray is a plant, then "spy" is surely the correct word. But if that's what his job is, then he has the problem of fearing for his life or liberty. These are heavy prices to pay. I mean a spy is not a particularly principled person... one who is willing to betray one's nation. If he's that much of a cunt, then why not just keep his job as ambassador and turn a blind eye to the shit the British Govt get up to?
Well if this is the case, fair enough on your use of the word "hack". Although, it's still worth noting that there remains a distinction between an internal hack and a foreign hack. And it's not merely a question of where the hack came from... it's who's responsible. If I go to Russia and hack the British govt and release compromising material, well that's different to one of Putin's goons doing it. Unless I'm working for Putin, of course. But let's assume I'm doing it from Russia because I feel safer there, and that it's based purely on morality. In this case, Putin is not repsonsible, and has no onus on him to arrest me.Quote:
Originally Posted by supa
It has bugger all to do with his image, and everything to do with track record. I give Wikileaks a lot more credit today than I did a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
FYI, there have been leaks relating to China. There are 5000+ govt officials who have bank accounts in Switzerland, with the money being laundered through Hong Kong. There's also something about China being willing to abandon North Korea. I'm not sure about Russia, google results bring up a huge amount of stuff relating to the current climate, and I can't be fucked to trawl through it all.
Also, you use the word "hack" here. Wikileaks doesn't hack. Wikileaks accepts leaks. Whether those leaks were from hacks is another issue, but wikileaks aren't the ones doing the hacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ya, I don't really believe he's a spy, I just think whistleblowers should be treated with the same skepticism as other people.
Also, other diplomats have been found guilty of spying. So apparently some thought it was worth it.
And being a whistleblower is arguably as dangerous as being a spy. You're still more-or-less treated like a traitor.
So publishing a bunch of leaked/hacked stuff makes you incapable of lying? I didn't realise that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
By the state, sure. But not by people like me.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I don't. Spies and whistleblowers are not in the same league. Spies aren't doing what they do based on their moral compass. Not all whistleblowers do either, so I understand why there should be some skepticism. But to argue that the same skepticism should be applied to whistleblowers as there is at spies, well this is not something I agree with at all.Quote:
Ya, I don't really believe he's a spy, I just think whistleblowers should be treated with the same skepticism as other people.
Sure. Of course, it's worth pointing out at this stage that Murray no longer has access to state secrets, and hasn't for a long time. So while it's not out of the question that he was a spy, it's highly unlikely he would still remain one, simply because he wouldn't be a very good one.Quote:
Also, other diplomats have been found guilty of spying. So apparently some thought it was worth it.
I'm sorry, where did I say this? Noone is incapable of lying. But, those who do usually get exposed. When it comes to making allegations of the nature that Wikileaks release, well people tend to get sued when they make false claims on this scale. If Wikileaks have been successfully sued, well please show me when.Quote:
So publishing a bunch of leaked/hacked stuff makes you incapable of lying? I didn't realise that.
A spy can pretend to be a whistleblower, that's my point. (And by 'spy' obviously I'm broadening the definition outside of simply 'passing information' to include other types of espionage).Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I already answered this.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Here's a question: How do wikileaks verify what they're publishing is a legitmate document? Shouldn't that be an important part of a whistleblower's agenda?
This is actually a very good question, one that obviously I can't answer, and one that I have pondered myself. That said, they appear to do a very good job of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Well, you're taking the word "spy" outside of the scope I would use that word. Who is the leaked information going to? Why was the information leaked? The answers to these question determine whether we're talking about a spy or a whistleblower, at least in my view.Quote:
A spy can pretend to be a whistleblower, that's my point. (And by 'spy' obviously I'm broadening the definition outside of simply 'passing information' to include other types of espionage).
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...curacy-record/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
None of this really gets at the question of why Wikileaks does what it does though. What is their actual purpose- just to tattle on everyone? And who's paying for all this? Maybe they're all just super-idealists. Maybe they're up to something shady. I have no way of knowing.
If you look at the effect their work has it seems basically to undermine gov't in principle, and democratic gov't in particular. In that, they seem to share a common theme with Murray. Thus it's not surprising he's a fan.
Granted, they're not pushing narratives like 'Hillary is an alien', but that just shows they're trying to be taken seriously. Doesn't prove anything they do is legit.
Their goal seems to me to undermine corrupt government, to expose their immoral practises. Who's paying for it all? I was under the impression they took donations, and I am confident there would be no shortage in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You seem more concerned about the reason why Wikileaks do what they do, than you are about the content of the leaks.
If your brother was caught stealing money from someone's bank account by a bank employee who happened to notice an unusual transaction, would you say that the person who caught them is the one who needs to be analysed?
looooooooolllllllllllllllll
http://redpanels.com/comics/4chan-pol-comic.png
I wouldn't just accept that he was guilty just because someone said so.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again, to what end? Just so everyone knows their gov'ts are corrupt? What else is new?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, I'm saying it's not as simple as trusting the information-giver by dint of the fact that they claim to be a whistleblower. There's other ways the scenario could come about.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But it's not just the fact they claim to be a whistleblower. In Wikileaks' case, it's their track record. And in Murray's case, it's the perceived integrity that he has through blowing his career.Quote:
No, I'm saying it's not as simple as trusting the information-giver by dint of the fact that they claim to be a whistleblower. There's other ways the scenario could come about.
Can I be 100% certain of the integrity of either Wikileaks or Murray? Of course not, this isn't maths or physics we're talking about here. But to dismiss them based on paranoia relating to their intentions is to basically say I trust noone at all. That's a very depressing position to be quite honest.
There must be people out there who just want the world to be a better place. If I were in the position to expose government lies, I would do so without any interest in financial reward. Am I a special kind of person? I don't think so at all.
But if someone showed you the transaction, in black and white, with IP addresses to pinpoint the source of the theft, would you still say the bank employee might merely have an axe to grind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not suggesting you assume guilt. I'm suggesting you assume the employee was doing what he felt was the right thing to do. Guilt is for the courts to decide. The point of the bank employee tipping off police is to allow the courts to decide if your brother is guilty or not.
The problem we have here is that instead of having people face courts when they are exposed by groups like Wikileaks, people are instead bickering about where the leaks came from and for what motive.
There's other ways to look at these things is my point. What appears to be true is not always true.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's a difference between questioning and dismissing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sure there are, I'm one of them. The problem is you can't necessarily know who they are. The good guys don't necessarily wear white hats.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The government is not my brother and wikileaks is not a bank employee. Let's just stick to what we know and not try to create false analogies.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You really don't need to tell me this. If you think I haven't questioned the sincerity of these guys, you're mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well, it boils down to this... people like Murray and Assange are a lot more likely to be good guys than any given politician, or a celebrity. If Assange is gonna spend 5 years or whatever cooped up in some embassy to pull the wool over my eyes, bravo to him, he did it. They've done everything they can to destroy him. To think he's a plant is even more paranoid than any of the theories I do subscribe to.Quote:
Sure there are, I'm one of them. The problem is you can't necessarily know who they are. The good guys don't necessarily wear white hats.
Let me be clear about something... from the way they come across both in type and in media, I don't particularly like Assange, and I do like Murray. Assange seems arrogant. Murray seems compassionate and honest. If it wasn't for Wikileaks' track record, helped along by Murray's endorsement of Assange, I'd be a lot more skeptical about the latter. If Murray is a plant to get close to Assange, well he could just be the world's best spy. I'd probably like him even more. Sadly, I don't think that's the case.
Nicely dismissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The point of that analogy is to point out that what matters is that your brother stole some money (allegedly), not that the bank employee dobbed him in. A crime was committed (allegedly).
Wikileaks are exposing crimes, and people are accusing them of having ulterior motives. Who gives a fuck about their motives if what they are exposing is actually true? Why is that the primary concern?
I don't think that. You're confusing my questioning with dismissal and that's not what I've been saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They may be. It's also possible Assange is actually a rapist hiding to save his own skin.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again (and again and again), you're confusing what I consider as a possibility with what I believe. Believing all of these speculations whole-heartedly would indeed be paranoid. Not trusting him 100% is being sensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're adding bits to the story I never even said.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Do you not see the link between these two questions?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you say 'I don't care why they're putting out all this information that embarrasses gov'ts, I just accept their motives are pure and the information is accurate', then you're not thinking very hard.
And I'm not accusing you of that. But you're accusing me of being paranoid for questioning those same things. Ok then, I'm paranoid.
Yeah I mean out of all the possible outcomes, this is probably the least likely. As far as I can tell, the girl in question has never accused him of rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Inappropriate.
Indeed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38593513
How mad are you going to be when this works out amazingly Wuf?
In b4 Ong moves to Finland.
People getting a basic income to spend as they please would make like much harder for people like Ong who sponge off loads of different types of benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
On a more serious note it strikes me that most places will be going towards a system like that in the future.
What do you think my opinion on this is?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Oh wait this is the shitposting thread so I'll assume you being partly tongue in cheek
Um, 'ZOMFG Communism!' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In b4 Ong realises his mistake and moves back to the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Makes a thread and gets annoyed when people post on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thankfully he never got through customs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Current systems < non-ridiculous basic income < no welfare
How dare you assume my reactionQuote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Sounds like a tragedy of the commons waiting to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
We're still in EU, there is no customs for you guys. I meanwhile get to stand in line.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
This trial is on a par with what I claim in benefits. It would make life much easier for me, because I wouldn't have to apply for jobs that I have no intention of taking on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Clearly the amount of basic income everyone gets would be lower than the benefits people might get now, since it's paid to everyone. The point is that working would not cut your benefits as it does now, creating more incentive to find work.
Sorry bout the somewhat non-shitpost.
Eliminating a dis-incentive is not the same as 'creating more incentive'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
see.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What I meant is that this basic income of £490 that they're giving is more or less the same as what I currently claim in total. And yes, you're right, if they had a similar system here, then it would greatly increase the chances of me getting some work, perhaps in a pub.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Of course it's an extra incentive. Just because the vast majority of jobs out there are shit and not jobs I intend to take on, doesn't mean I'll never work again so long as I have benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by banana
It's not?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Mathematically it must be. Consider the number line as aggregate incentives; negative values are disincentives and positives are incentives. Any subtraction of a negative necessarily moves our aggregate value more positive.
Using a real world example: reducing tax write-offs for healthcare consumption is a disincentive to consume healthcare and an incentive to consume other products (or to invest or save).
Lets not get started on the meanings of similar and the same again.
In context they are the same.
Hey, that convo was about the meaning of same and opposite, which Ong claimed were related and thus identical. It was a philosophical tour de force.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I've got steam left in that one if you wish to continue...
I'm sure you have lots of time given the spacetime Ongularity that is your infinite present.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It is still my present, so I can confirm that it is certainly longer than a nanosecond. It's at least the time between since we had that discussion and now.
Time is an illusion.
I need this in my life
http://i.imgur.com/wChr0V7.png
I like quitaly. Also Oui out. And finished. And Swedone.
I like Brexit. Happy memories.
I'm partial to Fruck-off but you're right Quitaly might be the overall highest quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Only because it's an anagram of quality.
oh snap crackle pop i didnt see that
How do you not immediately see that quality and quitaly are anagrams? Are you some kind of word retard?
I can spell words in my head and pronounce them backwards crazy fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
More, please.
declaration of independence made me chuckle.
literalol
http://i.imgur.com/XhkYkAx.jpg
In class yesterday sitting next to chick who was moaning about how bad a day she was having because it was inauguration day. Other things about this chick:
Obese.
Messy.
Cheats.
Not smart.
Brags about not being attractive.
It's gotten to the point that I just assume the most well put together people in each of my classes is on the Trump Train and all the others are oppressed victims of oppressive mansplaining oppression.
That says a lot about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Oh sorry, I mean you. It says a lot about you.
So how many people went to celebrate Trump's grand inauguration? I heard it was the lowest turnout for quite a while.
How about those super low approval ratings? Rigged?