There's not a lot of love going around for WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, these days. It seems his friends list is down to perhaps just Donald Trump.
Even his hosts, the government of Ecuador that has granted Assange refuge in their London embassy, may have had about enough of him. That was clear when they recently cut off their guest's access to the internet to keep him from continuing to dump emails and other documents, supposedly hacked by the Russians, said to be embarrassing - or worse - to Hillary Clinton. Ecuador said it didn't want Assange dragging them into American electoral politics.
Assange might be worried about slipping into obscurity, irrelevance. Since he's gone in hiding he's been somewhat eclipsed by Edward Snowden and journalist, Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald doesn't think much of Assange's antics.
"You'd have to be a sociopath to think that we ought to just take all of this material and dump it all on the internet without regard to the impact that it will have for innocent people."
For his part, Snowden weighed in on the running battle between Greenwald and Assange with a tweet that noted, in part: "Opportunism won't earn you a pardon from Clinton and curation is not censorship."
I feel almost sympathetic to Assange but he has brought this on himself.
If you live in a cage for years without hope ; I would imagine your mind could become vindictive.
ReplyDeleteThe support for Assange mellowed after he was deleted from the front page of the 'news'.
We have such short memories.
I don't support Assange trying to affect the USA election outcome.
I do however ; think there is much more to this story than is being told.
TB
OMG, how pathetic. If Assange had leaked emails showing corruption in the Trump campaign you'd be singing his praises. (Instead you have to rely on Jeb Bush's campaign manager!) But because he has dirt on Hillary he's suddenly a Russian spy attempting to interfere in a US election!
ReplyDeleteThese corrupt cowering empty-calorie liberals make me vomit!
Don't worry about Assange. He's a hero of the Movement. He'll be around long after you eat the Void.
So, Anonymouse, I take it you think Greenwald and Snowden are "pathetic, empty-calorie liberals, about to eat the Void" whatever the hell that means in your curiously angry little mind. If you bothered to read the post or follow the link before you got your bowels all churned up you might have managed to come across as a bit less unhinged.
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Assange may be going a little squirrely - the "embassy" is apparently tiny and Obama, Clinton etc have been totally blood-thirsty in this regard. I can't really blame him for a vindictive streak, counterproductive though it may be.
ReplyDeleteEven Greenwald (no Trump supporter) has pointed to the contents of the DEMs leaked emails as candidacy-killing in a "normal" year. The Clinton camp made sure the rape-tape emerged on the same day as the most damaging emails.
We may avoid a Trump presidency and all that implies.... but the Queen of Chaos is intent on regime change in Russia and the whole US military-industrial complex is chomping at the bit to get on with it - while they poke at China. We may yet 'long for the good old days': when climate change was our biggest problem.
I don't buy into this "regime change in Russia" business, NPoV. Hillary is experienced and accustomed to working with competent advisors. By now there ought to have been a rich history of her "going rogue" had that ever occurred. Her opponents started this meme that my angry gerbil, Anonymouse, clings to yet, like most conspiracy theories, there's bugger all in the way of supporting evidence. It's telling that they conflate her role as Secretary of State into some sort of Commander in Chief, personally initiating and directing the war on Libya. It takes a real dunderhead to demonstrate such a feeble grasp of how the chain of command on warfighting matters works in the United States.
ReplyDeleteYou have advanced the proposition that Clinton "is intent on regime change in Russia." He who propounds must prove. Show me your proof. What have you got to back that up?
Instead of the conspiracy theories, I prefer the more balanced take on Hillary Clinton such as this informative piece from The Guardian.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/23/hillary-clinton-record-secretary-of-state-foreign-policy
OMG, how pathetic. If Assange had leaked emails showing corruption in the Trump campaign you'd be singing his praises.
ReplyDeleteSorry Mound, I kind of get the same feeling also.
The may point that seems to be missed is that Hillary and the apparatus does seem to be rigged. Be it against the senator from Vermont, or manipulating the media in Clinton's favour.
The bottom line is that both candidates are unpopular, yet Clinton seems to get a pass - call in an affliction of the mind...
Both these people are playing politics with the truth; they are interested in protecting Hillary; their arguments are absurd.
ReplyDelete1) The Podesta email leaks are hurting no one (no classified material involved.)
2) The Russians are not involved, this is just another pivot/distraction; Podesta's email password was "imwithher"; anyone could've downloaded the damning emails; he might have leaked them himself.
3) It's ridiculous to suggest that leaking information that reveals a politician is involved with corruption is interfering in an election. It's simply revealing the TRUTH about a politician which voters would certainly rather hear about BEFORE they vote than after.
Was the release of the hot mic video of Trump interfering in the election? Why are post-truth neoliberals not calling for the suppression of this information?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/hillary-clintons-strategic-ambition-in-a-nutshell/
ReplyDeleteGreenwald and Snowden are playing politics with the truth, eh? And this revelation is coming from someone who identifies himself as "anonymous."
ReplyDeleteThanks, I think I'll give that a pass.
NPoV, I'm somewhat familiar with Diana Johnstone's writing. I find it interesting if sometimes controversial or not completely persuasive. I read the article and I still find the Guardian piece more balanced and nuanced. Each to his own, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteWe are in the midst of WWIII.
ReplyDeleteAn undeclared war of propaganda.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/31/british-army-facebook-warriors-77th-brigade
What happens in WWIV will be chaotic , perhaps disastrous.
Even Greenwald gets it wrong at times..
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
The internet crashed the other day; coincidence?
Ulterior motive or prank?
TB
Another one...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/02/fake-news-false-flags-how-pentagon-paid-british-pr-firm-500-million-top-secret-iraq
TB
"The internet" didn't crash. One DNS company's servers were overwhelmed by a DDoS attack which led to *some* sites going down - not "the internet". One of those sites was twitter and as far as I'm concerned anybody who takes twitter down and out for good deserves applause. It's a toxic swamp that no one wants to buy for fear of soiling their name.
ReplyDeleteThe only responsibility claimed though unverified was by a hacking group called New World. They hacked into thousands of stupid baby monitors and idiot fridges and called it a successful dry run prior to their big attack against Russia.
We'll see.
In the meantime opportunistic inflammatory rhetoric is the hallmark of empty headed conspiracy addicts with nothing of substance between their ears.
Dana ; I did pose the question
ReplyDeleteThe internet crashed the other day; coincidence?
Ulterior motive or prank?
How about discussing the actual post?
TB
In the meantime opportunistic inflammatory rhetoric is the hallmark of empty headed conspiracy addicts with nothing of substance between their ears.
ReplyDeleteExcept with the latest Wikileaks dump of #podestaemails,much of what was derided as conspiracy against Clinton has proven to be true. From the DNC fucking over Sanders to being to cosy with journalists and manipulating polls....
Curious and curious...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/technology/2016/10/why-did-julian-assange-lose-his-internet-connection
Anon; I am sure the Pro Clinton and Pro Trump supporters will duke this out until the world ends, which is possibly closer than we would hope.
Unless we demolish both of these candidates ( not that we can in Canada) we are in for a rough ride.
For the moment why don't you and I reconsider our information sources and the actual truth ..
TB
TB, I've been writing about the media banging the war drums long before I began this blog a decade ago. Even in Canada, PostMedia's Matt Fisher, joined by the Globe's Marcus Gee and Margaret Wente, were hard on those drums, assuring everyone that Saddam did indeed have masses of WMDs that he could deliver to our kids playgrounds.
ReplyDeleteA couple of years ago I did a post on a warning published in the leading German financial paper, Handelsblatt, that across the West the public was being "mentally mobilized for war." I cited it again earlier this month in this post:
http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.ca/2016/10/bang-war-drums-rattle-those-sabres.html
I'm currently re-reading Mark Urban's recent book, "The Edge." In it he reviews how fragile and illusory is the West's global military domination and how this illusion can back us into wars we don't want and cannot win.
We, the Western alliance, are playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with both Russia and China. He has a chilling expose of Western readiness - for example, the total numbers of front line fighters versus the paltry number of those actually available for service at any time - and how weapons stores are often as bare as Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard. If we had to go to war we might show up essentially empty-handed.
Here's a review from The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/17/the-edge-is-the-military-dominance-of-the-west-coming-to-an-end-mark-urban-review
The other risk associated with this conventional disarmament in the West is an increased reliance on the nuclear option should a peer-on-peer war break out.
It's a good book. I think you would enjoy it.
If Trump is elected a result of Assange's indiscriminate dumping I would sanction Assange's assassination. How's that?
ReplyDeleteJust to reiterate why I support Clinton over Trump. There are two critical issues. The US Supreme Court and America's nuclear codes.
ReplyDeleteCodes first. You don't give a psycho narcissist the codes - never, ever. This is a guy who has four or five business bankruptcies under his belt. He leaves ruin in his wake. No, you do not allow him anywhere near the codes. This is the guy who said to his campaign advisors, "what's the point of having nuclear weapons if we can't use them?"
Nuclear weapons are a difficult issue. There aren't many people familiar with the various technologies (there are several) and fewer still with much understanding of the alternate theories of nuclear use and escalation. Mine goes back to the days of the small-yield tactical weapons and the Fulda Gap. There are many today who blithely imagine that MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction was our great deliverance during Cold War I. Sure, that and a lot of luck - on both sides.
The Supreme Court. Trump has promised to appoint clones of the late Antonin Scalia to the USSC bench. Either you don't have any grasp of how disastrous that could be to America, American democracy and the West generally or you don't care. If you don't know, you're either too ignorant to have a worthwhile opinion on Trump versus Clinton. If you don't care, you're an asshole and I mean that.
Those two factors, in my view, are decisive. You can rant and hector about other matters but, sorry, I don't care. I'm positive there are plenty of blogs and other sites where you can go and indulge conspiracy theories but they're not welcome here.
If Trump is elected a result of Assange's indiscriminate dumping I would sanction Assange's assassination. How's that?
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why many of Clinton's supporters are as loony as Trump's.
Dana, you are truly special in the batshit crazy way - thank you for showing the similarity between Trump and Clinton partisans.
Mound, one the Supreme Court issue, I agree with you in theory. I'm not convinced that Clinton would not appoint the equivalent of corporatists there - she seems to be in bankers camp.
As for the nuclear issue, one would hope that there are safeguards before launching those - maybe you know something we don't.
And a "thank you" for stating your "why I support Clinton".
I'm even more batshit crazy than you can imagine asshole.
ReplyDeleteHere's how crazy I am.
ReplyDeletehttp://napflix.tv/?cat=6&id=QgPZ_k5saH4
Agreed, cabin fever of few years of house arrest can do strange things to one’s mind. However, curating of e-mails requires time and Assange might be short of it.
ReplyDeleteSo after weeks of keeping your cards close to your chest, you finally elaborated on your preferences, Mound. Hillary trumps Drumpf on issues of nuclear codes and Supreme Court. My take is that while there is some chance that Scotus might be taken to the right, the magnitude of such shift (compared to the current course) will not be great. On nuclear codes we could not disagree more. Trump’s comments (as many other of his) are just hot air. Nuclear war with Russia or China under Trump is actually less likely.
As for me, I subscribe to the thesis that “The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior.”
Military-industrial-financial complex committed so many atrocities in the past 30 years, that continuing the current course is not an option.
A..non