Agreed, and trying to smear the wikileaks dump as fake damaged the credibility of Clinton's campaign. Especially when next day she answered specific questions about the contents of the emails, indirectly verifying them.
Russia's at it again
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Agreed, and trying to smear the wikileaks dump as fake damaged the credibility of Clinton's campaign. Especially when next day she answered specific questions about the contents of the emails, indirectly verifying them.
Oh I know, I wasn't referring to the leaks as fake news.
It's the sheer volume of factually incorrect propaganda that was(is) being spewed out that needs to be addressed. Thousands of articles claiming outright lies were being shared and believed by millions of people every day. That's a very dangerous political tool but as I said, giving a government the powers to control this sort of press is even more dangerous so a solution is going to have to be made.
My guess is that Google and Facebook will tighten their criteria of qualification for a "news source" and eventually will have AI capable of fact checking that will be able to give each article a validity rating but we're probably a while away from that.
How? Please share a link that explains everything from A to B and lays out clear evidence.
Remember when WikiLeaks was heralded on here. Now since it's been reporting the mass of corruption on the Clinton foundation it's a tool for evil. Strange.
The USA has played decisive roles in deposing many regimes over the last century, played roles in other countries elections, still playing roles in keeping pro-American regimes in charge.
I would think Russians are only doing what they think is in their national interests, as does other powerful nations.
What's new?
I would think Russians are only doing what they think is in their national interests, as does other powerful nations.
What's new?
Last edited:
Why is it strange? It played a key role in giving a dangerous, thin-skinned buffoon the nuclear codes. Of course it's under more scrutiny now. Nobody minded when it was perceived as nothing more than a tool for transparency. Things are little different now we realise it can be used as a tool to swing elections and the publishers have been so blatant about their bias. Surely that's obvious?
https://www.google.ru/ works better
Reddit is better again, you'll have the Putin-vetted version of events in the comments somewhere.
There's nothing new because it was always about the 'good intentions'. The Americans, of course, always have the best intentions at heart, so if in course of their actions millions die, get displaced and entire countries collapse, that's all very regrettable and... well, unintentional. The Russians, on the other hand, have a genetic, evil predisposition, so when in course of their actions people die that only reveales their true, corrupt nature.
Fair point. In a historical context - like, looking back at this in a hundred years time, say - it could be seen as a bit of comeuppance. "Haha! After all those shenanigans the chickens came home to roost for those medling Americans."
Some basic questions: The root of all this is a hacking to the Democratic party leaking documents that could influence the public image of Clinton?.
I have read that the new secretary of state has a good relationship with Putin, which has apparently been seen negatively. Why exactly Putin wants Trump + a favorable cabinet? An international common front?(where?), or get rid of those international sanctions?, on the other hand, do these international sanctions mean so much to Russia?.
It seems that Trump wants to start a financial war with China, but Russia and China seem to have good relations. I do not know if they are allies but in international affairs they usually give an image of unity. How can all this go together?
I have read that the new secretary of state has a good relationship with Putin, which has apparently been seen negatively. Why exactly Putin wants Trump + a favorable cabinet? An international common front?(where?), or get rid of those international sanctions?, on the other hand, do these international sanctions mean so much to Russia?.
It seems that Trump wants to start a financial war with China, but Russia and China seem to have good relations. I do not know if they are allies but in international affairs they usually give an image of unity. How can all this go together?
So your saying Asange and Co shouldn't reveal any wrong doings by the Clinton foundation during a time when she's up for election?
Their intentions were political. That's the issue.
What I'm saying is the role it played in getting Trump elected has put it under increased scrutiny. For obvious reasons. It's a little harder to accept what was formally believed to be an entirely altruistic initiative when it demonstrated such a blatant political agenda in the US presidential election.
I'd be interested in an answer to this as well.
Did anyone end up providing a list of the egregious corruption that Wikileaks uncovered about Clinton? From reading them at the time the worst thing seemed to be "public and private position", which is hard to get to worked up over.
Yeah, we do love a bit of double morals in the West.
Take us in Norway for example, the government has just decided to stop buying products from Israel, meanwhile:
- We sell them missile guiding systems and cluster bombs (which we invented)
- We sell the same to Saudi Arabia and do a lot of trade with them
- We actively participated in bombing Libya
- We talk a high and mighty talk about disarming nations, all the while our national oil fund is one of the biggest weapon investors and profiters in the world
But it is okay, because we often condemn the Russians, and we dont buy sweet peppers and starfruit from Israel anymore. Also we host the Nobel peace price.
Last edited:
Very good article.
Whom do you prefer does the meddling?
No one shoud be meddling.
This is how wars start.
Respect other nations to decide their own futures.
This is how wars start.
Respect other nations to decide their own futures.
If there was absolutely no option but to intervene, I'd obviously prefer USA doing the meddling.
It is somewhat funny that the chickens are coming home to roost....until you realise that a lot of people are going to suffer and that progress on things like climate change and good relations with Iran are going to be impacted.
But that Hillary...so dishonest, eh?
Not even close...
Putin is a smart mofo.
Yes they definitely should but also they should've revealed everything on Trump, everything on Russia and everything on everyone else like they're originally supposed to do.
They picked a side (or rather, were coerced into picking a side or being obliterated by Putin) and since then, they've not been Wikileaks, they've been Russia leaks.
Russia didn't want Hillary so it did what it needed to make sure it got Trump.
"Addressing claims that WikiLeaks chose not to release similarly damning information about Republicans during the election, Assange also said that the site had received about three pages on the RNC, but that the information had already been published."
Elaborate.
He probably means that the CIA coup of Chile's democratically elected head of state, with the presidential palace being blown to pieces (and the disastrous Friedman inspired top down/austerity/mass killings that followed) isn't anywhere as near as bad as having a state meddle in an election.
People with Asperger's often are.
And you believe that?
Back in 2010 they promised a huge leak on Russia.
Something happened and it was never heard of again and they've been very pally with Russia ever since.
@Pogue Mahone
I think somewhere in this thread you brought up how the west/capitalism/globalisation has brought in an unprecedented peace.
This (very, very, extremely) long article attacks that thesis:
http://publicintellectualsproject.m...rs-apologetics-for-western-imperial-violence/
I think the whole article is worth reading (in several sittings) but the sections on Iraq, Indonesia, and "massaging the numbers" are the real killers for this thesis.
I think somewhere in this thread you brought up how the west/capitalism/globalisation has brought in an unprecedented peace.
This (very, very, extremely) long article attacks that thesis:
http://publicintellectualsproject.m...rs-apologetics-for-western-imperial-violence/
I think the whole article is worth reading (in several sittings) but the sections on Iraq, Indonesia, and "massaging the numbers" are the real killers for this thesis.
Last edited:
Several sittings is right! I'm a couple of thousand words in and it's very impressive. I'll admit a lot of my thinking is influenced by the Pinker piece it ruthlessly deconstructs. Always good to hear another opinion and I'm probably not a good enough historian to pick any holes in it. I've a horrible feeling this will depress the shit out of me
If if it doesn't win by knockout, then he'll sure do it by grinding the reader to exhaustion.
Long, but a brutally clinical destruction of our default world view. I'm only in up to Afghanistan.
Several sittings is right! I'm a couple of thousand words in and it's very impressive. I'll admit a lot of my thinking is influenced by the Pinker piece it ruthlessly deconstructs. Always good to hear another opinion and I'm probably not a good enough historian to pick any holes in it. I've a horrible feeling this will depress the shit out of me
A good start for any budding historian is to understand that 'history is written by the conquerer'. In other words, for example, a lot of what is educated in the West (or any other regions for that matter) is based upon our version of events and not necessarily based upon objective unbiased facts. Litterateur is least censored where there is democracy and freedom. Ironically, this does not necessarily mean said litterateur is not biased or even that the litterateur is correct.