Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by busterarm 2778 days ago
Would you though?

The State Dept under Clinton played fast and loose with it's own procedures and regulations and I have a friend who died in the Benghazi attack if you want to fight with me on this point.

More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission.

False flag operations are part of our history and three-letter agencies have a history of being Wild and Crazy Kids.

Assange gets an extraordinary amount of political attention for even a public figure. It's perhaps an unreasonable conclusion for them to make but it's not _too unreasonable_.

7 comments

> Would you though?

Well, yes. The ever-increasing, horrible drone campaigns conducted from the Obama years onward as a tool of destabilization are one thing, but that doesn't make it reasonable to expect that they'd use them to assassinate high profile political agitators in first world countries or that they actually have the ability to do such a thing. The contexts are totally different, however the narrative IS in keeping with the typical far right behavior of cultivating the image of a victim terrorized by an all-powerful shadow cabal

> doesn't make it reasonable to expect that they'd assassinate high profile political agitators in first world countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_in_Euro...

That's quite a list. However, I see exactly zero mention on it of the USA, the CIA, or drone strikes.
Which of those do you think is relevant?
"Would you though?"

Yes. There's a difference between drone programs 'crossing the line' say, in a hunt for known terrorists, they blow up a building that has civilians next door our just outside ... and arbitrary targeting of 'annoyances of the state'.

There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'.

And besides - there would be no 'false flag' with any kind of attempt to kill Assange.

The notion that Clinton (or any agency) would go after Assange with drones and hellfire missiles is well into crazyland territory. Not even the crazy among them are thinking it, it doesn't make sense really on any level I think.

> There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'.

What's the difference between "purposefully misrepresented" and a false flag?

I am honestly not sure -- I thought the concept of a false flag was a purposeful misrepresentation of an event.

A false flag is an intentional action that creates false justification for something.

A misrepresentation is just that.

So - if the US sent in CIA agents and planted WMD's in Iraq, and then had the UN inspectors show up and 'find' them - that would be a false flag.

Otherwise, say the inspectors find some WMD but it's only a small account, and then the government says "Look WMDs, therefore war!" - that's another scenario. The 2003 war was not based on false flag, more along the lines of misrepresentation of information.

Sometimes it can be shady, as I believe the gulf of Tonkin was a sketchy one. There was an incident between US and Vietnamese ships, but later, during a second encounter, the US knew it was unlikely there were Vietnamese ships (just misleading radar signature) but used it anyways as justification for escalation.

But consider that this is just populism anyhow - the 'good' reasons for conflict, are often at odds with the 'populist' reasons for war. WW2 being possibly a good example: it might have been much better for everyone were the Americans to be involved much earlier ... but the public was not down with it until Pearl Harbour.

Consider for a moment if there was no attack on Pearl Harbour. Consider if the Germans did not have to pull resources from the Russian front to fight in Italy, Africa and then France ... my gosh man that would re-shape world history.

As for Assange, I don't believe his leaks represent quite the malicious acting by the US that some believe, although maybe they are important, moreover, I understand that he has very serious character flaws - this from his relationships with his own allies at the Guardian and Spiegel etc. and his recent involvement with the Russians.

So... Because Clinton was "in charge" when the unfortunate events in Benghazi occurred, you think she would've authorized a drone strike in London? That's well past the point of crazy conspiracy theory territory.
Yes. None of that (even if you buy into all of it) adds up to "Clinton would literally order a drone strike on Julian Assange", let alone if he happened to be in the Ecuadorian embassy in London at the time.
https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wik...

It was from before he was in the embassy, after the CableGate thing.

Truepundit.com is a site with no named reporters but somehow still manages to get "scoops" from unnamed sources in the State Department, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the FBI. Yet these scoops are never confirmed by other sources and many of them are proved false, like these:

* November 4, 2016: BREAKING: Comey Mandates All FBI Agents Report to D.C. Offices; Prep for Raids, Possible Arrests in Clinton Probes

http://truepundit.com/breaking-comey-mandates-all-fbi-agents...

* December 27, 2016: Hillary Negotiating Secret Pardon With Obama’s White House Counsel Who Previously Worked for Clinton Family & White House

http://truepundit.com/hillary-negotiating-secret-pardon-with...

In other words, it publishes hoaxes.

Two instances of getting it wrong doesn't negate the entire news organization. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There isn't any news organization that hasn't ever got an article wrong.
Real news organizations have actual reporters and have built up a reputation for getting things right. They have earned trust over years. They do get things wrong, but they issue corrections.

Truepundit.com is not a news organization. It popped up in 2016 and was dedicated to publishing "articles" attacking Democrats. It makes no pretense to being an objective news source. None of its "scoops" were ever confirmed by a real news source.

The article "Comey Mandates All FBI Agents Report to D.C. Offices; Prep for Raids, Possible Arrests in Clinton Probes" was published days before the 2016 presidential election.

It was not a mistake. It was a deliberate, politically-motivated hoax.

That entire site looks like tabloid fodder.
Her actual response:

https://youtu.be/ErH29hrpqvg?t=233

"I don't recall having said, but if I did it would have been a joke", while smirking.

That's politics code for "I totes said that, but I don't want to be caught in a lie if there's some record of it."

> I have a friend who died in the Benghazi attack if you want to fight with me on this point.

I'm sorry about that, but losing someone in an attack doesn't make your point any more valid.

Clinton was a hawk but think about what you're saying.

You really think she would have drone bombed an embassy in the heart of fucking London? Come on. That's clearly delusional.

>More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission.

Source?

So a blog says one number, but an FOI released document shows ten times less? I think I know which to go with.
Which, and why?
I was curious too so some googling brought me to this: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170514/10071637362/inspe...