- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,417
- Reaction score
- 20,808
I guess it addreses it about as much as your refusal to acknowledge that no one has even insinuated it wasn't true does. Have ANYONE come out and officially said " Hey man , this stuff is altered/false/fabricated ?
I was attempting to shine some light on the guys motives with that link , which taken at face value are to destroy a conspiratorial groups ( which he most certainly considers the US regime to be ) ability to function by making it impossible for them to communicate in secrecy. Hell, he even specifically refered to the US democratic/republican parties in the 2nd part of that 2006 essay.
I feel we are going around in circles here dude so ill bow out now , and we'll just have to disagree to disagree. I will say though that as much as I generally respect your ability to post logically and cogently , and to consider more than one side of a coin ( maybe even one you consider yourself at odds with ) , you seem uncharacteristically invested here . Id probably write it off as intentionally obtuse if I didn't have a good reserve of respect for you in the bank.
I keep telling you that I understand the man's motives. This has nothing to do with Julian Assange or Wikileaks. Julian Assange and Wikileaks did not hack the information. They are not releasing it either. They are the conduit through which the people who did hack the information are releasing it.
You keep talking about Assange. I'm talking about whomever did the original hack. When Snowden stole information, Snowden came forward and talked about why he, Snowden, did what he did. You could vet Snowden. We can't vet the hackers in this case.
As for the truth of it. Forgive me for not believing that an unknown entity that hacks to obtain information to specifically manipulate something has strong morals that they would never alter the information they stole.
It's not even that unusual. You release something true to prime the pump as they say. Then once you've lowered people's guard as to the truth of what you're saying, you can then lie with impunity because people have stopped questioning if the next thing is true. To use a dating analogy: You hang out with girl on a completely platonic level and inform your gf/wife that you are doing so. You let her see just how platonic everything is. Once your gf/wife stops being suspicious then you can cheat because your significant other has been primed to view things from the platonic level.
Maybe I'm too suspicious but I can't take the word of manipulators as truth when I know they're trying to manipulate me. If they care enough to manipulate...why would they employ half measures? That's the point you're not addressing. This has nothing to do with Assange or Wikileaks.