War Room Lounge V77: Anthony Johnson is not a good unit of measure

[Anung Un Rama]

I don't know about "helping her" in any material sense, but RT and Sputnik certainly sing her praises. Mostly because of her isolationist streak (in regards to Syria, Iran and Venezuela particularly) and meeting with Assad.

All outstanding positions. Why isn't US media singing her praise for them?

 

[trident]

If you like repetition of Republican talking points, she's great. If you like honest and rational discussion, she's bad. Different strokes.

I have a totally different take but you kind of described yourself there swap a a couple of words out

 

[Lead]

What is it with you always taking our conversations to different threads when you start sinking? Also, no tagging? That's rude. I've complained about this to you before @Jack V Savage. It's a habit you should try to break.

It's like Jack's version of Kubler-Ross for losing an argument:
1. Spin
2. Dismiss contrary sources without addressing them
3. Personal attacks
4. Retreat to Warroom Lounge for uncontested slander

Wasn't sinking, don't always take our conversations to different threads. There was a parallel discussion in this thread, though. Also, you asked the mods to tell me not to tag you. And obviously you know that. So the fact that you're complaining about tagging is yet another example of your trademark dishonesty.

Stepping in here because I believe I was involved in this and I’ve seen a few times now where not tagging has been mentioned. I’m taking that call back now. Jack can use tags and Igna can use the ignore feature if needed. This is what I suggest for any of these instances now instead of trying to impose a mod enforced block on any specific poster. Beforehand, trying to enforce these case by case became tedious and unnecessary but that’s on me. The sites features make it perfectly possible to ignore users without having mods involved.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

No, it doesn't. That's not part of the definition. What you're describing is an "agent", which is why you used that word when other people were talking about an "asset".

What definition are you using?


In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy.[1][2][3][4] They are sometimes referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs" for short.

There are different categories of assets, including people who:

• Willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there are few other ways available.
• Work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets.
• Have been blackmailed and are forced into their role.
• Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(intelligence)

Edit: and from Webster's:
asset
noun
as·set | \ ˈa-ˌset also -sət\
Definition of asset


1assets plural

a: the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies
b: the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts
2: ADVANTAGE, RESOURCEHis wit is his chief asset.
3a: an item of value owned
bassets plural : the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned
4: something useful in an effort to foil or defeat an enemy: such as

a: a piece of military equipment
b: SPY​

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asset

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Asset implies conscious knowledge and collaboration with the Russians by Gabbard.

That's nuts.

not necessarily conscious. for example, if you had a private server and a foreign government were to hack it for important information, the owner of that information would be considered an "asset".

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Nats are making Cole look human!

 

[waiguoren]

What definition are you using?


In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy.[1][2][3][4] They are sometimes referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs" for short.

There are different categories of assets, including people who:

• Willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there are few other ways available.
• Work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets.
• Have been blackmailed and are forced into their role.
• Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(intelligence)

Note also that the "useful idiot" thing from the last bullet point is not cited. In reality that's a political term not a HUMINT term. Someone should erase that bullet point from the wikipeda page.

 

[Falsedawn]

???

From that link you posted, they included Anglin's rewriting of "In Da Club" by 50 Cent to riff on migrants (the bit I quoted).

From what I can tell, Anglin has never actually heard a rap song before because he can't write for shit.

 

[trident]

not necessarily conscious. for example, if you had a private server and a foreign government were to hack it for important information, the owner of that information would be considered an "asset".

I really think that distinction will get lost on many who hear it

Clinton knew what she was doing saying that

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Note also that the "useful idiot" thing from the last bullet point is not cited. In reality that's a political term not a HUMINT term. Someone should erase that bullet point from the wikipeda page.

nice catch

 

[JamesRussler]

I think it is probably something that mostly arose organically, and I think (maybe I wasn't paying close-enough attention) that that's consistent with the views of the guy in the video (in that it doesn't contradict what he says). I recall the vid describing the process, but not necessarily implying intention to it (see the description of the radicalization of both the host and his audience) except when he talks about people deliberately infiltrating groups (BTW, he links to this, which looks like it could have been written by @JamesRussler).

You're thinking about this too hard.

What's the law regarding identification in the US?
Here you're not required to carry or provide it (including giving your name, not just ID), but if the officer has any reason to request it (which presumably includes giving a traffic citation) and you don't comply, they can detain you until you're identified.

You have no freestanding obligation to identify yourself in the USA. However, if your state has a "stop and identify" statute, and you're lawfully seized (i.e., "detained" or "arrested"), you may be required to identify yourself under state law.

 

[Falsedawn]

Note also that the "useful idiot" thing from the last bullet point is not cited. In reality that's a political term not a HUMINT term. Someone should erase that bullet point from the wikipeda page.

Dafuq? It most certainly is not. It's a Russian intelligence concept that's crossed over into the parlance, much like "Active Measures". Here's David V. Gioe going into the concept in depth.

http://cosmos.ualr.edu/wp-content/u...e-approach-of-Russian-hybrid-intelligence.pdf

ABSTRACT

This article argues that Russian intelligence has achieved recent success in infuencing democratic elections and referenda by combining the traditional Human Intelligence (HUMINT) discipline of manipulating useful fools with cutting edge cyber tactics, including hacking, phishing, social engineering, and weaponizing purloined information. This essay further argues that this synthesis yields greater efects than the sum of its parts. Given its potency, democracies and NATO members should expect to confront this type of threat more often. The 2016 American presidential election is used as a case study to conceptualize Russian hybrid intelligence, a new term reminiscent of Soviet ‘complex active measures’ and updated for the twenty-frst century.

 

[Limbo Pete]

He came out of the gate today really bearing down on the ol douche throttle lol

 

[Trotsky]

He came out of the gate today really bearing down on the ol douche throttle lol

Have you considered the possibility that your intellectual constitution isn't sufficiently fortified to withstand such ingenious rhetorical renderings, hmm?

 

[Deleted member 539235]

of course asset and agent are interchangeable, it's not even up for debate

do u even jason bourne bro?

 

[Ruprecht]

What definition are you using?


In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy.[1][2][3][4] They are sometimes referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs" for short.

There are different categories of assets, including people who:

• Willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there are few other ways available.
• Work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets.
• Have been blackmailed and are forced into their role.
• Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(intelligence)

Edit: and from Webster's:
asset
noun
as·set | \ ˈa-ˌset also -sət\
Definition of asset


1assets plural

a: the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies
b: the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts
2: ADVANTAGE, RESOURCEHis wit is his chief asset.
3a: an item of value owned
bassets plural : the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned
4: something useful in an effort to foil or defeat an enemy: such as

a: a piece of military equipment
b: SPY​

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asset

Probably the Intelligence definition of "asset" which includes the "useful idiot" (which in itself was a smear that originated as "useful innocent" by Mises. He attributed it to use by the communists, but there's no proof of that).

 

[Gutter Chris]

of course asset and agent are interchangeable, it's not even up for debate

michael westen told me that an agent works an asset

 

[waiguoren]

Dafuq? It most certainly is not. It's a Russian intelligence concept that's crossed over into the parlance, much like "Active Measures". Here's David V. Gioe going into the concept in depth.

http://cosmos.ualr.edu/wp-content/u...e-approach-of-Russian-hybrid-intelligence.pdf

This is hilarious. Your own source makes my point over and over again.


For example, from your source, page 16, note 25:

Some terminology here is important; specifically, the critical difference between case officers and sources, agents,or assets – the latter three terms are basically interchangeable.​

For example, from your source, page 17, note 32:

In American construction, if the target accepts the recruitment pitch, the terminology changes. His status is now
that of ‘agent’, ‘source’, or ‘asset’. The CIA has a binary approach to recruitment: An agent is either a fully recruited
agent or he isn’t. Russian understanding of the term agent encompasses a spectrum of case officer and agent relationships. In the Russian view, as long as the agent is providing the material, documents or operational support that his case officer requires, the semantics of agent recruitment matter rather less. Russian intelligence may therefore have relationships with cooperative contacts who don’t necessarily need to be fully recruited in order to serve their purpose.

​

So again, agent=asset, and again, Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent---someone working in the employ of the Russian state to collect information on the US surreptitiously and pass it on to the Russian state.

Something tells me the fine gentlemen @Quipling and @Jack V Savage will be too proud to admit their error.

Probably the Intelligence definition of "asset" which includes the "useful idiot"

False.

 

[Lavalamp]

Yeah, well, accusing people of being gay is a bannable offense. That's how profoundly insulting the mere suggestion of it is.

There are famous "lefties" that use it as an insult.
​

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Probably the Intelligence definition of "asset" which includes the "useful idiot" (which in itself was a smear that originated as "useful innocent" by Mises. He attributed it to use by the communists, but there's no proof of that).

"spy" aka agent, is also listed in that definition and most definitions of 'asset' when used in the context Clinton used it.
But if we're using the 'useful idiot' definition, then there is clear cut evidence that Hillary Clinton was indeed a Russian asset.