A group of Australian lawmakers say they will travel to Washington this month to lobby the United States to abandon its efforts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
“No, no, Mongostein. No this was Assange, and I moved on him very heavily in fact I took him out furniture shopping. He wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on him like a bitch. I couldn’t get there and he was imprisoned. Then all-of-a-sudden I see him, he’s now got the big phony tits and everything. He’s totally changed his look.”
Maybe he has handlers, or maybe beneficiaries that pay him, or maybe it’s blackmail. It’s hard to know. Especially since things like that would be handled by intelligence agencies whose job it is to make those things hard to know. I’m making my assumption based on his behavior. He has seemingly targeted western countries and ignored authoritarians. The dead giveaway to me is he seemed to be coordinating his “data dumps” during the 2016 election with Russian influence operations.
Occam’s razor says you’re wrong. If we take the idea that Assange is a radical journalist who would publish any juicy evidence of state wrongdoing, regardless of source or target, then it doesn’t take much more thought as to why foreign states would leak military intelligence through Assange to reduce popular support for the activities of the defence apparatus of a rival power. It’s one additional step to add “and also he is directly controlled by the foreign state”. Why would they need to control him if he does what they want without them having to go to any special effort?
And the west wouldn’t have much motivation to leak their Intel to wiki leaks, because wiki leaks is a western institution - they can just use their normal propaganda outlets in their own nations - and the population of foreign nations would be better targeted by some source in the target nation.
This is just conspiratorial stuff. You need some better evidence - for example, that Julian Assange had good actionable Intel on a country but refused to disclose it without a good reason - to prove that he is acting for the express benefit of a particular state actor.
You have to ask? Who has Assange never released any information on even though they are known for corruption…
I have to ask. He’s never released info on me. Am I his handler?
You can’t be his handler, I clearly am! I handle him so good people don’t even know my name
“No, no, Mongostein. No this was Assange, and I moved on him very heavily in fact I took him out furniture shopping. He wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on him like a bitch. I couldn’t get there and he was imprisoned. Then all-of-a-sudden I see him, he’s now got the big phony tits and everything. He’s totally changed his look.”
Are you well known as a corrupt state?
You stated he has handlers but you don’t know who they are.
So you just feel he does.
Your feewings mean jack.
Maybe he has handlers, or maybe beneficiaries that pay him, or maybe it’s blackmail. It’s hard to know. Especially since things like that would be handled by intelligence agencies whose job it is to make those things hard to know. I’m making my assumption based on his behavior. He has seemingly targeted western countries and ignored authoritarians. The dead giveaway to me is he seemed to be coordinating his “data dumps” during the 2016 election with Russian influence operations.
And still, even with all those words, you say nothing about who his handlers are.
If you can’t provide proof, don’t state something as fact.
Never said it was a fact. It’s just hard to ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence all pointing the same way.
You stated it as a fact.
If you meant anything other than that, it’s on you for not making it clear.
Goodbye.
Occam’s razor says you’re wrong. If we take the idea that Assange is a radical journalist who would publish any juicy evidence of state wrongdoing, regardless of source or target, then it doesn’t take much more thought as to why foreign states would leak military intelligence through Assange to reduce popular support for the activities of the defence apparatus of a rival power. It’s one additional step to add “and also he is directly controlled by the foreign state”. Why would they need to control him if he does what they want without them having to go to any special effort?
And the west wouldn’t have much motivation to leak their Intel to wiki leaks, because wiki leaks is a western institution - they can just use their normal propaganda outlets in their own nations - and the population of foreign nations would be better targeted by some source in the target nation.
This is just conspiratorial stuff. You need some better evidence - for example, that Julian Assange had good actionable Intel on a country but refused to disclose it without a good reason - to prove that he is acting for the express benefit of a particular state actor.