Ecuador Cuts Internet Access for Julian Assange to Preserve Neutrality in U.S. Election

[tlink]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

I provided four of them in a post just after that one.

whoops, sometimes its hard to keep track of who's replying to who and what is a source of what, didn't realize it was relevant sorry.

[Notional]

Just now, Sakkura said:

No. Wikileaks is lying.

 

Ecuador is not a country that does what the US says. Why do you think Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy?

Of course they are. Because they totally has a reason too. Or something.

 

There is a difference between extraditing a person you have given asylum, that you trust will not have a fair trial, nor a safe stay, and being diplomatic. Ecuador is doing it out of self interest, but none the less, at the request of the US.

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

Of course they are. Because they totally has a reason too. Or something.

 

There is a difference between extraditing a person you have given asylum, that you trust will not have a fair trial, nor a safe stay, and being diplomatic. Ecuador is doing it out of self interest, but none the less, at the request of the US.

Ecuador is not doing a damn thing the US is asking.

 

Julian Assange has a personal grudge against Hillary Clinton. Understandable perhaps, but he has wrecked the credibility of Wikileaks over the course of this election campaign.

[PlayStation 2]

And this is what our next presidential candidate's trying to cut off.

Thanks for nothing, liberals.

[AresKrieger]

15 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

No. Wikileaks is lying.

 

Ecuador is not a country that does what the US says. Why do you think Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ecuador-acknowledges-restricting-assanges-internet-amid-clinton-leaks/

 

Quote

QUITO, Ecuador -- Ecuador’s government acknowledged on Tuesday that it had “temporarily restricted” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s internet access at its embassy in London after the whistleblowing site published documents from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. 

So the reason they restricted it is correct but who specifically pushed for it is unknown from the looks of it

[SurvivorNVL]

The U.S. is a Banana Republic, almost.  Soon we could be.  We've inter-married corporations and our government, we've cut our hands and signed a contract of blood with international banks.  We wage wars for the petrol dollar, we overthrow countries that want to use gold as a standard.  Since Bush 1, we've become an expanding, terrifying monster, and it's gotten worse each one after that.  

[tlink]

8 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

http://www.greenvillegazette.com/p/hillary-clinton-vindicated-after-wikileaks-caught-fabricating-released-emails-144211/

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/russian-propaganda-on-wikileaks-makes-its-way-into-a-donald-trump-speech-in-record-time/

sawry to barge in on your bubble again,

 

the first link is not a reputable source. with a source people mean the original proof, the raw data. some shitty extremely biassed article saying that its forged is not a good source to quote.

 

now that i've read the second article i see that the first article is simply referencing the second article, so together those are 1 source. but then again the second link doesn't seem to provide any proof that wikileaks fabricated them, the author says multiple times that the Russians did it (seems pretty conspiracy nutty to me but whatever). maybe the last two links can fill the gaps.

 

the third article literally jokes about putting on a tinfoil hat when they talk about wikileaks being influenced by Russia, they also have zero evidence to back this up so its not really a source, more an opinion. sure it raises some valid points but none of those are a clear indication that wikileaks outright fabricates the documents, or if they are aware that the documents might be fabricated.

 

the last link says that nothing was fabricated, but that a Russian media outlet took it out of context and published it, later removed it again. but that trump quoted it in the meantime. again, how does this prove that julian assange is or even wikileaks themselves are fabricating the documents?

 

how are they caught red handed? these sources are not supporting anything you said as far as i can tell. for me, jet fuel can't melt steel beams is just as much of a stretch as this is, but maybe i'm missing something. i'm not denying that the Russians are trying to influence elections (hell everyone tries to influence everyone's elections, it would be dumb to think otherwise) but i don't see how wikileaks is their bitch. the Russians quoted the email out of context which as far as i read (in every 'source' you provided) is just in its assumebly original form on wikileaks.

 

 

 

 

 

ps

Quote

Donald “Leave Putin aloooooooooone” Trump

lmao these editors are having some fun

[tlink]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

The docs are forged. Intelligence experts who worked for the FBI have said so as well.

isn't that a appeal to authority fallacy?

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ecuador-acknowledges-restricting-assanges-internet-amid-clinton-leaks/

 

So the reason they restricted it is correct but who specifically pushed for it is unknown from the looks of it

The reason cited was that Kerry had asked for it, but that's a pretty silly claim since Ecuador does anything but what Kerry asks for. In case you forgot, here's what the tweet said:

Quote

Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations.

 

And remember the way Wikileaks announced the cutoff. They first said it was "by a state actor" in an attempt to make it seem like the US was behind it.

 

 

[patrickjp93]

3 hours ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

dont you mean "still investigating"?

No. I mean, they might be adding more to the stack, but a couple hundred pages have been analyzed and determined to be fake based on the publicly available emails from Clinton's server released by Congress' investigation committee.

 

3 hours ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

Considering that you're a self-identified libertarian, it's extremely odd that you are so ready and willing to accept a simple "the FBI says" so it must be true approach.

 

If WikiLeaks is releasing forged documents, and knowingly so, that's obviously unacceptable to anyone that cares about the truth.  If the FBI has evidence that they are forged, why don't intelligence officials give us a link to WikiLeaks and the "real" documents to compare the two?  Surely, they want to quash misinformation, right?

 

I'm not saying that the FBI is never right or they're always nefarious.  What I am saying is that US intelligence agencies are not shy about lying here or there to do damage control.  I do not blindly accept their word on this because they could easily disprove this by showing their own documents.  I don't suspect they will do that, however.

Ethos is demanded by those too weak of heart and mind to rely on evidence and argumentation. 

 

For the life of me I can't remember the famous scientist who said this, but they are words to live by:

 

"I will believe anything as long as there's evidence it is true. The wilder the claim, the stronger the evidence must be, but I will never dismiss a claim until I see the evidence or lack thereof."

 

The FBI's core argument is that the language and style do not match Hillary's well-documented writing habits. I have looked at the argument and the supporting evidence, and I ageee with the conclusion. Ethos and credibility are stupid metrics to rely on in an argument. I do not care who makes the argument. I care if it is sound and correct.

 

They have shown their docs to the public.

[Michael McAllister]

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

They have shown their docs to the public.

 

Source?

[patrickjp93]

4 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

Source?

Everything Trey Gowdy released to public record at the end of Clinton's investigation is being used as their source material.

[Deletist_Jerk]

The final debate just ended.

 

Honestly, I think Trump won the election based on Wikileaks and Project Veritas videos. 

 

It's unfortunate that our country has to pick between the two shadiest characters since Warren G. Harding. That's all I'm going to say. Good luck to all my fellow Americans on LTT forum. 

[TidaLWaveZ]

15 hours ago, tlink said:

stop generalizing people. liberals is not a single entity, they have diverse opinions. some liberals agree some disagree. how is this hard to understand or even surprising?

 

You're right, I should have conducted a large scale survey and came up with the exact number of liberals who used to praise Asange but have since demonized him in support of Hillary.

 

http://fablesofaesop.com/the-farmer-and-the-stork.html

[tlink]

Just now, TidaLWaveZ said:

 

You're right, I should have conducted a large scale survey and came up with the exact number of liberals who used to praise Asange but have since demonized him in support of Hillary.

 

http://fablesofaesop.com/the-farmer-and-the-stork.html

nope. you just shouldn't make an extremely generalizing statement. its just as dumb as saying that all conservative's are racist.

[TidaLWaveZ]

2 minutes ago, tlink said:

nope. you just shouldn't make an extremely generalizing statement. its just as dumb as saying that all conservative's are racist.

 

What I've said is not even close to that, but you're free to interpret it however you want.  I'm not conservative so if that's a slight, it has no impact on me.

 

I posted that fable for a reason, if you don't want to be lumped in with a group then don't subscribe to them.

[tlink]

Just now, TidaLWaveZ said:

 

What I've said is not even close to that, but you're free to interpret it however you want.  I'm not conservative so if that's a slight, it has no impact on me.

 

I posted that fable for a reason, if you don't want to be lumped in with a group then don't subscribe to them.

i'm not a liberal, im not even from the US. american mainstream politics are far from anything i identify with. im simply pointing out that its a fallacy of composition. just because a part of the liberals are anti him, doesn't mean that those same people where before pro him within the group of liberals. pointing towards liberals is just unneeded bias. you could've just as easily said people. or 'some liberals'. that would've been accurate. im just sick of people demonizing whole groups like that, intentionally or unintentionally.

[TidaLWaveZ]

23 minutes ago, tlink said:

i'm not a liberal, im not even from the US. american mainstream politics are far from anything i identify with. im simply pointing out that its a fallacy of composition. just because a part of the liberals are anti him, doesn't mean that those same people where before pro him within the group of liberals. pointing towards liberals is just unneeded bias. you could've just as easily said people. or 'some liberals'. that would've been accurate. im just sick of people demonizing whole groups like that, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

It's not a fallacy of composition to say that a general trend among a group is a reflection of the group. Is it representative of every member of the group? No.

 

You cannot subscribe to a groups like liberals and conservatives and expect to be represented as an individual. Be independent if you have your own set of beliefs that's not represented accurately by other groups.

[imreloadin]

I wonder if this would have played out the same if they were leaking information about Trump?

[tlink]

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

 

It's not a fallacy of composition to say that a general trend among a group is a reflection of the group. Is it representative of every member of the group? No.

 

You cannot subscribe to a groups like liberals and conservatives and expect to be represented as an individual. Be independent if you have your own set of beliefs that's not represented accurately by other groups.

it is if you say that the 2 things that they are doing are contradicting. i could say "muslims are really dumb because they mainly blow up muslims while they want everyone to become a muslim!". yes some groups of muslims want other people to become muslims, and yes these groups mainly attack other muslims (isis etc), but thats not the muslim community as a whole. if a minority of a group voices it opinion and another minority within a group voices an opinion that opposes it than that doesn't mean the whole group is just dumb. that means that there is an internal indifference about the situation.

 

Quote

What's even more mind boggling is that until recently Asange was a hero and a symbol of truth for Liberals

yes, im sure that a PORTION of liberals indeed hold him as a hero.

Quote

Now they'll tell you he's a liar or that they never liked him.

who says those are the same people? just because they share common attributes doesn't mean that they are the same people. the only point you could be trying to make with stating it like this is that liberals are flipflopping over assange, but you literally pulled that conclusion by using a generalization, one that probably is wrong.

[Blackie Sheen]

On 19/10/2016 at 10:09 AM, JAKEBAB said:

Its mind boggling how people are still voting for hillary after the shits thats been leaked. Idk why they decided to cut Assange off after the damage has been done.

Well when you have two twats to vote for, I guess you simply vote for the one that will create the less chaos which is in that case, Hillary Clinton. (at least in my opinion)