As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] is still practicing drone diplomacy

1616263646567»

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    The CIA already having an assassination attempt against Assange planned out is extremely believable.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ElvenshaeRingoKayne Red RobeelectricitylikesmeDarkPrimusShadowfireshrykeDoodmannSleepKamarLoserForHireXShortyCaptain InertiaDevoutlyApatheticMagell
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 29
    I don’t mean the CIA would have done it without approval. But they do plan a variety of things. Pompeo might have wanted this. Trump has been publicly defending Assange, he doesn’t care he made the IC look dumb.

    Like it says senior officials. That wouldn’t be Trump most likely. I’m just saying this didn’t happen and it wouldn’t ever have happened in our timeline.

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Plus if the CIA has really wanted to do it, I feel like it would have been extraordinarily easy to just do it and then leak to the press that the president had no hand in the operation. Then some reporter asks Trump about it personally and he would insist that it was his idea, the best idea, which is why you know it was his, because he wouldn't have been able to stand something not being about him or suggesting he was not in complete control.

    Elvenshae
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Plus if the CIA has really wanted to do it, I feel like it would have been extraordinarily easy to just do it and then leak to the press that the president had no hand in the operation. Then some reporter asks Trump about it personally and he would insist that it was his idea, the best idea, which is why you know it was his, because he wouldn't have been able to stand something not being about him or suggesting he was not in complete control.

    That plan runs the risk of Trump just deciding to throw the CIA under a bus, which is why Pompeo and the CIA didn't just do it anyways.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    The CIA already having an assassination attempt against Assange planned out is extremely believable.

    It's like not even a little surprising if they did, that's like a thing you come up with by accident over lunch.

    Commander ZoomGnome-InterruptusRingoElvenshaeKayne Red RobeJaysonFour
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    I don’t mean the CIA would have done it without approval. But they do plan a variety of things. Pompeo might have wanted this. Trump has been publicly defending Assange, he doesn’t care he made the IC look dumb.

    Like it says senior officials. That wouldn’t be Trump most likely. I’m just saying this didn’t happen and it wouldn’t ever have happened in our timeline.

    The report says the discussions happened at “the highest levels of the trump administration”. Which is pretty much code for “the President” and the idea that Trump would not talk up someone and then discard them is ridiculous. (Also immediately after the election Trumps tune on Assange changed)

    Now maybe Pompeo made the request and then the discussions happened sure. But Pompeo was sec state at the time right?


    wbBv3fj.png
    shrykeFencingsaxelectricitylikesme
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    The CIA already having an assassination attempt against Assange planned out is extremely believable.

    It's like not even a little surprising if they did, that's like a thing you come up with by accident over lunch.

    And like the CIA is a supremely evil entity. If course it had plans to kill the guy who publicly opposed them

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortySleepRingoGnome-Interruptus
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Probably been some mid-level plans to kill him ever since the beginning

    Styrofoam SammichSleepRingoMagellGnome-Interruptus
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I mean, fuck the CIA, but also fuck Assange.

    HappylilElfzagdrobNo-QuarterBigJoeMNobodyBlackDragon480HonkHarry DresdenIncenjucarAimcrzyangoElvenshaeShadowfireelectricitylikesmeVishNubRingoViskodBullheadkimeGnome-InterruptusAegisOrcaDoctorArchtynicGennenalyse Rueben
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    The idea that the CIA had drafted up some assassination plans or vulnerability assessments or something on Assange isn't really a surprise.

    The piece of shit has been a useful idiot / asset of Russian intelligence for a decade+ and has done as much harm to US interests as pretty much any individual in recent history. Of course an intelligence agency would have looked into their options against him, morality aside they are sleeping on the job if they haven't.

    Probably every halfway decent intelligence service in the world either has done some assessments of him, consider him an asset, or both.

    The big thing here is that Trump / senior Trump officials were seriously looking at going ahead with this which is a big holy hell what the fuck.

    FencingsaxNo-QuarterknitdanTicaldfjamHarry DresdenElvenshaeelectricitylikesmeSmrtnikGnome-InterruptusGennenalyse Rueben
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    Killing an enemy agent/asset (and make no mistake, this is exactly what Assange is) is not at all out of the realm of possibility or even all that extraordinary for the intelligence community, it’s just not generally folks as high-profile as Assange.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
    BlackDragon480
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited September 29
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    It was in the early days when guys like Beedle Smith was running things. It was much more focused in intelligence gathering and minor espionage. The assassinations and coups became their go to under Allen Dulles, especially when consipring with his brother John Foster, who was Ike's Secretary of State from 1953-59.

    The Iranian coup of 1953 that ousted Mosaddegh and Guatemala in 1954 (Op PBSuccess) was the State Department using the CIA as a precision instrument to overthrow democratically elected governments, at the behest of corporate interests, so BP (then the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) and United Fruit wouldn't lose profits.

    Sadly, that shit has continued apace over the last 60 years, they're just slightly better at not letting it get out than they used to be.

    BlackDragon480 on
    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    Ticaldfjam
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    GaddezBigJoeMSmrtnikJaysonFourViskodGennenalyse Rueben
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    He’s still a civilian foreign national.


    Being a horrid nightmare person, egotistical shit who drives collaborators away so he can hog the glory and fame, and poor house guest aside, he is, again, a civilian foreign national.

    Heavy emphasis on civilian

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    ElendilStyrofoam SammichShortyBlackDragon480honovereMagellYamiB.Dactynic
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    Weird qualifier of "innocent" there, because he is inarguably a civilian, and it legitimately doesn't matter what sort of crime he had committed, that still doesn't mean you get to say it's cool to extrajudicially assassinate him while he's present in another sovereign country's territory without their permission.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    ShortyBlackDragon480honovereMagellYamiB.tynicFANTOMAS
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Nobody is saying anything is cool let us please put the straw man back in the crab bucket.

    The CIA is known to do certain things, being unsurprised by these things is a matter of object permanence not approval.

    MarathonHarry DresdenBlackDragon480ForarMvrckLord_AsmodeuskimeGnome-InterruptusGennenalyse Rueben
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    CIA isnt a court room my good dude.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortyYamiB.
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    Yes which is why it's pretty horrifying that senior administration officials were trying to figure out legal justification to assassinate him when he was basically under house arrest in the embassy of a nominally friendly countries embassy in one of our closest allies capital.

    That said, the lines around civilian get blurred an awful lot when that civilian starts performing espionage. Basic international law and conventions explicitly say that when you are a spy you don't get the protections of either regular civilians or uniformed soldiers. Equating Assange to some random innocent civilian is pretty disingenious.

    Edit - this is not saying killing him is cool, just that like, words mean things.

    zagdrob on
    FencingsaxshrykeknitdanHarry DresdenBlackDragon480SmrtnikForarAngelHedgieLord_AsmodeusQanamilkimeGnome-InterruptusGennenalyse Rueben
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    Those with power will always argue that there's something exceptional about this person or this situation that means the accepted rules shouldnt apply like the always did. Its our responsibility to spit in their face when they do, not to make space for their carveouts.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Dee KaeTefhonovereMagell
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    knitdan wrote: »
    Killing an enemy agent/asset (and make no mistake, this is exactly what Assange is) is not at all out of the realm of possibility or even all that extraordinary for the intelligence community, it’s just not generally folks as high-profile as Assange.

    The bigger issue is that making this attempt would serve to piss off 2 countries the us is nominally not interested in pissing off.

    Gaddez on
    TicaldfjamBlackDragon480ElvenshaeGiantGeek2020Lord_Asmodeus
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    Weird qualifier of "innocent" there, because he is inarguably a civilian, and it legitimately doesn't matter what sort of crime he had committed, that still doesn't mean you get to say it's cool to extrajudicially assassinate him while he's present in another sovereign country's territory without their permission.

    That's a straw man. I never said anything about the CIA assassinating people was cool, I was just pointing out facts about Assange.
    CIA isnt a court room my good dude.

    I don't care what the CIA thinks, I care what Assange is in reality and comparing him to an innocent Cuban civilian is hyperbole.

    Harry Dresden on
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    Weird qualifier of "innocent" there, because he is inarguably a civilian, and it legitimately doesn't matter what sort of crime he had committed, that still doesn't mean you get to say it's cool to extrajudicially assassinate him while he's present in another sovereign country's territory without their permission.

    That's a straw man. I never said anything about the CIA assassinating people was cool, I was just pointing out facts about Assange.

    Then what was the implication of you making that statement?

    If you don't want people to infer meaning, don't make vague statements with obvious intent.

    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

    Tef
  • R-demR-dem Registered User regular
    Assange is a rapist piece of trash, but he's still a civilian and a human being who deserves his chance to be tried etc etc and not just assassinated because the CIA can and because the U.S. government finds it more convenient to make him go away.

    BlackDragon480FencingsaxElvenshaetynic
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    Weird qualifier of "innocent" there, because he is inarguably a civilian, and it legitimately doesn't matter what sort of crime he had committed, that still doesn't mean you get to say it's cool to extrajudicially assassinate him while he's present in another sovereign country's territory without their permission.

    That's a straw man. I never said anything about the CIA assassinating people was cool, I was just pointing out facts about Assange.
    CIA isnt a court room my good dude.

    I don't care what the CIA thinks, I care what Assange is in reality and comparing him to an innocent Cuban civilian is hyperbole.
    Yeah, we hear arguments like yours every time the state murders someone or wants to.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortyDarkPrimusDee KaeKelorTefUrsusYamiB.Caedwyr
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Such statements tacitly indicate that state violence against such an individual is to be considered acceptable/excusable.

    Because otherwise, what relevance is there for someone to "just be pointing out the facts" about an individual in such a context?

    You don't get to play the "he was no angel" card and then get offended when people call you out on it.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Styrofoam SammichDee KaeKelorTefShortyBlackDragon480honovereMagellPolaritieYamiB.
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    R-dem wrote: »
    Assange is a rapist piece of trash, but he's still a civilian and a human being who deserves his chance to be tried etc etc and not just assassinated because the CIA can and because the U.S. government finds it more convenient to make him go away.

    I’m not approving of assassination, and he got tried finally. It ended like it should have. But he refused his chance to be tried by running away like a coward piece of shit for a decade.

    Like his lawyer once said he was enduring cruel and unusual punishment by his isolation in the embassy. My good dude you decided to hide there instead of facing court - gtfo.

    I just think deserve is a strong word for this man.

    PSN: Honkalot
    zagdrobFencingsaxGiantGeek2020BlackDragon480shryke
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Such statements tacitly indicate that state violence against such an individual is to be considered acceptable/excusable.

    Because otherwise, what relevance is there for someone to "just be pointing out the facts" about an individual in such a context?

    You don't get to play the "he was no angel" card and then get offended when people call you out on it.

    I'll go out on a limb and explicitly say that there are situations when an individual is engaging in an ongoing espionage campaign against a state in the interests and with the support of the intelligence services of a hostile state that there are situations where state violence against that individual may be acceptable / excusable.

    Assange's specific circumstances made any idea of using violence in his situation darkly humorous in just how terribly bad an idea it was in every possible way. And fortunately it seems to have resolved itself with Assange arrested and working his way towards extradition and trial in the US.

    But spying and espionage have always been treated with special carveouts in international law where spies lose many of the protections of civilians and / or uniformed servicemembers. Those carveouts pretty much go back as far as there is any international law / conventions on protections for civilians and servicemembers.

    Those laws were written before espionage could be committed from a computer half a world away and are still catching up, but they make it extremely clear that when you engage in espionage you're not just some random innocent civilian.

    And frankly you should be a bit embarrassed you tried to equate a spy to some black teenager who the cops randomly murder and then try to to justify it by saying he smoked weed once so 'hes no angel'. Like, come on, do better.

    ElvenshaeSmrtnikViskodMvrckLord_AsmodeusBigJoeMBlackDragon480Gnome-InterruptusshrykeeMoanderGennenalyse RuebenKamar
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    Yeah, we hear arguments like yours every time the state murders someone or wants to.

    Where? The state don't care about civilians dying and would support murdering Assange - neither of which I agree with. When civilians are killed by governments it's excuses about collateral damage, which isn't what Assange position was in any sense. He openly embarrassed the United States more than once with classified intelligence. He's lucky he wasn't a bigger priority honestly, and no, that's not supporting the state trying to murder him. Your intent to frame me as a supporter of American imperialism is nonsensical.
    Then what was the implication of you making that statement?

    If you don't want people to infer meaning, don't make vague statements with obvious intent.

    That was made up by people who disagreed with me, all I did was respond on Assange being a civilian.

    Harry Dresden on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    Yes, by specifically saying he should not be compared to an "innocent civilian."

    "Innocent" was your choice of phrasing, and it was that phrasing I was critical of.

    DarkPrimus on
    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    DoodmannStyrofoam SammichYamiB.ShortyDee KaeCaedwyr
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited September 30
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    The original reference

    I am not sure what the point of this comparison is supposed to mean, particularly given the common use of this type of phrasing in American culture, if not to imply that Assange is somehow deserving of some some kind of treatment by the state that we would not extend to other civilians as a result of whatever reasons you hold that make him not “innocent” in comparison to a random Cuban citizen.

    The point of order is that Assange is a civilian; he’s not military, he’s not militia, he’s not an intel agent of an enemy state. His supposed “innocence” is goddamn immaterial to the matter at hand: the CIA under goddamn Trump considering the assassination of a non-state foreign actor, at the time under the protective custody of Ecuador, while in British territory.


    If you want to say you just hate the bastard, then fine, you can do that, a lot of folks do and for good reason. But bringing up the idea of his “innocence” in this context has distinct notions attached to it, particularly when the topic at hand is the global hegemony’s intel and wet works agency considering an assassination, particularly under a fascist president who has in the months since repeatedly has shown a severe disregard for anything resembling democratic ideals, accountability, etc. and given America even under less fascistic presidents has shown little qualms with assassinating its own citizens should they be named the enemy, this is a fire that we should not play with under any circumstance given the precedence these issues would set.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    It doesn't particularly help that the very reason that he was getting away with avoiding justice for rape was that he claimed that if he was extradited for trial he'd be targeted for political reasons instead. Way to actually make that valid, Trump administration.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    The original reference

    I am not sure what the point of this comparison is supposed to mean, particularly given the common use of this type of phrasing in American culture, if not to imply that Assange is somehow deserving of some some kind of treatment by the state that we would not extend to other civilians as a result of whatever reasons you hold that make him not “innocent” in comparison to a random Cuban citizen.

    I wasn't the one who originally compared him to a random Cuban citizen, that was Sammich. It was a connotation to make him appear good and harmless, which is debatable. I'm not implying anything, that was a false narrative - which you're encouraging as if it's true. It's not. I deal with objective facts, Assange is hardly what I'd call an innocent in the world of global affairs, he's not a nobody blank slate. The American culture bit isn't worth relying too, it's meaningless. Condemning someone for an opinion based on what their country is is gross, Lanz.
    The point of order is that Assange is a civilian; he’s not military, he’s not militia, he’s not an intel agent of an enemy state. His supposed “innocence” is goddamn immaterial to the matter at hand: the CIA under goddamn Trump considering the assassination of a non-state foreign actor, at the time under the protective custody of Ecuador, while in British territory.

    The key word there was innocent, not civilian, and it could be argued he was an enemy of the state. His status maters with Assange's context, which is not squeaky clean and impacts the world where nation states like America, Russia, and Ecuador - a random nobody can't do this. When Assange speaks, the world listens with bated breath. Tell me this, why do you think that is? Which I disagreed with, and is being ignored.
    If you want to say you just hate the bastard, then fine, you can do that, a lot of folks do and for good reason. But bringing up the idea of his “innocence” in this context has distinct notions attached to it, particularly when the topic at hand is the global hegemony’s intel and wet works agency considering an assassination, particularly under a fascist president who has in the months since repeatedly has shown a severe disregard for anything resembling democratic ideals, accountability, etc. and given America even under less fascistic presidents has shown little qualms with assassinating its own citizens should they be named the enemy, this is a fire that we should not play with under any circumstance given the precedence these issues would set.

    Apparent not since hating the bastard is why I've been broadsided by numerous attacks and painted as an American imperial supporter who gave a thumbs up to the CIA murdering him. The latter is something I'm not being defended against here, despite this being character assassination. That makes it ok for Assange to have a cozy relationship with Russia? Are Russia the good guys now? What do you think he was doing which pissed people off? Except Obama didn't assassinate Assange, he had 8 years to do in - this is why Trump is in the crosshairs. I'm no denying previous presidents would be ok taking him out, like Nixon. Except I'm not defending that Assange should be assassinated for that precedent, that's a straw man. I just hate he dude and acknowledge it doesn't make a genius o figure out why the state would want him off he board.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Assange is at best a witless tool for russia and quite possibly an asset.

    Commander ZoomElvenshaeelectricitylikesmeBigJoeMGnome-InterruptusKamarLord_Asmodeus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited October 1
    Lanz wrote: »
    The CIA spent decades plotting and helping to plot terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians. Whatever "enemy agent/asset" means, its not historically their line in the sand.

    Assange isn't an innocent civilian.

    The original reference

    I am not sure what the point of this comparison is supposed to mean, particularly given the common use of this type of phrasing in American culture, if not to imply that Assange is somehow deserving of some some kind of treatment by the state that we would not extend to other civilians as a result of whatever reasons you hold that make him not “innocent” in comparison to a random Cuban citizen.

    I wasn't the one who originally compared him to a random Cuban citizen, that was Sammich. It was a connotation to make him appear good and harmless, which is debatable. I'm not implying anything, that was a false narrative - which you're encouraging as if it's true. It's not. I deal with objective facts, Assange is hardly what I'd call an innocent in the world of global affairs, he's not a nobody blank slate. The American culture bit isn't worth relying too, it's meaningless. Condemning someone for an opinion based on what their country is is gross, Lanz.
    The point of order is that Assange is a civilian; he’s not military, he’s not militia, he’s not an intel agent of an enemy state. His supposed “innocence” is goddamn immaterial to the matter at hand: the CIA under goddamn Trump considering the assassination of a non-state foreign actor, at the time under the protective custody of Ecuador, while in British territory.

    The key word there was innocent, not civilian, and it could be argued he was an enemy of the state. His status maters with Assange's context, which is not squeaky clean and impacts the world where nation states like America, Russia, and Ecuador - a random nobody can't do this. When Assange speaks, the world listens with bated breath. Tell me this, why do you think that is? Which I disagreed with, and is being ignored.
    If you want to say you just hate the bastard, then fine, you can do that, a lot of folks do and for good reason. But bringing up the idea of his “innocence” in this context has distinct notions attached to it, particularly when the topic at hand is the global hegemony’s intel and wet works agency considering an assassination, particularly under a fascist president who has in the months since repeatedly has shown a severe disregard for anything resembling democratic ideals, accountability, etc. and given America even under less fascistic presidents has shown little qualms with assassinating its own citizens should they be named the enemy, this is a fire that we should not play with under any circumstance given the precedence these issues would set.

    Apparent not since hating the bastard is why I've been broadsided by numerous attacks and painted as an American imperial supporter who gave a thumbs up to the CIA murdering him. The latter is something I'm not being defended against here, despite this being character assassination. That makes it ok for Assange to have a cozy relationship with Russia? Are Russia the good guys now? What do you think he was doing which pissed people off? Except Obama didn't assassinate Assange, he had 8 years to do in - this is why Trump is in the crosshairs. I'm no denying previous presidents would be ok taking him out, like Nixon. Except I'm not defending that Assange should be assassinated for that precedent, that's a straw man. I just hate he dude and acknowledge it doesn't make a genius o figure out why the state would want him off he board.

    You came in here, in the midst of a conversation about the Trump CIA and said point blank “Assange isn't an innocent civilian,” when sammich pointed out historically the CIA doesn’t give much of a fuck about harming the civilians of rival nations through assisting terrorist actions, and then left it at that until folks went “what the fuck?” There’s not a lot of nuance to be found in a single sentence that short and that blunt.

    If you don’t want people to think you’re trying to make a special exemption against Assange, then you should elaborate past a single sentence so we can actually understand your intent rather than trying to interpret against fairly common cultural contexts. And I’m not saying this to backseat mod but to point out why we all came away with the same read.

    And you realize I’m American too, right? I’m not condemning you based on your country, I’m telling you what is typically implied in American culture when folks start talking about someone’s innocence in the context of any harmful action being taken against them. “He’s not innocent” is one of the most common as hell ways of articulating that the whatever happens to the bastard in question is ultimately what he deserved. Like someone above pointed out, it’s the same as “he’s no angel” and if that’s not the idea you want to employ then it’s a phrasing you need to work out of your system because of the baggage it carries culturally

    Every one of us here is already quite aware of why the US might want him dead, as well. It’s not a thing we need explained to us. We just think it’s goddamn appalling for a litany of reasons we’ve already explained

    We understand now you don’t think he should be assassinated. We’re trying to explain to you know why it comes across as if you were fine with it. The phrasing you used has baggage, and we want you to recognize that baggage.
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Assange is at best a witless tool for russia and quite possibly an asset.

    Everything I’ve ever heard about him points to the witless tool read. Especially if you can feed his narcissism then he’ll basically bend over backwards to keep it coming. It’s part of what ruined Wikileaks, he basically drove off everyone else in the org from its founding by being a gloryhounding bastard who turned it into his personal agenda shop

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Caedwyr
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    It would be immoral and deeply stupid to assassinate Assange, the CIA is just about arrogant enough to try though

    Harry DresdenElvenshaeKamar
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    You came in here, in the midst of a conversation about the Trump CIA and said point blank “Assange isn't an innocent civilian,” when sammich pointed out historically the CIA doesn’t give much of a fuck about harming the civilians of rival nations through assisting terrorist actions, and then left it at that until folks went “what the fuck?” There’s not a lot of nuance to be found in a single sentence that short and that blunt.

    My comment said nothing about the CIA, that was filled in by numerous others as if I left a big gap in what I said when my comment was direct, concise and to the point. As well as being technically correct. What's your opinion on Assange? I find it difficult to believe its negative given this robust defence.

    My comments about understanding why the CIA would want him dead is even more puzzling since it rests on the belief Assange is a nobody the CIA are trying to murder over nothing, which is false.
    If you don’t want people to think you’re trying to make a special exemption against Assange, then you should elaborate past a single sentence so we can actually understand your intent rather than trying to interpret against fairly common cultural contexts. And I’m not saying this to backseat mod but to point out why we all came away with the same read.

    That was never going to happen, anything I said would got a response like that - this was simply an excuse. My intent was crystal clear, it didn't matter in his context and I'm still being attacked for being wrong about this.
    And you realize I’m American too, right? I’m not condemning you based on your country, I’m telling you what is typically implied in American culture when folks start talking about someone’s innocence in the context of any harmful action being taken against them. “He’s not innocent” is one of the most common as hell ways of articulating that the whatever happens to the bastard in question is ultimately what he deserved. Like someone above pointed out, it’s the same as “he’s no angel” and if that’s not the idea you want to employ then it’s a phrasing you need to work out of your system because of the baggage it carries culturally

    Which makes the American culture jab more bewildering, it's judging people by which country they belong to. It's gross. No apology or regrets about making an offensive jab? Except he "no angel" defence is about people who defend police when they murder people, when I wasn't condoning Assange's being assassinated by anyone I simply states he wasn't innocent and wasn't he same as a random Cuban citizen, which you're no disagreeing with Sammich on. The argument hinges on Sammich being correct.
    Every one of us here is already quite aware of why the US might want him dead, as well. It’s not a thing we need explained to us. We just think it’s goddamn appalling for a litany of reasons we’ve already explained

    We understand now you don’t think he should be assassinated. We’re trying to explain to you know why it comes across as if you were fine with it. The phrasing you used has baggage, and we want you to recognize that baggage.

    Which was moving the goal posts and had nothing to do with my comment on Assange.

    This was never in contention, it was all in bad faith.
    Everything I’ve ever heard about him points to the witless tool read. Especially if you can feed his narcissism then he’ll basically bend over backwards to keep it coming. It’s part of what ruined Wikileaks, he basically drove off everyone else in the org from its founding by being a gloryhounding bastard who turned it into his personal agenda shop

    Assange's narcissism with his staff isn't why governments think he's a Russian tool, and if they're right that's a bigger problem than him being a dick. I don't get why being a Russian asset is less of an issue for you here, it's not like American and Russia are allies.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited October 1
    No Harry, none of this was bad faith. You stumbled into using a phrase which has a very specific set of connotations, within the context of the conversation. Because of those preexisting cultural contexts, we read it in the way we did.

    You have made it very clear at this point we misunderstood you, but I am telling you, for people to not make this mistake in the future that is not a kind of phrasing you want to use in this context, because it is an extremely common way of expressing that someone gets whatever deserved fate is coming to them. This isn’t an “American culture jab,” this is trying to explain to you that what you said is an extremely common manner of dismissing bad fortune befalling shitty people.

    I do not understand how to explain this any more clearly: typically to insist that someone is not innocent, when discussing misfortune befalling them, is taken to be an expression of them receiving a deserved fate. This is not because people are reading the speaker in bad faith, but because that phrasing is a common way of expressing a notion of karmic retribution.

    And because I cannot conceive of a way to make this any more clear, this will be my last time trying to untangle this bedamned linguistics tangent.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Caedwyr
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    No Harry, none of this was bad faith. You stumbled into using a phrase which has a very specific set of connotations, within the context of the conversation. Because of those preexisting cultural contexts, we read it in the way we did.

    You have made it very clear at this point we misunderstood you, but I am telling you, for people to not make this mistake in the future that is not a kind of phrasing you want to use in this context, because it is an extremely common way of expressing that someone gets whatever deserved fate is coming to them. This isn’t an “American culture jab,” this trying to explain to you that what you said is an extremely common manner of dismissing bad fortune befalling shitty people.

    I do not understand how to explain this any more clearly: typically to insist that someone is not innocent, when discussing misfortune befalling them, is taken to be an expression of them receiving a deserved fate. This is not because people are reading the speaker in bad faith, but because that phrasing is a common way of expressing a notion of karmic retribution.

    This is exclusively in bad faith, and gaslighting. The phrase is "He's no angel," and comparing Assange's plight to police murdering people of color, when he's a rich white man, isn't lost on me. Assange shouldn't be assassinated by the CIA, yet my opinion holds no weight in this discussion since it's bad faith. You understand my opinion perfectly, Lanz.

    Where's the conversation about Assange and how he relates to American foreign policy? I'm keen on having that.

    Your argument doesn't refute my description in the least, and your lack of apology or remorse ironically over offensive phrasing is hypocritical.

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    If you think someone's arguing in bad faith making a friggin' report, don't engage with them while constantly telling them they're not genuine in their opinions. If they're actually arguing in bad faith, what are you even hoping to gain?

    In general, everyone who considers others to be arguing in bad faith should ponder whether or not they, in pitched textual combat with their opponents, are actually objective enough to know why the other person is definitely disingenuous, because people here seem to mistake "disagreeing with me" for "bad faith arguing" pretty consistently.

    kimeKayne Red RobeDoodmannCommander ZoomOrcaToxrahkeesh2000SageinaRageElvenshae
Sign In or Register to comment.