The CIA already having an assassination attempt against Assange planned out is extremely believable.
+16
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited September 2021
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
0
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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?
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.
+11
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
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
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.
+1
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
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
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
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.
Posts
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.
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.
It's like not even a little surprising if they did, that's like a thing you come up with by accident over lunch.
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?
And like the CIA is a supremely evil entity. If course it had plans to kill the guy who publicly opposed them
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.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
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.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Assange isn't an innocent civilian.
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
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.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The CIA is known to do certain things, being unsurprised by these things is a matter of object permanence not approval.
CIA isnt a court room my good dude.
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.
The bigger issue is that making this attempt would serve to piss off 2 countries the us is nominally not interested in pissing off.
That's a straw man. I never said anything about the CIA assassinating people was cool, I was just pointing out facts about Assange.
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.
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.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
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.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
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.
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.
That was made up by people who disagreed with me, all I did was respond on Assange being a civilian.
"Innocent" was your choice of phrasing, and it was that phrasing I was critical of.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.