No. I think that that is highly unlikely - it's theoretically possible, but I would have thought that the intelligence agencies would have been more likely to back Hillary than attack her. But that is pure speculation. I don't think any of us have enough information to even pretend to form a reasoned view. It may well be that the USA is hacking other countries and leaving a false trail that leads to Russia. If Assange was telling the truth, then it seems possible if not probable.
Possible, speculative and hazy ... Good enough for an InfoWars EXCLUSIVE!!
but I get what you mean about misleading other countries.
If Assange was telling the truth, then it seems possible if not probable.
If Assange was/is telling the truth, then...
1. the CIA hacked into U.S. computer systems (pretending to be Russia) with the purpose of making sure Trump won the election, and the CIA was successful in their mission.
2. the CIA hacked into U.S. computer systems (pretending to be Russia) with the purpose of making sure Hillary won the election, but...
a. the CIA failed to find anything that would help Hillary, OR
b. the CIA forgot to share the information that would have helped Hillary.
3. the CIA hacked into U.S. computer systems (pretending to be Russia) with the purpose of influencing U.S. opinion against Russia, because....Russia was NOT trying to f__k with the U.S. election...
I don't. "Interesting" does not imply honest or truthful. I am not in a position to know one way or the other.So far as I know the information Assange has given in his leaked documents has never been questioned in relation to its authenticity. I am not aware of anyone claiming the Podesta emails were frauds for example. As to Assange's claims about other things, that's a different matter. I am not a fan of Assange - I am somewhat ambivalent about him and Wikileaks.
Of course you realize there is a huge difference between leaked documents and the words that come out of a person's mouth.
But, I can't say that now can I? It would contradict my earlier statement that says precisely that. One of us is misunderstanding what I am saying you argumentative butt head!! hahahaha
Make sure you read this post carefully Chaski
Now get over here, get that dress on, and bend over big boy
Possible, speculative and hazy ... Good enough for an InfoWars EXCLUSIVE!!
Actually Infowars has a lot of exceptionally good journalism on it - far better than I see in mainstream media. Admittedly I only watch a couple of things here and there from them, and I am not a fan of Alex Jones.
@mrmhead Said but I get what you mean about misleading other countries.
One could reasonably assume that if the USA invented hacking tools to lay blame at the feet of the Russians that the USA would use those tools to hack their allies and blame the Russians. It is not a given, but the logic is fairly sound. I would be more inclined to bet my house that they were doing this than that they never had.
1. the CIA hacked into U.S. computer systems (pretending to be Russia) with the purpose of making sure Trump won the election, and the CIA was successful in their mission.
2. the CIA hacked into U.S. computer systems (pretending to be Russia) with the purpose of making sure Hillary won the election, but...
a. the CIA failed to find anything that would help Hillary, OR
b. the CIA forgot to share the information that would have helped Hillary.
3. the CIA hacked into U.S. computer systems (pretending to be Russia) with the purpose of influencing U.S. opinion against Russia, because....Russia was NOT trying to f__k with the U.S. election...
4.
And therein lies the problem. Us little plebs simply have no way of knowing. It is possible that factions within the intelligence community are not all on the same page. Some may have supported Trump but did nothing. Some might have tried to assist Trump. Some might have supported Hillary but did nothing. Others may have sought to help her. All we can do is uselessly speculate unless or until Wikileaks gives some evidence in support of some claim or other about various hacking activities.
Infowars is fake news. It's right up there with nation enquirer and weekly world news. Only they cover politics and conspiracy not celebrities and alien abductions. Like the enquirer, they may get the occasional thing right, (some OJ stuff, Tiger woods stuff, john edwards, Rush libough) but it is not the norm or even a large percentage of their stories. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Actually Infowars has a lot of exceptionally good journalism on it - far better than I see in mainstream media. Admittedly I only watch a couple of things here and there from them, and I am not a fan of Alex Jones.
Infowars is fake news. It's right up there with nation enquirer and weekly world news. Only they cover politics and conspiracy not celebrities and alien abductions. Like the enquirer, they may get the occasional thing right, (some OJ stuff, Tiger woods stuff, john edwards, Rush libough) but it is not the norm or even a large percentage of their stories. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And yet this "fake news" site gives information on Islam for example, that is not only true, but also denied by the mainstream "real" news outlets.
These two videos pour feces all over mainstream media's utter drivel. It relies on surveys carried out by Pew, Al Jazeera and ACRPS (Arab Centre for Research Policy Studies) and things of that kind. Paul Watson is reporting facts of a kind we sorely need but do not get as it is an inconvenient truth.
I have no interest in Infowars and am not going to try to defend them as I don't care (and to be honest I don't really know anything about them. Apart from PJW I have never really watched them as I can't be bothered, and I dislike Alex Jones). But it is stupid to say everything is fake because some of it is false or stupid. It is not as if other media outlets have not unleashed propaganda and outright drivel - was it CNN that acted as a blatant propaganda machine for Hillary?
Until the mainstream media stops lying, and instead starts telling truths of the kind Paul Joseph Watson is saying, I will treat it with abject contempt because that is all it deserves.
And yet this "fake news" site gives information on Islam for example, that is not only true, but also denied by the mainstream "real" news outlets.
These two videos pour feces all over mainstream media's utter drivel. It relies on surveys carried out by Pew, Al Jazeera and ACRPS (Arab Centre for Research Policy Studies) and things of that kind. Paul Watson is reporting facts of a kind we sorely need but do not get as it is an inconvenient truth.
I have no interest in Infowars and am not going to try to defend them as I don't care (and to be honest I don't really know anything about them. Apart from PJW I have never really watched them as I can't be bothered, and I dislike Alex Jones). But it is stupid to say everything is fake because some of it is false or stupid. It is not as if other media outlets have not unleashed propaganda and outright drivel - was it CNN that acted as a blatant propaganda machine for Hillary?
Until the mainstream media stops lying, and instead starts telling truths of the kind Paul Joseph Watson is saying, I will treat it with abject contempt because that is all it deserves.
And yet this "fake news" site gives information on Islam for example, that is not only true, but also denied by the mainstream "real" news outlets.
These two videos pour feces all over mainstream media's utter drivel. It relies on surveys carried out by Pew, Al Jazeera and ACRPS (Arab Centre for Research Policy Studies) and things of that kind. Paul Watson is reporting facts of a kind we sorely need but do not get as it is an inconvenient truth.
I have no interest in Infowars and am not going to try to defend them as I don't care (and to be honest I don't really know anything about them. Apart from PJW I have never really watched them as I can't be bothered, and I dislike Alex Jones). But it is stupid to say everything is fake because some of it is false or stupid. It is not as if other media outlets have not unleashed propaganda and outright drivel - was it CNN that acted as a blatant propaganda machine for Hillary?
Until the mainstream media stops lying, and instead starts telling truths of the kind Paul Joseph Watson is saying, I will treat it with abject contempt because that is all it deserves.
Right, it's illogical to say something is fake when 95% or more of it is proven to be false.
Right, it's illogical to say something is fake when 95% or more of it is proven to be false.
It is irrelevant to me what Infowars does as a whole. On this topic they are spot on (although that first video is not the one I thought I was putting here I must admit. I am unsure how that happened as that is not the video I linked).
It is irrelevant to me what Infowars does as a whole. On this topic they are spot on (although that first video is not the one I thought I was putting here I must admit. I am unsure how that happened as that is not the video I linked).
Even a broken clock is right once in a while.
That doesn't mean I want to rely on it to get anywhere on time.
And again, that is fair enough. I agree with you on that. It is rare (if ever) that I say to anyone that they should believe Infowars or anyone else. I have often told people not to believe me either but to do their own research. Relying on others for our information is fraught with danger. Yes, we all do it, but it is not really desirable to do it. Lack of time and the boredom of it make it difficult, but it is better to know for ourselves, I think.