|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On February 15 2018 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 03:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 15 2018 03:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 03:09 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 02:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 15 2018 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
GH is generally right in that y'all on the left would be better served to ignore the Russia collusion stuff. There's a very good chance that it boomerangs hard against democrats when the IG report comes out, particularly when you consider that pretty much everyone involved at the FBI has been terminated or forced to resign. This all may end up being a political boon to the democrats, but I think that possibility is becoming more remote. When the time comes, don't say I didn't warn you. Also very likely this whole uranium thing blows up, right? Do you remember the language you used when people doubted you then? Last I checked, the investigation into Uranium One has continued to escalate since I made those initial posts. And the big difference between Uranium One and the Russia/Trump collusion thing is that we can actually see money changing hands with regards to Uranium One. No such transactions have been surfaced on the Russia/Trump story. All we have are some contacts and a highly questionable dossier. More importantly, the media leaks that we have seeing regarding Mueller investigation have been stating for months that Mueller is more focused on obstruction of justice-type charges than some type of nefarious collusion. Again, we'll see how it shakes out, but I wouldn't hold your breath. In the history of the world, has anybody tried so hard to end/slow down/discredit an investigation which would prove their innocence? The idea that there is literally nothing to hide doesn't pass the eye test. The issue stopped being about whether Trump is innocent/guilty as soon as became obvious he and all of his crew are guilty. Notice xD doesn't talk any more about whether or not he is guilty. Its just about how good he is at hiding evidence and intimidating people with his office. In the meantime, all the DNC/Uranium stuff is the most obvious distraction anyone has ever seen. Its mindblowing how determined people seem to be to carry on with a distraction tactic so utterly transparent. Everyone can see what xDaunt is doing, everyone is saying it and has been for months, but he carries on anyway. I'll let you guys figure out what that means. I'm not sure why you think that it is "obvious" that Trump is guilty of collusion. It certainly isn't obvious to anyone else who isn't hallucinating. I'm still waiting for some evidence showing whether the dossier is true or false. One thing to note is that Buzzfeed has been sued for defamation by some people named in the dossier. Buzzfeed is currently scrambling to find evidence corroborating the dossier, going so far as to sue the DNC to find such evidence. In short, the Buzzfeed defamation suit may be our first chance to see how true the dossier is. Its not all about the dossier, but I can see why you would want our attention pointed in that direction. Nice try. All the same people you are arguing with believed Flynn was 100% clean at one point. The goal post will just keep moving until "We all knew this was possible".
Indeed.
I can well foresee a scenario where all of Trump's campaign staff have been charged and found guilty and people will still cling to Uranium One and the fact that Trump hasn't been proven guilty yet.
The game theory of these discussions is maddening. They know that we know that they know exactly what game they are playing, but they keep playing it anyway.
|
On February 15 2018 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 03:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 15 2018 03:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 03:09 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 02:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 15 2018 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
GH is generally right in that y'all on the left would be better served to ignore the Russia collusion stuff. There's a very good chance that it boomerangs hard against democrats when the IG report comes out, particularly when you consider that pretty much everyone involved at the FBI has been terminated or forced to resign. This all may end up being a political boon to the democrats, but I think that possibility is becoming more remote. When the time comes, don't say I didn't warn you. Also very likely this whole uranium thing blows up, right? Do you remember the language you used when people doubted you then? Last I checked, the investigation into Uranium One has continued to escalate since I made those initial posts. And the big difference between Uranium One and the Russia/Trump collusion thing is that we can actually see money changing hands with regards to Uranium One. No such transactions have been surfaced on the Russia/Trump story. All we have are some contacts and a highly questionable dossier. More importantly, the media leaks that we have seeing regarding Mueller investigation have been stating for months that Mueller is more focused on obstruction of justice-type charges than some type of nefarious collusion. Again, we'll see how it shakes out, but I wouldn't hold your breath. In the history of the world, has anybody tried so hard to end/slow down/discredit an investigation which would prove their innocence? The idea that there is literally nothing to hide doesn't pass the eye test. The issue stopped being about whether Trump is innocent/guilty as soon as became obvious he and all of his crew are guilty. Notice xD doesn't talk any more about whether or not he is guilty. Its just about how good he is at hiding evidence and intimidating people with his office. In the meantime, all the DNC/Uranium stuff is the most obvious distraction anyone has ever seen. Its mindblowing how determined people seem to be to carry on with a distraction tactic so utterly transparent. Everyone can see what xDaunt is doing, everyone is saying it and has been for months, but he carries on anyway. I'll let you guys figure out what that means. I'm not sure why you think that it is "obvious" that Trump is guilty of collusion. It certainly isn't obvious to anyone else who isn't hallucinating. I'm still waiting for some evidence showing whether the dossier is true or false. One thing to note is that Buzzfeed has been sued for defamation by some people named in the dossier. Buzzfeed is currently scrambling to find evidence corroborating the dossier, going so far as to sue the DNC to find such evidence. In short, the Buzzfeed defamation suit may be our first chance to see how true the dossier is. Its not all about the dossier, but I can see why you would want our attention pointed in that direction. Nice try. All the same people you are arguing with believed Flynn was 100% clean at one point. The goal post will just keep moving until "We all knew this was possible".
And "Nunes totally wouldn't lie in an official memo' right up to the point where he admitted it did actually say the dossier was a political piece in the footnote while on Fox and friends. And then we suddenly never heard from them about it again.
|
On February 15 2018 03:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 03:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 15 2018 03:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 03:09 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 02:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 15 2018 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
GH is generally right in that y'all on the left would be better served to ignore the Russia collusion stuff. There's a very good chance that it boomerangs hard against democrats when the IG report comes out, particularly when you consider that pretty much everyone involved at the FBI has been terminated or forced to resign. This all may end up being a political boon to the democrats, but I think that possibility is becoming more remote. When the time comes, don't say I didn't warn you. Also very likely this whole uranium thing blows up, right? Do you remember the language you used when people doubted you then? Last I checked, the investigation into Uranium One has continued to escalate since I made those initial posts. And the big difference between Uranium One and the Russia/Trump collusion thing is that we can actually see money changing hands with regards to Uranium One. No such transactions have been surfaced on the Russia/Trump story. All we have are some contacts and a highly questionable dossier. More importantly, the media leaks that we have seeing regarding Mueller investigation have been stating for months that Mueller is more focused on obstruction of justice-type charges than some type of nefarious collusion. Again, we'll see how it shakes out, but I wouldn't hold your breath. In the history of the world, has anybody tried so hard to end/slow down/discredit an investigation which would prove their innocence? The idea that there is literally nothing to hide doesn't pass the eye test. The issue stopped being about whether Trump is innocent/guilty as soon as became obvious he and all of his crew are guilty. Notice xD doesn't talk any more about whether or not he is guilty. Its just about how good he is at hiding evidence and intimidating people with his office. In the meantime, all the DNC/Uranium stuff is the most obvious distraction anyone has ever seen. Its mindblowing how determined people seem to be to carry on with a distraction tactic so utterly transparent. Everyone can see what xDaunt is doing, everyone is saying it and has been for months, but he carries on anyway. I'll let you guys figure out what that means. I'm not sure why you think that it is "obvious" that Trump is guilty of collusion. It certainly isn't obvious to anyone else who isn't hallucinating. I'm still waiting for some evidence showing whether the dossier is true or false. One thing to note is that Buzzfeed has been sued for defamation by some people named in the dossier. Buzzfeed is currently scrambling to find evidence corroborating the dossier, going so far as to sue the DNC to find such evidence. In short, the Buzzfeed defamation suit may be our first chance to see how true the dossier is. Its not all about the dossier, but I can see why you would want our attention pointed in that direction. Nice try. All the same people you are arguing with believed Flynn was 100% clean at one point. The goal post will just keep moving until "We all knew this was possible". Indeed. I can well foresee a scenario where all of Trump's campaign staff have been charged and found guilty and people will still cling to Uranium One and the fact that Trump hasn't been proven guilty yet. The game theory of these discussions is maddening. They know that we know that they know exactly what game they are playing, but they keep playing it anyway.
It's not worth engaging with. Anyone can pat themselves on the back for being skeptical. I do my part by reminding people every time their fake skepticism was misplaced, but the whole idea of trying to "convince" the "skeptics" isn't worthwhile.
|
That entire memo also leaves out the part where the judge could have asked who paid to collect the information at any time, but did not. The Judge didn’t need which political party paid for it to issue the FISA warrant. Because it was Carter Page and that man’s entire existence seems to justify a FISA warrant.
|
|
|
All right, its lunch time now, so why not:
I got the facts mixed up in the NPR/NYT reports on Russian efforts on Facebook. The reports said thousands of people saw the planned events/protests and some of those people attended. The reports, which I re-read and listened to again, did not provide specific information as to the number of people attending the rallies/protests.
So, I was wrong in saying that thousands of people attended the rallies set up by Russia. We don’t know how many people attended each rally and if that number went into the thousands either nationwide or for each rally. Thousands of people saw the events on facebook, an unknown number of people attended.
|
On February 15 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:
All right, its lunch time now, so why not:
I got the facts mixed up in the NPR/NYT reports on Russian efforts on Facebook. The reports said thousands of people saw the planned events/protests and some of those people attended. The reports, which I re-read and listened to again, did not provide specific information as to the number of people attending the rallies/protests.
So, I was wrong in saying that thousands of people attended the rallies set up by Russia. We don’t know how many people attended each rally and if that number went into the thousands either nationwide or for each rally. Thousands of people saw the events on facebook, an unknown number of people attended.
How was it brought to your attention that you were misremembering and spreading that errant memory? And why did you choose to not clarify this until now?
Are you sure you "mixed up" some reports or did you read the headline of the propaganda article you posted that confirmed what you now recognize was an error?
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
|
On February 15 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote:
Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed. Okay, this is total bullshit. The DNC hacks revealed what? What did the "hacks" do? Nothing. The only reason the hack mattered was because of the Russian propaganda campaign. Wikileaks - internet, social-media "reporting" of the hacks making something out of nothing. You can't separate the two. Why are you trying?
Very true. The RNC was hacked by the same guys who hacked the DNC, but no RNC emails were ever released. The media almost never discussed it because the RNC's communication wasn't published and pushed like the DNC's were.
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/13/justice-department-turnover-bad-news-robert-mueller-ethics-democracy-eisen-bassetti-column/327775002/
If Trump doesn’t name anyone to succeed Brand, the next in line in the Justice order of succession is Solicitor General Noel Francisco. That is concerning. Before he joined Justice, Francisco was a law partner of Donald F. McGahn II, now the White House counsel. Their firm, Jones Day, represented the Trump campaign (though we are not aware of Francisco personally having done any of the work). Jones Day still works for the campaign; it.was paid more than $800,000 in the last quarter of 2017 to deal with, among other things, the Mueller investigation.
Francisco moreover maintains financial ties to his old firm — it still owes him money. There are real questions about whether he can be impartial. When he took the Justice job, Francisco signed an ethics pledge that he would “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to his knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the firm's ability or willingness” to pay him what he is owed. Francisco also presumably signed the Trump administration's ethics pledge promising to step aside for two years from all matters “involving specific parties … directly and substantially related to my former employer.” He is also subject to other government and legal-profession rules on conflicts.
This law-firm, Jones Day, also reps WalMart, which was a major contributor to Trump's campaign.
It's seeming obvious that Rachel Brand's WalMart position wasn't a convenient-coincidence, but was a planned exit for her, provided by the Trump camp.
|
On February 15 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:
All right, its lunch time now, so why not:
I got the facts mixed up in the NPR/NYT reports on Russian efforts on Facebook. The reports said thousands of people saw the planned events/protests and some of those people attended. The reports, which I re-read and listened to again, did not provide specific information as to the number of people attending the rallies/protests.
So, I was wrong in saying that thousands of people attended the rallies set up by Russia. We don’t know how many people attended each rally and if that number went into the thousands either nationwide or for each rally. Thousands of people saw the events on facebook, an unknown number of people attended.
How was it brought to your attention that you were misremembering and spreading that errant memory? And why did you choose to not clarify this until now? Are you sure you "mixed up" some reports or did you read the headline of the propaganda article you posted that confirmed what you now recognize was an error? Show nested quote +http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
Because I’m willing to admit when a made a mistake and I desperately want you to stop harassing me about it.
|
GreenHorizons wrote:
Interesting you are in a rush to clear this up... while I don't know to my personal satisfaction that Russia (as in Putin) was in fact the one and only group to breach the RNC/DNC, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe they were at least 1 group that did and can move forward under that belief.
It is important be clear about what facts people are willing to agree on. To further clear up that point, the email hack cause by someone in the DNC clicking on phishing email was reported to have been done by Russia by all sources I have come across. Can we agree that that one specific breach, not precluding any other breaches, was the work of Russia?
You know what I'm waiting for if we're going to be clearing up what facts people are willing to agree on...
I'd say pretty much the same thing. That while I don't know that it's been confirmed in a way I find personally sufficient that was the only breach/actor I don't think it unreasonable to believe they did breach the account.
Those are some weak ass responses. Only 2 parties have ever been fingered to be responsible for the DNC and Podesta hacks. One of them are groups affiliated with the Russian government. We all know who the other one is. If you want to throw some more conspiracies around then do it and stop pussyfooting around the question.
|
On February 15 2018 04:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:
All right, its lunch time now, so why not:
I got the facts mixed up in the NPR/NYT reports on Russian efforts on Facebook. The reports said thousands of people saw the planned events/protests and some of those people attended. The reports, which I re-read and listened to again, did not provide specific information as to the number of people attending the rallies/protests.
So, I was wrong in saying that thousands of people attended the rallies set up by Russia. We don’t know how many people attended each rally and if that number went into the thousands either nationwide or for each rally. Thousands of people saw the events on facebook, an unknown number of people attended.
How was it brought to your attention that you were misremembering and spreading that errant memory? And why did you choose to not clarify this until now? Are you sure you "mixed up" some reports or did you read the headline of the propaganda article you posted that confirmed what you now recognize was an error? http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook Because I’m willing to admit when a made a mistake and I desperately want you to stop harassing me about it.
Willing as in had to be proven wrong, then confronted when you ignored that you were spreading misinformation, responding with personal insults (in PM) and letting it linger, then instead of correcting your mistake you ask some apparently pointless fact finding questions, ignore the larger issues and the headline from the article you posted that you begrudgingly admit isn't true and play the victim of harassment for being called out (meanwhile I'm enduring my own share 'substance-lite' posts without engaging with my pretty specific and clear critique).
Hold on, it's a very tiny violin so it's hard to find
|
On February 15 2018 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 04:06 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:
All right, its lunch time now, so why not:
I got the facts mixed up in the NPR/NYT reports on Russian efforts on Facebook. The reports said thousands of people saw the planned events/protests and some of those people attended. The reports, which I re-read and listened to again, did not provide specific information as to the number of people attending the rallies/protests.
So, I was wrong in saying that thousands of people attended the rallies set up by Russia. We don’t know how many people attended each rally and if that number went into the thousands either nationwide or for each rally. Thousands of people saw the events on facebook, an unknown number of people attended.
How was it brought to your attention that you were misremembering and spreading that errant memory? And why did you choose to not clarify this until now? Are you sure you "mixed up" some reports or did you read the headline of the propaganda article you posted that confirmed what you now recognize was an error? http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook Because I’m willing to admit when a made a mistake and I desperately want you to stop harassing me about it. Willing as in had to be proven wrong, then confronted when you ignored that you were spreading misinformation, responding with personal insults (in PM) and letting it linger, then instead of correcting your mistake you ask some apparently pointless fact finding questions, ignore the larger issues and the headline from the article you posted that you begrudgingly admit isn't true and play the victim of harassment for being called out (meanwhile I'm enduring my own share 'substance-lite' posts without engaging with my pretty specific and clear critique). Hold on, it's a very tiny violin so it's hard to find
Dude, he admitted he made a mistake. Stop being a dick about it
|
On February 15 2018 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 04:06 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:
All right, its lunch time now, so why not:
I got the facts mixed up in the NPR/NYT reports on Russian efforts on Facebook. The reports said thousands of people saw the planned events/protests and some of those people attended. The reports, which I re-read and listened to again, did not provide specific information as to the number of people attending the rallies/protests.
So, I was wrong in saying that thousands of people attended the rallies set up by Russia. We don’t know how many people attended each rally and if that number went into the thousands either nationwide or for each rally. Thousands of people saw the events on facebook, an unknown number of people attended.
How was it brought to your attention that you were misremembering and spreading that errant memory? And why did you choose to not clarify this until now? Are you sure you "mixed up" some reports or did you read the headline of the propaganda article you posted that confirmed what you now recognize was an error? http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook Because I’m willing to admit when a made a mistake and I desperately want you to stop harassing me about it. Willing as in had to be proven wrong, then confronted when you ignored that you were spreading misinformation, responding with personal insults (in PM) and letting it linger, then instead of correcting your mistake you ask some apparently pointless fact finding questions, ignore the larger issues and the headline from the article you posted that you begrudgingly admit isn't true and play the victim of harassment for being called out (meanwhile I'm enduring my own share 'substance-lite' posts without engaging with my pretty specific and clear critique). Hold on, it's a very tiny violin so it's hard to find
I didn’t insult you via PM. I did bring up that you have propagated some conspiracy theories that are now ban-worthy offenses to talk about. But I did not insult you. I have no admitted I was wrong and I feel its best if we move on from this topic.
|
On February 15 2018 04:09 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +GreenHorizons wrote:
Interesting you are in a rush to clear this up... while I don't know to my personal satisfaction that Russia (as in Putin) was in fact the one and only group to breach the RNC/DNC, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe they were at least 1 group that did and can move forward under that belief.
It is important be clear about what facts people are willing to agree on. To further clear up that point, the email hack cause by someone in the DNC clicking on phishing email was reported to have been done by Russia by all sources I have come across. Can we agree that that one specific breach, not precluding any other breaches, was the work of Russia?
You know what I'm waiting for if we're going to be clearing up what facts people are willing to agree on...
I'd say pretty much the same thing. That while I don't know that it's been confirmed in a way I find personally sufficient that was the only breach/actor I don't think it unreasonable to believe they did breach the account. Those are some weak ass responses. Only 2 parties have ever been fingered to be responsible for the DNC and Podesta hacks. One of them are groups affiliated with the Russian government. We all know who the other one is. If you want to throw some more conspiracies around then do it and stop pussyfooting around the question.
From what I gather the hard evidence for the attribution is rather limited and it's known that it can be faked, but I'm one who even without this, is reasonably confident that Russia did in fact breach those accounts.
In addition, between the phishing, Hillary's breaches of her private server, and the general lack of cyber security across a wide variety of institutions it's pretty hard to exclude simply by a lack of reporting on it that no other entities may have breached the DNC /RNC.
If this is about Wikileaks source then you can just ask about that.
|
On February 15 2018 04:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 04:06 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:
All right, its lunch time now, so why not:
I got the facts mixed up in the NPR/NYT reports on Russian efforts on Facebook. The reports said thousands of people saw the planned events/protests and some of those people attended. The reports, which I re-read and listened to again, did not provide specific information as to the number of people attending the rallies/protests.
So, I was wrong in saying that thousands of people attended the rallies set up by Russia. We don’t know how many people attended each rally and if that number went into the thousands either nationwide or for each rally. Thousands of people saw the events on facebook, an unknown number of people attended.
How was it brought to your attention that you were misremembering and spreading that errant memory? And why did you choose to not clarify this until now? Are you sure you "mixed up" some reports or did you read the headline of the propaganda article you posted that confirmed what you now recognize was an error? http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook Because I’m willing to admit when a made a mistake and I desperately want you to stop harassing me about it. Willing as in had to be proven wrong, then confronted when you ignored that you were spreading misinformation, responding with personal insults (in PM) and letting it linger, then instead of correcting your mistake you ask some apparently pointless fact finding questions, ignore the larger issues and the headline from the article you posted that you begrudgingly admit isn't true and play the victim of harassment for being called out (meanwhile I'm enduring my own share 'substance-lite' posts without engaging with my pretty specific and clear critique). Hold on, it's a very tiny violin so it's hard to find I didn’t insult you via PM. I did bring up that you have propagated some conspiracy theories that are now ban-worthy offenses to talk about. But I did not insult you. I have no admitted I was wrong and I feel its best if we move on from this topic.
I mean you suggested I believe in something ('crazy') I don't, but we can't talk about that.
I showed that what you said was wrong and that your excuse that you misremembered was tenuous (and totally non-exculpatory for outlets like The Hill with the same headline) and that your ongoing attempt to play victim to harassment is your last refuge from really admitting you were wrong (which I thought we all saw you do)
I think my work on that is done.
On February 15 2018 04:16 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 04:06 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:
All right, its lunch time now, so why not:
I got the facts mixed up in the NPR/NYT reports on Russian efforts on Facebook. The reports said thousands of people saw the planned events/protests and some of those people attended. The reports, which I re-read and listened to again, did not provide specific information as to the number of people attending the rallies/protests.
So, I was wrong in saying that thousands of people attended the rallies set up by Russia. We don’t know how many people attended each rally and if that number went into the thousands either nationwide or for each rally. Thousands of people saw the events on facebook, an unknown number of people attended.
How was it brought to your attention that you were misremembering and spreading that errant memory? And why did you choose to not clarify this until now? Are you sure you "mixed up" some reports or did you read the headline of the propaganda article you posted that confirmed what you now recognize was an error? http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook Because I’m willing to admit when a made a mistake and I desperately want you to stop harassing me about it. Willing as in had to be proven wrong, then confronted when you ignored that you were spreading misinformation, responding with personal insults (in PM) and letting it linger, then instead of correcting your mistake you ask some apparently pointless fact finding questions, ignore the larger issues and the headline from the article you posted that you begrudgingly admit isn't true and play the victim of harassment for being called out (meanwhile I'm enduring my own share 'substance-lite' posts without engaging with my pretty specific and clear critique). Hold on, it's a very tiny violin so it's hard to find Dude, he admitted he made a mistake. Stop being a dick about it
tbf turns out he's kinda saying he didn't.
|
User was warned for this post
|
What difference does it really make if the RNC was hacked or not? Are we trying to prove politically motivated leakage or something?
|
|
|
So either ISIS is pushing deeper into Taliban territory and it is bigger than first thought, or this is a false front.
In an unexpected overture at a time of increasing bloodshed in Afghanistan, the Taliban have published an open letter expressing a desire for peace talks and calling on the “American people” and “peace-loving congressmen” to pressurise the Donald Trump administration into negotiations.
The letter, released by the Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, comes amid deteriorating conditions for US and Afghan coalition forces on the battlefield and after a month in which two major Taliban assaults on Kabul killed 150 civilians.
The Trump administration has sent mixed messages about its readiness to have contacts with the Taliban, but it has insisted that all substantive negotiations would have to be led by the Afghan government.
For its part, the Taliban refuses to talk to the Afghan government without first discussing the withdrawal of foreign troops with its powerful ally.
“If the policy of using force is continued for another one hundred years,” the letter reads, “the outcome will be the same ... as you have observed over the last six months since the initiation of Trump’s new strategy.”
The 2,800-word letter favours US and UN-produced statistics over apocalyptic threats. In an attempt to persuade the US public that the war is unwinnable, it cites the “3,546 American and foreign soldiers” killed, an “87% rise” in heroin production in 2017, and the assessment from the US watchdog the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction that Taliban control on the ground has increased significantly.
In what appears to be a nod to rising support for the Taliban from Russia and Iran, the statement refers to the “international community” now “backing our justified resistance”.
Furthermore, it highlights “tens of billions of dollars” spent in Afghanistan that are “collected from you in tax and revenue”, but then given, it claims, “to thieves and murderers”.
Such arguments have an ear in Washington. On Monday, the Taliban invited the libertarian senator Rand Paul for talks at their office in Qatar, after Paul claimed the US’s projected $45bn (£32.5bn) spending in Afghanistan over 2018 amounted to money “thrown down a hatch”.
This invitation stands a better chance of influencing US policy than the “generalised” open letter, according to Thomas Ruttig of the thinktank the Afghan Analysts Network.
A spokesperson for the US state department said the Taliban was welcome to join peace talks, but added that the onus was now on the insurgents to end their campaign of violence.
“The Taliban statement alone does not show willingness to engage in peace talks. The Taliban’s recent horrific terror attacks in Kabul speak louder than these words,” the spokesperson said. “The Afghan government can only negotiate to end the war if the Taliban are ready. The recent attacks show this is not the case.”
There are conflicting views within the US administration, however. The secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said the US is open to talks with “moderate voices” in the Taliban, which could form part of the Kabul government.
Even after Trump’s comments, Tillerson’s deputy, John Sullivan, said US policy remained the pursuit of Afghan-led talks with the Taliban, and suggested Trump’s remarks referred to a refusal to talk to hardliners while attacks were under way.
Talks with the Taliban, Sullivan said this month, would “happen over time when conditions warrant and it’s appropriate”.
Even if ignored by policymakers, the Taliban’s public plea showcases an effective evolution in their propaganda, according to a western official unauthorised to speak publicly. “I hate to say it,” said the official, “but they have started to hit where it hurts simply by telling the truth.”
Michael Semple, a former UN and EU negotiator with the Taliban, suggested the letter said more about the internal politics of the insurgency, between moderates based in Qatar and more hardline elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“The Taliban have refused talks with the government of Afghanistan. To legitimise that position, they are putting it out that they are open to talks with the US,” Semple, now a professor at Queen’s University Belfast, said. “The letter is not conveying a serious proposal, but is an attempt to provide cover for a hardline position (with which I suspect most Taliban in Qatar disagree).”
Simon Gass, a former Nato senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, said: “Although the Taliban have had success on the ground, it has come at a big price in terms of losses. Morale is said by experts not to be great particularly given the faction fighting which followed the deaths of [Taliban leaders] Mullah Omar and Mullah Mansour.
“The encroachment of Isis is a problem for the Taliban – they may be feeling the heat. The US intention to raise force levels will also discourage them.
“So this could be a significant move. But it could also be a tactic designed to disarm those in the US who are against any troop increase and to divide the Afghan and US governments.”
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
