The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[GoBills808]

Remember when Assange kept a bunch of his followers up all night after promising supposed documents that would put Hillary in prison? And then the documents never came? Fool me once..

 

 

He does. No one is saying he doesn't.

 

And yet the "spokesman" for Rich's parents whom everyone is quoting is a DNC operative with a clear agenda as well.

 

We are in the middle of an information war, the first of its kind. The only way through is to use your own discernment, and not to rely on a singular source for your news and information.

I'm just wondering why people give so much credibility to WikiLeaks and Assange (and by proxy RT and Russian spin) but are able to immediately disregard US media and IC reporting.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I'm just wondering why people give so much credibility to WikiLeaks and Assange (and by proxy RT and Russian spin) but are able to immediately disregard US media and IC reporting.

 

As I wrote above, the Washington Post is the US version of RT - yet people don't question it or aren't even aware of that fact.

 

I'm not arguing to distrust every media source, or even every journalist working for the WP/NYT et al. I do argue for people being aware that the agenda of "fake news" is not exclusive to Russia and our own press and country engages in that kind of information warfare as well.

[GoBills808]

 

As I wrote above, the Washington Post is the US version of RT - yet people don't question it or aren't even aware of that fact.

 

I'm not arguing to distrust every media source, or even every journalist working for the WP/NYT et al. I do argue for people being aware that the agenda of "fake news" is not exclusive to Russia and our own press and country engages in that kind of information warfare as well.

But I can't even agree with this. RT is state-sponsored, state-funded. That's a difference of kind.

 

No matter what you may think of the US media (although your disdain appears centered on what most would perceive as 'liberal' outlets), we hold journalism to higher ethical standards...I think you enter dangerous territory once you start believing our press is compromised by government agendas.

 

Now what I DO believe our press is compromised by is profits, and thus take a 'stance' on one side of the political aisle or another, and gear their operation accordingly to suit their reader/viewership, but that's the cost of doing media business these days. I also believe they're guilty of running stories or sensationalizing content without due diligence in attempt to 'get a story out there' that fits their narrative. But the term 'fake news' to me implies a deliberate attempt to publish untrue and politically motivated stories with the intent of manipulating the public's perception for the government's benefit, and I won't accuse our media of that. At least not yet, anyway.

 

I think you need to give us a little more credit. We're well capable of figuring out how to balance a NYT article with a Wall St Journal piece on the same subject and coming to some reasonable interpretation.

[Deranged Rhino]

But I can't even agree with this. RT is state-sponsored, state-funded. That's a difference of kind.

 

 

The Washington Post is owned by an open CIA asset. It's not even a conspiracy to say they're the mouthpiece for Langley and Foggy Bottom. It's a fact.

 

 

No matter what you may think of the US media (although your disdain appears centered on what most would perceive as 'liberal' outlets), we hold journalism to higher ethical standards...I think you enter dangerous territory once you start believing our press is compromised by government agendas.

 

You haven't read me enough if you think I'm only bashing liberal leaning media sites.

 

And you're living in a fantasy land if you believe our media hasn't been compromised (since the beginning) by CIA and our own IC. Were you old enough to live through the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003? By that I mean, were you old enough to actually be paying attention to how the drums of war were being flogged by the Washington Post and NYT claiming WMD was a fact?

 

I suggest you look into the history of the CIA's manipulation of our media, starting with Operation Mockingbird.

 

 

Now what I DO believe our press is compromised by is profits, and thus take a 'stance' on one side of the political aisle or another, and gear their operation accordingly to suit their reader/viewership, but that's the cost of doing media business these days. I also believe they're guilty of running stories or sensationalizing content without due diligence in attempt to 'get a story out there' that fits their narrative. But the term 'fake news' to me implies a deliberate attempt to publish untrue and politically motivated stories with the intent of manipulating the public's perception for the government's benefit, and I won't accuse our media of that. At least not yet, anyway.

 

If you can't accuse our media of that, then I wager you weren't paying attention in 2003... or in 2011, or in 2012, or in 2013-16 Syrian build up.

The truth is we live in an oligarchy, not a republic. And the oligarchy/plutocracy controls the reigns of not only the MSM but large swaths of the IC. What we are in today is an information war, the first of its kind.

 

It's not being waged between nation states, but between oligarchs with competing agendas.

 

Unless you come to grips with that fact, the news you read will continue to be a mystery.

I thought I posted this in this thread... so apologies GoBills808, here's the WP post I referenced earlier:

 

 

 

The Washington Post is (for a lack of a better description) the US version of RT. It historically has been the mouth of Langley and Foggy Bottom and is currently owned by an openly known CIA asset. The same year Bezos closed a $600m contract with CIA, he buys the Post. This is not happenstance. The Post has a history of being manipulated by the IC, specifically the CIA, to push their agendas. For the most recent reference, see the Washington Post's coverage of the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

 

The US (through cutouts and directly) has been arming, funding, training, and sharing intelligence with ISIS and AQ forces inside Syria since 2011 in their fight against Assad. This operation has been run largely by the CIA, and coordinated through Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE. The sin Trump allegedly committed (and if true, it is a huge violation of the unwritten laws in intelligence work) was to out an asset inside ISIS who undoubtedly was working with the intelligence agencies of one of those countries. Meaning, the CIA - through the Washington Post - is sticking up for its assets on the ground by leaking this story. It also means they have a clear and obvious bias in this story that they do not disclose and considering their history, their work on this issue (and all ISIS related issues) should be read with that in mind.

 

Russia, for all their faults, is actively fighting ISIS in Syria - which works against the CIA's interest and is at the root of much of the neo-McCarthyism we've seen since July of '16 (really since Mitt's campaign in 2012).

[GoBills808]

 

The Washington Post is owned by an open CIA asset. It's not even a conspiracy to say they're the mouthpiece for Langley and Foggy Bottom. It's a fact.

 

You haven't read me enough if you think I'm only bashing liberal leaning media sites.

 

And you're living in a fantasy land if you believe our media hasn't been compromised (since the beginning) by CIA and our own IC. Were you old enough to live through the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003? By that I mean, were you old enough to actually be paying attention to how the drums of war were being flogged by the Washington Post and NYT claiming WMD was a fact?

 

I suggest you look into the history of the CIA's manipulation of our media, starting with Operation Mockingbird.

 

If you can't accuse our media of that, then I wager you weren't paying attention in 2003... or in 2011, or in 2012, or in 2013-16 Syrian build up.

The truth is we live in an oligarchy, not a republic. And the oligarchy/plutocracy controls the reigns of not only the MSM but large swaths of the IC. What we are in today is an information war, the first of its kind.

 

It's not being waged between nation states, but between oligarchs with competing agendas.

 

Unless you come to grips with that fact, the news you read will continue to be a mystery.

I thought I posted this in this thread... so apologies GoBills808, here's the WP post I referenced earlier:

 

 

I happen to agree with you on the oligarchy, I guess I just see their sphere of influence as being less pervasive than you.

 

As for the media, I believe they'll issue the company line without properly fact-checking a story, especially if it's in line with their readership's politics or particularly sensational. Where we diverge is I don't believe they'll run false information at the request of the government.

 

And as to Bezos, he may technically be on the CIA's payroll as a contractor, but calling him an 'asset' is a bit rich, don't you think? It was an RFP...if I sell vegetables to the CIA lunchroom, am I now a CIA asset? I will allow that it colors your judgement of the Washington Post, but a discerning readership should be able to figure that out for themselves and read it accordingly.

[Deranged Rhino]

*****************

 

The next narrative that will be coming down the pike in the next few days (or weeks):

 

Seth Rich was a Russian spy.

[Deranged Rhino]

I happen to agree with you on the oligarchy, I guess I just see their sphere of influence as being less pervasive than you.

 

 

Please don't take my tone to be anything other than conversational.

 

As I stated in the OP of this thread, I'm not participating in this discussion to preach or to pass off speculation as fact. This topic requires a great deal of speculation, and I expect plenty of push back from it ... that I hope sparks a larger conversation about the most important topics of our time.

 

 

 

 

As for the media, I believe they'll issue the company line without properly fact-checking a story, especially if it's in line with their readership's politics or particularly sensational. Where we diverge is I don't believe they'll run false information at the request of the government.

 

 

I agree with your first sentence and we disagree about your second sentence.

 

I urge you to look into William Casey, former CIA director under Reagan who went on record stating: "We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false". This statement was made after Casey admitted he was stunned to learn how much intel CIA gathers solely from monitoring foreign newspapers and media outlets.

 

Operation Mockingbird, which dates back to the late 40s, was designed to plant stories in foreign press outlets with the intention of falsified stories being picked up by wire services and US outlets, thus spreading disinformation without the CIA directly influencing American owned media companies.

 

This has been standard practice for decades. Which is why I also urged you earlier to examine the 2003 build up to the Iraq invasion. I picked that period because it's the most recent example of this kind of deceit that also has had enough time pass to allow us to easily see fact from fiction. The Washington Post was at the forefront of the WMD issue, along with the NYT, because they were being fed a narrative that was known to be false at the time by certain people within the IC.

 

This wasn't just poor journalism, it was a deliberate disinformation campaign waged by the IC to get public support for the invasion of Iraq.

 

The same pressure and spin has been pushed by the Washington Post and the NYT about intervening in the Syrian Civil War since 2012. That's where the neo-McCarthyism is coming from, and it's also why the Seth Rich story is a direct threat to this, now 5 year long, narrative.

 

 

And as to Bezos, he may technically be on the CIA's payroll as a contractor, but calling him an 'asset' is a bit rich, don't you think? It was an RFP...if I sell vegetables to the CIA lunchroom, am I now a CIA asset? I will allow that it colors your judgement of the Washington Post, but a discerning readership should be able to figure that out for themselves and read it accordingly.

 

No, it's not a bit much. He is paid hundreds of millions of dollars and continues to be on their payroll. Most of Amazon's contract with CIA is classified and comes out of the black budget. There's an old saying in intelligence circles (and I'm somewhat of a scholar of that field), "once CIA always CIA".

 

I'm with you that discerning readers can figure out the truth from the spin - if they are aware that there's a need for discernment. But many are not because there isn't enough time in the day for people to do their jobs, tend to their family, and sift through the waves of disinformation coming from all angles. That's why I push it as hard as I do, to make people aware knowing that we are the only ones who can protect ourselves from bad information.

 

It just requires awareness.

[Benjamin Franklin]

"I'm not participating in this discussion to preach or to pass off speculation as fact."

 

--Bizzarro Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

"I'm not participating in this discussion to preach or to pass off speculation as fact."

 

--Bizzarro Deranged Rhino

 

I know you're upset that you've been exposed as a fraud.

 

But lashing out and displaying more ignorance isn't the way back to the light.

 

Do better.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[DC Tom]

 

I know you're upset that you've been exposed as a fraud.

 

But lashing out and displaying more ignorance isn't the way back to the light.

 

Do better.

 

You have to admit, though, that was pretty funny.

[HappyDays]

 

As I wrote above, the Washington Post is the US version of RT - yet people don't question it or aren't even aware of that fact.

 

I'm not arguing to distrust every media source, or even every journalist working for the WP/NYT et al. I do argue for people being aware that the agenda of "fake news" is not exclusive to Russia and our own press and country engages in that kind of information warfare as well.

The Washington Post has a bias, of course. That doesn't mean it's the same as literal state-sponsored media. This is a wild exaggeration. It also doesn't explain the lack of evidence in the Rich case. So far the evidence is - 1) Rich worked for the DNC. 2) His murderers were never caught. Everything else comes back to the evidence this investigator supposedly has which will "soon come out." Uh huh, we'll be waiting on that one for a while. In his Fox segment he says nonsensical things like "When no one comes forward with tips about the murder, that's when investigators start looking at other ideas." Yeah, no. Police don't expect to solve murders from top hotlines. He's BSing. If his case was stronger he wouldn't have to lie about his relationship with the family, he would have consulted with them before going on the media circuit, and he wouldn't spew out rambling nonsense that anyone with a basic familiarity of investigative procedures could call out.

 

This is the same nutjob that was talking about the threat of "lesbian gangs" several months ago. He has never shown a lick of credibility but you believe him anyways because...? I hope you realize people like him make a lot of money off of people like you. It's only funny until the victim's family starts getting harassed and I'm guessing it won't be long now if this follows the trajectory of other conspiracy theories that the families deny.

 

And guess what - at least one credible outlet would pick up the story if there was something to it. Newspapers want to sell. A legit story about a massive cover up of the murder of a DNC staffer would be huge! This is like when creationists try to say scientists are trying to cover up evidence of creationism. Nope, the evidence just doesn't meet expert standards. This is a common myth, that institutions are profiting from covering up massive conspiracies rather than just reporting on them.

 

Like I said I'm not gonna go point by point in this particular case. I've done that before with 9/11 conspiracies, Newtown conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies. I'm not doing it again with Seth Rich. It's not worth my time. They all follow the same path and the same broad rules apply to them all.

[Tiberius]

"I'm not participating in this discussion to preach or to pass off speculation as fact."

 

--Bizzarro Deranged Rhino

[B-Man]

Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources.

 

 

 

 

The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.

 

A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time.

 

 

 

So this would seem to leave two possibilities:

 

The DNC “hack” wasn’t a Russian operation at all, but an internal leak, blowing the post-November Hillary Russia narrative; or

 

(2) There’s another trove of DNC emails out there that Wikileaks hasn’t released yet.

 

 

I’m guessing it’s (1), but who knows?

 

 

 

.

Edited May 16, 2017 by B-Man

[row_33]

Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So this would seem to leave two possibilities:

 

The DNC “hack” wasn’t a Russian operation at all, but an internal leak, blowing the post-November Hillary Russia narrative; or

 

(2) There’s another trove of DNC emails out there that Wikileaks hasn’t released yet.

 

 

I’m guessing it’s (1), but who knows?

 

 

 

.

 

The hate for the Clintons is deep and huge in the DNC, no surprise if 500 people were gleeful to sink them.

 

how about the DNC didn't bother putting top security on their files and STILL DIDN"T when warned about it??

 

Hill has her blackberry, that's all the tech we need...

[Tiberius]

Seth Rich was doing Ivanka and that's why they did him in!

[grinreaper]

Seth Rich was doing Ivanka and that's why they did him in!

You are a classless little pissant.

The Washington Post has a bias, of course. That doesn't mean it's the same as literal state-sponsored media. This is a wild exaggeration. It also doesn't explain the lack of evidence in the Rich case. So far the evidence is - 1) Rich worked for the DNC. 2) His murderers were never caught. Everything else comes back to the evidence this investigator supposedly has which will "soon come out." Uh huh, we'll be waiting on that one for a while. In his Fox segment he says nonsensical things like "When no one comes forward with tips about the murder, that's when investigators start looking at other ideas." Yeah, no. Police don't expect to solve murders from top hotlines. He's BSing. If his case was stronger he wouldn't have to lie about his relationship with the family, he would have consulted with them before going on the media circuit, and he wouldn't spew out rambling nonsense that anyone with a basic familiarity of investigative procedures could call out.

 

This is the same nutjob that was talking about the threat of "lesbian gangs" several months ago. He has never shown a lick of credibility but you believe him anyways because...? I hope you realize people like him make a lot of money off of people like you. It's only funny until the victim's family starts getting harassed and I'm guessing it won't be long now if this follows the trajectory of other conspiracy theories that the families deny.

 

And guess what - at least one credible outlet would pick up the story if there was something to it. Newspapers want to sell. A legit story about a massive cover up of the murder of a DNC staffer would be huge! This is like when creationists try to say scientists are trying to cover up evidence of creationism. Nope, the evidence just doesn't meet expert standards. This is a common myth, that institutions are profiting from covering up massive conspiracies rather than just reporting on them.

 

Like I said I'm not gonna go point by point in this particular case. I've done that before with 9/11 conspiracies, Newtown conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies. I'm not doing it again with Seth Rich. It's not worth my time. They all follow the same path and the same broad rules apply to them all.

Yes, but without one shred of evidence you believe that Trump colluded with the Russians in last November's election.

[mead107]

Can you post a 6-10 word summary?

[Tiberius]

Oh, they are really credible, har har, this deep state thing must be real

 

 

"Those worries have escalated after Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey set off another round of leaks, with Trump's conservative allies in the media, including Breitbart and Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity, warning about the threat from the "deep state."'

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/333611-mcmaster-trumps-conversations-with-russians-wholly-appropriate

[HappyDays]

Yes, but without one shred of evidence you believe that Trump colluded with the Russians in last November's election.

No I don't. I think he's an idiot who surrounded himself with other idiots.

[TPS]

Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So this would seem to leave two possibilities:

 

The DNC “hack” wasn’t a Russian operation at all, but an internal leak, blowing the post-November Hillary Russia narrative; or

 

(2) There’s another trove of DNC emails out there that Wikileaks hasn’t released yet.

 

 

I’m guessing it’s (1), but who knows?

 

 

 

.

This should be the story. The recent book on Clinton's campaign "Shattered" states the Russia narrative was "hatched" shortly after the loss by Podesta. The MSM has too much invested in claiming the Russia hack...