GG Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 I'll just say this: As we mourn those lives lost in Manchester, and as the media spins their propaganda to make you fear and hate ISIS, remember who has been actively working with, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS for (at least) the past 5 years in Syria. Remember that the suspect in these attacks was known to western IC well before the attack (a common theme that's become the rule). Remember that the war on terror has always been a Trojan Horse designed to serve a much different purpose than advertised. If you're pissed off today, make sure you're mad at the right people. Right on cue, Greggy. The bombing is a CIA plot.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2017 Author Posted May 23, 2017 Right on cue, Greggy. The bombing is a CIA plot. That's not what I said. But I've given up on you being honest long ago.
Justice Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 I'll just say this: As we mourn those lives lost in Manchester, and as the media spins their propaganda to make you fear and hate ISIS, remember who has been actively working with, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS for (at least) the past 5 years in Syria. Remember that the suspect in these attacks was known to western IC well before the attack (a common theme that's become the rule). Remember that the war on terror has always been a Trojan Horse designed to serve a much different purpose than advertised. If you're pissed off today, make sure you're mad at the right people. It will eventually lead to either us giving away some civil rights for our own protection by choice or the government will just take them away.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2017 Author Posted May 23, 2017 There is nothing for this story to fall back on. A DNC staffer was murdered and his murder is unsolved. That's the extent of the evidence. This is false. Just repeating a falsehood enough times doesn't magically make it true. It will eventually lead to either us giving away some civil rights for our own protection by choice or the government will just take them away. That's already happened. But it could always get worse.
GG Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 That's not what I said. But I've given up on you being honest long ago. Isn't it what you're intimating with your post? Why are you kitty footing around it? What does this mean: "and as the media spins their propaganda to make you fear and hate ISIS, remember who has been actively working with, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS for (at least) the past 5 years in Syria." Who exactly are you referring to? Why aren't you posting this in the other thread? So it will get ignored?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2017 Author Posted May 23, 2017 Isn't it what you're intimating with your post? Why are you kitty footing around it? I'm not kitty footing around it. I said exactly what I meant. You're just prone to dishonesty. What does this mean: "and as the media spins their propaganda to make you fear and hate ISIS, remember who has been actively working with, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS for (at least) the past 5 years in Syria." Who exactly are you referring to? Why aren't you posting this in the other thread? So it will get ignored? This thread makes it pretty clear who I'm referring to.
GG Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 This thread makes it pretty clear who I'm referring to. Then it should be fairly easy for you to spell it out, isn't it? Especially since you always accuse people of misrepresenting your words. So here's your chance. Who are you referring to in the above? Set the record straight if you feel that people misrepresent your views. Who are you referring to in this passage: "and as the media spins their propaganda to make you fear and hate ISIS, remember who has been actively working with, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS for (at least) the past 5 years in Syria." The parents of the dead kids should know, don't you think?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2017 Author Posted May 23, 2017 Then it should be fairly easy for you to spell it out, isn't it? Especially since you always accuse people of misrepresenting your words. So here's your chance. Who are you referring to in the above? Set the record straight if you feel that people misrepresent your views. Who are you referring to in this passage: "and as the media spins their propaganda to make you fear and hate ISIS, remember who has been actively working with, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS for (at least) the past 5 years in Syria." The parents of the dead kids should know, don't you think? It's not shocking that you're failing to comprehend something very clear, considering you have been nothing but dishonest in this thread and on this topic. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since you have openly celebrated US war crimes and aiding and abetting ISIS in Syria throughout this thread. It's funny though, if you're so upset about this bombing you'd think you'd be the one leading the calls for the west to stop funding, arming, training, and sharing intelligence with an organization that blows up little girls, beheads people, burns people with acid... ... but because you hate Russians and Syrians you're okay with a battlefield alliance. That's called hypocrisy GG. And you reek of it.
HappyDays Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 This is false. Just repeating a falsehood enough times doesn't magically make it true. That's already happened. But it could always get worse. Ok show me the evidence. Please. While I wait here's the Fox DC affiliate's update on the story: http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story WASHINGTON - EDITOR'S NOTE (5/17/17): We want to update you on a story you first saw on FOX 5 DC. We want to make an important clarification on claims that were made by Rod Wheeler, the private investigator hired by Seth Rich's family, whose services are being paid for by a third party. What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked. In an interview Monday, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC he had sources at the FBI confirming there was evidence of communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks. This is the verbatim of that exchange: FOX 5 DC: You have sources at the FBI saying that there is information... WHEELER: "For sure..." FOX 5 DC: ...that could link Seth Rich to WikiLeaks?" WHEELER: "Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed." In the past 48 hours, Rod Wheeler has told other media outlets he did not get his information from FBI sources, contradicting what he told us on Monday. Since Rod Wheeler backtracked Tuesday, FOX 5 DC attempted incessantly to communicate with him, but he didn't return calls or emails. On Wednesday, just before our newscast, Wheeler responded to our requests via a telephone conversation, where he now backtracks his position and Wheeler characterizes his on-the-record and on-camera statements as "miscommunication." When asked if Wheeler is still working for Seth Rich's family, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC the contract still stands-- ties have not been severed. We reached out once again to the Rich family, and through a spokesperson the Rich family tells FOX 5 DC, "The family has relayed their deep disappointment with Rod Wheeler's conduct over the last 48 hours, and is exploring legal avenues to the family." It's disgraceful that anyone ran with this nutjob's story. And right on cue I already see people on Twitter wondering why we haven't heard from the family directly. Soon it will be that the family is in on it, and soon after that the crazies will start trying to contact them with death threats. All because of an unsolved murder.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2017 Author Posted May 23, 2017 Ok show me the evidence. Please. Start with this: Pay attention to 1:03 mark when asked if he's the source, there's a nod. Wheeler's investigation has never been the only evidence, and the claims you're making are incorrect. There's a lot of evidence that has nothing to do with Wheeler. Including the words of Assange himself.
HappyDays Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 Start with this: Pay attention to 1:03 mark when asked if he's the source, there's a nod. Wheeler's investigation has never been the only evidence, and the claims you're making are incorrect. There's a lot of evidence that has nothing to do with Wheeler. Including the words of Assange himself. No. Julian Assange is not evidence. It blows my mind you claim the media and the government are not to be trusted but you instantly just believe what Julian Assange says. I can't possibly convince you are wrong on that. How could I? So good luck. Please don't start writing letters to the Rich family. It isn't worth it. They've been through enough.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2017 Author Posted May 23, 2017 No. Julian Assange is not evidence. ... The only person who would actually be in a position to know who leaked the documents is not evidence? In what universe is that a rational statement? That shows you're trying to make the story fit your predetermined conclusion rather than looking at the evidence dispassionately. It blows my mind you claim the media and the government are not to be trusted but you instantly just believe what Julian Assange says. I'm not saying I believe Assange fully. I don't. But only a fool would disregard the only witness who's talking and claim it's immaterial. He's clearly making the case (and has been since July) that Seth Rich was involved with Wikileaks. Why would he do that? It's either because: A) it's the truth or B) he's using Seth Rich as a shield. The only way to figure out which is which is to keep looking into the case which remains unsolved. Which is all I'm arguing. There's a lot we don't know about this case (like why the FBI still has his laptop in custody, most murder victims get their things back), and we certainly don't know enough to rule anyone out. You're arguing the case is closed it definitely had nothing to do with the DNC leaks... which is premature, and clearly what you want to believe. Otherwise why would you repeatedly blow off every bit of evidence that butts against your predetermined conclusion. And, in case you've missed it, Wikileaks has a 100% track record of providing authentic documents. Compare that to the media's success rate.
HappyDays Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 Assange isn't the only witness. He's the only witness that you trust. Why, I have no idea. The police departments investigating the matter are also witnesses. I think the family would know Seth well enough too. They all say it is a botched robbery where the perpetrators ran away. But you don't trust them so what's the point of saying it? Assange has a history of outright lying or stretching the truth when it fits his narrative. He had a bunch of Trump supporters stay up all night based on his promise of evidence that would sink the Clinton campaign. Some of the people that stayed up all night were angry at him, others just let it slide because that's how the conspiracy mindset works. The usual conspiracy path is chugging along just fine. People with no connections to the case are making broad statements about knowledge that they don't have, while providing no evidence. Julian Assange hates the Clinton's and the DNC. He has ties to Russia. If that's your evidence it is bad evidence. Anyone with an objective mind coukd see that. Even Fox News of all places isn't running with that nut job. You have a problem with filtering out good and bad sources. I don't know what else to tell you.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2017 Author Posted May 23, 2017 Assange isn't the only witness. He's the only witness that you trust. This is not true and parsing what I said. I said Assange, as the head of Wikileaks, is the only witness who knows who gave his organization the DNC emails. Your bias continues to show. You think I'm arguing a conclusion - I'm not. I'm arguing for more investigation because the evidence warrants it. Of the two of us, you're the only one who's arguing a definitive conclusion has been reached. Which of course is incorrect since the case is still open. But it is what you're being programmed to believe. Why, I have no idea. I've explained why several times. Of all the people involved and speaking up on this issue, Assange is the only one who received and posted the DNC documents in question himself. Thus what he as to say is of importance. Ignoring what he has to say because you disagree with his politics is showing your desire to make the narrative fit your predetermined conclusion. The police departments investigating the matter are also witnesses. They are not witnesses. They're investigators brought in after the fact. The flubbing of basic information like this is again proof you're looking to shoe horn in a conclusion rather than examine the evidence dispassionately. There is overwhelming evidence that there is more to this story than just a bungled homicide that goes beyond Assange's words. But his words, being in the position he is in, are still important to consider and examine if truth is your true goal here. But I'm starting to get the sense that truth is not what you're after. You're after comfort. I think the family would know Seth well enough too. They all say it is a botched robbery where the perpetrators ran away. But you don't trust them so what's the point of saying it? I never said I do not trust his family. And again, they are not witnesses. Their testimony after the fact is relevant in terms of Seth's motives, but not with regards to what he did or did not give to Assange. Assange has a history of outright lying or stretching the truth when it fits his narrative. Yet, his organization has a 100% track record of providing authentic documents. That aside, I've referenced several times now that he could very well be using Seth Rich as a shield. Which, if he is, is still part of the evidence. If you want to make the case stick that you're so dying to prove, you can't only look at the evidence that suits your narrative. You have to look at it all. And in this case, Assange's words could help make your case... The usual conspiracy path is chugging along just fine. People with no connections to the case are making broad statements about knowledge that they don't have, while providing no evidence. Again, of all the people talking about this case, Assange is the only one with direct knowledge about who the leaker (or hacker) was. And he's provided as much evidence as he possible can without jeopardizing his organization in the eyes of future whistle blowers. Failing to register how big of a confession that clip actually is, shows how little you understand about the nature of the kind of work Wikileaks does. Julian Assange hates the Clinton's and the DNC. No one is denying that, certainly not me. He has ties to Russia. Do you have evidence of this that doesn't come from the US IC? You have a problem with filtering out good and bad sources. I don't know what else to tell you. Of the two of us, the only one exercising discernment is me. You're blindly gulping down what's being fed to you by the very sources who have everything to lose should Seth Rich turn out to be the leaker. They have skin in this game, every bit as much as Assange does, and yet you ignore that because... why? You've made it clear you've prejudged this incident before seeing all the evidence and are so dug in on your position you're unwilling to accept anything that butts against your predetermined conclusion. You're a good drone.
GG Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 It's not shocking that you're failing to comprehend something very clear, considering you have been nothing but dishonest in this thread and on this topic. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since you have openly celebrated US war crimes and aiding and abetting ISIS in Syria throughout this thread. It's funny though, if you're so upset about this bombing you'd think you'd be the one leading the calls for the west to stop funding, arming, training, and sharing intelligence with an organization that blows up little girls, beheads people, burns people with acid... ... but because you hate Russians and Syrians you're okay with a battlefield alliance. That's called hypocrisy GG. And you reek of it. I'm the hypocrite, yet you're the one who's claimed that the Western intelligence agencies abetted the Manchester suicide bomber. Nice job. And yes, I hating Russia and Syria for causing millions of civilian deaths, while you decry the US bombing 70 Syrian soldiers in a battlefield. Nice moral compass.
grinreaper Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 This is not true and parsing what I said. I said Assange, as the head of Wikileaks, is the only witness who knows who gave his organization the DNC emails. Your bias continues to show. You think I'm arguing a conclusion - I'm not. I'm arguing for more investigation because the evidence warrants it. Of the two of us, you're the only one who's arguing a definitive conclusion has been reached. Which of course is incorrect since the case is still open. But it is what you're being programmed to believe. I've explained why several times. Of all the people involved and speaking up on this issue, Assange is the only one who received and posted the DNC documents in question himself. Thus what he as to say is of importance. Ignoring what he has to say because you disagree with his politics is showing your desire to make the narrative fit your predetermined conclusion. They are not witnesses. They're investigators brought in after the fact. The flubbing of basic information like this is again proof you're looking to shoe horn in a conclusion rather than examine the evidence dispassionately. There is overwhelming evidence that there is more to this story than just a bungled homicide that goes beyond Assange's words. But his words, being in the position he is in, are still important to consider and examine if truth is your true goal here. But I'm starting to get the sense that truth is not what you're after. You're after comfort. I never said I do not trust his family. And again, they are not witnesses. Their testimony after the fact is relevant in terms of Seth's motives, but not with regards to what he did or did not give to Assange. Yet, his organization has a 100% track record of providing authentic documents. That aside, I've referenced several times now that he could very well be using Seth Rich as a shield. Which, if he is, is still part of the evidence. If you want to make the case stick that you're so dying to prove, you can't only look at the evidence that suits your narrative. You have to look at it all. And in this case, Assange's words could help make your case... Again, of all the people talking about this case, Assange is the only one with direct knowledge about who the leaker (or hacker) was. And he's provided as much evidence as he possible can without jeopardizing his organization in the eyes of future whistle blowers. Failing to register how big of a confession that clip actually is, shows how little you understand about the nature of the kind of work Wikileaks does. No one is denying that, certainly not me. Do you have evidence of this that doesn't come from the US IC? Of the two of us, the only one exercising discernment is me. You're blindly gulping down what's being fed to you by the very sources who have everything to lose should Seth Rich turn out to be the leaker. They have skin in this game, every bit as much as Assange does, and yet you ignore that because... why? You've made it clear you've prejudged this incident before seeing all the evidence and are so dug in on your position you're unwilling to accept anything that butts against your predetermined conclusion. You're a good drone. I hate to give such an esteemed writer as you are any advice, but couldn't you just rewrite the Happy Days script and send Mr. Woodenhand to the movies?
GoBills808 Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 Start with this: Pay attention to 1:03 mark when asked if he's the source, there's a nod. Wheeler's investigation has never been the only evidence, and the claims you're making are incorrect. There's a lot of evidence that has nothing to do with Wheeler. Including the words of Assange himself. That nod has gotten way more play than justified IMHO. It looks to me like every other tape-delayed interviewee taking a question and formulating a response.
reddogblitz Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 Over the last several days I've read several articles saying the story has been "debunked". They never say how or why, just that it is "debunked". Since the police have arrested no one for shooting Seth twice in the back and took nothing in a "botched robbery attempt", how can we say definitely one way or the other?
HappyDays Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 Guess we'll just wait for Wikileaks/Assange to release evidence that Seth Rich was the leaker. They should easily be able to produce this evidence. So far Rod Wheeler and Fox News have had to walk back what they said. That leaves fringe players like Alex Jones and Julian Assange to pick up the slack. At best we're back where we started - an unsolved mystery. And a host of people trying to push a narrative before there is real evidence of anything.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 At best we're back where we started - an unsolved mystery. And a host of people trying to push a narrative before there is real evidence of anything. Said HappyDays, and without even a hint of irony detectable in his voice.
Recommended Posts