997
The US Media is equally complicit (discuss.online)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 121 points 10 months ago (13 children)

Fun fact, Snowden decided to leak to the Gaurdian over NYT because he saw the Times kill a story on Bush's warrentless wiretaps in 2006 and knew they couldn't be trusted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    the Guardian that sold out Assange, Corbyn?.....
    They are just as bad when it matters, they are controlled opposition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (8 children)

    I'm not up on UK politics enough to comment on the Corbyn thing, but if you're talking about the password thing with Assange, I believe the Gaurdian version of events (that he told them it was a temporary password and then he never changed it). Assange is a narcissist who made sure that Wikileaks had no internal governance or structure outside of him. He wanted complete control over Wikileaks, and the cost of that was that the entire organization fell apart when he was trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy. Also, I think the sexual assault charges against him in Sweden were credible. Wikileaks did a lot of good, but Assange is a piece of shit, and I'm not inclined to believe his version of events over the Gaurdian reporters'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Thanks MI6
    You parrot UK/US regime propaganda.
    Like Corbyn slandered as an anti-semite, Assange was constantly slandered as a narcissist and rapist.
    That cheap and plenty used tactic didn't work since that manufactured case got exposed.
    IDC what you 'believe' those are not facts, the women themselves said the police manufactured the rape claims.
    You can keep swallowing pseudo-left guardian nonsense,
    I hope you're a paid troll, if not you're childishly naive or plain dumb.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    Yeah, so pretty much every thing you said about the sexual assault charges is wrong. One of the women said she wished he'd faced trial, but since he's been imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy for so long, she thinks he'd paid enough of a price and she's glad he's free.. The other one has never publicly identified herself, and is still only known as Miss W. I can't find any account that either woman said the police manufactured the charges, but it sounds like one of the bullshit conspiracy theories that was floating around in the 2010s (they're CIA plants, they recanted, it was a setup because one of the officers knew the victim, etc.). I mean, Anna Ardin wrote a fucking book, her thoughts on what happened to her aren't exactly a mystery.

    You can admire people's actions and still see their flaws. I think that Snowden is a hero, but I also recognize that he's a Ron Paul libertarian who thinks we should abolish Social Security, and I'm willing to say that he's got some stupid fucking political beliefs. If you need to become a full-blown rape apologist because someone you like was accused of sexual assault, you need to grow the fuck up.

    As for the Corbyn thing, as I said, I'm not that up on UK politics, but I do remember that Corbyn was getting smeared as an antisemite for criticizing Israel, and if the Gaurdian took part in that, fuck 'em. I also find the claims that the other user shared about the Gaurdian going TERF even more disturbing. I respect a lot of the reporting the Gaurdian has done, but they're not part of my regular news diet and I'm not gonna knee-jerk defend their editorial decisions; my original point was more about how much the times sucks than how great the Gaurdian is. But i am pretty familiar with their fallout with Assange over the book, and I find their reporters more credible than Assange.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    So you take the known liars and complicit UK regime mouthpiece as credible truth and that woman's (disputable and weak) claims too.
    Even when there was zero evidence and the case got thrown out by the Swedes who actually investigated it you say " I think the sexual assault charges against him in Sweden were credible.".
    They should've consulted you since you have some supernatural powers to know better, being far away without access to evidence and persons involved.

    I'll believe other sources, naming facts and events the B BS C 'forgets' to mention bcs they don't fit their narrative.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/assa-j28.html**___**

    So it doesn't sound at all credible to me.

    If he would be a rapist, found guity WITH EVIDENCE I would not condone it, but he is not the first one to suffer from US/UK personal attacks and fabrications for political gain.
    And it works as you and many others believe it.
    Conveniently discrediting everyone as 'rape apologists' (while ha was not accused of raping her) and bringing that up completely out of context on a comment about the Guardian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    Hey buddy, you can stop talking now. You've gone from, "the women said the police manufactured the charges," to, "the women aren't credible." It's pretty clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and a dead link from, "World Socialist Website," isn't changing that.

    I'm guessing (hoping, really) that you're too young to actually remember this case, but I was an adult when the charges came out against Assange, and at the time, I also thought they were bullshit. Then more and more information came out, so I processed it and changed my perspective. That's what adults do when they're presented with new information.

    You've been presented with new information. (You can try to lie about that if you want, but the fact that you went from claiming that the women said the charges were manufactured to calling the women liars makes your ignorance pretty undeniable.) You can process that new information, or you can deny it because you don't like it. The latter makes you sound like the liberals who smeared Tara Reade to defend Joe Biden, but it's not an uncommon reaction. There's even a name for it. It's called being a fucking rape apologist.

    Edit: Also, no, the case wasn't, "thrown out." The prosecutors dropped the charges because, after a decade of trying to arrest him, they knew there evidence was too old to get a conviction. That's not remotely the same thing as a judge throwing out the case, but it's exactly the kind of lie rape apologists tell themselves when they're tying to exonerate their favorite predator.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    LOL, gets his comments literally from AI, and even then cherrypicking.
    I hope you're too young to realise AI is full of shit.
    Nah, you say you're old so you're just dumb and gullible.

    "there evidence was too old to get a conviction"
    It's "their evidence" moron.

    The case was thrown out because in the Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Eva-Marie Persson own words: "However, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation."
    An eloquent way of saving face when she didn't have a case and was used in a character assassination.
    The "it relies heavily on witness testimony" is laughable.
    Who would be the witnesses they didn't speak to, were there people hiding under the bed they didn't talk to by then?
    The only one they couldn't interview was Assange himself.
    Like that would help her Kangaroo court case.

    OC as I said, they didn't know about you and your special psychic powers of assessment
    You should asses the fact that evidence has a remarkable expiry date in Sweden.
    It's good for 9.5 years, a case from 2010 gets reopened in april 2019.
    Somehow by november of that same year it's suddenly too old!?
    If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

    You are an embarrassing joke, now fuck off with your imperialist nazi apologist BS, clown.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    First of all, no dipshit, my comments are not written by AI. I actually have a pretty distinct, idiosyncratic writing style that is very different from the slop an LLM spews out. I guess you just think that people that can write in complete sentences must be using AI.

    Second, again, the case was not, "thrown out," it was, "dropped." Those are actually different words, and different words mean different things, you see.

    Third, you want to talk about cherry-picking? What's the full Presson quote? What did she say just before the part you picked out?

    "I would like to emphasise that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation," says Eva-Marie Persson, Deputy Director of Public Prosecution.

    The full prosecutor's office statement even says exactly what I said about the age of the evidence:

    A number of investigative measures have been conducted since May, largely in the form of witness interviews. The preliminary investigation has now been discontinued, the motive for which is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question.

    They dropped the charges in 2017 because they gave up on getting extradition. They reopened the case in 2019 when Assange left the Ecuadorian embassy, and after reviewing their evidence, which was mostly testimony from almost a decade ago, they decided it had become too weak to get a conviction. It's not that hard to understand unless you don't want to understand it (or you're just not very smart).

    Anyway, you can call me an, "imperialist nazi apologist," if it makes you feel better about being called a rape apologist, but if you go through the comments again, you'll actually notice that I don't make any defense of the American empire. You, however, are making a lot of excuses for a rapist!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The Guardian can be too left for me in some cases but I agree that they are more trustworthy. The fact that The Guardian was originally founded with sympathy to those killed by the government for demanding democratic reforms says it all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •