tokachinter

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

Oh but i done my research and i seen the Russian counter intelligence and their trolls. That is why i don't trust your information at all. I suspect you of being brain washed or something like that. Clear thinking people would always mistrust Russian information. One just has to look at the propaganda at their TV and watch Puttin and other lie all the time. So Russian information is Russian lies and they fabricate evidence. So I am sorry I don't trust you or what your selling. 

 

I think most rational people after hearing all the  lies of Putin, his ministers, and seeing state propaganda on the TV or Russia would realize that information on that side is super bias and possibly manipulated.

 

Now that does not mean that the other side is clean, id say they are more trustable but still not above manipulation. Still if i had to bet i would always bet on their info being less lies and bias. 

Thanks for your forthright reply. I'll let you get back to your research on TV.

28 minutes ago, robblok said:

Maybe he is a strong supporter or Russia. Don't forget Russia is a master at manipulating media and so on. China is not bad at it either. Either side has an army of paid for trolls. I am not saying that the guy is a paid for troll. Just saying that there are a lot of people that are super bias and some are even paid for it to spread misinformation.

Interesting theory you wrote there. No, I'm not being paid by anyone to type on a Sunday (or even on week days!). Seriously, my motivation to counter the narrative of MSM about the Ukraine conflict comes from independent research and listening to heart-breaking interviews with the people of Donbass who have suffered from eight years of warfare. I stand against ethnic cleansing. Anyway, please do your own research outside of MSM. Situation reports from UNHCR and OSCE prior to 24 February are a good basis to start with.

36 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Putin himself is one of the worst Oligarchs and has supported the oligarchy during his reign which is how he consolidated power. Ukraine never outlawed the use of the Russian language they only mandated it's use for education, government and law. Try demanding to be educated in Greek in Australia.

Thanks for your comment. I did some more research on the language ban, which started in 2018 and expanded after that to ban all Russian language print and electronic media. The 2018 Bill banned its use in public included its use by doctors, bank employees as well as the playing of Russian music or reading of it in public (reference The Guardian 25/04/19). This is in addition to the areas you noted.  Of course, during their reign of terror in the Donbass that started with the burning alive of protesters in Odessa in 2014, The N@zi Azov Battalion has frequently used a difficult-to-pronounce Ukrainian word as a means test to catch so-called Russian sympathisers. Those apprehended faced fines, imprisonment or worse. 

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Patrick Lancaster, you should look at the company you keep in your viewing...lol one of the biggest pro Russian bloggers there is who makes constant fake claims:

 

"After the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in the summer of 2014, Patrick Lancaster made a video denying the crash investigation results. Russia is doing the same, denying its responsibility for shooting down the plane. An international investigation in the Netherlands proved the aircraft had been shot down by a missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system belonging to the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of the russian ground forces, based near Kursk."

Re: MH17, it is certainly up to you whether you believe the Netherlands' investigation (where Russian evidence was suppressed) or the Russian one. Patrick Lancaster's pro-Russian (he's married to a Ukrainian, by the way) stance could certainly influence his decision as to what interviews he chooses to publish, however it can't alter the content unless you believe the interviewees are all crisis actors!  Please watch one or two of his videos and then let me know whether you believe the people interviewed are genuine or fake.   

Just now, Jingthing said:

You mean when they kicked out a Putin puppet?

Its very clear that a strong majority og Ukrainians including Russian speakers have embraced Ukrainian national identity and don't want to be part of war criminal Putin's perverted pipe dream of a restored Soviet Union.

The Nuland coup came about because President Yanukovich had second thoughts about signing up to a debt inducing IMF loan after Russia had rejected extra loans to the most corrupt country in Europe. He had won a majority in the last internationally observed election in 2010. The Ukraine identity you cite began to dissolve after the U.S. nominated Poroshenko (remember the leaked Nuland phone call & video?) post coup. Previously apolitical citizens objected to the banning of their native language (51% of Ukrainians speak Russian), TV stations and religion. Before labelling one side 'war criminals' you may care to watch Patrick Lancaster's many interviews with citizens of Mariupol (I advise you to skip the most gruesome video where he is shown a murdered woman in a basement with a swastika carved in her chest).  Like many, you misinterpret Putin's comments where he laments the breakup of the Soviet Union as implying he wants to see it reformed. His statement was taken out of context as he continued to say that it brought about one of the worst periods of Russian history due to the lawlessness that allowed the Russian mafia oligarchs and carpetbaggers from outside the country to plunder it. His first decade in power was dedicated to stabilising the country and removing most, but not all of, the criminal oligarchs.

On 5/10/2022 at 9:17 AM, ozimoron said:

Ukraine is part of the Western world now.

It has been since before the 2014 coup d'etat made it an open secret.

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

Asking for extradition is 'respecting other countries' laws'.

I think you misunderstood my post. I was commenting on the U.S. government's unilateral actions in general around the world to try to explain to Jeffr2 that his view that his country is the world's policeman is incorrect. You are correct that, in the Julian Assange case, the U.S. is utilising the U.K.-U.S. extradition agreement. At the same time, in the Harry Dunne case, they are disregarding the very same agreement by refusing to even hold an extradition hearing for the U.S. citizen who fled the U.K. after an act on U.K. soil for which she faces manslaughter charges.     

On 1/9/2021 at 2:22 PM, Jeffr2 said:

And if he had done this in the first place, he'd be out by now. If he ever even would have gone to jail!  Ridiculous what he's done.  Coward.

Hi again, Jeffr2. I note that you are still insisting that this Australian is a coward for not surrendering himself to U.S. authorities while living in the U.K. for them to try him in U.S.A. This extra-national policing while not respecting other countries' laws is what contributes to the poor image of your country held by many.  

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

I think those who had to go into hiding due to the release of classified info might argue with you here.  He broke the law, sad you are OK with this.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712659290/how-much-did-wikileaks-damage-u-s-national-security

"A number of people went into hiding, a number of people had to move, particularly those civilians in war zones who had told U.S. soldiers about movements of the Taliban and al-Qaida," he said. "No doubt some of those people were harmed when their identities were compromised."

 

WikiLeaks has made multiple disclosures over the past decade, including one in March 2017 when the group released what it said were CIA technical documents on a range of spying techniques.

 

This revealed ways that a state-of-the art television could serve as a listening device even when it was turned off.

Thanks for the link. "No doubt..." says the U.S. State Department spokesman. While I don't expect names to be publicised, I wonder why some cases or even approximate numbers have never even been quantified? In fact, I have read of only one case cited in sworn testimony. It was of a man who fled back to Ethiopia to avoid retribution for being an informant in Iraq.                                                                                                                            Now, let's look at some of the lives saved by Wikileaks' journalism. One example is their release of the Afghan War Logs including the drone attacks on tribal villages. One result of this publication was the change in U.S. army rules of engagement regarding their usage. No longer would drone missiles be launched at wedding parties or family gatherings ( a war crime). Well, I value all life, informer, traitor or bride, however some are actively risking their lives for personal gain while others are innocent victims. Wikileaks' action saved innocent lives.  

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

embarrassment?  Political damage?  How about damage to our security forces?  Showing all sorts of confidential docs.  How about I go to your house and release all your emails, browsing history and pics.  Would that be OK?  No...

 

He broke the law.  That's been proven.  Sad you don't want to follow the rule of law.  Are you an anarchist?

Hello again! So many questions for me. I may have to invoice you for my time ;-). Seriously (and I believe you are serious, Jeffr2 and not trying to wind me up), the answers to many of your questions are in the hearing transcripts (use the link I sent you before) and also those of the U.S. military trial of Chelsea Manning. You could also visit Wikileaks website and read the emails that revealed how the U.S. Government bugged the telephones of the French President & German Chancellor amongst other allies = embarrassment & political damage big time ! By 'damage to our security forces' I presume you mean U.S. military personnel and you are a U.S. citizen? In which case you should be able to get that info from the Pentagon or read Chief Prosecutor Major Ashden Fein's testimony where he named the military personnel harmed by the release of the Iraqi War Logs. Actually, under oath, he could not name a single one, none, zilch, nada. Lastly, you are bit ahead of time, when you say 'he broke the law'. He has been charge under a U.S. indictment but has not had his day in a U.S. court, yet. They still do 'innocent until proven guilty' over there or have I been watching too many U.S. courtroom dramas on TV? 

Quick question for those believing Julian Assange would abscond if released on bail. Which country (or country's embassy) would he flee to?

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Mexico has offered asylum, I'm sure he could get there. And if he looks around others will do the same.

 

One of the problems I have with him is that this 'highly redacted and edited/curated leaks' is true for some batches, but at the end he was just releasing without editing/redacting.

Mexico's president has offered asylum after the extradition appeal has been quashed. If released pending the appeal, the safest country for him to be in right now is the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island (unless the U.S. does another midnight rendition) If you read the hearing testimonies you will discover the reason he only released non-redacted files on Wikileaks (where everyone could read them) after the Guardian reporters released a key to the online trove of unredacted files. His aim was to alert informants who would be unlikely to otherwise know unless they were as tech savvy as the ISIS, etc. who would be coming for them. You'll also read how he telephoned the U.S. State Department to warn them (Wikileaks and the other publishers had been seeking their assistance on redactions prior to that).

43 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

If you are not putting up links here to support your opinion, they must be dodgy.  The truth is, he's been indicted by the US for a variety of crimes.  They don't do this for fun, or without reason.  So, it must be serious.

 

He would be out of jail by now if he just dealt with it instead of hiding with his cat.  We have to follow the rule of law.  To do otherwise would be anarchy.

 

Let the court decide his fate, not internet keyboard warriors. LOL

Hi Jeffr2, Apparently, you do not wish to follow my advice about spending your own time to find out the truth. Very well, I'll add some links below to get you started. Regarding the rest of your post; 1/ I agree that the U.S. Government has very good reason to try to silence Julian Assange. Wikileaks' publication of its secrets caused huge embarrassment and political damage to it. 2/ He has been indicted on 17 charges and if found guilty of all the sentence would total over 170 years in jail, not the two years he has served without charge. 3/ I refute that we have to follow the rule of law when it is immoral. I believe the Nuremburg Trials clarified that point.   4/ Yes, the Magistrate in the court case rejected his extradition. The U.S. Government's appeal will be heard in the Court of Appeals in a couple of months time. 

Link for Jeffr2:    https://assangecourt.report/index.html  As well as daily summaries of the extradition hearing you can find download links there to all the sworn witness statements and the actual judgement by Magistrate Baraitser. Let me know how you go and if you need any more help and in what area.                                     

As always, an interesting variety of comments about Julian Assange here. My view of the man has changed hugely over the last few years. From someone I casually identified as an animal abusing, narcissistic, paedophile Russian rapist responsible for the deaths of hundreds of military personnel and informants to that of one of the greatest journalists and humanitarians of our age. How could I be so wrong? Easy, I absorbed without question all of the above as the legacy media portrayed him to be. What changed my opinion? The answer is I did my own research.  There are plenty of source documents (try the court records of the Manning trial and Assange hearing for starters) and credible reports on the internet that can help you sort fact from fiction. Yes, my internet browsing default is set to 'don't believe anything' so it does take time. I urge you all to spend that time as this issue of press freedom is vital to our future, here in Thailand, as it is all over the world.   

14 hours ago, Mick501 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables

 

 

this is an article published much closer to the date of Wikileaks releasing material, with various sources critical that it was unredacted and reckless.  

 

Surprising that this point is still in conflict.  Seems like it should be a question that can be easily demonstrated one way or the other.  I'm assuming the court in England only needs to be satisfied on the balance of probability that the conduct would constitute an offence had it occurred towards England.  We probably will only hear the full case of the prosecution if/when he is extradited and goes to trial in the US, where it needs to be proved to a much higher standard.

Hi Mick, Thanks for the link to the Guardian article. While largely factual, it was written as a defence of two of its journalists who published a book (unauthorised by Wikileaks), which disclosed a password to Wikileaks' trove of unredacted files that were placed on a temporary website due to internet attacks on Wikileaks' server (not sure how they claim it was inadvertent?!). The Guardian twists the story to say it was a temporary password. They neglect to say that one of the journalists continually begged Assange for the password, then used it as tool for revenge after he refused to cooperate with them over the biographical book. In short, it was all about a book deal (=money)!

Also, please note the timeline; Wikileaks and media partners, including the Guardian had been releasing redacted files since December 2010, the book was published in February 2011, the password in it was used by website Cryptome and others over the ensuing six months to release all the unredacted files on to the Internet. According to Assange, he acted in the interests of informants, by then in September 2011, releasing the trove on Wikileaks' own website. His reasoning was that, with the cat already out of the bag, the best course of action was to spread the info further so that informants themselves might learn that they had been outed and take appropriate action. Several sworn testimonies, aside from the German journalist's that I linked before testified that Assange was rigorous in the redacting process out of concern for informants' safety. P.S. I have no doubt that U.S. Government Prosecutors would add extra charges if Assange was extradited there. The 1917 Espionage Act is that wide reaching that anyone in possession of 'classified' information (N.B. not just 'secret' or 'top secret') is liable for prosecution. So far, journalists and publishers have been protected against it by the First Amendment, but who knows in the future?         

14 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Thanks for the link.  Not sure that journo contributes much towards exonerating Assange.  He describes the redaction process as robust, and yet after publication the State Department are asking for names to be removed.  Can't have been as robust as he likes to think.  The damage is already done as soon as they are published as no doubt interested parties would save everything immediately.  Even with a large team it would take the STate department months to trawl through everything.  They seem to be requesting take downs as they identify each issue.

 

 As for the claim that he does not know of anyone who was harmed, that's kind of laughable. Probably isn't possible to know an answer, but in my view, if there were names of sources published then that's reckless endangerment.  The onus should of course be on the prosecuting body to prove the existence and unredacted publication of such documents.

 

Agreed the computer hacking seems shaky.

Thanks for keeping an open mind on the subject. As I understood it, there was continual communication with the State Department during the redaction process, not after it. I agree with you that it is impossible for him to know if any informants were harmed. Remember though these were military logs of actions taken/observed months and years before their eventual release. Eg. It is plausible that an Iraqi terrorist upon reading a name that didn't get redacted, recalled seeing the named acquaintance speaking with U.S. soldiers, put two and two together and then decided to attack him - plausible but improbable. Equally, that person could have come to harm for any number of other reasons (being an informer in a war zone) and so it would be difficult to attribute his death/disappearance to Wikileaks' online data release.  The point is that the Prosecutors in both Manning's and Assange's hearings were unable to identify or even quantify anyone who was harmed, thus rendering their argument null and void.      

8 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Interesting information.  If true, it would seem to be a complete defence against allegations that he recklessly endangered people. Obviously very difficult to verify as 10 years has passed, and looking at the documents will not provide information as to when redaction occurred.  But will do more research as you suggest.  It would still leave the conspiracy to hack allegation as an open question, but if it is true would raise doubts about the integrity of the prosecution.

Here is one link that may help : https://assangecourt.report/september-16-morning On this day, German journalist, John Goetz gave sworn testimony about the redaction process. What might surprise is that Assange et al were in regular contact with the U.S. State Department who were telling them page numbers and references that they would like redacted and Wikileaks was complying !  Also, if you read through the court reports you will see that the conspiracy to hack allegation is on pretty shaky ground, mainly because Chelsea Manning already had access to all the released 'classified' documents due to her position. The Prosecution submitted a few lines of chat where she asked for advice from someone who may be Assange to assist in cracking a password that would lead to an intranet that she was not authorised to access. Turns out it is unhackable according to a former military IT specialist who gave evidence at the hearing.

4 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Please link.  These are left wing publications, so one would expect isolated examples of redaction to be extrapolated across the 250000 documents.   I don't know how many people were working with Assange on this, but probably just one or two.  Would take years to redact every document.  If you can demonstrate that every document was redacted, I will admit I was wrong.

No need to admit you are wrong. I think 'misinformed' is more appropriate and who can blame you, as there has been a very successful smear campaign against Assange and Wikileaks! Likewise, there has been very little factual reporting on this very significant (for journalism) extradition hearing. I urge you to read the hearing transcripts and undertake your own research to find out what is going on.              Anyway, here is a link to the 390,000 documents (only the so-called Iraq War Logs, so nothing about Afghanistan there) https://wardiaries.wikileaks.org/  Open any random doc and you will likely see %%%% , which indicates redacted words that would have identified an informant or similar person at risk of reprisal if their identity became known.  The Wikileaks team used computer software to identify and redact not only individual names but locality names that could aid someone in identifying such individuals. I don't know how many staff then proofread these docs, though I do know the process took around six months. Even then, some names may have slipped through. By way of comparison you can go to the Cryptome website where you can still find the same docs in unredacted form! Finally, at Chelsea Manning's trial a U.S. Military General (name ?) admitted that they had no record of anyone harmed by the Wikileaks' release. Again, during the current hearing the U.S. Government Prosecutor, James Lewis QC was unable to detail a single instance of an informant being harmed due to the release.

Lots written about the possible harm caused to people by the release of the 'war logs'. How about the lives saved by their release? Case#1 Information released on the drone bombing of whole villages in the autonomous region of Pakistan, resulted in a protest from that Government, which resulted in a policy change by the U.S. military, which curtailed their usage there. 

On 9/19/2020 at 10:55 PM, Mick501 said:

Agree in principle, but there would certainly be occasions where it isn't in the public interest to immediately publicise these things.  And you don't want to be publicly naming and shaming soldiers prior to some sort of enquiry and adverse finding.

Agreed. Please read the several sworn witness testimonies from the hearing as to how 'anal' Julian was in redacting names 'so no one will be harmed'. All the while he was being pressured by his 'partners' in the war logs' release (The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel & one other I can't remember) to rush the release. He did an all-nighter in the offices of the Guardian to meet their next day deadline!  

52 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

So it will house DEA and CIA operatives then.  Well that's comforting to know.

No need for the DEA to be there. The CIA have more experience with drug trafficking ….

7 hours ago, Scott said:

Let's please stay on topic, which is about the vaccine, not the various leaders of different nations.   Personally, I hope the vaccine is safe and effective.  

 

I second that. Also, unless you are a Russian citizen or one from the 20 or so countries signed up to receive the vaccine (like the Philippines), it is quite superfluous to state your opinion here on whether or not you would take it.  It is more likely that Thailand and the major western countries will opt for a vaccine from Big Pharma or the Bill Gates Foundation (Windows users should be familiar with his track record!) for their citizens.

Meanwhile, some updates on Sputnik 5:

1/ As above, so far around 20 countries are planning to offer it to their citizens (not 100 as I erroneously reported yesterday)   

2/ As mentioned yesterday, it will be offered to the especially vulnerable such as front-line health workers and teachers from this month. Voluntary immunisation will be offered to the Russian general public from 1 January

3/ It will protect recipients for a minimum of two years

1 hour ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Second to last, only surpassed in ineptness by trump. No idea why you included Biden and West.

Thanks for responding to my request. Two questions for you: 

1/ Trump's ineptness is well documented, can you list some examples of Putin's ?

2/ I am curious, where would you rank Morrison? Based on his actions (and in-actions) during this and other crises, I would rank him equal or below his BFF, Trump.

P.S. I included all U.S. presidential candidates as an election there is imminent and therefore the leadership ability (albeit potential) of each during the COVID-19 pandemic is relevant (OK, not really for West who will likely only win the race to a mental health facility, though not by much from Biden, IMHO). 

10 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Yo made many good points.

These above imop are Phase 3 clients.

Risky,but ballsie!

I must admit, I don't know much about the russian people's trust in Putin, when it comes to this chinese virus!

I sure hope it helps many.

 

Yes, correct and my typo. I meant to insert my comment about phase 3 trials after Point 1, not 2.

Wow! Nearly all posts on this subject range from sceptical to highly critical On the other hand, I can only feel elated and relieved that a vaccine has finally become available ! Could it be that others here react to the words 'Russia' and 'Putin' like one of Pavlov's dogs? If so, I urge you to look beyond MSM for info about those two items and about Sputnik 5 (the name of the new vaccine). Yes, the truth is out there (Mulder was right, lol) in the internet, though it does take a degree of effort to find non-biased information, digest it and lastly conclude it is accurate.  

Some relevant info I believe that is factual and which MSM has omitted or glossed over in its usual Russia equals the bogeyman treatment follows:

1/ Sputnik 5 will initially be made available to Russian healthcare & educational workers

2/ After this it will be made available to the Russian general public (perhaps this could be called phase 3 testing?)

3/ It will not be mandatory for anyone and it will be FREE

4/ Around 100 countries have pre-ordered it

5/ Russia will co-operate with these countries in allowing them to produce it themselves to keep the cost down     

6/ When asked about the name, President Putin admitted it was a race (Sputnik 1 won the 'Space Race'), but stressed this time it was not a race against other countries but a race to save lives !

You may not be a Putin fan as I am, so please indulge me by ranking his performance (particularly re COVID 19) against these contemporary/future leaders of major Western countries:

USA: Donald Trump / Joe Biden / Kanye West

UK: Boris Johnson

Germany: Angela Merkel

Canada: Justin Trudeau

Australia: Scott Morrison

France: Emmanuel Macron

New Zealand: Jacinda Ardern