Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Mar '17 17:20
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/merkel-calls-obama-over-suspicions-us-tapped-her-mobile-phone-a-929642.html

    Did former President Obama wire tap Merkel, the lone leader of the free world? Was there any "proof"?
  2. 20 Mar '17 17:33
    There was good evidence.

    https://wikileaks.org/nsa-germany/
  3. 20 Mar '17 17:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    There was good evidence.

    https://wikileaks.org/nsa-germany/
    Wikileaks is good evidence?

    So there is no proof, just some evidence?
  4. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    20 Mar '17 17:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    Wikileaks is good evidence?

    So there is no proof, just some evidence?
    Jesus Christ, man, just listen to yourself.

    Don't you get depressed listening to yourself all day, every day?
  5. 20 Mar '17 18:05 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Jesus Christ, man, just listen to yourself.

    Don't you get depressed listening to yourself all day, every day?
    Indeed although I suspect his facetious comment was not meant to be taken seriously. That he distrusts wikileaks is a far more serious issue because they have an excellent record of accuracy because they do not fabricate their content, probably the only trusted source we have. The problem wikileaks presents to people like whodey is that you need to put some effort into reading its content. I suspect he would much rather have his echo chamber cookie cutter info delivered by room service.
  6. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    20 Mar '17 18:27
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Indeed although I suspect his facetious comment was not meant to be taken seriously. That he distrusts wikileaks is a far more serious issue because they have an excellent record of accuracy because they do not fabricate their content, probably the only accurate source of information we have.
    Wikileaks obtains its information by people sending them secret government documents. The motive for this may be genuine concern on behalf of a whistle blower, it could be a hoax, it could be a false document from a hostile government, and it could be an intentional leak from the government in question as part of an information warfare campaign. Neither you nor Wikileaks are in a position to know which of the four possibilities I've given are pertinent to any given document. Further Wikileaks is said to have become a front for the FSB, in which case it has become an information warfare asset for the Russian State. What every official of the intelligence community who has ever commented says is that any given piece of information has to be taken with a pinch of salt, they assess it and regard the information as low quality unless there are multiple sources. Since you have no other sources for this how do you know Wikileaks do not fabricate their content?

    To put it another way. When I was a kid my elders used to say: "Don't believe everything you see on the television.". With the internet that rule goes five-fold. Especially with a site like Wikileaks, maybe it's true and maybe it isn't, but what is the case is that various state and non-state players can use Wikileaks to disseminate information for an effect that they want. So I wouldn't start unquestioningly believing everything that is posted on Wikileaks.
  7. 20 Mar '17 18:47
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Indeed although I suspect his facetious comment was not meant to be taken seriously. That he distrusts wikileaks is a far more serious issue because they have an excellent record of accuracy because they do not fabricate their content, probably the only trusted source we have. The problem wikileaks presents to people like whodey is that you need to ...[text shortened]... suspect he would much rather have his echo chamber cookie cutter info delivered by room service.
    I reckon unless wikileaks says Obama tapped the phone lines of Trump we will never know.
  8. 20 Mar '17 18:55
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Wikileaks obtains its information by people sending them secret government documents. The motive for this may be genuine concern on behalf of a whistle blower, it could be a hoax, it could be a false document from a hostile government, and it could be an intentional leak from the government in question as part of an information warfare campaign. Neithe ...[text shortened]... hey want. So I wouldn't start unquestioningly believing everything that is posted on Wikileaks.
    You can verify emails. I posted the process for doing so when the Podesta emails were dumped. Furthermore they contain dates, details and in the case of diplomatic cables the sender and the recipient. There has not been to my knowledge a single credible instance where the authenticity of wikileaks has been called into question even by those who have bee exposed by them. All you have made is an appeal to ignorance what we supposedly do not know rather than what we do and the comment about being a front for some government agency reeks of the kind of tabloid propaganda that regularly floods the internet. I have already provided one instance of how one can verify the content of wikileaks with regard to email dumps. Your analogy is ludicrous and unworthy of serious comment and i reject your concerns, they are nothing more than half baked assertions and vague references to clandestine agencies.
  9. 20 Mar '17 18:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    I reckon unless wikileaks says Obama tapped the phone lines of Trump we will never know.
    I really wonder if you have ever even visited the site.
  10. 20 Mar '17 18:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    You can verify emails. I posted the process for doing so when the Podesta emails were dumped. Furthermore they contain dates, details and in the case of diplomatic cables the sender and the recipient. There has not been to my knowledge a single credible instance where the authenticity of wikileaks has been called into question even by those who hav ...[text shortened]... , they are nothing more than half baked assertions and vague references to clandestine agencies.
    I think Progs have learned their lesson about e-mails.....except for maybe Hillary cuz she bought Norton plus virus protection

    From now on, there will be no more evidence to find about any of their criminal activities.
  11. 20 Mar '17 19:01 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    I think Progs have learned their lesson about e-mails.....except for maybe Hillary cuz she bought Norton plus virus protection

    From now on, there will be no more evidence to find about any of their criminal activities.
    Hillary and Podesta and the whole lot of them are techno-noobs. The silly women was warned multiple times but would not listen because the Clinton global initiative was raking in the momo! and she wanted to keep her dirty money away from the Government.
  12. 20 Mar '17 19:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Hillary and Podesta and the whole lot of them are techno-noobs. The silly women was warned multiple times but would not listen because the Clinton global initiative was raking in the momo! and she wanted to keep her dirty money away from the Government.
    It's rather amusing that in this day and age of mass communication they have reduced themselves back to meeting face to face once again
  13. 20 Mar '17 19:09 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's rather amusing that in this day and age of mass communication they have reduced themselves back to meeting face to face once again
    Its the safest way. Either that or invisible ink
  14. 20 Mar '17 19:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Its the safest way. Either that or invisible ink
    Perhaps they can come up with another secret device.

    It would only get hacked eventually though.

    Government Is so corrupt, they better come up with something or plan on traveling a lot.
  15. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    20 Mar '17 19:33
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    You can verify emails. I posted the process for doing so when the Podesta emails were dumped. Furthermore they contain dates, details and in the case of diplomatic cables the sender and the recipient. There has not been to my knowledge a single credible instance where the authenticity of wikileaks has been called into question even by those who hav ...[text shortened]... , they are nothing more than half baked assertions and vague references to clandestine agencies.
    What has the authenticity of emails to do with whether documents on Wikileaks, the bulk of which are not emails (at least last time I looked), are genuine or not?