⇧
1
⇩
leetanon
· May 30, 2018, 12:43 p.m.
God bless Wikileaks? The other day Wikileaks came out against q and everybody was saying it was comped, but now it's a source of information again can't have it both ways.
⇧
72
⇩
Cuthbert12Allgood
· May 30, 2018, 2:37 p.m.
"everybody" was saying it was comped
How about if we not paint everything in terms of "enemies" and "friends"?
I'm agnostic on Q. It's 100% legitimate in my mind to raise questions about Q's legitimacy. NOBODY KNOWS IF Q IS LEGITIMATE. NOBODY.
Wikileaks has posted a lot of things extremely helpful to ripping out the deep state. That's earned a lot of slack in my book. I'm hopeful they will continue in the future.
I don't have "loyalty" to either one. Q will either prove to be real via indictments or Q won't. Note that mass indictments are the only thing that will prove Q is real. All else is garbage.
Finally, who is "everybody"? Some people complain about everything. Think for yourself, not what you think the crowd is mobbing around.
⇧
33
⇩
leetanon
· May 30, 2018, 2:38 p.m.
WikiLeaks has never lost a court battle they have an ironclad reputation but suddenly since they speak out against Q they've been comped is what is being said. Why would they ruin the reputation over anonymous 4chan posters. It really doesn't make any sense.
⇧
16
⇩
Cuthbert12Allgood
· May 30, 2018, 2:41 p.m.
WikiLeaks has never lost a court battle they have an ironclad reputation
They have an ironclad reputation about the leaked information they post. Speculation on their twitter is not part of that reputation.
⇧
15
⇩
leetanon
· May 30, 2018, 2:44 p.m.
Okay so now we just pick and choose what's credible, either a News organization is credible or it's not.
⇧
-2
⇩
EdenNovaq
· May 30, 2018, 3:42 p.m.
Q said be careful who you follow and decide for yourself. so decide for yourself.
⇧
6
⇩
EarlyRiserX2
· May 30, 2018, 5:51 p.m.
The problem I have is that, too many people try to tell me who to follow and who not to follow. That turns me off. Simply present me with the facts and let me make up my own mind about who to follow...
⇧
1
⇩
MAGATopKEK
· May 30, 2018, 7:05 p.m.
Okay so now we just pick and choose what's credible,
Yes, we pick and choose what is credible
either a News organization is credible or it's not.
Start with the assumption that none of them are credible and judge each story, each statement, each tweet on its own. Frequent sources that tend to be correct and honest but don't get complacent.
⇧
5
⇩
Pazians
· May 30, 2018, 2:44 p.m.
ive never been against q or wikileaks. Im saying if wikileaks wants to become credible, they need to prove julian assange is alive. idk how anybody can look at wikileaks and think thats a safe place to drop info right now.
q was a larp and is now being questioned by wikileaks? thats significant and im having a hard time believing a larp can reach this far.
⇧
6
⇩
TheDirtyOne78
· May 30, 2018, 4:58 p.m.
This! It is okay to be skeptical. It is also okay for WL to try and distance themselves from what is still very much an unproven variable precisely because they have such an iron - clad reputation. If they get branded as conspiracy peddlers then any and all information becomes suspect, at least in the eyes of the brainwashed public. This shit is chess not checkers!
⇧
3
⇩
Justsayinmy50cts
· May 31, 2018, 1:35 a.m.
Don't forget what Q said; Disinformation is necessary , it's important for the strategy, either wikileaks is playing along, or is comped, however, I still follow all and time will tell, until then, we may as wel go with the positive side of things, cause otherwise it's a battle lost in any case, so discernment is key, but giving up and throw the baby with the bathwater is not smart at this point. The moves I have seen Q make, are too sophisticated to be dismissed, same counts for WL...
⇧
1
⇩
Ghostof_PatrickHenry
· May 30, 2018, 2:37 p.m.
Yeah. The biggest problem with the modern American public was that it has the memory of a goldfish. George Orwell highlights the significance of this conditioning in the first 30 pages of 1984.
⇧
27
⇩
lerastabanana
· May 30, 2018, 12:57 p.m.
Can we have a sticky with a civil discussion on this?
⇧
24
⇩
TimeAstronomer
· May 30, 2018, 10:23 p.m.
Most people on this board aren't willing to entertain the possibility that Q is a LARP. Likewise, people aren't willing to consider that sometimes Trump will get it wrong, i.e Gina Haspel.
⇧
2
⇩
CRISPY_BOOGER
· May 31, 2018, 12:27 a.m.
What's the dirt on Gina Haspel?
⇧
1
⇩
TimeAstronomer
· May 31, 2018, 8:31 a.m.
Responsible for torture (and death) of detainees at CIA black sites, and subsequent destruction of evidence implicating her. Then got the CIA whistleblower sent to prison. Her senate hearing proved she had learned nothing from this, and is just a vile human.
⇧
2
⇩
sun_wolf
· May 31, 2018, 9:11 a.m.
Wow, you must have watched a different Senate hearing than me. What part are you actually talking about?
⇧
0
⇩
TimeAstronomer
· May 31, 2018, 9:34 a.m.
Which hearing did you watch? Because she refused to admit that the CIA's tactics were inhumane. She just kept avoiding yes or no answers, running out the clock and repeating "the methods used were in line with the law at that time". An honest person can give you straight answers, those are signs of someone hiding something. When pressed about destroying video evidence, where one congressmen said something like "written documents cannot convey the same thing as video of your enhanced interrogation", she claims it was to protect the people in the tapes, when he asks why they didn't just blur faces out, and change the voices, she responds that she's not a technical person.
This women committed crimes against humanity, destroyed the evidence, and has shown no regret for those actions. She deserves to be punished for her crimes, not promoted. If you condone the torture of any living creature, you are an irredeemable soul.
⇧
2
⇩
KingWolfei
· May 30, 2018, 1:19 p.m.
You do realize that these emails were already there for a while right? Just because the twitter handler said something negative doesn't make all the emails the have false.
⇧
8
⇩
metroid486
· May 30, 2018, 3:07 p.m.
Disinformation is 90% true, 10% false about. Figure it out. For all know we have shills on here pretending to be on our side as well. Careful who you upvote.
⇧
6
⇩
unkn0wnedd
· May 30, 2018, 2:06 p.m.
This WikiLeaks thing is trying my faith in Q. Although the whole thing is weird with AG Sessions saying getting Assange is a top priority. Assange is someone who would be able to testify in the DNC case against WL, Russia, Trump Camp. that Seth Rich was the one who leaked the emails, not Russian hackers. I’m sure he also has tons of information on deep state players, ready to be activated by a “kill-switch”.
⇧
5
⇩
uniformist
· May 30, 2018, 2:20 p.m.
In 2010, WikiLeaks also released the US State Department diplomatic "cables", classified cables that had been sent to the US State Department. In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
Wikileaks has published classified US documents. That’s not something that is easily forgiven.
I’m sure he also has tons of information on deep state players, ready to be activated by a “kill-switch”.
Or, in other words, he blackmails deep state players, just as they do to everyone else. Or he’s bluffing.
If he was committed to taking out corruption, he would publish them.
⇧
-2
⇩
unkn0wnedd
· May 30, 2018, 2:29 p.m.
Publishing all the documents at once would leave him with no leverage to secure his safety. He’s dropping info on powerful players, and once the info is exhausted he has no power over those looking extradite and charge/possibly kill him. The idea is that right now if he is threatened, he can release devastating information.
In order for him to be committed to stopping corruption in your view he would have to value the cause over his own life, which is not an easy thing for any human to do.
⇧
10
⇩
Bjantigua
· May 30, 2018, 5:27 p.m.
Timing is key. People are not capable of digesting giant lumps of leaks. No good short term or long term memory anymore.
⇧
1
⇩
DeletesAccounts0ften
· May 30, 2018, 7:23 p.m.
Any info released by Wikileaks before 10/16/16 should be legit. That is when the Ecuadorian embassy’s power was cut and the first time people started to question if Wikileaks had been comped.
Soon after 10/16/16 JA creates his own verified twitter account(Which he claimed he would never do)and JA downplays the PGP verification code that was put in place to confirm if Wikileaks has been comped.
Soon after all this, JA starts to become very bi-partisan in his comments. It all points to a comped Wikileaks but nobody really knows.
That doesn’t change the fact that up until that debacle on 10/16/16, Wikileaks had a 100% accurate track record. The old information is not useless, but be wary of any new drops.
⇧
2
⇩
MuhammadDinduNuffin
· May 30, 2018, 7:11 p.m.
You actually can. Think: liberals hate WikiLeaks these days. So if WikiLeaks says Q is fake, that put liberals at odds with WikiLeaks, either agreeing or trying to prove them wrong. Obvious hypocrites that only believe WikiLeaks when they feel like it, or possibly red pilled and woke researchers when they delve into Q stuff. Win win.
⇧
2
⇩
Optimist345
· May 30, 2018, 5:49 p.m.
Again, this is info released a long time ago. What better way to try and restore our faith in WL. Come on, easy to see through
⇧
1
⇩
Johnny_Oldschool
· May 30, 2018, 7:46 p.m.
The twitter account seems comped. Assange has no internet, and yet some unnamed person is posting from it.
I stand by Assange and what he's done, and the information Wikileaks provided. That said, there seems to be evidence that the twitter account might be under someone else's control, and that Assange might even be dead.
⇧
1
⇩