Julian Assange's Internet Intentionally Cut Out

[The Portland Territory]

https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-a ... rnet-link/

WikiLeaks has activated “contingency plans” after its co-founder’s internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the media organization said in a tweet.

Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

The internet is one of the few, if not only, available ways for Julian Assange, who has been locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years, to maintain contact with the outside world.

Could this have happened because of his release of thousands of hacked emails by Clinton and Podesta? Whatever the reason, I am worried. The internet is his only real way with contacting with the outside world and without the internet, it will be harder to release more emails.

What do you guys think?

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/

WikiLeaks has activated “contingency plans” after its co-founder’s internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the media organization said in a tweet.

Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

The internet is one of the few, if not only, available ways for Julian Assange, who has been locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years, to maintain contact with the outside world.

Could this have happened because of his release of thousands of hacked emails by Clinton and Podesta? Whatever the reason, I am worried. The internet is his only real way with contacting with the outside world and without the internet, it will be harder to release more emails.

What do you guys think?

Is their any evidence that this was done by a state, or even deliberately, other than Wikileaks' word?

As to the insinuation that it was done by the Clintons or the Democrats, that is as far as I am aware completely baseless speculation, and absolutely shameful.

Why not just stand up and say that you're a mouthpiece for Putin/Trump 2016 if you're going to jump to biased conclusions without evidence?

[Saiwania]

What contingency plan is there exactly? If Assange doesn't have internet access, then he effectively cannot broadcast or communicate his message to the outside world except via sneakernet or one or more intermediaries which can be intercepted.

[Idzequitch]

It's hard for me to be sympathetic. Whatever happened, (and who besides Wikileaks says they were acting on behalf of the state?) he's avoided those rape charges for way too long. If they can somehow flush him out, I'd be glad, regardless of how useful the information his organization uncovers might be.

[The Portland Territory]

https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/



Could this have happened because of his release of thousands of hacked emails by Clinton and Podesta? Whatever the reason, I am worried. The internet is his only real way with contacting with the outside world and without the internet, it will be harder to release more emails.

What do you guys think?

Is their any evidence that this was done by a state, or even deliberately, other than Wikileaks' word?

As to the insinuation that it was done by the Clintons or the Democrats, that is as far as I am aware completely baseless speculation, and absolutely shameful.

Why not just stand up and say that you're a mouthpiece for Putin/Trump 2016 if you're going to jump to biased conclusions without evidence?

It just happened, so no solid evidence as of yet. But from what I know, Assange uses internet from the government (given he's been living in an embassy) so this is no mistake.

It's not baseless at all, really. Clinton tried to shut them up before, and she would want to do it again, especially after now.

You know, I would, but no. I hate Putin and I love Trump. I don't want to jump to conclusions, there's no evidence for it, but there's no evidence against it either.

[Implacable Death]

It's hard for me to be sympathetic. Whatever happened, (and who besides Wikileaks says they were acting on behalf of the state?) he's avoided those rape charges for way too long. If they can somehow flush him out, I'd be glad, regardless of how useful the information his organization uncovers might be.

Rape charges may have been fabricated because people don't like what he has to say.

[Vassenor]

https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/

WikiLeaks has activated “contingency plans” after its co-founder’s internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the media organization said in a tweet.

Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

The internet is one of the few, if not only, available ways for Julian Assange, who has been locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years, to maintain contact with the outside world.

Could this have happened because of his release of thousands of hacked emails by Clinton and Podesta? Whatever the reason, I am worried. The internet is his only real way with contacting with the outside world and without the internet, it will be harder to release more emails.

What do you guys think?

So you support a foreign power trying to influence US elections then?

[The Portland Territory]

https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/



Could this have happened because of his release of thousands of hacked emails by Clinton and Podesta? Whatever the reason, I am worried. The internet is his only real way with contacting with the outside world and without the internet, it will be harder to release more emails.

What do you guys think?

So you support a foreign power trying to influence US elections then?

If he is not part of a foreign government, then yes. He's releasing useful information that the voters should know about

[Idzequitch]

It's hard for me to be sympathetic. Whatever happened, (and who besides Wikileaks says they were acting on behalf of the state?) he's avoided those rape charges for way too long. If they can somehow flush him out, I'd be glad, regardless of how useful the information his organization uncovers might be.

Rape charges may have been fabricated because people don't like what he has to say.

Then I'm sure he could find some proof of that. He's innocent until proven guilty. Though in my view, he's already screaming that he's guilty by hiding from the trial. The man who reveals everyone else's secrets has something to hide himself.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is their any evidence that this was done by a state, or even deliberately, other than Wikileaks' word?

As to the insinuation that it was done by the Clintons or the Democrats, that is as far as I am aware completely baseless speculation, and absolutely shameful.

Why not just stand up and say that you're a mouthpiece for Putin/Trump 2016 if you're going to jump to biased conclusions without evidence?

It just happened, so no solid evidence as of yet. But from what I know, Assange uses internet from the government (given he's been living in an embassy) so this is no mistake.

Governments can't have technical difficulties?

I mean, maybe it was deliberate, but you're saying virtually nothing to prove that case.

It's not baseless at all, really. Clinton tried to shut them up before, and she would want to do it again, especially after now.

1. Source. Now.

2. "They opposed him before" is not proof that they are connected to this. Its not even really evidence. Assange has a lot of enemies who would potentially have the capability to do this.

You know, I would, but no. I hate Putin and I love Trump.

That must be difficult, given how much Trump has praised Putin, how he openly invited Putin to continue his illegal interference in our election, and how much of Europe and the Middle East he apparently intends to let Putin take over without complaint.

I don't want to jump to conclusions, there's no evidence for it,

Then you concede that their is no reason to suggest Clinton or the Democrats are involved?

but there's no evidence against it either.

Innocent until proven guilty.

"No evidence against something" does not mean that it is remotely plausible or worth suggesting as a serious possibility. Their is no evidence here that you are not a serial killer, but it would be highly inappropriate for me to suggest that maybe you are one, because I'm trying not to jump to conclusions.

You see my point?

[Costa Fierro]

RT? Oh.

Come back with a proper source.

[Hirota]

So you support a foreign power trying to influence US elections then?

The Clinton camp appears to.

[The Romulan Republic]

RT? Oh.

Come back with a proper source.

Yeah.

RT is literally a known propaganda outlet for the Kremlin, i.e. the people who are using Assange to try to "Make American Great Again" (i.e. make it an unstable, dictatorial Russian puppet).

[Frank Zipper]

Perhaps they just have shitty BT Internet.

[The Romulan Republic]

So you support a foreign power trying to influence US elections then?

The Clinton camp appears to.

First, Wikileaks is not a credible source on the election, given their open hostility towards Clinton and habit of leaking stuff likely hacked by Trump's friends in the Kremlin.

Secondly, "They did it to" is not a defence.

[Hirota]

RT? Oh.

Come back with a proper source.

Yawn.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10 ... ernet.html

Next time, come back with a proper complaint.

[Deamonopolis]

Shitty british ISPs are a zionist conspiracy

[Implacable Death]

https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/



Could this have happened because of his release of thousands of hacked emails by Clinton and Podesta? Whatever the reason, I am worried. The internet is his only real way with contacting with the outside world and without the internet, it will be harder to release more emails.

What do you guys think?

So you support a foreign power trying to influence US elections then?

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-show-extent-of-foreign-government-donations-to-clinton-foundation/2016/10/16/ce871a82-9319-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

But let me guess. It's okay because it's Clinton who needs to win at all costs, even if that cost is letting powers for good ( ) like Saudi Arabia get a say in American matters.

[The Portland Territory]

The Clinton camp appears to.

First, Wikileaks is not a credible source on the election, given their open hostility towards Clinton and habit of leaking stuff likely hacked by Trump's friends in the Kremlin.

Secondly, "They did it to" is not a defence.

1. Ok, then that means that I should not trust NYT, CNN, MSNBC, or Huffington Post because of their aggressiveness towards Trump

2. It can be, actually. If you're going down, bring your opponent down with you

[Hirota]

First, Wikileaks is not a credible source on the election, given their open hostility towards Clinton and habit of leaking stuff likely hacked by Trump's friends in the Kremlin.

Ad Hom's are not credible arguments.

Secondly, "They did it to" is not a defence.

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying there is evidence both parties are in bed with foreign governments and it's very silly to cry about one party actions whilst sticking your fingers in your ears about the other parties.

But, that seems to be what America as a whole has decided to do in this election. Either Trump is in bed with the Russians, or Clinton is in bed with the Qataris, Algerians etc etc. It's one or the other for Americans - maybe thats because they cannot process the concept that in a country of just under 320 million people they couldn't find 2 people more electable than these two.

[The Portland Territory]

RT? Oh.

Come back with a proper source.

Yawn.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10 ... ernet.html

Next time, come back with a proper complaint.

Shit, even NYT is reporting on it. Surprised

[The Romulan Republic]

First, Wikileaks is not a credible source on the election, given their open hostility towards Clinton and habit of leaking stuff likely hacked by Trump's friends in the Kremlin.

Secondly, "They did it to" is not a defence.

1. Ok, then that means that I should not trust NYT, CNN, MSNBC, or Huffington Post because of their aggressiveness towards Trump

Not trust absolutely, no. Ideally, one should try to corroborate with multiple sources.

Wikileaks is particularly lacking in credibility on this point, though.

2. It can be, actually. If you're going down, bring your opponent down with you

Sure, if you have no moral standards and consider "spite" a justification for an act.

[The Portland Territory]

1. Ok, then that means that I should not trust NYT, CNN, MSNBC, or Huffington Post because of their aggressiveness towards Trump

Not trust absolutely, no. Ideally, one should try to corroborate with multiple sources.

Wikileaks is particularly lacking in credibility on this point, though.

2. It can be, actually. If you're going down, bring your opponent down with you

Sure, if you have no moral standards and consider "spite" a justification for an act.

1. How is their credibility going down? Because they're exposing Clinton?

2. Still a good strategy

[New-ish Bulgaria]

The Clinton camp appears to.

First, Wikileaks is not a credible source on the election, given their open hostility towards Clinton and habit of leaking stuff likely hacked by Trump's friends in the Kremlin.

Secondly, "They did it to" is not a defence.

>WikiLeaks produces evidence that shows the Hillary campaign and the Dems committed wrongdoings
>WikiLeaks isn't credible because they produce evidence that shows the Hillary campaign and the Dems committed wrongdoings

[Krytenia]

Perhaps they just have shitty BT Internet.

Or worse, TalkTalk.