Breaking!!! Assange Internet has been disabled by state attack!

a reply to: imjack

How does it make the military look bad?

When we send classified information over unsecured networks we get punished for it.

If anything it make these political hacks look like hypocrites.

I find it interesting that you are so invested in your political religion that you are willing to dismiss the contents for fear it may hurt your head priestess.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Gothmog

Clinton never deliberately released information and you demand her sent to jail just for 'oppsing'.

Did you seriously just say that?

So, if I am driving down the road and smack someone with my vehicle I can get off the hook because I did not deliberately run them over it was a oopsie?

a reply to: Azdraik

It's delusion.

I liken it to these people



Whether they live or die is immaterial. Because it's all God's will, they can never be wrong.

a reply to: projectvxn

Just drives me crazy how people think "I did not know" is a valid defense. I would of thought that everyone knows the whole ignorantia legis neminem excusat, ignorance of the law excuses no one, phrase.

a reply to: carewemust
a reply to: Azdraik


Her involvement in 'breaking' the law is passive when it comes to these Emails. What they reveal is a different story.

Imagine you own a company car, and it is stolen at night while you're asleep.

Would you complain if you were fired? Would it be your fault depending on where you parked it?
Would you accept that stealing company property is wrong, and you deserve to be fired, even if the only way you're connected to it was the original possession? Is it your fault it was stolen?

Compare this to Alex Jones, who sells the company car to a gang for parts.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack

How does it make the military look bad?

When we send classified information over unsecured networks we get punished for it.

If anything it make these political hacks look like hypocrites.

I find it interesting that you are so invested in your political religion that you are willing to dismiss the contents for fear it may hurt your head priestess.

The details of Military affairs in the emails went beyond the scope of just the DNC. Secrets were revealed that hurt the US spy network. Unless Republicans don't need that, it makes no sense blasting the subject. Luckily there are thousands of emails.

a reply to: imjack

That is a bad example. A better one, in reference to my previous example, would be as follows.

The driver realizing they hit someone thinking "darn did not mean for that to happen, good thing on one was around to see that" only later to have photo/video evidence appearing of the incident.

a reply to: Azdraik

Some people don't care what laws have to be broken in order to achieve political victory.


From the politicians themselves, to their supporters.

Look at all of these disgusting stories from both sides and how everyone is so entrenched in defending against them.

No one is interested in rooting out corruption. If they were people would be asking why the GOP is so quiet about the contents of these emails. Instead they are defending the GOP gangbangers and their leading moron using these leaks and not bothering to ask why.

On the other hand no amount of corruption seems to be enough for the Dems to ask why either. They rather ignore reality in its totality than to admit their candidate is a criminal who should not be allowed to run the country.

a reply to: Azdraik

Maybe to your agenda. Personally I think your example sucks, as she wasn't 'driving' anything. Her involvement was passive.

Until anyone of you can explain the nature of the leak, the obvious explanation is that it was caused from someone hacking the server. This unknown hacker is obviously at most fault.

burglar breaks into a home and sees someone murder another person.

The burglar releases information about the murderer.

And the burglar gets punished while the murderer goes free.

-DBCowboy

a reply to: imjack

The details of Military affairs in the emails went beyond the scope of just the DNC. Secrets were revealed that hurt the US spy network. Unless Republicans don't need that, it makes no sense blasting the subject. Luckily there are thousands of emails.

Yes, and they were sent by Clinton, or received by Clinton, over unsecured networks. Which is illegal. They knowingly did it.

In all of my time spent in positions where I received or sent classified information, NOT ONCE was anything sent over non-SIPR or higher security networks. I knew the consequences as an private of doing that.

These idiots sent it to unsecured servers and freakin gmail accounts and you want me to believe this garbage:

Clinton never deliberately released information and you demand her sent to jail just for 'oppsing'.

You're either delusional or so deeply invested in your political gang membership that you simply refuse to accept that these people committed crimes for which they DESERVE punishment.

Any soldier would have been sent to Leavenworth for this level of negligence. But I suppose it's ok because they're just fodder right?

Do as I say, not as I do is NOT leadership. It's bull# and it is the basis of all corruption.

Looks like CTR derailed yet another thread.

a reply to: imjack

Her involvement was passive.

You keep repeating this like it's true.

Meanwhile every private fresh out of AIT knows you don't sent classified information or have classified discussions on non-SIPR accounts like freakin gmail.

a reply to: imjack


There are 2 parts to this. There is the using a personal server and then there is the hack. To mash them both together and say the hacker is at fault is a fallacy. Because you could easily flip that around saying well if Clinton would of followed appropriate protocol we would not be having this conversation.

As for her involvement being passive, are you stating she did not send a single email on those servers?

Anyhow what does anything about this conversation have to do with Asange loosing his internet access?

a reply to: projectvxn

Too bad the 'leak' was a hack, specifically designed to mass-spread the information in a smear campaign against her using our own party system against us. It's not like she emailed it to a source that leaked it, or sent it to people she shouldn't.

Go ahead call me delusional. You all just fell for the least intricate psy-op ever invented.

a reply to: Azdraik

Yes, I'm no tool. I understand if she had proper security the hacker would have had a more difficult time.

It's also undeniable the leak is the fault of the hacker spreading the information.

If there was evidence of Clinton sending classified information to someone she was not supposed to, there would be a ledge to stand on.

Who did the hacker send the information to? The fact of the internet.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: projectvxn

Too bad the 'leak' was a hack, specifically designed to mass-spread the information in a smear campaign against her using our own party system against us. It's not like she emailed it to a source that leaked it, or sent it to people she shouldn't.

Go ahead call me delusional. You all just fell for the least intricate psy-op ever invented.

None of that would have happened had proper security protocols been observed.

Instead all the protocols required were outright ignored. Now that information is out there for the world to see and you're mad that the contents expose your priestess for the incompetent idiot she is.

That's delusional.

a reply to: imjack

It's also undeniable the leak is the fault of the hacker spreading the information.

If there was evidence of Clinton sending classified information to someone she was not supposed to, there would be a ledge to stand on.

That's not how it works.

By federal law you cannot originate, transmit, receive or copy classified information of any kind over any network not properly secured. That means using SIPR, JWICS, OSIS, and others.

FOUO info can't be transmitted below NIPRNet.

All of these carry felony charges for ignoring them. You also can't transfer information from one of these secure nets to a non-secure net. This was done SEVERAL TIMES, by Clinton and her staff and that's according to the FBI.

So try again chief.

a reply to: projectvxn

None of it equally would have happened if the hacker didn't hack the server. What possible motive could there be for this hack? Who benefits? Not America, if it's Classified information. Too bad Clinton is stamped on it, so it's free-game for Republicans to tell the entire world about our secret information.

Do you blame yourself when someone picks the lock to your apartment, for not owning the most state of the art defense?

It's not like she posted it to Reddit. It was still 'hacked'. I understand there is different protocols, but calling it intentional is partisan hackery and that's what I was responding to.

a reply to: imjack

None of it equally would have happened if the hacker didn't hack the server.

This is a pathetic deflection.

The whole reason for those protocols is because IT IS ASSUMED that hackers are actively looking for this kind of information. Therefore NOT following said protocols and LAWS is CRIMINAL negligence.