I have been proceeding as though it could be.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

the silence is deafening

also, this coming from the acc that wants to recruit people, ha

[deleted]

'we record all phone calls in afghanistan'

in reality, its the world

[deleted]

Ah yes, the hero figure, the greatest propaganda tool there is, uniting a "movement" behind an infallible "hero" so as to steer the focus of conversation. You must not understand how propaganda works. He did an interview ON NBC, AT PRIME TIME you fucking tool. You're either a useful idiot, or an actually shill.

Based on the fact that there is a recruiter from the People's Intelligence Agency vigorously attempting to persuade me that Snowden is above criticism;

I am now inclined to believe that he has some serious conflict of interest which vaguely relates to Marxism.

I must preface this by saying that I do not have any strong convictions one way or the other upon the motivations and purpose of old Ed Snowden; but, that being said, here is my prima facie assessment: if Edward Snowden is who he, Greenwald, US politicians (Kerry, et alii), and the media claims he is, then why the fuck hasn't he been assassinated?

Assassinations happen all the time; often in very obvious ways, to the critic who might claim that Snowden is too public. The US uses assassination like a microwave: frequently, and a bit too much.

The idea that he can't be found, or that he is too protected seems to be bullshit. Most targets can get got. But, there is always the precedent of Castro.

Either way, the situation appears to me as thus: if Snowden was really an enemy of the state, and not a limited hangout, so to speak, he'd be fucking dead. Res ipsa loquitur.

What good would that do? He isn't releasing the documents personally and other people/orgs have copies. Assassinating him accomplishes nothing other than making him a martyr and giving people a reason to revolt against the orgs that are responsible for the crimes he revealed and thise responsible for his death.

I don't buy it.

The US has a history of disproportionate aggression towards its enemies, regardless of whether they, at the moment of murder, occupied overtly hostile roles. Weapons of mass destruction, for example...

The reasons for political assassination are varied; but rest assured, that if Ed Snowden was the real deal he'd be fucking dead before he could even have passed off his information to Greenwald, or anyone, for that matter.

You don't see how making him a martyr would give people a very specific rally point?

I know this is terrible to say but I honestly feel that him being killed would be the only thing that would actually piss people off enough that we would band together and create change.

The powers that be do not want that.

Aaron Swartz? Michael Hastings? Harvey Milk? I could go on and on.

I see the point you are trying to make I just feel that eliminating snowden isn't an option because of the specifics of this situation. You might not be comparing apples and oranges but you are trying to compare two very different types of apples.

Also, it is not fact that those people were killed by the government. There may be credible theories but that's not the same thing.

I understand that I might be drawing a non sequitur, and that I might be grasping at straws: utilizing unproven examples as evidence; but still, I imagine that the situation sits something like this:

Had Snowden been a real threat to the US, he would have been killed before anyone knew who he was. The fact that he is an international hero seems indicative of the possibility that he is something of a limited hangout, to use the term. His being killed now, given this situation, would be nonsensical.

[deleted]

Yes, but we know that the CIA often acts through privately contracted jackals, correct? The CIA doesn't need to be responsible for anything, in most cases; nor the US state at large.

My position, and again I am not married to this position whatsoever--just my knee-jerk, prima facie deduction--is that the leaks are released to enact that simplest of psychological tactics upon the US populace: self-policing in the face of alleged surveillance. I could dig up the psychological study, and can if you want, but it seems to be well known that an individual--a population of individuals in this case--self-censor both actions and thoughts in the face of known, overt surveillance.

I would posit that, given this position, Evo Morales' grounded plane was but smoke and mirrors, to further hammer home the whole "enemy of the state" light that Snowden has been depicted in.

Assassinate him and remove all doubt that he's a fake leaker, and martyr him. That's pretty good reason. Also, it is kindof dirty and risky from a world-diplomacy point of view (not that that alone would prevent such action were it deemed necessary).

That's bullshit, though. That statement, "assassinate him and make him a martyr" is completely memetic: when has it ever really happened? Heads of state are assassinated all the time. Smedley Butler was most likely assassinated and no one gave a shit. Max Gerson. Attempts on Chavez, Castro, and others. Nobody gives a shit as long as you tell them it was a suicide, stomach cancer, or what have you.

Besides, you are completely missing the point. His assassination now would be nonsensical. He serves the purpose of a controlled release of information: "you are being surveilled; self-censor your activities and habits."

I meant in the sense that Manning could be considered a martyr. Just meaning that it provides an example of someone who did "the right thing" and suffered or died for it.

I dispute the statement that nobody cares about any of your examples provided. True, none of their deaths or the attempts on their lives have provoked mass revolution, yet the definition of a martyr is just someone who dies for their beliefs, it requires no followers or for anyone else to take action based on their sacrifice.

I would say that at this point, if some of Snowden's material is of value and the intelligence community wishes for him to appear less credible, leaving him alive would seem to sow more doubt about his credibility than killing him at this time.

I hear you. You make cogent points, and while I respect your argument, I just don't feel it to be true. I feel that Snowden would have been killed before even making it anywhere with his knowledge, had he actually posed a threat; but, my supposition acknowledges the complete control of the US state--maybe it is much more chaotic than that.

I just feel that telling the public that they are being surveilled from email to Skype, Facebook to Google searches, does much more than not telling them; and how better to tell them than through a young, eloquent "leaker."

It's a somewhat complicated mess, and I too feel that if the US wished him dead he would be so, and quite some time ago as you said.

The whole situation does indeed serve as a means of intimidating the populace, no matter how you look at it.

I also know that most of what he has 'revealed' could have already been inferred by the nature of the technology. If smartphones are effectively bugging technology, I don't need a whistleblower to tell me that it's being used as such. It can only be further confirmation of what was already known to be possible. I guess a lot of people think that networked electronics are perfectly encrypted even though they themselves have no knowledge of such things.

Whatever the nature of Mr.Snowden and also his information, it's a bit distracting and also manipulated to the maximum advantage of the security state.

I completely agree with these statements. Well put.

Thank you for the respectful discourse.

Likewise, friend.

I am not a shill, and I support the theory because Snowden has had NO impact except for selling the idea of an alleged surveillance state to this country.

That's really our failure as American people. I'm pretty sure that Snowden thought that we would do something or be angry enough to do something (protest, etc.). One man can't do much more than he did. He showed us what needs to change. We are the ones who have to change it. Change starts with us.

Limited Hangout is just the other side of the coin, just as is your position that Snowden is truly independently interested in privacy.

However, both these are distraction for the actual reality in that Snowden is a blank cheque for our nation's intelligence community.

[deleted]

You just made no sense.

There's an easy way to solve this problem. Go analyze the "limited hangout" injection into this subreddit. Go check the user accounts that started seeding this "theory".

It was and still is an organized operation to discredit Snowden.

[deleted]

The most readily available argument I can think of which implies he's legitimate is that he provides an example of a whistle blower who didn't get locked up or killed right away, which is a somewhat dangerous precedent if you don't want leaks. Though, anyone who would follow his example can still expect a difficult time, obviously, so it's not a very definitive reason to believe in him.

You make a strong case, yet I think I have to focus on the message not the messenger, that's the best method here. For all I know Mr.Snowden is legitimate in his own mind but he's under some kind of mind control and is an unknowing puppet on that level. It's all really irrelevant compared to whether the released information is valid and useful.

You are using words I don't think you fully understand. And no, I don't. I see how people can be convinced by the US government/Intelligence community that Snowden is whatever they want you to believe. And I know for sure that's what has happened.

I'm a mod over at /r/limitedhangouts and I can confirm that I am not getting paid by anyone. I have studied propaganda and how it works. They needed a way to steer the "conspiracy theorist" crowd back into the mainstream and legitimize a hero figure for them to follow. Snowden was given to us. The guardian even asked for permission from the NSA to release any of the information.

Don't believe me? Watch this: http://youtu.be/FqXkTecyV3s?t=4m10s The guardian's editor saying she CONSULTED THE NSA before publishing and they said it was OK. OOOOO really?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

he doesnt go to the government to get permission to publish stories, he goes to them to get cooperation and confirmation to enhance the credibility of the stories. more often than not they dont cooperate, and he publishes stories without their confirmation. i would guess that the government is trying to cooperate with the new leak, and is responsible for purposefully delaying its release, not greenwald

'PIA recruiter exposes himself'

Guess what? In 2009, Ed Snowden said leakers “should be shot.”

Are all the following posts a part of JTRIG or helping to divide and conquer as well?

• Snowden, Brian Williams: staged amateur night for the suckers
• Is Edward Snowden lying?
• Questioning the Snowden Story with Kevin Ryan
• Jimenez, Secker, Corbett Roundtable on Snowden, James Bond
• Mr. Snowden, It’s Time to Come Out and Take a Stand Publicly as to Your Intentions
• Greenwald-Omidyar Joint Venture: The Blurring Lines Between Being A Source & Being A Journalist
• Green-Light for Greenwald: Government Duplicity or Government Duality?
• Glenn Greenwald, NSA Documents & Checkbook Journalism
• Pando Exposé: Glenn Greenwald’s Boss, Billionaire Omidyar, Co-Funded Ukraine Revolution Groups with US Government
• The Edward Snowden Movie

[deleted]

so, why would snowden get a 40 minute interview on corporate news being interviewed by a CFR member?

On some level, that interview almost seemed like a diplomatic meeting. When the interviewer asks about if he'd like to come home etc, it's like he's speaking on behalf of the government.

It is interesting. I feel the nature of this whole situation will be more clear when more info comes out, or if someone hurts Snowden. I would prefer more information to be revealed.

you mean, if some big whistleblower happened, you would want big things released before, say, a year?/s

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/POLITIC] JTRIG Exposed: why shills are pushing the "Edward Snowden = Limited Hang Out" theory

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

5 reasons is reality four shitty half-reasons, am I right? What if you're a psychout duli disinfo fucker yourself? And its all part of the game. The life TV show we watch whole eating popcorn and beating children. Fuck this show is tired as wile west or space flicks.

After reading comments and replies, its quite obvious I called it. Fucking scum.

We can all agree that their is a variety of opinions about Snowden and Greenwald. We can also all agree that the real issue is mass surveillance. I will agree not to push my Snowden theories down your throat if you can agree to ignore the probable paid shills employed to make genuine Snowden doubters like me look bad. That is the aim of JTRIG isn't it? To get us fighting one another instead of looking into the issue of mass surveillance. Although something about Snowden seems fishy to me, I don't want to battle anybody about Snowden when we could be talking about mass spying. Having said that I don't want to ignore our differences of opinion either. Lets realise that although nobody can prove with certainty one way or the other about Snowden, we can all agree mass surveillance is bad, and efforts to stop it need us working together and not fighting amongst ourselves.

imo, the major point of snowden being limited hangout is to get the people used to mass spying, to get them used to seeing stories in the paper about it that they just kind of accept it.

Penis In Ass recruiter? I'll pass.

Snowden is a hero GIVEN to us, he was GIVEN to us, understand that? He went to MAINSTREAM sources like Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, two people on George Soros's payroll.

The best way to control a movement people, is to create a hero figure for everyone to follow. This is a perfect example. OP is the actual shill here.

Unbelieveable -- OF COURSE Edward Snowden is not a "limited hangout", the whole world can see that. The fact that on Reddit in the conspiracy subreddit, there is an attempt to cover it up with NSA and CIA paid informants just says how damaging it really is. But we're not going to let them. We're too good for that.

Glenn Greenwald is the same thing -- an extremely good reporter, trying to do everything he can, sometimes under very trying circumstances. I'll take his word for it over some paid NSA junkees. For crying out loud.

Yeah, there is a lot of unwarranted Gleen Greenwald hate. It's kind of absurd really... people getting mad because he is taking so long. Every time I read those I consider the possibility that it is a shill/AstroTurf campaign I am seeing in action.

glenn greenwald hate or glenn greenwald skepticism?

I guess you could call it skepticism but it seems unwarranted and could be an attempt to discredit him enough that people will tune out.

its hard to discredit snowden when we dont know his full service record. do you ,/u/missedit22 trust pierre omidyar?

anyone who thinks greenwald is a shill has no idea how aggressive he has been in the years before snowden, and how damaging the leaks are to the govt. you really think the NSA wanted the world to know about its spying capabilities? rofl

You know the saying "everyone has a price"?

IMO, for a limited hangout you would pick someone who is so credible there should be no doubt of their legitimacy. GG is very clearly profiting off of the revelations, even if the only proof is his book. I really wish I believed the official narrative, but I know I'm not a paid shill and I question GG and Snowden.

[deleted]

We can all agree that their is a variety of opinions about Snowden and Greenwald. We can also all agree that the real issue is mass surveillance. I will agree not to push my Snowden theories down your throat if you can agree to ignore the probable paid shills employed to make genuine Snowden doubters like me look bad. That is the aim of JTRIG isn't it? To get us fighting one another instead of looking into the issue of mass surveillance. Although something about Snowden seems fishy to me, I don't want to battle anybody about Snowden when we could be talking about mass spying. Having said that I don't want to ignore our differences of opinion either. Lets realise that although nobody can prove with certainty one way or the other about Snowden we can all agree mass surveillance is bad, and efforts to stop it need us working together and not fighting amongst ourselves.

About the most reasonable comment here.

you really think the NSA wanted the world to know about its spying capabilities

the NSA may not, but TPTB probably do. ''what good is a police state if the ppl dont know they live in one?''