Not mentioned in the article, but I think pertinent: the possibility that Assange is deliberately fostering these questions, as publicity.
This is a man who claimed he was going to drop a massive October surprise ending Clinton's run from the balcony, then cancel the balcony appearance hinting that his life might be in danger (from Clinton's snipers hitting him during his speech?) and switched it to a 3 am live-cast from a basement, and then it turned out the whole thing was just a promotion for his book.[1]
Whether or not it's the case in this situation, I'd say it wouldn't be out of character.
Trying to use the Seth Rich murder for attention by hinting that it was him that released the dnc mails and that was why he got murdered was basically where I lost all respect for wikileaks and why I'm leaning towards this being a publicity stunt.
Probably because Thanks-giving and EoY is so close, I'm really tired of all the dramas of leaks and media now. I sincerely hope that a few years later, we'll look at our world today to find out how ridiculous we are, just like today we look at Cold War. We can laugh and learn, eventually, hopefully.
Say there is some vast conspiracy involving Sweden, the UK, Ecuador and the US, and the current administration wanted him to disappear, would they be so foolish to do it now, with the current president-elect, who will have access to all classified information and who would be more than happy to expose any malfeasance of the current administration?
Is there evidence of the interview actually taking place? Why was his own lawyer not allowed to attend?
If he's alive, then someone has certainly mentioned to him that the Internet is going crazy about this. Why doesn't he simply walk a few feet and show himself on the balcony, as he has done before?
Side note: labelling something a "conspiracy theory" is a way to dismiss an idea without thinking about it. If you want to refute the facts in the thread, use better facts.
It's not "dismissing an idea without thinking about it" when you say "I think this is a conspiracy theory because [evidence]". The only response to the position that too many people with widely varying affiliations and interests have said he's fine, is to say that Wikileaks, Sweden, Ecuador, and the US are somehow united in wanting to hide the truth and in communication to keep their lies consistent. I can't think of many scenarios where that happens, and all of them ought to end pretty quickly with someone whispering to a journalist under the condition of anonymity.
At this point, I doubt the timestamped video and signed message would convince the majority of redditors. The RT interview is a perfect example of the typical conspiracy pattern of grasping at straws to discredit evidence. It's absolutely Assange's fault for not putting this to bed right away, he's probably either unaware or enjoying the publicity.
I find it disappointing that with his long history of passionate journalism - whatever you think of it - on the more controversial aspects of US engagement with the rest of the world, John Pilger is casually suspected of helping to cover up an Assange abduction / extra-judicial assassination, or etc.
I'd find it easier to believe that Bill O'Reilly was on the Sanders campaign payroll, frankly.
Assange needs to sign a message with his private key. That would be satisfactory. Ideally, the message can be a video that contains information that clearly dates the recording. That would be quite satisfactory.
This is where we hit some ideological barriers. As a leftist, I can see the perverse incentives that many to most reporters are working with (helping friends, trying to please execs for promotions, not upsetting sources with good info), but I don't see them as affecting everyone in the same way. The Intercept, with its ties to Snowden, would happily declare Wikileaks dead and lead the charge for a replacement. Aljazeera would probably love to paint their satellite news rival as blatantly dishonest. Breitbart prints anything that makes Clinton look bad (Assange dropping dead as he threatened to sink her campaign would do the trick). And that's just the organizational component, a CNN reporter with internal clout and incentives to do so might be able to run this story.
Meanwhile right-wing news outlets sell themselves with the "media is corrupt" line so heavily that people on that end of the spectrum seem to think serving Soros and the Clintons is something they teach at journalism school. "Free and independent press" in scare quotes is probably a message in itself to most readers of r/WhereIsAssange, but it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already believe that a global conspiracy controls everything from the BBC to the newest online newspapers.
The Intercept is the baby of a billionaire. Al-Jazeera is BBC debranded. Breitbart's Bannon is ex Goldman Sachs. They all agree on one thing: the binary political world.
> As a leftist
There are 360 degrees of freedom in the non-binary world. There is also up and down. I must inform you that I do not subscribe to the 1 dimensional dialectic hand-me-down space and am ambidextrous.
I believe so, yes. After watching this unfold on reddit, twitter, and here, I am convinced that the "Powers That Be" operate with impunity, and with the help of technical people that work for these sites, and ultimately, them.
So, rather than thinking it would be foolish of the current administration to abduct Assange now, I think it is foolish to expect that the in-coming administration has any intention of exposing the current one.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" --The Who
I've been somewhat roped into this anxiety shared by many now. It's key to remember that all we're asking for is proof of life. A picture of him with today's newspaper, a trip to the balcony...
This is a man who claimed he was going to drop a massive October surprise ending Clinton's run from the balcony, then cancel the balcony appearance hinting that his life might be in danger (from Clinton's snipers hitting him during his speech?) and switched it to a 3 am live-cast from a basement, and then it turned out the whole thing was just a promotion for his book.[1]
Whether or not it's the case in this situation, I'd say it wouldn't be out of character.
1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/04/wikileaks-t...