Yes it's call a "cover story".
He visited the Russian consulate in HK (for a birthday party no less) before he left and his main legal advisor was the lawyer from Wikileaks , a Russian intel cutout.
All just coincidence I guess.
He visited the Russian consulate in HK (for a birthday party no less) before he left and his main legal advisor was the lawyer from Wikileaks , a Russian intel cutout.
All just coincidence I guess.
You're trying to build a backstory for something using bits and pieces of disparate information when the most plausible explanation is that Snowden was probably well aware that his freedom and likely his life were in danger and sought assistance from wherever he could get it. Building a conspiracy theory on this scaffold is a cop-out. Anyone with enough power to keep Snowden safe is probably an enemy of the US.
As for Wikileaks being a Russian tool, would you have the same discrediting opinion about the outlets publishing info that Russia or China would rather keep secret? Or if the person who leaked some data about the Chinese ethnic cleansing program received assistance from the US?
One program he leaked was found to be illegal. 98% of what he leaked had nothing to do with domestic surveillance, wasn't illegal, and only was released to hurt US intel efforts and standing in the world. Which is why people view this as a Russian op from the start.
I get that you don't care about any of that, but perhaps insist on accuracy when discussing it?
> people view this as a Russian op
"People". Does any of them make a stronger case than you? Or does everyone simply reference "people" to support their conclusions? People also say the onlines are full of trolls and sock-puppet accounts creating narratives.
You should be in the streets demanding that the people responsible for that "only one illegal program" be put in prison but here you are arguing that the person who gave them away should be there instead purely because he may or may not be associated with a US enemy.
That's a weird bit of deflection you've resorted to. [0] And unless you're walking back on every one of your comments and opinions in this thread I think I was spot on with my assessment.
My friend, it's not my "hard to follow" writing style that you're stumbling on, it's that I made a more sensible argument than you did. You are plucking an argument out of thin air, floating on conspiracy and innuendo without any real evidence, or at least something that passes Occam's razor. Like that you can build anything, doesn't make it true.
Look, I'm not even saying you are wrong, because I have no evidence either way. Just that the (far) more plausible explanation is that anyone running from a superpower is running to another superpower. It's the only thing that makes sense. He did what he had to do to survive.
You're trying to build that into "he must have been a Russian puppet all along" because "people" have been saying it so you must be right. But then you complain that "people" also say he got stranded in Russia, so they must be wrong. So I ask you, is what "people" say only correct when you want it to be correct? You selectively go between "people support my views so I must be right" to "people contradict my views so they must be wrong".
I'm sorry, that's no way to have a civilized and productive discussion.
> "he must have been a Russian puppet all along"
No. Actually read what i'm saying. He chose a side. He knew that poking the eye of the US has consequences, and to avoid those consequences he needed to align himself with one of the few states left that doesn't bow to US wishes.
The states that fit that criteria are themselves exclusively authoritarian. So in protesting the illegal surveillance of a liberal state, he made himself a pawn in the propaganda war of an illiberal state.
That basic contraction was never his intention, but it became his reality.
> Just that the (far) more plausible explanation is that anyone running from a superpower is running to another superpower. It's the only thing that makes sense. He did what he had to do to survive.
Yes, we agree. His intentions can't ever be known, so arguing that is pointless. I'm simply pointing out the consequences of his actions and the basic contraction in his story vs the actual outcome.
You do realize especially with his situation, he had to cover all legal aspects. Anyone would visit the consulate before traveling to Russia, and he would, too, even if he didn't plan to leave the international zone.
Staying Russia wasn't his plan, but it was definitely an option as he must've known that he might get trapped in any country he crossed.
Pretty far away from "do people not realize that his passport was taken and he got stuck in the Moscow airport?" Really far.
There are a lot of claims that he gave the Chinese intel, so somehow, after they didn't give him any protection, he just immediately gambled on selling info to Russia?
If it's "standard procedure", then he would have fully expected to stay in (be stuck in) the first country he landed at once leaving HK.
Like I said, it was planned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-snowden-stayed-a...
> Every news organization in the world has been trying to confirm that story. They haven't been able to, because it's false.
I don't see a significant difference between the two. He picked his side.