Hero but unfortunately we've done nothing with the information he gave us 
PangsUnwantedMongLoveChild - Hero but unfortunately we've done nothing with the information he gave usThis is why I feel sorry for him he does us a huge favor and almost nobody cares.
I think he's able to have a decent life in Russia though.
TryhardNobody -Soup and Beer -BrckNoHitBk -TryhardNobody -
Well considering Snowden is a liar, Signal was probably made by the NSAExplain
Some members of Congress said he was a liar coinciding with the opening of Oliver Stone's movie on him. TryhardNobody is just being a good little puppet.
I'm not a puppet. Ive explained my opinion in another thread in detail. Look at Assange or Seth Rich. They leak stuff that names peoples names and gets people in trouble. Seth Rich got himself killed w a quickness. Snowden leaked a bunch of stuff that scared the shit out of people, got no one in trouble, caused everyone in the world to be worried about what they type or say. And not only is he not getting killed, he has 2.3 million Twitter followers and has his SECOND movie coming out. I dont believe shit he says anymore. Oh and also, he has only released 5% of what he stole and the people he leaked the stuff to (some reporters he never met) are getting paid millions of dollars by a guy who is openly against info leaking. The whole situation is screwy. If they wanted SNowden dead, he would be dead and Putin would def allow it/help.
Your post seems to imply Snowden had some grand plan to get himself movie deals. I don't think he has control over what Hollywood decides to do. Because of his situation I don't think he is getting any monetary benefit from the films either.
And Seth Rich was very accessible to anyone in power that wanted to make him disappear. Snowden isn't. We aren't exactly on the friendliest terms with Putin and Russia. And when he initially got holed up there the Obama administration made quite a few forceful demands that they turn him over. Putin basically told us to go fuck ourselves. Not that he cares for our constitutional rights or the safety of Snowden. But he is able to use Snowden to embarass the U.S. which I'm sure he relishes.
And you do have a point about Greenwald. But Snowden turned over his info to the journalists and left it up to them on what to reveal. That way he is completely out of the loop. If he had held onto everything and was in control you can bet your ass they would made more effort to off him. Or perhaps even made a deal with Putin to assasinate him. But because of the way Snowden did it, killing him would only serve to provide revenge. It would not have stopped the leaks.
myersei - Whats the OGs general stance on Snowden, hero or traitor? Im guessing traitor?Hero as fuk!
TryhardNobody -Where are you getting this 5% number from?Soup and Beer -TryhardNobody -Soup and Beer -BrckNoHitBk -TryhardNobody -
Well considering Snowden is a liar, Signal was probably made by the NSAExplain
Some members of Congress said he was a liar coinciding with the opening of Oliver Stone's movie on him. TryhardNobody is just being a good little puppet.
I'm not a puppet. Ive explained my opinion in another thread in detail. Look at Assange or Seth Rich. They leak stuff that names peoples names and gets people in trouble. Seth Rich got himself killed w a quickness. Snowden leaked a bunch of stuff that scared the shit out of people, got no one in trouble, caused everyone in the world to be worried about what they type or say. And not only is he not getting killed, he has 2.3 million Twitter followers and has his SECOND movie coming out. I dont believe shit he says anymore. Oh and also, he has only released 5% of what he stole and the people he leaked the stuff to (some reporters he never met) are getting paid millions of dollars by a guy who is openly against info leaking. The whole situation is screwy. If they wanted SNowden dead, he would be dead and Putin would def allow it/help.
Your post seems to imply Snowden had some grand plan to get himself movie deals. I don't think he has control over what Hollywood decides to do. Because of his situation I don't think he is getting any monetary benefit from the films either.
And Seth Rich was very accessible to anyone in power that wanted to make him disappear. Snowden isn't. We aren't exactly on the friendliest terms with Putin and Russia. And when he initially got holed up there the Obama administration made quite a few forceful demands that they turn him over. Putin basically told us to go fuck ourselves. Not that he cares for our constitutional rights or the safety of Snowden. But he is able to use Snowden to embarass the U.S. which I'm sure he relishes.
And you do have a point about Greenwald. But Snowden turned over his info to the journalists and left it up to them on what to reveal. That way he is completely out of the loop. If he had held onto everything and was in control you can bet your ass they would made more effort to off him. Or perhaps even made a deal with Putin to assasinate him. But because of the way Snowden did it, killing him would only serve to provide revenge. It would not have stopped the leaks.I dont think there are any leaks to stop. Where are these leaks you speak of? They arent coming. No one has got in any trouble. He handed his info off to people he has never met and they are now being paid millions of dollars. This is what Putin said. Not quite "go fuck yourselves"
--On July 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if Snowden wanted to be granted asylum in Russia, he would be required to stop his work aimed at “harming our US partners.”--
And on the previous page i traced Signal right back to the US government. I think Snowden is a plant. He has never named one name has he? Has he released a document with names on it? He stole a ton of info. We have seen 5% of it. Why
Also why do you seem to think he never met the people he released the info to? The guardian reporters were in and out of his Japanese hotel for days upon days.
Or do you mean that he never met them before he released the info to them?
If Snowden were a US government plant, why would he release information that would have otherwise not been known to the public for what likely would have been decades? Your theory is especially strange considering how the information was released and the kinds of information that was released. None of it made the US gov. or the NSA look good at all. How could any of this have benefited the government in any way?
One thing that the government FOR SURE wouldn't want released was the fact that they've been intercepting products from companies like Cisco and Dell to reconfigure their hardware and basically reroute information from the target network back to the NSA. Another gem we can thank Mr. Snowden for.
At first I thought were some super right wing nut but now it seems like you're some kind of Eddie Brajah conspiracy fanatic.
dushtin -Good stuff^TryhardNobody -Where are you getting this 5% number from?Soup and Beer -TryhardNobody -Soup and Beer -BrckNoHitBk -TryhardNobody -
Well considering Snowden is a liar, Signal was probably made by the NSAExplain
Some members of Congress said he was a liar coinciding with the opening of Oliver Stone's movie on him. TryhardNobody is just being a good little puppet.
I'm not a puppet. Ive explained my opinion in another thread in detail. Look at Assange or Seth Rich. They leak stuff that names peoples names and gets people in trouble. Seth Rich got himself killed w a quickness. Snowden leaked a bunch of stuff that scared the shit out of people, got no one in trouble, caused everyone in the world to be worried about what they type or say. And not only is he not getting killed, he has 2.3 million Twitter followers and has his SECOND movie coming out. I dont believe shit he says anymore. Oh and also, he has only released 5% of what he stole and the people he leaked the stuff to (some reporters he never met) are getting paid millions of dollars by a guy who is openly against info leaking. The whole situation is screwy. If they wanted SNowden dead, he would be dead and Putin would def allow it/help.
Your post seems to imply Snowden had some grand plan to get himself movie deals. I don't think he has control over what Hollywood decides to do. Because of his situation I don't think he is getting any monetary benefit from the films either.
And Seth Rich was very accessible to anyone in power that wanted to make him disappear. Snowden isn't. We aren't exactly on the friendliest terms with Putin and Russia. And when he initially got holed up there the Obama administration made quite a few forceful demands that they turn him over. Putin basically told us to go fuck ourselves. Not that he cares for our constitutional rights or the safety of Snowden. But he is able to use Snowden to embarass the U.S. which I'm sure he relishes.
And you do have a point about Greenwald. But Snowden turned over his info to the journalists and left it up to them on what to reveal. That way he is completely out of the loop. If he had held onto everything and was in control you can bet your ass they would made more effort to off him. Or perhaps even made a deal with Putin to assasinate him. But because of the way Snowden did it, killing him would only serve to provide revenge. It would not have stopped the leaks.I dont think there are any leaks to stop. Where are these leaks you speak of? They arent coming. No one has got in any trouble. He handed his info off to people he has never met and they are now being paid millions of dollars. This is what Putin said. Not quite "go fuck yourselves"
--On July 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if Snowden wanted to be granted asylum in Russia, he would be required to stop his work aimed at “harming our US partners.”--
And on the previous page i traced Signal right back to the US government. I think Snowden is a plant. He has never named one name has he? Has he released a document with names on it? He stole a ton of info. We have seen 5% of it. Why
Also why do you seem to think he never met the people he released the info to? The guardian reporters were in and out of his Japanese hotel for days upon days.
Or do you mean that he never met them before he released the info to them?
If Snowden were a US government plant, why would he release information that would have otherwise not been known to the public for what likely would have been decades? Your theory is especially strange considering how the information was released and the kinds of information that was released. None of it made the US gov. or the NSA look good at all. How could any of this have benefited the government in any way?
One thing that the government FOR SURE wouldn't want released was the fact that they've been intercepting products from companies like Cisco and Dell to reconfigure their hardware and basically reroute information from the target network back to the NSA. Another gem we can thank Mr. Snowden for.
At first I thought were some super right wing nut but now it seems like you're some kind of Eddie Brajah conspiracy fanatic.
The idea that Snowden was a plant is extremely silly. I don't mind a good conspiracy theory but this is on par with the Flat Earthers.
Everything he revealed hurt the NSA. It also proved Obama to be a liar. It showed the current head of the NSA, James Clapper, to be guilty of perjury before Congress. It showed that we were wiretapping some of our closest ally leaders. It brought to light before the entire world that our government was willfully violating our constitutional rights. And it set back the NSA's spying efforts by years.
If Snowden was an NSA plant, it was the worst idea anyone in government ever had.
Tryhard should trace his claims back to some legitimate sources instead of trying to trace software back to the goverment.
TryhardNobody - To dushtin so i can avoid mass quotes. 1st you asked about him not meeting them. Yes i meant he didnt meet them before he decided to leak stuff. And as far as the 5% of his stuff being released, here you go. At this rate we will have all the info by the year 3217--He communicated with Greenwald several times online and attempted to meet with him much sooner. Snowden was paranoid about Greenwalds lack of security/encryption so the meetup didn't take place until much later. I don't even know why any of this is relevant to you but there you go.
Glenn Greenwald originally said that he and filmmaker Laura Poitras received 10,000 files from Snowden in Hong Kong, and NSA chief Keith Alexander recently said Snowden took as many as 200,000.
Now the NSA tells CBS that it believes Snowden stole 1.7 million classified documents, leaked 200,000 to journalists he met in Hong Kong, and still has access to 1.5 million.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-docs-did-snowden-take-2013-12
Why would you believe anything the NSA says? They're trying to discredit Snowden by making him out to seem like some sort of traitor by implying that he's withholding documents; people like you are biting hard.
Is everything you've heard about this from either wikipedia or mainstream news? It seems like it. I suggest you read Greenwald's own book "nowhere to hide" which details the events leading up the meetup with Snowden, the actual meetup, the events afterwards, and the actual documents which were released. None of the concrete evidence he presents is up for debate; the government themselves have owned up to most of it.
Ninpo Silva -daglord -There will never be another like him.
His son is huge disappointment imo.
Look at Justin Amash
TryhardNobody -Alright you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Some article with 0 facts and a whole lot of assumptions/opinions? Starting to think you're trolling now.http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be/5339161
My Creeping Concern that the NSA Leaker Edward Snowden is not who he Purports to be…
By Naomi Wolf
Global Research, June 15, 2013
I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be.
This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US media is not performing at all.
It is just to raise some cautions as the story unfolds, and to raise some questions about how it is unfolding, based on my experience with high-level political messaging.
Some of Snowden’s emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.
a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower, in terms of what candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call ‘message discipline.’ He insisted on publishing a power point in the newspapers that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps – which are evidence of great media training, really ‘PR 101′ – are virtually never done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by high-level political surrogates.
b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points – again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points.
c) He keeps saying things like, “If you are a journalist and they think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill you.” Or: “I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.” He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, ‘come get me under the Espionage Act.” Finally in my experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their loved ones; they don’t tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes, among other reasons. But a police state would like us all to think about everything we would lose by standing up against it.
d) It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in ‘trouble.’
e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage…and who keeps leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press…really, she happens to pole-dance? Dan Ellsberg’s wife was and is very beautiful and doubtless a good dancer but somehow she took a statelier role as his news story unfolded…
f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK, which has done the US’s bidding with other famous leakers such as Assange. So really there are MANY other countries that he would be less likely to be handed over from…
g) Media reports said he had vanished at one point to ‘an undisclosed location’ or ‘a safe house.’ Come on. There is no such thing. Unless you are with the one organization that can still get off the surveillance grid, because that org created it.
h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assange’s also brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when Assange meets the press – when I met with him off the record last Fall in the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening and stepping in when necessary.
Seeing these diligent attentive free-speech attorneys for another whisleblower reinforced my growing anxiety: WHERE IS SNOWDEN’S LAWYER as the world’s media meet with him? A whistleblower talking to media has his/her counsel advising him/her at all times, if not actually being present at the interview, because anything he/she says can affect the legal danger the whistleblower may be in . It is very, very odd to me that a lawyer has not appeared, to my knowledge, to stand at Snowden’s side and keep him from further jeopardy in interviews.
Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom. And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not been told by a very senior official in the intelligence world that indeed, there are some news stories that they create and drive – even in America (where propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times – rather than the machine itself – that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests – why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times – unless we know about it?
TryhardNobody -Soup and Beer -
The idea that Snowden was a plant is extremely silly. I don't mind a good conspiracy theory but this is on par with the Flat Earthers.
Everything he revealed hurt the NSA. It also proved Obama to be a liar. It showed the current head of the NSA, James Clapper, to be guilty of perjury before Congress. It showed that we were wiretapping some of our closest ally leaders. It brought to light before the entire world that our government was willfully violating our constitutional rights. And it set back the NSA's spying efforts by years.
If Snowden was an NSA plant, it was the worst idea anyone in government ever had.
What trouble did Clapper get in?
How did Snowden set back spying efforts in any way?
Clapper didn't get in any trouble at all. That's part of the point. What the NSA was doing was approved at the highest levels. Clapper isn't going to get in trouble for doing what he's told.
And there have been multiple articles about the "Snowden Effect" and how it has set back the NSA intel gathering abilities (spying on our allies for example) years as other countries clamp down on protecting themselves.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2490297/data-privacy/one-year-later--four-reasons-edward-snowden-remains-a-polarizing-figure.html
"Others have been saying the NSA is spying on us for years before Snowden came out."
It was the stuff of conspiracy theories before Snowden's leaks. No one was taking it seriously enough to change anything that they were doing.
"I'm just pointing out many things i think are odd about his story."
Finding something odd is different than flat out calling him a liar and then not providing anything credible to back up your claim; which you did.
You're just spreading misinformation at this point. Wait, are you an NSA implant?
So how is Snowden a liar?
And who has released the amount of physical proof that Snowden has?
Have there been whistleblowers in the past? Without a doubt. Has anyone done it as successfully as Snowden? No.