Hillary admits Saudi Arabia Funds Isis

We'll Trump said he knew more about isis than the government, he must be behind it aswell.

>>77962
Source?

>>77922
A Saudi prince owns 40% of Fox news. Saudis fund everything. What's your point, OP?

>>77965
The point is he just copypasted some post from >>>/pol/ and thought it was news.

>>77966
It is news

>>77967
How about you post an actual newslink then? Oh that's right, you can't because it isn't news... Read the sticky next time.

>>77968
Wikileaks is news and a proper source.

>>77969
>/news/ is exclusively for recent news articles, and not general discussions of politics, social phenomenon, or world events.
>Nothing older than 48 hours please.
Get out. >>>/pol/

>>77971
It is recent news it is about the election from a proper source.

>>77974
>It is recent news
No it isn't. It's a leak from last week.
>it is about the election
>>>/pol/
>from a proper source.
lol according to whom? see >>77961

>>77976
Wikileaks is releasing factual information as it came from direct evidence the emails of the Hillary campaign.

>>77976
The leak is within the last day he leaked some info last week and more recently drip drip drip http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/wikileaks-releases-another-1100-emails-john-podesta-third-data-dump

>>77983
>zerohedge
>>>/godlikeproductions/

>>77978
Then post a news article about it. Not blog trash or youtube videos or someone's twitter feed.

>>77991
The news is Wikileaks the direct source is Hillaries campaign emails as long as that is cited it is sufficient first hand sources are better then second hand which you are demanding to see.

>>77964
The 2nd presidential debate

>>77992
don't bother
for him (or her), in order for something to be credible, it needs to be approved by MSM.
next years total eclipse of the sun will become real only when talked about on the morning shows
until then, it's just speculation created by nerds at NASA (upset for getting enough funds)

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist... BUT the media outlets would not be allowed to report this. The so called "crediible sources" are corrupt. Take everything here as hearsay and do your own fact finding.

>>77974
>proper source.
It's not a news source

>>78012
Yes it is Wikileaks is run by journalists.

ITT: CTR kicked into overdrive.

>>78012
>Democrats on Wikileaks 2006-2009
>YES, SEE BUSH IS CORRUPT, LOOK AT HOW BAD THE NEO-CONS ARE LOL

>Democrats on Wikileaks 2015-2016
>whoa whoa whoa, this isn't a legitimate source, Assange is a Russian plant

Even if one counts wikileaks as a valid news source, there isn't anything current about this.

>>>/pol/

>>78027
There is it was released yesterday.

>>78029
Can you back that up with a news link?

>>78030
Not him but you know he can't besides tinfoil blogs that report on everything wikileaks says.

It doesn't matter anyway because it's a stupid "leak" considering that the Saudis partially fund everything from The New York Mets to the toll operations on The Golden Gate Bridge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/business/international/saudi-threat-to-sell-us-assetscould-hurt-but-mostly-the-saudis.html

>>78030
Go read the thread he dumped more info
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/wikileaks-releases-another-1100-emails-john-podesta-third-data-dump

>>78030
Here proof they released the info within 48 hours ago.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785819973247795200

>>78027
You do understand that your obvious attempts at derailing this thread and shutting it down lends credibility to the OP since to you is a threatening link, which is compounded by the fact that you haven't created a substantial argument as to WHY the wikileaks leak should be ignored.

>>78037
Post a real news source and not a twitter post, idiot.

>>78047
This isn't /pol/, jackass. All you have to do is post a real newssource but apparently it's too hard for you.

>>78049
The source is Wikileaks the twitter post is showing when they announced they released the information.

>>78049
Keep digging that grave retard, you're just piquing everyone's interest who sees this thread.

Worst damage control ever CTR.

>>78051
Jesus Christ can you not even find a Breitbart clickbait hitpiece on it? Are you really that retarded?? It isn't like there aren't plenty of right wing outlets that have written about it.

>>78052
kikebart is too jewish to report on it.

>>78052
>Breitbart

Oh yeah, good guilty-by-association attempt. Amateur.

I've seen better propaganda come out of the DPRK than your posts.

>>78055
So I'll take your refusal/inablity to post even one valid news source as confirmation that it didn't happen. Come back when someone besides Zerohedge reports on it like it actually happened. Way to make Americans look like even bigger dumbasses there.

>>78056
Not him but the news source is hacked emails from the Clinton campaign that wikileaks released.

>>78057
You're missing the point. This is /news/, not /pol/. The whole point of this board is you're supposed to have a valid news link when you come here. Not some hacked or leaked documents. That's like saying Lulzsec was a news source inn 2010 for leaking the FBI's conference calls. That doesn't even get into the fact that The Saudis funding ISIS isn't exactly news. That has to do with why Obama just got Vetoed, remember?? They supposedly caused 9/11 too.


All he had to do is find some of the hundreds of sensationalist kneejerk clickbait stories about what the Saudis fund, but apparently that was too hard for him to comprehend.

I just looked on google and I saw dozens. I don't know why this is so hard for some /pol/lacks.

Here's a few:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-leak-wikileaks-saudi-arabia-qatar-isis-podesta-latest-a7355466.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-in-leaked-email-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-are-funding-isis/

>>78056
An unbiased news source? Such as CNN, which has shown substantial bias for the Clinton campaign? Maybe Fox News, which is heavily invested in by the Saudis.

The best thing about this election has been the destruction of the mainstream media's credibility. Just a bunch of whored out corporations sold to the highest bidders. How does it feel being the new bad guys, being the ones you claim you're against? Its quite refreshing to me
t b h.

Get the memo, you're never getting your war against Iran or Syria.

>>78058
>Not some hacked or leaked documents.

If they have been confirmed authentic why are they not valid those are the sources that the newspapers are quoting.

>>78060
Learn what a news aggregator is, kid.

http://spidr.today/

>>78061
>If they have been confirmed authentic
Have they? It isn't like you're going to find that out from fucking Zerohedge. That's one of the many good reasons why you're supposed to have a valid news link here.

>>78063
>go through our approved sources and channels

Literally 1984 faggotry

>>78066
If you don't like it why are you here? You're free to post as much fact-free news as you want on /pol/.

>>78067
Keep crying kiddo, people are seeing this as you bump the thread over and over and over.

>>78068
>he thinks people view /news/ under bump order
It's like you think you're on /pol/ or something.

>>78070
I looks at /news/ under last reply with 4chanx

>>78071
How horrible it must be to have month old news bumped to the top all the time.

I think if you aren't looking at /news/ by creation date then you're doing it wrong.

>>78067
holy shit you faggot. No one trusts the Lugenpresse any more.

>>78077
I like how you claim to speak for everybody, but not trusting the press is why people look at news aggregators nowadays instead of getting news from just a few sources.

>>78075
>a month time means the story is no longer important
Dumb. Do you go by reply count, which could nothing but trolls? Lets check out the highest counts- a transgender fired, Trump's pussy comment, and abortion in Poland.
Its fucking nothing.
>>78080
Multiple sources have been listed itt.

>>78081
*which could amount to

Sorry, working at the moment. But seriously you're being outright evil at this point without scruples.

>>78081
see
>>77971

>>78085
see
>>78037

>>78086
see
>>78049
and
>>78054
and
>>78058

>>78090
>I want to be told something from a third party than see it myself

Non arguments

>>77997

>Take everything here as hearsay and do your own fact finding.

And if everything is corrupt, where exactly are you going to get your sources? No offense, but the belief that credible sources are corrupt and that media outlets "wouldn't be allowed" to report on anything IS conspiracy theorist.

The problem is conspiracy theorism is not the skepticism, but the selective tunnel vision that results from it. When you start writing off massive chunks of information as "corrupt" and "hearsay" you start to write off the word "credible" as well.

>>78095
It doesn't help that the media, mainstream media, are often publicly traded corporations that can be bought, likewise are controlled by corporations and foreign powers who seek to exert influence over the media has been proven, not a conspiracy. If we're going to be skeptical, be skeptical. But what is more suspicious, the MSM that ceased to report the from the same Wikileaks that they used time and again nearly a decade ago or the sources that currently do?
Why isn't it suspicious to you that now, after Wikileaks began publishing leaks incriminating to Clinton rather than Bush or Obama, the media has quit mentioning them without providing any contrary evidence disproving them?

>>78092
Welcome to /news/, newfriend. Please lurk more before posting.

>>78103
I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, but news sources can be objectively ranked by order of objectivity and accuracy. There are such things as impartial facts.

For instance, democracynow on the left or weeklystandard on the right are objectively better news sources than zerohedge or breitbart or the huffington post.

/news/ is supposed to be non-partisan and biased toward what actually happened.

>>78105
Wikileaks has been proven non-partisan by its exposing leaked emails and cables from both the Bush and Obama administrations.

>Democracy Now and Weekly Standard (a literal blog by a neo-con) are objectively better than Zerohedge or Breitbart or Huffington Post

9/10, pretty good, you had me up to that point.

>>78109
Wikileaks isn't a news source. I only said weeklystandard and democracynow were better news sources than breitbart or huffpost, Anon, not that they were good. At least they are based in reality but of course they have their respective agendas. And the weekly standard isn't a blog any more than democracynow is. It's a magazine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard

>>78111
Why is Wikileaks not a news source?

>>78112
Because they don't have any actual journalists working there. They are a leak dump and a whistleblower clearing house, not a journalistic outlet.

>>78114
They do though anon.
>Joseph Farrell is a British journalist and WikiLeaks advocate. Prior to working with WikiLeaks, he worked for the Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ). He is on the board of the CIJ and was a member of the Civil Society Coalition at the WIPO diplomatic conference on a treaty for copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities in Marrakesh, Morocco.

>Sarah Harrison is a British journalist and researcher. She has worked as section editor of WikiLeaks. Prior to this she worked for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Centre for Investigative Journalism. In 2013, she courageously assisted Edward Snowden with his lawful departure from Hong Kong and accompanied him on his passage to safety. Ms. Harrison received the Willy Brandt Peace Prize in 2015 for her work with WikiLeaks. She is currently Acting Director of the Courage Foundation and advocate for WikiLeaks.

>Kristinn Hrafnsson is an Icelandic investigative journalist and WikiLeaks advocate. Prior to this, he worked as a journalist and spokesperson for WikiLeaks. Mr. Hrafnsson won Iceland’s peak journalism prize, the Icelandic Press Association Award, three times: in 2004 for best feature, 2007 for investigative journalism and in 2010 as Journalist of the Year.

https://wikileaks.org/Enquiries-and-Contact.html

>>78115
Okay, now show me where all three of those vetted these leaks.

>>78117
I don't know that anon I just got the info from their website why don't you email them and ask?

>>78118
They didn't, Anon, that's my point. If they were anything like an actual journalistic outlet then they would have released their story on the leaks along with the leaks and not just the leaks. That's the fundamental difference between what wikileaks does and a credible news source.

>>78119
Ok that is a fair point.

>>78119
>Mr. Hrafnsson won Iceland’s peak journalism prize, the Icelandic Press Association Award, three times: in 2004 for best feature, 2007 for investigative journalism and in 2010 as Journalist of the Year.

>Ms. Harrison received the Willy Brandt Peace Prize in 2015 for her work with WikiLeaks.

> Prior to working with WikiLeaks, he worked for the Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ). He is on the board of the CIJ and was a member of the Civil Society Coalition at the WIPO diplomatic conference on a treaty for copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities in Marrakesh, Morocco.

You're just going to ignore their altruistic, unbiased, award-winning backgrounds while arguing definitions, goalposts, and semantics?

>>78121
No I'm not ignoring them but I am pointing out that none of those supposed journalists worked to vet these leaks, or at least there is no evidence they did. That was my point.

>>78123
Why wouldn't they vet the leak?

>>78125
If they did then why wouldn't their story accompany the leak? When has wikileaks ever written a news story on anything and not just provided a place to dump leaks?

>>78126
>When has wikileaks ever written a news story on anything and not just provided a place to dump leaks?

Well now you show you don't even know Wikileaks, they post news stories and blogs all the time, complete with citations.

My favorite is their exposé on Google and the extent of it's influence and power.

https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

Now you expose your ignorance. Are you going to continue to air your uneducated opinions or will you stop?

>>78126
Kek you're really speaking out of your ass.
>News story
https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-goes-after-hyper-secret.html

>>78131
>>78133
Blog posts =//= news stories, genius.

>>78126
https://wikileaks.org/-News-.html

>>78134
>not just a place to dump leaks
>blogs with citations on news stories

Yah dun screwed up.

>>78135
>>78137
Read the sticky.
>Blogs and editorial articles are not acceptable news sources.

>>78134
https://wikileaks.org/Protesters-against-WikiLeaks.html
Satisfied?

>>78139
That isn't even sourced. It's a blog post about him gloating over his "victory" over PayPal. How does that provide a journalistic vetting of the leaks in OP's post?

>>78138
You yourself stated these were leaks not blogs or editorials.

They are within the rules.

>>78144
How is a leak a news article?

>>78145
Because it is news.

>>78146
There are plenty of other people who have posted actual news stories about Hillary's leaks. It isn't like it's hard.

Be like >>78073 and >>77557 , not like >>77922

>>77964
Nigga what, he's said it at every debate and rally.

>>78147
Sorry but you don't make the rules.

I wonder what kind of person would attack one of the few unbiased sources against government corruption left. Wikileaks helped destroy the Bush administration's remaining popularity and exposed numerous Republican politicians, so it is clear they don't run with a bias but rather report what they are given.

How does a shill operate, seeing this ever-piling mountain of evidence and still maintain this attack on open source journalism? You must be some sort of true ideologue, a true believer who sees the opposition as Nazis in order to ignore the continuous stream of information exposing your boss as a sell out, a hypocrite, an un-American opportunist who only seeks money and power.

How many people just don't show up to work one day, burned out after being repeatedly disproven or shown new information?
Have you had that epiphany yet that you're the "bad guy", "the man", working for "the system"? Is your resolve cracking, I mean I am impressed with this Alinsky-ist method of arguing here, it is pure autism of circular reasoning intended to wear out any opposition. Wouldn't it be cheaper at this point to just send someone to Assange and "deal with him"?

bumpin to piss off shills

>>78153
see
>>78119


>>78194
This isn't a fast board like /pol/ where bumping matters. Bumping doesn't work when most people view the catalog by creation date to stay current.

>>78153

> one of the few unbiased sources against government corruption left

Except Wikileaks isn't the source, they're the distributor. Every time they have a leak, someone else is doing the hard work of investigative reporting or hacking to get that information. Wikileaks is merely a passive receiver of this information, they don't keep dedicated investigative journalists on payroll to keep digging into things. And keeping these journalist around is important to give an organization external reach, because without them you'll rely entirely on hackers, who don't necessarily go after smaller fish, and whistle-blowers, who won't necessarily exist in every organization. Without any external reach, Wikileaks is subject to the whims and bias of its sources, and is such merely a tool of the sources.

Because of this, there's only two ways that Wikileaks can even be biased: what it chooses to release and its release schedule. Therefore the bias or unbias of Wikileaks is actually totally irrelevant, except when they decide to withhold something or time the release to maximize or minimize damage. In this respect I sometimes question Wikileaks, or at least Julian Assange's leadership of it, because that man has obvious biases. Their bulk-distribution of the leaks can also be an issue, as their lack of combing through it can lead to the revelation of personal information that is not relevant to the public interest (the SSN or equivalent of a random citizen is NEVER public interest) or sensitive information that isn't helpful but can be very harmful (cables complaining about the accommodations in the embassy does little to advance public discourse, but certainly pisses off the host nation).

I'm not questioning their right to exist or some of the good stuff they've brought to light, but I don't feel like "unbiased source[] against government corruption" is a good label for them.

>>78204
> Except Wikileaks isn't the source, they're the distributor.
Journalism isn't a source but a distributor, a disseminator of information. You're only complaint is verification not done by what you deem is a "reputable" third party. Which we all know and as I pointed out are rarely unbiased, even when honest.
>Without any external reach, Wikileaks is subject to the whims and bias of its sources, and is such merely a tool of the sources.
The irony of this statement while "news outlets" expose their own bias by selecting the only information they want to share.
You also imply that Wikileaks is subject to the whims and biases of the information suppliers and that Assange himself has biases while not being able to refute his past exposure of Republican bad decisions, corruption, etc.
You haven't proven Assange has biases apart from conjecture without substance, once again you're proving your biases and willingness to ignore the evidence.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot without realizing it. Hope you're not being monitored.

> it can lead to the revelation of personal information that is not relevant to the public interest... or sensitive information that isn't helpful but can be very harmful
Neither of these are substantive criticisms, especially in regards to whistleblowing or investigative journalism, likewise those PROVE the authenticity of the emails and cables by providing insider information that can be verified.

>>78213

I'm >>78204 and I'm not the same guy who you were talking with before that, so please don't combine whatever that guy was saying with me. I'm just sharing my opinion of Wikileaks and I don't what whatever he was saying to alter your interpretation of my post.

Assange is known to view Hillary as a personal foe, though he's definitely not a fan of Trump either ("Personally, I would prefer neither."). Add that with the fact the current Democratic administration is out to get him, and I'm not sure he's an objective observer of the US political system. Plus they've had plenty of releases that seem to exist purely to harm US standing with its allies without revealing anything useful to the public ("the US spies on its allies!" no shit, sherlock, every nation spies on its allies and even has secret warplans to kill all their allies, because YOU NEVER FUCKING KNOW).

>You haven't proven Assange has biases apart from conjecture without substance, once again you're proving your biases and willingness to ignore the evidence.
>You keep shooting yourself in the foot without realizing it. Hope you're not being monitored.

This is really what ticked me off, honestly. This attitude that you believe that everything that isn't wikileaks is some horrible corrupted thing that can't be trusted, and that it's the final bastion against the dark forces of government. This assumption that anyone questioning wikileaks is paid by some sort of Hillary Defense Force.

Then again maybe I'm conflating your opinion with what seems to be the majority belief around here, which is to just distrust everything because of some grand conspiracy. Having to argue sources in nearly every topic ("RUSSIA IS NOT IN UKRAINE POST PROOFS" etc) has slowly been wearing me down.

>Neither of these are substantive criticisms
Like I said, it can be an issue, but generally isn't. It's a certain level of carelessness that I think other publishers are more likely to catch due to their resources.

Welcome to /news/, where every source that counters the narrative isn't valid.

>>78221

>Welcome to /news/, where every source that counters [my] narrative isn't valid.

I corrected this for you. Every argument is basically "my sources > your sources" as everyone defends their confirmation bias. It's probably the biggest problem with arguing on 4chan in general, since we're all a bunch of paranoid contrarians who won't believe anything even if we see it with our own eyes.

>>78058
I think you're missing the point if you think a second hand news article is better than the source.

Please President Trump.. Put these fks in jail.. Or better yet.. Please NSA . Wipe these fks out on the authority of the American people. Theyll take our arms soon.. NSA last line of defence...