In today's Guardian Spencer Ackerman is making a case that Edward Snowden is a "whistleblower, not a spy".
Why? Because, apparently, "Those documents ... were provided to the Guardian..., not al-Qaeda...".
True enough, but why split hair? I can think of many similarities between the two organizations:
- All their fans are utterly obsessed with Jews. Take people who commented on Ackerman's article. For no apparent reason they are all focused on Pollard (real spy, unlike Snowden) and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (also, apparently, a traitor, albeit not "according to the legal definition").
- Both organizations provide support to Hamas, albeit via different means.
- Last, but not least, both organizations, apparently, attended the same school of sophistry and demagoguery.
I mean... If the guy steals highly confidential information, puts it on a laptop and goes to China and Russia... According to Ackerman there is no indication whatsoever that Snowden gave away any secrets. Spencer Ackerman and myself - both of us - have an extraordinary level of confidence that under no circumstances will Mr Putin's government access all these secrets within Mr Snowden's laptop while the poor whistleblower is secreted in the best place for the innocent free speech activists and whistleblowers in the whole world. That would be Sheremet'evo Airport, Russia.
1 hour ago
6 comments:
"Spencer Ackerman is national security editor for Guardian US."
Uhu... case closed.
Yeah, he was the guy who got upset that counter-terrorism personnel from FBI started to frequent an odd mosque. Not at all a suitable place to look for Islamic terrorists. More suitable places are local libraries and Starbucks coffee shops. That's what every self-respecting security editor from Guardian can vouch for.
Naw, Snowden was a spy.
You forgot the synagogues, methinks.
Still is, far as I know.
Quite. Well known cradles of Islamic terrorism.
Post a Comment