Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a 'Russian asset'

[Belz...]

What points would you like me to address?

That your other links, which you held up in support for your point, did not rule out other uses.

Remember Yuppy's Wiki link about the use of the word? If you go back to the 2005 version of the page, which is admitedly short, you find exactly the same bit I quoted earlier about some assets being used unwittingly. So the word has been used for at least 15 years in the very way you deny it has been. I could look further on the internet for that, but I'd like you to some of that yourself, at this point.

A slight retraction of your personal attacks would also be appreciated.

 

[kellyb]

That your other links, which you held up in support for your point, did not rule out other uses.

Remember Yuppy's Wiki link about the use of the word? If you go back to the 2005 version of the page, which is admitedly short, you find exactly the same bit I quoted earlier about some assets being used unwittingly. So the word has been used for at least 15 years in the very way you deny it has been. I could look further on the internet for that, but I'd like you to some of that yourself, at this point.

A slight retraction of your personal attacks would also be appreciated.

1) I did look, and there's nothing there. I've spent well over 2 hours looking and it doesn't exist.

2) my "personal attack" about your reading comprehension was an accurate observation. You were failing to read and comprehend.

3) this is the full quote of the 2005 wiki page on assets:

Asset (intelligence)

In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries that are being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy.

There are different categories of assets, including people [*]that willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there's few other ways available. [*]that work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets. [*]that have been blackmailed and forced into their role [*]that don't even know they are being used. Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.

There's nothing in there about "some assets being used unwittingly" that I can see. Can you quote the exact sentence, if you see it?

[eta: sorry! I see it in the last line now. But it still only pertains to people providing info to foreign government, not people who might run as a third party candidate, anti-war activists, etc. ]

Also, notice that it defines them as "persons within organizations or countries that are being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy."

Is that what Gabbard, Stein, Trump, and "the entire GOP" are being accused of when they're called "assets"?

 

[Belz...]

1) I did look, and there's nothing there. I've spent well over 2 hours looking and it doesn't exist.

Clearly you haven't looked hard enough if I found one in under a minute.

2) my "personal attack" about your reading comprehension was an accurate observation. You were failing to read and comprehend.

That's not what you said that I'm objecting to. You said it was impossible to have a conversation or that I was doing it on purpose.

There's nothing in there about "some assets being used unwittingly" that I can see. Can you quote the exact sentence, if you see it?

For ****'s sake:

In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries that are being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy.

There are different categories of assets, including people[*]that willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there's few other ways available.[*]that work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets.[*]that have been blackmailed and forced into their role[*]that don't even know they are being used. Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.

Seriously, it's a short article, Kelly. How could you miss that?

ETA:

[eta: sorry! I see it in the last line now. But it still only pertains to people providing info to foreign government, not people who might run as a third party candidate, anti-war activists, etc. ]

You have got to be joking. That was never a stipulation of the discussion, was it? You have clear evidence that the term has been used as claimed at least as far back as 2005.

 

[kellyb]

Clearly you haven't looked hard enough if I found one in under a minute.

That's not a definition of "asset" that's even remotely close to what "the entire GOP", Trump, Gabbard, and Stein are being accused of being.

That's not what you said. You said it was impossible to have a conversation or that I was doing it on purpose.

We were stuck in a loop where you weren't understanding anything I was saying, for SOME reason.

For ****'s sake:



Seriously, it's a short article, Kelly. How could oyu miss that?

Reading fail on my part, there. My bad. I was editing as you were posting.

 

[Belz...]

That's not a definition of "asset" that's even remotely close to what "the entire GOP", Trump, Gabbard, and Stein are being accused of being.

And? Let's focus here: Your claim was that the term was not, until very recently, used to mean unwitting assets. We you wrong or not?

We were stuck in a loop where you weren't understanding anything I was saying, for SOME reason.

Still waiting for you to walk back the personalisation.

 

[kellyb]

You have got to be joking. That was never a stipulation of the discussion, was it? You have clear evidence that the term has been used as claimed at least as far back as 2005.

Okay...when people say Gabbard is "a Russian asset", what do they mean?

Do they mean the wiki, etc definition of "asset", which is "persons within organizations or countries that are being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy?"

If not, what DO they mean?

 

[Belz...]

Okay...when people say Gabbard is "a Russian asset", what do they mean?

Do they mean the wiki, etc definition of "asset", which is "persons within organizations or countries that are being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy?"

If not, what DO they mean?

I can't speak for anyone else, but as I stated before the discussion we were having was about whether the term had been in use before to mean that someone was an 'asset' to another country, whether they knew it or not. You contended that they had to do it deliberately and that the word had not been used otherwise until very recently. The 2005 article proves you wrong on that. I'd like to conclude this bit before we move on to Gabbard's specific case.

 

[kellyb]

And? Let's focus here: Your claim was that the term was not, until very recently, used to mean unwitting assets. We you wrong or not?



Still waiting for you to walk back the personalisation.

There is NO use of the phrase "unwitting asset" before Russiagate.

https://www.google.com/search?q="un...LlAhUF7awKHc-1BSU4ChDy0wMIdQ&biw=1366&bih=609

(Only 14 links)

Closest you can find is some person who lied to the CIA and then waked the lie back.

 

[Belz...]

There is NO use of the phrase "unwitting asset" before Russiagate.

Stop moving the goalposts, Kelly. Did the meaning of the word 'asset' including unwitting participants prior to 2016?

 

[kellyb]

I can't speak for anyone else, but as I stated before the discussion we were having was about whether the term had been in use before to mean that someone was an 'asset' to another country, whether they knew it or not. You contended that they had to do it deliberately and that the word had not been used otherwise until very recently. The 2005 article proves you wrong on that. I'd like to conclude this bit before we move on to Gabbard's specific case.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12866219&postcount=428

 

[kellyb]

Stop moving the goalposts, Kelly. Did the meaning of the word 'asset' including unwitting participants prior to 2016?

Not according to any reliable sources I've been able to find.

Can you find anything better than an unsourced wikipedia page?

 

[Belz...]

Not according to any reliable sources I've been able to find.

Can you find anything better than an unsourced wikipedia page?

The wiki is enough to show that the term was used as such prior to 2016. For some reason you're unwilling to admit it.

I'm starting to suspect that there is no source or argument you'll accept. First it was "it wasn't used to mean unwitting before", and when presented with evidence that it was "oh, but they didn't say 'unwitting' outright" (yeah, and Trump didn't say 'I promise' either) and "oh, but is that what they're accusing Gabbard of?". Not only are you moving the goalposts but you're also now raising the bar at every opportunity. Doesn't sound to me like you're even open to the possibility of being wrong.

 

[kellyb]

The wiki is enough to show that the term was used as such prior to 2016. For some reason you're unwilling to admit it.

I'm starting to suspect that there is no source or argument you'll accept. First it was "it wasn't used to mean unwitting before", and when presented with evidence that it was "oh, but they didn't say 'unwitting' outright" (yeah, and Trump didn't say 'I promise' either) and "oh, but is that what they're accusing Gabbard of?". Not only are you moving the goalposts but you're also now raising the bar at every opportunity. Doesn't sound to me like you're even open to the possibility of being wrong.

The whole post Russia-gate definition of "asset" as applied to Gabbard, Stein, the GOP, etc wasn't in existence before.

I'm sorry, dude, but finding an old unsourced wiki entry referring to people unwittingly giving secret info to governments, something which is completely different from it's new, post-Russiagate use as applied to Gabbard, Stein, etc, does not refute that.

Just to remind you of what got us started down this rabbit hole, it was here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12863115&postcount=231

In spy terms, being an "asset" only means that you are beneficial to an objective, and as such might be given support rather than being obstructed.

And I said "nope".

And TGZ's definition, that "you are beneficial to an objective, and as such might be given support rather than being obstructed" IS what people (like Hillary Clinton) mean when they call Stein, Gabbard, the entire GOP, etc "assets".

 

[Belz...]

The whole post Russia-gate definition of "asset" as applied to Gabbard, Stein, the GOP, etc wasn't in existence before.

I'm sorry, dude, but finding an old unsourced wiki entry referring to people unwittingly giving secret info to governments, something which is completely different from it's new, post-Russiagate use as applied to Gabbard, Stein, etc, does not refute that.

What are you talking about? Gabbard is either a willing asset, or an unwilling one, or an unwitting one, or not one at all. You are contesting the idea that 'unwitting' was part of the definition before, and I've provided you with evidence that it was. I have no idea what you're refering to.

Just to remind you of what got us started down this rabbit hole, it was here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12863115&postcount=231


And I said "nope".

And TGZ's definition, that "you are beneficial to an objective, and as such might be given support rather than being obstructed" IS what people (like Hillary Clinton) mean when they call Stein, Gabbard, the entire GOP, etc "assets".

And? The idea being that their actions make them beneficial to Russia's goals, and therefore they have been called assets under that broader definition. The 2005 wiki quote supports this usage.

If you think otherwise you'll have to be clearer about what you're saying.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So... why Gabbard? Do the Russians have some dirt on her? She's a junior Representative from Hawaii, and like... 3,284th in line for the Democratic Nomination.

Even if we take all this at face value I don't see what value she's gonna serve as a sleeper agent / monkey wrench.

 

[kellyb]

What are you talking about? Gabbard is either a willing asset, or an unwilling one, or an unwitting one, or not one at all. You are contesting the idea that 'unwitting' was part of the definition before, and I've provided you with evidence that it was. I have no idea what you're refering to.

You're the one who brought this whole "unwitting" aspect into the discussion. But keep on chasing your tail there.

The idea being that their actions make them beneficial to Russia's goals, and therefore they have been called assets under that broader definition. The 2005 wiki quote supports this usage.

No, the wiki definition of "asset" only supports the use of the word being applied to people who provide secret into to a government.

It's "persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy."

NOT people whose "actions make them beneficial to [some country's] goals".

 

[Belz...]

You're the one who brought this whole "unwitting" aspect into the discussion.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you forgot the point at which I entered the discussion, and that you are not dishonestly and deliberately misrepresenting my posts here. Here's the post I was responding to:

I think "useful idiot" is perfectly synonymous with "asset" as it has been commonly used over the years. I think it is exactly in this sense that Hillary meant it.

My only question is whether some people actually think Hillary meant Gabbard is a literal Russian agent, and whether some people actually think that Gabbard is a literal Russian agent.

I'm not actually interested in the term, nor in the defiition of the term. I'm only interesting in what Hillary meant by it, and what other people in this conversation mean by it. I hope that makes sense. I don't care what the dictionary says it means. I care what you mean when you say it.

It has not been commonly been used that way over the years, though. Before Russiagate, "Russia asset" either mean a literal spy for Russia, or a financial/economic asset, like cash or property.

You might be fine with this warping of language, but I'm not.

You were clearly disagreeing with theprestige that someone could be an unwitting asset (a useful idiot, as he put it). That the word "unwitting" isn't there is completely immaterial, and your pedantry here reeks of desperation.

Admit it: you were WRONG. As far back as 2005 at the very least, the word "asset" could mean exactly what theprestige said.

 

[kellyb]

You were clearly disagreeing with theprestige that someone could be an unwitting asset (a useful idiot, as he put it). That the word "unwitting" isn't there is completely immaterial, and your pedantry here reeks of desperation.

Admit it: you were WRONG. As far back as 2005 at the very least, the word "asset" could mean exactly what theprestige said.

It had nothing to do with witting vs unwitting, it was about:

Before Russiagate, "Russia asset" either mean a literal spy for Russia, or a financial/economic asset, like cash or property.

SPY, as in "persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy."

eta:
A "useful idiot" is:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/useful_idiot

useful idiot
NOUN
derogatoryPolitics
(Originally) a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to communism who is regarded (by communists) as naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes.

If people want to accuse Gabbard, Stein and the GOP of being THAT - that is fine by me.

I just think it's messed up to use the word "asset" to describe the above.

 

[ahhell]

So... why Gabbard? Do the Russians have some dirt on her? She's a junior Representative from Hawaii, and like... 3,284th in line for the Democratic Nomination.

Even if we take all this at face value I don't see what value she's gonna serve as a sleeper agent / monkey wrench.

My suspicion is that the purpose is explaining why some apparently good liberal dem would Turn on Hillary Clinton (HRC). In the interview, HRC mentions Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard(I believe she only referred to Stein as an asset). Stein sorta makes sense, its possible that the few thousand votes Stein picked up in various swing states may have contributed to Trumps victory. IMHO, Gabbard is just someone HRC doesn't like.

Edited a typo.

 

[Belz...]

It had nothing to do with witting vs unwitting, it was about:

SPY, as in "persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy."

Kelly, come on. That was in response to theprestige saying that the term includes useful idiots, with which you disagreed. The wiki link I provided supports his point.

I think "useful idiot" is perfectly synonymous with "asset" as it has been commonly used over the years. I think it is exactly in this sense that Hillary meant it.

My only question is whether some people actually think Hillary meant Gabbard is a literal Russian agent, and whether some people actually think that Gabbard is a literal Russian agent.

I'm not actually interested in the term, nor in the defiition of the term. I'm only interesting in what Hillary meant by it, and what other people in this conversation mean by it. I hope that makes sense. I don't care what the dictionary says it means. I care what you mean when you say it.

It has not been commonly been used that way over the years, though. Before Russiagate, "Russia asset" either mean a literal spy for Russia, or a financial/economic asset, like cash or property.

You might be fine with this warping of language, but I'm not.

The highlighted is obviously a direct response to same in theprestige's post.

Of course it has something to do with "unwitting" since theprestige wrote "useful idiots" as part of the common definition and you said it wasn't part of it. Who are you trying to fool, here?