no autopsy = no believing anything the americans say.
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
31 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4408 readers
180 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Absolutely. The only reason they'd refuse to do an autopsy, is because it would confirm with certainty what the doctors already knew, that it was medication-related.
the parents are the ones that refused an autopsy BUT congress has a fund to pay out people who sue the DPRK (the only country they do this for btw) which the parents did sue, so 2 and 2 together make 4.
He was given a task by the feds and got caught
he got botulism and went into a coma. is there that much to it?
Good thread on it here: https://x.com/UsaKfl/status/1887881223873147327
Wish it wasn't on x the everything app so I could read it
oooh thanks a working twitter reader
xcancel.com is still working too.
its been dodgy for me
A lot of this is really hard to believe:
Back in September, I had dinner at my friend Stephen Webb’s house with his mother, Sharon Webb, who is a deaconess at the Friendship United Methodist Church. She mentioned that communist nations value propaganda slogans and suggested that I take one from the country to display in her church as a trophy. She then continued, knowing that I was desperate to get a car for transportation between home and university every day. She offered me a used car and $10,000 if I succeeded. She also said that if I were detained and unable to return, her church would pay my mother $200,000 as a generous contribution, which I intended to use for my siblings’ college tuition—though this would still be $200,000 short of the total $400,000 needed.
A car and $10k for a sign? Even if you buy that the church encouraged this and had money to burn, that's a lot for something that amounts to "huh, that's neat."
The thing is it sounds completely impossible but then you look into who these organizations are and what they do and you come out thinking you will never doubt the DPRK ever again lol.
The CIA is an evil organization that has done all sorts of wild shit, but that doesn't mean every weird accusation directed at them is true.
why is the accusation weird?
Why would anyone pay $10k (and a car) for a sign?
What are the odds one of the few people willing to pay $10k for a sign would also just happen to have a kid who has a friend who's going to the DPRK?
Why would I believe a far-fetched story that (if you watch the video) is carefully rehearsed (along with the answers to follow up questions)?
I have no idea what actually happened here, but this does not remotely pass the sniff test.
10k is a small price to pay for an international propaganda win. Upper-class USonians spend less than that on re-roofing their house every few years.
An international propaganda win? It's a sign!
That's what's weird here -- a big chunk of money supposedly offered for something that would rate basically zero news coverage, and that is of zero substantive use.
Otto warmbier was an international story, and they did spin it into an anti-DPRK story. We wouldn't know his name if it wasn't.
Warmbier was never paid for his attempt because he died obviously, but if the money was a motivating factor, then it succeeded.
I don't think they necessarily had any intent on paying out the money, but if they did 10k is peanuts for this kind of organization. We can say it's just a sign all we want but Otto went on a restricted floor to find it. He could have probably bought a souvenir poster in a store if he wanted to, but he didn't.
is carefully rehearsed
Yes, but that's how press statements are. Everyone rehearses them and reads from a script they just pretend they don't.
This is stuff we more or less easily accept when it happens elsewhere but as soon as it happens in the DPRK everyone instantly becomes a sleuth. As if things that happen in the DPRK are naturally more mysterious because the forest spirits are stronger there or something.
Yes, but that’s how press statements are.
The initial statement someone gives to the press is often rehearsed, but answers to questions from the media usually aren't. A media-trained person might come off as poised or pivoting to some talking points, but that's very different from what appears to be a fully-scriped answer.
A car and $10k for a sign? Even if you buy that the church encouraged this and had money to burn, that’s a lot for something that amounts to “huh, that’s neat.”
I mean, as far as I understand, the story is that's what he was told, which motivated him to do it given the money he/family needed. Not that he ever got such a payout. Could easily be the church person lied to get him to do it and had never intended to pay out anything.
It's possible, it just sounds incredibly far fetched. And with the press conference being obviously rehearsed... there's no reason to believe this story.
I don't get what's far-fetched about it. We're talking about the same country (the US) whose FBI has done stuff like this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-entrapment (Going to great lengths to get someone to commit a crime, so they can arrest them for it)
Obviously that's not exactly the same thing we're talking about, since in this case it'd be wanting to get a result to the US's benefit, not one they'd personally want to arrest the person for, but there's even an example of offering someone money in that same article, through an informant. We know that the US has done coups and terrorism across the world. We know it's done absolutely out there stuff like project MKUltra. And this one isn't even that wild. Why is any of this a stretch?
it’d be wanting to get a result to the US’s benefit
How? A sign from the DPRK has zero value beyond "oh that's kind of neat." Coups and terrorism have meaningful end goals, not "look at this weird sign I have."
it's obviously an entry level mission for the CIA
they do this bullshit all the time. if you pay attention to Russia's claims regarding Ukraine FSB (CIA) funded terrost incidents. They often get civilians to do pointless shit (for $$$), and if they succeed, the next "quest" they get is like putting a package at a certain location except hey, this time the package is a bomb.
The CIA does not give missions under the alias of CIA. They have an incredible amount of front companies and organizations including cults, NGOs, billionaire moguls, foundations of all sorts, and even government organizations like USAID.
How?
A bungling young adult and a story they can use to vilify the DPRK. And if he actually succeeds? Someone they can escalate with, trying to get him to do more and more. Frats sometimes do hazing type things that are of a similar nature ("steal such and such from so and so") and they aren't even that serious as orgs go. I'm genuinely confused as to why it's so out there to you.
a story they can use to vilify the DPRK
They don't need a one millionth story like this, and successfully stealing a sign doesn't give them one, anyway. It's a sign, not a state secret.
You're right that stealing a sign is basically a frat prank, and no one gives you a car or $10k for one of those. Say this happened in the U.S., and some frat bro got busted for stealing a sign from a post office or whatever -- would "I was actually offered $10k and a car to do this" strike you as a likely story?
Then there's the question of if you're already paying the guy for a story, why not just have him make one up? South Korean media already does this with defectors -- no proof is needed because there's zero scrutiny in most media.
and successfully stealing a sign doesn’t give them one, anyway.
I didn't say it does. Reread what I wrote.
In any case, if you're going to overthink this so hard, at least apply some of it to the other end. Why would the DPRK go to great lengths to "coach" him on... what exactly are you implying? A needlessly complex story, when they could coach him with a much simpler one? And to what end? What exactly would they gain by putting so much energy into such a story? Contrary to how the west acts, the world does not actually revolve around it and the DPRK has matters of its own people to attend to.
Say this happened in the U.S., and some frat bro got busted for stealing a sign from a post office or whatever – would “I was actually offered $10k and a car to do this” strike you as a likely story?
Yes, actually. People lie sometimes. I don't get how you can understand more generally than people can lie, but find it sooo hard to believe someone could do so to a young adult with a false offer. Genuinely being given $10k and a car would be harder to believe, but still possible if coming from an org that has a lot of money; however, at that point, I'd assume the point is to get them on the hook mafia style (which is not out of the realm of possibility for how US interests operate, at all).
"This doesn't pass the sniff test" isn’t overthinking, it's applying the minimum level of skepticism that should be applied to every story.
As for what really happened: I don't know, but it's also an assumption that the DPRK is who fabricated this story. Maybe Warmbier did, the DPRK had no way to disprove it, so they had him state it for the public. A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie is probably the simplest explanation.
With all due respect, this is nothing more than "I am an independent thinker and I can be neutral" mistake in thinking.
"A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie is probably the simplest explanation." isn't "the minimum level of skepticism that should be applied to every story", it's a specific bias toward believing that out of at least 3 different parties involved in the story (Otto, the DPRK, and anyone he knew in the US), he's exclusively the liar. And him coming up with a lie that elaborate is not a "simple explanation," it's a bizarrely specific story for anyone to invent, much less a seemingly random 21 year old. The kind of thinking you're applying here is not skepticism across the board or you wouldn't be reaching for your end statement explanation. What it suggests is an unwillingness to believe in certain capacities of the US and what kind of behavior can come out of it, not skepticism inherently, which I frankly don't understand because as ridiculous as some things can sound on the surface, we're talking about the country that actually did stuff like MKUltra. If it were anyone else, I would more understand being in doubt, but the story actually fits the plausible deniability gangster state character of the US and its history like a glove.
it’s a bizarrely specific story for anyone to invent
It's a bizarre story, period. When anyone comes to you with a bizarre story, you don't just take them at their word.
This is more of a "it comes from a country I generally support and is against a country I generally oppose, so I'm not going to look to closely" mistake.
Now you insist on a universalized principle that a story can be objectively recognized as bizarre and then one is supposed to be dismissive of it or there is something wrong with their thinking. This is more shallow pretense of neutrality that doesn't exist. I repeatedly bring up MKUltra because it is a perfect example of something that can sound hard to believe, but actually happened. Sometimes things that stretch our personal sense of credibility do occur and I say "personal sense of" because that is what it is in reality most of the time, not something universal. It might be shocking for a westerner, for example, to learn about the atrocities imperial Japan did to China. But for someone who has grown up being taught about it and being surrounded by people who are connected to its consequences, it would likely be less immediately shocking, being disseminated more gradually, while also being uniquely disturbing, being more personal. This is just one example of the relativity of perceptions of information and how people come in contact with it, and it is also why I emphasize the gangster state character of the US; another example of the relativity of perception is surrounding context. It would not be strange to hear that a geographical area that tends to be very cold has gotten snowed on. It would be strange to hear that a geographical area that is never cold enough for snow has gotten twelve inches of it. Universality exists, but is not something to be taken for granted lightly, contrary to what western thought tends to have people doing.
If you were to believe the MK Ultra story based solely on a well-rehearsed press statement from one single person, yes, there would be something wrong with your thinking. We believe MK Ultra happened because there's evidence of it beyond just the story. Without that evidence, skepticism is warranted.
We've already been over why you are not applying skepticism here and you aren't being impartial. When it's really broken down past the empty insistence on objectivity and universality, your argument amounts to "this didn't feel true to me, so I'm going to spend post after post trying to rationalize disbelieving after the fact." Skepticism is just doubt, that's it, it is not a position of asserting alternative positions of your own without evidence, such as you did in saying the likelihood is a "A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie". It is not asserting garbage like "well-rehearsed press statement", as if you know without evidence that he was coached and are starting from that premise.
You're full of shit on this, is the nicest way I can put it right now. Having doubt alone would be fine, but you're twisting the meaning of having doubt to serve your own alternative narrative and that's BS.
It is not asserting garbage like “well-rehearsed press statement”, as if you know without evidence that he was coached
I don't think you watched the video
I never saw the videos. I think they tell the story rather well.
He dead.
Depends where in the story you want to start
Start where you desire.
He came, he saw and he died.