Is there evidence that the Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh was announced on Twitter before it occurred? This thread will explore an oddity that seems to suggest: Yes. 1/
Let's start with khankendi.az. Khankendi is the Azerbaijani name for the capital of Karabakh. This site is now down. But it appears to have been set up as a kind of municipal Web page in waiting. It's slogan was "Khankendi: We'll be back." /2
And in January 2020, a Twitter account for it was created, called @khankendi. Since then, the account has published 271 tweets. It seeks to give the impression of inclusiveness by using Armenian occasionally. But judged by its content it is an instrument of propaganda. /4
On Sat Sep 26 10:08:31 +0000 2020 @Khankendi published this tweet with a martial video of soldiers preparing for battle. The language here warns, in Armenian, that the Azerbaijani forces "are coming." /5
In case that tweet vanishes, here is a screen grab, too. The timestamp comes from the embedded code. It is in UTC. Azerbaijan is UTC +4. So this means that was published at 2:08:31 pm in that time on Sat Sep 26. /6
I also pulled down the video embedded in the tweet. Its metadata indicates a create/modify date of 2020:09:26 10:08:26. That is consistent with it being copied shortly before upload, according to the above timestamp. /7
About two hours after that tweet was posted, a Twitter user in Rawalpindi, Pakistan commented on it. Google translates the comment as "Victory from God and imminent conquest." That was also on Sat Sep 26. /8
What makes all this curious, of course, is that fighting in Karabakh did not begin until the morning of Sept 27. The earliest tweet I could find was by @Pres_Artsakh. That was at Sun Sep 27 06:23:42 +0000 2020. His local time is also +4 UTC. So that was at 10:23 am. /9
Somehow, the people controlling the @khankendi account were aware the day before that Azerbaijani forces were "coming," and wanted to let people who could read Armenian know they were on their way. /End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD - For those of you following the Assange indictment, @emptywheel and @OrinKerr have been doing some great real-time response on CFAA and other issues, and @davidallengreen on the Sweden angle. /1
I think @emptywheel specifically wrote a thought-provoking piece sketching some of the potential dangers in this indictment /2
I would like to add one point. This material in the hands of any prosecutor will offer some serious complications, and the DOJ must know that. Or at least so it seems to me. /3
THREAD: Just a quick observation on recent Mueller indictment. In March 2017, I was sitting beside Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy, cruising Twitter, when up popped the following tweet from Roger Stone to @RVAwonk#backchannel 1/4
Assange said, "I think I know what Stone is talking about--I'm pretty sure--he says--there's some guy at WBAI. I did an interview with him. He said he knows Stone. He says he wanted to come to London to meet, but I didn't have time. You might want to talk to that guy." 2/4
Think about it. Assange was encouraging me--directing me--to talk to Stone's friend @Credico2016 ("Person 2"). This seemed immediately like a diversion. But I did reach out to Credico in good faith. I came away convinced he had no contact with Assange before Aug 25, 2016. 3/4
I have deep admiration for @thenation. I got my start in magazine writing at that publication. So, last year, when it published about the DNC hack being an "inside job" I tried to hold my tongue, even though it was a fiasco on many levels. bit.ly/2ftuwns (thread)
Then, last August, I read that after much criticism @thenation decided to review that article, and I was much relieved: wapo.st/2O0lI4e
But only briefly. Because I was then hugely dismayed to see that the result of that review was an editor's note, appended to the article with dueling memos debating arguments that were spurious to begin with "to encourage further inquiry."