Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Csonicgo

Julian Assange is a WMD in human form

Recommended Posts

First, he spilled the beans about the two shitty wars. Second, he leaked decades worth of "Cables" or fancy smancy correspondence of different countries, and now he's going to Fuck the fatcats of business.

This man has done more than the media has done in 4 decades. This shit is going to be bigger than Watergate if he gets his way.

Julian Assange is wanted in Sweden for rape. Apparently the case against him reopened mysteriously after it was initially dropped. Do you think that this is his weapon against attacks on him? Or do you think he's just dick-ratttling with world governments?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pissed off that we share the same first name. >:(

The White House is going to declare him a terrorist. Somehow, I'm inclined to agree.

Share this post


Link to post

He's a hacker at heart. Personally, I commend him for what he's doing. But I doubt the rape accusations are true. More likely they're fabricated by people who would like to see him shut up, and lack the understanding that he isn't really the "leader" of Wikileaks.

Share this post


Link to post

*crazy liberal mode activated*

There is no "terror" here, though. That's where I think that description fails. But congress is aiding and abetting torturers by refusing to do their constitutional duty (as discovered in the cables) therefore they are aiding and abetting treason. Perhaps congress should be declared a terrorist organization?

If the government isn’t doing anything wrong, it should have nothing to fear. That's what they tell us when they pass shit like the PATRIOT Act.
*crazy liberal mode deactivated*

What I wanna hear is how Fox News will spin it. I haven't heard a peep out of those fuckers.

Partition36 said:

More likely they're fabricated by people who would like to see him shut up, and lack the understanding that he isn't really the "leader" of Wikileaks.


Iirc Assange is the self-appointed mouthpiece for the group. So going after him only shows insane amounts of ignorance on world leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. Freeze said:

The White House is going to declare him a terrorist. Somehow, I'm inclined to agree.

I think this time you take the law into your own hands, track this man down and then kill him. After all, the system will fail to cater to your judicial views.

Share this post


Link to post
Csonicgo said:

Iirc Assange is the self-appointed mouthpiece for the group. So going after him only shows insane amounts of ignorance on world leaders.

Yeah, he's the editor in chief and spokesperson. He was also the founder, but the organization is, I believe, controlled by a board with five members on it. I know one of them is Jacob Appelbaum (aka ioerror, he spoke at The Next HOPE on behalf of them), a Tor developer who also happens to be part of the Cult of The Dead Cow.

Share this post


Link to post

He's a plant. If he were the real deal he would've been renditioned long ago and we would've be none the wiser.

Share this post


Link to post

Psyops and intelligence must be working overtime to calm the brewing shitstorm...I hope everybody gets to milk some form of reparation or favor from the US to keep their mouths shut :-p

Share this post


Link to post

He's an egotist prick, but we really need people doing that. The corporate world is one that breeds irresponsibility, so something to keep it in check and prevent its excesses is a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. Freeze said:

The White House is going to declare him a terrorist. Somehow, I'm inclined to agree.

Does anyone remember when "terrorist" meant someone who - you know - actually carried out terrorist acts? Like blowing up bombs or flying planes into buildings? Killing people? Terrorising people by making them afraid for their lives? That's what the word means, right? When did "terrorist" become a catch-all phrase for "enemies of or threats to America"?

Also, remember after September 11th, when our governments brought in anti-terror legislation, and civil liberties advocates complained? And now in the UK, the police use those laws to claim that it's a crime to photograph them, while in America there's apparently the real possibility that the US government might start declaring websites that pose a threat to it to be "terrorist organisations" so that it can shut them down. And apparently large numbers of people have no problem with this.

I really don't understand how you can just make a comment like the one quoted above. It's like the worst kind of "with us or against us" thinking. The release of these cables has certainly caused embarassment and has the potential to damage some diplomatic relations, but does that really warrant wikileaks being placed in the same category as people who blow up bombs on trains to murder civilians, or hijack jet planes and fly them into skyscrapers?

Share this post


Link to post

The modern government-approved use of the word "terrorist" is actually just filling the gap previously occupied by words such as "communist", "unamerican", "beatnik", "pinko", "gook", "anarchist", "phreak", "black panther" etc.

You don't actually need to be a Taliban hiding in a cave to be labelled a terrorist: any potentially politically subversive, disruptive or opposing individual may be labeled as a "terrorist" today, something which is fully legitimized by the PATRIOT act.

In theory, even this thread could be considered "an act of terror" (don't worry Mr. Freeze, they noted that you're "on their side" ;-) because not all opinions voiced are pro-American, and thus potentially dangerous. So much for free speech.

fraggle said:

I really don't understand how you can just make a comment like the one quoted above. It's like the worst kind of "with us or against us" thinking.


Even worse, it reveals a veiled self-righteous fascist mentality of the "Yeah, we're on top and rightly so and the rest of you should suck it down and bend over backwards while we're skewering your intestines, AND WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING IT. EVERYTHING IS FINE" kind.

Sorry, but Manifest Destiny is long dead, and the only ones truly showing unconditional love and support for the USA are some thirld-world 51-st state wannabes like Albania and Kosovo, and then only because they happen to be particularly favored as of now. All the rest of the world has some grudge with the US and would benefit from its absence, and the leaked documents just revealed what was plainly obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

You don't actually need to be a Taliban hiding in a cave to be labelled a terrorist

The Taliban weren't even terrorists! They were certainly a deplorable authoritarian Islamist government, and deserved to be deposed. There were certainly links between the Taliban and al Qaeda. But the Taliban weren't terrorists; it wasn't them who carried out 9/11. Is this the point we've reached, that we've forgotten what we're even talking about any more?

Share this post


Link to post

go assange, go wikileaks! everyone knew hypocrisy and moral pragmatism run the diplomatic world, but this is a definite in yo face proof and for once the american government cannot dismiss it with it's usual "won't confirm or deny". for once "the public has right to know" wins over shadow politics.

what i love the most is how skeletons are brought out of closets worldwide, because american interests are all encompassing. the typical american patriot probably won't even notice this, because he's too busy accusing an australian citizen of treason to usa, but there's so many wonderful eye-opening revelations concerning so many different countries.

it's hard to imagine anything topping this, but if wikileaks goes against corporations next, it might be worth the wait.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

The Taliban weren't even terrorists! ... Is this the point we've reached, that we've forgotten what we're even talking about any more?


Well, accepting the "official" current definition of who is a terrorist is more of an Act of Faith: you must accept it without questioning or else.

Ironically, one of the catchphrases of the "war on terror" was:

"If the terrorists manage to change our way of life, then they have already won".

Which means that either way, we lost.

Share this post


Link to post

Say what you want but these Wikileaks people have done it all wrong. Had they taken out potentionally endangering information it might have been embarassing for the US but hardly a safety risk.

But going all the way and irresponsibly even releasing highly sensitive stuff they gave their opponents all the ammunition to have themselves shut down eventually.

Not that it'd help much. Even if the US succeeded with shutting Wikileaks down they'd just start fresh elsewhere and do that stuff again. This is a fight the politicians can't win.

Share this post


Link to post

When man has nothing to hide, man has nothing to fear. Any negative consequence that happens as a result of the unbridled truth rests solely on the shoulders of those who choose to lie to begin with; those who's choice gave them reason to hide the truth. The entire world is blanketed in an unseen web of lies and we're all tangled up in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

Say what you want but these Wikileaks people have done it all wrong. Had they taken out potentionally endangering information it might have been embarassing for the US but hardly a safety risk.

They did, so what you're saying isn't true. See here for an example of a redacted cable, for example (search for xxxxx).

For what it's worth, Wikileaks also asked the US to help identify specific records that could endanger lives if published, but they refused to help.

Share this post


Link to post

Information should be Free

Privacy is the right of citizens, not the government or corporations. We have every right to know what they are up to. Anyone who thinks that is terrorism needs to sprout a beard, put on a turban and grab an AK cuz that's the level your thinking is on.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

For what it's worth, Wikileaks also asked the US to help identify specific records that could endanger lives if published, but they refused to help.



Well, sorry, what did you expect? This was a great publicity stunt on behalf of Wikileaks but the result was pretty much inevitable.

Had the US cooperated they would have officially sanctioned the leak which would have been a political disaster 10 times worse than the actual leak.

Share this post


Link to post

Any system that results in actions and facts that need to be contained in a "closed system" like they were toxic sewage, and where any hinting at them is classified as a "leak", is fucked up to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Any system that results in actions and facts that need to be contained in a "closed system" like they were toxic sewage, and where any hinting at them is classified as a "leak", is fucked up to begin with.

Welcome to the future, baby!

Share this post


Link to post

In any case, I don't see where the problem is: the PR departments of every major state and organizations have to address and deny fabricated or real accusations and allegations every day, and so far they seem to have done a "great" job at dismissing even real-time and historical evidence as "fabrications", "allegations" etc.

The only difference now is that there are far too many of them, but still, they could just put a big "no comment", "libel", "lies", "propaganda", "bullshit", "fake", "not true" etc. label over everything and call it quits, business as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

Welcome to the future, baby!



What future? Secrecy has always been one of the eternal constants of power.

I'd say 'welcome to politics'. It is and always has been a dirty rotten business whose gory details are best (according to the politicians, at least) kept away from the general public.

Maes said:

The only difference now is that there are far too many of them, but still, they could just put a big "no comment", "libel", "lies", "propaganda", "bullshit", "fake", "not true" etc. label over everything and call it quits, business as usual.


Sure they can, but this time it really wouldn't work. Nobody would believe them and it'd make them look worse than this disaster already made them look. But the one thing I am certain of is that they won't learn the lesson to be learned from this.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

Does anyone remember when "terrorist" meant someone who - you know - actually carried out terrorist acts? Like blowing up bombs or flying planes into buildings? Killing people? Terrorising people by making them afraid for their lives? That's what the word means, right? When did "terrorist" become a catch-all phrase for "enemies of or threats to America"?

Also, remember after September 11th, when our governments brought in anti-terror legislation, and civil liberties advocates complained? And now in the UK, the police use those laws to claim that it's a crime to photograph them, while in America there's apparently the real possibility that the US government might start declaring websites that pose a threat to it to be "terrorist organisations" so that it can shut them down. And apparently large numbers of people have no problem with this.

I really don't understand how you can just make a comment like the one quoted above. It's like the worst kind of "with us or against us" thinking. The release of these cables has certainly caused embarassment and has the potential to damage some diplomatic relations, but does that really warrant wikileaks being placed in the same category as people who blow up bombs on trains to murder civilians, or hijack jet planes and fly them into skyscrapers?


Fraggle you've really put how I feel into the perfect words.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

Well, sorry, what did you expect? This was a great publicity stunt on behalf of Wikileaks but the result was pretty much inevitable.

Had the US cooperated they would have officially sanctioned the leak which would have been a political disaster 10 times worse than the actual leak.

Oh, definitely. I wouldn't for a minute have expected them to have done it. That's why I said "for what it's worth".

Notice though, how politics trumps protecting peoples' lives.

As for the release being a "publicity stunt": well, I actually kind of agree. Wikileaks at one point used to be an actual wiki, where people could collaboratively contribute to analysing leaks. There used to be all kinds of small leaks on there: nowhere near the scale of what we're seeing now, but still interesting to read through.

Now the old site is gone and the only stuff on the website is the 2-3 "big" releases that have attracted mainstream media attention. I kind of miss the old site and I'm not really sure why they've changed it. They've also adopted this practice of releasing things a piece at a time which is blatantly a tactic to keep the media interest going for longer. I'm not really sure what the point of it all is.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

Oh, definitely. I wouldn't for a minute have expected them to have done it. That's why I said "for what it's worth".

Notice though, how politics trumps protecting peoples' lives.

Lives? Politics is about protecting money.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Any system that results in actions and facts that need to be contained in a "closed system" like they were toxic sewage, and where any hinting at them is classified as a "leak", is fucked up to begin with.

This is basically security through obscurity, which eventually fails. What we need is a more open system so that it works better and more "securely", whatever that may mean. Probably that it doesn't infringe on the rights of the people a system is designed to protect so much. This is effectively what Wikileaks is trying to achieve through a brute force attack.

But there's still a problem that I see. The current system is going to look at this, attack Wikileaks, and then in a round-about way say "well they may have had a bit of a point." From that all we'll get is endless reform that does almost nothing. No revolutionizing of the system to actually make it more transparent.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×