Julian Assange : Wrong Political Gamble, Know When To Hold'em, Know When To Fold'em...

When it comes to topics like Julian Assange, I have to say something, specifically I find his usage of classified documents as approaching criminal action.

So sorry for anyone who disagrees with me, because I see hackers and crackers as criminals.

And anyone who supports them, speaks well of them, and or believes in their methods.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Hacker (Computing)

Computers are very flexible machines constrained by software to operate in very specific ways.

Hackers are individuals who come up with novel, complex, simple or elegant ways of writing new software that restates or replaces the existing constraints thereby exposing either some new functionality or some of the original flexibility of the underlying machine.

Why a person might want to do so varies; thus in computing, a hacker is a person in one of several distinct (but not completely disjoint) communities and subcultures:

A community of enthusiast computer programmers and systems designers, originated in the 1960s around the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)'s Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC) and MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

This community is notable for launching the free software movement. The World Wide Web and the Internet itself are also hacker artifacts.

The Request for Comments RFC 1392 amplifies this meaning as "[a] person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular."

People committed to circumvention of computer security; also known as crackers.

This primarily concerns unauthorized remote computer break-ins via a communication networks such as the Internet (Black hats), but also includes those who debug or fix security problems (White hats), and the morally ambiguous Grey hats.

The hobbyist home computing community, focusing on hardware in the late 1970s (e.g. the Homebrew Computer Club) and on software (computer games, software cracking, the demoscene) in the 1980s/1990s.

The community included Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Bill Gates and created the personal computing industry.

Today, mainstream usage mostly refers to computer criminals, due to the mass media usage of the word since the 1980s.

This includes script kiddies, people breaking into computers using programs written by others, with very little knowledge about the way they work.

This usage has become so predominant that a large segment of the general public is unaware that different meanings exist.

While the use of the word by hobbyist hackers is acknowledged by all three kinds of hackers, and the computer security hackers accept all uses of the word, free software hackers consider the computer intrusion related usage incorrect, and try to disassociate the two by referring to security breakers as "crackers" (analogous to a safecracker).

The Reason Conspiracy Theorists Can Never "Win" Against the Elite

Quote from : Wikipedia : Julian Assange

Julian Paul Assange (English pronunciation: /əˈsɑːnʒ/; born 1971) is an Australian journalist, programmer and Internet activist, best known for his involvement with Wikileaks, a whistleblower website.

While I am a conspiracy theorist, through and through, I do what I do, without breaking the law.

Whether I agree with the law or not, whether I always agree with foreign and or domestic policy, or not, there is a clear delineation of what I will and will not do.

And the actions taken by Julian Assange, are criminal, period, and I could care less if anyone agrees with me or not, because his website, Wikileaks supports criminal activities.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Wikileaks

Wikileaks is an amorphous, international organization, originally based in Sweden, that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of their sources.

Its website, launched in 2006, is run by The Sunshine Press.

The organization has stated it was founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.

Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine (June 7, 2010) describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director.

Within a year of its launch, the site said its database had grown to more than 1.2 million documents; the "Collateral Murder" video is one of its most notable releases.

It has won a number of new media awards for its reports.

I say all of this with knowledge that we as conspiracy theorists must remember, we can make a difference, but it is how we make that difference which sets us apart from people who want the truth from our Government, and those who will become just as much a criminal as those they allegedly oppose.

Julian Assange - Oslo Freedom Forum 2010 (Part 1 of 2)


Julian Assange - Oslo Freedom Forum 2010 (Part 2 of 2)


If we support his actions, what other actions are we willing to condone, in the name of truth?

With the recent flight of Julian Assange and the allegeded State Department documents, one has to wonder if killing in the name of consiracy theorizing is next.

We have a commitment to our cause, that of finding the truth, to never become what we hate the most, corruption, crime, cover-ups, but how is Assange's actions any different that those of the people he is decrying as criminals?

This is not some adventure off in Nottingham against Prince John and the corrupt Sherrif.

If we side with this criminal in his criminal endeavors we are nothing more than criminals.

We sit around and complain, whine, and bitch about politics, but never take a legal action towards changing them, through stepping into politics, if we know they are corrupt, change them, if you know the election is rigged, volunteer to work at the polling place, if you know you are not properly represented, then get involved.

Otherwise, you are not part of the solution, you are a part of the problem, by proxy of lack of proper action, you actually become the problem itself, in denial of right and wrong.

How To Overthrow Your Own Government, Legally and Without Violence, In Order To Survive

While I am certainly not defending Government, neither am I defending Julian Assange, not because of some love of the law, but through a moral, ethical, and belief system that not only tells me to beat these bastards in power, but do it in such a way as they cannot sick their dogs on me, making their every effort wasted.

In other words, work smarter, not harder, without cheating, like Julian Assange.

We as a combined community, can use our political knowledge to crack what politicians are doing, without utilizing criminal methods, we can use our brains, instead of trojan viruses.

We do not need to associate ourselves with this man nor his methods because we are smarter thant that, and by that measure, we need to make sure we are not compromised.

Julian Assange's methods not only compromised him but everything he stood for.

Whle his original intent was probably a stand against corruption his method leaves his motives questionable, because he has broken the law, in willful denial of becoming that which he was fighting, the criminals who lie to us to begin with.

If we can go to the library and read, and understand foreign and domestic policy, what exactly do we need the documents Julian Assange had leaked to him?

Going To Your Public Library, Gathering Open Source Intelligence, and Surviving

While I certainly will not accept anything Assange has to say as credible, I will not stop in finding out the truth, because I see the way he goes about his business as lazy.

If someone cannot use their brains to decipher political collusion, understand policy, comprehend between right and wrong, they are asking for their Government to do the wrong thing, and thereby deserve everything it does do wrong.

Because they are politically ignorant it is their fault the system got this bad to begin with.

So, I say Julian Assange, has gambled away his life, by choosing to become a criminal.

The Gambler


I guess I am used to holding myself to a higher standard of unraveling the lies told to us by Government, because from where I sit, it is about seeking the truth.

Without becoming just another number in a prison cell in Guantanamo Bay.

Assange's actions might possibly get the etire Middle East in an uproar against us.

And it will be the citizens, the soldiers, and innocent civilians who are caught in the crossfire.

Because instead of taking the knowledge he gained and going to the United Nations, he chose instead to take it, and use it as a point to show up our Government.

While soldiers are on the ground, while citizens will die, while live war is being fought.

Those in Washington D.C., the Pentagon, and the United Nations will not suffer.

They will not lose a moments sleep because of his actions because they are shielded.

Because we are the ones who are between them and those who hate us and we are the cannon fodder.

Whether you believe in America or not, we cannot allow our actions, to reflect a negative position.

Good points well made. Nothing is changed for the better by breaking laws, and anyone that preaches peace but hurts others to achieve it is a hypocrite. People who are willing to bend rules do not make reliable leaders in the long run. I will refer you to 'history' as my proof of that.

If the words so far(including the OP) haven't made people realise you don't attack a system illegally and win maybe this will; by committing criminal acts or supporting such offenses you expose yourself to prosecution, removing you swiftly from the global game, and this side can't afford to lose players. We all know the media controls who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in any conflict, don't make people like us or ATS the bad guys through rash actions and poor strategies. Please.

Perhaps the middle east SHOULD be in an uproar about the U.S?
I don't care about the consequences, they're eventually going to come out anyway, why can't we have a government of transparency?
We should never allow the state to lie to save their own skin.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

Well im not surprised that you would hold the view you have.
Your motto says "divide and conquer"
Good to know where you are coming from

Originally posted by Doyle
Good points well made. Nothing is changed for the better by breaking laws, and anyone that preaches peace but hurts others to achieve it is a hypocrite. People who are willing to bend rules do not make reliable leaders in the long run. I will refer you to 'history' as my proof of that.

If the words so far(including the OP) haven't made people realise you don't attack a system illegally and win maybe this will; by committing criminal acts or supporting such offenses you expose yourself to prosecution, removing you swiftly from the global game, and this side can't afford to lose players. We all know the media controls who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in any conflict, don't make people like us or ATS the bad guys through rash actions and poor strategies. Please.

That is correct.

If we lower ourselves to criminal actions then we become criminals too.

And if we want the truth we should know how to work for it not cheat.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Perhaps the middle east SHOULD be in an uproar about the U.S?
I don't care about the consequences, they're eventually going to come out anyway, why can't we have a government of transparency?
We should never allow the state to lie to save their own skin.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

Well, I can agree with you, to an extent, I have never supported our being there.

But if we do not consider the consquences of our action the ramifications are exponential.

What if his actions leads to websites like ATS being shut down completely?

Due to the complexity of laws they can do that because of supporting a criminal.

Originally posted by foremanator
Well im not surprised that you would hold the view you have.
Your motto says "divide and conquer"
Good to know where you are coming from

So, because I understand divide and conquer I am somehow, against the truth?

No, I am a middle path person, I choose to know both sides.

Not lies from either side.

Why would they shut down ATS? And why would that really matter?
Aslong as sensitive documents are still being released to the public, I don't care if a internet forum that I visit gets shut down.

And I'd love to see them try to shut down all conspiracy sites, as not all conspiracy sites are public.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

This is one of the few times I disagree with you, Spartan.

Good presentation...but I disagree...

"And anyone who supports them, speaks well of them, and or believes in their methods."

i stopped reading after that comment. It reminded me of thought crimes, and that is so not cool. Besides, all kinds of people and companies use questionable methods to get the info the public needs to be aware of. I'm not saying it is totally right or I totally agree with it, but how else are we to know for sure?

does the end justifies the means?

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Why would they shut down ATS? And why would that really matter?
Aslong as sensitive documents are still being released to the public, I don't care if a internet forum that I visit gets shut down.

So, if ATS hosted something originally found on Wikileaks, you do not see the problem?

I would hope you do not want ATS shut down.

Cutting your nose off to spite your face is not the way to go.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
This is one of the few times I disagree with you, Spartan.

Good presentation...but I disagree...

That's fine, MemoryShock, I expect people to disagree with me.

Care to elaborate where you disagree?

I believe we must not become those which we are opposed to.

By committing a crime Assange has compromised anyone he was connected to.

Originally posted by toolstarr
"And anyone who supports them, speaks well of them, and or believes in their methods."

i stopped reading after that comment. It reminded me of thought crimes, and that is so not cool. Besides, all kinds of people and companies use questionable methods to get the info the public needs to be aware of. I'm not saying it is totally right or I totally agree with it, but how else are we to know for sure?

does the end justifies the means?

Well, have you ever had hackers or crackers attack you, and been a victim?

This is quite serious.

I have zero issue with people thinking any way they want to.

Thought should never be outlawed.

Actions, however, are something completely different.

And your last sentence is what this entire thread is about.

Does the end justify the means?

Not in this instance it does not because it only gave Government a means to prosecute.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Why would they shut down ATS? And why would that really matter?
Aslong as sensitive documents are still being released to the public, I don't care if a internet forum that I visit gets shut down.

So, if ATS hosted something originally found on Wikileaks, you do not see the problem?

I would hope you do not want ATS shut down.

Cutting your nose off to spite your face is not the way to go.

ATS would not be my ''nose'' in the face of transparency of government, infact quite the opposite, this site is filled with left vs right dribble.
Ofcourse I don't want it to shutdown, but if it does, it's a drop in a bucket of all the conspiracy sites.
And once again, Wikileaks would still be releasing the material, and I would still find other sites to post on.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

Hippochimp, your statement gives the impression of a short sighted thinker, maybe you're young or new to this stuff, I mean no offense though.

The conduct of a website like wikileaks could almost certainly have a future knock on effect on the freedom of speech for other websites including this one. By stating that you don't care if websites get shut down you reveal yourself to be a potential danger from within. I care a lot about freedom of information but there is a safe legal path to that end and it is not lead by young, angry reactionaries as you give the impression of being. Apologies if I misread you but just because people call for calm and careful thought does not make them 'agents'.

Smarts beats rage all day every day. Apply yourself to the cause with knowledge rather than emotion, you'll feel better for it.

Originally posted by Doyle
Hippochimp, your statement gives the impression of a short sighted thinker, maybe you're young or new to this stuff, I mean no offense though.

The conduct of a website like wikileaks could almost certainly have a future knock on effect on the freedom of speech for other websites including this one. By stating that you don't care if websites get shut down you reveal yourself to be a potential danger from within. I care a lot about freedom of information but there is a safe legal path to that end and it is not lead by young, angry reactionaries as you give the impression of being. Apologies if I misread you but just because people call for calm and careful thought does not make them 'agents'.

Smarts beats rage all day every day. Apply yourself to the cause with knowledge rather than emotion, you'll feel better for it.

No, I've thought about this quite a bit, thank you.
I'm saying that I don't care what costs there are for wikileaks, they deserve to run and they deserve to let out secrets, regardless of the law.
Also I never once called someone an "agent" so please don't put words in my mouth.
And also, they can't shut down all conspiracy sites, thats naive.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

reply to post by hippomchippo


Yes, the left verses right does get a tad boring, after a while.

But how come Assange did not open a non-profit organization?

He could have made a policy think-tank and actually made policy to change things.

I mean here quite simply there is having knowledge and knowing how to use it.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Think Tank

A think tank (or policy institute) is an organization or individual that conducts research and engages in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy, economy, science or technology issues, industrial or business policies, or military advice.

Many think tanks are non-profit organizations, which some countries such as the United States and Canada provide with tax exempt status.

Other think tanks are funded by governments, advocacy groups, or businesses, or derive revenue from consulting or research work related to their projects.

According to the National Institute for Research Advancement, think tanks are "one of the main policy actors in democratic societies ..., assuring a pluralistic, open and accountable process of policy analysis, research, decision-making and evaluation".

A study in early 2009 found a total of 5,465 think tanks worldwide. Of that number, 1,777 were based in the United States and approximately 350 in Washington DC alone.

It would have been a much more powerful, and legal means to fight, and it might have gotten people to support it throughout the world, instead of criminals.

If you're going to fight, fight in a way no one can stop you, or at least make it harder.

Imagine if he had done something like this he might have found a seat at the U.N.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Yes, the left verses right does get a tad boring, after a while.

But how come Assange did not open a non-profit organization?

He could have made a policy think-tank and actually made policy to change things.

I mean here quite simply there is having knowledge and knowing how to use it.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Think Tank

A think tank (or policy institute) is an organization or individual that conducts research and engages in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy, economy, science or technology issues, industrial or business policies, or military advice.

Many think tanks are non-profit organizations, which some countries such as the United States and Canada provide with tax exempt status.

Other think tanks are funded by governments, advocacy groups, or businesses, or derive revenue from consulting or research work related to their projects.

According to the National Institute for Research Advancement, think tanks are "one of the main policy actors in democratic societies ..., assuring a pluralistic, open and accountable process of policy analysis, research, decision-making and evaluation".

A study in early 2009 found a total of 5,465 think tanks worldwide. Of that number, 1,777 were based in the United States and approximately 350 in Washington DC alone.

It would have been a much more powerful, and legal means to fight, and it might have gotten people to support it throughout the world, instead of criminals.

If you're going to fight, fight in a way no one can stop you, or at least make it harder.

Imagine if he had done something like this he might have found a seat at the U.N.

I'm pretty sure wikileaks is being supported throughout the world, regardless of who you think are criminals.
So he didn't do something a certain way, so we shouldn't support him at all?
That's ridiculous, atleast he's doing SOMETHING.
And do you REALLY think he would have gotten a seat at the U.N? Really?


[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I'm pretty sure wikileaks is being supported throughout the world, regardless of who you think are criminals.
So he didn't do something a certain way, so we shouldn't support him at all?
That's ridiculous, atleast he's doing SOMETHING.
And do you REALLY think he would have gotten a seat at the U.N? Really?


[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

Yes, I know it has worldwide support, through a network of criminals.

No, I do not believe we should support him, his actions says he is a non-thinker.

He would rather exploit a weakness instead of use his brain and figure it out.

And you never know in politics if you do things right where they will take you.

I can see Assange would have made it in Australian politics.

And definitely a potential for the United Nations.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I'm pretty sure wikileaks is being supported throughout the world, regardless of who you think are criminals.
So he didn't do something a certain way, so we shouldn't support him at all?
That's ridiculous, atleast he's doing SOMETHING.
And do you REALLY think he would have gotten a seat at the U.N? Really?


[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

Yes, I know it has worldwide support, through a network of criminals.

No, I do not believe we should support him, his actions says he is a non-thinker.

He would rather exploit a weakness instead of use his brain and figure it out.

And you never know in politics if you do things right where they will take you.

I can see Assange would have made it in Australian politics.

And definitely a potential for the United Nations.

The thing is, you don't know what materials he has.
He could have something that would make the government completely stop in their tracks, perhaps thats why he's running loose? Because he knows he can't be stopped?
Who are these network of criminals then? A bunch of people with computer skills who manage to get into sensitive government documents? That's a far cry from a basement hacker trying to steal your mothers internet, no?

I have to disagree also.

If the criminal terrorists that founded this country stopped short of committing "crimes" they felt were justified...well.... I'm sure you know where that's heading...

I in no way feel they were criminal terrorists, but to their respective "governing powers" they were indeed criminals, and terrorists.

I don't see everything illegal, as being wrong. And I can't see myself following a law I find unethical.

For instance, it used to be illegal to be black, and sit at the front of the bus. Did that make it wrong? Not in my opinion.

I'd rather support this criminal, Julian Assange and his plight, than the criminals in Washington.

I would hate to see him release sensitive information that in turn compromised peoples safety, but I think he is smart enough to figure out what the people need, and should know. Regardless of who's life it endangers.

Maybe my point hasn't came across. Maybe it has.

But basically, one man's patriot is another man's terrorist.

I usually LOVE your threads. So insightful. I think this one is the same thing. But, basically I almost feel bad disagreeing with your views,


At the same time, I kind of wonder if Assange is just some agent, anyway. "Divide and Conquer", of course. Just like Ron Paul gets the attention of the people that know of the Left/Right Matrix... Assange could be "exposing" things to piss us off. To stir the pot.
Like Alex Jones. I suppose they all have their place.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. I always think highly of your opinions.

Hi

I agree, the law is their for a reason. However...
When the law prevents us from exposing criminal and unethical behavior from our governments, I say screw the law.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
The thing is, you don't know what materials he has.
He could have something that would make the government completely stop in their tracks, perhaps thats why he's running loose? Because he knows he can't be stopped?
Who are these network of criminals then? A bunch of people with computer skills who manage to get into sensitive government documents? That's a far cry from a basement hacker trying to steal your mothers internet, no?

If Assange has something that important they will just kill him.

Irregardless of his attempts at disseminating that information.

No, I have heard he has State Department documents, classified ones.

And ATS is my only source of that information as well as the news.

But if he came knocking on my door for refuge I would turn him away.

And there is a distinct difference between Assange and Script Kiddies.

Assange associates with hackers and crackers and the others are a joke.