Who is Wikkileaks founder Julian assange..

Ive seen a few posts and heard alot of people asking about the guy behind the wikkileaks stories, i thought i would make a thread with a little bit of information, for those who don't know much about wikkileaks founder Julian assange..

Wikkileaks was founded by Australian hacker Julian assange, 39.
He led a nomadic childhood because his parents ran a touring theatre company and he fathered a child at the age of 18.
In 1995 the skilled mathmatician was accused of dozens of hacking activities and heavily fined.
He helped academic suelette Dreyfus with a book about hackers.
She described him as "a very skilled researcher" who was interested in "the concept of ethics and what government should and shouldn't do"
Assange is currently subject of an international arrest warrant over allegations he raped 2 woman in Sweden, which he denies.
Wikkileaks began exposing secret information tithe public in 2006.
It published details of 20,000 civilian deaths In Afghanistan and in October released controversial Iraq war documents.
Us army private bradley manning 23, is accused of being a source. He was arrested In June and awaits a court martial for downloading classified material while serving in Iraq..

Hopefully all the information here is correct, if there are any inconsistencies feel free to correct me, or if you have any additional information, please make a post, so
Everybody will know a bit about, this guy making headlines around the world..

reply to post by Misterlondon


This is Julian Paul Assange.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/80432c2a33a6.jpg[/atsimg]

Assange, 39, had an unconventional upbringing. Born and raised in Australia, his parents met at a demonstration against the Vietnam War and instilled in their son a sense of rebellion. He attended 37 different schools as a child, moving often because his parents ran a touring theatre company, and went on to study pure maths and physics at university. Reports in Australia claim that he left home at 17 and spent some time sleeping rough in Melbourne. But the internet was his one true passion and he became part of the computer underground in his late teens, learning to hack into email accounts belonging to the rich and influential and mine their secret

He's a good man.

Cheers
Brady

I posted this on the early history of Julian Assange a while back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by acrux
Julian Assange use to live in my old neck of the woods. Use to ride past his house to get to school as a teenager. Small world.

www.northernstar.com.au...

THE Australian founder of a whistleblower website at the centre of an international furore for releasing US Afghan war documents this month grew up on the Northern Rivers.

The man now dubbed by the international press as ‘one of the world’s most intriguing people’ was recognised by one of his Goolmangar Primary School classmates this week.

Wanted by US authorities, and described as the ‘internet’s freedom fighter’ by mainstream media, Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks – an ‘uncensorable system for untraceable document leaking’ – in 2006 and remains its editor-in-chief after years dodging computer hacking charges and fighting for freedom of information.

Mr Assange lived in Terania Street, North Lismore, with his puppeteering parents from the mid-70s to the early 1980s, attending Goolmangar Primary School from 1979 to 1983

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3007eefab860.jpg[/atsimg]Julian Assange featured encircled.

Originally posted by acrux
Found this bit interesting. He went to a lot of schools & his early hacking years.

www.northernstar.com.au...

Julian Assange, now 39, has since told reporters he was enrolled in 37 schools and six universities during his childhood.

He studied mathematics and physics at the University of Melbourne and worked as a computer programmer and free software developer before starting WikiLeaks.

As a Melbourne teenager he pleaded guilty to 24 charges for hackinginto government and commercial websites, receiving a six-month suspended sentence, and was arrested again for hacking into a Canadian telecommunication company’s website in the early 1990s, but escaped prison when the court ruled his actions benign.

reply to post by Misterlondon


Pure genius..
Pity there aint a million just like him. Then we would find the truth..

This man deserves a medel of honour.. He has put his life on the line for our freedomom of speach...
kx

reply to post by GetRadNZ


You might want to do a little more research into Mr. Assange before calling him a good man.

The Epoch Times

It was also revealed earlier this month that a group of former Wikileaks staff split off from the organization to start a separate website similar to Wikileaks, due to disagreements with Assange

When your own staff voices concerns its one thing, when they outright leave its gone beyond concern.

Instead of rehashing all the info, I point this out REF: Collateral Damage Video that was leaked.

All else aside, the credibility of Wikileaks is doubtful. The organization states on its website “We do not censor material,” yet has admittedly done so.

In particular, the "Collateral Murder" video, showing an Apache helicopter killing 12 individuals in 2007 during the war in Iraq, has parts removed that reveal some men to be enemy fighters and not civilians, as the video title suggests.

Wikileaks posted two versions of the video. A shorter video was branded as the main video, had scenes removed of one of the men carrying a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG), and another trying to hide an AK-47 from the helicopter’s view.

The censored video was brought up during an interview between Assange and Stephen Colbert on the "Colbert Report."

Colbert said “You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called "Collateral Murder." That’s not leaking, that’s a pure editorial.”

I am sure there is a logical explanation form Mr. Assange on this bit of "creative editing". Lets see:

Assange responded by saying Wikileaks tells its sources it “will try to get the maximum political impact for the material that they give to us.”

This guy is playing fast and loose with the facts, which is going to cost lives. My other point is what else has he doctored / manipulated? Since the US cannot confirm or deny anything wiki releases in terms of untouched / undoctored/unmanipulated (it would force us to release more calssified info to prove our points) it makes one wonder about his integrity and truthfulness.

He admits that the info he releases is to get maximum political impact. I was nder the impression his intentions were to stop the wars in afghanistan and Iraq. Apparently that statement was creatively edited as well.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by GetRadNZ

 

In particular, the "Collateral Murder" video, showing an Apache helicopter killing 12 individuals in 2007 during the war in Iraq, has parts removed that reveal some men to be enemy fighters and not civilians, as the video title suggests.

Wikileaks posted two versions of the video. A shorter video was branded as the main video, had scenes removed of one of the men carrying a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG), and another trying to hide an AK-47 from the helicopter’s view.

The censored video was brought up during an interview between Assange and Stephen Colbert on the "Colbert Report."

Colbert said “You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called "Collateral Murder." That’s not leaking, that’s a pure editorial.”

So you are stating that both videos were released by wikileaks? So where is youre argument?
Surely this is the correct thing to do? Strange why some people want to criticise this very brave man.

Who is he? Unimportant. What is Wikileaks? Unimportant. What matters is the information produced by these people.

The video was edited; but both versions were released. The edited version hit harder, so it was branded as the main one. The full version should hit just as hard, but people are kind of stupid, and need the truth condensed in that way.

I doubt the organization edits the videos anymore -- that one was an eye-catcher so that the rest of their information would be prominent.

reply to post by Xcathdra
`The Colbert Report is from from being a reliable source.

en.wikipedia.org...

The show focuses on a fictional anchorman character named Stephen Colbert, played by his real-life namesake. The character, described by Colbert as a "well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot", is a caricature of televised political pundits.

Even the shows on host admits his show is nonsense.

Assange is someone who is on the side of the 9/11 criminals, since he supposedly believes and obviously defends the Official Fairytale.

Originally posted by Solasis
The video was edited; but both versions were released.

He shouldn't edit ANYTHING to avoid situations like this.

Originally posted by Solasis
The edited version hit harder,

Thats called P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A, not information my friend.

Originally posted by Solasis
but people are kind of stupid, and need the truth condensed in that way.

You mean need the information changed to something the poster WANTS it to be? No, thats NOT we need! Let the facts and video stand on their own, if it doesnt hit hard enough, then it is not worth what you think it is.

Originally posted by Solasis
I doubt the organization edits the videos anymore

Why do you doubt that? Do you have a proof? A promise? Or just beacuse they are such a gosh darn good home grown COMPANY ( and that WHAT they are - A COMPANY! ) that they wouldnt do something like that ( well not again, after this time, or the last time or the time before....)

Dorian Soran

reply to post by blaenau2000


My argument was to point out that even though they say they dont manipulate the info, it turns out they do.

In this case the question becomes what does a person consider to be the truth? Is it when ALL info is presented, able to support / counter claims. Or is it when the info is released with info left out, leading people to draw a conclusion on partial info (A lie of omission).

All I am saying is we should not be so qick to jump on Assange's wagon on the off chance we are only getting partial information from wikileaks.

Showing an edited video, releasing a document with a word, or sentence removed, can change the entire context the info is presented in. I am not saying wiki has dropped or changed words or sentences, bu it does make one wonder.

The other concern I have is the stated goal of wikileaks. By their own definition they are a whistleblower website, with a goal to place light on wrongdoing and to force transparency. All of the documents he obtained from the US are not going to show illegal activities, its impossible. Instead of sorting through and finding the documents to support their stated mission goals, they release it all, with the ions share having nothing to do with whistelblowing.

The mass release runs contrary to their goal. One would pull the documents that showed the illegal behavior and release those to the media to force them to look into the claims. Instead the releases are in the 10's of thousands, where items of concern that follow their mission are lost in the shuffle.

In my opinion Assange is running an agenda and using illegal behavior as the cover.

reply to post by Dorian Soran


I did not deny that it was propaganda. Of course it was propaganda -- but more than anything, it was propaganda to get Wikileaks identified. It was viral. It was never claimed by the organization that it was the full video. Propaganda is an essential part of human civilization, and it's fine so long as you also acknowledge the facts.

And I doubt they edit videos anymore because they don't need to. They don't need the attention grabbers anymore -- they grabbed the attention.

As to the Colbert Report not being a credible source, to whoever said that -- Yeah, it's not a credible source on its own, but the things Colbert was saying are facts and, once again, they were facts presented in one of the more communicable manners, like the video itself.

What is the group's opinion on the rape charges? Are they legit or is it thought to be trumped up to get him?

The U.S. Army private accused of providing secret documents to the WikiLeaks website pleaded guilty on Thursday to misusing classified material he felt "should become public," but denied the top charge of aiding the enemy."*

Bradley Manning is facing prosecution for giving military information to Wikileaks. He's plead guilty to some charges. He maintains that he did release the information and that he did it because he wanted to help the country. What will happen with the other treasonous charges against him that could net a life sentence? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

At first I supported him, but now.. not so much.
I do believe he is getting a raw deal and I don't think he is guilty of rape or "sex by surprise" or whatever they are calling it, BUT I do think he is attention seeking and fame hungry and a gatekeeper that hasn't done what he led people to believe he would do. People have risked their lives and careers to get information out, but it seems that Assange and WL don't always release the info. Some of it the release slowly, some of it they hold for their own "security."

I would respect them if they just released everything they got when they got it.
I would respect them if Assange didn't make his face the face of WL so they didn't have a target which has made him the focus rather than the info and also caused him to seek money for a lawyer and ruined a lot of their credibility.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
but it seems that Assange and WL don't always release the info. Some of it the release slowly, some of it they hold for their own "security."

Like what for example? Sources?

I would respect them if they just released everything they got when they got it.

It takes time to go through all the material and the staff and volunteers isn't that big of a group.

I would respect them if Assange didn't make his face the face of WL so they didn't have a target which has made him the focus rather than the info and also caused him to seek money for a lawyer and ruined a lot of their credibility.

WL has to have a spokesperson. That's what JA is.

reply to post by PsykoOps


They don't have to have a spokesperson. As for specifics I would have to go through articles where they have discussed having information that is unreleased. Also the insurance file is a good example if it actually has leaked information that they are holding back for their own insurance/security.

I know you are a big Wikileaks fan, but they aren't a perfect and righteous entity. So far they have been a mediocre attempt with the best intentions.

I am not even attacking them really. As I said I think Assange is getting a raw deal, and I think they have done some good, but they haven't done all they can nor all they should.

I doubt his real names even Julian Assange.

He hacked the Pentagon in the 90's, got into their military industrial complex

Then, he published 300,000 odd documents, the 'After' action reports from Iraq. Which really, didn't do anything justice wise, or bring any kind of attack on America or its troops, i barely remember them to be honest..

But, the ability to extend his hand into the Military Industrial complex's under-dacks.. squeeze them testicles hard and force them to admit to... 'anything'... had him deemed a threat to national security (which is NSA speak for threat to the elite of the USA).

Since, he has been accused of rape, that wasn't rape it was consensual.. but there was no condom.. no wait there was a condom but it broke.. yeah anyway, he's now on Interpol.

Ignore the rumor that one of the accusers has ties to Cuban revolutionaries that have ties to the CIA (think JFK era..) because things like that just dont happen..

And even though typing in '' assange rape case '' on google (65% of all internet searches)

brings you a deluge of anti-assange blogs.. and opinions (that seems kind of manipulated.....)

Tell me, ever met a rape victim that brings the rapist breakfast the next morning?

This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.

Daily Mail

Would anyone who's been 'raped' be a photo like this with their rapist, AFTER the crime?






.. wait, we're getting off topic and into the nitty gritty facts, we need to backtrack and remember that in no way is his testicle squeezing ability on the military industrial complex involved, and that he is indeed a cold, hard criminal who has had ... 2, 1 night stands!

Published: March 03, 2000
Gen. Augusto Pinochet was allowed to fly home to Chile today after Britain dropped extradition proceedings against him and put an end to his 16 months of house arrest in England.

NY Times

and yet, Assange has to hide from the UK Government?...

Julian Assange is a NWO weapon to destroy and descridit all conspiracy investigators. He's a puppet, not to be trusted. He entertained a strong relation with the british banking family called, I don't know if anyone of y'all heard of it, the Rothschilds.

SOURCE