Wikileaks and Child Pornography

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by harrytuttle
 

Is that the best you have ?

The truth is all I've got.


You can't refute the OP , so you instead resort to this little game and try to shift the focus of the conversation ?

The OP (you) asked if it was disinfo or not, I said it was, and laid out the simple argument that if Wikileaks was hosting CP or providing links to CP, that they would surely have been arrested for it by now, considering all the international pressure from governments world wide looking for ANY THING they can to arrest him with.

If that isn't a "refute" to you, then we aren't speaking the same language.


I'd be real careful with my choice of words , if I were you . I will not tolerate your nonsense and will not hesitate to alert the mods to your shenanigans .

Threats now? For saying what, exactly? Alert me for what? I'm not the one posting links to articles written by self proclaimed child pornographers. YOU ARE. (you have since been ordered by mods to remove that link - wise choice mods)

Secondly, I'm the one warning people here that this "challenge" to prove the CP links are real is LEGALLY DANGEROUS, and that because of that it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove your accusations are indeed true.

Since people are innocent until proven guilty, you're the one who should be careful about what you say about Wikileaks for reasons of libel and slander.


Discuss the content of the OP , and stop trying to shift the discussion to me .

That's where I started - but it was you who started making this personal:

"If you have something to validate this , feel free to post it .

As for corroboration , there ARE links in the article , did you bother to check those out before posting ? "

You asked, I responded. If you can't handle that, then you shouldn't have asked, okbmd.
edit on 10-2-2011 by harrytuttle because: strike out incorrect information




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Okay , since we are going to go down this road of "Links prove nothing" , here is my take on all of this .

WHY would Wikileaks post URLs that PURPORT to take you to CP sites ?

Does Wikileaks somehow believe that this is information that they need to valiantly share with the world ?

If the URLs do not take you to CP sites , what does this say for their credibility ? Do they not verify or confirm the information they post ? Again , what does this say for their credibility ?

There are only two possible scenarios here .

1) Wikileaks posts information that they don't verify , which could be false information , thereby being MISINFORMATION .

2) The URLs are legitimate , and therefore Wikileaks has posted this material thinking that it needs to be shared with the world .

Either way their credibility/reputation has been shot to hell .

And I'm not buying that someone posted these URLs through some sort of trickery . Anyone who knows anything at all about Wikileaks , knows that they are better organized than this .

And even if that were the case , why has Wikileaks not removed them from their site ? So , that doesn't wash .

Wikileaks has either posted links to CP , or they have posted false information .

Take your pick .
edit on 10-2-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 



(you have since been ordered by mods to remove that link - wise choice mods)


The mods did not "order" me to remove that link , I did it of my own accord .

Now , how do you respond to my above post ?

Wikileaks either posted links to CP , or Wikileaks posted links that don't really take you to CP , and they have therefore provided the public with false information .

Which one do you choose to believe ?

Either way , their credibility/reputation has been shot .
edit on 10-2-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
There is a slight difference in misleading public and exposing how these lists mostly is used as a politcal tool of censorship. Such as the youtube videos making fun of leaders of certain countries.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

There you go! Now that's a very good argument and point you make. Just when I thought you gave up, you go and totally redeem yourself.


That's my way of thinking - using logic to prove a point. So now I must ponder it....

Assuming that the links were real, there could be a valid reason for listing them. For example, was it a list provided by the law enforcement authorities? Is it a "blacklist" that people/companies can use to "block" access to those particular domains?

So assuming those URLs were real, my first question is: What was the context of the list of URL's? Why did they list them? What was the purpose of listing them? That is important. Context is everything.

If you don't remember, that's fine - don't go back and put yourself in any legal endangerment, but if you can remember it would be interesting to know why there was a list.

Your point above is well thought out, and perfectly valid, and I applaud you for that. (the other previous stuff...not so much!
)
edit on 10-2-2011 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
And the Bank of Amerika hit team is in full swing...! It was only a matter of time before the smear campaigns turned to child pornography. Oh Noes, wikileaks = child pron, ignore the leaks! BoA rulez, Assange droolz



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
For example, was it a list provided by the law enforcement authorities? Is it a "blacklist" that people/companies can use to "block" access to those particular domains?


That is exactly what it is. They have several text files that are categorized as government blacklists. From a linke posted earlier, I saw text files labeled as blacklists from Finland and Thailand.



So assuming those URLs were real, my first question is: What was the context of the list of URL's? Why did they list them? What was the purpose of listing them? That is important. Context is everything.


There is a page accessible through an earlier link that states government black lists are always leaked, which could be the reason for wikileaks to host these text files. To me, it seems they are attempting to prove the futility of hiding what sites are being blocked.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 

And there you go. The other thing I know about web domain black lists is that innocent websites end up on them all the time, and often times its because the website in question is politically against the people in power.

Now I understand why Wikileaks listed those URL's - to expose government corruption, not to promote CP, as the original article attempts to suggest.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 



" It is completely untrue that the leaked blacklist contains political content . This is a list which contains sites that promote incest , rape , child pornography and child abuse "


www.time.com...

Way to go Wikileaks , is this the "history-making" leaks that are going to save the world ?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
AM I the only one here that thinks it is absurd that there might be legal consequences for clicking a URL? Has the world gone crazy? I wouldn't dare simply because I don't care to get a computer virus or have my browser hijacked, but not out of legal fear. I swear, people act like a bunch of kids who can't control themselves. You need the law to threaten you to not sit and stare at kiddie porn? What the hell? That is the issue that I see in the thread! Its like watching homophobes goad each other to look at a gay porn site because they might catch "gay". Grow up. Note that I am not suggesting using the URL's because, as much I think it absurd that one might encounter legal trouble for clicking a link, it may be the case.
edit on 10-2-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-2-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: spelling



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Attention!

This is a contentious topic that will be strictly monitored by ATS staff.

The personal attacks will end here and now. Any further name calling or derisive personal
comments will be removed with extreme prejudice. You are required by the T & C to act
in accordance with standard practices of manners and decorum.

This is not up for debate. Do NOT Respond to this post. If you have a problem U2U me
or use the complaint feature.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


It was not my intention to encourage anyone to visit the URLs . I am simply relaying information that I found on the web , as I evidenced in the OP .

I constantly see threads on ATS that promote Wikileaks , while at the same time , see threads that accuse Wikileaks of being a product of the NWO , CIA , etc .

So , finding information about Wikileaks that I had not seen posted , I posted it . I even stated in the OP that I have been riding the fence on this whole Wikileaks thing . I also stated that I didn't know if this was credible information or just disinformation .

Thereafter , I checked out the information presented from the original site , and found that the information was in fact credible .

So , the question is , what purpose does it serve for Wikileaks to post this material ? Why has it apparently been on their site since 2009 ? If the information on Wikileaks does not in fact lead to the purported sites , why haven't they removed this "misinformation" ?

If the URLs are legitimate , why did Wikileaks post them in the first place ? How does this benefit society ? What are they exposing by posting these URLs ?

I fail to see how this material can be seen as instrumental and productive in the furtherance of their stated goals .

So why did they post it , and why has it been there for two years ?

And , just as important , where have all the great sleuths of ATS been for the last two years ? Wikileaks has been under scrutiny since I've been here , how was this overlooked ?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


It's not misinformation, it is information. It would be misinformation if it was a lie. Why should they take down a legitimate leak? Because it may offend some people?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Maybe you missed it , but some have argued that the URLs might link to something other than CP . If that is the case , then Wikileaks is posting misinformation .

If the URLs are legit , then why does Wikileaks feel this is information that they need to post on their site ? What purpose does that serve ?

If you want to argue that Wikileaks doesn't know what the URLs actually link to , then this would serve to show that Wikileaks did not make any attempt at verifying the information , thereby invalidating their mission statement .

Any way you choose to look at it doesn't excuse the fact that Wikileaks posted URLs that purport to link to CP , regardless of whether or not they actually link to such sites .

Either way , why does Wikileaks feel that this info needs to "leaked" to the world populace ? What do they feel they have "exposed" by posting these URLs ?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Ok, since I can't see the links, I guess I will have to speculate. Perhaps the links blacklisted, were not considered illegal there, but in the US they would be. Like having pictures of your baby in the bathtub, or being underage and having pictures of yourself for example. Hell people in the US will label pictures of children models and children pageants as sick and CP lol. I don't know, if something wasn't up, why would someone feel the need to leak them in the first place? Who knows... Not really a huge wikileaks fan myself, but they have released some things worthwhile, and when they do I usually find them here in a nice organized thread



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Maybe you missed it , but some have argued that the URLs might link to something other than CP . If that is the case , then Wikileaks is posting misinformation .

Come on okbmd, you know that's not true, it's been explained above. The URL list is the government's "black list" - and if there are URL's in there that don't link to CP, then that PROVES the government is black listing sites that shouldn't be blacklisted. Wikileaks is showing people what the government is doing and how wrong they are doing it.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Proof is in the pudding dude, Wikileaks/Julian Assange is NOT being arrested, accused, nor prosecuted for breaking CP laws. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

that's because Assange is a CIA asset
and still has work to do for them.
As long as an asset is still turning
over for ya, you have to let it ride
as there are bigger fish to fry.

there is also 2 other connections
besides this article which link
Assange to child porn.

1) Assange's upbringing in that cult which had '___'
mind control and sexual misconduct.

2) The Anon connection. The group also
assisting Assange in his online fight also
has a website (forgot the name) that has
CP links. When that info was posted earlier
in another thread there were even a couple
members of ATs who refused to go to the site
due to the CP on it

So yea, all the above gives credibility to the OP
as being true instead of a smear campaign.
so if you're a supporter of wikileaks, just know
that you are also supporting child porn as Assange
makes no distinction between US Cables and
naked pics of children. It's ALL free speech to him
and he doesn't discriminate due to age or a lack of it.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

Those are very loose connections and don't prove any such thing.

That being the case, saying I support CP if I support Wikileaks is like me saying you support CP because you support the internet. Afterall, we all pay for the internet, and the internet is where a lot of CP moves through.

It's a baseless statement, and a logical fallacy.





top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum