Wikileaks and Child Pornography

reply to post by harrytuttle


Lol I saw CP on myspace, facebook, and just about every picture host at one time or another. If you use any of those you must support CP. Also I saw some kids running around naked on TV before, if you watch TV you support CP. I saw some kids running around naked at the beach before, if you go to the beach, you support CP. Hell if you don't remove your eyes, you have the potential to see CP and therefor support CP. After you

this post from burntheships in my wikileaks exposed thread
in my signature

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Here is the picture I was referring to in the video, which is excellent. A must watch.

Assange as a child in the photo below is a dead ringer!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e083d95d6fc.jpg[/atsimg]

Anne Hamilton-Byrne "The Family" cult.
www.rickross.com...

Anne Hamilton-Byrne, Leader of The Family unrepentant but ready to die.
www.news.com.au...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by thecinic

 

It is sad what happened to him as a child.
Worse than the abuse of never having a home, as part of that cult, the children were fed Sandoz '___'.

When Julian was 8-years-old, his mother, Christine, married a member of "The White Brotherhood" - aka "The Family" or San­ti­nike­tan Park Asso­ci­a­tion, a private psychiatric hospital on the outskirts of Melbourne Australia.

In the 1960's-1980's, the Santiniketan Park Association received CIA-Sandoz '___'-25.

The psychiatric hospital was part of a New Age colony with about 200 members. They were all professionals: psychiatrists, medical doctors - 25% were nurses - lawyers, and ranking civil servants and social workers.

The allegations were that these people used their authority to "collect" (kidnap) children. As many as twenty eight children had been 'collected' under the custody of the director, Anne Hamilton-Byrne, a theosophist. Children were selected for their Aryan traits.

This cult is well documented from the Australian investigations and court proceedings highlighted in the Oz media at the time.

www.henrymakow.com...

According to Assange, his parents broke with the cult in 1982 and until 1990, they lived 'on the run' moving dozens of times.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

So we have Assange own admission his mother and father were tied to the cult.
We have proof that the cult abused the children, and fed them Sandoz '___'.

Now interesting is the link between Wikeleaks, and Pirate Bay.

Pirate Bay Lundstrom's family was linked with Sandoz pharmaceuticals. Sandoz had been a division of Nazi corp I.G. Farben during WWII, patented the only pharmaceutical '___' in the world.

These revelations provide more evidence of Assange's ties with the Illuminati, as if any were needed. Hamilton-Byrne's family was probably one of many cells in a post-war Nazi "Lebensborn" program assisted by the CIA and MK-ULTRA.

www.henrymakow.com...

The children all wearing the same blue clothes, with Assange obviously in The Family Cult.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/39a7a97a1efb.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e083d95d6fc.jpg[/atsimg]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this info has already been investigated in my thread
wikileaks exposed. maybe you should read it.
the link is in my sig.

a video you really should watch
concerning Assange.
It's 18 mins, but worth the watch.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Neither of those posts have anything to do with the topic.

Does is bother you that some of the links on the Australian black list were not child porn, but in fact legitimate websites? That is exactly why these lists are leaked, so the people can see government failures.

Child porn or not, I believe it is essential for the government to make list of banned sites public. What other way is there for people to see whether legitimate sites are not on the list? It is a very slippery slope to allow government to have secret black list. Also, this all happened more than 1.5 years ago, why bring it up now?

www.time.com...

Australians want the list public, too:

If a mandatory Internet Filter is established, are you in favour or not in favour of the community being advised which websites have been Refused Classification and the reason why they have been refused classification? 91% in favour, 8% against.

en.wikipedia.org...

Guilt by association now?

I know some children of members of the Family who have grown up to be fine responsible people.
And I know of some of the adopted children who left the Family who certainly don't deserve this sort of smear.

The children shown in the photo here were all adopted. (illegally) It was only the adopted ones who lived together on the sect compound and had to look the same. These kids were treated abominably, brainwashed, starved, subjected to harsh punishments and drugged. In contrast, the actual children of members, which is what the article says Assange was, were given normal family lives.

Once you say someone is untrustworthy because of their background, you are maligning all those who had a similar background. However we're all responsible for what we do as adults, whatever our backgrounds, and some people from strange or crappy backgrounds do take responsibility for their own lives and turn out OK.

It's not as if there has ever been a suggestion that Assange was running this sect or supplying '___' himself. At worst, he was a victim as is being maligned for that fact.

reply to post by Maslo

What other way is there for people to see whether legitimate sites are not on the list? It is a very slippery slope to allow government to have secret black list. Also, this all happened more than 1.5 years ago, why bring it up now?

For the life of me , I am totally failing to comprehend this type of argument that you and others are making . And , don't take what I am saying as being directed at you personally , I'm just using your quote as an example .

"What other way is there for people to see whether legitimate sites are not on the list " ? Well , I can think of at least one other way , right off the top of my head ...

Why couldn't Wikileaks black out the URLs that link to CP and leave the rest of the links , and post it like that ? If legitimate businesses are being blacklisted , for whatever reason , how does posting links to CP validate that claim in any way ?

Why couldn't Wikileaks post URLs to the legitimate sites and state that these sites were found to be included on a list that contained links to CP ? There are several ways they could have presented this information without posting those URLs to CP , so why did they choose to do it this way instead ?

Furthermore , there are those within the Australian government who claim that the list Wikileaks posted is not even the real list .

As for your last question , as to why bring this up now , seeing that it happened back in '09 , I don't see where that is relevant . We still talk about 9/11 and JFK .

Obviously disingenuous to me.

The blog starts with:

Wikileaks host an article called "An Insight Into Child Porn," written by a "controversial source"

Fine, that is what WikiLeaks does, it hosts documents and articles making them available to journalists and the general public to study further.

But the blog continues, for every paragraph mind you, to label the author of the source article as and I quote

The Wikileaks writer

Well, I am not aware that WikiLeaks has any writers whatsoever on their staff. They are not in the business of redaction or journalism. They host documents... period.

It is, therefor, a feeble attempt to attach controversial documentation being hosted on WikiLeaks's servers as to somehow having been produced by WikiLeaks.

Fail.

the Billmeister

Show me even one url there to cp then. Dont have to post here, feel free to u2u it

reply to post by PsykoOps


Sorry , no can do . The T&C apply to U2Us as well . Moderate research can confirm this information .

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Show me even one url there to cp then. Dont have to post here, feel free to u2u it

Please read the T&C. U2Us must abide by T&C too. And no member can send links to child porn via U2U.

Sending links to child porn is against T&C and im sure in a court of law would be an issue too. I am not sure why anyone here wants to flirt with the law like this.

From Wikileaks :

1.4 How WikiLeaks verifies its news stories
We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates, eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.

So , there you have it , Wikileaks verified the URLs were legitimate . And posted them anyway . Why ?

And :

In particular, Article 19 inspires the work of our journalists and other volunteers. It states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. We agree, and we seek to uphold this and the other Articles of the Declaration.

" ...regardless of frontiers ." ... "We agree ..."

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I see mods aren't really up to date with this thread. There is no links to child porn in wikileaks.
Let me be evil and post some fine examples from these lists. Feel free to verify them yourself from the source article.

www.youtube.com... Yes I am sure that all the pedos are drewling over this delicious young flower

www.youtube.com... This is so hot!!!

www.youtube.com... This is actually closest I can find to cp

The list is pretty much all like this. Most videos have been removed thought. This is thailands censorship list which mostly censors stuff against the king. Didn't find any cp from that list. It should be important to note that those who claim to have seen lists to cp on that site are plain out lying. Not even the Finnish list is availabe because of main domain of wikileaks is down. I do have however access to it. I could post some examples but that would be against T&C because most links are to legimate porn sites. Such as www.onlybig(insert male member here).com.

reply to post by okbmd


Where does wikileaks claim that it verifies the url's to be cp? You have totally misunderstood that. They verify that the list is real. Totally different.

reply to post by okbmd


I'm not clicking on that STUFF with MY computer....

reply to post by PsykoOps

It should be important to note that those who claim to have seen lists to cp on that site are plain out lying.

I am not lying , I don't care what you say . I saw the URLs with my own eyes . I did not click onto any of the URLs . The wording in the URLs was enough for me .

Nor did I check out the links you posted , does that give me the right to now call you a liar ?

Wikileaks hosts lists that purport to link to CP , if you say this is not the case then you are not looking at the same page I found them on .

If you are looking at the same lists , then it is unclear to me how you can call me a liar .

And for your information , the lists I am speaking of are not the Thai or Finnish links . They are not even on the same page .

reply to post by okbmd


I've got to agree with you there. I just had a look at the norwegian banned list and many of the urls do seem to infer they lead to cp but what would be the point of showing a banned/censored list if wikileaks were to censor it, that would ultimately make them as bad as Big Brother.

Originally posted by okbmd

I am not lying , I don't care what you say . I saw the URLs with my own eyes...

And this is where you lost it. I guess we're done then.

ATTENTION!!!

Anymore attempts to post links to these lists OR TO SOLICIT OTHERS TO POST LINKS in contravention of T & C will result in post bans or permanent account bans. READ THE T & C.


There will be no more leniency.