reply to post by daaskapital
Yeah, i would be hostile too if a movei about me and my organisation was based off of two hostile books..
If Assange is a defender of human rights, then he should have been aware that the public have the right to know about BOTH sides of the coin. He
should know that freedom of speech and thought are what defines us as a free country. Knowing that, he should have known that one day, the negative
side of Wikileaks would be exposed. Instead of accepting this as freedom of speech, he instead insulted the lead actor who reached out to him, and
then damaged for awhile his reputation. That is not the action of a man who respect human rights.
As for The Guardian breaking the contract, I don't think so, because up till now, it still defended Assange and attacked The Fifth Estate and its
filmmakers and actors. It was the one who edited Cumberbatch's words so that it damaged for awhile the actor's credibility; it was the one that
published a dreadful review on the movie, claiming it to be a bunch of lies; it was to The Guardian that Assange published his private letter. And
in-between that, The Guardian was still continuing to praise Assange. Hardly a nemesis to Wikileaks.
As for Daniel Domscheit-Berg, I could argue that he did the right thing. Would you have worked at the CIA and found dangerous files, you would have
sabotage it and stole or destroyed the dangerous files. It takes alot to break a bond between two best friends; whatever forced Domscheit-Berg to end
it and sabotage Wikileaks must have been really dangerous.
You do know that WikiLeaks actually withheld thousands of dangerous document from publication, right?
Was it, by any chance, before Domscheit-Berg left Wikileaks? Or slightly after?
WikiLeaks relies on information submitted by insiders. If no one from China of Africa has approached WikiLeaks in order to pass along
information, than WikiLeaks will not have that information, this meaning that they cannot publish.
Oh, yes, that is a very logical way to expose corruption... Then Wikileaks expose no corruption in China, because no Chinese went to see them.
Journalism doesn't work that way. A journalist will travel himself to countries, even if it might endanger him, without anyone having to submit pages
of infos. Then he'll investigate and find what's wrong. That is journalism. Waiting for someone to give you something isn't exactly the most
efficient way to expose corruption. Are you telling me that Wikileaks will never expose the corruption in Myanmar and in the four syrian camps I
mentioned earlier, just because no one could get out of there and tell him so? These peoples are banned under threat of death to get out of their
villages. How do you want them to travel all the way up to wherever Wikileaks is, and to tell him "Hey! There's corruption here!"?
How does that makes sense? You're really gonna tell me that the world's leading corruption exposing organisation works that way? Insiders giving
Pray tell me: have you ever thought that maybe some "insiders" had a really big grudge against, let's say for the sake of explaining, the
Republican Party. That insider is somewhat intelligent, and he creates false proof and false evidences incriminating the Republican Party of something
horryfying. He then give that to Wikileaks. And BAM, the Republican Party gets destroyed because Wikileaks published false evidences given by an
"insider" who had a grudge.
Have you ever thought that may have happen, or may happen?
P.S.: I know that you answered to Swanne that it can't happen, Wikikeaks will discover it. Ever heard of Project INFEKTION? It was during the Cold
War; the KJB released to journalists as stubborn as Assange false evidences that the CIA was responsible for hundreds of scandals. So well done were
they, that these false evidences soon became absolute truth in the journalists and the population minds, until one day, in the last ten or twenty
years, the KJB vault was discovered, and with it, all the papers proving that the "truth" people were taught was in fact fabrications by the KJB.
If the KJB was able to fool Americans journalists and citizens during the Cold War, do you really think that Assange can't be fooled?
it is obvious that Daniel Domscheit-Berg has something against Assange and/or WikiLeaks.
He seems to know a lot about Julian Assange, but i wouldn't trust his obviously biased opinions.
Everyone will be biased in their opinions about Wikileaks and Assange, Domscheit-Berg or sensationalists newspapers. The purpose of democratic's
freedom of speech and thought is to allow ALL those opinions to be expressed and heard.