Julian Assange

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

soficrow

Thank you. Love that letter. Think it's brilliant.


If I may ask, what did you meant by that?




posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
edit on 17-10-2013 by swanne because: never mind. Here is not a place to freely share thoughts.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
People who tell truths in a public forum are often defamed.. yet how is what they did in the past relevant to the truth they are telling now? Its all a slight of hand, "well this person did this" so they cant be honest. It should never take away from a truth that is being told and our media should be at the front of finding out the truth and presenting it to the people.

Yet when its owned by the people who are wrapped up in everything that is going on the world, how is the average person on the street who is too busy dealing with their own lives supposed to sift though all the BS.


Our whole lives are based on propaganda and distractions, when logic reveals the truth yet is labelled as conspiracy what chance do we have?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
edit on 17-10-2013 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-10-2013 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

starheart
reply to post by WanDash
 



If not for "leaks" of the same genre as WikiLeaks & Anonymous (et al) have brought forth...a lot of dirty-rotten deals and the scoundrels who made them, would not be known... (consider Jekyll Island & the Federal Reserve, if you need an example) ...


reply to post by JBA2848
 



I guess unbiased releasing of news or leaks really makes people mad. Well what he did was right. Erase the names of people in the leaks and then publish them.


True, but so far, 3/4 of exposed dirty deals were US in origin. What about the dirty deals of much more dictactorial government, governments that are willing to let hundreds of thousands people starve to death while they're having a party? Who exposed them?
And there's a difference between leaking corruption, and promoting outright revolution.


Well you seem to complain that he did not expose other countries and the corruption in them. Well it seems he has been all along and you just have not looked to see it. Do you think all the cables were from the US? Yes it was a leak from a US government computer network. Do you remember what happened when Fiance the UK and other countries wanted to raid Libya? They complained because the US controlled all of the mulit country communications they need in order to operate together to attack Libya. So when all this leaks are coming from SIPRnet it is a leak of NATO countries UN countries and even countries that are not part of a organization the US has almost complete control over. The cables were two ways. I find the cables from France really interesting how Sarkozy had the plans laid out for what he wanted to do in Africa. He proudly posted his plans on SIPRnet for all the members to see. And he did it in three parts. When Bush left office Hayden sat down with the Ambassador from France and agreed to allow France to run NATO and create the plan of attack on the world and said it must be limited to the North Atlantic as NATO was only allowed to operate in that region.

There is many things in the leaks that came out that is not only the US related. People have the idea that it is all US related because it came from SIPRnet. Well I hate to tell you but the SIPRnet and pretty much any other net out there is controlled by the US. They have planted the key people inside every organization that controls the internet from the start when the US created it. Seeing organizations that say they have oversight of how things work on the internet and they are world organizations does not change the fact those very people at the organization with true control are tied to the US. Other countries are brought in to finalize the adaptations need for them to tie into the US system of control.

The only country that has attempted to break the US control is China. When the US sent in there guys to demand what the international standards for the internet should be and kept putting in software that would allow the NSA to spy on every one China to notes and decided to buck this system of US control and created there own standards which would have to be adapted behind Chinas Great Firewall of protection. If they did not do this it would have been a open door and a complete bowing to NSA spying. China did embarrass the US Government and the corporations that work with them spying on the world a few years ago. When they hacked the backdoors of Google and so on. It did not leak out to the public then because they controlled the information. But for what purpose? So China would be allowed in on the spying on every one. Do you think things like Facebook is only in the US? Well it is not. You have Ren Ren in China with the same spy software as Facebook. You have VK in Russia with the same spy software as Facebook. And you can not expose the spying and corruption of our governments when our governments will not even expose each other. They simply want in on it when it is found out. Take the joint adventures of the US and Russia after the Boston Bombing. Russia tightened the grip on social media in Russia while the US did the same in the US. Russia did it a little more aggressively with the takeovers and trumped up charges on CEOs and business owners then the US did with simple buyouts.

So who exposes the spying and corruption if not the outsider like Assange and Wikileaks?



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

starheart
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.


If you want to get technical, then Julian Assange's letter to Benedict Cumberbatch also falls under free speech.

As for the negative side of WikiLeaks beign exposed. Exposed by who? Disgruntled ex-employees of WikiLeaks and journalists working for the Guardian, who ditched Julian and named him as the average 'crazy source.'


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.


Um, yes they did break a contract with WikiLeaks.


The WikiLeaks-Guardian dispute arose when the Guardian broke of all three parts of WikiLeaks’ Cablegate contract (security, confidentiality/source protection, embargo time). A few senior staff of the Guardian, including Leigh and his brother-in-law, editor Alan Rusbridger (who signed the contract), possibly fearful for their own personal liability and reputations after the breach, embarked on a campaign against WikiLeaks before a damages case could be brought, despite ongoing objections from other Guardian staff.



That Julian Assange’s spectacular fall-out with the Guardian followed a tip-off from journalists that the Guardian and the New York Times were colluding to cut WikiLeaks out of the media partnership for the Cablegate release and to secretly start publishing while WikiLeaks still had people in the United States. Assange’s interview for the programme sets out the full details of this plot, which led to a heated 1 November 2010 legal confrontation at the Guardian’s offices about it


http://__._/Inside-the-secrets-and-lies-behind.html


The threat of a suit came after a series of negotiations over the publication of the Iraq and Afghan war logs during the summer and fall, Ellison writes. Assange demanded a delay of the release of the Afghan war logs so that another media partner could also look at them. The Guardian's chief investigations editor, David Leigh, made a demand as part of his negotiations:

"Leigh said he could arrange for a six-week delay--but only if Assange gave him the third batch of documents, the so-called "package three," [the State Department cables], potentially the most tantalizing of them all. According to Leigh, Assange said, "You can have package three tonight, but you have to give me a letter signed by the Guardian editor saying you won't publish package three until I say so." Assange got his letter."

However, the Guardian caught what it felt was a big break: unbeknownst to Assange, a former WikiLeaks volunteer had leaked the State Department cables to British freedom of information activist and journalist Heather Brooke, who had been instrumental in exposing the scandal over politician's expense accounts that rocked Britain in 2009. Leigh convinced Brooke to work with the Guardian, and the paper considered itself released from its pledge not to publish until Assange's say-so.

When Assange discovered that the Guardian had obtained the documents, had passed them on to other media outlets, including the New York Times, and was poised to publish them, he raced into the paper's headquarters and made his threat of a suit.


www.huffingtonpost.com...


WikiLeaks on Thursday announced that it's suing the Guardian newspaper in Britain for facilitating the leak of unredacted U.S. diplomatic cables.

"A Guardian journalist has negligently disclosed top secret WikiLeaks' decryption passwords to hundreds of thousands of unredacted unpublished U.S. diplomatic cables," according to a statement released by WikiLeaks.

"WikiLeaks has commenced pre-litigation action against the Guardian and an individual in Germany who was distributing the Guardian passwords for personal gain," it said. In particular, WikiLeaks alleged that the Guardian violated the confidentiality agreement that it signed with the whistleblowing group, which dictated that the cables be published by groups in exchange for their "local knowledge," which would be used to "remove the names of persons reporting unjust acts to U.S. embassies."


www.informationweek.com...

Yeah, keep saying how the Guardian didn't break any contract...

To be continued.
edit on 17-10-2013 by daaskapital because: quote problem



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

starheart
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.


Personally, i would not do to my employer, what Daniel done to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Why? Because if one works for an intelligence agency, they are bound by oaths. Sabotaging an intelligennce agency and stealing their documents is also an unwise decision.



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?


It was before the major publications of WikiLeaks documents. So i would assume that Julian's redactions were happening before Daniel left.



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!"?


Whose to say what WikiLeaks does is journalism or not? personally, i believe that the organisation acts as a journalistic one. They do send investigative journalists out to areas in order to proved the veracity of documents. Saying this, they might also send investigative journalists out to find and expose information.

Overall though, WikiLeaks is a publishing organisation which was originally set up to leak material given to it, by Whistleblowers.



How does that makes sense? You're really gonna tell me that the world's leading corruption exposing organisation works that way? Insiders giving info.


Yes and no. See above


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?


What is it with you people and not reading my earlier posts?

Julian Assange hires investigative journalists who then go out in order to prove that the documents submitted to WikiLeaks are real. WikiLeaks also employs forensic testing of documents.

be assured, that WikiLeaks will not publish information without checking its validity first. it would be suicide if they had just published everything.


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.


Yes i've heard of it.

It was the journalists' faults, just as much as the KGB's. The publishing of the fake information can be pinned down to laziness of the journalists (as they didn't bother proving the information).



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?


Of course Assange can be fooled, but as i said earlier, he employs many methods in order to prove the validity of documents.



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.


I agree.
edit on 17-10-2013 by daaskapital because: quote problems



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

starheart
reply to post by WanDash
 

...True, but so far, 3/4 of exposed dirty deals were US in origin. What about the dirty deals of much more dictactorial government, governments that are willing to let hundreds of thousands people starve to death while they're having a party? Who exposed them?
And there's a difference between leaking corruption, and promoting outright revolution.

Who needs to expose the 'dictatorial governments' willing to let hundreds of thousands of people starve to death...?
I can't even keep up with the name-changes to their countries.
And - by the way - in case you haven't been keeping up... ...
... ...Today's dictator - Tomorrow's toast.
Should we be hearing about Castro again and again and again?
What about Chavez or the Ayatollah of Iran?
Kind of pointless & redundant to the nth degree...imo.
What's the difference between "leaking corruption, and promoting outright revolution"?
Is there some "righteous" difference?
Some higher-philosophical perch from which to judge?
If change is desired - who are you to say that someone-else's attitude is more or less appropriate than yours?
What has "peaceful" resistance EVER achieved?
On the other hand - to accuse another of "promoting outright revolution", based entirely on your perception of what they're doing, is as asinine as affixing your favorite conspiracy theory to every story that comes across the wire.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
On the religious side, it seems like a crusade of sorts. A deep Judeo-Christian vs Islam mindset could drive "TPTB" to accept the Noble Lie, that is, spying on us is actually best for our best interest.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I see that as soon as a guy seemingly leaks sensationalist documents (even though the veracity of such documents cannot be verified), this guy will become a hero worth of blind worship.

No investigation, no questioning about Assange's motive.

Even Wikileaks' motto doesn't include the word "truth" in it. But no one will ever notice. They are too busy drooling over pro-revolution porn.

I see no use in trying to share my thoughts here in this thread. I'm logging out.

edit on 18-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
edit on 18-10-2013 by swanne because: Never mind. Here is not the place.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Julian Assange is cryptic figure. That might be a feature rather than a fault. Controversy suits a public character. Any rock star abhors the conventional like plague.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

swanne
I see that as soon as a guy seemingly leaks sensationalist documents (even though the veracity of such documents cannot be verified), this guy will become a hero worth of blind worship.


WikiLeaks does not publish unverified documents. All documents published by WikiLeaks have undergone forensic examining. In addition, WikiLeaks sends investigative journalists out to places in order to confirm the veracity of the obtained documents.

While many do support Julian Assange to extreme measures, not all worship him blindly.


No investigation, no questioning about Assange's motive.


many have questioned Assange's motives.


Even Wikileaks' motto doesn't include the word "truth" in it. But no one will ever notice. They are too busy drooling over pro-revolution porn.


WikiLeaks has numerous mottos, with the most prominent among them being "We open governments" and "The truth shall set you free." So technically, they do have a motto with the word "truth" in it.



I see no use in trying to share my thoughts here in this thread. I'm logging out.

edit on 18-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)


It is a shame that you don't want to hold a proper debate. I thank you for the conversation though. All the best.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Horus12
 



Our whole lives are based on propaganda and distractions, when logic reveals the truth yet is labelled as conspiracy what chance do we have?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."


Well said! But not many wants to realise it...



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 



If you want to get technical, then Julian Assange's letter to Benedict Cumberbatch also falls under free speech.


I absolutely agree. What I was disagreeing with Assange, is after Cumberbatch replied, Assange threatened him. Coincidentally, couple of weeks before the release of Fifth Estate, The Guardian subtlety damage for awhile the actor's reputation. That is all I complained. Not the letter itself, but how he reacted after.


Yeah, keep saying how the Guardian didn't break any contract...


I agree with you, the links you gave clearly show that Wikileaks and The Guardian broke up; but then, why is The Guardian still defending Assange, as I've described in my earlier posts? It has done everything to give a bad name to The Fifth Estate and the lead actor, was the first one to receive Assange's letter, and meanwhile, praising Assange. It doesn't make sense...


Personally, i would not do to my employer, what Daniel done to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Why? Because if one works for an intelligence agency, they are bound by oaths.


Even if what you discovered was very dangerous and could you save thousands of lives by breaking the oath?
And as I said, according to what I read (correct me if I'm wrong), Daniel and Julian were best friends, hence why Daniel ended-up being Assange's right-hand. Whatever forced Daniel to betray his best friend and employer must have been pretty big.


It was before the major publications of WikiLeaks documents. So i would assume that Julian's redactions were happening before Daniel left.


The reason why I asked, was because I again heard somewhere that Daniel was the most stubborn at what to leak or not. Assange was of the point of view that everything, even the most dangerous, had to be shown, while Daniel was the one who always had to persuade Assange that some files were too dangerous to leak.
Now that he's gone, who (and if there's even one person) counsel Assange on what to release or not?


They do send investigative journalists out to areas in order to proved the veracity of documents. Saying this, they might also send investigative journalists out to find and expose information.


Well, no offence, but they're aren't looking far or hard enough. How come simple Canadian journalists found shocking corruption in China, India, and Syria's own attitude versus their citizens, and that Wikileaks yet didn't release any of that.


It was the journalists' faults, just as much as the KGB's. The publishing of the fake information can be pinned down to laziness of the journalists (as they didn't bother proving the information).


It was because the laziness of the journalists?! It was during the Cold War! The newspapers back then knew perfectly that the slight misunderstanding will play in the hands of the USSR. Will you get handed compromising files by your enemy, you do check VERY thoroughly if its genuine. And they never found anything wrong. The CIA was damaged for decades by elaborate hoaxes. And, like Assange, they did sent investigators and used forensics science to disprove the KJB files. And that was in the 60s! Imagine how elaborate and fool-proof files can now be created.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 



Who needs to expose the 'dictatorial governments' willing to let hundreds of thousands of people starve to death...?


What?!! I'm sincerely hoping you wrote that sarcastically.


And - by the way - in case you haven't been keeping up... ...
... ...Today's dictator - Tomorrow's toast.
Should we be hearing about Castro again and again and again?
What about Chavez or the Ayatollah of Iran?


The dictators I was mentioning weren't twenty years ago. They're in the present.
And do you know why they continue existing? Because people like you say: "Who cares? They're gonna die in 20 years". During this time hundreds of thousands will die, because no one cared to expose anything. "They're not Americans; who cares if they die of starvation!"
These governments can do what the f*** they want, they can feast while they ban their villages from eating, they can force 10 year old children to manual labor, because the world know nothing about them. Expose them to the world, and now they'll have no choice but to start acting better, so to give the exterior appearance of a peaceful ruler.

But no, it's true, it's much better and much more enlightening hearing about one American soldier killing an Afghanistan villager, than hear about FOUR entire villages dying of starvation. Or to hear that tens of thousands generations of childrens will be banned from leaving their small village for the rest of their lives.

But, nyah, you're right. Why should we care? They're not Americans or Europeans. It's not important that we expose these governments as well.


What's the difference between "leaking corruption, and promoting outright revolution"?
Is there some "righteous" difference?
Some higher-philosophical perch from which to judge?


Ummm, DUH! What, you seriously think its morally right to send 300 millions people to their death? Knowing that the vast majority of revolutions ended up with a worse government than before? And especially, knowing that the weaponry of the government you'll be attacking contains NUCLEAR BOMBS, LIGHTING BOLT WEAPON, SHIELDED TANKS, DRONES.
What do you guys don't understand? A US or any other modern country revolution will be knives and guns VS NUCLEAR BOMBS, LIGHTING BOLT WEAPON, SHIELDED TANKS & DRONES!! It will be doomed. And when the revolution will fail, with millions of deaths, the government will be even more draconian than it is now. Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot, Hitler... does anybody remember how their rule went??

So, of course, there's a BIG difference.


What has "peaceful" resistance EVER achieved?


Everything. Jews have now anti-semitic laws, which no other civilization have, all because they died during the Holocaust without mess. You didn't hear any Jew revolution against the much more powerful Nazi army. Yet, they still live. Why? Because them not resisting alerted the entire world that it wasn't just a civil war, it was domination of the innocent.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. promoted peaceful resistance; they never violently fought, it was always just ideas. The result? They were murdered, and they still are the greatest peace leaders since the 20th century.
Then, let's move to the Weatherman. They promoted peace, but through violent measure (such as revolution and bombing governmental places). Who now considers them as the greatest peace leader?

So, you tell me (and Gandhi/Luther King Jr.) if peaceful resistance achieves something.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

daaskapital
WikiLeaks does not publish unverified documents. All documents published by WikiLeaks have undergone forensic examining.

Yes, examination by Wikileaks itself. Not by professional investigators, but by sensationalist and biased (in favor of wikileaks) party.


many have questioned Assange's motives.

Did you?


It is a shame that you don't want to hold a proper debate.

But mate... what is there to debate? I can only offer opinion. I can only say that back in 2010 I was almost worshipping the guy, until I realized that he was another pawn in the Big Political Theatre - a pawn whose purpose is to encourage a revolution so that the true bad guys can take presidency. Assange is playing a double-bluff, if you know poker as I do. I know what I'm talking about - I made predictions regarding the Elite's next moves, back in january, and now it's been 3 predictions which came true. But again, I see no reason why I should continue explaining something that nobody is ready to hear.

In 2010 I used to think exactly the same way. But now... I see an even greater picture. But I understand your position. I really do, since I used to share it.

No hard feelings,

Swan



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 

“…wrote that sarcastically…”
In part…maybe.
In fact, however, there is significant truth to it – being – we already know of the dictatorial governments doing this to their citizens and denizens. It is not even being kept secret. So – if a bunch of formerly-hidden documents were to surface that told us all what we already know…and has been publicly & universally denounced anyway – what’s the effect?
Likewise, it is obvious from the entirety of the conversation in this thread that you and I and others do not agree on some pretty basic ideas about the world we live in – so, someone you’re calling a despot may be my hero, and vice versa.

If they had the opportunity/ability to care…I don’t think Castro & Chavez would be too pleased that you relegated their “reigns” to 20 years ago.


“…people like you…”
Gotta love that one!
What do you know of me? What do you know of my family or circumstances?
How are you going to do something about these dictators you’re apparently aware of?
When YOU take one of them down…please come back on this site – announce your victory to us all. Tell us how you did it… And, then – I might have a reason to consider that something (anything) you have to say in these regards…is worth taking another moment of my time…to consider. Otherwise – all I’m seeing/hearing…is a bell with no clapper.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


I meant just what I said.

"Thank you. Love that letter. Think it's brilliant."



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

starheart
I absolutely agree. What I was disagreeing with Assange, is after Cumberbatch replied, Assange threatened him. Coincidentally, couple of weeks before the release of Fifth Estate, The Guardian subtlety damage for awhile the actor's reputation. That is all I complained. Not the letter itself, but how he reacted after.


I do not particulalry remember Julian threatening Benedict. As far as i know, Julian Assange actually finds Benedict to be a respectable and nice fellow. He doesn't hate benedict, he hates the movie.



I agree with you, the links you gave clearly show that Wikileaks and The Guardian broke up; but then, why is The Guardian still defending Assange, as I've described in my earlier posts? It has done everything to give a bad name to The Fifth Estate and the lead actor, was the first one to receive Assange's letter, and meanwhile, praising Assange. It doesn't make sense...


While most journalists at the Guardian dislike Julian Assange as a person, i assume that some may support him. As such, the journalists who do support him may have tainted their articles with biased opinions (which they are not meant to do).


Even if what you discovered was very dangerous and could you save thousands of lives by breaking the oath?


It is a complicated situation. It would be a decision only one could make when faced with the problems.


And as I said, according to what I read (correct me if I'm wrong), Daniel and Julian were best friends, hence why Daniel ended-up being Assange's right-hand. Whatever forced Daniel to betray his best friend and employer must have been pretty big.


Yes, Julian and Daniel were very close, before their rift. I do agree with you on your second point. Many WikiLeaks supporters pin the rift on Daniel's jealousy of Assange. I tend to think that both individuals had different opinions on what WikiLeaks should be, hence the rift.


The reason why I asked, was because I again heard somewhere that Daniel was the most stubborn at what to leak or not. Assange was of the point of view that everything, even the most dangerous, had to be shown, while Daniel was the one who always had to persuade Assange that some files were too dangerous to leak.
Now that he's gone, who (and if there's even one person) counsel Assange on what to release or not?


I agree, but i think it is much more complicated than the two polar opposite opinions...It is hard to say what exactly went on without actually being there.


Well, no offence, but they're aren't looking far or hard enough. How come simple Canadian journalists found shocking corruption in China, India, and Syria's own attitude versus their citizens, and that Wikileaks yet didn't release any of that.


No offence taken. I think it may be due to the fact that the organisations behind said journalists are inherently different. I don't know, but i would like to see WikiLeaks take up more investigative and traditional journalistic work.


It was because the laziness of the journalists?! It was during the Cold War! The newspapers back then knew perfectly that the slight misunderstanding will play in the hands of the USSR. Will you get handed compromising files by your enemy, you do check VERY thoroughly if its genuine. And they never found anything wrong. The CIA was damaged for decades by elaborate hoaxes. And, like Assange, they did sent investigators and used forensics science to disprove the KJB files. And that was in the 60s! Imagine how elaborate and fool-proof files can now be created.


Okay, perhaps i stepped over the line there. Some journalists may have been lazy, but others may not have looked hard enough.

I do agree that the KGB done very well at concealing the very nature of the documents, even to the point of tricking journalists though. It is just a shame that it actually happened. It wouldn't surprise me if the same tricks are continuing today...



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   

swanne
Yes, examination by Wikileaks itself. Not by professional investigators, but by sensationalist and biased (in favor of wikileaks) party.


WikiLeaks has, on its staff, experienced and professional investigators. As such, the examinations are not conducted in a biased way at all. The damage which could be done to WikiLeaks, if it had published a false document, would be huge. It would be suicide on WikiLeaks' to wrongly examine a document.



Did you?


I have, yes. Many times.



But mate... what is there to debate? I can only offer opinion. I can only say that back in 2010 I was almost worshipping the guy, until I realized that he was another pawn in the Big Political Theatre - a pawn whose purpose is to encourage a revolution so that the true bad guys can take presidency. Assange is playing a double-bluff, if you know poker as I do. I know what I'm talking about - I made predictions regarding the Elite's next moves, back in january, and now it's been 3 predictions which came true. But again, I see no reason why I should continue explaining something that nobody is ready to hear.


While i do not know Julian's ultimate motives (he may very well be protected asset, for all we know), i do find his basic ones (internet freedoms, privacy etc) just, for the most part.

Just out of curiosity, what were the three predictions?



In 2010 I used to think exactly the same way. But now... I see an even greater picture. But I understand your position. I really do, since I used to share it.


Fair enough.


I agree that there is much more going on behind the scenes.


No hard feelings,

Swan


Same here mate.


- Daas.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join