I thought for quite a while that Wikileaks was credible, releasing various documents and what not causing several controversies which broke into the 'real world', if you will. Although after hearing Wayne Madsen* - anyone else heard much of what he has said? - claim Wikileaks, more specifically its founder and spokesman Julian Assange, as being some shady character who is really working for intelligence in order to control what the masses' alternative is. Very interesting when you think about it. Seeing this guy in exile though is therefore confusing. * stuff I could find on him: Notable on wikipedia His personal website Interview on youtube What do you think?
What I've always thought - Wikileaks are just a bunch of hackers that have no brains . They put their own petty personal gain ahead of the interests of entire nations . They are pathetic .
Sounds like crap to me. If news organisations can impose fines, don't you think we would all be fined for not reading them? Laws must be passed before that could happen and I can't see that's gonna happen. @ApocalypseXL; WikiLeaks doesn't hack.
Seems you would knowmore about someone you idealize. Hacking is Assanges specialty. Who do you think broke the encryption on the files Manning stole? It sure as hell wasn´t Manning.
Apparently he grew up in some dodgy cult in Australia and admits to being one of the influential hackers in a particularly effective group during the 80s.
Bogus! I see no reason to sign any such agreement. If I had such info, then I would not call wiki... maybe I will just send it to CNN or some such, once its all over the internet/tv, then it is useless to wiki.... so If i am a secetary, and I release, then I would be sued for $20m? How much does a sec make? $500/week maybe?!
Seems you should know too, not as if we haven't discussed it before. Wikileaks does not hack to steal info. Whistleblowers SEND it information. All it does is make the information available to those searching for the real truth. Assange is from a group of hackers but the fact that its workers have hacked previously does not relate to WikiLeaks being a hacking organisation. It hacks nothing, people send the information to it. Its charter won't allow for hacking. That would be like saying because I work for Murdoch, Murdoch's a karaoke lover! - Nonsensical - 2 different things. Though you can continue to slander the organisation with bullshit claims, please don't expect me to stay silent. By dissing Wikileaks, I think you're digging you're own hole into which you are falling ever faster. Enough with the spin, let's get to the truth.
The thing is that the organization hacks it's little ass out . Back in the late '90 and early '00 it was fashionable to hack into a government system . NASA was the main target (ppl looking for aliens lol) and the Pentagon was the 2nd . Trying to say that Assange and his team didn't hacked 4 it is just crazy .
Regardless of how they get their information, I'm very dubious as to Wikileaks' actual intentions and founding.
And so you should be. Skeptism is healthy for all things. Spreading misinformation (lies) about them, good or bad, is not. The thought of any old organisation giving itself the power to fine people $1, let alone 20 million, is absurd at best, and notably unsourced. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry Business Imsider <-- should have given it away as the May 12, 2011 There are two different things here that people wrongly combine as one, Assange & WikiLeaks. Both are separate entities though I would argue in favour of both, each has a separate duty. Assange can be as crazy as he likes but WikiLeaks is an organisation of people that has to follow its own charter. Bring either of them down using facts (truth) and i'll agree all the way but I think they're worth standing up for when lies are being told about them. There's a lot of info around to find out your own truths. Conspiracy theories too if that's what you're looking for. I'd hope you were smart enough to read through the spin, from both sides and see getting to the truth is most important.
I infer from your post that you believe Wikileaks may not have involvement with Assange, but why do they have him as their front man?
Hoover was a closet gay and in many way unscrupulous person but he was the head of FBI, does this mean that FBI is not a law enforcement agency? General Patton was as crazy son of B*tch as you can be but does it mean that he was not a good General or every soldier in U.S. army is crazy? It is a common mistake that every one is looking for semi-Jesus personality in leaders, specially in USA but the truth is that even good people have their faults. Some of the greatest scientists or revolutionaries were drunks and womanizers.
[video=youtube;7C-vmlh48xY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C-vmlh48xY[/video] Not at all. Assange is certainly a part of the group and the only one to put up his hand so publicly. The group started anonymously, knowing they would be pushing the buttons of very powerful people but once they had some very important information Assange decided he needed to put a face to the organisation to make it more credible. He may also have enjoyed the limelight? Personally he has a few skeletons, as most people do, but psychologically these most likely would have been what brought about his character. Being brought up inside a cultish environment, that he didn't enjoy, may have been the very catalyst for his trying to cut out the bullshit and get to the truth? Nothing too serious that I've read about his past. It's not like he's sent off hundreds of thousands of people to kill hundreds of thousands of people, or anything remotely close. I think, in fact, he aims to stop that. WikiLeaks on the other hand is simply a news outlet, same as most news outlets, except unlike other news outlets WikiLeaks gives whistleblowers a way of anonymously putting documents into the public domain (after scrutiny). Sure, anyone can upload anything but do you think they don't know that or that they don't check the details of each upload? Documents still have to be proven authentic and IMHO they should all still be thoroughly scrutinized by skeptical eyes and debunked if proven fake, but having an accurate record gives the normal joe blow, who wants to know where we're heading, a place to start looking. I haven't heard too much debunking of information found on WikiLeaks so far but there's been a lot of hot air from people who proudly admit that it's okay to have the people that control our lives lie to us whenever they feel like. That's not the example I want to set for my grand children. If you're afraid of the truth then what hope have we got going forward?
[video=youtube;vNqd4hW98sQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNqd4hW98sQ[/video] There ought to be a 20 million dollar fine for subjecting viewers to such horrible dancing. He's certainly condemned several thousand people to death whose only crime was trying to help restore order in Afghanistan. I suppose the deaths of a couple thousand is no big deal to you. Funny, you still haven't come up with a single "whistle blowing" document published by Assange. Not one. The only damage to US diplomats was done, not by their own words, but by Assange for showing them to be unable to keep a secret(The definition of espionage). LoL. You would have to provide something worth debunking to get people to debunk it. You honestly expect anyone to debunk the idea the US State Department suspects radical elements are involved in the Pakistani Govt? I think most people responded to that "Shocking Revelation" with the words, "Well duh!". The humorous thing is, Assange's 10 seconds of fame are over, and Manning is going to be rotting in Jail for a very long time. And for what? He is as much yesterday's news as is Osama Bin Laden. Get over it.
I still need to learn that move. Once you can say that is the case for sure I might agree that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of 'collateral damaged' innocent dead people is worth saving the two thousand people for, but my question would be...Is it really to 'help restore order in' or is it 'help corporates pillage' Afghanistan for the benefit of me having petrol to drive to town? No. I believe there's other 'much nicer' ways to do it. You've seen plenty or you haven't watched the news. Collateral murder is the most prominent. Not that it was news but it was something that should not have been kept secret. I believe ALL cards should be laid on the table, not just the pretty ones, in order to get a proper perspective of the choices being made. My point being, the same as yours with the birther, if the evidence of trickery was there, there's enough people against WikiLeaks that would have jumped on it. Nowhere near over. There's still a lot to come, though it must be getting harder for both Assange and Manning personally I would bet. After all, it's a pretty fierce enemy they're up against!
Fixed that for ya . Also bush to push the buttons it means to control last time I've checked . And it's exactly what he did he send thousands of jihads to kill those that dared to cooperate with the security forces afghan citizens that you'll prolly count as "victim of American bomb" . I wonder how many CIA operatives also lost their lives because a moron thought it would serve the "TRUTH" to have them exposed and in danger of being killed by Al Qaeda .
What, and the Americans have saved them all by killing the Jihadis before they got to them? Please explain why there's no reports of any of these people dying, even from so much as a heart attack. Face it, you enjoy being controlled by corporate business and are happy to be lied to as much as they want to. Accountability doesn't enter your equation.
Intelligence doesn't enter you equation . Protection of identity is critical in security operations . Why do you think police all over the world uses undercover operatives and witness protection programs ? To hide the truth ?What do you think happens when those that are in those programs get exposed ? Here are some options : A) They retire and get a farewell party with cake and flowers B) They get tortured and ripped to shreds before they can get out C) Those that get out get gunned down in broad daylight D) They loose their house ,their family and their life in bomb explosion Also how many statistics do you see related to this type of event ? Do you think anyone will think : "Oh ya someone screwed up big time and people died , let's go count the bodies" .