It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Julian Assange

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 



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?


We already know that the US and Europe does stupid things; its not a secret. What effect does it do to release more files saying "US and Europe does stupid things?"

People know but doesn't KNOW it until they read the horror in the newspaper. Oh yes, you know that so-claimed Buddhist reduced to slavery thousands of Muslim children... If you read it, you would now have KNOW how horrible it is.

Exposing corruption and horrors always serve a purpose and have effects. When these people got interviewed, their day was a bit brighter for them, because for the first time, they weren't hidden. Their story and situation was to be exposed to the world.
And it seems all for nothing because some people doesn't seem to care. They're more interested to learn that the US sent another drone, while it has been doing that since they were created, and that will be enough to make everyone revolt.

And, please, understand. I'm not saying that the US problems are less importants than those of these villagers. I'm saying, we should know about ALL of them. Corruption doesn't stop after Europe and US, it extends to the Middle-East, and Asia, and Africa.

It seems that these people's nationality too serves as the criteria of "do we expose and care for them, or not"; because these people's governments are our enemies, we discard the little people who are also the enemy of their governments. Because we're in war with Syria, it seems that we shouldn't care about whatever horrible Syria does to its own Syrians.

I'm just saying. Corruption is everywhere; why then ALL corruptions aren't exposed. Who exposed that China beats to death its citizens when they spend more than 4 hours on the Web? It was a random magazine/newspaper. Why then Wikileaks, the leader in exposing corruption and horrible deeds doesn't expose things like that?


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…


Okay, you misunderstood what I wrote; I meant "you" as "you people in the US and the Europe", not "you, WanDash".
As for what I'm going to do against these dictactors... Nothing, 'cause I can't. I don't have millions in my closet. But charity members can; philantropist can. Thousands of people in Africa were helped by charity when the corruptiin there was exposed.
As for you, and this time I mean you, you know what the US government does. What will you do against that? Do you think the civilians have any chance at all against nuclear bombs and drones?
So basically, if we go by your ideas, even the release of US corruption is useless, such as the release of India and China corruption is useless.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 



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.


No, it isn't mentioned in this letter. It appeared somewhere, about a month ago, and it was written that after Benedict wrote for the first time to Julian, and after Julian replied to him (the letter in my OP), Benedict sent another reply, saying that he thanked Julian for the letter, and after alot of uncertainties, he wished to continue the movie, and that he'll do everything he can as an actor to represent and hold up Wikileaks's interests, even if it will be hard without meeting him.
Julian's reply was that Benedict should watch his back, because if he still insist on making the movie, there will be serious consequences.

I remember that it struck me as peculiar, and I pondered upon it during the night, trying to figure out what was happening (during that time I knew only the basis on Assange) and resolved in the morning to save the page I've found. Unluckily, I never had the chance, because during the evening, my roommate made the weekly clean of web cookies and history of our computer, and thus, the link was erased. I tried tp find it, but so far, I have no luck.

The following, I'm not a 100% that it was Assange's doing, but it was still a strange coincidence after his threat:
A couple of weeks before the release of the movie, an interviewer was interviewing Benedict, and asked him about what he thought of Chelsea Manning. I can't remember the exact interview and words (it was all written, btw, a written interview), but I remember reading that Benedict said something like
"Manning did broke an oath, but I believe what he did was for the right thing. I mean, spying on our phones and e-mails is pretty un-democratic. I could understand if we were in the middle of a terrible war, and that in order to protect us, they would need to spy in the communications to see where the traitors are, but it's not the case. There's no war, no traitors. Just civilians. They shouldn't spy and note every bank account I have or with whom I'm planning a date, and this is what I think that justify Manning breaking his military oath".

Everything was allright so far. However, this wasn't how it was originally published. The Guardian was the first to publish it, and it cut everything Benedict said, and kept "I could understand that in order to protect us, they would need to spy in the communications."
So that, for awhile, seriously damaged Benedict's reputation and credibility, since he was portraying someone who fights for civil liberties, until th original interviewer and Benedict's friends showed the un-edited version of the interview.

After that, there's one other curious incident, but I can't say that it's the result of Assange's threat. Up to the release of the movie, Benedict's friends commented that he started to become very nervous every time that he got out of his house, always looking behind his back, and he started calming down more and more the date to the theatre release was approaching.
I'm really not suggesting anything, it was just a very curious incident..


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).


Oh, yes, perhaps. Perhaps the person in charge of the movie chronicle is an admirer, and so, he/she created all the "hate the movie and the actor, love Assange" articles...
It's in fact more than possible. Good one



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.


I don't think it's jealousy, he was well represented in Wikileaks (or so I heard); I would too tend to think that either their opinions was radically different, or Daniel found something dangerous. I would gladly go with yours, however, having a different opinion doesn't provoke betraying our friend and sabotage/destroy what we helped create. Will it have been only an opinion, Daniel would have said "Look, Julian, I know you have this in mind for Wikileaks, but I just don't agree. I think it will be best if I just leave". Instead, he sabotaged Wikileaks, destroyed most files, wrote an incriminating book against it, and Julian himself doesn't seem to recognize him anymore as his friend... But I may be wrong.


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.


That is true. Nothing is ever black or white, and history of what happened will always be biased by both parties...


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.


Yeah, but I don't think it's gonna happen with the all the governemnts looking for the members everywhere. Kind of really risky.



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...


Me neither. Plus, now they have more technology, bigger and faster computers... Who really knows when the information released is true or not...


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


No, it was my fault, actually. I reacted a bit too passionatly...

Assange's motives for Wikileaks may have been honorable. Most are; free human rights, freedom of speech, less corruption, less secrets from the governments.
But I just can't help notice how since Wikileaks's beginning, and its release of US files, the American population seems to have been more and more craving to revolt. Each new small controversies is now an excuse to uprise more people into going a futile battle against the government. I say futile, because the military will survive it with all their mighty weaponry, and after it, there'll never be any more Constitution, and people will be even less free than now. And since it follows exactly what happened with Russia and China, I can't help but feel there's a higher hand behind these moves, a chessmaster who uses countries and population as pawns and queens to accomplish his final goal.
And I can't help but feel that Wikileaks plays a big role in the game.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

daaskapital
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.

So do I.

But in our modern world, Truth is the new kind of bullets in a war... The question is, who is the target?


Just out of curiosity, what were the three predictions?

Ugh, well it doesn't relate to Assange, but more to the general aspect of our future. skieswanne.weebly.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

starheart
...I'm not saying that the US problems are less importants than those of these villagers. I'm saying, we should know about ALL of them. Corruption doesn't stop after Europe and US, it extends to the Middle-East, and Asia, and Africa.

It seems that these people's nationality too serves as the criteria of "do we expose and care for them, or not"; because these people's governments are our enemies, we discard the little people who are also the enemy of their governments. Because we're in war with Syria, it seems that we shouldn't care about whatever horrible Syria does to its own Syrians.

I'm just saying. Corruption is everywhere; why then ALL corruptions aren't exposed. Who exposed that China beats to death its citizens when they spend more than 4 hours on the Web? It was a random magazine/newspaper. Why then Wikileaks, the leader in exposing corruption and horrible deeds doesn't expose things like that?

It has been my understanding, all along, that WikiLeaks is virtually & merely an outlet...and not a news organization. I could be wrong...but, again, that is what I have understood.
Many sources dumping information into the cesspool...and after filtering - only some of it is re-introduced to the public for consumption.
I cannot speak to the possibility that some of the information dumped in their lap has to do with subjects you are interested in... I, likewise, cannot speak to whether they choose not to publish some of it, because it isn't sensational enough (or - for whatever other reasons).
If you follow Jennifer Robinson's Tweets ( @suigenerisjen )...I think you'll find that she has been VERY vocal and interested in the plight/s of some in the same kinds of matters, as you seem to be pointing at.
If she is the legal representative (or - a legal representative) for WikiLeaks...and WikiLeaks does not care about third-world despots and dictatorial atrocities...why does she spend so much time trying to draw the attention of anyone-who-will-listen/care to it...?

Thanks for the conversation.



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 



It has been my understanding, all along, that WikiLeaks is virtually & merely an outlet...and not a news organization. I could be wrong...but, again, that is what I have understood.


Technically, they seem to be not yet a news organizations; they rellied in the past on newspapers to release their files (The Guardian, New York Times, Der Spielgel).
That being said, they have a big website in which they also post their files (Wikileaks). So, it could be said that they're now as popular and researchable than a news organisations.


I cannot speak to the possibility that some of the information dumped in their lap has to do with subjects you are interested in... I, likewise, cannot speak to whether they choose not to publish some of it, because it isn't sensational enough (or - for whatever other reasons).


I understand; I mean, we're not employed there, we can't know what's really going on.
All we can base our suspicions is on the nature of the files released. Although there had been files against South America, France, Europe, a couples from Middle-East, none of their amount can compare to the amount of US un-redacted files that Wikileaks released prior to Chealsea Manning's whistle-blowing: 400 000 documents about the US dirty secrets have been released. That's alot of US leaked files unlike the amount of Europian leaked files.


If you follow Jennifer Robinson's Tweets ( @suigenerisjen )...I think you'll find that she has been VERY vocal and interested in the plight/s of some in the same kinds of matters, as you seem to be pointing at.
If she is the legal representative (or - a legal representative) for WikiLeaks...and WikiLeaks does not care about third-world despots and dictatorial atrocities...why does she spend so much time trying to draw the attention of anyone-who-will-listen/care to it...?


No offence, but all organisations will have a very vocal and caring legal representative to draw people's attention to it. It's how they get recruits.

I understand how Wikileaks and Assange can be very near people's heart, for their motives are very noble. And I can't tell you "Stop believing in them" as much as you can't tell me "Start believing in them". We all have our opinions and our gut feelings. All I can do is urge you caution. Never trust only the appearance, and be cautious about any powerful organisation.



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 

What I don't think you understand, is -- I have no particular allegiance or alliance or reverie of/for WikiLeaks. I just don't see them as being as insidious as it would seem that your convictions propose.
I have been in position to open the records to a couple of major "disclosures" to the public...(through the years)...and, for one reason or another, have not. (won't go into it, here... may never disclose... then again -- may...but it won't be as potent as it would have been, had I disclosed back when)
What I was privy to...had little to do with foreign (non-U.S.) governments ---- because I was not exposed to the same.
I was exposed to, and privy to, and intimately involved with...something that was happening in the USA...
So - any information I might have given (and I had a boat-load) to some WikiLeaks-style outlet...would have been primarily associated with (thus, affecting) people in the USA.
Does that make me un-caring?
All it makes me...is...local.
I cannot report on what I am not privy to...
Maybe you know a whole lot more than I do about WikiLeaks...
If so - I would like to know what you know, as it would allow me to form a more-(better)-rounded opinion. (really!)
Thanks for making the conversation civil and appealing!!!



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


Sorry for the delay... was busy.



So - any information I might have given (and I had a boat-load) to some WikiLeaks-style outlet...would have been primarily associated with (thus, affecting) people in the USA.
Does that make me un-caring?
All it makes me...is...local.
I cannot report on what I am not privy to...


That is true and not at all un-caring. Warning against corruption is essential and very noble.
The problem is, there's a fine line between exposing, and overthrowing the accused, even at enormous innocent cost; and almost no powerful organisation, Wikileaks or any other, have up till now handled that fine line.
Also, the whistleblower AND the outlet must plan ahead: what will the released information unleash? How can it be released causing the least possible innocent lives? Sometimes, the whistleblower himself can't do it; he already have to watch constantly his back. But then, and all true journalists knows that, it's to the outlet organisation to revise the infos, and release it in an non-harmful way. Which, up till now, Wikileaks didn't do.


Maybe you know a whole lot more than I do about WikiLeaks...
If so - I would like to know what you know, as it would allow me to form a more-(better)-rounded opinion. (really!)


No, I don't know much more than most of you here (I didn't even knew that The Guardian broke with Assange, or that Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged Wikileaks and destroyed half of its files before leaving, before you and Daaskapital came in)...

I only see something terribly wrong with the picture of Wikileaks. I cannot give any definite proof, because powerful organisation will always cover everything up. Its like, how do we perfectly know that there's a Shadow somewhere? It's there, we feel it deep in our bones and heart, but there's no definite proof.
That is exactly how Wikileaks feels to me; tiny clues, a move there, a move here. That's why I can't tell anyone to stop believing or trusting Wikileaks. I can only warn.

All the clues I can give you, are the following. For most people, it will mean nothing, but for me, it's like tiny little red lights popping in danger mode.

- 1917. Bolcheviks succeed in putting into everyone's mind that Tsar Nicholas II is an evil tyran, and must be overthrown, though the Tsar encouraged freedom of religion, speech, thoughts, and that Russia's advancements was higher than all Europe. The population somehow agrees with the Bolcheviks, and they revolt. The royal family are savagely murdered without even one trial, and Communism takes over Empirism.
About ten years later, it's Stalin's turn to lead Russia. Communism, which promised to the pro-revolutanary Russians to be better than Tsar Nicholas's rule, created abolition of religions, abolition of free thoughts and speech; even types of arts and literrature such as abstract, avant-garde and impressionalist was banned upon threat of death or deportation to gulags. As a result from all of that, Stalin created 20-40 millions deaths; 3 times more than Hitler's death toll.
Such was the result of the Russian revolution.

- 1930. Mao Zedong and the Communist party succeeds in putting into everyone's mind that the precedent Chinese government and emperors were tyrants and must be overthrown. The population agreed with the Communists, and they revolt against the Chinese governments. Everyone that was against the Communist revolution, including civilians, were murdered without trial.
Zedong and Communism took over China. Religion and freedom of speech was again banned, such was also intellectuals and any thoughts not approved by Zedong. History in school was re-written so to convince the children that Zedong was a hero, and the precedent governents were tyrants. Imperfection was also banished; a painter was shot for painting what Zedong really looked like, and not the embellished and magnificient figure that Zedong wanted. He was famously heard saying that he didn't cared how many Chinese died or killed themselves under his rule. He stated:


Their lives are a necessary sacrifice for the vision of China that I promote. In fact, in order for China to become what I dream, up to half of China's population will have to be sacrificed. China is too over-populated; our dream of an utopian country cannot happen if it stays so.


As the result of his rule, Zedong created 40-70 millions deaths; twice as more as Stalin, and up to ten times more than Hitler.
Such was the result of the Chinese revolution.

- During the Cold War, the Russian's KJB released Project INFEKTION to the world's media, including Americans media. Hundreds of faked files "claiming" that all the scandals happening was the CIA'S fault was released to the American public, and after two decades, soon became truth. These fake files "showed" that the US government were tyrants, and had to be overthrown. It was the first spark of pro-revolution thoughts into the population, and the first attempt to introduce Communism in the West.

- In the 70s-80s, a group of civilians formed a pro-revolution organisation called "The Weatherman" and intensively trained to overthrow the government. It resulted in hundreds of Weatherman members's death, and less than ten casualties in the military and governmental ranks. Due to the violent nature of the Weatherman, even the population lost faith in them, and revolution and the overthrowing of the US government is delayed, and for a time, abandonned.

- Series of scandals begins to shake people's thoughts for the US government, such as the Iraq/Iran wars, the 9/11 debate, and the Afghanistan War. People start again to doubt the governemnt, while starting to be oblivious to the definite improvement in freedom of religion, speech and thoughts; in the Cold War, black and other color people are accepted, while they're still rejected in Russia and Communist countries; homosexuality is more and more accepted while it's still banned and punishable in Communist countries.

- During this time, organisations pops up and starts to claim that we're starting to over-populate the planet; genetics and eugenics researches starts again, and proves that certains defects, such as stupidity, is genetic. Things such as religion is now branded as mental illness; and DNA collecting is taking place, inventoriating everyone's genetic material. The popularity of eugenics climbs up again, as it promise to help regulate over-population and genetic mental and physical illness.

But the population is still not unanimous that the government must be overthrown. So, next move.

- A zealous journalist called Julian Assange gets tired to see corruption everywhere, and founds Wikileaks (with or without exterior help is impossible to prove); he also meets and recruits Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

- Daniel Domscheit-Berg and Julian Assange are best friends and very close. Domscheit-Berg becomes Assange's right-hand and co-founds Wikileaks. Domscheit-Berg counseled Assange on which files to edit, and which to release. During that time they together release files against corruption around the world. Wikileaks is now an agent of justice; despots and dictators are exposed, leading to better governments for Africa; criminals actions are exposed, and thus banned from happening.

Continued....



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


- Something happens: Domscheit-Berg suddenly breaks his friendship with Assange, sabotage Wikileaks, and destroys half of Wikileaks's files.

- Two hypothesis are presented for the sudden lost friendship: Domscheit-Berg discovered extremely dangerous files, and Assange was going to release them with no second thought; or, it has been rumoured that Domscheit-Berg found out that Assange didn't edited the leaked files, claiming it wasn't his responsibility, and thus, Domscheit-Berg destroyed the most dangerous files, knowing Assange wouldn't edit them.

- Next, when Domscheit-Berg left Wikileaks, Chealsea Manning gave to Wikileaks about 400 000 documents against the US governments; documents that Assange never edited to lessen the blow on the innocent parties also involved in the documents leaks.

- The release of those 400 000 documents did the same effect than Project INFEKTION + 100 Hiroshima bombs. The US population uproared against the government, and now, pro-revolution feelings are found in 9 person out of 10. In ATS and other conspiracy forums, 80% of the members feelings for the government is to revolt against it, although the result will be much much WORSE than anything Communism ever came up with.

- Anonymous, the masked organisation, always praise Wikileaks and uses its leaked files as their purpose; and they are one of the, if not the only, organisation that heavily promotes total and armed revolution against the US governemnt.

- Then, perhaps it wasn't Assange's fault that he indirectly promoted revolution; however, would he have been truly innocent, he wouldn't have reacted with such violence to Mr. Cumberbatch's refusal to drop The Fifth Estate, nor would he have threatened the actor of serious consequences if he didn't abandoned the movie.

***************

Now, I admit those clues are not a definite base to stand judgement, and treat them as you wish; however, for me and the 20% of the population that followed past history, these clues turns on the "Alarm!!" button of our brain.

Our entire history have been filled by people who craved world domination. But however near someone got it, he always failed. Because he isn't the master world dominator; he was just a pawn. The real mastermind, that you call him Big Brother, TPTB, Shadow, never shows himself.
See, the Shadow is, by all definition, a chess-master. Once it found a technique to win the game, it will keep it forever. And that is how you could recognize a chess game from Garry Kasparov from a game of Bobby Fisher; each one, no matter how their opponents played, always win with their own techniques and stratagems.

And that is exactly what's been going on. The Shadow plays the game; countries and rulers are his queens and pawns. All so that at the end, the Shadow checkmate one more enemy. The thing is, if you're observant enough, you can find the stratagem used; and since a chessmaster always uses the same technique, once you start to see it, you can recognize who's behind the game, and what's his play.

In all revolutions, it started with an unknown, yet very popular group, who persuaded through mere ideas an entire population to revolt against the present government, only so that the said group can themselves rule the population; a rule worse than the one before.
Then, in all cases, the new government re-writes history, so that the childrens only know the old government as tyrannic, and the new one as heroic, converting the next generation with the group's ideology.

"History is always written by the victorious" - Napoleon.

In all cases, the civilians were treated worse than before the revolution; the newly installed government protect itself against another revolution, since it knows the population can and will revolt when they don't like it. So, thoughts are banned; freedom is restrained; spying is increased; rights are changed.

And its starting again. Just like before, a mysterious group anonymously tell the population that the present government is tyrannic. Like before, it will bring the population to revolt; like before, a worse government will be implanted. Like before, freedom in all forms will be stripped from the population; like before, those who will dare to utter one negative word will be silenced.

But the game evolved. The process is hard to describe, but if you ever read George Orwell's "1984", you'll understand exactly what I mean by saying that the Shadow is now converting before controlling you. If you haven't read it, READ IT. You can find free PDF of it on the Web, and its worth it. You'll better understand the Shadow's play.

*****

So that's why I distrust Wikileaks. Not because it's the chessmaster, but because it's his pawn. When a pawn is one move away from checkmating you, you have two choice: because he's just a pawn, you pretend that it isn't evil, and you let it do its move; or you understand the chessmaster is behind the pawn, and if you let the pawn move, the chessmaster checkmated you.

Wikileaks and Assange may be just an innocent pawn who's been forced to move to one direction; but it's still the chessmaster's pawn, and if you don't stop it, the chessmaster will once more win.


Thanks for making the conversation civil and appealing!!!


Yeah, well, umm... sorry for yelling at you earlier on...
I got caught in my passion for the subject, and I replied a bit harshly... Sorry.


I have been in position to open the records to a couple of major "disclosures" to the public...(through the years)...and, for one reason or another, have not. (won't go into it, here... may never disclose... then again -- may...but it won't be as potent as it would have been, had I disclosed back when)
What I was privy to...had little to do with foreign (non-U.S.) governments ---- because I was not exposed to the same.
I was exposed to, and privy to, and intimately involved with...something that was happening in the USA...


Will you be willing to discuss it with me either in here or by U2U?

Or better, make a thread about it?

You never know, perhaps your disclosures still have some uses. As long as it doesn't promote revolution, it could educate people, even if it happened years ago. INFEKTION happened four decades ago; it only got disclosed in the last one. But it educated people and undid decades of brainwashing. And taught some people to look twice at a given information before believing in it.

And nowhere is better to disclose it than in ATS. It still got at least 70% of members who aren't Shadow agent, unlike 90% of the newspaper and websites..



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   

starheart And there's a difference between leaking corruption, and promoting outright revolution.

I think I missed the memo where WikiLeaks is about revolution. Individuals can have opinions about that. Does WikiLeaks officially espouse overthrowing the US government?

You said in another post that revolution was something that no 'outlet' (such as wikileaks) had addressed, but I don't really see how that is their problem or their job. I was totally against publishing the names of individuals but they changed that.

What you are saying amounts to, nobody should reveal anything true but bad about a government, lest someone else decide the government should be overthrown, and the follow-on chaos be worse than it was to begin with. And so the problem is "revealing the truth about something bad." I think... that is not the problem.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 



Does WikiLeaks officially espouse overthrowing the US government?


No, not them (or, at least, they haven't said so). But Anonymous, which bases their actions on Wikileaks's leaked files, are. They help Wikileaks by hacking into governmental accounts (such as when they hacked into the leading Republican canditat's account during the 2008 Presiential run) and giving Wikileaks the infos found, and later on, Anonymous promotes revolution.


You said in another post that revolution was something that no 'outlet' (such as wikileaks) had addressed, but I don't really see how that is their problem or their job.


It wasn't revolution not being adressed by outlets that I deplored, it was entire villages banned from leaving their borders and ravaged by famine, while their governments was feasting and oblivious to their population; almost no outlet ever addressed that.


I was totally against publishing the names of individuals but they changed that.


Yep. 3/4 of the names in the 400 000 americans documents that Wikileaks released through Manning's whistleblowing were completely innocent in the exposed scandals. These innocent people got their names all smudged by scandals they never participated. And those names were never edited.


What you are saying amounts to, nobody should reveal anything true but bad about a government, lest someone else decide the government should be overthrown, and the follow-on chaos be worse than it was to begin with. And so the problem is "revealing the truth about something bad." I think... that is not the problem.


I don't think it was necessary to publish all 400 000 documents, no.
Yes, it's a fine line that we're dealing with when exposing corruption. Corruption must be exposed. But what people decides to do with this information is what is the fine line; and this is also the responsibility of the outlet or newspaper when exposing the files. If you know that the files you're going to expose will provoke more harm in the long-term, you try to release it in its most tame version.

The problem lies both ways: the outlet that released the file in its unedited version, which provokes a big rebellion.
But also, the problem lies with the population, who immediately (with some help from organisations like Anonymous) look at the news, and goes: "Well, we have to revolt, there's no other way that it will stop", without realising how history went.
And then, the problem goes back to the outlet, who, instead of realising how the population takes the released files, ignores the reactions and continues to release more scandals, igniting even more the population.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
we should examine this name a bit:

Julian Assange is actually a code word for: Joe Lie En Azz Agent

He's basically a provocator. We're all sitting around thinking he's the good guy. They make him look that way. But actually he's just a disinformation agent. A provocator, put there by the g-v to raise chaos.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


look, I have had defended him, in this very own thread... but I also have and had, sometime ago, a very deep feeling of false and deception around this guy... I don't know... Is not easy to explain.

There will be a time, when evil will look good and the opposite... I think we are already in that time... where criminals accuse victims in courts ... terrorist's are release... well.. a bunch of stuff.. y kn..



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


haven't red all of your posting...got one question for you...


If you could turn back the clock...and change things...so would you have rather for wikileaks and Assange never to have existed at all ? After everything...how much poorer and in the dark would we have been ?



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

starheart
No, not them (or, at least, they haven't said so). But Anonymous...

So one of your primary gripes with WikiLeaks is the behavior of a loose assortment of unrelated individuals that nobody in the world can control, let alone them.


They help Wikileaks by hacking into governmental accounts

Everyone who shares secret info "helps" WikiLeaks which makes secrets public if submitted. Including more altruistic sources. Blaming WikiLeaks for only certain arbitrary sources you don't personally happen to like, let alone for the later individual opinions of some of the unrelated people in those sources, is:
* leveraging a gripe about something they are not even the ones doing
* by people whom they are not
* with opinions they have not even promoted.

This seems a case of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome level displacement in a way.

Analogies, as a thought experiment:

1. Hijackers and passengers get on a plane. Hijackers abuse everyone by taking over. Copilot hits speaker which lets people know the cabin is under hostile command. Some passengers fight back, leading to other deaths or even a crash. Guilty party: the copilot who let everyone know what was going on.

2. Criminal and victim and bystander walk down a street at night. Criminal attacks victim. Local homeowner turns on porch light when hearing all the screams. Bystander sees what's happening, runs up and joins the fight, leading to possible injury or death of one or more of the three. Guilty party: the guy whose porch light allowed the bystander to see and react and hence 'change the dynamics' of the original crime or response to it.

Really this is a novel twist. Somehow in your logic it seems the "crux" of the problem isn't corrupt governments or companies, the problem isn't people sharing the info of their own corrupt governments or companies, the problem isn't the reaction of bystanders or peripheral victims reacting to the corruption -- no, the real crux of the problem is the source that enabled these people to see each other in the first place. That really is displacement of responsibility on a major scale.

On the other hand, it's attacking the publicly known source of a tiny nonprofit operation, rather than a big government or unknown others. So I suppose it is really the only target one CAN make a target of.


It wasn't revolution not being adressed by outlets that I deplored, it was entire villages banned from leaving their borders and ravaged by famine, while their governments was feasting and oblivious to their population; almost no outlet ever addressed that.

So another of your primary gripes with WikiLeaks is related to the behavior of corrupt governments, which they certainly cannot control, which have been around since the dawn of time regardless of WikiLeaks' existence, and which they could even possibly help expose if only someone would submit through them secrets of said corruption, and then perhaps someone else could act on that -- because if nobody ever acted on any of it, it would seem a little pointless to expose it.

So if corruption is to be exposed (as you've said), we'll have to trust corrupt governments and business to altruistically volunteer their own exposure, because if a neutral party such as WikiLeaks should publish it, WikiLeaks becomes responsible for
(a) any evil NOT exposed via them and hence not acted upon, or
(b) any evil that IS exposed via them and hence acted upon.

So they're guilty of essentially everything no matter what.


These innocent people got their names all smudged by scandals they never participated. And those names were never edited.

You mean before the changed policy where they blackout names. Yes, everything is a matter of learning from experience. There was no predecessor to WikiLeaks to have learned such hard lessons from. So they are the ones that had to trip over it. They learned, they changed. Despite that was my own gripe about them, I recognize they have done their best to adapt to and improve the situation, and I don't think one can ask much more of anyone than that.



What you are saying amounts to, nobody should reveal anything true but bad about a government, lest someone else decide the government should be overthrown, and the follow-on chaos be worse than it was to begin with. And so the problem is "revealing the truth about something bad." I think... that is not the problem.

I don't think it was necessary to publish all 400 000 documents, no.

So a 'someone' should have magically 'known' 'which' of 400,000 submitted documents 'might' have been 'appropriate' to share versus not. (And 5+ years later, after said someones finished going through all those, either for free or for a lot of funding required to house/feed/etc. that person while doing so, and the docs were ready to finally be public...)

Part of the element of being non-biased is literally BEING non-biased which means not having some "internal filter" who sits around deciding what should be exposed and what shouldn't because all such decisions are arbitrary.

That would merely lead to that person working for the CIA or 'committing suicide' with a bullet to the back of their own head if they didn't happen to share that agenda. And would completely undermine the entire goal of being nonbiased in the first place.

So in short, here you blame WikiLeaks for daring, let alone continuing, to uphold the stated central tenet and ethic of their own organization.


Corruption must be exposed. But what people decides to do with this information is what is the fine line;

People who are not WikiLeaks.


and this is also the responsibility of the outlet or newspaper when exposing the files.

If the outlet is part of a given country, and the information is specific to that government, or its military, or its involved-associated governments or militaries (e.g. an ally during wartime), then this makes sense; it is an inherent responsibility not to sabotage your own country, directly or indirectly.

However, what one might call "politically non-dominational" global groups have no reason to have loyalty to and protection for any given government.

If governments and business wish to not have secrets let alone corrupt secrets shared with any given outlet, then they need to actually a) keep them secret and/or b) stop behaving corruptly. Should they fail at either of those, the blame is theirs, not the outlet.

Now, had this publication made the government of a small African peoples look like the villains they are, you'd be happy for that as you indicate. You're distressed there isn't more of that submitted.

But as it made the government of a huge American peoples look like the villains they are, you're not happy about that. You're distressed it might upset the Americans who will behave stupidly in response.

In short, you want WikiLeaks to un-become the non-denominational global outlet and become the outlet convenient to your point of view.


continued, as I'm out of room.
edit on 25-10-2013 by RedCairo because: total lack of grace



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
continued



If you know that the files you're going to expose will provoke more harm in the long-term, you try to release it in its most tame version.

Your definition of harm given your OP is "unfortunate chaos in the USA resulting from the people getting fed up with government misdeeds." That is likely because you are an American who doesn't want chaos and/or the government being even meaner to us. That makes sense, as an individual.

However, WikiLeaks is not an American organization, and as such has no reason to define "harm" the way you define harm. I suspect tens or hundreds of millions of people actually would define harm more like "letting sources such as the US Govt get away with crap without providing an outlet where even their own people can reveal it."

For all the focus on government secrets, the reality is much of what WikiLeaks has published is also corporate misdeeds, and frankly I want there to be some record of when a corporation accidentally mass pollutes an environment for example. I think WikiLeaks as an ideal is awesome. Working out the details includes some turbulence but as a global effort at transparency I think it's long overdue.

Your gripe here against WikiLeaks is that they are not aiding your personal agenda based on your personal definition of what's convenient for your personal country, as well as your personal definition of what constitutes harm.

So you don't want them to be a non-denominational global outlet, but something less convenient to foreign despots you dislike (e.g. wicked small govt tyranny you don't feel has enough people sending WikiLeaks stuff, as if that is somehow their fault), and more convenient to the USA's despots (who alas for the USA seem to have no end of citizens willing to expose what they feel is the corruption within).


But also, the problem lies with the population, who immediately (with some help from organisations like Anonymous) look at the news, and goes: "Well, we have to revolt, there's no other way that it will stop", without realising how history went.

Make people dumbed-down enough to over-govern and miserable enough through mercenary mistreatment of their economic and other environments, and they may react like the livestock you've made them, that's always a risk for governments. But this problem, timeless and global, though perhaps iterating locally at the moment, is not WikiLeaks'.


the problem goes back to the outlet, who, instead of realising how the population takes the released files, ignores the reactions and continues...

So a global non-denominational nonprofit organization should be violating literally the central tenets, principles and ethics that they exist solely to establish and uphold, all so that your particular country, enraged (as you suggest) by their government's corruption and blinded (as you suggest) by their population's stupidity, will not end up in chaos from the combination of their OWN flaws and relationship.

Hell we cannot even trust half our own government and corporations to such biased concern in favor of our own country's well-being, so why is it that a non-American, non-biased tiny group of unrelated people should be held responsible for our well-being, at the complete sacrifice of the greater point of integrity-as-openness they exist to uphold?

Governments, like people, have life spans. If the sheer incompetence and/or corruption of a government leads to the dissolution or devolution of its form in the response of its people, this is not something that can or should be blamed on unrelated sources. It's a tragic outcome, I agree. Probably some 'you will know the tree by its fruit' karma in a way. I don't want that outcome either.

But the responsibility for ethical behavior of American government, American companies, and the American people in response, rests with the Americans. Attempting to project this responsibility and blame onto a small nonprofit and nonamerican group seems misguided to me.

I share your bias in favor of America and its outcomes, I simply do not share your desire to blame WikiLeaks for the results. The world is bigger than us, and truth is bigger than our conveniences.

Peace.

edit on 25-10-2013 by RedCairo because: no grace



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I'm still not sure what to make of "We Steal Secrets"



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Notheycant
I'm still not sure what to make of "We Steal Secrets"


Wikileaks doesn't steal secrets... a band of pirates named Anonymous is doing this job for Wikileaks. The very reason why Internet isn't safe is because of these pirates, yet they protest when governments react in defence.

ANONYMOUS HACKS EVERYTHING! No privacy can exist if they can hack every bloody computer on Earth! It's not like if they are the FBI, they are ANONYMOUS, a bunch of revolts who has nothing better to do than to check everyone's closet out of pure curiosity!





edit on 25-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

swanne
ANONYMOUS HACKS EVERYTHING! No privacy can exist if they can hack every bloody computer on Earth! It's not like if they are the FBI, they are ANONYMOUS, a bunch of revolts who has nothing better to do than to check everyone's closet out of pure curiosity!

Agree. Of course, it's becoming more clear all the time that the government has a variety of totally privacy invading techs, and agencies who are not held accountable to their own laws, which makes them not too different, except they have actual power of imprisonment and not just publication. The primary response I see in others is "if they have nothing to hide, why worry." Perhaps the same logic should be applied to anon.

PS and as worrisome as it is to have digital vigilantes with no loyalties, in some respects, one can't help but kind of admire their competence. If you're going to be an outlaw, at least be good at it. They are.
edit on 25-10-2013 by RedCairo because: PS



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 



So if corruption is to be exposed (as you've said), we'll have to trust corrupt governments and business to altruistically volunteer their own exposure, because if a neutral party such as WikiLeaks should publish it, WikiLeaks becomes responsible for
(a) any evil NOT exposed via them and hence not acted upon, or
(b) any evil that IS exposed via them and hence acted upon.


It is hardly a neutral party if we can't know who's feeding the information.


Analogies, as a thought experiment:

1. Hijackers and passengers get on a plane. Hijackers abuse everyone by taking over. Copilot hits speaker which lets people know the cabin is under hostile command. Some passengers fight back, leading to other deaths or even a crash. Guilty party: the copilot who let everyone know what was going on.

2. Criminal and victim and bystander walk down a street at night. Criminal attacks victim. Local homeowner turns on porch light when hearing all the screams. Bystander sees what's happening, runs up and joins the fight, leading to possible injury or death of one or more of the three. Guilty party: the guy whose porch light allowed the bystander to see and react and hence 'change the dynamics' of the original crime or response to it.


This is a rather nice analogy. But I also see a much darker possibility, which I feel too much people seem to breeze over. Please allow me to counter these thought experiments with two other ones:

1. All governments... all corporations... even Greenpeace... everybody on Earth except truly gifted ones... all made a mistake, at least once in their life. Hell, even I did. But for this thought experiment, let us imagine that a party would like to control a bigger, more powerful party. Motivated by thirst for the latter's greater power, the smaller party resorts to a tactic known for ages. This tactic happens to fit quite in-step with what we observe from Wikileaks and US government. Since the smaller party cannot use force without triggering a war which it would lose, the smaller party leaks "truth" about the greater party, thus providing a leverage to influence the greater party. Perhaps to influence the US government towards a more Left-ist direction? To show the US that Wikileaks won't hesitate to leak if the US makes a mistake, Wikileaks periodically leaks "truth" about the government.

This tactic, know for ages, is called "blackmail". Where the blackmailer uses truth as a weapon. Sure, truth in itself may appear noble and just, but this is only a mean to achieve something far more darker.

2. As a follow-up to the first thought experiment: Now, who would want to blackmail the US government, or, at least, direct its media and people to a more left-ist direction? Well, what about an old communist or national-socialist party? Perhaps the Russians realized that a physical MAD (mutually assured destruction) was a very real threat during the Cold War. Perhaps they also realized that by steering the masses of the Western democratic, they could actually turn most North-Americans into extreme Left, or Communist, sympathizers (Operation Infektion). Perhaps China realized this. Perhaps the remainders of Nazi Germany realized this (Operation Paperclip). All of these dogmas would have a very strong motive in conveniently exposing "shocking truth" about the Western world. Now, from where does Wikileaks receives its shocking informations? That's the point: nobody can know. We can't just discard the possibility that perhaps alot of "shocking truths" are dug up by Anonymous member having tie to communists, neonazis, or even mafia organizations, in an attempt to re-structure the Western world according to their conveniences and respective standards. It not far-fetched at all to imagine an Anonymous, pro-Maoist chinese hacker (how many pro-Maoist, chinese hacker are there? Hundreds? Millions?) leaking information to Wikileaks, which Assange would then simply send without considering the impact on the western culture (major hatred against US non-civilian bodies, and propagation of Maoist influence).

Truth... are the new kind of bombs. Bombs which no armour can shield against.

Swan



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

spartacus699
we should examine this name a bit:

Julian Assange is actually a code word for: Joe Lie En Azz Agent




That's a bit of a stretch



He's basically a provocator. We're all sitting around thinking he's the good guy. They make him look that way. But actually he's just a disinformation agent. A provocator, put there by the g-v to raise chaos.


Do you have any evidence supporting that claim?

The only interactions Julian Assange has been confirmed to have had with law enforcement agencies was in the early 1990's. He was involved in catching online criminals and predators. He was also involved in supporting the police in technical matters, regarding computers.

No where, has there been any information stating that Julian was involved in any other organisation other than the Victorian Police Service. Requests were made to the court regarding Julian in his earlier years, and that is all that came up.

In saying all of this though, it actually wouldn't surprise me if he was a protected asset of an Australian law enforcement/intelligence agency.
edit on 26-10-2013 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)







 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join