Wikileaks: Julian Assange Will Charge Sarah Palin & Mike Huckabee with "Incitements To Kill

reply to post by TedStevensLives

I think there is a difference between free speech and inciting murder... dont you?

reply to post by purplemer

Well, that is the point I was trying to make... not very successfully, though, apparently

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by TedStevensLives

 

As some have said before whats good for the goose is not good for the gander. I guess freedom of speech is a one way street with wikileaks huh? It's ok to us the freedom of speech argument as long as it fits their agenda, damn the person who exercises their freedom of speech and it goes against or offends wikileaks or assange right? We could go in circles with this all night or for months at a time like has been going on.

Now then i am not going in circles and if you could grasp the concept that free speech and incitment to murder and different things; then nether would you.

kx

Originally posted by TedStevensLives
reply to post by purplemer

 

Well, that is the point I was trying to make... not very successfully, though, apparently

lol i thought you did a good job....
kx

Nothing will happen unless the US government wanted this to happen to those named.

George W Bush advertised to anyone willing that he wanted Osama Bin Laden "Dead Or Alive" also.

If you charge Palin and co, you charge G.W.B. by default.

Wikileaks: Julian Assange Will Charge Sarah Palin & Mike Huckabee with "Incitements To Kill

More proof of him being just an anti-american media whore. He's just a foreigner with an unbalanced mind, obsessed with an ax to grind against America. He needs to mind his own business and clean up his own messy life first. I suggest back at him that he get some 'professional help'.

Originally posted by FoxfilesMulder
Nothing will happen unless the US government wanted this to happen to those named.

George W Bush advertised to anyone willing that he wanted Osama Bin Laden "Dead Or Alive" also.

If you charge Palin and co, you charge G.W.B. by default.

I think and i may be wrong that legaly there is a difference between bin laden and assange. Bin laden is the man there were after for blowing up two towers were as assange has so been chaged with no crime...

kz

reply to post by FlyersFan

More proof of him being just an anti-american media whore. He's just a foreigner with an unbalanced mind, obsessed with an ax to grind against America. He needs to mind his own business and clean up his own messy life first. I suggest back at him that he get some 'professional help'.

Well then an anti american whore.... have you even looked at the different stories wikileaks have covered. they have covered things all world.. I guess maybe you just have not been exposed to it or you have not bothered to look before you form an opinion..
Will this change your opinion or make you do some research...

i doubt it....

kx

To be brutally honest, it is painfully clear that a shocking percentage of people here have not bothered looking into Julian as a person or Wikileaks as an organization at all before railing hysterically on both. Same goes for a lot of matters, actually; willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty seems to abound. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to be and it's nothing I haven't gotten used to over the years but I was really expecting something different from ATS members. I know that sounds real prickish but there it is.

Edit: I should make it clear that I'm not referring to this thread in particular; in fact, most y'all seem quite informed indeed.

reply to post by TedStevensLives


Its too early to look into Julian Assange as a person or Wikileaks as an organization.

Is wikileaks a whistleblowing website and a champion for the people? Perhaps.

Is wikileaks a Mossad disinformation organization paving the way for internet censorship and a champion of the US government? Perhaps.

Give it time because you just dont know nothing except what the media puppets tell you.

Originally posted by purplemer
have you even looked at the different stories wikileaks have covered. they have covered things all world..

Yep. Have you?

Will this change your opinion or make you do some research...

Opinion - the same. Research - already done.
Will THIS (the information provided) change your opinion or make YOU do some research?

i doubt it....

Back atchya.
It's more fun to jump on the anti-america bandwagon and be part of the blind Assange-rebel-alliance then to look at this wingnuts motivations, right?

National Review Online - Assange the Anti-American
Washington Times - International Subversives

Australian acquaintances say he was bitterly disappointed by the outcome of the Cold War with a resounding global victory for the United States and its allies. Mr. Assange then began identifying with the defeated "progressives," from the pensioned-off millions - on starvation stipends - of the old Soviet nomenklatura to the innocent dupes who never realized that the World Peace Council was a KGB-controlled organization (documented in post-Cold War Russian files that opened briefly before the KGB's successor organization sealed them again).

Weekly Standard - Assanges Narrative Shouldn't Be the Medias

Journalists covering WikiLeaks would be wise to remember that when Assange released a trove of documents concerning the war in Afghanistan he said they would reveal that America is guilty of “thousands” of possible war crimes. They did nothing of the sort. And when Assange released even more documents concerning the war in Iraq, the press repeated an entirely false claim that the documents demonstrate that 285,000 people were killed in the war. The press was also quick to highlight any American mistakes revealed in the documents, especially with respect to civilian casualties. The real story is that the documents demonstrate – unambiguously – that the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties were caused by Iraq's and America's terrorist enemies, as well as "criminal events," not by the U.S. military.

Essays by Assange All I can say is
Canada Free Press - The Addiction of Anti-Americanism

Originally posted by FoxfilesMulder
reply to post by TedStevensLives
Its too early to look into Julian Assange as a person or Wikileaks as an organization.

Judging them by their work so far is working pretty well for me, personally. Try it, it's invigorating.

Give it time because you just dont know nothing except what the media puppets tell you.

With all due respect, brother, you don't know me.

reply to post by TedStevensLives


I looked into wikileaks as an organization from the start and I didn't like what I saw one little bit.

They released an Iraq war clip with their own wikileaks inserted and biased subtitles of a US gunship mowing down 2 poor unarmed and defenseless journalists for no reason at all in cold blood.

Boo hoo hoo wah wah wah, cry me a river wikileaks.

I'm sorry this happened to those two men, but did wikileaks mention the two journalists were walking with big kick ass cameras over their shoulders next to 12 militants with AK47's and RPG'S over their shoulders in an area that had just attacked US troops nearby also?

No.

Originally posted by FoxfilesMulder
reply to post by TedStevensLives

 

I looked into wikileaks as an organization from the start and I didn't like what I saw one little bit.

They released an Iraq war clip with their own wikileaks inserted and biased subtitles of a US gunship mowing down 2 poor unarmed and defenseless journalists for no reason at all in cold blood.

Boo hoo hoo wah wah wah, cry me a river wikileaks.

I'm sorry this happened to those two men, but did wikileaks mention the two journalists were walking with big kick ass cameras over their shoulders next to 12 militants with AK47's and RPG'S over their shoulders in an area that had just attacked US troops nearby also?

No.

If you think that was the start of wikileaks you are sadly mistaken... wikileaks was around a long time before those clips were release...
im not going to comment on your second comment...

kx

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by purplemer
have you even looked at the different stories wikileaks have covered. they have covered things all world..

Yep. Have you?

Will this change your opinion or make you do some research...

Opinion - the same. Research - already done.
Will THIS (the information provided) change your opinion or make YOU do some research?

i doubt it....

Back atchya.
It's more fun to jump on the anti-america bandwagon and be part of the blind Assange-rebel-alliance then to look at this wingnuts motivations, right?

National Review Online - Assange the Anti-American
Washington Times - International Subversives

Australian acquaintances say he was bitterly disappointed by the outcome of the Cold War with a resounding global victory for the United States and its allies. Mr. Assange then began identifying with the defeated "progressives," from the pensioned-off millions - on starvation stipends - of the old Soviet nomenklatura to the innocent dupes who never realized that the World Peace Council was a KGB-controlled organization (documented in post-Cold War Russian files that opened briefly before the KGB's successor organization sealed them again).

Weekly Standard - Assanges Narrative Shouldn't Be the Medias

Journalists covering WikiLeaks would be wise to remember that when Assange released a trove of documents concerning the war in Afghanistan he said they would reveal that America is guilty of “thousands” of possible war crimes. They did nothing of the sort. And when Assange released even more documents concerning the war in Iraq, the press repeated an entirely false claim that the documents demonstrate that 285,000 people were killed in the war. The press was also quick to highlight any American mistakes revealed in the documents, especially with respect to civilian casualties. The real story is that the documents demonstrate – unambiguously – that the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties were caused by Iraq's and America's terrorist enemies, as well as "criminal events," not by the U.S. military.

Essays by Assange All I can say is

Canada Free Press - The Addiction of Anti-Americanism

have i looked into wikileaks.. I have been following them since year one.. I have started nearly 100 threads on ats alone..

Evidenlty you have not checked into history of wikileaks or else you would know that wikileaks has covered far more than the armerican leaks.
I was correct you have no urge to research into the topic, but instead just like spouting the 'poor me and poor america rhetoric...'

kx

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by FoxfilesMulder
Nothing will happen unless the US government wanted this to happen to those named.

George W Bush advertised to anyone willing that he wanted Osama Bin Laden "Dead Or Alive" also.

If you charge Palin and co, you charge G.W.B. by default.

I think and i may be wrong that legaly there is a difference between bin laden and assange. Bin laden is the man there were after for blowing up two towers were as assange has so been chaged with no crime...

kz

Not quite, Bin Laden was not accused in connection to "blowing up two towers", check out the FBI website it states only:

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.

Unless of course he is wanted for inciting violence?

Many posters are alluding to WikiLeak's and/or Julian Assange's alterior motives, but this is all conjecture, I'm not implying that he does not have any, just stating that they cannot be proven and are therefore personal opinion.

The OP is dealing with the FACT, that numerous politicians and TV personalities have called directly for the assassination of Julian Assange. If this is not incitement, then I don't know what is.

WikiLeaks and/or Julian Assange, though you may or may not agree with their method, have never directly called for violence against anyone.

Thanks for an interesting discussion, and I know I am simply emphasizing points made by you and others.

the Billmeister

Assange is a goddamn freakin hypocrite!

How many lives has he jeopardized with all the docs he's leaked?

He's just pissed because he doesn't have any dirt on Palin.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Assange is a goddamn freakin hypocrite!

How many lives has he jeopardized with all the docs he's leaked?

He's just pissed because he doesn't have any dirt on Palin.

edit on 13-1-2011 by Alxandro because: (no reason given)

This is an interesting debate. How many lives has the release of WikiLeaks documents jeopardized?

I was hoping the bold type represented a linked article or sourced examples of this, I have yet to find any concrete examples, only talking points from MSM.

I would love to see the source material that led you to this assumption, as I believe it is a crucial element of the debate on WikiLeaks' methodology.

Thanks,

the Billmeister

reply to post by Xcathdra


exactly what laws does he think he's above??

do you believe you are stating fact?? if so, then you could be accused of the same crime as assange??

get it?

reply to post by Xcathdra


but, it dosen't matter if our government commited any illegal activitys??

how would we possibly ever be made aware of, and prosecute any gov't official of criminal activity if we only were able to access material that they deemed legal for the public to see?????