Wikileaks nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

reply to post by apodictic


You have yet to debate with my conspiratorial interpretation of the situation, so don't run off just yet.

Is Bradley Manning in on it too?

Originally posted by apodictic
So....WikiLeaks causes wars, and they get nominated for the peace prize?

Religion caused most of the wars that still exist today. Inaccurate to say Julian Assange caused wars.

reply to post by cluckerspud


Religion isn't a person.

reply to post by smthngmssnghr


I didn't see that post, sorry. I don't think he's in on anything which is why he's been treated harshly. On the other hand, people who are in on something (Assange) are free to roam around still and *leak* "classified documents"

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by cluckerspud

 

Religion isn't a person.

Assange isn't a cause for war.

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by smthngmssnghr

 

I didn't see that post, sorry. I don't think he's in on anything which is why he's been treated harshly. On the other hand, people who are in on something (Assange) are free to roam around still and *leak* "classified documents"

WHAT??? He's currently under house arrest...Wearing a tracking collar...
Not exactly my idea of free..!!

reply to post by cluckerspud


He's not? Would Tunisia have had a revolution without Assange? Possibly.

Why is Assange being nominated for the Peace Prize specifically for his contribution in starting the revolution then? Go back and read the article.

reply to post by backinblack


Hmm...why isn't he thrown in solitary like Manning then? Surely Manning hasn't leaked as much as Assange....

Edit: granted Manning was treasonous, surely leaking government documents is worthy of more than house arrest.

26 year old legislator? The average 26-yr-old can't work the milk-steamer at a Starbucks with a pointy-talky manual. Fop.

Originally posted by apodictic


What does my time registered on this forum have to do with anything at all in this conversation?

Your time registered on this forum shows that you dont know me, nor my posting or researching habits, although you felt competent to comment on them, thats one. Secondly, it is not uncommon for people to make accounts right around the time a new leak is announced or expected and go all out trying to discredit Wikileaks. It happens. So you dont know me, and I dont know you. For all I know YOU are the disinfo agent, hired by BoA to discredit Wikileaks and do some damage control. Anything is possible, right?

Originally posted by apodictic
the law firm, Finers Stephens Innocent, which represents Julian Assange and set up the Julian Assange Defense Fund is also legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust

I gave the link that proves that there is a direct link between Assange and Rothschild. How much more blatant can I be about this?

The fact that funds or trusts for two high profile individuals were set up by the same law firm means.............what precisely? So if I hire them for something can I be linked into the Rothschilds too? I have a subscription to the Economist and post there sometimes, am I part of some conspiracy too?

Originally posted by apodictic
Believing what I, or what Julian Assange says, are both ignorant. The truth is out there.

Agreed.

Originally posted by apodictic

It seems that your view of evidence is skewed. You seem to want some piece of paper signed by everyone admitting that this is all a shill.

No I dont. I understand that on a conspiracy board hard concrete evidence is hard to come by. But I have also been here long enough to know when someone is blowing smoke out of their anus. You have nothing. You have a claim. You dont even have good logic to case build for it, to show us WHY that makes sense, WHY we should consider what you say, WHY we should look more deeply into your claim among hundreds of others on this board.

I did take the time to look at what you presented. You gave us a whole lot of nothing, with a whole lot of insistence that you had something worth looking at. It simply wasnt there. Of course I think other people should look for themselves. Absolutely.

And peace to you too. Im actually not a wall. I am open to new evidence always. Which is why I took the time to look at yours. Dont blame me for the fact that your evidence had no substance.

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by backinblack

 

Hmm...why isn't he thrown in solitary like Manning then? Surely Manning hasn't leaked as much as Assange....

Edit: granted Manning was treasonous, surely leaking government documents is worthy of more than house arrest.

edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

This has been discussed endlessly..
If you want to arrest Assange then you would need to also arrest thousands of editiors and journos who have done the same in the past...

NONE of the Wiki leaks are exactly Top Secret......

Originally posted by apodictic
He's not? Would Tunisia have had a revolution without Assange? Possibly.

Why is Assange being nominated for the Peace Prize specifically for his contribution in starting the revolution then? Go back and read the article.

He was also nominated for this:

Snorre Valen, a member of the Norwegian coalition government's Socialist Left Party, has nominated the website, saying it is a gauge of transparency in the world.

It's in the first sentence. Perhaps you should read again as well.

Double edged sword my friend. Grab it anyway you'd like.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


K

Don't really care what you believe, it doesn't affect me in any way. I told you what I was trying to do. Get people reading the thread to think for themselves and research on their own.

Not try to get you to hop the fence on your beliefs.

I'd like to see some "evidence" though that Assange is even who he is portrayed to be. Evidence that he can actually hack. Evidence that he siphons from SIPRNet and not Limewire. You can't give that evidence so your claims are just as bunk as any.

reply to post by apodictic


Wikileaks is about a lot of things, mostly freedom of information and journalism.

The leaks, formerly in hands of isolated and fearful individuals, journalists, politicians, fell into the hands (through no small feat of Wikileaks alone) of a man with, dare I say "nothing to lose".

Someone who is living dangerously is a more accurate description of Assange's actions.

This only encourages courageousness, either way.

The secret is "dangerous", also compelling in its voluptuousness. Most government personnel would feel empowered by knowing all the information is at their fingertips in the nooks and crannies of the system at hand. Drunk with this power, it's more comforting to look no further, and stick to the mundane task at hand.

If it's not mundane, it's anomaly to the complacent non-seekers.

To us dangerous ones, everything is an anomaly.

reply to post by cluckerspud


Like I said, where's the proof that people even send him this information? There is none. Just his claims, and yours.

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

K

Don't really care what you believe, it doesn't affect me in any way. I told you what I was trying to do. Get people reading the thread to think for themselves and research on their own.

Not try to get you to hop the fence on your beliefs.

I'd like to see some "evidence" though that Assange is even who he is portrayed to be. Evidence that he can actually hack. Evidence that he siphons from SIPRNet and not Limewire. You can't give that evidence so your claims are just as bunk as any.

edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

Julian Assange doen't hack to get his leaks..
That's why they are called leaks, people "leak" the information to him..

You'd like to know more about Assange??
There's plenty of information out there, hell there's even a book based on his hacking years..
And you tell us to research??

You guys are insisting on defending a guy who states that 9/11 was not an inside job. Everyone knows it was an inside job. Come on now.

www.eutimes.net...

My personally opinion is that if there were a Truther Award or something of that natural.....Wikileak should be nominated, BUT NOT Nobel PEACE Prize.

Originally posted by apodictic
You guys are insisting on defending a guy who states that 9/11 was not an inside job. Everyone knows it was an inside job. Come on now.

www.eutimes.net...

Julian Assange says he's tired of the conspiracies he keeps hearing about 9/11..

He may be merely tired of hearing the crackpot theories, aliens did it or lasers from space..
I don't recall him ever saying the OS was correct...

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by cluckerspud

 

Like I said, where's the proof that people even send him this information? There is none. Just his claims, and yours.

This thread is about Wikileaks being nominated for Nobel Peace Prize and the attached article. The article does not call in to question where Assange got his information. I will not be coerced to derail this thread off the topic.
Have fun poking. Sounds like you should start a thread. Could be a fun discussion.