Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and little kids by CatPirate

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and little kids

POSTED BY: CATPIRATE
UPDATED: Friday, December 3, 2010 18:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1957
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:17 PM

Well now we know what a real creep this dude is. I figured PNs would be all over this one. PNs must have sold out to the man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I think this guy needs to watch his back. He's pissed off some powerful people, and for that alone, I applaud him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:24 AM

DREAMTROVE

Cat,

You win the Margaret Atwood award for misdirection.

This trick is neatly spelled out in the Handmaid's Tale. It's art imitating life, but clever of her to catch up on this one, which had been used to sink radical opponents of the NWO like Jerry Springer and Geraldo Rivera, who, once down and out on their sex scandal, were snapped up by MSM and given jobs that would immediately discredit them. Ralph Nader also talks about this, and how they tried to gnab him in a similar way.

So, Julian Assange had a threesome with a couple of Swedish models, huh? That makes him a creep? I don't think so. I think that makes him more awesome. He's like James Bond.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 6:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

So, we're taking the word of folk who've lied to us about every bloody thing imagineable at face value, once again, without even questioning it, or their intentions ?

Seriously, how stupid is that ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 7:16 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Assange might be the devil.

However, it's curious that his status as 'sinister evil guy' and all-around most wanted Interpol subject comes in the wake of Wikileaks' activities.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 7:57 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So, Julian Assange had a threesome with a couple of Swedish models, huh?

He got Swedish models, really? LOL I might go into the whistleblowing business myself.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 8:09 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So, Julian Assange had a threesome with a couple of Swedish models, huh?

He got Swedish models, really? LOL I might go into the whistleblowing business myself.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

This is why you're awesome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 11:06 AM

CATPIRATE

MD, You can let him baby sit your kids.

Terrorism makes you a victim. Anti-terrorism training makes you an official victim.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 11:09 AM

CATPIRATE

Dreamy darling you always try to butter me up. You know it works every time.

The word fat is offensive You refer to husky people as value size.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Assange might be the devil.

However, it's curious that his status as 'sinister evil guy' and all-around most wanted Interpol subject comes in the wake of Wikileaks' activities.

--Anthony

One can't help be skeptical of the charges against him, on the heels of said 'activities' by Wikileaks.

On the flip side, it may very well take a degenerate who is so sociopathic as to commit such crimes, so willing and able to do so much harm, w/ out showing any remorse, what so ever.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:32 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...so willing and able to do so much harm, w/ out showing any remorse, what so ever.

What kind of "so much harm" has Wikileaks done?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:41 PM

DREAMTROVE

News Flash: he's not on our side.

I mean, people get this through your heads, however thick. A man who isn't on our is not committing treason when he doesn't support us.

He's not on their side either, he's on the is of "let's just call the whole thing off."

Unlike Americans, Assange doesn't see american lives as more valuable than Afghan lives. If his leaks make it harder for us to pursue this was as our def dept claims, then he's probably saving lives. He probably doesn't care which flag those lives fly.

In past conflicts, we had a little more respect for neutral parties, even when they meddled. Now I hear from both sides (off forum) that he's anti american traitorous, whatever. This is the George W. bush school of reason :"if your not with us you're with the enemy." nonsense. If you're not with us, you're not with us. End of story. He's not with us. He doesn't want to see us rule Afghanistan. He never did. He probably doesn't care who rules Afghanistan. He probably thinks that matter is up to the afghans and aint nobody elses business.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:54 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

What kind of "so much harm" has Wikileaks done?

Have those documents not contained names / intel of informants ? Have they not contained names of US assets that could be tracked down by terrorist organizations ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:49 PM

KRELLEK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What kind of "so much harm" has Wikileaks done?

well if we shall be technical, the blood that is said to be/could be on Assange´s hands for doing this, could in a way, be thrown thrown by the bush administration by ignore the intel of Iraq not having WMD´s and according to some might have ignored the intel of warnings of the 9/11-2001 attack that some says they already had in hand before the attack actually happened.

not wishing to make anyone angry, just an observation

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 3:11 PM

DREAMTROVE

Sensitive information was redacted anyway, but this misses the point that he is operating under no pretense of being on our side.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 3:46 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Have those documents not contained names / intel of informants ? Have they not contained names of US assets that could be tracked down by terrorist organizations ?

I agree that is a grave mistake. And I do not support publishing such material without redaction of identifying information.

No, Wikileaks is not perfect. But pointing to this blemish in its record, coming from the people Wikileaks is exposing, is a bit like the giant cauldron calling the thimble black.

Yes, Wikileaks has caused harm. They need get their act together and not do that again. But "so much" harm?

That is a rather relative term, isn't it?

Here is a good debate with Glenn Greenwald on the pro Wikileaks side. He makes some very good arguments.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/03/wikileaks
/index.html

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:35 PM

DREAMTROVE

CTS

But the sensitive information *was* redacted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Ayep, Julian is best termed in the same fashion as you would myself - "Aggressive Neutral".

He has his own reasons, and I guess one could try askin him what they are, but sure hell ain't nobody much bothered to yet - and that presumes he'd be honest with you about it, which I kinda doubt he would be, especially now.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 5:03 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I always thought of you as Neutral Good. Not even Chaotic, despite the Anarchist label.

Occasionally, in a perverse twist, I've even toyed with the classification Lawful Good.

It's just that the 'Law' would not resemble anything that any authority would be comfortable with, and would be hard to cofify.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 5:14 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CTS

But the sensitive information *was* redacted.

Was it? I would be very happy if it can be confirmed.

This is what I found. The NYT posted some secret dispatches as examples. They then said that the TIMES redacted these names, implying of course, that Wikileaks did not. While none of the names redacted by the Times, as far as I could see, were Afghan assets, The Times' standard of redaction is rigorous and what I would have hoped to see in Wikileaks.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/iraq-war-logs.html#report/926
2EF18-98EF-6825-9B0FDA8A806087DD

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 5:42 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem,

Assange stated his goals pretty plainly in a panel conference on one of the leaks about a month ago. Daniel Ellsburg was there, the guy from Iraq Body Count and some others. Anyway, here's the gist of what he said:

His goal is to make war, in its present form, impossible, by creating a level of transparency that will ultimately make everyone accountable forever for their actions.

He is clearly taking this to the next level, revealing a bank, because we all know wars may be fought by soldiers, but soldiers don't come up with plans to go to war. The whole machine, ultimately, has to be accountable. The people in the back room who said "Let's nuke Iran" will have to deal with it.

It's hard to tell exactly what humanity will be like in Assange's future, should it come to pass in some part. Many other atrocities may also become impossible. We might move from conspiracy theories to well documented trails.

I don't think it will come down to random individual crimes, there would probably be some sort of innate democracy to it: The actions that created the greatest number of wronged parties would get the most attention.

Anthony

I suspect Frem is Neutral. He's almost chaotic neutral, but you're right, he has his own law. His own definition of good too. He's more willing than I am to side with a lesser evil, and CTS is less willing then I. I think that if we're not slanting chaos, then no one is...

Seriously, most people stay much further inside the lines.

CTS

It's been in the news a few times. Even Robert Gates admitted that the redaction of sensitive material was pretty comprehensive and he didn't think that Julian Assange was really representing a security risk to the US. I suspect Gates was probably thinking something like "Hey, guys, at least right now he is *trying* to not harm us. How about we not tick him off to the point where he just says 'fuck it, what do I care if the US govt. falls'..."

ETA:

CTS:

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-coward.htm

Someone is already thinking what I think Gates is thinking that Assange is thinking that might he might do if we continue to do what we do do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 6:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Shadow Vajrayana
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScaryAmoralReligion

Related Ethos.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality

Close enough.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 6:09 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Even Robert Gates admitted that the redaction of sensitive material was pretty comprehensive

Yeah, I don't know what to make of the redaction issue. On one hand, we have numerous right-leaning news sources and politicians declaring there were dozens of names of Afghan intelligence assets in the last leak of diplomatic cables.

On the other hand, I haven't seen any corroboration of that claim. It doesn't mean that the corroboration doesn't exist, but I haven't seen it.

In the meantime, I am willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that even if the Wikileaks redaction is not sufficient, that it is a relatively minor flaw compared to the lives the govts themselves have taken.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 6:14 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by KrelleK:

well if we shall be technical, the blood that is said to be/could be on Assange´s hands for doing this, could in a way, be thrown thrown by the bush administration by ignore the intel of Iraq not having WMD´s and according to some might have ignored the intel of warnings of the 9/11-2001 attack that some says they already had in hand before the attack actually happened.

not wishing to make anyone angry, just an observation

This is the same intel that said Iraq HAD WMD.... so it's bad when Bush ignores it, and we get attacked, but then after that, he DOESN'T ignore it, and goes on what he's been told...or at least partially on what he's been told... ( which is exactly the same damn thing we "knew" for nearly a decade already ) ....he's just suppose to not act, again. Like he ( allegedly ) did right before 9/11 ?

You see the inherent problem w/ the whole intel angle, right ?

Wikileaks releasing documents it's not suppose to have is hardly an apt analogy of the Iraq war.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 6:20 PM

CATPIRATE

The idea that he has standards makes me cry for the children.

Libs always say what about the children

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE