How is it people can't see through Assange?

Through the rule of law and human rights charter that the US so proudly upholds, or in the Guantanamo Bay prison where apparently mainland US laws don't apply?

i didn't agree with guantanamo bay either ... in my opinion prisoners of war should have been released when the conflict ends (ie, suddan hussein was captured).
 
And how many deaths or irrevervislbe damage to countless people did that exactly cause lizzie ?

What harm did this do exactly ?

my point exactly - so why did it have to be dumped on the public forum?

the only damage concerned is that now diplomat #3 doesn't trust anything his counterparts say to his face - and #'s 1 and 2 would feel like complete heels and are now unable to freely express and opinion to a colleague.
 
i didn't agree with guantanamo bay either ... in my opinion prisoners of war should have been released when the conflict ends (ie, suddan hussein was captured).

Careful, you don't want to get accused of being an Assange sympathiser and therefore a danger to the peace..........
 
What harm , his exposed many exact infrastructure locations terrorists would give eye teeth to know about for starters, well they don't have to now.
Stuff already mentioned through the thread and much more . Yep some of it does no harm but not all and much of it damages relations. Yeah they'd know but that doesn't mean they need it out there.
There's also been many strategies, plans, countries are trying to use or implement to combat terrorism with . Want exacto monto , go read some garbage for a few days.
The US legal system , really is that any surprise , it just shows how stupidly naive this guy is ?
Of course he'd carefully manipulate all trails to him , he can't stand up and speak out on his own two feet like the hero he pretends to be and of course they'll trump up charges if they have to , so would I with a sneaky little gutter rat , I hope they do get him in the door and a bloody big lock on him myself .
Ahwell , he'll end up rich , that was his aim , and to be somebody . His book deals and suckers will make sure of that.
 
Can you make some sense please. And say something with substance.

What harm , his exposed many exact infrastructure locations terrorists would give eye teeth to know about for starters, well they don't have to now.
Stuff already mentioned through the thread and much more . Yep some of it does no harm but not all and much of it damages relations. Yeah they'd know but that doesn't mean they need it out there.
There's also been many strategies, plans, countries are trying to use or implement to combat terrorism with . Want exacto monto , go read some garbage for a few days.
The US legal system , really is that any surprise , it just shows how stupidly naive this guy is ?
Of course he'd carefully manipulate all trails to him , he can't stand up and speak out on his own two feet like the hero he pretends to be and of course they'll trump up charges if they have to , so would I with a sneaky little gutter rat , I hope they do get him in the door and a bloody big lock on him myself .
Ahwell , he'll end up rich , that was his aim , and to be somebody . His book deals and suckers will make sure of that.
 
random, you are very ver adamant in your views.

perhaps you know more than most of us taht you can be so certain whose right and whose wrong ?

U ! S ! A !
ALL THE WAY
U ! S ! A !
ALL THE WAY

The rest of us aren't so sure, that's how naive we are
 
i like the guy sure he's loving the pr with case etc but you know what it grows his brand and what he believes in..
so every bit of publicity he gets is cool

we are too politically corect in todays world its about time that someone like assange created a platform to have people have expose the lies that we are being fed.. :)
 
Just goes to show, knowledge is power.

There are some very high up people quite threatened by some of what he's released.

I'm with television, I'm a lefty. Why can't I access information if I wish to know? I don't need a big brother government to protect me from myself.

Power to the people - go Assange!
 
I want to know when my government and allie's government lies to me and the rest of their people.

I just don't think us westerners are as innocent or superior to other countries people races etc as we think we are and act like we are. But we do think that we are. We do believe that other countries are worse than us..

Our mistakes, especially when they are the same mistakes made by others, are just as bad as mistakes / actions made by others.

They have just as much effect on ther people's lives as other countrie's mistakes/actions etc.
 
What harm , his exposed many exact infrastructure locations terrorists would give eye teeth to know about for starters, well they don't have to now.

i believe they haven't released any items that would directly put anyone at personal risk. i also believe that's an actual internal policy.

time to lose the emotive argument and face up to the facts

1) terrorism is just another word for "disaster capitalism"
2) terrorism is funded in part or whole by the black budget.
3) repairing damage caused by terrorism is marked up exorbitantly and paid for by the taxes of the coalition of the willing
4) the US gets everything it deserves insofar as their foreigh policy is concerned.
5) assange is neither a terrorist by the US's definition, nor committed espionage, by the US's definition.
 
Last edited:
Give me one example where either side has tried to stop the other from releasing info or banning open discussion on climate talks. Then your argument might have some credibility.

From the source itself (the GreenLeft magazine). These leaks are no different to the Assange leaks. But the Assange leaks sit comfortable with the Left, as it makes the US look bad. Perfect. You only need to look at the crowd supporting Assange. Same lot that supported Hicks. All the Left heroes.

'Climategate' emails: Scientists defend science

But what have the deniers actually trawled from their ocean of stolen messaging?
There are no legitimate sceptics any more, just the ignorant or wilful deniers.

Third, tolerance is not a virtue in dealing with people out to subject humanity and nature to intolerable risks.

That is, from the words of the Greens themselves, the deniers should no longer be tolerated, as they risk humanity itself. So where is you open discussion evand:confused:
 
There is nothing in that article to connect even remotely Julian Assange and what he's doing to the Climategate emails.

Heres a telling line:

On the falsification of research results — a career-ending offence for scientists — all the scouring through the emails has come up with nothing.

The right wingers tried a beat up by bending and taking out of context some items of the emails but it came to nothing.

Beside that, what are you trying to say? That the lefts were trying to suppress the info in the emails? Whats the connection? :confused:

From the source itself (the GreenLeft magazine). These leaks are no different to the Assange leaks. But the Assange leaks sit comfortable with the Left, as it makes the US look bad. Perfect. You only need to look at the crowd supporting Assange. Same lot that supported Hicks. All the Left heroes.

'Climategate' emails: Scientists defend science



That is, from the words of the Greens themselves, the deniers should no longer be tolerated, as they risk humanity itself. So where is you open discussion evand:confused:
 
On the falsification of research results — a career-ending offence for scientists — all the scouring through the emails has come up with nothing.

The right wingers tried a beat up by bending and taking out of context some items of the emails but it came to nothing.

Beside that, what are you trying to say? That the lefts were trying to suppress the info in the emails? Whats the connection? :confused:

Oh, nothing then like the Left wingers trying a beat up by bending and taking out of context some items of the Assange releases, to try and destroy careers.
No that's different. When it's the west, and those in power, than that's OK.

Like "Rudd apparently telling the US that force may be needed if China." being reported, with no context, and with the intention to harm international relations, and a reputation.

Assange is dangerous. Glad they can hopefully shut him up. Hope someone hacks your emails one day and posts evand. Or maybe in 5yrs, when you go for a job, someone scans all your Somersoft posts for the past decade, and you don't get the job, because someone, in one little message read it out of context.

No, but when it's the Lefties supporting Assange, it's all good.
 
Excellent points made by Aaron in this thread.
Agreed, Aaron & evand are making a good argument.

What harm , his exposed many exact infrastructure locations terrorists would give eye teeth to know about for starters, well they don't have to now.
Assange says he has even approached the Pentagon for help in analysing the 15,000 documents, in order that the military themselves might help decide which files can be published without endangering lives.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/66898,people,news,julian-assange-threatened-by-pentagon-over-wikileaks

If the Pentagon isn't prepared to help then they will have to make do with their own judgment. I think if there was legitimate evidence of the leaks assisting with terrorist plans that it would be all over the news by now.
 
Sorry evan but no I don't want to go into specifics or give Assange more airplay either but even some things mentioned through the thread already are bad enough.

I did have to sit through 4hrs of it the other day though and there's stuff in there that could literally shut down 1/2 the planet in the wrong hands . It has no business being put out there like that especially from an absolute nobody.
Thankfully I'm pretty sure most media have been asked to keep a lot of it out, play it down and they've had the good judgment to do that.

I totally agree Bluestorm you summed it up , he is dangerous . His like the little boy with a box of matches .
 
I am surprised people cannot see through Government Propaganda?

Bluestorm are you Winnie on revival btw? Just askin'.. 'cos I'm gunna have to put my latte lefty sign back up, it's in my lefty shed, getting painted...(red) :)

You forget the Kroll Report?

From the TED talk transcript

So let's take the example, actually. This is something you leaked a few years ago. If we can have this document up ... So this was a story in Kenya a few years ago. Can you tell us what you leaked and what happened?

JA: So this is the Kroll Report. This was a secret intelligence report commissioned by the Kenyan government after its election in 2004. Prior to 2004, Kenya was ruled by Daniel arap Moi for about 18 years. He was a soft dictator of Kenya. And when Kibaki got into power -- through a coalition of forces that were trying to clean up corruption in Kenya -- they commissioned this report, spent about two million pounds on this and an associated report. And then the government sat on it and used it for political leverage on Moi, who was the richest man -- still is the richest man -- in Kenya. It's the Holy Grail of Kenyan journalism. So I went there in 2007, and we managed to get hold of this just prior to the election -- the national election, December 28. When we released that report, we did so three days after the new president, Kibaki, had decided to pal up with the man that he was going to clean out, Daniel arap Moi. So this report then became a dead albatross around president Kibaki's neck.

CA: And -- I mean, to cut a long story short -- word of the report leaked into Kenya, not from the official media, but indirectly. And in your opinion, it actually shifted the election. JA: Yeah. So this became front page of the Guardian and was then printed in all the surrounding countries of Kenya, in Tanzanian and South African press. And so it came in from the outside. And that, after a couple of days, made the Kenyan press feel safe to talk about it. And it ran for 20 nights straight on Kenyan TV, shifted the vote by 10 percent, according to a Kenyan intelligence report, which changed the result of the election.

CA: Wow, so your leak really substantially changed the world?

JA: Yep.

...and don't forget the Reuter's staff:

CA: Here's -- We're going to just show a short clip from this Baghdad airstrike video. The video itself is longer. But here's a short clip. This is -- this is intense material, I should warn you.

Radio: ... just f___', once you get on 'em just open 'em up. I see your element, uh, got about four Humvees, uh, out along ... You're clear. All right. Firing. Let me know when you've got them. Let's shoot. Light 'em all up. C'mon, fire! (Machine gun fire) Keep shoot 'n. Keep shoot 'n. (Machine gun fire) Keep shoot 'n. Hotel ... Bushmaster Two-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, we need to move, time now! All right, we just engaged all eight individuals. Yeah, we see two birds [helicopters], and we're still firing. Roger. I got 'em. Two-Six, this is Two-Six, we're mobile. Oops, I'm sorry. What was going on? God damn it, Kyle. All right, hahaha. I hit 'em.

CA: So, what was the impact of that?

JA: The impact on the people who worked on it was severe. We ended up sending two people to Baghdad to further research that story. So this is just the first of three attacks that occurred in that scene.

CA: So, I mean, 11 people died in that attack, right, including two Reuters employees?

JA: Yeah. Two Reuters employees, two young children were wounded. There were between 18 and 26 people killed all together.

CA: And releasing this caused widespread outrage. What was the key element of this that actually caused the outrage, do you think?

JA: I don't know, I guess people can see the gross disparity in force. You have guys walking in a relaxed way down the street, and then an Apache helicopter sitting up at one kilometer firing 30-millimeter cannon shells on everyone -- looking for any excuse to do so -- and killing people rescuing the wounded. And there was two journalists involved that clearly weren't insurgents because that's their full-time job.

Remember the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg?

Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971, has been a frequent defender of WikiLeaks.

Following the November 2010 release of U.S. diplomatic cables, Ellsberg rejected criticism that the site was endangering the lives of U.S. military personnel and intelligence assets stating "not one single soldier or informant has been in danger from any of the WikiLeaks releases. That risk has been largely overblown."

Ellsberg went on to note that government claims to the contrary were "a script that they roll out every time there's a leak of any sort."
Following the US diplomatic cable release, which a number of media reports sought to differentiate from Ellsberg's whistleblowing, Ellsberg claimed, "EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time."

On 3 December 2010 Republican Congressman of Texas, Ron Paul, spoke out publicly during a Fox Business interview in support of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange; "In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," Paul said. "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble." Paul went on to state, "Why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?" In another speech at US House of Representatives Paul again defended WikiLeaks against criticism for revealing the truth and warned the US administration that "lying is not patriotic".

Fellow Republican congressman Connie Mack IV of Florida also praised WikiLeaks, stating that Americans have a right to know the contents of the leaks, “no matter how we acquire that knowledge.”

Australia’s most senior and high-profile media professionals expressed their support for WikiLeaks in a letter to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.[174] The letter was initiated by the Walkley Foundation, who present the yearly Walkley Awards for Excellence in Journalism. The letter was signed by "the ten members of the Walkley Advisory Board as well as editors of major Australian newspapers and news websites and the news directors of the country’s three commercial TV networks and two public broadcasters." Their position (an extract from the letter) is summarized as follows:

******“In essence, WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret. It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press*********

Just for fun, here is a breakdown of the latest:



What we learnt from the latest Wiki-leaks...uh, leaks: Summarised






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------oops, I did it again.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top