Discussion: WikiLeaks

[enterthemadness]

I just read that Michael Moore posted Assange's bail?

Sweet Bridget...

 

[Victarion]

They've made a deal, I am sure.
You know Moore dinks he has the cure.
To cleanse the face of the world, in America pure.
He's bit the lure.
Of the capitalists so impure.
Raeging suburban children buy his movies
He staunches the bloodied stump with Lincoln and Jefferson.
Now with Wiki Leaks
He cannot wait to take a peek
Into the world's **** heap
And freely slap America with a leek
Diped in Star Bucks coffee the Big Wigs lick
Off the leak
Grown from the raeg
Of the weak unsure youth.

Has anyone heard of the attacks by Anonymous and /b/ on the Paypal and credit card websites? Its hilarious that such a small community could cause so much madness.

 

[Kelly]

Amazon has been having a hell of a time with them as well...

That's the internet one hacker can do a massive amount of damage...

 

[chaseter]

I just read that Michael Moore posted Assange's bail?

He was on Olberman tonight.

 

[Kelly]

Yep he did....

 

[Paroxysm]

I did not say the journalists were carrying AK-47s and the video was edited misleadingly. I thought WikiLeaks did the editing....I was wrong and I can admit that. They merely knew it was edited with a bias they shared and put an inaccurate headline on it and put the full-length video at the bottom of the page where most people would not click to follow.

You said the "targets" were carrying AK-47's, this was not true. The targets in the video were journalists and yes you did say the video was edited misleadingly.

Fine. But I know WikiLeaks as the company that dishonestly edited a video to make it look like American troops killed Iraqi civilians that was taken out of context from a firefight where Americans died 10-20 minutes earlier and that the targets were carrying AK-47s.

Will you admit that WikiLeaks has a bias and was misleading readers with that page? Hence why it is easy to be skeptical of their "journalism" on other issues?

No I will not. Just because you don't feel comfortable with the headline doesn't make it biased or slanted against Americans. If Canadians killed those journalists would you care as much?

You still haven't proven how the women in the case are part of an international government conspiracy to silence the great Mikael Blom...er, Julian Assange.

Where is your evidence to say it is all a set-up? Bring me those facts, bro.

One of the women, a political activist in her 30s described as Miss A, claims she was unlawfully coerced and subjected to sexual molestation and deliberate molestation. The other woman, Miss B, who is in her 20s, has alleged he had sex with her without a condom while she was sleeping.
Mr Assange told Mr Hurtig he had a brief affair with Miss A – who had organised a seminar for the Centre-Left group Brotherhood Movement – while staying in her flat.

Miss B admitted in her police statement that she sought out Mr Assange after seeing him on TV and, clearly infatuated, attended the seminar he was giving. They had a ‘sexual encounter’ in a cinema on their first meeting and two days later had protected sex at her flat, 40 miles from Stockholm. But the woman told police that she woke up next morning to find him having sex with her without a condom.

‘This is what they are saying is rape,’ said Mr Hurtig. He said Mr Assange and Miss B parted on good terms, with Miss B buying his train ticket back to Stockholm. But Mr Hurtig said that after Mr Assange reneged on his promise to call her and failed to return her phone calls over the next few days, the drama took a ‘bizarre’ turn.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...das---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html

I'm still a firm believer that this whole this was just a smear camping designed to take the focus away from the leaks and shift it on Assange himself.

 

[Kelly]

I'm all for free speech and I believe that Wikileaks has in the past done some good things, but to say that they are not biased, is either purposely closing your eyes, or you are blind.

 

[Paroxysm]

I'm all for free speech and I believe that Wikileaks has in the past done some good things, but to say that they are not biased, is either purposely closing your eyes, or you are blind.

I don't think Wikileaks is bias towards the US. I believe they release information they can get to. I might be a bit harder to get China's or North Korea's secrets, right? Wikileaks has leaked confidential documents from a huge number of countries. Even if you just look at the Wikipedia page, which only lists the most significant leaks, you can see leaks relating to Somalia, Iceland, Britain, Switzerland, Australia, Thailand, Peru, Iran and Germany. And there are many more minor leaks. I know there have been a few relating to my own country.

What I'd like to know is why is the public response to Wikileaks in America is so different from the public response everywhere else?

 

[Kelly]

I don't think Wikileaks is bias towards the US. I believe they release information they can get to. I might be a bit harder to get China's or North Korea's secrets, right? Wikileaks has leaked confidential documents from a huge number of countries. Even if you just look at the Wikipedia page, which only lists the most significant leaks, you can see leaks relating to Somalia, Iceland, Britain, Switzerland, Australia, Thailand, Peru, Iran and Germany. And there are many more minor leaks. I know there have been a few relating to my own country.

What I'd like to know is why is the public response to Wikileaks in America is so different from the public response everywhere else?

I'm all for free speech and I believe that Wikileaks has in the past done some good things, but to say that they are not biased, is either purposely closing your eyes, or you are blind.

And I will again post this reply.....


As far as your question? I don't know maybe we understand the importance of free speech, and the pros and cons of that freedom when used for purposes that may or may not be for the good.

 

[Paroxysm]

As far as your question? I don't know maybe we understand the importance of free speech, and the pros and cons of that freedom when used for purposes that may or may not be for the good.

Did Obama not say he was going to have government transparency?
People are being brainwashed to believe that freedom of speech and transparency in government is a bad thing. Which is ironic because wikileaks stands for everything that America was founded upon.

The government is a servant of the people and it should be answerable to the people. Everything they do is funded by you and is done in your name, you have a right to know everything that goes on.

 

[Kelly]

As I have said before, anyone who thinks they need to know ALL that goes on with our defense, foreign policy, etc..... has no clue what they are asking, they do not have ALL of the information, therefore they are IGNORANT of the information they have. It's kind of like having a gun, but having no idea of how to use it. You either shoot yourself in the foot, or you shoot someone else.......bottom line you don't know what the **** you have or how to use it.

As far as transparency, please....I'm not stupid, I know that his thinking, as well as most that say they want transparency is in the area of back room deals over how our money is spent, etc.......please.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/dec/15/michael-moore-rush-limbaugh-assange

Didn't this originally involve not using a condom as opposed to holding a woman down with a gag and forcing sexual intercourse? Has he actually been found guilty of anything yet? That radio show fellow sounds like abit of a jerk. When you have a high profile fellow being up for rape with the powers that be desperately trying to blotch him out, it's not surprising woman will come forward. A similar thing happened with Jackson (who was found innocent). Hell, to this day, there are people claiming they know who the Zodiac killer was. One nutcase even claimed she was his daughter.

 

[Paroxysm]

As I have said before, anyone who thinks they need to know ALL that goes on with our defense, foreign policy, etc..... has no clue what they are asking, they do not have ALL of the information, therefore they are IGNORANT of the information they have. It's kind of like having a gun, but having no idea of how to use it. You either shoot yourself in the foot, or you shoot someone else.......bottom line you don't know what the **** you have or how to use it.

As far as transparency, please....I'm not stupid, I know that his thinking, as well as most that say they want transparency is in the area of back room deals over how our money is spent, etc.......please.

When it involves the lives of innocent civilians and soldiers then yes I'd say the public has a right to know especially if we're paying to go to war with a country under false pretenses.

Some cables detail acts of torture, civilian casualties and even acts of friendly fire but because we don't have all the information we are somehow ignorant to the act itself?

In those situations you don't need to know all the information to know that crimes of torture and the killing civilians is wrong and should be looked into.

....but I have a feeling you'll reply with the same "don't have all of the info, we're ignorant' argument.

 

[DACrowe]

You said the "targets" were carrying AK-47's, this was not true. The targets in the video were journalists and yes you did say the video was edited misleadingly.





No I will not. Just because you don't feel comfortable with the headline doesn't make it biased or slanted against Americans. If Canadians killed those journalists would you care as much?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...das---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html

I'm still a firm believer that this whole this was just a smear camping designed to take the focus away from the leaks and shift it on Assange himself.

Were the journalists the only targets in that video? It was a tragic screw up that should not have been buried, but Wikileaks slanted it to make it appear even worse. I don't like MSNBC when it is bias for my political views and I do not like the arrogance of any American department or government claiming American exceptionalism as an excuse for its mistakes. Kissinger was a war criminal. But I don't like selective and misleading information. WikiLeaks is as manipulative of the information as Fox News...the difference is WikiLeaks is spreading state secrets without an ounce of concern about the ramifications of what it is doing. That is not journalism, but dangerously unbridled ego.


BTW I read up about the charges against Assange. I will remain skeptical of what the case until the case at the trial is made. However, I must admit from all the articles I've read from reputable sources like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal encourage me to think Assange comes off as a *****ebag and jerk...but not an apparent rapist. But, I will wait until the facts of the trial come out before I call it a political smear job of some sort, in any case. But your article about the lawyer suspecting the victims had a hidden agenda is a "smear the victim" campaign that I am always leery and repulsed by in rape cases a lot.

 

[Paroxysm]

Were the journalists the only targets in that video?

No, they also fired on a van of innocent people that came after to give the journalists medical aid.

It was a tragic screw up that should not have been buried, but Wikileaks slanted it to make it appear even worse.

That's just your opinion on it, but like you colorfully said, it was a tragic "screw up" that should not have been buried, but without WikiLeaks it most likely would have, and no they did not slant it. Just because you weren't comfortable with the headline doesn't make it misleading.

Were the journalists the only targets in that video?

No, there was also a van of innocent people that came to give medical aid that was also fired upon, more innocent people were killed.

WikiLeaks is as manipulative of the information as Fox News...the difference is WikiLeaks is spreading state secrets without an ounce of concern about the ramifications of what it is doing. That is not journalism, but dangerously unbridled ego.

If allowing the truth to be known to all isn't journalism at it's best, then what is?

 

[doih]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/dec/15/michael-moore-rush-limbaugh-assange

Didn't this originally involve not using a condom as opposed to holding a woman down with a gag and forcing sexual intercourse? Has he actually been found guilty of anything yet? That radio show fellow sounds like abit of a jerk. When you have a high profile fellow being up for rape with the powers that be desperately trying to blotch him out, it's not surprising woman will come forward. A similar thing happened with Jackson (who was found innocent). Hell, to this day, there are people claiming they know who the Zodiac killer was. One nutcase even claimed she was his daughter.

BTW I read up about the charges against Assange. I will remain skeptical of what the case until the case at the trial is made. However, I must admit from all the articles I've read from reputable sources like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal encourage me to think Assange comes off as a *****ebag and jerk...but not an apparent rapist. But, I will wait until the facts of the trial come out before I call it a political smear job of some sort, in any case. But your article about the lawyer suspecting the victims had a hidden agenda is a "smear the victim" campaign that I am always leery and repulsed by in rape cases a lot.

Fun fact: In Sweden, rape has 3 categories: severe rape, regular rape, and less severe rape. If I'm not mistaken, Assange is being charged with 'less severe rape.'

 

[Marx]

How in the world can you seperate rape into levels of severity?

 

[LOBO3315a]

You know, because she was asking for it.....

 

[Paroxysm]

From what I've read The “rape” charges against Julian Assange are unfounded and the lack of evidence will most likely lead to his acquittal.

Typical Honey Pot......

 

[Kelly]

It might be separated by things like....

1. Was a weapon involved...
2. Severity of injuries...

Which is what I think that means....but yeah, if it really is using that terminology, very....very......very strange.

 

[BlackLantern]

indeed

 

[Spidey-Bat]

How in the world can you seperate rape into levels of severity?

Do you support Jullian Assange? Then it's less severe rape.

Are you against Jullian Assange? Then it's severe rape.

Are you neutral? Then it's regular rape.

 

[Paroxysm]

I think where consensual sex is involved if that then turns unconsensual later on would probably classify as 3rd level Rape.

 

[LOBO3315a]

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Lady gets her rocks off, but doesn't want to reciprocate she yells "RAPE!" and the law says she's justified?

Sounds like a spot I wouldn't want to be in....

 

[Dr. Evil]

How in the world can you seperate rape into levels of severity?

In America it's easy:

Severe Rape- Charlie Sheen
Regular Rape- Regular Rape
Less Severe Rape- Ben Roethlisberger