Wikileaks

  • Thread starter Sage
  • 511 comments
  • 31,705 views
Sanji Himura
Wikileaks is implying that London Police, heavily armed this time, has resumed their 24/7 watch of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. They provide this picture on their twitter account:
Click to expand...

That's very likely true given yesterday's events in London, I would have thought the same is true of all embassies and places of political value. It's worth remembering that the presence of Assange inside the embassy also makes the embassy itself a potential target.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
All of this shows and casts the media in the light you've suggested, one of favoritism/subjective ideals rather than actual objective news that they use to once do.
Click to expand...
I use to think the politicians were the biggest liars in politics, now I have come to relies its really the media. :banghead: They don't even try to hide it anymore. Its gotten to where I can hardly watch the news anymore. They are all lying for whoever they are supporting why bother. :yuck:
 
viXyEwM7a4A.jpg


Russia is more powerful than I thought. I'm proud. :3

(Michael McFaul is a former US ambassador in Russia.)
 
I have heard it suggested Trump will partner with Wikileaks to form a totally new news organization. Roger Ailes and Breitbart are to be involved.
 
Well, the election is over and I guess Wikileaks played a role in it. Nobody has ever denied the truth of what Wikileaks has published, from what I can tell. The question is always who gave them their information, and maybe why.
 
Dotini
Multi-part Sean Hannity interview with Assange. Amongst other things, he says he was not part of a plot to elect Trump, and there has never been a single sustained allegation that Wikileaks has ever published anything but the truth.Does Julian Assange lie?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sdeeds-tweets-link-to-new-clinton-emails.html
Click to expand...
Everyone does, so I fail to see how he would be different.

Now I do believe he started wiki leaks with the best intentions, but the fact that staff must sign an insanely punitive NDA is both ironic and concerning.

Let's also not forget that he has also stated that Russia has a vibrant and free press, which is why wiki leaks doesn't need to target them. Now that's an outright fantasy.
 
I think this is actually what he said, quite a bit different than simply giving Russia a pass I would think.

In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum.....In Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian....WikiLeaks is a predominantly English-speaking organisation with a website predominantly in English. We have published more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin, so we do have quite a bit of coverage, but the majority of our publications come from Western sources....The real determinant is how distant that culture is from English.
Click to expand...

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...s-ignores-russia-because-its-already-open-and

IMO Neither Assange nor Russia had anything to do with dillary losing, she did that all on her own 💡
 
Last edited:
xyloscissor
I think this is actually what he said, quite a bit different than simply giving Russia a pass I would think.



http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...s-ignores-russia-because-its-already-open-and

IMO Neither Assange nor Russia had anything to do with dillary losing, she did that all on her own 💡
Click to expand...
Did he use the specific words?

No. Did he describe Russia in a manner that suggests wiki leaks is not needed? In my view yes he did, now the only reason it would not be needed is if it has a free and open press already, it doesn't.

The use of NDA's by an outlet that claims to be a champion of information transparency is enough to make it a source that should be more scrutinised that it often is.
 
I won't dispute this source so I'll claim he indeed said this. http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/12/23/news/assange_wikileaks-154754000/

Assange
"In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player. WikiLeaks is a predominantly English-speaking organisation with a website predominantly in English. We have published more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin, so we do have quite a bit of coverage, but the majority of our publications come from Western sources, though not always. For example, we have published more than 2 million documents from Syria, including Bashar al-Assad personally. Sometimes we make a publication about a country and they will see WikiLeaks as a player within that country, like with Timor East and Kenya. The real determinant is how distant that culture is from English. Chinese culture is quite far away".
Click to expand...

My point remains that wikileaks did not elect Trump.

Scaff
Let's also not forget that he has also stated that Russia has a vibrant and free press, which is why wiki leaks doesn't need to target them. Now that's an outright fantasy.
Click to expand...

Source required I'd think, unless that was simply an opinion in which case why is it not stated as such?
 
Last edited:
xyloscissor
I won't dispute this source so I'll claim he indeed said this. http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/12/23/news/assange_wikileaks-154754000/



My point remains that wikileaks did not elect Trump.
Click to expand...
He kind of forgot to mention that Novaya Gazeta journalists have a habit of winding up murdered, quite a common occurrence in Russia.

Odd that.

The Russian press is not considered free, any suggestion that it is should be considered concerning.

Oh and personaly I did say it did get trump elected, I was replying to a post asking us Assange would lie.
 
Sorry, I edited above while you were posting, my bad. I don't think Assange is being deceitful, he's not going to reveal his source so I do find it a bit odd he adds "well it was not russia". but...

Think about all those silly emails he released, they mean almost nothing to the average american, seriously we don't care. I had to search for maybe 1/2 an hour just to find the relevant ones, I linked it in the president thread but I'll try to find it to post here.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ns-from-wikileaks-release-podesta-emails.html

This? big deal but I know we are speaking of trusting assange right? Well I don't trust him but I do trust that what he leaks is real, I don't care if he chooses what to leak or not.
 
It's pointless to say that Assange lies simply because all men lie.

So it's now safe to take anything released by Wikileaks as the truth, and the whole truth as Wikileaks knows it.

I'm predicting that Trump will take steps to relieve Assange of US legal jeopardy issues, and soon Julian will be free.

I for one am very grateful for the undisputed emails of Hillary, Podesta and the DNC. Probably released by DNC insiders or ISP folks to Wikileaks. The voters knew the truth and they have almost snuffed out the Democrats as a national party.

State legislatures
R: 32
D: 13
split: 5

State governors
R: 33
D: 16
I: 1

Total state control
R:25
D: 6
 
I think some people would like to see a law that Assange releases one for one similar email leaks from Trump to counter leaks from Hillary, the world simply does not work that way. I also find it hard to believe that he was in favor of Trump in the election, who the hell wanted that racoon head? ;)
 
Dotini
It's pointless to say that Assange lies simply because all men lie.

So it's now safe to take anything released by Wikileaks as the truth, and the whole truth as Wikileaks knows it.

I'm predicting that Trump will take steps to relieve Assange of US legal jeopardy issues, and soon Julian will be free.

I for one am very grateful for the undisputed emails of Hillary, Podesta and the DNC. Probably released by DNC insiders or ISP folks to Wikileaks. The voters knew the truth and they have almost snuffed out the Democrats as a national party.

State legislatures
R: 32
D: 13
split: 5

State governors
R: 33
D: 16
I: 1

Total state control
R:25
D: 6
Click to expand...
Rather odd that you asked the question in the first place.

Now as far as everything they publish being 100% accurate? I doubt it, given that I've never come across any organisation that perfect, but we will never know unless someone is willing to break a $20 million NDA that wiki leaks make staff sign.

However can we assume by your comments that you also don't believe any of the US intelligence agencies either?
 
Scaff
However can we assume by your comments that you also don't believe any of the US intelligence agencies either?
Click to expand...
You're joking, of course.

MI6 has the motto Semper Occultus. Churchill quipped "truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

Hell no, I don't believe US intelligence agencies or any intelligence agency should have its word taken at face value. They are all trained, professional liars and deceivers.
 
I thought we all trusted without question these government organizations that are not voted for and just keep growing year after year. I especially trust the NSA.

I have no idea how that relates to some guy accused of child molestation posting some silly emails though.
 
Dotini
You're joking, of course.

MI6 has the motto Semper Occultus. Churchill quipped "truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

Hell no, I don't believe US intelligence agencies or any intelligence agency should have its word taken at face value. They are all trained, professional liars and deceivers.
Click to expand...

xyloscissor
I thought we all trusted without question these government organizations that are not voted for and just keep growing year after year. I especially trust the NSA.

I have no idea how that relates to some guy accused of child molestation posting some silly emails though.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to check guys, that's all.

I find it interesting that the bodies who protect your country are seen as less trustworthy than an unaccountable foreign national who claims to support transparency as long as it doesn't include him being transparent.

Personally I think they should both be treated with a great degree of caution, you seem to differ.
 
Scaff
Just wanted to check guys, that's all.

I find it interesting that the bodies who protect your country are seen as less trustworthy than an unaccountable foreign national who claims to support transparency as long as it doesn't include him being transparent.

Personally I think they should both be treated with a great degree of caution, you seem to differ.
Click to expand...

NO ONE has ever shown Wikileaks to have published false information. NO ONE! There has never been even one sustained allegation.

I've been begging someone, anyone, to contradict this. Yet even you have not done it. Sure, treat everyone with skepticism, even your doctor and especially your car salesman. And superspy intelligence agent.:lol:
 
Scaff
Just wanted to check guys, that's all.

I find it interesting that the bodies who protect your country are seen as less trustworthy than an unaccountable foreign national who claims to support transparency as long as it doesn't include him being transparent.

Personally I think they should both be treated with a great degree of caution, you seem to differ.
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting point. For myself I don't trust any organization with a power to affect my life, especially when they seem to have little to no accountability. It is indeed scary, meanwhile some guy posting this or that on the web doesn't threaten me much and I don't think he can impress anyone enough to alter my daily life.

I guess that is the difference, like I said I don't trust him, to be even more specific however, I do believe those emails to and from Hillary's campaign manager are genuine. In fact if all he does is leak stuff without any cause I'd trust most of it.
 
Wait so is the argument that because Assange doesn't reveal his sources, all of sudden justification that he is non-transparent and a scrupulous liar @Scaff ? I'm just now starting to actually piece together what Dotini is stressing and your retort to it.
 
Dotini
NO ONE has ever shown Wikileaks to have published false information. NO ONE! There has never been even one sustained allegation.

I've been begging someone, anyone, to contradict this. Yet even you have not done it. Sure, treat everyone with skepticism, even your doctor and especially your car salesman. And superspy intelligence agent.:lol:
Click to expand...
I work on the assumption that given the number of documents published probability would suggest that they are not going to be 100% perfect.

Now that's not to say that WL are at fault for that, but do you seriously believe they have independently verified the veracity of everysingle document?


LMSCorvetteGT2
Wait so is the argument that because Assange doesn't reveal his sources, all of sudden justification that he is non-transparent and a scrupulous liar @Scaff ? I'm just now starting to actually piece together what Dotini is stressing and your retort to it.
Click to expand...
Not what I've said at all.

Non transparency and the use of highly punitive NDAs are however rather concerning and ironic given the stated goal of WL.

Does that automatically make him a liar? No, however it also doesn't make him automatically honest either.

I am simply of the opinion that he no more deserves an automatic pass than any other organisation or body, and find it interesting that others seem to.
 
Scaff
Not what I've said at all.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'm asking you to clear it up for me.

Non transparency and the use of highly punitive NDAs are however rather concerning and ironic given the stated goal of WL.
Click to expand...

Can you further touch base on this, my understanding is the NDA not only protects the organization but the people who decided to contribute and be apart of wikileaks. Is there something else in the NDA that is of concern, is it the price tag one pays in breach of it or something else or combination?

Does that automatically make him a liar? No, however it also doesn't make him automatically honest either.
Click to expand...

Well of course it's not black and white, but why I worded it the way I did is because it would seem to me that there is a misdirection you seem to be hinting at from Assange

I am simply of the opinion that he no more deserves an automatic pass than any other organisation or body, and find it interesting that others seem to.
Click to expand...

The problem is this, and what I believe @Dotini is getting at, Assange is not the focal point, the contributers that leak truthful and valid info is what's to be scrutinized. To be honest I don't care about the figure head, I care about what his group provides and if it is actually truthful, whistle-blowing that should be known. So I'm finding it hard to see the concern at times, because he isn't the publisher really he's just the face it seems in a network that somehow sustains even when he's out of the picture.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Which is why I'm asking you to clear it up for me.



Can you further touch base on this, my understanding is the NDA not only protects the organization but the people who decided to contribute and be apart of wikileaks. Is there something else in the NDA that is of concern, is it the price tag one pays in breach of it or something else or combination?



Well of course it's not black and white, but why I worded it the way I did is because it would seem to me that there is a misdirection you seem to be hinting at from Assange



The problem is this, and what I believe @Dotini is getting at, Assange is not the focal point, the contributers that leak truthful and valid info is what's to be scrutinized. To be honest I don't care about the figure head, I care about what his group provides and if it is actually truthful, whistle-blowing that should be known. So I'm finding it hard to see the concern at times, because he isn't the publisher really he's just the face it seems in a network that somehow sustains even when he's out of the picture.
Click to expand...
The following article by the man who refused to sign the NDA when asked and then leaked it himself (and knew Assange) may help expand on it.

How much credence you give it is entirely in your judgement, but it's not the only source and more than enough to raise concerns in my opinion.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/...julian-assange?utm_term=.ccyJpvpna#.vtAej2jL6

Edited to add: I believe he is also still very much operationally in charge at WL, with constant internet access being provided. Highlighted by the near release of one of his insurance keys when the Embassy temporarily pulled the plug on his internet access last year.
 
Last edited:
If I were a politician I most likely would not care much for wikileaks either but to state it is a threat to national security is a bit of a stretch. It could be a threat to some's security however.

The people have the right to as much information as possible and stating otherwise is a joke, "You can't know the truth because that would hinder our government's job", really? Who is representing who here exactly?
 

Similar threads

FastRacer99
Thrustmaster T-GT2 / T-LCM
Replies
1
Views
759
VR-SORN
V
Irrmchester
Two questions..
Replies
5
Views
1K
Irrmchester
Irrmchester
2
Sardenga Road Track 800pp race Clean Race Bonus
Replies
10
Views
878
ZevZoq
ZevZoq
yuhboiari
  • Locked
Reports
Replies
3
Views
967
TexHill
TexHill
NosOsH
T-GT T-DFB
Replies
25
Views
6K
kartman21
kartman21

Latest Posts

Back