51–60 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like Assange knows that the FSB will just straight up poison him with Polonium instead of slapping him around a bit and shipping him to GITMO.
He could also be Seth Rich'd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich
wonder when wikileaks will publish fsb hacking tools LOL
It's much harder to leak Russian stuff because a lot of it is in paper form. After Snowden revelations, Russians returned to typewriters for all their top secret stuff [0]: > A source at Russia's Federal Guard Service (FSO), which is in charge of safeguarding Kremlin communications and protecting President Vladimir Putin, claimed that the return to typewriters has been prompted by the publication of secret documents…
> Russians returned to typewriters for all their top secret stuff
That's what they're telling people, I wonder how much truth there is to it. At the very least it provides a plausible cover story for when people ask why there aren't big leaks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth isn't responsible for serving anyone's interests, and especially not the interests of the biggest secret keeper. The truth is not political, except that it is the natural enemy of politics which rely upon secrecy. If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution...
> If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution... If your perspective is that the US is truly the most secretive and "egregious" actor on the modern stage, then you are shockingly naive. Or, more likely, misled by the skewed "truth" you are reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They pretty much put up anything sent to them that they think is real. Maybe, maybe not. How would we know they do that?
If someone sends real leaks to Wikileaks and they don't publish, then the leakers can use alternative channels to distribute the leaks (for example, sending directly to journalists), and then accuse Wikileaks of not publishing. Has anyone already accused Wikileaks of not publishing real leaks?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-ju...
> WikiLeaks, he told a Moscow newspaper, had obtained compromising materials “about Russia, about your government and your businessmen.”
> Mr. Assange, asked soon after by Time magazine whether he still planned to expose the secret dealings of the Kremlin, reiterated his earlier vow. “Yes indeed,” he said.
> But that promised assault would not materialize. Instead, with Mr. Assange’s legal troubles mounting, Mr. Putin would come to his defense.
There's also the fun time they came out against leaks that hurt Trump on the baffling assertion that Trump deserved to get to read them before release: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408
> The Obama admin/CIA is illegally funneling TOP SECRET//COMINT information to NBC for political reasons before PEOTUS even gets to read it.
Odd stance for the organization to take.
I've really turned on Wikileaks. Itd be one thing if all the major powers had equivalent leaks publishing, but focusing on the US basically serves Chinese and Russian interests far more than it does the citizens of the US. String obfuscation isn't stemming from some corrupt deal that needs sunlight... this is just doing a disservice to their original mission.
* Arabic
* Chinese
* Russian
* Korean
* Farsi
I've really turned on Wikileaks. Itd be one thing if all the major powers had equivalent leaks publishing, but focusing on the US basically serves Chinese and Russian interests far more than it does the citizens of the US. String obfuscation isn't stemming from some corrupt deal that needs sunlight... this is just doing a disservice to their original mission.