121–130 of 227 posts
Also I think Assange is not in control of Wikileaks anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one has argued that Wikileaks has never done anything right. You're disingenuously oversimplifying the situation to imply that my position is ridiculous. When your ridiculous position is simply that "Wikileaks did a thing that I liked so that means they never did anything wrong and anyone that thinks its possible is just paranoid". Instead of being dismissive and condescending why not try to have a conversation?
You are arguing that it's part of an NWO conspiracy... I provided an objective view of the action you were discussing, because it seems you're drawing form inferences and assumptions, as there is clearly not sufficient evidence to support a NWO conspiracy belief. It was an attempt to allow you to connect the dots for me, by starting from the (in my opinion) reasonable act which is implied to be the smoking gun.
When I mention NWO I'm simply referring to the fact that as the US has ruined its own reputation, Russia and China have developed a stronger position with the rest of the world. If we ever got to a place where Putin-led Russia was considered more of a leader in the international community than the US it would be bad for almost everyone. Likewise, although China has made slow and steady progress towards being less terrible, if they were suddenly more influential to the rest of the world it too would be bad for almost everyone. No one says "Man I wish the rest of the world would wake up and start operating like China and Russia, that's really the model that freedom loving people everywhere should aspire to." Russian and Chinese people are just as good as anyone else, but in spite of our government being pretty shitty in many ways, their governments are still atrocious in comparison.
Its not about communism. Its about Russia's obviously hostile intent towards western civilization and Wikileaks selling out their integrity to support it simply because they don't like the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say "insane," but it's comical to watch an organization ostensibly dedicated to shining the light of truth into the dark places of power crawling this far up its own nethers to attempt to damage-control their own leader's bad behavior.
Which bad behavior are you referring to?
At this point, he's dodging Sweden's justice system because he can and because Ecuador allows him to. And all of this distracts from Wikileaks' ostensible goal of shining light into the dark places of power; public trust in them weakens as they continue to refuse to cut ties with an accused rapist dodging charges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irony from the memo: It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is, or has ever been, an agent or officer of any intelligence service
Okay, but that's kind of overshadowed by the massive irony of Wikileaks asking that this memo be kept secret and it promptly leaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything, can't but help feel that WikiLeaks informed how the ICIJ handled the leaked 11.5 million leaked documents that comprised the 'Panama Papers.' The involvement of multiple journalists, across different organisations, really adds authenticity that the information was handled objectively and fairly. There's been very little criticism of that fact, at least when compared to WikiLeak's handling of other materi…
> Even WikiLeaks didn’t answer its tip line repeatedly. The media has failed. Direct quote from the Panama Papers source[0], after which Wikileaks "slammed" the source for not releasing the full leak. That was such an obvious defamation attempt that Wikileaks disgusts me ever since. That wasn't the only defamation attempt around Panama Papers that Wikileaks attempted. Check out this[1] investigative gem, in which the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can tell that wikileaks is now a front precisely because they have stopped operating in the way you describe. They no longer publish everything they have been given (Assange once claimed to have documents embarassing to Russia but they are as yet unpublished). They no longer publish documents indiscriminately (Podesta emails trickled out over the course of October 2016 for maximum political effect on the election)…
"It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have not published critical information on Russia, Syria or Donald Trump [in fact, WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of documents on Russia, millions on Syria, and thousands on Donald Trump, see https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ , https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia%7Cputin%7Cmoscow#... , https://wikileaks.org/syria-files…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are arguing that it's part of an NWO conspiracy... I provided an objective view of the action you were discussing, because it seems you're drawing form inferences and assumptions, as there is clearly not sufficient evidence to support a NWO conspiracy belief. It was an attempt to allow you to connect the dots for me, by starting from the (in my opinion) reasonable act which is implied to be the smoking gun.
I expect nation states to do what is in their best interest. Wikileaks helped Russia whether they wanted to or not. Russia's attempt to interfere with our democracy has led to one of the most toxic political climates in US history. The nation is divided and we keep shooting ourselves in the foot because we can't get along. When I mention NWO I'm simply referring to the fact that as the US has ruined its own reputatio…
Can we also likewise agree that the democratic party's misdeeds themselves hurt the democratic party and helped russia?
If so, why is it reasonable to connect "wikileaks getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO, but not reasonable to connect "the DNC getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
isn't the role of every media organization to affect the outcome of elections, by revealing true facts to the public? democracy dies in the dark you know.
There's a difference between objectively revealing all relevant, true facts at your disposal and selectively releasing true facts that support your agenda or actively harm your opponent, at very specific times when its most advantageous for you to do it. There's also a difference between having legitimate complaints about the United States government and actively working with Russian Intelligence to destabilize weste…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple news agencies have reported that the Ecuadorians cut off his Internet access in the spring of 2018, after unspecified or wildly speculated-upon "misbehavior" by Assange.
"It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador isolated and gagged Mr. Assange due to his comments on Sergei Skripal [in fact, he was isolated over his refusal to delete a factually accurate tweet about the arrest of the president of Catalonia by Spain in Germany, along with U.S. debt pressure on Ecuador. The president of Ecuador Lenin Moreno admitted that these two countries were the issue, see https://defend.w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism they did change the outcome of a US election, and probably the course of world history, which is more than all of the anti-trump media combined, so that is a pretty big accomplishment ...
Maybe. They likely had an impact. The money spent by Russian intelligence to run propaganda via social media should likely be counted as at least as influential.