21–30 of 141 posts
He talks about Murdoch's actions in "1958" but then says that his actions are happening nearly a century later. Was that date inaccurate? Because 52 years doesn't strike me as a full nearly-a-century.
No. He's talking about Rupert Murdoch's writings, in 1958, reflecting on Keith Murdoch's revelations about Gallipoli. Keith Murdoch was Rupert's father. The Gallipoli campaign happened during WWI, in 1915-1916, nearly a century ago.
It probably even vindicates what Wikileaks stands for.
This is one of those cases where damage limitation is the sane and sensible response; they've lost those cables, we are going to see them. Deal with it. They need perspective; in the grand scheme of things it is highly unlikely to be "the end of the world". And if it uncovers corruption and naughtiness then all the better.
Hounding Assange and Wikileaks only ends up making them look guilty. Which is stupid, especially as there is nothing (so far) hugely corrupt or terrible in the leaks!
If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of infrastructure that are critical to national security? ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI... )…
Not true. Honest and courageous diplomats will continue to tell the truth. Cowards need not apply.
Earlier MasterCard said: "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us...
If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of infrastructure that are critical to national security? ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI... )…
I agree. I don't get it. Are we this desperate for a hero that we'll romanticize the average in order to have one?
So: yes. We do need Julian Assange, and more people like him, to stand up and fight these heinous powers being abused by dishonest criminals in the Pentagon, and the US Government.
"In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act" G. Orwell I find the calls to get him assassinated or kidnap his son simply appalling.
Who's been calling to kidnap his son? I did a quick (1 minute) google search, but couldn't find a source.
http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/green-lighting-assange/
google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e7JxvDK...
but that was after the edit
His parting words confirm it though:
" :lol: So much for ANY argument about Free Speech or whether Assange is Good or Evil.
Between having this post censored and the various death threats I’ve been reporting to the authorities and deleting, it’s very much proven that most of these ranters actually believe EXACTLY as I do, just not from a defending America point of view.
To all the Aussies out there – I totally approve of your attitude, though I do wish you’d read the comment thread before ranting. If you had, you’d have realized that I accepted that using Daniel was useless.
Think on this though – If the tables were turned, would you have responded any differently than I did. You responses and threats says you would have done as I did.
All,
This threaded has ended in a very odd Win-Win situation. The specifics of my idea were proven useless and finally removed by fiat (Your Win), but your responses – by and large – proved the lie of your underlying argument (My Win).
I’m also shocked that so many of you would lend me so much credence of perceived power and/or authority. I certainly never expected anyone other than my normal readers to engage in this thought experiment…
I really don’t know if that’s gratifying or sobering."
Unbelievable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I don't get it. Are we this desperate for a hero that we'll romanticize the average in order to have one?
And so it seems that the surest way to get downvoted on Hacker News is to say something bad about Julian Assange. Boringly predictable.
"In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act" G. Orwell I find the calls to get him assassinated or kidnap his son simply appalling.
Who's been calling to kidnap his son? I did a quick (1 minute) google search, but couldn't find a source.
* Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.
If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of infrastructure that are critical to national security? ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI... )…
I agree. I don't get it. Are we this desperate for a hero that we'll romanticize the average in order to have one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And so it seems that the surest way to get downvoted on Hacker News is to say something bad about Julian Assange. Boringly predictable.
And so it seems that trolls get their just deserts.
I just don't understand why reasonable objections are so quickly criticized here.