Julian Assange is Live on Twitch, answering user questions.
- Thread starter Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
- Start date
- Status
TestOfTide
Banned
What veiled accusations? There is nothing "veiled" about me pointing out the fact that you both have a post histories showing blatant biases towards Wikileaks, the Russians, and blaming everything on "neoliberalism".
So the source you use to defend Wikileaks is.......Wikileaks.
Messofanego
Banned
Haha, he didn't answer any of the most pressing questions. What a coward, why even do an AMA then?
ClosingADoor
Member
So let's say Sweden drops the charges now and Assange walks out. What is to stop the UK - or any other country - from extraditing him to the US when they ask? What are the extra conditions that make it so plausible this will happen in Sweden, and not in other countries?
As far as I know the EU won't extradite if the suspect can get the death penalty.
Honestly the problem here is he'll never have a fair trial.
The US want him dead and they can't do that legally without giving him the death sentence.
Nah, that's just her waving at people. Quarter turn, locked elbow, fingers held tight together, and a very stern look; looks exactly like how....NO, SHE'S WAVING!
These are leaks from straight from Stratfor. Click it and read. But If you want to keep burying your head in the sand, by all means be my guest.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Whats the defense going to be when Trump takes office, given how hard wikileaks worked to get him elected and Trump's repeated statements that he doesn't think they have a relationship with Russia?
Stop being a coward, have some integrity, and have your day in court.
A dude more worried about his own hide than anything else is not trustworthy as far as you can throw him. His convictions obviously end when it effects him.
TestOfTide
Banned
The links in that article go to 404 pages.
And I see nothing wrong with the US going after Wikileaks when their premier "leak" involved dumping a bunch of data on Iraq recklessly, including numerous pieces of info on Afghans that were covertly working US Soldiers.
When Snowden leaked info he did so by working with journalists to make sure to minimize any sensitive data coming out so no one was put in danger. All Wikileaks does is recklessly dump data because to them privacy is a privilege not a right.
Frozenprince
Banned
Why? What would give you the indication that they want him to be killed?
The US probably want him and his entire organization detained, yes, but certainly not committed and sentenced to capital punishment. Nothing about the actions of any of the actors in this incident showcase an intent to kill.
If it were, he'd be dead.
https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/#top
Search by Email-ID
And copy the email IDs. I'm not sure why they are 404'd but you can access them this way.
Example - https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=375123#searchresult
Round and around and around and around we go.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
"Illegally shoot the son of a bitch" - Democratic Strategist Bob Beckel
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/meet-the-people-who-want-julian-assange-whacked/
Frozenprince
Banned
So a list of neocon writers, talking heads, people who are no longer in positions of power, and... that's it. This is also an opinion piece with this:
At the end.
And to date, nobody is dead. Seven years later.
This bit is also funny
So you're sourcing wikileaks on this... that doesn't seem a little ironic or foolish?
Frozenprince
Banned
Not a single name in that Ars Technica article, from seven years ago, is in a position of power anymore.
I mean hell they basically imply "Manning is going to be sentenced to death" and that didn't happen, she was sentenced to 35 years.
I mean hell they basically imply "Manning is going to be sentenced to death" and that didn't happen, she was sentenced to 35 years.
Like I said before, the source is the Stratfor leaks. Wikileaks is merely hosting the emails.
There is nothing ironic or foolish about it. There is however something very foolish about those dismissing it because it's hosted on Wikileaks servers,
MisterFalcon
Member
Frozenprince
Banned
None of those leaks are extant anymore, they've been pulled from the site, and the archives.
Why.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
So I'm guessing you're a straight white male who is not dependent on ACA and "has a black friend".
You're really naive about a non-journalistic organisation having anywhere near the same level of professional ethics as journalists do.
Besides, mister "privacy don't matter" got his dirty laundry thrown at him and is hiding like a little bitch who can't deal with "privacy don't matter". Why would think this is a serious enterprise in any way or form when they clearly do no realize what lack of the right to privacy entails? There is a difference between whistle-blowing (when said right needs to be broken for the greater good) and just dumping everyone's shit all over the place (when no such moral imperative exists).
No. They're all still there.
https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/#top
Stop this bullshit, it's embarrassing.
The case was closed while he was there and reopened after he left. In addition, no assurances have been provided by them.
This is tiresome.
Most of you have very strong opinions on the matter in addition to not having a clue as to what has happened or the sequence of events.
I'm still calling you out on using wikileaks to defend wikileaks. How about another source that isn't suspect in the first place.
Frozenprince
Banned
Ah yes, everybody but you is an idiot. Who cannot possibly have done any research or investigation of their own. Or form an educated opinion.
Also, searched very specific terms (Assange, Stratfor, Indictment)
Ain't there.
Why would you claim wikileaks had pulled the stratfor emails from the site and it's archives simply because a hyperlink in an article didnt redirect properly?
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/...-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html
I'm using the Stratfor leaks.
You've yet to counter my points or really make one yourself.
Email ID. Use it. It's right there. Copy and paste the IDs referenced.
I've even linked to one of the emails to another user just a few posts above. These are the Stratfor links. Searching for "Stratfor" in Stratfor leaks... come on man.
Frozenprince
Banned
Because nothing is redirecting properly, the email ID's aren't even directing to the specific ones linked.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
"the source is the Stratfor leaks"
All you had to do was search using the email ID.
eot
Banned
That is not a response to what I said.
So what if they reopened the investigation? It happens, you know.
If he was so afraid of being extradited why did he let him self be interviewed the first time?
The insinuation around this was that the rape charges were made up so that he could get arrested and be extradited but a) there's nothing to suggest that b) it doesn't make any sense. They already had a chance to take him into custody if that was what they wanted.
MisterFalcon
Member
That mail was sent January 26th 2011. Assange fled into the embassy June 19th 2012.
Through wikileaks. Send me a source that isn't wikileaks or wikileaks related. That's my point of contention.
Anyways I'm going to drop this. Have fun.
No one has sugested the stratfor leaks aren't legit. Someone has been charged and convicted for leaking them.
Considering how suspect Wikileaks is in handling info, it's worse than quoting wikipedia without including the sources.
It's a boatload of BS, no one ever explained how come the guy is fearing something from a EU country when anything done by the US in Sweden could have been done in the UK where he hid his sorry ass.
Nothing was ever clear about why the guy is worthy of special treatment, they're not doing any journalistic world, they're not pushing for more transparency.
At this point the question that needs to be answered is what is the point of this org when others are doing their job better without any of the BS.
It's circular reasoning BS that makes even less sense than the theory that lizardmen did 9/11.
It's a boatload of BS, no one ever explained how come the guy is fearing something from a EU country when anything done by the US in Sweden could have been done in the UK where he hid his sorry ass.
Nothing was ever clear about why the guy is worthy of special treatment, they're not doing any journalistic world, they're not pushing for more transparency.
At this point the question that needs to be answered is what is the point of this org when others are doing their job better without any of the BS.
It's circular reasoning BS that makes even less sense than the theory that lizardmen did 9/11.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
But the primary documents are biased tho.
The leaks haven't been disputed by anyone.
And for what it's worth, I'm done with the thread too. It's a waste of time.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
What do you call an organization who receives primary documents from a source, verifies the accuracy of those documents, and then releases that information to the public
And one last time, send me a link that isn't wikileaks. I know I'm being pedantic here but if someone is going to defend wikileaks, don't just link to wikileaks or files associated with wikileaks like I'm not going to raise an eyebrow. I'm well aware of the leaks before this topic and of wikileaks in general. Its poor form is all I'm saying and no one here is doing their case any better by continuing to just state,"Go to wikileaks".
Notice how I didn't debate the reality or truth of the Stratfor emails.
Multiple courts have ruled he is at a stage in the Swedish judicial process that equates to being charged. The final interview is a unique formality in Swedish law before charges are filed officially. He will be charged with rape as soon as he does the interview.
And you're going to explain why no one did anything between the email and the embassy flight?
re :
You know? Between January 2011 and June 2012?
When they actually start pushing for transparency we'll talk.
TestOfTide
Banned
What do you call an organization that:
- doxes all the female voters of Turkey
- encourages harassment of Seth Rich's parents
- publically discloses the SSNs of democratic donors, then brags about it
- shittalks OTHER whistleblowers (see their reaction to the panama papers)
- defends the rebels who shot down that Ukraine Airplane
- blatantly appeases the alt-right
Because most normal people would that organization a bunch of assholes.
Journalists
Hey it's totally a journalist's job to make sure everyone gets all the adresses of all female voters!
Where's the oversight? The point with people like you and others is you will scream "I don't trust the government" but your cynicism doesn't extend for some strange reason to a vague group with no oversight or transparency. And worse shown to have specific political bias and serious ties to Russian propaganda led by a man running from rape charges. When you hand wave all that of you are not going to be taken seriously. That just means you want reinforcements for your narrative in your head and you don't really care what the source is, you are not as "woke" as you think you are. You are just a sheep of a different color that you imagine others are.
It's fucking hilarious to ask for oversight from the West while being completely silent for the other countries too.
Hey France, we need to be sure you do things with proper oversight and stuffs.
Russia, keep killing journalists and waging illegal wars, you're ok with your shirtless leader.
MisterFalcon
Member
We're supposed to believe that exactly at the moment that Assange was wanted for rape he was declared Public Enemy No. 1 by the US and with black ops squads in hot pursuit he barely managed to make it into the embassy. Or maybe that infamous sealed secret indictment was misfiled for 16 months and suddenly the US realized he was a wanted man.
Or you can be one of the sheeple who does not believe Assange.
paperboywriter
Member
has there been a summary posted anywhere?
- Status