Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

Imagine if you told somebody even in 2014 that Sean Hannity would be interviewing Julian Assange in a somewhat friendly way.

 

[Suikoguy]

They're very obviously a puppet. I honestly didn't think anyone was questioning that at this point.

Hey, sometimes if you hate someone so much, you will find common friends in hate.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

No, but Wikileaks ordinarily never says anything about the sources of anything they release. So the fact that Assange went public with the statement that they are not from Russia is extremely significant.

Considering how well-known it is that Assange dislikes Hillary, it wouldn't make sense for him to do this unless he really thought that this perceived Russian association was undermining the other stuff that Wikileaks releases.

the fact that he said it wasn't Russia is telling, but not credibility's sake. I don't know how a Russian government source undermines that in any way. There's a more obvious explanation here and it has to do with his audience...

 

[RibMan]

It's possible that it was internal, but at this point, Assange's credibility is nestled in toilet water -- and I'm not talking about the good smelling kind. It's tough to believe anything he says. I understand that the C.I.A. hasn't released any evidence yet, but I'll sooner trust their conclusions over the conclusions of a man who behaves as if he's on a promo tour for an upcoming mixtape.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Imagine if you told somebody even in 2014 that Sean Hannity would be interviewing Julian Assange in a somewhat friendly way.

More generally, who would have thought any Republican alive under Reagan would be bending over backwards 30 years later to have a foreign policy that is based on Russian appeasement?

 

[innervision961]

He also claimed Clinton and Podesta were complicit in a child sex ring ran out of a D.C. pizza restaurant. Fuck what this guy says.

 

[Trojita]

Assange contradicted himself 3 times in that writeup.

Also, you are taking Assange and Murray's word at face value?

Not enough laughing.gifs

Murray is even tweeting that this interview with Assange is "The definitive last word on the "Russian hackers" allegations", when even Assange says he doesn't know who it is and then contradicts himself.

The bullshit signal is going off on this one.

 

[Psychoward]

What you think about who their possible sources are doesn't change the authenticity of the material they have released. And if you can't even bring yourself to believe that it's actually possible that Assange isn't anyone's puppet but has been acting of his own free will against someone who he believes wants him tried on false rape charges then I don't think it's possible to continue this discussion any further.

1) Some of their material is false or has been doctored, and considering the scope of that material (child sex ring) combined with Assad's clear agenda is enough to cast doubt on the entire organization

2) Ok? Do you realize the thread you're posting in which you yourself have made? This isn't about the authenticity of their material leaked, it's about where it's coming from. And even if it was all 100% true, that doesn't change anything regarding the topic at hand

3) "false rape charges" lmao

 

[Imm0rt4l]

No, it really isn't.

You need to stop idolising wikileaks.

They are paid state actors.

This

 

[Suikoguy]

What you think about who their possible sources are doesn't change the authenticity of the material they have released. And if you can't even bring yourself to believe that it's actually possible that Assange isn't anyone's puppet but has been acting of his own free will against someone who he believes wants him tried on false rape charges then I don't think it's possible to continue this discussion any further.

So, you are now a rape-truther?

You pro pizza-gate too?

You really showed your true colors this thread.

 

[studyguy]

Surprised anyone is even humoring this.

Also had discussed it earlier but the whiplash from Hannity interviewing a guy he was vigorously calling to be extradited and jailed not 5 years ago for is pretty astounding.

 

[Suikoguy]

Surprised anyone is even humoring this.

It is pretty humorous though.

I learned that you can flee the country to avoid rape charges if they are false, no need to stand trial!

 

[jack_package_200]

So, you are now a rape-truther?

You pro pizza-gate too?

You really showed your true colors this thread.

He showed his true colors ages ago. This is nothing new from him.

 

[BigDes]

They guy who asserted that getting pizza at a pizza restaurant is actually code for raping kids at a pizza restaurant based on zero evidence sure seems like a guy whose word I can trust

 

[benjipwns]

Assange getting turned over to the U.S. isn't exactly farfetched. Even if he's using it as an excuse to run out the clock on his charges.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Assange contradicted himself 3 times in that writeup.

Also, you are taking Assange and Murray's word at face value?

Not enough laughing.gifs

Murray is even tweeting that this interview with Assange is "The definitive last word on the "Russian hackers" allegations", when even Assange says he doesn't know who it is and then contradicts himself.

The bullshit signal is going off on this one.

Did you even read what I wrote in the OP?

There is no way to corroborate any of Assange's claims and there may never be

I didn't take anything Assange said at face value? And Assange himself says he thinks "Guccifer 2.0" might be a Russian state actor. Which again is not related to the material Wikileaks released.

 

[Psychoward]

Did you even read what I wrote in the OP?



I didn't take anything Assange said at face value? And Assange himself says he thinks "Guccifer 2.0" might be a Russian state actor. Which again is not related to the material Wikileaks released.

So why bother creating the thread if Assange himself can't even bring himself to say that the leaks weren't Russian with certainty?

Then there's the whole "trusting Assange to say that he's not working for the Russians" thing too

 

[xxracerxx]

I didn't take anything Assange said at face value? And Assange himself says he thinks "Guccifer 2.0" might be a Russian state actor. Which again is not related to the material Wikileaks released.

Thread title: Julian Assange: Wikileaks emails were not from Russia

It is definitely related.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Some of the logic here certainly does seem a bit twisted. So, 1) Assange is acting out of pure unabated spite for Clinton, therefore 2) we can be confident that a foreign agent is NOT involved. The simplest counterpoint to this is of course "why can't it be both?" since they are in no way exclusive, and there doesn't seem to be real good response other than 'trust us'

More generally, I find it kind of weird how Wikileaks worship hinges on Assange's hatred for Clinton justifying the blatant curation and moderation of what gets released and how it gets released and when it gets released. I mean, at that point it fundamentally is no longer a whistblowing organization. It's indistinguishable from a PAC doing oppo research.

 

[pigeon]

Assange getting turned over to the U.S. isn't exactly farfetched. Even if he's using it as an excuse to run out the clock on his charges.

If Assange were worried that Sweden might extradite him to the US, why was he planning to move to Sweden and get citizenship? That makes no sense.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So why bother creating the thread if Assange himself can't even bring himself to say that the leaks weren't Russian with certainty?

Then there's the whole "trusting Assange to say that he's not working for the Russians" thing too

Well I mean if you and others posting here are so absolutely certain he's working for the Russians, then what am I supposed to say? None of you have any proof he is working for them, nor do I have any proof that he isn't. So in an argument where it's your opinion against mine, I'll keep my opinion and you can keep yours I guess.

 

[Trojita]

Did you even read what I wrote in the OP?



I didn't take anything Assange said at face value? And Assange himself says he thinks "Guccifer 2.0" might be a Russian state actor. Which again is not related to the material Wikileaks released.

The fucky thing is that Assange is saying the documents they posted on Wikileaks weren't Russian, but they posted Guccifer 2.0 stuff.

Which is it.

However, despite stating that he was unable to read or understand Russian, metadata of emails sent from Guccifer 2.0 to The Hill showed that a Russian-language-only VPN was used. When pressed to use the Romanian language in an interview with Motherboard via online chat, "he used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believed he was using an online translator.

Derp

 

[Intheflorsh]

Whatever credibility this guy seemed to have at one point is completely gone after pizzagate and the disaster that is the wikileaks twitter account.

 

[Suikoguy]

Well I mean if you and others posting here are so absolutely certain he's working for the Russians, then what am I supposed to say? None of you have any proof he is working for them, nor do I have any proof that he isn't. So in an argument where it's your opinion against mine, I'll keep my opinion and you can keep yours I guess.

The whole "It's just my opinion" bullshit huh?

Hmm, maybe you are a paid Russian Troll, we don't have any evidence either way, i'm just asking questions...

 

[BlazinSkatinAxel]

This is like the sequel to The Dictator...

 

[Psychoward]

Well I mean if you and others posting here are so absolutely certain he's working for the Russians, then what am I supposed to say? None of you have any proof he is working for them, nor do I have any proof that he isn't. So in an argument where it's your opinion against mine, I'll keep my opinion and you can keep yours I guess.

Your opinion is only backed up by Assange and right wing nuts. Ours isn't. I'm not absolutely sure he's working for the Russians, I am absolutely sure I wouldn't trust him to tell me if he was.

Your only defense of why he isn't working for the Russians is Assange himself saying he isn't, even though he cast doubt on that in this very interview and that's disregarding all the blatant lies he's peddled. Beautiful.

 

[Balphon]

Assange has next to zero credibility, so unless he's going to take the radical step of actually naming an alternate source there's no reason to even give him the time of day.

 

[Chumley]

Well I mean if you and others posting here are so absolutely certain he's working for the Russians, then what am I supposed to say? None of you have any proof he is working for them, nor do I have any proof that he isn't. So in an argument where it's your opinion against mine, I'll keep my opinion and you can keep yours I guess.

"Just asking questions bro"

 

[benjipwns]

If Assange were worried that Sweden might extradite him to the US, why was he planning to move to Sweden and get citizenship? That makes no sense.

The U.S. stating its intention to prosecute him and Sweden re-opening the case probably has something to do with his ideas about that.

 

[msdstc]

He also claimed Clinton and Podesta were complicit in a child sex ring ran out of a D.C. pizza restaurant. Fuck what this guy says.

Can somebody link me to this? Also why are we saying Wikileaks is doctored now? Afaik the stuff they leak is legitimate. Thats not to say they aren't puppets, but I think to disregard everything they have released as false is a little much. Let's not forget he released a ton of damning stuff about the bush administration.

 

[Psychoward]

The U.S. stating its intention to prosecute him probably has something to do with his ideas about that.

That doesn't answer the question? The question was if Assange was worried Sweden would kick him back to the U.S. why would he even plan to move there in the first place?

 

[leroidys]

You mean Putin didn't personally hand them the electronic mails? Obviously must have been your garden variety 400 lb hacker then. Checkmate dems.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Can somebody link me to this? Also why are we saying Wikileaks is doctored now? Afaik the stuff they leak is legitimate. Thats not to say they aren't puppets, but I think to disregard everything they have released as false is a little much. Let's not forget he released a ton of damning stuff about the bush administration.

The most amazing thing about this election is how people who used to hate something now suddenly love it just because it now supports their position instead of opposing it. I mean, just look at Hannity and Assange.

Wikileaks used to be a hero when they were leaking the Bush stuff, including that video of the Iraq War a number of years back. Now they are suddenly a villain who are a propaganda arm of Vladimir Putin. It kind of makes you wonder sometimes. The truth is always only what agrees with your position, no matter what your position is on the political spectrum.

 

[Psychoward]

The most amazing thing about this election is how people who used to hate something now suddenly love it just because it now supports their position instead of opposing it. I mean, just look at Hannity and Assange.

Wikileaks used to be a hero when they were leaking the Bush stuff, including that video of the Iraq War a number of years back. Now they are suddenly a villain who are a propaganda arm of Vladimir Putin. It kind of makes you wonder sometimes. The truth is always only what agrees with your position, no matter what your position is on the political spectrum.

was that before or after they leaked private information of thousands of citizens or compromised spies abroad


if you really think nothing has changed since their founding and now I don't know what to tell you. I can applaud them for leaking the Iraq War stuff while still condemning the overall organization.

 

[leroidys]

The most amazing thing about this election is how people who used to hate something now suddenly love it just because it now supports their position instead of opposing it. I mean, just look at Hannity and Assange.

Wikileaks used to be a hero when they were leaking the Bush stuff, including that video of the Iraq War a number of years back. Now they are suddenly a villain who are a propaganda arm of Vladimir Putin. It kind of makes you wonder sometimes. The truth is always only what agrees with your position, no matter what your position is on the political spectrum.

Except none of that lines up with reality. Attitudes towards Assange have largely not been kind on this board for years, especially since they started endangering people's lives, showing up on Russian state television, ramped up anti Semitic rhetoric, and started spreading fake news and conspiracy theories.

 

[benjipwns]

That doesn't answer the question? The question was if Assange was worried Sweden would kick him back to the U.S. why would he even plan to move there in the first place?

That question makes no sense. In the prior instance he's not openly facing prosecution from anyone, in the current state he has at least two states stating their intent on prosecuting him.

Plus the Swedish citizenship thing is just off-hand speculation from the Swedish press from what I can tell.

 

[pigeon]

The most amazing thing about this election is how people who used to hate something now suddenly love it just because it now supports their position instead of opposing it. I mean, just look at Hannity and Assange.

Wikileaks used to be a hero when they were leaking the Bush stuff, including that video of the Iraq War a number of years back. Now they are suddenly a villain who are a propaganda arm of Vladimir Putin. It kind of makes you wonder sometimes. The truth is always only what agrees with your position, no matter what your position is on the political spectrum.

People keep asserting that other people's positions have changed because theirs changed and they assume that everybody is just as dishonest as they are.

I've always thought Wikileaks was acting dishonestly and to the detriment of America. I will admit I didn't always think they were a paid Russian intelligence outlet but live and learn.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Except none of that lines up with reality. Attitudes towards Assange have largely not been kind on this board for years.

That doesn't mean a lot though, I seem to recall a lot of people on this board also wanting Snowden to be returned to the US and prosecuted. This board is often very strongly pro-authoritarian.

People keep asserting that other people's positions have changed because theirs changed and they assume that everybody is just as dishonest as they are.

I've always thought Wikileaks was acting dishonestly and to the detriment of America. I will admit I didn't always think they were a paid Russian intelligence outlet but live and learn.

Really? Always? Even when they were releasing material about the Iraq War and the TPP?

Well, scratch the second one, I know how pro-TPP and pro-trade agreements this board is too.

Also I don't know what 'the detriment of America' is in this case, is it not to the benefit of American citizens that secret materials about the inner workings of their government be made public?

 

[MisterFalcon]

was that before or after they leaked private information of thousands of citizens

And he proudly took credit for changing the election outcome in Kenya with his leaks and the 1500 deaths that followed.

 

[Suikoguy]

That doesn't mean a lot though, I seem to recall a lot of people on this board also wanting Snowden to be returned to the US and prosecuted. This board is often very strongly pro-authoritarian.

Snowden is not currently dodging rape charges or pushing conspiracy theories.
Also, has historically been viewed on this forum far more positively than Assange.

 

[Psychoward]

And he proudly took credit for changing the election outcome in Kenya with his leaks and the 1500 deaths that followed.

here's their short little entry on reception courtesy of wikipedia

At the same time, several U.S. government officials have criticised WikiLeaks for exposing classified information and claimed that the leaks harm national security and compromise international diplomacy.[291][292][293][294][295] Several human rights organisations requested with respect to earlier document releases that WikiLeaks adequately redact the names of civilians working with international forces, in order to prevent repercussions.[296] Some journalists have likewise criticised a perceived lack of editorial discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without sufficient analysis.[297]

This narrative that people changed their mind on WikiLeaks just because of the recent election is laughable.

 

[leroidys]

That doesn't mean a lot though, I seem to recall a lot of people on this board also wanting Snowden to be returned to the US and prosecuted. This board is often very strongly pro-authoritarian.

Backing up one unsubstantiated strawman with another does not a convincing argument make.

 

[Psychoward]

Also I don't know what 'the detriment of America' is in this case, is it not to the benefit of American citizens that secret materials about the inner workings of their government be made public?

It's to the detriment of American citizens that secret materials about their inner workings of their government is made public when that information being public endangers American citizens, American agents and is mixed in with a healthy dose of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Maybe you should read up on why people actually dislike WikiLeaks. Even in a perfect world, 100% freedom of information is suicide. Some things are secretive because they need to be.

 

[msdstc]

here's their short little entry on reception courtesy of wikipedia




This narrative that people changed their mind on WikiLeaks just because of the recent election is laughable.

I'm not arguing that at all btw. I'm just saying from my understanding what they leak is legitimate as far as the documents. Their agenda seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's to the detriment of American citizens that secret materials about their inner workings of their government is made public when that information being public endangers American citizens, American agents and is mixed in with a healthy dose of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Maybe you should read up on why people actually dislike WikiLeaks. Even in a perfect world, 100% freedom of information is suicide. Some things are secretive because they need to be.

See this is the issue. A world where 100% freedom of information is suicide is a truly dark and twisted world. The fact that some people still think that governments keep secrets for their own good is quite laughable after what Snowden revealed about the NSA and domestic espionage. In addition to other reasons like diplomacy and warfare, governments also keep secrets to help them stay in power and retain control of their citizenry.

Wikileaks releases information about plenty of other actors and nations and yet somehow the American critics of Wikileaks are deafeningly silent when this happens. They only care about material which relates to their nation and the apparent undermining of American superpower and hegemony. I'm not even surprised that this is the case but to then go after Wikileaks for material specifically pertaining to America and ignoring all the other non-American material reveals a morally unjustifiable position.

 

[Psychoward]

See this is the issue. A world where 100% freedom of information is suicide is a truly dark and twisted world. The fact that some people still think that governments keep secrets for their own good is quite laughable after what Snowden revealed about the NSA and domestic espionage. In addition to other reasons like diplomacy and warfare, governments also keep secrets to help them stay in power and retain control of their citizenry.

Wikileaks releases information about plenty of other actors and nations and yet somehow the American critics of Wikileaks are deafeningly silent when this happens. They only care about material which relates to their nation and the apparent undermining of American superpower and hegemony. I'm not even surprised that this is the case but to then go after Wikileaks for material specifically pertaining to America and ignoring all the other non-American material reveals a morally unjustifiable position.

Do you know what.... spies are? Or, private information about citizens? Thousands of people's identities were compromised because of wikileaks releasing information without properly vetting it first. Hell it happened with the DNC hack too!

And then you go on to say how the critics don't care about non-American issues despite someone on this very page proving you completely wrong!

Swing and a miss.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Do you know what.... spies are? Or, private information about citizens? Thousands of people's identities were compromised because of wikileaks releasing information without properly vetting it first.

I don't think anybody can argue that it is the job of Wikileaks to censor their secret information. You're basically telling Wikileaks to do the covering up for the governments whose secret information they are releasing. Is releasing this secret information with personal information about individuals possibly a questionable thing to do? Yes, that is absolutely questionable.

But for Wikileaks it is also an impossible dilemma, they are releasing secret information, to then censor and redact the secret information completely defeats the purpose of releasing it in the first place. I understand the issue that people have with this completely, but also understand why it had to be released without censoring or redaction.

 

[Psychoward]

I don't think anybody can argue that it is the job of Wikileaks to censor their secret information. You're basically telling Wikileaks to do the covering up for the governments whose secret information they are releasing. Is it possibly a questionable thing to do? Yes, that is absolutely questionable.

But for Wikileaks it is also an impossible dilemma, they are releasing secret information, to then censor and redact the secret information completely defeats the purpose of releasing it in the first place. I understand the issue that people have with this completely, but also understand why it had to be released without censoring or redaction.

Yes I forgot, their efforts would have been completely undermined had they censored citizens' credit card info.

Lol


But no you seemingly don't understand the concerns as you said a world where 100% freedom of information is bad is a "dark and twisted" place. I didn't say 99%. I said 100%.

I'd love to see yur theoretical government which doesn't censor citizen's information at all and everything is publicly available. That would work out well clearly.


Anyway congrats you've managed to successfully derail your own thread, probably because even you realized the notion that having Assange be the sole dissenter is a pointless hill to die on.

 

[pigeon]

I don't think anybody can argue that it is the job of Wikileaks to censor their secret information. You're basically telling Wikileaks to do the covering up for the governments whose secret information they are releasing. Is it possibly a questionable thing to do? Yes, that is absolutely questionable.

But for Wikileaks it is also an impossible dilemma, they are releasing secret information, to then censor and redact the secret information completely defeats the purpose of releasing it in the first place. I understand the issue that people have with this completely, but also understand why it had to be released without censoring or redaction.

Interesting that they had plenty of time to edit their releases to conceal Russian wrongdoing.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

As those on the alt-right say:

Prove it