Wikileaks And Anonymous

Completely unrelated to Assange, Wikileaks, or Anonymous.

Hence why it's part of a conspiracy theory.

EDIT: Not completely unrelated, all they have in common is Sweden. The very same country trying to get Assange extradited.

CIA is running the Wikileaks Operation...carry on nothing to see here. Your text to link here...

Your text to link here... Your text to link here... Your text to link here...

Your text to link here...

Your text to link here...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/-Bank-of-America-WikiLeaks-next-target/articleshow/7151865.cms
just heard it on the radio

edit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/cia-wikileaks-taskforce-wtf
Wikileaks Task Force - WTF , according to CIA

anon is doing the attack wrong either way. inon cannon program is trackable and its a poorly made script. Plus if they really wanted to attack and get away.. they would use 7 layer dds. It would not use as much bandwidth and suppose-able it in a way you cannot be tracked.

plus the best way to attack which i think failed is with their wikileaks spin. spread the information to as many people as possible.

Luz is gay!

(no offense to gays, inside joke sorta)

I think most anons use longcat flooder these days, LOIC is kinda meh.

no u D:

<3

The whole demands from Anonymous is a sad contradiction, they demand governments to freely publicize identities, documentation of government events and other information that falls victim to censorship.

Yet.... they refuse to publicize their identities and hide under the alias of "Anonymous ", which is our right to know who they are and what they do just as theirs to know everything?

Also they declare themselves as a anarchistic amalgamations of hacktivists group? Anarchists don't co-ordinate, they don't group together, they are independent and strive for loosely self-agreed goals.

Fail.

Not sure if this has been posted, but watching it made me kind of sick...

Collateral Murder

Maybe someone who's went to Iraq, or any major battlefield could explain why it's necessary to laugh and joke [about them] while you're killing [defenseless] people. I know if I just flat out criticize it that someone is going to come along and tell me that "I have no right because I haven't been through it." So I'm asking those who've been through it to explain. Though I should state up front that I will never agree with it, but I'm willing to try and understand.

You're enabling bigots like that.

I'm not enabling anything, that response is bound to come up sooner or later (assuming the question is ever even answered).. I've asked somewhat similar questions plenty of times, and that response always comes up... So I'm getting it out of the way now.

If I were to say it's disgusting and those soldiers and anyone like them needs to be stripped of that uniform and quite possibly locked up, someone would come along and tell me I have no right to make those judgments because I haven't been there and 'seen what they have'.

I'm also quite positive that, that isn't an isolated incident. I've seen quite a few videos of soldiers doing similar *** (the laughing and joking while killing people, innocent or otherwise).

You don't avoid stating your opinion of something because someone might come along saying lack of personal experience makes your opinion null. Lack of personal experience with something does not inherently make someone else's opinion null. It varies with how technical the discussion at hand is, and the lack of knowledge pertaining to the discussion. By that logic most people should not be allowed to have an opinion of the work of Congress.

I don't personally care how desensitizing war is to the people who were involved in that video, it's not an excuse for what they did in my opinion. If someone believes it is, let them make their opinion heard. Don't cater your posts to the people who would make combative posts towards you. Don't make it appear as though only veterans are allowed to have an opinion (or the first opinion) of something like this.

I think the laughing and joking is a way to cope with killing people, even if they are (or think they are) enemies.

I will admit you have a point. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, it was more or less meant to just get it out of the way. I wasn't meaning it in the way that it (apparently) came across. I wasn't trying to say only those who've been there have a right draw feelings or opinions on the matter.

I am genuinely curious what people who have been in that position have to say about it. The media and Govt. would have you believe that our soldiers act nobly, but given the accounts I've heard from actual soldiers, the reports I've read and the [sometimes leaked, sometimes not] videos I have seen, the video on that site more realistically depicts how war actually plays out.

It wasn't a personal attack or anything. I just think you shouldn't be afraid to state your opinion because of what other people will say. If someone wants to make a combative post against someone else's opinion, then they'll be met with criticism by a fair amount of people on this site. There's more progress to be made without making safe posts sometimes.

depends on the person and the opinion at hand! :D
situational is situational as always. :D

Rap News 6

Julian Assange is not the Founder of Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was founded by the American John Young who later resigned when Julian Assange and his crew corrupted its mission by turning it into a Private enterprise not in the public interest.

Wikileaks are for-hire mercenaries - Cryptome
Wikileaks has always been a commercial enterprise hiding behind a narcissistic "public interest" PR, says Cryptome operator John Young in a scathing critique of the site.

Whistleblower site Cryptome began publishing documents in 1996, incurring the wrath of UK and US governments. The archive endures. Young was invited to be the "public face" of Wikileaks at the formation of the venture, but declined. Now Young believes Wikileaks is selling its secrets for commercial gain. Speaking to US talk radio, Young compared Julian Assange to Henry Kissinger, and other "spook insiders" who have turned their insider knowledge into a lucrative sideline.

From the earliest discussions, Young alleges, Wikileaks intended to pimp out the information for funds.

"Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year. That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that, I know that they were a criminal organisation.
"Assange is a narcissistic individual," claims Young. "Wikileaks is willing to sacrifice Bradley Manning and anyone else to advance their own interests."

"Soros and the Kochs have their lesser-known Internet promoters backing Wikileaks generously. And they expect good return on their investment, not just the freebies used to attract attention."
www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12..._on_wikileaks/

In addition noone would have ever heard of Wikileaks if it were not for the sacrifice of Americans like Bradly Manning who have so so far provided the bulk of all the leaks.

If your a Julian Assange fan then your a manipulated fool.


If anyone doubts the fact that SOROS is secretly backing Wikileaks from behind the scenes consider Michael Moores support including his contribution of $20,000 for the bail money.

It is well estableshed that Michael Moore's career and films were funded by Soros.

!LEGITIMACY ALERT!
Before Reading The Post Above, Please Take Into Account The Legitimacy Of Information Provided.
Thank You Very Much And Have A Nice Day.
Gotta Take Everything With A Grain Of Salt. :D


link

Honestly you must form your own opinions rather than taking either position at face value. :D
People will always try to turn a gray world into something that of black and white.
But this is an impossible task.
:D



If you have any strong emotional or moral standard for a figurehead, you are being foolish.
I'm not going to be full enough of myself to call someone a fool.
Get more flies with honey. :D


Never knew that you could get facts from assertions.
Circumstantial much?

Manipulated or not I'd still rather know these things about the government >_>

and banks too lol


Seems more like those 2 people had an ideological difference.. I feel an entity/foundation can still work toward the public interest and make a profit for its employees at the same time.

I know there are those scam ones out there but they get shut down eventually.. haven't seen anything even close to that with wikileaks.


And of course his rival website will have bad things to say about wikileaks >_> (as if that proved something :o)

This is the stuff I want to see. Should be juicy.

Take a gander at my previous post with multiple links prior to the one above~ :-)

Ok, to humor you I will quote it first.


will reply in kind momentarily.

first link doesn't really same much..just a reddit conversation in regards to CIA monitoring Wikileaks...i'll keep a tally.
Circumstantial: 1 Otherwise: 0
I can't watch youtube videos at work so I can't really comment on the second link, but it being a youtube video makes me question the validity of it so I'm just going to chock that up to more circumstantial.
Circumstantial: 2 Otherwise: 0
Veterans Today?
Seems like an affirmation of what you've previously inferred :/
If you can provide some actual writing rather than solely linking the links(and perdy much copypasta-ing what people say verbatim) if you intend to be informative I'd suggest you do so
Circumstantial: 2 Otherwise: ? Same information as last one: 3

The last one is a bit of a summary of thing i've already read and heard as well.
Lots of finger point, conspiracy theories an all that.
Comes with the territory I guess.
Your information did not change my opinion, but it is appreciated as it's always good to hear more than one side to the story.

I did see them mention a bill that hasn't even come to pass and I dunno...grasping at straws or counting eggs before they hatch never has been my cup of tea.

Assange=lolTinFoilHatWearer

lolAssange and the 4th Reich

Aryan is so yesterday, it's all about the Greenies now!

Even lolGlenn Beck has said Assange is a puppet for a grander scheme of things which is... To kill the net

*edited to add this*

If Assange was really a "Most Wanted" (kinda like Tim Osman wanted by the FBI right?) then how does this puppet with nothing much to say fly around the World and hold press conferences and not get nabbed? *psst* because it's a Psyops

How does this puppet leak edited "secret" information that does nothing but expand the lolWar on terror, making Pakistan and Iran out to be some kind of Big Bad Wolves? Those two countries even said that the leaks are edited and not the whole story but the American Sheeple should just "trust" what the leaks have to say and take them at face value right?

These "leaks" are NOT news and all they do is prove the point that the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs in Washington want more WAR to expand Empire and build up their New World Order Agenda~

Why has he not leaked any really Juicy information on the ZioNAZIs and their Banking Cartels and how they have a HUGE influence on American Politics and the Military Industrial Complex?

To sum it up, Julian Assange is the 21st Century Lee Harvey Oswald, whether he knows it or not. Again any rational person knows 9/11 is an inside job and that the Bilderberger club is made of pure evil. For him to say otherwise is a red flag for me and any other rational person to write Mr. Assange off as nothing more than a pawn piece.

glenn beck?
all things you state=moot now.
just keep on posting random links off the internet.
hell i'll do the same as you 1 sec.

veterans for peace

thenation.com

bbc.co.uk

cbsnews.com

sfgate.com

Ron Paul

greenleft

amusingly enough these are all wikipedia sources of the opposing side to what you are illustrating.

when in reality I bet the truth is a bit different than how both sides try to slant it.

It's good and all that you can find an article that you like and think is informative.
but when you provide 4-5 articles pretty much repeating all the same stuff I'm not going to take it as seriously.
Now if you want to actually have a discussion rather than just posting vicariously through the opinions of others...sure I'm game and I'd imagine others would be as well.

Wow this thread is so... ugh now.

Ignoring the blatant bs, I will say that it is obviously in Iran's best self-interest to deny the authenticity of its neighbors' communications with the U.S.. It's also funny :D I thought North Korea would sooner be in denial than Iran.

Poor Vinvv, I wouldn't waste my time on someone who uses Glenn Beck in a post. It's so funny how afraid the right are of George Soros because Rupert Murdoch is so much scarier.



To me at least :D

Funny how you compare Rupert Murdoch to being "right" when he is so much more of a Leftist than most can contemplate.

If Julian Assange and Wikileaks were credible then why haven't they "leaked" any juicy details about 9/11?

I'd like to see more stuff about Rumsfeld and the 2.3 Trillion missing he announced on 9/10/01.

Why did Assange go to Israel making a deal NOT to leak anything too harmful to the ZioNAZIs but leak edited half truths about Pakistan/Iran?

I can tell you why, it's a PSYOPS run by the CIA themselves.

And to make it clear if you can't read I said "even lolGlenn Beck" so even to the elementary reader would understand that I was making fun of Glenn Beck while also saying he has enough smarts to see what's going on.

Also, Murdoch and Soros are on the same team, you didn't get the memo apparently...