WikiLeaks

[crackf]

he gets all da pum doh



pengggggg

[hackman]

i can't formulate an opinion right now, but i will be back tomorrow mmm hmmm

[MikeE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leek


Ninjas - get your edit on

[knell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leek


Ninjas - get your edit on

[nousd]

"Julia Gillard has been making it virtually impossible for Assange to return to Australia where he is entitled to be. And she has even threatened to cancel his passport."

this is from that BBC article... You can't cancel someone's passport and make them stateless. That's a statement worthy of Palin if I ever heard one. Is this woman really PM ??

Haven't heard her say this; in fact her ministers have said the opposite: that he's entitled to his rights as an Australian citizen.

[wub]

Apparently hackers supporting Assange have taken down the Mastercard website. Still looking for confirmation on this.

[Jak The lad]

Apparently hackers supporting Assange have taken down the Mastercard website. Still looking for confirmation on this.

It's definatly down my end. Let's hope they leave the COD Xbox servers alone, otherwise

[2manynoobs]

vive la révolution! vive!!

[danoldboy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... t-freedom/

[hackman]

http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html

[qwaycee_]

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/1 ... klash.html

[noam]

http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html

so you equate the subsequent censorship fallout of the wikileaks 'scandal' as being a direct motive instead of a consequence of, the events that have taken place??

in either case you should be fully supportive of the whole concept of wikileaks in that case, you either call their bluff + support the direct action campaign of freedom of information, or you are simply supporting someone who is essentially and editor of a free information platform.

look, this website has been running for nearly 5 years; in all that time no one has made so much as a stir about it in the mainstream media till now- a point of common sense here, what kind of government/secret organisation would start a website designed to infiltrate and subvert the internet-user population into believing that censorship is required... and then wait 5years whilst this website leaks 1000's and 1000's of pieces of information, and THEN decide to 'strike' and slap a rape scandal on him.

no doubt governments are trying to use this as an excuse for stricter controls over what happens on the internet and to assert authority/fear etc. but that is a CONSEQUENCE of years of wikileaks practicing what it preaches, not a DIRECT MOTIVE for a long-winded conspiracy over the course of 5years (assume longer for the amount of time it would take to plan/recruit/train/brainwash/setup all of the factors that conspiracy theorists always fail to mention).

that is BANAAAAANAS!!

[frank grimes jr.]

Nothing to see in the cables except RAPING CHILDREN

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-emba ... nts/213720

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... ncing-boys

[2manynoobs]

maybe ..the ban/restriction on the internet freedom & free media is something that has to happen to help evoke some sort of revolution or insight with the people? Something, the whole world has its eyes peeled on, together, at the same time. Assange, showing his face, was probably a very important task. And he did well. He took one for the team, hopefully.

If we're gonna keep blocking the information we'll "wake up" and change eventually.. maybe


interesting things are gonna happen in 2k11!

[hackman]

http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html

so you equate the subsequent censorship fallout of the wikileaks 'scandal' as being a direct motive instead of a consequence of, the events that have taken place??

in either case you should be fully supportive of the whole concept of wikileaks in that case, you either call their bluff + support the direct action campaign of freedom of information, or you are simply supporting someone who is essentially and editor of a free information platform.

look, this website has been running for nearly 5 years; in all that time no one has made so much as a stir about it in the mainstream media till now- a point of common sense here, what kind of government/secret organisation would start a website designed to infiltrate and subvert the internet-user population into believing that censorship is required... and then wait 5years whilst this website leaks 1000's and 1000's of pieces of information, and THEN decide to 'strike' and slap a rape scandal on him.

no doubt governments are trying to use this as an excuse for stricter controls over what happens on the internet and to assert authority/fear etc. but that is a CONSEQUENCE of years of wikileaks practicing what it preaches, not a DIRECT MOTIVE for a long-winded conspiracy over the course of 5years (assume longer for the amount of time it would take to plan/recruit/train/brainwash/setup all of the factors that conspiracy theorists always fail to mention).

that is BANAAAAANAS!!

whaaaaaat?

i posted it because it supports the idea of wikileaks being false flag to allow greater controls over the internet, albeit indirectly
i don't agree with a lot of the opinions of the writer

[DRTY]

WHAT IF

Wikileaks is actually setup BY the government, as a method of taking away more liberties.

[noam]

i never said you did. but my post relates to the angle that seems to suggest that Assange is some sort of double agent who has backing from certain influential higher powers when the only evidence for this is an award given to him by a magazine which is part owned by a subsidiary group of a notorious banking family...

which to me seems the same as equating Martin Luther King with Adolf Hitler because they've both won Time Magazine's Man of the Year.

[danoldboy]

http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html

so you equate the subsequent censorship fallout of the wikileaks 'scandal' as being a direct motive instead of a consequence of, the events that have taken place??

in either case you should be fully supportive of the whole concept of wikileaks in that case, you either call their bluff + support the direct action campaign of freedom of information, or you are simply supporting someone who is essentially and editor of a free information platform.

look, this website has been running for nearly 5 years; in all that time no one has made so much as a stir about it in the mainstream media till now- a point of common sense here, what kind of government/secret organisation would start a website designed to infiltrate and subvert the internet-user population into believing that censorship is required... and then wait 5years whilst this website leaks 1000's and 1000's of pieces of information, and THEN decide to 'strike' and slap a rape scandal on him.

no doubt governments are trying to use this as an excuse for stricter controls over what happens on the internet and to assert authority/fear etc. but that is a CONSEQUENCE of years of wikileaks practicing what it preaches, not a DIRECT MOTIVE for a long-winded conspiracy over the course of 5years (assume longer for the amount of time it would take to plan/recruit/train/brainwash/setup all of the factors that conspiracy theorists always fail to mention).

that is BANAAAAANAS!!

er all they'd have to do is feed wikileaks documents, who will then unknowingly or otherwise put the info out there.

Do you really believe the controlling forces behind the mainstream media would be giving the "leaks" this level of coverage without being given the nod to do so first?

[clifford_-]

http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html

so you equate the subsequent censorship fallout of the wikileaks 'scandal' as being a direct motive instead of a consequence of, the events that have taken place??

in either case you should be fully supportive of the whole concept of wikileaks in that case, you either call their bluff + support the direct action campaign of freedom of information, or you are simply supporting someone who is essentially and editor of a free information platform.

look, this website has been running for nearly 5 years; in all that time no one has made so much as a stir about it in the mainstream media till now- a point of common sense here, what kind of government/secret organisation would start a website designed to infiltrate and subvert the internet-user population into believing that censorship is required... and then wait 5years whilst this website leaks 1000's and 1000's of pieces of information, and THEN decide to 'strike' and slap a rape scandal on him.

no doubt governments are trying to use this as an excuse for stricter controls over what happens on the internet and to assert authority/fear etc. but that is a CONSEQUENCE of years of wikileaks practicing what it preaches, not a DIRECT MOTIVE for a long-winded conspiracy over the course of 5years (assume longer for the amount of time it would take to plan/recruit/train/brainwash/setup all of the factors that conspiracy theorists always fail to mention).

that is BANAAAAANAS!!

er all they'd have to do is feed wikileaks documents, who will then unknowingly or otherwise put the info out there.

Do you really believe the controlling forces behind the mainstream media would be giving the "leaks" this level of coverage without being given the nod to do so first?

The only reason the mainstream media do anything is if its in their own interest...

[2manynoobs]

http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html

so you equate the subsequent censorship fallout of the wikileaks 'scandal' as being a direct motive instead of a consequence of, the events that have taken place??

in either case you should be fully supportive of the whole concept of wikileaks in that case, you either call their bluff + support the direct action campaign of freedom of information, or you are simply supporting someone who is essentially and editor of a free information platform.

look, this website has been running for nearly 5 years; in all that time no one has made so much as a stir about it in the mainstream media till now- a point of common sense here, what kind of government/secret organisation would start a website designed to infiltrate and subvert the internet-user population into believing that censorship is required... and then wait 5years whilst this website leaks 1000's and 1000's of pieces of information, and THEN decide to 'strike' and slap a rape scandal on him.

no doubt governments are trying to use this as an excuse for stricter controls over what happens on the internet and to assert authority/fear etc. but that is a CONSEQUENCE of years of wikileaks practicing what it preaches, not a DIRECT MOTIVE for a long-winded conspiracy over the course of 5years (assume longer for the amount of time it would take to plan/recruit/train/brainwash/setup all of the factors that conspiracy theorists always fail to mention).

that is BANAAAAANAS!!

er all they'd have to do is feed wikileaks documents, who will then unknowingly or otherwise put the info out there.

Do you really believe the controlling forces behind the mainstream media would be giving the "leaks" this level of coverage without being given the nod to do so first?

The only reason the mainstream media do anything is if its in their own interest...

you mean, the gvmnt