Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:41 am
he gets all da pum doh

pengggggg

pengggggg


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.triky wrote:"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 ??
It's definatly down my end. Let's hope they leave the COD Xbox servers alone, otherwisewub wrote:Apparently hackers supporting Assange have taken down the Mastercard website. Still looking for confirmation on this.
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??hackman wrote:http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html
noam wrote: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??hackman wrote:http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html
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.noam wrote: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??hackman wrote:http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html
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!!
The only reason the mainstream media do anything is if its in their own interest...danoldboy wrote:er all they'd have to do is feed wikileaks documents, who will then unknowingly or otherwise put the info out there.noam wrote: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??hackman wrote:http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html
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!!
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?
you mean, the gvmntclifford_- wrote:The only reason the mainstream media do anything is if its in their own interest...danoldboy wrote:er all they'd have to do is feed wikileaks documents, who will then unknowingly or otherwise put the info out there.noam wrote: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??hackman wrote:http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikil ... ality.html
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!!
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?