WikiLeaks

[noam]

understand what i wrote, i believe it is entirely possible they were given the nod. where did i even say otherwise?

the attack on wikileaks is a CONSEQUENCE of what wiki-leaks does. it was not an elaborate conspiracy involving the fucking Rothschild family to put an operative of theirs (assange) in control of a website to use as a vehicle to, ultimately undermine freedom of information. that was my point.

[danoldboy]

understand what i wrote, i believe it is entirely possible they were given the nod. where did i even say otherwise?

the attack on wikileaks is a CONSEQUENCE of what wiki-leaks does. it was not an elaborate conspiracy involving the fucking Rothschild family to put an operative of theirs (assange) in control of a website to use as a vehicle to, ultimately undermine freedom of information. that was my point.

I don't know what makes you so sure that the CONSEQUENCE wasn't by design, not necessarily by Assange himself but by whoever has been supplying the leaked documents.

[noam]

because as of yet there's zero evidence implicating any one organisation of doing that... i mean its a small point, but one which i believe is fundamental to everything ever to do with things that are true and things that are speculation.

[jazzamataz]

because as of yet there's zero evidence implicating any one organisation of doing that... i mean its a small point, but one which i believe is fundamental to everything ever to do with things that are true and things that are speculation.

Ohhhhh! You want facts!
People just assume shit these days. Didn't you get the memo?

[j_one]

Facts are for n00bz that don't know 'the truth'.

[frank grimes jr.]

Facts are just made up words that people use to make you believe shit.
I mean shit Noam.... come on.

[noam]

dont mention the F word to me...

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

Still not convinced it's much beyond this year's nativity. The majority of it all seems just like an Eastenders christmas special, as uninteresting gossip spirals, waiting for the festive murder

Also what kind of idiots are still shocked to find out war is an ugly game. Fair enough if it was called KinderLand or HappyGlitterParty, but it's not, it's called war. More shocked at how desensitised people are to this concept. Secondly how some people seem so convinced that the internet is more social than isolative. Thirdly how people can give such a fuck about the private life of politicians etc, and fourthly, it's only ever been the cowards writing the history books anyway

One more show to tune out of

[hackman]

who needs facts when you have common sense

and to assume that evidence and facts about a conspiracy would be available is just ludicrous

[hackman]

WHAT IF

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

i don't know if you're being a silly goose, but i've been saying that for the last few pages

[frank grimes jr.]

Thirdly how people can give such a fuck about the private life of politicians etc,

Err, wat?

These are the people that we've asked to maintain our beliefs.
Of course we don't want them allowing children to be raped.

[2manynoobs]

Still not convinced it's much beyond this year's nativity. The majority of it all seems just like an Eastenders christmas special, as uninteresting gossip spirals, waiting for the festive murder

Also what kind of idiots are still shocked to find out war is an ugly game. Fair enough if it was called KinderLand or HappyGlitterParty, but it's not, it's called war. More shocked at how desensitised people are to this concept. Secondly how some people seem so convinced that the internet is more social than isolative. Thirdly how people can give such a fuck about the private life of politicians etc, and fourthly, it's only ever been the cowards writing the history books anyway

One more show to tune out of

you're right, but imo your also a bit easy saying, "one more show to tune out of"..


@hacknam: it's like falling awake when you're on the edge of falling asleep

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

Never rely on another human to maintain your beliefs


"you're right, but imo your also a bit easy saying, "one more show to tune out of".."

'twas dipped in satire

[j_one]

You can create tenuous links between everything and anything and make up conspiracy theories till the cows come home, doesn't mean it's actually happening. I'm down for looking into these things, but I can never understand how some of you can be so sure without hearing anything of real substance first (just cuz it kinda makes sense doesn't really fit the bill).

[2manynoobs]

Never rely on another human to maintain your beliefs


"you're right, but imo your also a bit easy saying, "one more show to tune out of".."

'twas dipped in satire

oh you!

[2manynoobs]

ok so we've got on the one hand:


hackers who want to risk their balls, hacking mastercard just because they believe in free, untainted media.

on the other hand we have:


governments that want to ban/control the internet who use hackers as an excuse: "oh it's so dangerous, hack0rz gun' hack your mastercard biz, stealin' yo moneys, you still want free media?"


more views on this?? anyone?

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

I think governments are aware enough that the internet doesn't particularly require control. It's self serving, so just make sure the right componenets are there, give it time, and the public will do the rest

Classic tale from the paranoid crypt: Introduce ID cards, gets mass rejection. What's the answer? Favourably support sites that act as voluntary inputs of data that meets the requirements. Even if it isn't sinister, it has potential. Even if the potential is just desensitising for the next attemp at introduction.

Consider it like this DSF forum. People are under the guise of controlling it, yet all they do is monitor a constant stream of humans that visit and donate bits of information. The general populace are not paid or employed in any form, yet return for a wide range of reasons. Question how moderative control on here for example actually affects the flow of information? It doesn't, it can only act by removing things deemed innapropriate after they have landed. Is it untouched because the attitudes of the population that actually makes it what it is? So what happens at a stage of control where these free-users think "fuck it, can't be arsed"

So in summary, to try and control things is often just a bluff, because of the shape of pyramids and the fact that business can risk losing money but it will never risk losing interest; one is debt, the other is death innartt

[frank grimes jr.]

Also this:

https://xipwire.com/give/wl

[2manynoobs]

are you entirely sure of your statement. I mean do you really think this is going on?

Personally I don't believe that there's some government or some evil organization trying to consciously control this.

Imo, it's the whole world, every single human on the planet who unconsciously do this to itself.

We're all picking sides, but in the end it doesn't matter who wins, because in a way it's meant to happen anyways.. (imo)
-> not really what I meant, but It's hard to formulate, and I'm not really in my element today

sorry if this sounds like bullshit to your ears but it's just what I think. I personally give you permission to call me a nutter if you want

[AllNightDayDream]

You can create tenuous links between everything and anything and make up conspiracy theories till the cows come home, doesn't mean it's actually happening. I'm down for looking into these things, but I can never understand how some of you can be so sure without hearing anything of real substance first (just cuz it kinda makes sense doesn't really fit the bill).

Everyone who discusses this kind of stuff has to put a little bit of faith speculation on it, but what people do here is akin to glenn beck and his chalkboard.