another contra WikiLeaks piece by William Engdahl, I don't think he even comes close to proving his thesis of a 'US Intelligence Conjob' but agree that very likely it will be used to advance attempts to police the internet.
WikiLeaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job
http://www.voltairenet.org/article167733.html
"The Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Conjob which will likely be used to police the internet.."
That PJ Crowley is a real piece. I have a hard time believing any "spokeperson" could say something so incredibly stupid and contradictory. But I first read about his proclamation on Freedom of the Press in The Guardian. They added "we could not make this stuff up".
Goerge Orwell got almost everything right in 1984 except the year.
Assange let Bradley Manning the soldier lie in jail while he was off screwing people who supported his organization.
I nominate this quote for the PJ Crowley award for twisted thinking and corkscrew logic.
Assange let Bradley Manning the soldier lie in jail while he was off screwing people who supported his organization.
I nominate this quote for the PJ Crowley award for twisted thinking and corkscrew logic.
I'm not sure what that means, but this is an accurate description of what happened.
WikiLeaks collected tens of thousands of dollars in the name of Manning, the solider who originated the leaks. None of it was turned over until Manning's people went to the media yesterday and shamed WikiLeaks into paying about 1/4 of the amount they promised.
Meanwhile, what was this money being used for? Flying Assange to Sweden so he can get blow jobs from WikiLeaks groupies at the cinema.
I'll say it once again: Progressives should be careful before they get on the WikiLeaks express.
Current red flags: Massive criminal involvement in the botnet DDoS, involvement of the vile 4chan/Anonymous movement, former WikiLeaks members calling Assange a "slave trader" who acted like an "emperor", and this selfish withholding of money ear-marked for Manning. Who knows what will be revealed next.
What I don't understand about you, is how you continue to make these allegations without even responding or acknowledging what Wikileaks and others have said.
In fact, this tiny 5 person outfit says they thought they had made the donation, which is ONLY one month late, and due to a clerical error the funds were not disbursed. Even the people you are saying are being ripped off, acknowledge the difficult circumstances that Wikileaks is under given that is under massive legal, and quasi legal assault. All of this I posted earlier.
Loraine Reitman, a member of the group's steering committee, shied away from placing blame on WikiLeaks."WikiLeaks is the reason we've been able to get so much money and donations," she told Threat Level. "They've been linking to us and tweeting about us, and every time they do it, donations come in."
That is someone from the steering committee of the group you are alleging has been ripped off by Wikileaks.
Yet, you assert that they were "shamed" into making the donation, without the slightest shred of evidence to back it up. You continue to state such, without acknowledging what Wikileaks has said or accounting for what they have said in your spurious rumour based defamation campaign. You are not even faithfully representing the people who are working on the Bradley Manning campaign.
Same with you assertion about Botnet DDoS attacks being allegedly related to Wikileaks. Not a single reputable journalist or internet expert makes this assertion.
The red flag here is that you are engaging in biased disinformation based on internet rumours that YOU have made up.
WikiLeaks collected tens of thousands of dollars in the name of Manning, the solider who originated the leaks. None of it was turned over until Manning's people went to the media yesterday and shamed WikiLeaks into paying about 1/4 of the amount they promised.
It's interesting to watch your version of events evolve. But as far as I know, WikiLeaks itself has never raised money in Manning's name. According to [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/07/2010-12-07_wikileaks... report[/url], there is a specific group formed to raise funds for Manning's defence and Assange commited to make a donation to them. That's a different matter.
Meanwhile, what was this money being used for? Flying Assange to Sweden so he can get blow jobs from WikiLeaks groupies at the cinema.
And by the way, have we established that Assange had no legitimate business in Sweden during the time the alleged blowjobs in the alleged cinemas allegedly took place?
And are the rest of your accusations as badly distorted as this one?
ETA: Interesting formatting. I have no idea why the font size changes and then changes back. This continues to be the worst posting editor I've ever encountered.
In a word -=+=- is engaging in muckraking.
WikiLeaks collected tens of thousands of dollars in the name of Manning, the solider who originated the leaks. None of it was turned over until Manning's people went to the media yesterday and shamed WikiLeaks into paying about 1/4 of the amount they promised.
It's interesting to watch your version of events evolve. But as far as I know, WikiLeaks itself has never raised money in Manning's name. According to [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/07/2010-12-07_wikileaks... report[/url], there is a specific group formed to raise funds for Manning's defence and Assange commited to make a donation to them. That's a different matter.
Meanwhile, what was this money being used for? Flying Assange to Sweden so he can get blow jobs from WikiLeaks groupies at the cinema.
Which makes Assange sound so much more diabolical. But if WikiLeaks didn't overtly raise money in the name of Manning, then the accusation that they misused that money falls apart.And by the way, have we established that Assange had no legitimate business in Sweden during the time the alleged blowjobs in the alleged cinemas allegedly took place?
And are the rest of your accusations as badly distorted as this one?
ETA: Interesting formatting. I have no idea why the font size changes and then changes back. This continues to be the worst posting editor I've ever encountered.
Oh no, WikiLeaks has been overtly raising funds in Manning's name for quite a while. You can easily Google this. This is from the Wired [url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/manning-defens/]article[/url] on the failure of the funds to reach Manning. (Note that WikiLeaks was raising these funds in June and July. Six months later, the money still hadn't reached Manning in prison):
Although Paterson said he felt reservations about contributing to the “anti-WikiLeaks news,” he told Threat Level that [b]his group issued the release in part to address constant inquiries from media and from supporters who had contributed funds to WikiLeaks for Manning’s defense. [/b]
[b]“Supporters who donated to WikiLeaks on the assumption that they were going to contribute to Bradley’s defense based on [WikiLeaks'] June and July statements” wanted to know if the money was reaching its intended destination, [/b]Paterson said. “We finally feel that we had to issue a statement to tell our supporters it really is up to us to raise the funds, and people should not be under the expectation that WikiLeaks will step in and pay up the rest of the legal bill.”
And to address Cueball's assertion that no reputable journalist reported on the criminal botnet DDoS. The information (see links above) came from the Christian Science Monitor. It is reputable and accurate: criminal involvement in the WikiLeaks DDoS.
ETA: Interesting formatting. I have no idea why the font size changes and then changes back. This continues to be the worst posting editor I've ever encountered.
pogge: the bad formatting is a result of a DDOS attack, a word I just learned. rabble has been targeted by the kind of people who do that thing. I think the safest thing to do under the circumstances is close this thread for length. Stay calm, everyone.
