It is time for Anon to step up and fight for freedom. Amazon, Paypal, are enemies of free speech and free press. Wikileaks fights censorship. Expect us.
>>1
Being called a website "devoted to truth" is only Wikileak's own claim or a claim pressed upon it by others. That has no intrinsic bearing on anything.
Both liberal and conservative websites are "devoted to truth" but talk about the same stories of the day in different contexts.
It's a "say something mean nothing" statement.
4chan could be claimed the most important website on the English-speaking Internet tomorrow and that means jack. Most of the site is still just porn and gobbledygook.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-08 10:53
Sarah Palin.......expect us with the 10 plagues. We are legion. We are forever.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-08 17:15
I wonder why this brave, brave fighter for freedom, Julian Assange, doesn't also uncover and release some Russian state secrets.
you all fail. wiki leaks loose lips sink ships. im going to guess the majority of you posting in favor of wikileaks are the unemployed uneducated that bring this nation down. and for all of you other non americans that talk ur shit piss off. if you are such a great intellectual and know how things should work how come you hide behind your computer with the name anonymous while you ddos. anonymous is a group of individuals that are grasping at aything they can get to help support the sex offending wikileaks leader. in america we may not be perfect, but we don't support criminals like anonymous is. for any of you that feel froggy, 1900 s Missouri. casper wy 82604. jump
So you are happy with yr government killing innocent women and children? That not illegal? Covering things up, all in your name? All of this is ok to you.... But letting the world know of horrendous crimes is somehow wrong???
Yr beyond help silence dogger
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-09 10:00
>>8
Oh, as if no other military has never killed innocents and tied to play it down to other (nations)? The difference is intent - while more have done it in malice, we don't want to kill innocents. It happens by accident.
The only crime is people not being sufficiently apologetic about it.
Just because it happened in the past doesn't make it right.... It is never right.
Have you seen the videos? By accident you say? Riiiiiight.
Wrong actions should always be reported, which is what wikileaks is doing. If the US had reported these things at the time and not suppressed them they wouldn't be looking even more stupid than normal...
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-09 12:44
That's why I said: The only crime is people not being sufficiently apologetic about it.
The United States army doesn't go out there and say "Let's go kill some innocents." You can counter argue that very violent individuals go out of their way to replace "innocents" with some other derogatory word as justification but that's pulling hairs. The purpose of an army is to protect a country through imposing force or, if necessary, though direct warfare. Only the vicious get out of bed in the morning and kill a bunch of people that mean nothing to them for reasons they don't believe in or that killing those individuals is all the reason they need.
If it wasn't for the America we'd all be doodling with crayons. The USA is what brought us the PC & 'net we are all fond of. Wikileaks gets a lot of its funding from questionable middle eastern sources. Why defend an organization like that? What ever happened to Common Sense?
I think it's funny that it takes a whole group of script kiddies to take down innocent sites, but Th3J35t3r can take down Wikileaks by himself, over & over & over... until they get booted. Something like 1Gb/sec. if I remember right.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-09 13:27
Mike, a lot of us not defending Wikileaks per se, we're defending what it represents: free speech, right or wrong. And that's what makes it such a firebrand topic.If we let them censor Wikileaks, where will they stop? To some, it is a slippery slope.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-09 13:48
>>14
I understand that point and respect it. I would, in fact, agree with it entirely. The target you've chosen to defend for thosee reasons, however, seems poorly-chosen as if you had been waiting and waiting for a reason to jump out for a long time in defense like this and you've picked the first high-profile thing to come across regardless of what it is.
I support free speech but I also support the backlash against Assange; that's not free speech, it's prolonged shifting blackmail. If it were about free speech, he would just release everything at once or at least in simultaneous topic-specific packets of documents. There are more than enough means of distribution available that can not be interrupted easily so his grandiose announcements come off as nothing but getting personal publicity in my perspective.
tl;dr version: you might be poisoning your own cause by choosing this as an expression of that struggle for "free speech." That is what I am concerned about.
Speech is either free or not, there can be no halfway... You must be intelligent and open-minded enough to realise this regardless of where u live. The US have only recently had equality and free speech... bit of a new toy, where as is Europe we've had it for longer and understand it considerably better. We use it to make our politicians accountable. Unlike the US who immediately play the 'you can't be a good American if you support a, b or z and you all roll over like dogs.... If u were really worried about free speech you must first understand what it really means. Assange would not be relevant if we hadn't been lied to about.... Going to war... the actions used whilst at war..... And then trying to cover it up when u do fuck up.... THAT is why wikileaks is in the news, it's part of the backlash to immoral US actions.
66,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and maybe 90,000 more in Afghanistan. I don't find that acceptable as a human being, do you?.... Or do you let Fox decide for you? Are you happy that the KKK can process donations but a free speech website can't? Fucked up man...
Just sickened by the attitude of Mysticwicks.com
(esp in Political Pagan) as regards Assange. There are people there openly calling for his death, or supporting the US renditioning him for treason. Ignorant bastards don't even realise that a non-US Citizen cannot be guilty of treason against America! Grrrr! The Bloke's a fucking hero!
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-09 17:21
>>15 tl;dr version: you might be poisoning your own cause by choosing this as an expression of that struggle for "free speech." That is what I am concerned about.
Still tl;dr
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-09 17:56
>>17
If any of the documents released concern Australia in a damaging way, Australia might be able to charge him with treason. In which case, if the US gets their hands on Assange, they can hold him for Australian officials.
Technically he's a jerk but there are such things as jerk heroes.
Significantly LESS ironic than protesting censorship by effectively censoring random company websites off the internet with DDOS attacks.
The REALLY ironic part is that it's NOT censorship for Amazon to not want to do business with Wikileaks. Same for Mastercard, Visa, or any other company. And it's ABSOLUTELY not censorship for Sarah Palin, (A private citizen currently) to speak her opinion on the subject.
Regardless of your opinion on her or her politics, she's a private citizen, and attacking her website (and credit cards too, apparently) doesn't help Julian Assange OR Wikileaks. It just makes Anon look like a bunch of assholes.
Anon would be much more effective by trying to help Wikileaks stay online and available via some kind of distributed hosting setup on millions of private PCs, thus ensuring the wide and far distribution of the files in question.
But hey, what the hell do I know. I'm just Anonymous.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-09 20:48
>>21
Not to mention it makes the attacks very hypocritical. Personal or corporate opinions that don't reflect my own? screw them and blot and scare their opinions out of existence.
Good show; very freedom of speech.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-09 21:29
>>5
He doesn't uncover secrets, other people need to give stuff to him. I'm sure he'd release them if he had them.
Name:
anon2010-12-12 3:17
The irony is-
after exposing just how tight a leash the u.s. has the worlds countries and corporations on, rather than express outrage,
the world gangsup on wikileaks,heh.
Name:
anon2010-12-12 14:21
bull
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-16 19:32
Freedom of speech as long as we like what you're saying.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-12 21:44
I see an important point being missed by light-years;
Not only are the leaked documents themselves, bordering on counter-productive in the long run,
not only are the counter-attacks playing into the hands of the psycho-fascists by letting them portray anon as the bad guy...
...but the important message is being missed!
We need to tell them this: As long as you keep abusing «national security» and «war on terror» as a cheap excuse to behave like b-movie sociopaths and Mafiosi, this (WikiLeaks &stuff) is what you're gonna get!
We need to inform them that the concept of «reaping what you sow» isn't just for [i]Arab-speaking[/a] terrorists, it goes for government and corporate types too.
(Oh, and BTW, you anti-government types seem to be missing how the government is increasingly being controlled by corporations. And if you think governments are impervious to ballots, try corporations!)
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-14 7:46
mfw all people who followed wikileaks on twitter got annoyed because their info was passed to the US Dept. of Justice.
"WikiLeaks activists may seek to quash demand for docs"
now isn't THAT irony