Whats your opinion on Julian Assange?

Hector Bellend

There's a certain merit in what he and wikileaks do.

However, as an individual I think he's shady. I don't necessarily believe he was ever guilty of those rapes\crimes but personality wise he's dodgy

Everyone knows he's dead, jeez

Richard Hillman

When he entered the Ecuadorian embassy he was a hero in the media classes. Ever since he went against Hillary Clinton he is now reported on as a villain.

For Forks Sake

He's a bought and paid for Russian puppet at this stage.

pitifulgod

Richard Hillman wrote: »

When he entered the Ecuadorian embassy he was a hero in the media classes. Ever since he went against Hillary Clinton he is now reported on as a villain.

His reputation was pretty awful by the stage he entered the embassy tbh. There's been increasing concern over leaks that have endangered the innocent rather than exposing anything we didn't already know. Turkey and Saudi Arabia leaks did exactly that. So I have very little time for them as a result.

cycle4fun

Richard Hillman wrote: »

When he entered the Ecuadorian embassy he was a hero in the media classes. Ever since he went against Hillary Clinton he is now reported on as a villain.

Our media, especially in Ireland, is based in favour of H. Clinton.

Vladimir Poontang

The bitterness of Clinton's posse against him and their ludicrous accusations that he is a Russian lackey is reason enough to love the guy

After all the dirt he revealed as to Clinton being an utterly corrupt, dangerous, sleazebag it says a lot that her blind devotees go after him as a Russian troll rather than be disgusted with the truth about Clinton.

Noel82

mcmoustache wrote: »

To give a few recent examples:

They released DNC emails only despite admitting to having similar on the RNC which they didn't publish.

Got a source for that?

The Highwayman

AMKC wrote: »

My opinion is I think he is a traitor to the security of the world and the sooner he is in a prison with no computer access the better. The Ecuador government have finally seen sense are are now trying to get him out of there Embassy in the UK.

Before WikiLeaks the World was a far safer place its only after all the leaks from that site that the World has become a lot less safe regarding terrorists. I don,t think Isil or any of them evil organisations would have formed had Wikileaks not been around and I also think that Donald Trump would not now be president of the United States and the World would be far better of for it.

Hahahahaha are you trolling?

Obviously the most stupid thing I've seen on the internet this week. Clap Clap Clap well done you. I can definitely think of one idiot who should have no internet connection.

Mod: Banned for persistent personal abuse.

Billy86

A total fraud who completely went back on what he originally claimed to stand for.

AllGunsBlazing

Wikileaks has become his personal attack dog.

cycle4fun

cycle4fun wrote: »

Our media, especially in Ireland, is based in favour of H. Clinton.

Reality has a liberal bias in fairness

AMKC

Barry Badrinath wrote: »

Im sorry but this is probably the stupidist thing I have EVER read on this site and maybe anywhere online.

Im all for people having opinions but that is pure bollox and complete misinformation.

How did you even come to that assumption? Fcuk me.

That's my opinion. You don't need to believe it or take it as information. Thats simply what I think.
I think the World was a far better place before Wikileaks, Assange and Snowden.

pitifulgod wrote: »

His reputation was pretty awful by the stage he entered the embassy tbh. There's been increasing concern over leaks that have endangered the innocent rather than exposing anything we didn't already know. Turkey and Saudi Arabia leaks did exactly that. So I have very little time for them as a result.

Exactly what I think too. I think he has endangered far more people than has exposed anything we did not already know.

The Highwayman wrote: »

Hahahahaha are you trolling?

Obviously the most stupid thing I've seen on the internet this week. Clap Clap Clap well done you. I can definitely think of one idiot who should have no internet connection.

Mod: Banned for persistent personal abuse.

No not trolling.

Oh look you got banned. A well I guess you are not going to get to see this so haha.

Barry Badrinath

AMKC wrote: »

That's my opinion. You don't need to believe it or take it as information. Thats simply what I think.
I think the World was a far better place before Wikileaks, Assange and Snowden.

Your opinion is wrong. You are wrong.

To believe the World was "safer" before these guys is nuts. It just means YOU are now aware.

Wikileaks was not the creater of Islamic State...if thats what you actually believe, well...I better say no more.

pitifulgod

AMKC wrote: »

That's my opinion. You don't need to believe it or take it as information. Thats simply what I think.
I think the World was a far better place before Wikileaks, Assange and Snowden.



Exactly what I think too. I think he has endangered far more people than has exposed anything we did not already know.



No not trolling.

Oh look you got banned. A well I guess you are not going to get to see this so haha.

Just to clarify, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with leaks. Just think their should be a level of responsibility when doing so. What Snowden did was incredibly important and there was nothing wrong with revealing it. What he exposed is of incredible importance, in fact.

I just don't think that Assange is motivated by anything good at this stage. However I don't think he's responsible for the state of the world at the moment.

Shedbebreezy

Putin's lapdog. Russian lacky. Victim complex. Fake. Conceited.

Chrongen

AMKC wrote: »

My opinion is I think he is a traitor to the security of the world and the sooner he is in a prison with no computer access the better. The Ecuador government have finally seen sense are are now trying to get him out of there Embassy in the UK.

Before WikiLeaks the World was a far safer place its only after all the leaks from that site that the World has become a lot less safe regarding terrorists. I don,t think Isil or any of them evil organisations would have formed had Wikileaks not been around and I also think that Donald Trump would not now be president of the United States and the World would be far better of for it.

How exactly can one be a traitor to the "security of the world"?

Could you elaborate on this and provide definitions of what a traitor is. How one can betray and what exactly Assange has done that was or is illegal?

I await your analysis.

TAFKAlawhec

When Wikileaks was formed, at least on the face of it, it appeared to have good intentions and perhaps Assange was doing a good fight regarding state and corporate accountability. However at some point one or multiple things happened...

1. His ego grew massively believing he now had extraterritorial power to bring down people he didn't like.
2. He took criticism of himself, justified or not, and Wikileaks very personally, particularly from the US Government, in turn compromising his journalistic ethics.
3. He was compromised by a state (or several states) intelligence body and/or large corporate interest that has him by the balls.
4. He sold out.

It didn't help that even from an early stage, Wikileaks were a bit reckless with what they released ending up putting the lives of lots of people in danger, especially those who live under repressive regimes. If the job was to balance accountability with civilian privacy, Wikileaks never did that great of a job concerning it.

Assange was already looking a bit shady before he stepped foot into the Ecuadorian embassy in London, but the operation of Wikileaks since that point has taken a turn that has gone down the hole eagerly attacking even mild valid criticism of its operations. Is Assange guilty of what he's accused of? I don't know (the Swedes have dropped the rape allegations against him) but it seems the tolerance of the Ecuadorian diplomats are being tested by him to the point that if there doesn't be a third party mediator that the Ecuadorians are asking for then I reckon sooner or later they'll kick Assange to the pavement outside the front door and will phone the London Met police a few minutes before doing so, Assange's reputation already having been shot by this stage.

md23040

Julian Assange espouses to be all about the importance of the free values and libertarianism of the Internet, but when the spotlight turns on him he runs as quickly as he can to the courts, seeking gagging orders for unfair intrusion.

The guy suffers from asbergers and very unstable. Narcissist, synhopanthic, hypocritical100% bellend. Can't wait til he's kicked out.

Andrew O'Hagans 2017 book "The Secret Life" will give you more insight into the life and shadowy dealings of this two faced muppet.

Canis Lupus

Think he's a knob. The fact that Ecuador is now calling for a mediator shows they're close to the limit. Shouldn't be much longer before he's out and into the arms of the met.

md23040

md23040 wrote: »

Julian Assange espouses to be all about the importance of the free values and libertarianism of the Internet, but when the spotlight turns on him he runs as quickly as he can to the courts, seeking gagging orders for unfair intrusion.

...except when he is the accused. In that instance, he runs away from the Courts and legal systems...

Cienciano

Richard Hillman wrote: »

When he entered the Ecuadorian embassy he was a hero in the media classes. Ever since he went against Hillary Clinton he is now reported on as a villain.

You're right. But not because everyone loves Hillary. Because it was in the run up to the US election that it was fairly obvious what he was up to. Maximum damage to the Clinton campaign. When he was releasing documents people didn't mind him. When he was releasing them to do as much political damage to whoever Russia didn't like, that was the tipping point for most people.

Billy86

He's become a villain because he's now happy to sit on information and refuse to release it if it doesn't suit his agenda, spends his time spreading conspiracy theories, and has become an out and out liar (see: Chelsea Manning). He has basically got no credibility left at this point.

Your Face

Dunno, never met him.

hatrickpatrick

Cienciano wrote: »

You're right. But not because everyone loves Hillary. Because it was in the run up to the US election that it was fairly obvious what he was up to. Maximum damage to the Clinton campaign. When he was releasing documents people didn't mind him. When he was releasing them to do as much political damage to whoever Russia didn't like, that was the tipping point for most people.

I don't believe that for a second. If he's been attacking Trump in favour of Clinton, there is absolutely no possibility we would be having this conversation at all.

People take issue with Assange now for the same reason people suddenly take issue with Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc and those who astroturf them - where they never gave a bollocks before. The "wrong" candidate according to polite society and the establishment, got elected. It's the very fact that all of this hysteria wouldn't be happening if the exact same tactics had helped to get Clinton over the line instead of Trump which personally leads me to discount a lot of it. These things have only become a problem because people with power didn't get what they wanted.

I f*cking despise Trump but this is the one small silver lining of his victory, IMO. Entitled assholes who believe that there's a script to be followed, a right and wrong answer the public can give during an election, have been metaphorically punched in the face. But now they're trying to essentially slip their beliefs into the mainstream, calling for censorship of the internet and so on so that only the establishment message can get out there... Eh, no thanks.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't believe that for a second. If he's been attacking Trump in favour of Clinton, there is absolutely no possibility we would be having this conversation at all.

People take issue with Assange now for the same reason people suddenly take issue with Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc and those who astroturf them - where they never gave a bollocks before. The "wrong" candidate according to polite society and the establishment, got elected. It's the very fact that all of this hysteria wouldn't be happening if the exact same tactics had helped to get Clinton over the line instead of Trump which personally leads me to discount a lot of it. These things have only become a problem because people with power didn't get what they wanted.

I f*cking despise Trump but this is the one small silver lining of his victory, IMO. Entitled assholes who believe that there's a script to be followed, a right and wrong answer the public can give during an election, have been metaphorically punched in the face. But now they're trying to essentially slip their beliefs into the mainstream, calling for censorship of the internet and so on so that only the establishment message can get out there... Eh, no thanks.

Is this about Trump though? For me, it's more about the relationship between Assange, Clinton and Russia, Trump just happened to be the opposition here.

hatrickpatrick

Skylinehead wrote: »

Is this about Trump though? For me, it's more about the relationship between Assange, Clinton and Russia, Trump just happened to be the opposition here.

IMO you've got that connection backwards, TBH. The entire "Russian propaganda" story only appeared out of nowhere when Wikileaks published the DNC email cache. So I'd say that this is far more about Clinton, Trump, and Assange, with Russia just happening to be a convenient scapegoat.

Absolutely no evidence has been published - whatsoever - to conclusively link the Russian government to any of the data breaches which might have led to Wikileaks acquiring the information they leaked about the Democrats. Nothing whatsoever. Just "the intelligence community is in agreement" - you know, the same f*ckers who told us that Saddam had WMDs, that "The United States does not torture", and that "we are not spying on anybody without a warrant". The American intelligence community has zero credibility when it comes to telling the truth, so I'm sorry but I need more than the word of a fundamentally dishonest sector of government. I want to see the hard evidence, otherwise it remains an allegation and nothing more than an allegation.

I find it fairly disturbing how accepted this whole narrative is by the mainstream media, with nobody questioning whether there's even a possibility that it's a smokescreen.

bnt

I don't think I'd like the guy in person - he seems a bit self-aggrandizing - but that shouldn't be relevant at all. I'm more concerned about the agenda he has set for Wikileaks. While some criminal secrets should come to light, Wikileaks has been used in the service of specific national and party political agendas, and so I can't trust it to be impartial.

biko

He could be a massive douchebag for all I know
Hell, he could even be guilty of those rapes the Swedes are accusing him off.

That doesn't change the fact that the work Wikileaks are doing is good and important.

mcmoustache

Noel82 wrote: »

Got a source for that?

Sure

“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” he said Friday, according to The Washington Post.

“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," Assange said.
"I mean, that’s a very strange reality for most of the media to be in."