Whats your opinion on Julian Assange?

jimmycrackcorm

PVNevin wrote:

The American state has been involved in unbroken wars of aggression since 2003. Wikileaks has been the most significant breaker of information uncovering the crimes of American state wars around the world. For this Assange is maligned, slandered and hounded by the cruel state forces of oppression.
...
However, in the opinion of many, many people Julian Assange is an exceptionally brave and principled defender of the truth. A journalist that deserves the name. I would call on all to vigorously support the campaign for his defence. Listed in my post above.

Strange how there are no exposed Russian secrets on WikiLeaks.

7aubzxk43m2sni

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Strange how there are no exposed Russian secrets on WikiLeaks.

It it possible that no Russian secrets were given to WikiLeaks?

Billy86

Sage Straight Schwa wrote: »

It it possible that no Russian secrets were given to WikiLeaks?

Nope, they have repeatedly refused to release or removed damaging info on Russia.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/amp/

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-1786445992/amp

Maybe it has something to do with their close connections to the Kremlin, who were feeding them much of their info in 2016 during the US election?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/dnc-hacker-guccifer-confirmed-as-russian-agent-after-forgetting-to-conceal-identity-2018-3

hatrickpatrick

He wants to destabilise the Western hegemony; for that alone he gets my support. I personally don't really care whether he's doing it because of his own personal beliefs (which I reckon he is) or because some other government, Russia for instance, has directed him to. Destabilising power is good for the world regardless of the motive. The existence of superpowers which impose their will on sovereign nations by force is bad, end of story, and the fewer of them we have in the world the better.

Billy86

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The existence of superpowers which impose their will on sovereign nations by force is bad, end of story, and the fewer of them we have in the world the better.

Russia, who Assange often acts on behalf of, also get up to a whole lot of that though?

hatrickpatrick

Billy86 wrote: »

Russia, who Assange often acts on behalf of, also get up to a whole lot of that though?

Sure, but Russia as a former superpower isn't opposed to power itself, it just wants to swing more of it back to itself.

I'm just anti-power in general. Anything which destabilises the establishment, IE those who currently hold power in this world, is a good thing in my book. The world is currently structured in such a way that a relatively small cohort of humans have the power to control the lives of a vast cohort, and that simply isn't right as far as I'm concerned. Literally anyone who wants to take the powerful down a peg or two is someone I'll cheer for. The only exception is when they're only doing it in order to take that power for themselves rather than scatter it around, and Putin is definitely in this category.

Personally I just don't believe the Russia thing to be nearly as big a story as it's made out to be. It's a convenient bogeyman for the Western establishment to distract from their own bad behaviour.

Billy86

I do generally agree with you on that end (that a world without 'great powers' could be a lot better), but the fact is Russia has for years been aggressively pushing into other countries lands and has shown very little that they don't want to continue to do so. The US can be a right shower of cnuts to put it mildly, but seeing the kind of regime and culture that this Russian regime prefers, I would stay far, far away from them.

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sure, but Russia as a former superpower isn't opposed to power itself, it just wants to swing more of it back to itself.

I'm just anti-power in general.

It sounds like Russia gets an "out" from you. A power that in just the last few years has deliberately sparked a war in a neighbouring country, annexed territory, supported an isolated dictator in one of the world's worst conflicts, meddled in democratic elections, engaged in an extensive "hybrid warfare" and it's own "information war"

I'm not disagreeing with your personal world view, but if you're anti-establishment, why be selective about it? surely that mirrors Assange's hypocritical views (selective leaks)

hatrickpatrick

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It sounds like Russia gets an "out" from you. A power that in just the last few years has deliberately sparked a war in a neighbouring country, annexed territory, supported an isolated dictator in one of the world's worst conflicts, meddled in democratic elections, engaged in an extensive "hybrid warfare" and it's own "information war"

I'm not disagreeing with your personal world view, but if you're anti-establishment, why be selective about it? surely that mirrors Assange's hypocritical views (selective leaks)

It doesn't get an "out" from me. I despise Putin and his government. But they don't represent me, and they never did. I'm somewhat angrier at the West, simply because I was raised on the bullsh!t propaganda of "Western power is used for good in the world" and I'm understandably bitter that that was a massive lie. It's similar to why I have such disdain for the Catholic Church despite other religions committing far worse acts of evil in the world - nobody likes realising that they've been misled and lied to. There are plenty of scumbags in Judaism and Islam, but I wasn't raised to believe otherwise and put my faith in those people.

If the West won't live up to the propaganda it instills in its young people, it shouldn't be too surprised when those young people come to despise it.

In other words - Russia doesn't represent me. I was never taught as a kid that Russia is a shining beacon of hope in the world. I was taught that the West is, which turned out to be bullsh!t. My ill-feelings towards Western hegemony come primarily from the fact that I, along with most of my peers, was raised to believe that Western hegemony was used for the good of all mankind and not to feather the nests of a small elite at the cost of millions of innocent lives.

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the West won't live up to the propaganda it instills in its young people, it shouldn't be too surprised when those young people come to despise it.

"The West" is a very diverse (subjective) basket of countries. Everything from Italy to Canada. I've never had propaganda about the "greatness" of e.g. Italy instilled in me as a child. "Western" economics or "Western" philosophy or "Western" culture is also deeply diverse and has it's roots going all the way back to Socrates and the medieval world. Trying to give it a personality and suggest it's all a bit nefarious is somewhat bizarre.

Personally I believe it's possible these types of views can be formed from singular events, e. g. particular administrations during the Iraq war, fermented by a sense of hypocrisy and then projected as a general view

I think it should be on a case-by-case (administration by administration) basis rather than an overarching generalised view, but just my opinion

hatrickpatrick

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"The West" is a very diverse (subjective) basket of countries. Everything from Italy to Canada. I've never had propaganda about the "greatness" of e.g. Italy instilled in me as a child. "Western" economics or "Western" philosophy or "Western" culture is also deeply diverse and has it's roots going all the way back to Socrates and the medieval world. Trying to give it a personality and suggest it's all a bit nefarious is somewhat bizarre.

Personally I believe it's possible these types of views can be formed from singular events, e. g. particular administrations during the Iraq war, fermented by a sense of hypocrisy and then projected as a general view

I think it should be on a case-by-case (administration by administration) basis rather than an overarching generalised view, but just my opinion

I'm focusing specifically on the EU and United States - Canada, New Zealand and Australia can be included as well since they have security arrangements with the aforementioned. To take one obvious example, as per Snowden's revelations, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United States and the UK are directly participating in a program which horrifically violates the fundamental human rights of every human being who uses the internet - and this includes citizens of those very countries and the entire EU, who were raised to view those countries as allies, and defenders of the very human rights they are now known to be routinely abusing every time anyone anywhere in the world logs in to an internet connection.

Russia may be doing the same, but I wasn't raised to see them as "the good guys". Those who have spread propaganda that they are "the good guys" have to act like it, and if they don't, people will naturally despise them for the same reasons I outlined previously - no human takes kindly to being stabbed in the back. Russia can't stab me in the back because I never considered them to be allies to begin with, but the US is a different story.

As for the disparate "West", need I remind anyone that Ireland, for economic reasons, directly participated in the War in Iraq? We can have as many mental gymnastics as we like to pretend we weren't part of that, but the simple fact is that we were. The US government stated on multiple occasions that hey couldn't have easily replaced Shannon if we'd told them to get lost.

For these reasons among others, I'm on the side of anyone - regardless of their motivation - whose end-game is destabilisation. I'd rather live in a world where power is far more distributed and fractured, than in a world in which a small number of people hold it, and lie to the masses about what they're choosing to do with it. Even if that means my own quality of life takes a hit as a result - in my own view, and this is only my own view, it's a worthwhile sacrifice in order to have a clearer conscience.

Nodster

His hair is awful

TomOnBoard

Narcissistic d!ck with no moral compass..

5rtytry56

He should relieve the Equestrian Embassy staff of the monkey on their back.




And go for that job in the Cabra Fish & chipper.

s7ryf3925pivug

The idea of privacy in normal web use is delusional at this point, since there clearly is no guarantee of privacy.

Pretty sure unless you're a terrorist or a paedo the US government don't give a sh!t about you, and aren't chuckling away at your email squabble with your gf or something. If it helps deal with terrorists and paedos then maybe their activity is a good thing.

It sucks if you have some perfect ideal that was shattered, but the USA/NATO/The West are positive forces and counters to far more destructive, imperialistic powers that they keep in check. The USA's move towards interference in other countries was a necessary response to Soviet imperialism. It is about their own national security at the end of the day, and that might not always align perfectly with what suits others. But it's definitely better than prospective empire builders that they counter.

There are much more malign entities that might be spying on you than the US government. Best to treat online activity as non-private in general.

Franz Von Peppercorn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm focusing specifically on the EU and United States - Canada, New Zealand and Australia can be included as well since they have security arrangements with the aforementioned. To take one obvious example, as per Snowden's revelations, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United States and the UK are directly participating in a program which horrifically violates the fundamental human rights of every human being who uses the internet - and this includes citizens of those very countries and the entire EU, who were raised to view those countries as allies, and defenders of the very human rights they are now known to be routinely abusing every time anyone anywhere in the world logs in to an internet connection.

Russia may be doing the same, but I wasn't raised to see them as "the good guys". Those who have spread propaganda that they are "the good guys" have to act like it, and if they don't, people will naturally despise them for the same reasons I outlined previously - no human takes kindly to being stabbed in the back. Russia can't stab me in the back because I never considered them to be allies to begin with, but the US is a different story.

As for the disparate "West", need I remind anyone that Ireland, for economic reasons, directly participated in the War in Iraq? We can have as many mental gymnastics as we like to pretend we weren't part of that, but the simple fact is that we were. The US government stated on multiple occasions that hey couldn't have easily replaced Shannon if we'd told them to get lost.

For these reasons among others, I'm on the side of anyone - regardless of their motivation - whose end-game is destabilisation. I'd rather live in a world where power is far more distributed and fractured, than in a world in which a small number of people hold it, and lie to the masses about what they're choosing to do with it. Even if that means my own quality of life takes a hit as a result - in my own view, and this is only my own view, it's a worthwhile sacrifice in order to have a clearer conscience.

While I generally agree with you, it is the US that is calling the shots. Western European countries are vassal states of the US hegemony.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Rayan Gentle Ruler wrote: »

It sucks if you have some perfect ideal that was shattered, but the USA/NATO/The West are positive forces and counters to far more destructive, imperialistic powers that they keep in check. The USA's move towards interference in other countries was a necessary response to Soviet imperialism. It is about their own national security at the end of the day, and that might not always align perfectly with what suits others. But it's definitely better than prospective empire builders that they counter.

This is a good example, like the op, of how controlled the western mind is, particularly by US imperialist ideologies.

The US national security is threatened by Canada and Mexico for instance, not Iran or Syria. If you see Iran as a threat to the US then you think that US interests are the whole world.

s7ryf3925pivug

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This is a good example, like the op, of how controlled the western mind is, particularly by US imperialist ideologies.

The US national security is threatened by Canada and Mexico for instance, not Iran or Syria. If you see Iran as a threat to the US then you think that US interests are the whole world.

Mexico and Canada are obviously not hostile to the USA.

Iran is not especially well disposed to them, with good reason historically. Trump's imposition of sanctions on them is sh!tty and affects EU business, especially in Germany.

Isis is obviously hostile and the greatest threat to Western countries at this time. That said, bombing the **** out of civilians isn't ideal and it contributes to the massive influx of refugees into the EU. So again, it's affecting us negatively.

Like I said, they don't live up to ideals of perfection. They're still much better actors than their counterparts in the east.

Atoms for Peace

The post office was set up by QE I to spy on dissidents and so it continues. The idea of the internet bringing some sort of electronic freedom to the masses is dead.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Rayan Gentle Ruler wrote: »

Mexico and Canada are obviously not hostile to the USA.

Mexico and Canada are their only possible threats. As neighbours.

Iran is not especially well disposed to them, with good reason historically. Trump's imposition of sanctions on them is sh!tty and affects EU business, especially in Germany.

Isis is obviously hostile and the greatest threat to Western countries at this time. That said, bombing the **** out of civilians isn't ideal and it contributes to the massive influx of refugees into the EU. So again, it's affecting us negatively.

Like I said, they don't live up to ideals of perfection. They're still much better actors than their counterparts in the east.

Are they? What if Russia invaded Iraq on a pretence of WMD, continued to destabilise the Middle East by supporting the overthrow of secular regimes there, while threatening Iran and supporting Saudi Arabia and Israel in any of their actions in the Middle East. What “ideals”do the US live up to?

Isis are enemies of the world but the US supported rebels in Syria, many of whom were extreme islamists.

s7ryf3925pivug

Why would they fabricate the wmd thing? How did that benefit them? Why dismiss the notion that it was faulty intelligence?

Russia have been invading countries more recently than Iraq - or Afghanistan for that matter

Jamsiek

5rtytry56 wrote: »

He should relieve the Equestrian Embassy staff of the monkey on their back.

And go for that job in the Cabra Fish & chipper.

Huh?

TAFKAlawhec

5rtytry56 wrote: »

He should relieve the Equestrian Embassy staff of the monkey on their back.

If he doesn't do that then Princess Twilight Sparkle should get Spike to write a letter telling the staff there to hoof him out the building. :pac:

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm focusing specifically on the EU and United States - Canada, New Zealand and Australia can be included as well since they have security arrangements with the aforementioned. To take one obvious example, as per Snowden's revelations, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United States and the UK are directly participating in a program which horrifically violates the fundamental human rights of every human being who uses the internet - and this includes citizens of those very countries and the entire EU, who were raised to view those countries as allies, and defenders of the very human rights they are now known to be routinely abusing every time anyone anywhere in the world logs in to an internet connection.

In China they capture information to persecute people. In Europe they capture information to literally catch bad guys, to protect people. A little context.

We all want our privacy, we also want our security. Unfortunately in the modern climate we can't have both. If a government wants to collect our private information for nefarious purposes, that is black/white wrong. If a government wants to collect clandestinely but with the ultimate purpose of protecting us - that's more debatable

Billy86

Rayan Gentle Ruler wrote: »

Why would they fabricate the wmd thing? How did that benefit them? Why dismiss the notion that it was faulty intelligence?

Russia have been invading countries more recently than Iraq - or Afghanistan for that matter

If I'm correct it was Colin Powell who came out and said he knew he was lying at the time, and the way the Bush administration treated their time there they did not appear to have much of any interest in much of anything beyond lining their pockets (I would recommend listening to this podcast on it, it's fairly entertaining too) and those of some of their most influential donors. One example being Blackwater military contractors, who became infamous for slaughtering civilians and have since changed their name to Academi... their founder Erik Prince is from one of the Republican party's biggest donor family's, the Devos's, which is also why his entirely unqualified sister bought her way to the be their secretary of education in the current government.

It has proven to be possibly the single most destabilising decision made anywhere in the world since the depths of the Cold War, if not even further back again.

There are some things I could give the benefit of the doubt to on either side, but Iraq was just as blatant a cash grab by the US as Ukraine was a land grab by Russia.

s7ryf3925pivug

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Mexico and Canada are their only possible threats. As neighbours.
s.

Terrorists killing people and foreign actors manipulating people are real, demonstrated threats. Friendly peaceful neighbours aren't

PVNevin

"Australia has a legal obligation to protect Assange"
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/11/legl-j11.html

It is very often stated that Julian Assange was facing charges in Sweden. Assange was never charged; and nor did he "flee" Sweden.
He quite correctly took the view that the Swedish extradition request was a deceit designed to facilitate his extradition to the USA.

"British trade union mounts witch-hunt based on accusations of “rape denial”"
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/01/unis-m01.html

"The Guardian uses anti-Russian hacking claims to proselytise for CIA and war"
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/01/13/guar-j13.html

Today, very often it is the pseudo-lefts who are the source of the greatest bile directed against Assange, and the most avid promoters of anti-Russian propaganda.

The USA has been continuously engaged in war since 2003. It is patently clear to the majority around the world that it is the USA that is the rogue state. One of the important sources of the information that exposes the crimes of Washington has been Wikileaks. For this Assange is slandered, sneered at and undermined.

The critics of Assange and anyone who dares challenge the rich and powerful are vociferous and relentless in their attack. Assange, and individuals and groups like him, are the defenders of democratic principle. We must defend them.

PVNevin

An interview with John Pilger on consortiumnews.com:
The Eerie Silence Surrounding the Assange Case
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/06/09/the-eerie-silence-around-the-assange-case/