Julian Assange has had his connection to the internet severed

[Livnthedream]

He crossed a line when he took an obvious political side and released "dirt" targeted at one candidate and not the other.

Yet you had no trouble when he was releasing all that stuff on Bush.

[Mormolyce]

Make no mistake I am not defending him.

But him taking sides is nothing new at all and Ecuador would have been well aware of it. A former member of WikiLeaks already covered that fact that he deliberately keep hammering the USA with leaks when there were other serious issues in places like China, Russia etc that also needed to be brought to the light.

I mean some of it I believe is due to what information he has at the time. Especially since he relies on insider leaks for most of the information he gets. But he has always had a bias in his releases with the information he does have.

Frankly, I have held the belief that he uses WikiLeaks for fame and ego boosting. And this is back when he was making videos of himself walking around Sweden whilst telling the camera crew that he had to be secret and careful in case he was found. Before Wikileaks blow up so to speak.

I just find it funny that Ecuador got involved when they knowingly granted asylum to a man who is now wanted by at least two countries (the UK and Sweden), knew full well that he takes sides with what he releases and when, allowed him to conduct interviews and press conferrances via the balcony window and, have been defending his right to do so suddenly decides that they need to rain him in now...

Well I don't claim to know what actually went on inside Ecuador, but deliberately trying to tamper with a US federal election is no doubt a bucket of wet shit Ecuador doesn't want on their hands. Whereas leaks from China, Russia etc probably have a lot less potential for political fallout. Like "Russia and China are crooked" is even news.

I'm not sure exactly what Ecuador's plan was with Assange, maybe they hoped to undermine or embarrass the US with leaks. But an exposed power play in favour of Trump is probably the last thing they want. For one thing it won't help relations if Hillary gets in, which looks likely at this point. Also I doubt they're well disposed to Trump's campaign.

Maybe Assange has spent too much time hanging around the alt right trolls lurking on the internet, lost track of reality and bit his host on the hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you had no trouble when he was releasing all that stuff on Bush.

There's never been a time when I've had no trouble with Julian Assange.

I don't have a problem with whistleblowers and leaks, those are good things. I have a problem with Assange's cult of personality, his behaviour and lately the way he's (presumably) been steering wikileaks.

If this is about the truth then where are the Trump leaks? I don't for a second believe there aren't any, and they can't fail to be more juicy than this lame shit he tried to throw at Hillary. Turns out she gave some speeches to Wall Street that were friendly to the finance sector, oh shock horror, better vote Republican instead. They'd never support Wall Street! How new and relevant that information was. And this after he claimed his leaks would send her to jail. Fucking pathetic.

Given what Trump says in public, I can only imagine what goes on in private. No wikileaks from his camp though, hmmm I wonder why.

P.S. What did he release on Bush anyway? All I remember from back then is some dirty dealings in the Iraq war, like that was news to anyone. I don't remember any smears targeted at Bush personally.

[zmp]

The "big boys of the internet" who thought Julian already had his "15min of fame" years ago, must have some pretty big noses by now..

[Deleted]

Why would the US want Ecuador to shut down Assange if Assange's revelations were "nothing?" Heck why would Ecuador worry? If its nothing its nothing.

"While our concerns about Wikileaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down Wikileaks is false," U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said in an email. Speaking to reporters later, deputy spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry never even raised the issue or met with Correa during his visit to Colombia.

"There just was no meeting," he said. "They didn't discuss any of this stuff."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997...ed-state-actor

What you are saying is false, and you should'nt be listening to crazy conspiracy theories. In the real world, give me proof, not BS. I hear people saying awful things about Hillary and yet there is no proof of anything. I am 100% sure that some people looked really really hard and yet theres nothing. This tells me that it's more likely that there is indeed nothing and if theres any conspiracy, it's the one to smear her reputation.
It's alot like Obama's birth certificate. If there was something there, it would've come out.

[Theodarzna]

What you are saying is false, and you should'nt be listening to crazy conspiracy theories. In the real world, give me proof, not BS. I hear people saying awful things about Hillary and yet there is no proof of anything. I am 100% sure that some people looked really really hard and yet theres nothing. This tells me that it's more likely that there is indeed nothing and if theres any conspiracy, it's the one to smear her reputation.

Ah, trust the people whom have the most to gain by silencing WikiLeaks, I am sure they are above board.

[AndaliteBandit]

Completely undermines the credibility of wikileaks as an objective agency devoted to leaking the truth.

What are you talking about? What isn't objective about selling a Bill Clinton infidelity t-shirt?



https://twitter.com/wikileaksshop/st...18818919411712

[Deleted]

Ah, trust the people whom have the most to gain by silencing WikiLeaks, I am sure they are above board.

Proof? I don't care about loose conspiracy theories anyone can make up. You need to have a shred of evidence for your claims to be legitimate. Give a photo of the two meeting. A recording. Documents detailing plans for a meeting. Legitimate testemonies. Phone call logs.

Is this supposed to be like the aliens from area 51? Get serious.

[Mormolyce]

What are you talking about? What isn't objective about selling a Bill Clinton infidelity t-shirt?



https://twitter.com/wikileaksshop/st...18818919411712

Dear god, how long has wikileaks been a bunch of alt-right shills?

Is the answer always? I admit I've never been on their site.

[Theodarzna]

Proof? I don't care about loose conspiracy theories. You need to have a shred of evidence for your claims to be legitimate.

Is this supposed to be like the aliens from area 51? Get serious.

Well I know us mere peasants are not allowed to look at the Wikileaks emails and only our dutiful and 'totes trustworthy folks at CNN.

[Mormolyce]

Ah, trust the people whom have the most to gain by silencing WikiLeaks, I am sure they are above board.

Cutting Assange's internet connection in no way silences wikileaks.

In fact the people who have the most to gain from muzzling Assange would be wikileaks... they might get some credibility back...

[Skroe]

...what's coming for Russia?

What's coming for Russia.... well let me put it like this.

Th United States has the most capable cyberwarfare arsenal in the planet... the best computer scientist and mathemeticians, the most resources, the most money. To put it simply, our "laser" such as it is, is charged up real, real, real high.

But the US has been extremely reluctant to fire that laser. Why? A large number of reasons. One reason is that Cyberwarfare has the potential of being highly damaging to civilian infrastructure as well. Stuxnet and Flame both got out of the very carefully contained Iranian "pen" that the NSA built for it. Another reason is that the US doesn't want to use its best tools for something that may be better used in an emergency. Why, for example, shut down a power grid now when we would rather do that in a shooting war?

The biggest reason is that, from a historical perspective, this is essentially the Nuclear Age, 1952.

Lots of people don't know early nuclear age history, but in the 50, use of nuclear weapons as "big bombs" essentially, to wipe out enemy armies (less so cities), during the Korean War and other conflicts, was seriously discussed and planned for. The "norms" of Nuclear warfare, such as they are, didn't come about in a treaty or some kind of US-Russian agreement, but via trial and error... via countries turning "right" instead of "left" at the last minute. The norms we have are largely an emergent property of the nuclear "balance of power" with various nuclear treaties mostly as decoration around it.

One of the key concerns of the US is that there are no cyberwarfare norms right now (hence 1952), and it's trying to build some, both because it has this huge laser and wants to know when to use it, but also because it is constantly being targeted. So with China hacking the F-35 program, RSA, the Social Security Administration... with Russia launching a cyber attack against NATO, there wasn't a fear that it was out of bounds quite yet.

The Recent Russian hacks... the direct interference in US elections and attempted information warfare (incuding data falsification) is a step too far. The US has a vested interest in recent Russia behavior not being the norm and the limit being about 20 steps back. Because if Russia's DNC dump were to become the way things are, then it would make electronic communication an incredibly risky endevour, no matter the forum. And it could encourage Russia (and others) to go further. Private correspondences are an essential part of a functioning government and international relations in general. Russia's behavior undermines all that.

So the Obama Administration has revolved to actually fire our laser and in some way they won't forget, give Russia a punishing they won't soon forge. What form will that take? That's for the NSA and CIA to know. If I could venture a guess, they'll probably engage in data dumping of our own, destructive hacking of billions of dollars worth of computers in Russia's intelligence services (that will be expensive for Russia's cash strapped economy to replace), and likely data vandalism of companies connected to Vladimir Putin's oligarch friends.

That's what is coming and that's how we got there. The truth of the matter is, it isn't likely to work. The Cyberwar is just starting and it's going to get really bad. Expect in the next few years for a Western City to go dark and it be blamed on Russian hackers or something.

[Deleted]

Well I know us mere peasants are not allowed to look at the Wikileaks emails and only our dutiful and 'totes trustworthy folks at CNN.

If theres any proof of wrongdoing, i'm sure you will hear about it. So far, all i've seen were positive things actually (pondering about having sanders as VP).
We can't forget that hacking is a crime and Mr Assange is not exactly on his best behaviour here. Ecuador doesn't want to get involved in foreign domestic affairs. As i said before, given all the proof presented so far, the conspiracy theory is more likely to be on the other side. Someone has alot to gain from smearing Hillary with nothing concrete, its been happening for more than a year now. For some reason they went this far to try to get to her. If nothing is found i wonder if you will be that adamant to find out why these accusations that never check out keep showing up.

[Mormolyce]

As i said before, given all the proof presented so far, the conspiracy theory is more likely to be on the other side. Someone has alot to gain from smearing Hillary with nothing concrete, its been happening for more than a year now. For some reason they went this far to try to get to her.

If only she'd smear herself like Trump does on a daily basis. Why must she be so uncooperative!?

[Wells]

Dear god, how long has wikileaks been a bunch of alt-right shills?

Is the answer always? I admit I've never been on their site.

They've always been kind of shitty people, but its gotten worse. Assange loathes Clinton.

[mvaliz]

He crossed a line when he took an obvious political side and released "dirt" targeted at one candidate and not the other.

Completely undermines the credibility of wikileaks as an objective agency devoted to leaking the truth. Good work Assange, you massive egotistical fucking tool. I guess he wasn't sufficiently satisfied with tarnishing their reputation by evading justice on an unrelated criminal charge from his personal life in an embassy for six years, using his role in wikileaks as an excuse.

That's my stance with him as well. He used to be about equal transparency on all things government, and yet could NOT produce even a single email of Dump saying something stupid? But hillary gets special October timed releases of emails...

And nevermind that the attacks in the DNC originated from Russia... it realky smacks of a trifecta teamwork here with Putin as the lead.

[Elim Garak]

And nevermind that the attacks in the DNC originated from Russia...

Yeah, right. Because Russians are stupid and couldn't do it from some other place, had to be Russia.
Try thinking on your own.

Instead of, you know, believing in this conspiracy theory of Putin being Trump supporter and doing a really sloppy job at manipulating the US elections that they got exposed and now Trump is going down!

It should be obvious that either Putin is not involved at all or supports Hilary.

[maomoa]

'but but but what if Trump gets access to nuke codes?!'

Meanwhile the idiot democrats are -actually- starting a war. Fucking morons.

God, this thread. ROFL.

I see you get your temperament from your glorious candidate.

[cymraeg13]

ITT: Leftist drones who used to love Assange before he dared spill the goods on their queen

[Livnthedream]

If this is about the truth then where are the Trump leaks?

You mean the ones that the rest of the MSM is doggedly searching through every pile of garbage they can find to throw at him? What else is the point of the platform than to release that which no one else will?

I don't for a second believe there aren't any, and they can't fail to be more juicy than this lame shit he tried to throw at Hillary.

That was 'thrown'. Those were 'sealed' behind an NDA that neither she, nor the banks, wanted released.

Turns out she gave some speeches to Wall Street that were friendly to the finance sector, oh shock horror, better vote Republican instead.

Yeah I would rather vote Republican (especially this one seeing as Clinton is essentially a neocon in the first place) than elect a candidate that has already been bribed by a body that is reckless and more than willing to fuck the American people. I for one would rather not have more 'deregulation' that gives us another crash in 10 years. Like the last Clinton did.

And this after he claimed his leaks would send her to jail. Fucking pathetic.

So you are upset that his 'reveal' wasn't big against the candidate that you support because [Republicans]?

Given what Trump says in public, I can only imagine what goes on in private.

Oh no, lets worry about some 'bad' words people say in public rather than the people who have bought favors! Truly, the horror!

No wikileaks from his camp though, hmmm I wonder why.

Clearly it is because Assange is a member of the alt right working to destabilize America and usher in the Fourth Reich.

P.S. What did he release on Bush anyway? All I remember from back then is some dirty dealings in the Iraq war, like that was news to anyone. I don't remember any smears targeted at Bush personally.

You mean the numerous 'diplomatic' cables of his administration playing kingmaker? You know, that 'meddling' that we aren't supposed to be doing but Clinton gladly supports?

[theswapper]

All part of the institutional corruption that is the Clintons. Trumps is a buffoon in the things he says, but Hillary and her croonies are a whole different level of corrupt. FBI files suggested as much, but the media (CNN, etc.) refuse to cover it extensively.