wikileaks attacked, releasing contingency plan passwords - Polidicks

[media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839099265314131968[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839100679625060353[/media] not much info is known at the moment

That "Year Zero" stuff is such bullshit. How do people at wikileaks take themselves seriously? If /pol/ think you are right then odds are you are wrong. context: Pol are having a circlejerk over this saying its proof that the UN/EU want to form a world wide state. zzzzzzz

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51926057]That "Year Zero" stuff is such bullshit. How do people at wikileaks take themselves seriously? If /pol/ think you are right then odds are you are wrong. context: Pol are having a circlejerk over this saying its proof that the UN/EU want to form a world wide state. zzzzzzz[/QUOTE] Just because /pol/ is retarded and agrees with them doesn't mean wikileaks hasn't released important information in the past, it's a pretty dangerous thought pattern to just write it off as bullshit before you even know what the information is

Attacked in what way

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51926069]Attacked in what way[/QUOTE] From the tweet, it basically just looks like a video Assange put up got taken down.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51926073]From the tweet, it basically just looks like a video Assange put up got taken down.[/QUOTE] I thought the contingency plans for when they got physically attacked but okay

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51926057]That "Year Zero" stuff is such bullshit. How do people at wikileaks take themselves seriously? If /pol/ think you are right then odds are you are wrong. context: Pol are having a circlejerk over this saying its proof that the UN/EU want to form a world wide state. zzzzzzz[/QUOTE] Can someone explain to me why making a world wide state is a bad thing? I mean, we'd all be under one flag as a species, isn't that a good thing?

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51926062]Just because /pol/ is retarded and agrees with them doesn't mean wikileaks hasn't released important information in the past, it's a pretty dangerous thought pattern to just write it off as bullshit before you even know what the information is[/QUOTE] Wikileaks is, for me, false till proven true. They got an agenda (see Assange trying to form a libertarian party in Aus and supporting Donald Trump during election). They use information as a weapon and do not apply the purported doctrine of transparency unless it serves them and their goals. Selective transparency and deception by omission is little better than lying; and thats assuming you can even trust the validity their sources. If I set up a website called "wikiwhistleblower" and posted a bunch of stuff would you believe me? If so - why? Assange is a fervent anti state nutter - Year Zero will be just another thing to try and undermine peoples faith/confidence in the state.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51926057]That "Year Zero" stuff is such bullshit. How do people at wikileaks take themselves seriously? If /pol/ think you are right then odds are you are wrong. context: Pol are having a circlejerk over this saying its proof that the [B]UN/EU want to form a world wide state.[/B] zzzzzzz[/QUOTE] They are doing a pretty poor job of it so far :v:

The way they phrase it and shit makes it seem real cringy

[QUOTE=GlebGuy;51926083]Can someone explain to me why making a world wide state a bad thing? I mean, we'd all be under one flag as a species, isn't that a good thing?[/QUOTE] I like the idea of a world wide state - close tax loopholes, enforce good working conditions, fix environment. Sadly people are opposed to it because they're either nationalistic or don't trust any government, let alone some all encompassing one. This probably isn't anything to do with a world wide state though - thats totally unrealistic. If the EU keep itself stable then there is absolutely no way a wws would succeed.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51926062]Just because /pol/ is retarded and agrees with them doesn't mean wikileaks hasn't released important information in the past, it's a pretty dangerous thought pattern to just write it off as bullshit before you even know what the information is[/QUOTE] Eating up leaks and ignoring their motivation (and how true they really are) isn't a very safe thought pattern either though.

[QUOTE=GlebGuy;51926083]Can someone explain to me why making a world wide state is a bad thing? I mean, we'd all be under one flag as a species, isn't that a good thing?[/QUOTE] Do you really want people from the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa having the power to impose laws they voted for on you?

[QUOTE=download;51926110]Do you really want people from the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa having the power to impose laws they voted for on you?[/QUOTE] I understand what you mean but this is worded very, very badly

Plus remember that thing last year with Assange. Like an hour of absolutely nothing happening. Just drama and theatrics and unwarranted hype. "hey guys heres the TOP TEN LEAKS NUMBER 7 WILL TERRIFY AND APPAUL YOU!" 1 hour later "bla bla bla bla *stuff you already knew about* bla bla bla - thats it! thanks for giving us attention back again in a month or so for MORE UNMISSABLE LEAKS! x x x " Lots of their sources do good work exposing corrupt regimes but I won't for a minute let their good work lend credence to nutty anti-establishment rhetoric they spout to push their fishy ass agenda.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;51926101]Eating up leaks and ignoring their motivation (and how true they really are) isn't a very safe thought pattern either though.[/QUOTE] That's implying /pol/ has any kind of coherent thought patterns to begin with.

[QUOTE=GlebGuy;51926083]Can someone explain to me why making a world wide state is a bad thing? I mean, we'd all be under one flag as a species, isn't that a good thing?[/QUOTE] It is certainly possible, but highly unlikely that it'll happen without a totalitarian government controlling and changing the way people think on a basic level. Tribalism, Nationalism, Racism, they all run deep and removing the borders between old enemies would just inspire renewed conflict and raise new borders.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51926113]this is the case with every claim anyone makes, it has nothing to do with wikileaks itself [/quote] So why should I trust a thing wikileaks specifically says? [quote] him and his party were pretty transparent they they were doing it entirely to give him diplomatic immunity[/quote] My point is that is his ideology. I suspect he wants to be rid of the establishment to help create a more free market capitalist america - yuk. [quote] so does basically every government in the world? this isnt even a conspiracy theory its just a legitimate tactic that governments use, its why "classified" documents exist, they become unclassified when they no longer pose any threat.[/quote] Hmm how does that mean I should take wikileaks seriously?? My government paid for my healthcare, education, policing and roads - Assange... hmm helped Donald Trump get elected? I know who I'll throw my lot in with - even if I dislike my government I trust Assange and his crowd less. [quote] if like wikileaks you had a fairly good track record with truthful information youd still have to prove it true, but theres nothing wrong with contradicting them with valid evidence, implying that people wouldnt trust you because they love wikileaks is dumb[/quote] To prove falsified evidence of wikileaks wrong I'd need to provide proof of absence which, given governments tendency to keep stuff secret, would be very hard. To provide more clarity to information released without context or with the wrong context is again very hard since it would likely involve having access to the classified information. You can't contradict them with valid evidence because that valid evidence is likely classified. Burden of proof is on wikileaks to prove their claims and, imo, anything they do provide is tainted with the very real possibility of it not being transparent because they are serving an agenda. [quote] gee, you mean like almost any political activist that is anti ruling party?[/QUOTE] No you can be a political activist who is "anti-ruling party" without being an anti establishment type. Did you actually mean to type this or is your definition of almost much looser than my own?

[QUOTE=GlebGuy;51926083]Can someone explain to me why making a world wide state is a bad thing? I mean, we'd all be under one flag as a species, isn't that a good thing?[/QUOTE] Pretty much people don't want to give up sovereignty for their country over to a higher power. Pretty much since civilization has first formed, states/countries/city-states have been in a anarchic international system. Meaning there has never been a international structure that has had control over all the countries. This is probably my Constructivist view but the "rules" set up by the states in the international system has been pretty much "never give up sovereignty to another power unless you have to". You can argue that the EU is one such first stage system for a global government but that leads to a huge debate of what the EU actually is and would take several dissertations to get a good answer. But, an easy answer is. Do you want a tribal leader from Afghanistan, Pakistan, South Sudan,. Or Dictators like Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte to write you laws?

[QUOTE=download;51926110]Do you really want people from the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa having the power to impose laws they voted for on you?[/QUOTE] I mean if the world wide government helped raise all 3rd world countries to be equal to the others and curbed a lot of dangerous beliefs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Its all speculative on how a world wide government would work

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51926172]sure, you shouldnt blatantly trust them hell, im not even defending them right now im just calling you out on dumb logic im not sure how you cant type this out and not understand that you are being INCREDIBLY emotional over something you are trying to sound objective over. [/quote] [barking noises] [quote] suspecting he has bad intentions without any proof of such is just as bad as what you are accusing them of, even if his "bad intentions" just go against what you yourself believe in [/quote] He's a self professed libertarian and his actions have purposefully undermined the integrity of the US establishment and people's confidence in the US state. It's not enough proof to convince you maybe but I believe thats enough to go on. [quote] i could go over a bunch of times the UK acted outside your interests, because guess what, you arent their only demographic and they have to help those people too.[/quote] I never said they hadn't acted against my interests. I even said [quote=cool guy]even if I dislike my government I trust Assange and his crowd less.[/quote] I see the British government or more specifically the state and the establishment as FAR MORE trustworthy than some dodgy Australian guy who claims to be pro transparency but selectively releases stuff for political influence. eg war in Iraq was dumb, leaving the EU is dumb, effective budget free on nhs is dumb, not banning shipments of weapons to drop on yemen is dumb, selling the royal mail is dumb [quote] you are free to have an opinion of a group though, nothing stopping you there. [/quote] Thanks buddy! [quote] i dont see how this is wikileaks fault then, just sounds like you going "its bullshit trust me" which is as bad as what wikileaks do [/quote] Read this out loud to yourself. [quote] if you think people who base their political position and self description as "anti ruling party" have no similarities to "anti-establishment" ethics then im just gonna have to disagree with you there.[/QUOTE] I think the root of our disagreement lies in your poor understand of what "anti-establishment" means. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Bengley))[/highlight]

Presumably in these fever dreams about a one world deep shadow state government that is working to turn the frogs gay and exterminate white people, Putin's Russia is the sole champion of liberty.

Guess Julian and Trumps relationship fell through

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51926211]im not sure why you shitposted blatantly here but aight, seems like the discussion is done[/QUOTE] did he edit the post? from here it just looks like he was topping it with a joke.

So anyway what this is [QUOTE]WikiLeaks on Tuesday released what it said is the full hacking capacity of the CIA in a stunning 8,000-plus page disclosure the anti-secrecy website contends is “the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.” The 8,761 documents and files -- released as “Vault 7 Part 1” and titled “Year Zero” -- were obtained from an “isolated, high-security network” at the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Va., a press release from the website said. The trove had been “circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors,” one of whom “recently” gave the archive to WikiLeaks. “We do not comment on the authenticity or content of purported intelligence documents," a CIA spokesperson told Fox News. The collection of purported intelligence tools includes information on CIA-developed malware -- bearing names such as “Assassin” and “Medusa” -- intended to target iPhones, Android phones, smart TVs and Microsoft, Mac and Linux operating systems, among others. An entire unit in the CIA is devoted to inventing programs to hack data from Apple products, according to WikiLeaks. Some of the remote hacking programs can allegedly turn numerous electronic devices into recording and transmitting stations to spy on their targets, with the information then sent back to secret CIA servers. One document appears to show the CIA was trying to “infect” vehicle control systems in cars and trucks for unspecified means. WikiLeaks hinted that the capabilites revealed in Tuesday's disclosure could have even darker utility than simply spying. “It would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations,” the release stated. The site said the CIA additionally failed to disclose security vulnerabilities and bugs to major U.S. software manufacturers, violating an Obama administration commitment made in January 2014. Instead, the agency used the software vulnerabilities -- which could also be exploited by rival agencies, nations and groups -- for its own ends, WikiLeaks said.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/07/wikileaks-releases-entire-hacking-capacity-cia.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/07/wikileaks-releases-entire-hacking-capacity-cia.html[/URL]

[QUOTE] “It would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations,” the release stated.[/QUOTE] Oh shit, you think?

If I download this am I going to get whacked index for anyone interested: [url]https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/index.html[/url] also wait this is bad, now foreign nations know our technical capabilities and limitations much more intimately also: fun little image [t]https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/files/org-chart.png[/t]

[QUOTE=Zombinie;51926336]If I download this am I going to get whacked[/QUOTE] The cia will hack your smart tv and use it to assassinate you without being detected

Any World-Wide government would have to be a totalitarian military government to keep tabs on the multiple conflicts it would have to face. So probably not gonna happen.

[QUOTE=AutismoPiggo;51926353]Any World-Wide government would have to be a totalitarian military government to keep tabs on the multiple conflicts it would have to face. So probably not gonna happen.[/QUOTE] With current technology / political / cultural / social standings, yes. In my opinion global government will and should only happen when humans start to really explore the stars and set up colonies on other planets. Then a global, planetary government might become more practical.