Assange is a completely unnecessary, even detrimental, aspect of Wikileaks
37 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bllasae;26519317]No, but the guy who released the documents TO him should be arrested for treason.[/QUOTE]
Why is this small fact being overlooked so much? Wikileaks / Assange are doing nothing more than newspapers have done for years which is publishing information they are handed and protecting their sources at the same time. Whistleblowing and leaking is not new, its being going on since the dawn of secret information.
[QUOTE=Subwayy;26518429][B]......Distractedness about who represents them. It distracts them from the main point, if people are making false claims it takes away from the actual information. [/B]
And yes I am resorting to "You can't read for shit" and "you blow dick" because both are true and you really aren't even worth debating with.[/QUOTE]
No shit eh? That's pretty much my exact point.
And good, don't debate with me then. I can do without the infantile insults.
the problem with wikileaks is that it doesn't really reveal anything most people didn't know already, unless they've been living very sheltered lives.
the only reason it's getting publicity is due to the nature of the information being leaks. if they were authorized by the military to be released, this whole issue wouldn't even exist.
it's called misdirection. you take something that isn't all that impressive, change the circumstance of how it is presented and suddenly it's ground breaking.
embedded journalists have made documentaries about operation in afganistan and it had more substance and raises more questions than any of the trivial minutia contained in the leaks because they offer context and insight.
wikileaks=propaganda and nothing else. it's a shame most people don't respond to it critically. it simply resonates with the rebellious, liberal mentality that has overcome america after the george bush administration.
it's a social phenomenon and in the future once we gain some perspective we'll view the leaks as nothing more than a publicity stunt by a jilted silver haired loser.
[QUOTE=seattlegluepiss;26520608]the problem with wikileaks is that it doesn't really reveal anything most people didn't know already, unless they've been living very sheltered lives.
the only reason it's getting publicity is due to the nature of the information being leaks. if they were authorized by the military to be released, this whole issue wouldn't even exist.
it's called misdirection. you take something that isn't all that impressive, change the circumstance of how it is presented and suddenly it's ground breaking.
embedded journalists have made documentaries about operation in afganistan and it had more substance and raises more questions than any of the trivial minutia contained in the leaks because they offer context and insight.
wikileaks=propaganda and nothing else. it's a shame most people don't respond to it critically. it simply resonates with the rebellious, liberal mentality that has overcome america after the george bush administration.
it's a social phenomenon and in the future once we gain some perspective we'll view the leaks as nothing more than a publicity stunt by a jilted silver haired loser.[/QUOTE]
It's called confirmation genius..sure we have speculation and have probably assumed such and such but without wikileaks we CAN'T confirm it.
How the hell is wikileaks propaganda? Why are the government so pissed if really all wikileak is just propaganda? obviously wikileaks has some sensitive information that the government does not want the world to know..
Social phenomenon?? stop pulling shit of out your ass
Assange didn't host wikileaks to row row fight the power, he isn't doing this for a noble reason. He's doing this for 15 minutes of fame and to cause a shit storm. It is the only reason I'm truly against the whole website. The way he advertises each new leak as world shattering news when he already got anything worth half a shit out the first time should be proof enough of that.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26500656]He's not harming, but making it less effective. They could still hold a media presence without such a public figurehead.
[editline]5th December 2010[/editline]
Why wouldn't they be taken seriously? Without Assange, they would be taken purely at the value of the leaks, which I personally think would be more effective and draw more attention to them.[/QUOTE]
If you're not taking it at the value of the leaks themselves then you're doing it wrong. Assange also take the credibility away from those who attack him by the looks of their piss poor smear campaigns. He's an identifyable character in wikileaks, and everyman who misses his home and is being victimised by governments for letting people know the truth. He's not a hero but he's close.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.