I can sniff you from afar

  • 37 Posts
  • 496 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: November 9th, 2022
  • deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.mltoGenZedong@lemmygrad.ml•Was Assange an asset for the US government?
    1·
    2 hours ago

    You can’t make the claim Assange/Wikileaks is a US asset just because their leaks didn’t lead to the collapse of the US or significant change.

    Did ye just handwave a bunch of evidence right here in the article?

    Again, notably absent were US soldiers, intelligence analysts, senatorial aides or anything of the sort. But somehow, Wikileaks easily found Chinese dissidents to help them (despite Chinese dissidents saying for years that speaking up against the Chinese government is very dangerous to their lives!)

    John Young, the founder of cryptome.org and a member of Wikileaks from the start, left the group in early 2007, calling it a “CIA conduit.” He has since rescinded that statement, but leaked more than 150 pages of emails sent between Wikileaks founders when he left.

    It is however concerning that in 2011, Assange told Reuters that “China is [Wikileaks’] real enemy” and that Wikileaks was looking at ways to circumvent their “censorship”,

  • deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.mltoGenZedong@lemmygrad.ml•Was Assange an asset for the US government?
    1·
    3 hours ago

    Then what happened to those Chinese anti-gov’t leaders that made up the original Wikileaks? Did they just go to other NED-funded USAID-funded projects?

    Assange may have been a federal asset, but he face turned in 2010, plus, didn’t ye type in this:

    I am purposely not singling out Assange here, and that is because he is only one piece of Wikileaks. We will come back to him later but Wikileaks is certainly bigger than just Assange — or at least started out that way — and it is important to separate the two.

  • deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.mltoGenZedong@lemmygrad.ml•Was Assange an asset for the US government?
    31·
    2 days ago

    I mean, there were some (possibly political and false) rape allegations in Sweden that were quickly dropped then brought up again… however

    Editted

    elaboration

    The condom used for the rape, the main physical evidence, however, didn’t contain his DNA however

    Third, as far as AA is concerned, even the Swedish prosecution never suggested that the conduct alleged by her could amount to “rape”. In a Twitter-message of 22 April 2013, AA herself publicly denied having been raped (jag har inte blivit våldtagen). AA also stated in a tabloid interview that Assange is not violent and that neither she nor SW felt afraid of him. While I agree with the prosecution that AA’s allegations, if proven to be true, could amount to sexual assault other than rape, the fact that she submitted as evidence a condom, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, which carried no DNA of either Assange or AA, seriously undermines her credibility.

    While at the police station, SW even texted that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26); and that she was “chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him” because she “only wanted him to take a test” (17:06).

    That, and he seems to be a libertarian, if you ctrl + f “libertarian” into wikipedia

    In 2010, Assange said he was a libertarian and that “WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical” and to expose injustice, not to be neutral.[34][556]