Why do I think...
...that El Reg is really going to have fun with this TM thing!
Julian Assange™, globally famous Wikileaks supremo, has claimed that his organisation is "more accountable" than democratic governments and has also claimed credit for the rise of anti-corruption sentiment in India. He also suggested that the number of Google hits generated by typing an organisation's name followed by "blood on …
...that El Reg is really going to have fun with this TM thing!
>>> He invited people pondering the matter to Google "Wikileaks" and "blood on its hands" versus "Pentagon" and "blood on its hands" and compare the number of results*.
Is he really presenting this BS as a credible measure of accountability? He's more deluded than I thought.
"He's more deluded than I thought." Nope. I think that he's still got a far way to go before he reveals just how deluded he really is.
I imagine that Assange(tm) himself may have cause to doubt its credibility after: 1) umpty-something-thousand commentards on umpty-thousand sites all ask whether Googling "Wikileaks has blood on its hands" is an accurate measure of anything and 2) Google's webcrawler does its stuff.
Go on, mention that Wikileaks has blood on its hands in your post, you know you want to.....
"Third Reich" "blood on its hands": 8,510.
"Khmer Rouge" "blood on its hands": 10,800.
"Wikileaks" "blood on its hands": 30,300.
"Soviet Union" "blood on its hands": 41,300.
"Pentagon" "blood on its hands": 125,000.
So from this, we can see that Wikileaks is more than three times as dangerous as the Third Reich, but Stalin and the Pentagon are worse.
Give me a break.
Yes, he is deluded, but also there are moments of insight:
"He said that some leaks risked harming innocent people—“collateral damage, if you will”—but that he could not weigh the importance of every detail in every document. [...] A year and a half ago, WikiLeaks published the results of an Army test, conducted in 2004, of electromagnetic devices designed to prevent IEDs from being triggered. The document revealed key aspects of how the devices functioned and also showed that they interfered with communication systems used by soldiers—information that an insurgent could exploit. By the time WikiLeaks published the study, the Army had begun to deploy newer technology, but some soldiers were still using the devices. I asked Assange if he would refrain from releasing information that he knew might get someone killed. He said that he had instituted a “harm-minimization policy,” whereby people named in certain documents were contacted before publication, to warn them, but that there were also instances where the members of WikiLeaks might get “blood on our hands."
And so it is that others have said....
"Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.
Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.” "
"After the NYT published articles based on classified documents WikiLeaks provided on the US-led war in Afghanistan, Assange was “angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared – rightly, as it turned out – that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets,” Keller writes."
"Assange's apparent gung-ho attitude in an early meeting to naming U.S. informants stunned his media collaborators, the new book claimed.
The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'"
Please note that, for quoting facts, Julians little friends will rate this down. I can only smile because it demonstrates their difficulty with reality.
Being rated by dunces does not alter the truth one tiny bit.
>>>He invited people pondering the matter to Google "Wikileaks" and "blood on its hands" versus "Pentagon" and "blood on its hands" and compare the number of results*.
Clearly nobody told him that The Colbert Report is satire, so he actually believes that truth is determined by the market.
"The Register" "blood on its hands": 4980
"El Reg" "blood on its hands": 20
"The Pope" "blood on its hands": 24800
"You" "blood on its hands": 523000
"Snooki" "blood on its hands": 3920
"andre the giant" "blood on its hands": 17
"the moderatrix" "blood on its hands": zero hits (so far!)
"The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.''"
Back in the Dark Ages when I was in Middle School, we had a short session on critical reading and word "slanting" ("I am big, you are heavy, he is fat," "I am a freedon-fighter, he is a terrorist." and so on.
Has Assange ever clarified the difference between "whistle-blowers" and "informants"?
Problem is these are for the most part a grouping of unsubstantiated claims by people with either an axe to grind or a vested interest in running Assange/Wikileaks down. They may or may not be true, but can't be labeled as facts. They are in dispute and unless you were there how can you know the truth?
Wikileaks did in fact offer the US government the opportunity to have input into redacting documents (which is the normal practice)(the proof of this is on Wikileaks site and undisputed by the US government). They refused, so that a few early document releases were inadequately redacted is as much the fault of the US government as it is Wikileaks.
The CIA as far back as 2008 planned to destroy Wikileaks according to a leaked document. The document can be obtained at http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18_Mar_2008
The summary of this document;
This document is a classified (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks. ``The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to WikiLeaks.org cannot be ruled out. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses ``trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whistleblowers, the report recommends ``The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site. [As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that ``Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the WikiLeaks.org website. The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks---U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.
>He's more deluded than I thought.
And he's a self-obsessed, self-important tosser who gets off on publicity.
Thing is, I think wikileaks is a good idea. But He's spoiling it for me.
Perhaps you were addressing me, I do not know. However, the material I cite includes the words of St Julian himself and his friend Birgitta Jonsdottir. There's no need for me to defend or to adumbrate. Assange clearly regards Afghan informants in a theocratic regime to 'have it coming'. Perhaps the same is true of Assange and his source[s]. What do you think?
Just in case a reminder is needed these theocratic creatures abuse (to put a gentle emphasis on the true horror of their deeds) people in their own country, and gave shelter to people who caused the deaths of some 3,000 in Manhattan, one day about 10 years ago. People unable to escape from the encroaching horror of death by burning avgas threw themselves out of the building, to a faster death.
Then there is this:
--"Has Assange ever clarified the difference between "whistle-blowers" and "informants"?"
Is there a difference?
Has he actually shown any more concern about 'whistle blowers' than about 'informants'?
It is not clear this is Assange's opinion, because as mentioned, most of these supposed facts are in dispute. To claim you have some sort of fly on the wall knowledge is a thinly veiled attempt at demonisation, as is your 9/11 reference.
"earth is round": 720,000
"earth is flat": 5,700,000.
This should become the standard answer to that type of reasoning.
Aw, you're no fun.
"the moderatrix" "blood in its hands": 1
"Rafael 1" "blood on its hands" : 4 (is there something you're not telling us?)
wikileaks blood on its hands : 3,680,000
pentagon blood on its hands : 3,630,000
"It is not clear this is Assange's opinion, because as mentioned, most of these supposed facts are in dispute. To claim you have some sort of fly on the wall knowledge is a thinly veiled attempt at demonisation, as is your 9/11 reference."
Or perhaps you should choose your idols more carefully.
"Please note that, for quoting facts, Julians little friends will rate this down. "
I'm rating it down because I'm sick of you ending your posts with pathetic attempts to intimidate people into not downvoting you.
"Or perhaps you should choose your idols more carefully."
And whats your point?
Obviously the combined resources of the US intelligence services don't consider Assange as an idiot. Otherwise why would they be expending so much time and resources on discrediting him and Wikileaks?
Even his most ardent critics openly admit his intelligence, expert planning capabilities and technical expertise.
Many people blindly considered President Bush jnr an idiot. When you consider his aims, this perception gave him the room to achieve exactly what he wanted. So who were the idiots in that case?
"something exists": 104,000,000
"nothing exists": 113,000,000
"we are in the matrix": 189,000,000
"shakje is god": 62,600
"shakje is not god": 8,930
It may have passed you by, but I thought everyone knew that even an idiot can be dangerous?
Doesn't matter how smart or otherwise you are, put the wrong information/weapon/whatever into your hand and you could be dangerous.
Would you consider all rogue gunmen to be smart? I'm sure you'd consider them dangerous though.
So whether energy is being expended by the Govt or not has pretty much zero bearing on whether or not the man is an idiot. Personally I think he's acting like an idiot, but is probably much smarter than this (much like the reference you made to Bush).
Problem is, he could have the highest IQ on the planet, but when his ego is doing the driving it just isn't going to show
>>"I'm rating it down because I'm sick of you ending your posts with pathetic attempts to intimidate people into not downvoting you."
I hardly think it counts as /intimidation/ - looks more getting retaliation in first after extensive experience of that particular subset of people who seriously do downvote posts even if the posts are entirely factual if the facts don't fit with what they want to believe, or who downvote simple questions if the honest answer to the question is something that they don't want to read.
You need to read a few more of his/her posts. There is a consistent pattern of it and it's pathetic.
"getting retaliation in first" is an excuse people use for attacking others without provocation.
"You vote with your wallets every week if you believe that our work is worthwhile or not," he continued. "If you believe we have erred, you do not support us."
and yet Wikileaks is independent and impartial? For how much longer?
Throwing up 15'000 previously unaccounted-for dead Afghans [Iraq war logs reveal 15,000 previously unlisted civilian deaths: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/true-civilian-body-count-iraq] _does_ count for something.
And all because a pipeline didn't get okayed and a frat boy and a poodle get instrumented in a jiffy. Nice.
"And all because a pipeline didn't get okayed and a frat boy and a poodle get instrumented in a jiffy. Nice."
I guess you're making your decisions based on inuendo and rumors and jokes.
The reality is that the Bush Administration actually believed that Saddam had WMDs.
After his capture, Saddam admitted to this charade but was surprised that the US fell for it. It was meant to keep Iran at bay.
It wasn't just Bush, but Congress voted to go to war too.
is another tool in the governmental box. In that case it was used quite deliberately. Ref interviews with the Bush govt's disaffected Iraqi source.
>The reality is that the Bush Administration actually believed that Saddam had WMDs.
A fair number of then believe that the world was made in 4004BC by a sky fairy.
Troll, cos we don't have any other supernatural beings.
Any analysis of Assange's ridiculous assertion that the number of hits on google for "Pentagon"/"Wikileaks" and "Blood on their hands" is indicative of how relatively bad they are should take account of the amount of time each institution has been around for.
For ease, (and because it's as sensible as the assertion itself) I'm using the 'housing' for each institution rather than the institution itself (so the wikileaks website rather than whatever 'whistleblower' network they had set up, and The Pentagon, rather the the Department of Defense) we have:
Finished building in 1943.
125000 / (2011-1942) = 1 850 (roughly)
30000 / (2011-2006) = 6000
Previously I was on wikileaks' side, but having taken Assange's words as gospel I must conclude that he is more relatively evil and in need of stopping than The Pentagon.
..typing in "the register" and "blood on their hands" shows this post on the very first page, out of 7,000-something results.
The Register must be evil! Well. I suppose at least Simon Travaglia is.
Googled "mother theresa blood on hands" and came up with 1,330,000 results.
Googled "Assange Blood on hands and came up with about 452,000 results.
In the lead though is...................
........................ "Popeye blood on hands" with about 1,510,000
if you actually quote "blood on hands"
and spell Mother Teresa correctly
...when you're clearly more evil than St. Julian ;-)
"dennis wilson blood on hands": 554,000 results
Homo hominem lupus est!
if they'd had some actual whistleblowers there.
Pentagon also saved some lives, believe it or not. Entire Bosnia and Kosovo woud become Srebrenica mass masacre in the middle of Europe if they wouldn't stop Milosevic. That's one example. AssAnge (tm) has yet to prove that he's saved lives.
That was a UN peacekeeping mission NOT just the Pentagon or the US ... I don't think Hollywood has rewritten that piece of history yet has it?
Saying "the Pentagon has saved lives" might be true but by that yardstick it's also true that Hitler (I call Godwin's Law on myself) made peoples' lives better by pushing for "family cars" (Volkswagon) and heavily backing the construction of the autobahn.
It's kind of weighting your argument to highlight the good points and downplay the bad ... Julian Assange - founding Wikileaks good, being a monumental, egotistical twit ... not so much.
Saying "the Pentagon has saved lives" *IS* true to all the Bosnians that survived the Milosevic 4 year siege, silently tolerated and thus supported by indifferent people like yourself.
About 577,000 results (0.27 seconds)
Isn't Jesus known for having blood on his hands in a more literal sense? Something about nails piercing his skin or some such?
To be fair....Imma get into a bit of a tiff over what you just said since it is not based on irrefutable evidence.
You were going on what you hear in the Bible. I'm not saying it didn't happen either, but is there any physical proof that anything that was said to happen in The Bible, which was put together at The Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., AFTER His supposed existence, actually took place?
Why were other gospels removed?
To put it another way: The individuals that put together this book were not even conceived when He was said to be here.
Distortion to serve one's purpose. People that say that they find the Bible to be a complete work and won't open themselves up to other gospels written by actual characters named in the Bible are simply ignorant and don't want to know that there may be another aspect to the story. I.E. the Gospels of Mary and Judas.
Without a complete set of information from said individuals, is it literally IMPOSSIBLE to know (as they call it) the Way, the TRUTH, and the Light.
IF there is a supreme being, I think he would want us to find out for ourselves. Not blindly listen to something someone behind an altar tells us.
I am merely opening myself up to all of the many possibilities.
You don't think it is irrefutable that Jesus is famous (at least in part) for having his hands pierced? Whether that is historically accurate or not is rather immaterial, is it not?
George Washington is famous (in part) for saying that he cannot tell a lie, even though that tale is not historically accurate. Thus, there are Google hits that roughly correlate with that.
once he is extradited and put on trial? Or will the prosecution simply need to present the results of searching for "Julian Assange sexual assault" on google.se, and wait for Mr Trade Mark to confess all?
Here is someone who should be subjected to a mental health act detention order, and instead (thanks to the wonders of the world wide interwebs) he is busy melting down in public.
Would never have happened when I were a lad.
or the messiah... hes just a very naughty boy.
I had forgotten he was still around. Please go away
Assange as traitor a vexed question? It's just a plain stupid question. He is not American so how can he be a traitor?
And if the article author and author's of comments here bothered to read the cables (and other releases), they would know there are many things revealed such as 10's of thousands previously unreported civilian deaths in the current "War On Terror". These facts alone (and there are many other important revelations by Wikileaks) make Wikileaks and Assange an important addition to the worlds media. A media that all too often acts like an extension of government press offices, with holding information simply to appease the government in power, win influence, be on the senator or president's speed dial. The New York Times, by its own admission helped cover up the Raymond Davis incident, a former Special Forces soldier (now working for CIA via company once named Blackwater) who shot and killed two Pakistanis on January 27. Why did they conceal this? Because the US government asked them to. No matters of national security, no reason given, one can only assume the US government wants to keep what's going on in Pakistan as quite as possible. When the mainstream press becomes so subservient that it keeps important news stories like this from the public, for no good reason, I say thank god we now have Wikileaks.
No one disputes that at times he gets a bit carried away, but can all of you honestly say you don't? At least he is out there trying to make a better world. What are all of you doing to make a better society?
None of the items you list have come exclusively from Wikileaks afaik which takes most of the wind out of your sails. Wikileaks is not the be all and end all of whistle blowing and investigative journalism thank god so to suggest it is is somewhat disengeuous. You can approve of the concept without either approving of Wikileaks or Asshats current actions.
The previously undisclosed civilian deaths in the "War on Terror" did come from Wikileaks.
I did not claim the New York Times cover up source was Wikileak's. This was used as an example of a press too compliant to government deceit.
There's a great article on Salon.com about the cause of US media's compliance to government doctrine, makes interesting reading. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/10/journalism/index.html
Bravo, Assange, you've just lost the war.