[kerkeslager]

The truth is a narrative. Not all narratives are true, but calling something a narrative doesn't in any way disprove it.

Would you like to actually call out anything in Collateral Murder that you think wasn't exposing the truth?

I'm old enough to remember Collateral Murder. I'm old enough to remember it's video footage. Of members of the US military murdering people, and laughing about it. You can't dismiss that as "just a narrative", it's also the truth, and it's a fucked up truth that the public deserves to know about.

[phphphphp]

I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime, I make no claim that the release of collateral murder was a bad thing, rather, I am claiming that Julian Assange was never a noble person releasing leaked footage to expose the truth, he was a political performer, creating the narrative that he wanted to create, using leaks as props. Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in the years since) and cares only for the “truth” when it’s favourable to whatever agenda he has at the point in time.

You can be glad that collateral murder was released while also being deeply unhappy with Julian Assange’s motives and actions.

[kerkeslager]

> I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime

Well, that's quite a change from: "Those of us old enough to remember their original releases (like “Collateral Murder”) remember that wikileaks was always about building a narrative rather than exposing the truth."

So you admit leaking Collateral Murder was about exposing the truth? A truth which was a war crime? It seems like maybe you made a vague accusation you couldn't back up specifically there.

> Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in the years since) and cares only for the “truth” when it’s favourable to whatever agenda he has at the point in time.

Make a real accusation instead of being vague. If Assange's lack of loyalty to the truth has been shown, I haven't seen it, so please, tell us what evidence you have. Otherwise, this is just another vague accusation that you'll shift away from when confronted for specifics.

If you're going to claim Assange is dishonest, I'd like to see a) evidence he knowingly leaked false information, or b) evidence he knowingly withheld true information. Be specific, stop this vague handwaving.

[lmm]

Everyone has an agenda, even if that agenda is only that they want to think of themselves as a moral person. What matters is whether the person's actions are good or bad.

> Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in the years since) and cares only for the “truth” when it’s favourable to whatever agenda he has at the point in time.

He published the truth and spent over a decade in confinement for it. Isn't that enough?

[thefounder]

Ok, let's open some new positions for totally noble poeple to expose the truth. Anything less than noble should be put in prison regardless of the truth exposed. Any takers? Meanwhile let's see what b.s mainstream media is pushing. They are not less than noble and deserve the whole attention.

[boffinAudio]

Its a straw man argument. The thugs dropping bombs on innocent people every twenty minutes aren't good enough or honest enough, either. You only have to be marginally better than them - a very low bar - in order to effect change.

Which means, if you aren't interested in effecting change in the form of real justice for these war crimes and crimes against humanity, you're not one nanometer taller, in terms of moral authority, than the criminals dropping bombs on peoples heads - in your name.

[apercu]

Agreed. I find both of these things true:

People in government positions in the US and UK abused their power.

Julian Assange is not a good, or honest person.

[boffinAudio]

So you'll only accept evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and then take action about it within the context of your own democratic processes, if you get that evidence from a good and/or honest person?

Because honestly, this just keeps the door open for more crimes. Rarely is anyone ever good enough or honest enough - and neither of those conditions are required for addressing our heinous crimes against humanity, frankly. You just have to be good enough to know that war crimes and crimes against humanity are heinous, and honest enough to produce workable evidence that can be used to produce justice.

Assange is good enough and honest enough for that case, really - and if a person doesn't agree, they're a bootlicker thug. The WAR CRIMES have to stop. The CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY have to stop. It doesn't matter one iota what sort of person reports the evidence - the evidence is real. The crimes are real.

Assange's honesty doesn't change the enormous magnitude of the victims digging their loved ones out of the rubble, one bit.

[apercu]

Where did I say any of that?

War crimes are a serious problem, of course. But it's also quite possible that Assange's distribution of Russian propaganda affected elections in multiple countries and allowed for Russian human rights violations in Africa and Syria.

So you'll only accept evidence of war crimes if they are committed by the US?

And yes, I know you didn't write that but it's just as fair of a characterization as the one you provided.

[kerkeslager]

> Julian Assange is not a good, or honest person.

Good is subjective.

Honest, on the other hand is not, and if you're going to say he's not honest I'd like to see your evidence for that.

[apercu]

Intelligence analysis (at least those reported in US Senate investigations) show Russian-linked code and Russian language in the Wikileaks leak of the hacked DNC emails. Assange either lied (lies) about not receiving that content from Russian sources or is being disingenuous by sticking to a distinction that maybe there is a middle man in between the FSB/hackers and the individual(s) that uploaded the data/documents.

Completely ruins his credibility, no? That's not honest by any definition.

I am not a fan of US foreign policy, but also, have you noticed that, from the beginning (2011?), nearly every major Wikileaks release is US government or 5 eyes? Funny that.

Also, maybe look in to Assanges friend (and Russian antisemite) Israel Shamir. And look at Wikileaks activities (through Shamir) in Belarus.

Look, if Assange came out and said "I get a lot of my info from Russian intelligence sources and I want to further their agenda" he would be not necessarily a "good" person. But maybe an "honest" one.

[DANmode]

> Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (...) cares only for the “truth” when it’s favourable to whatever agenda he has at the point in time.

To what end are these agendas?

Being personally relevant? Paid? If one of these, how is he benefitting from those now?

Surely he'd be expecting his demise,given his knowledge of the organization(s) he shone light on.

We're talking about an ex-hacker type turned political leaker, not a talk news pundit.

There are no shared assumptions about these agendas, besides the narratives he and WL have provided. If you have some assumptions, share them?

[vuln]

That's the play, attack the person or how it was release but never acknowledge the contents of the release.

[fmajid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

[kornhole]

Wikileaks never published anything untruthful TMK. That is a far better record than almost any other publishing outlet.