Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Julian Assange, Neo Nazis, et al. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Or : Why is WikiLeaks employing a well-known Holocaust denier and his disgraced son?

    Wahlström and Shamir, father and son, are the WikiLeaks representatives for two rather large geographic areas. According to Swedish Radio’s investigation, Wahlström is the gatekeeper of the cables in Scandinavia, and “has the power to decide” which newspapers are provided access and what leaks they are allowed to see.
    Read the article in full here.

    More concerning figures are here.

    What impression do these articles now make you have of Wikileaks?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    People in these circles tend to have extreme views. Would't be surprised if there were a few hardcore militant commies working with him to. Anyway he is releasing pure information so his beliefs do not really matter
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    People in these circles tend to have extreme views. Would't be surprised if there were a few hardcore militant commies working with him to. Anyway he is releasing pure information so his beliefs do not really matter
    As the first article makes clear, the power to release documents on Wikileaks behalf has led to false information been released by the people that work for Assange.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So you attempt to discredit a whole organization by throwing up dirt on one or two members?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoliceStory)
    As the first article makes clear, the power to release documents on Wikileaks behalf has led to false information been released by the people that work for Assange.
    Like what? I have not heard anything about false info
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    just because you disagree with someone's views that does not make that person or his views wrong. you need to learn to stop being so bigoted. your hypocrisy does nothing but invalidates your argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    just because you disagree with someone's views that does not make that person or his views wrong. you need to learn to stop being so bigoted. your hypocrisy does nothing but invalidates your argument.
    so being a Nazi, believing that you are better than someone else because of your ethnicity, is not wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dnaalpha)
    so being a Nazi, believing that you are better than someone else because of your ethnicity, is not wrong?
    I think it is wrong, but that's his belief so what gives us the right to tell him he's wrong and that he isn't allowed his own beliefs? It's hypocritical to use your freedoms to try to remove others'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    I think it is wrong, but that's his belief so what gives us the right to tell him he's wrong and that he isn't allowed his own beliefs? It's hypocritical to use your freedoms to try to remove others'.
    he has the right to be a nazi but we have a duty to challenge people who have those views
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dnaalpha)
    he has the right to be a nazi but we have a duty to challenge people who have those views
    *******s do we, we have a duty to allow people to make up their own damn minds.

    the soviets had a 'duty' to 'challenge' people who disagreed with their views, i.e. the purges and the 60,000,000 deaths that followed..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    pfft, as other people have said, no false info has been reported on to my knowledge. Their beliefs don't affect the information given out. They can believe whatever they like if it does not affect other people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of grammatical errors in this article..... well I have spotted about two.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Weird people in the org. even if we believe (for some reason) that they'd never lie or be unknowingly manipulated, How do we know that they aren't suppressing leaks that run counter to their prejudices? Telling half the story is as misleading as telling porkies.

    who is this self appointed watchdog accountable to apart from it's members?

    Can't understand the current fashionable bien pensant infatuation with Assange tbh.

    seems to be entirely down to a recent crop of leaks that resonate nicely with fashionable pseudo progressive anti-americanism afaict.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...nd_controversy

    Let's learn something about this guy who wrote this eh?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dnaalpha)
    so being a Nazi, believing that you are better than someone else because of your ethnicity, is not wrong?
    Well the whole point of freedom of speech really is that a Nazi will tell us their views and we will then argue against them. At least that's how it would work in a rational society

    Stimulate debate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Anyway he is releasing pure information so his beliefs do not really matter


    How do we know this?

    Evidently he doesn't release everything, he has explicitly told us just as much.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    How do we know this?

    Evidently he doesn't release everything, he has explicitly told us just as much.
    What reason would he have to hold anything back? Someone like Julian Assange would not ask him to look after the info if he knew he would screw with it. Plus from what I have heard a couple of Gurdian journalists were given memo sticks with all the cables on as well
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Well the whole point of freedom of speech really is that a Nazi will tell us their views and we will then argue against them. At least that's how it would work in a rational society

    Stimulate debate
    yeah completely agree, its like the BNP being on question time. they did terribly in the election because people could see them for what they really were.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chimaira)
    *******s do we, we have a duty to allow people to make up their own damn minds.

    the soviets had a 'duty' to 'challenge' people who disagreed with their views, i.e. the purges and the 60,000,000 deaths that followed..
    yeah they can make up their own minds, and they of course have the freedom to think what they want, but nearly 400,000 British people didn't give their lives to defeat fascism only for us to allow neo-Nazi's to go around preaching hatred and for us to not even tell them we think its wrong?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is an ad-hominem argument. You're covering the bigger picture and not confronting what Wikileaks is all about.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.