Julian Assange: NATO collaborators "Deserve to die"

[Schadenfroh]

So says someone sitting in on his meetings.
http://www.dailytech.com/Wikileaks+...hanistan+They+Deserve+to+Die/article21724.htm

He recalls a meeting he was invited to about the publication of the war memos. He remembers pleading with Assange to redact the names of tribal elders and U.S. informants who were exposed cooperating with the U.S. and could be the subject of deadly retribution. He comments, "Julian was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them. And we said: 'Julian, we’ve got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.'"

"And he said: 'These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.' And a silence fell around the table."

This is a ghastly accusation, if it is true, then he appears to be showing his true colors.

He has denied having said such:

Mr. Assange seemingly denied the allegation calling it "absolutely false... completely false."

But he qualifies, "We don't want innocent people with a decent chance of being hurt to be hurt."

The possibility is left open that Mr. Assange views U.S. allies (such as cooperating tribal leaders) as culpable accomplices, and is obfuscating the fact that he indeed wishes them ill.

Seems like there might be a bit of fund raising going on as well with the donated information:

According to Mr. Domscheit-Berg, Mr. Assange initially tried to sell journalists the "Collateral Murder" footage, which showed a U.S. helicopter gunship gunning down innocent civilians in Iraq. This surprised Mr. Domscheit-Berg as he had been told that the goal of Wikileaks was always "just publish".

But Mr. Assange didn't want to publish the information -- not until he received a small ransom. He demanded a payment of $1M USD for exclusive access to the information.

Not sure what to think of this, the guy has made loads of enemies and plenty of people want to spread stuff about him, but it seems to be really piling up. I guess the only way to help verify what he said would be if another person in that meeting came forward.

 

[Craig234]

That's a fair summary. It's a credible claim, but Assange has not had a history of denying what he's done IMO.

One interesting note is what a double standard we have for 'informers'. Any time someone on OUR side is one, many rush to scream to kill them.

But if it's an informer on the other side helping us, it's a very different story and they're barbarians for killing them.

There was a very chilling segment on a documentary recently where a journalist spent time with the Taliban, who caught an Afghan 'red handed' being an informant, and cooly brought him back to where their leader, and then walked him off camera and executed him.

Assange has some ideas about disrupting the operation of groups who are doing harmful things, by preventing their being able to keep what they do secret.

I can imagine he viewed informants as part of those operations to disrupt.

 

[Fern]

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

And I suspect if proven he willingly/knowing disclosed names of Afgans helping the USA his chances of some sort of prosecution or consideration as an "enemy of the USA" are greatly enhanced.

If he was a customer of my life insurance company I'd cancel his policy.

Fern

 

[dali71]

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

And I suspect if proven he willingly/knowing disclosed names of Afgans helping the USA his chances of some sort of prosecution or consideration as an "enemy of the USA" are greatly enhanced.

If he was a customer of my life insurance company I'd cancel his policy.

Fern

Time to call in Seal Team Six, imho.

 

[OCGuy]

He deserves the same fate as Osama. Hopefully the FSB takes care of him.

 

[Throckmorton]

That's a fair summary. It's a credible claim, but Assange has not had a history of denying what he's done IMO.

One interesting note is what a double standard we have for 'informers'. Any time someone on OUR side is one, many rush to scream to kill them.

But if it's an informer on the other side helping us, it's a very different story and they're barbarians for killing them.

There was a very chilling segment on a documentary recently where a journalist spent time with the Taliban, who caught an Afghan 'red handed' being an informant, and cooly brought him back to where their leader, and then walked him off camera and executed him.

Assange has some ideas about disrupting the operation of groups who are doing harmful things, by preventing their being able to keep what they do secret.

I can imagine he viewed informants as part of those operations to disrupt.

Are you being serious? You think it's strange that we LIKE collaborators working in the interest of the people of Afghanistan, and not ones working for the Taliban?

 

[LegendKiller]

It's been obvious for quite some time that Assange only cares about himself and his agenda of hurting America as much as possible. He doesn't care about how he does it, who he uses to do it, who gets killed because of it, or whether or not it is the "right" thing to do. He just wants to see America burn. He isn't pro-information, or some type of transparency fighter, he's just anti-American.

Only the intellectually blind can't see that.

 

[Sinsear]

Too bad he isn't dead yet. The world will be a better place the day that smug asshole dies.

 

[Craig234]

Are you being serious? You think it's strange that we LIKE collaborators working in the interest of the people of Afghanistan, and not ones working for the Taliban?

Of course not. Let's try an analogy.

Of course we're for our own troops not getting killed, and the other side's getting killed.

But imagine someone saying 'we caught an enemy soldier! Let's TORTURE HIM TO DEATH AND TRACK DOWN HIS FAMILY AND TORTURE THEM TOO!!!!!"

And then our soldier is taken prisoner and the same person says "THEY HAD BETTER PUT HIM IN A NICE HOTEL AND NOT JAIL AND NOT TOUCH A HAIR ON HIS HEAD!!!!!"

This is simply for illustrating how being 'for your side and against the other' can be different than a more extreme double standard.

And that's what I'm saying, that we have a lot of people who aren't just 'for informants who help us and against informants who held the other side', but more than that have a different standard between the two, reacting in horror at the very idea that informants on our side might be viewed as anything other than "innocent people", rather than as participants legitimately vulnerable to retaliation including killing.

It's not just the opposition to not disclosing them to protect them, but wanting to characterize it as some sort of 'PUTTING INNOCENT LIFE AT RISK!!!!"

While the standards for the other direction are far, far from any notion of 'innocent'. Torture is regularly suggested, just for the satisfaction of punishment.

Assange has less of a dog in this fight between 'our side' and 'their side'. He's more about disrupting corruption, secretive operation of any side.

So he doesn't so much have the same protectiveness of informants for 'our side' and hate for 'their side', but something between them, I suspect more similar for either.

 

[Craig234]

It's been obvious for quite some time that Assange only cares about himself and his agenda of hurting America as much as possible. He doesn't care about how he does it, who he uses to do it, who gets killed because of it, or whether or not it is the "right" thing to do. He just wants to see America burn. He isn't pro-information, or some type of transparency fighter, he's just anti-American.

Only the intellectually blind can't see that.

That would explain why he immediately, covertly, sent all the documents to the enemies of America, unredacted, rather than working with leading newspapers to publish them.

 

[Jaskalas]

He is in effect saying that peaceful moderate Muslims deserved death for not being Taliban. Execute him.

 

[LegendKiller]

That would explain why he immediately, covertly, sent all the documents to the enemies of America, unredacted, rather than working with leading newspapers to publish them.

Did he work with them or the rest of Wikileaks?

 

[ProfJohn]

Maybe we should leak him some classified Israeli stuff to leak and then let the Mossad take care of him.

 

[Craig234]

He is in effect saying that peaceful moderate Muslims deserved death for not being Taliban. Execute him.

So, he said that peaceful moderate Muslims who did not collaborate with the foreign invaders of Afghanistan should be killed? Where did he say that? You're the murderer.

 

[Broheim]

Maybe we should leak him some classified Israeli stuff to leak and then let the Mossad take care of him.

sounds like an idea, Mossad always gets shit done.

I've always hated Assange so I hope he gets waterboarded and then dragged out back and put down, it would make the internet a much better place.

 

[Zebo]

Hope they get him in a secret prison. Let the "collaborators" lose on him they still use drills and blow torches.

Course this could all be psy ops on us. Best to do things legal like due process like so we know.

 

[Craig234]

sounds like an idea, Mossad always gets shit done.

I've always hated Assange so I hope he gets waterboarded and then dragged out back and put down, it would make the internet a much better place.

Another murderer.

So you admire Al Queda 'getting shit done' on 9/11 by your amoral views.

 

[PottedMeat]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/

I missed the first half of the Frontline report but -

I thought it was funny how he cut off the NYT ( but not the others ) from the documents after they didn't want to publish informant names claiming 'where's the respect?'. Then The Guardian says behind his back 'deal's a deal' and shares them anyway haha. He sounded like a little shit.

 

[Broheim]

Another murderer.

So you admire Al Queda 'getting shit done' on 9/11 by your amoral views.

another douchebag who can't see Assange for what he is.

I killed Al-Queda for a living in Afghanistan so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say no, no I don't admire Al-Queda.

and don't try and push your morals on me by calling my views amoral.

 

[Nebor]

another douchebag who can't see Assange for what he is.

I killed Al-Queda for a living in Afghanistan so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say no, no I don't admire Al-Queda.

and don't try and push your morals on me by calling my views amoral.

This quote was made for people like Craig:
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!

 

[dmcowen674]

Julian Assange: NATO collaborators "Deserve to die"

So says someone sitting in on his meetings.
http://www.dailytech.com/Wikileaks+...hanistan+They+Deserve+to+Die/article21724.htm
This is a ghastly accusation, if it is true, then he appears to be showing his true colors.

He has denied having said such:

Seems like there might be a bit of fund raising going on as well with the donated information:

He is Republican backed, Murdock and Fox is funding Wikileaks so he doesn't need fundraising.

 

[Craig234]

This quote was made for people like Craig:
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!

You're a psychopath, so of course you hide behind some quote such as that. You rush to call for killing; you can't tell the difference between defense and offense.

 

[Craig234]

He is Republican backed, Murdock and Fox is funding Wikileaks so he doesn't need fundraising.

Do you have any evidence for that?

When Murdoch isn't secretly giving a million dollars to the GOP, I can see some chance he'd have a media interest in the information and stories Wikileaks provides...

But it seems pretty unlikely given his politics.

 

[werepossum]

He is in effect saying that peaceful moderate Muslims deserved death for not being Taliban. Execute him.

This, if he truly said this. Problem is, how would we ever truly know which one is telling the truth?

Wait - waterboarding!

 

[dmcowen674]

Do you have any evidence for that?

When Murdoch isn't secretly giving a million dollars to the GOP, I can see some chance he'd have a media interest in the information and stories Wikileaks provides...

Just look at the ads, he pays for Wikileaks advertising.

The funding is in plain sight.