Comments on: “Julian Assange Denounces Hactivists”

By: lawguy

lawguy — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:09:29 +0000

If this is supposed to be funny it isn’t and if it is serious it is sad.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:44:41 +0000

Virgil, the last time Somali Piracy was claimed to hav been carried out on my behalf by the pirates, I did too totally denounce it!

Mankel, I have no idea what you are fucking talking about. Explain yourself.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:45:53 +0000

Assange Freed: http://tinyurl.com/27vnsxw

By: Mankel

Mankel — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:39:26 +0000

No matter what you do, “Mr.” Laden. There will be consequences…

By: Virgil Samms

Virgil Samms — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:29:41 +0000

“Greg Laden denounces Somali pirates.” That would be an interesting headline to see. Even more interesting is the fact, as far as I know, that we haven’t seen it. For that, there should be consequences.

By: Robert S.

Robert S. — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:42:43 +0000

Does not ‘support’ the attacks? BIG FUCKING DEAL! This is from the Wikileaks official statement on the DDoS attacks.

â??We do not condemn nor approve of DDoS attacksâ?

http://wikileaks.ch/articles/2010/Statement-on-DDOS-attacks.html

Look’s like wikileaks doesn’t ‘support’ the attacks either.

By the way, back in ’08 wikileaks published the addresses of every childporn site that was being blocked by the danish govt, that was when they crossed the moral event horizon.

How exactly is wikileaks not the exact sort of organization that Assange claims to be fighting against.

By: Sailor

Sailor — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:04:11 +0000

Julian Assange the man of Wikieleaks and Ickyleaks

By: Ellie

Ellie — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:57:45 +0000

“considering the two posts (this one and the one you insist we read NOW) came out at almost exactly the same time, and as noted this has not been said anywhere else,”

Well quite, Greg can’t be expected to know everything, which is why I posted it :/ I don’t think I’ve said anything to imply I thought anyone reading this should have known already have I? And seriously, you guys are still unhappy because a man who is still locked up in isolation (he was granted bail but it is being appealed so he’s still inside at time of writing) hasn’t done more to decry something as unimportant as this? What would satisfy you? An affidavit written in blood? How about the likelihood that his lawyer has mentioned it to press other than JoK and they just haven’t reported it? Would that be his fault too for not making them? And the rest of organisation are probably too busy defending against the various attacks the US government are using to get them taken offline to have time for press conferences. Funny how you don’t seem too concerned about that threat to global freedom of speech…

As for my “FFS” and “now*” you think *that* was OTT but loved the humour in Greg’s original post?! I was responding to the mood in the rest of the thread and that intro line was “90% a joke”.

* no caps in my original version, that’s you own addition and, I assume, reflects how you read my words. You’ve offended yourself by reading emphasis where the was none.

By: Irene

Irene — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:29:46 +0000

Ellie, considering the two posts (this one and the one you insist we read NOW) came out at almost exactly the same time, and as noted this has not been said anywhere else, the FFS was probably over the top. And I agree with Greg. This is not a “denouncement”. It is a casual statement made off the cuff that reached our ears by chance and not as a formal statement. If some guy decided to not write a blog post it would not be known at all, would it? Julian Assange is in his own world with his own problems, understandably, but Wikileaks is an organization and not just him, isn’t it?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:22:05 +0000

“A has stated via his lawyer that he “does not support” the DOA attacks.”

Seriously? Cool. Never mind, then.

It is a shame, though, that the not very strong statement “does not support the attacks” is incidentally mentioned almost as an afterthought on a blog in which someone reports a conversation with someone. That is a far cry from what should really happen. In fact, its deniable. In fact, it’s probably playing both sides of the fence.

Yeah, not cool. I’m still pissed. This is not good enough. But it is something, thanks for the info.