Why Are People Hating on Julian Assange?
I thought he was like one of the most important whistleblowers of our time exposing war crimes and shit. Some of you don't wanna see him live another day, why is that?
I thought he was like one of the most important whistleblowers of our time exposing war crimes and shit. Some of you don't wanna see him live another day, why is that?
Because obvious Russian asset is obvious.
Here’s the full story
if you're going to pretend like that's solid proof, then you're the asset.
assange did also mention that they were reluctant to publish russian documents because russia isn't reluctant to assassinate people
Look at me, I care about human freedoms so much that my life is more important, so I'll help Russia to paint a skewed picture instead.
nice try, shilly... but there's a huge difference between "reluctant to get killed by russia" and "helping them paint a skewed picture"
btw, the DNC leaks were not from a russian hacker, they were from Seth Rich, who was killed for it.
also, america was off limits for many years for similar reasons.
and they're still in the process of extraditing him to slowly kill him in prison
You are aware that people can disagree with your conclusions without being a shill, right? Seth Rich’s parents would also like you to stop disrespecting his memory by saying he was murdered by the DNC, they even refute he was the DNC email leaker.
if you made any sense in your "disagreement" other than vitriolic repetition of easily discredited lies, well then i'd consider you might not be a shill.
the DNC leaks were an inside job. This was proven forensically by Bill Binny, an NSA whistleblower...
Seth Rich fit the MO and was murdered shortly thereafter by people that didn't take anything... killed, not robbed...
it could've been not him, but there's a lot more reason to think it was him over russian hackers... or are you really taking the government's word on leaks about the government?
his parents would have no way of knowing any better than me, so i don't see how that's relevant...
Bill Benny, Trump Qult member, enthusiastically refutes reports that exonerates the DNC of murder. Shocking. You accuse me of taking the government’s word when you’re taking the word of someone with an agenda. I mention Seth’s parents because they have a a vested interest in finding out the truth of what happened to their son and their conclusion is the DNC leaker conspiracy theory is a a load of bullshit.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links
big claims
That part’s far less relevant than when he admitted he had no means of assessing the source of the guccifer leaks when he reexamined the docs.
cool story bro
Truthfully it was also articles about them releasing DNC hacks but refusing to do rnc hacks that seemed most obvious to me.
At best they're extremely partisan at worst they are a Russian asset.
no they did not! they never had leaks from the RNC and as such, could not release it.
you know they don't do any hacking, right?
people (usually whistleblowers) leak info to wikiLEAKS, and then they verify it and publish it.
they would love to do rnc leaks if they had that information...
Yeah, quite a few that opposed Putin just so happen to walk out of windows and poison themselves, one even put cuffs on beat the shit out of himself and gladly ate poison, while locked up
and let's not forget Alexei Navalny
That's the last person I was referencing
well good thing you didn't forget him.
Yeah last I heard they had found bruising on his corpse and suspected that he poisoned himself
i wonder why they even bother lying about it at this point...
He’s . . . not different, that’s why he was referenced
Couldn't have that in a personality cult
couldn't have non sequitur statements? well you just did
I guess you would say that if you didn't understand. Makes sense that you don't, given that you've been sucked into the cult of assange
yep, it has nothing to do with the
incredibly important information wikileaks has published
no no... it's a cult omg oh no
He's using the website as a vehicle to promote his own messiah complex, and idiots like you fall for it because it makes you feel edgy by association.
Give a plausible reason why he didn't release info about Russia.
they did not have that info to release.
wikileaks doesn't magically generate leaks, they wait until someone else submits leaks to them.
learn to read
nah
Unlike the US who is known to be very tolerant towards its enemies /s
Hillary Clinton wanted him assassinated... but yeah they don't usually assassinate journalists
Although they don’t stand up to or prevent other countries from doing it in any way
true but pretty far from the point...
From what I've read, it was good at first, then he started cherry picking and only releasing leaks that were convenient for him and aligned with his views.
Who are the ones determining what is "convenient" to Asange and what are their politics? Just because someone will make the accusation does not make it truth.
He's a leaker. He HAS to be selective. He might not even be getting valid info. He might be getting doctored info that would expose his sources if he leaked it, etc, etc. There is every valid reason he has to not publish something that people ignore when they make such accusations.
Wikileaks is accused of not releasing information that would be harmful to the reputation of Russia.
OK? and that magically makes his other leaks invalid?
I don't think people are saying the leaks he released are invalid. What they are saying is that him being selective with what he releases is the problem. If it doesn't align with his political views for example.
Because he didn't release something (dunno what because that's never been specified, but he should have pulled something out of his ass, I guess) about the other side, therefore his leaks regarding the DNC make him a Russian asset.
Give your head a shake.
It's weird how some of you on this comment thread are so hostile. I'm literally just answering OP's question about why people are hating on Assange. I'm not defending or attacking him myself. Try shaking your own head and read the comments properly first before replying.
Again, and that makes him someone we should ignore and call for the death of?
I understand why people wouldn't like him as a person. I'm not seeing the connection to OP's question about him being publically hated to the point where people want him dead.
THAT ... is absolutely not at all what you reference. People don't want him dead for simply avoiding stepping on Russian toes. I'm trying to get you to think about why that is.
OP did something dishonest by making the title and body TOTALLY different, in my opinion.
The title is why are people hating on him. Lots of good answers to that.
The body then switches it to wanting him dead. I don't think very many people want him dead. I think even the CIA/US Government want him alive and in jail rather than dead.
edit: I also think you were implying that disliking him was the same as disliking the idea of whistleblowers generally or wikileaks specifically, though you seem to have walked that back. It definitely doesn't, though the fact that wikileaks is cowed by dictators like Putin is definitely a red flag when compared to their stated mission.
I'm not calling for his death, what are you talking about? Only OP implied that and they don't even say who exactly is calling for it. I literally just replied to your comment saying:
So yes, that is absolutely what I'm referencing, that people don't have a problem with the leaks themselves, rather it's him holding back other leaks that benefit him or do not align with his views that is the problem.
You are replying to people on this comment thread as if we are all OP. How about YOU think why you're all hotheaded with people simply trying to answer OP's question.
Don't shoot the messenger.
I'm literally only asking for clarification.
Everyone is acting like a bias is totally enough to justify asking for the death of someone...
Who called for his death?
I don't think it makes leaks invalid.
Imagine that I'm the star witness in a trial between my dad and my brother. During the case i share everything i have on my brother, including diaries from me youth, recipets and pictures of every activity we have dine together, and relevant correspondence, but refuse to share any information involving my dad, I'm cleary not a trustworthy source and my testimony will likely be thrown out.
Because propaganda works.
The USA created some thoroughly disproven 'rape' charges (it was never a rape charge but that was the media reporting and most people don't read beyond headlines).
Classic painting of him as a traitor. We have 'evidence' you can't see that he works for [insert enemy here]
If you go against Russia/China/North Korea/Iran/India, they send a hitman to assassinate you. If you go against US and its allies, they assassinate your character first and you die in an accident in the prison with the camera footage missing.
And this is if you are actually somewhat popular, if not there are a tons of black sites they where they do Russia/China/North Korea/India shit and their populace will deflect how they are more humane like their life depends on it.
Just so you know, this comment reads like you really like Jeffrey Epstein and you think he was set up...
Some people confuse him for Edward Snowden (and vice versa). So he's got that going for him too.
both hero's
*Heroes
From your friendly neighborhood idiot/gman
Mueller Report PDF download Page 44: 3. Use of WikiLeaks
a. WikiLeaks’s Expressed Opposition Toward the Clinton Campaign
WikiLeaks, and particularly its founder Julian Assange, privately expressed opposition to candidate Clinton well before the first release of stolen documents. In November 2015, Assange wrote to other members and associates of WikiLeaks that “[w]e believe it would be much better for GOP to win . . . Dems+Media+liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst qualities. . . . With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities., dems+media+neoliberals will be mute. . . . She’s a bright, well connected, sadisitic sociopath.”156 In March 2016, WikiLeaks released a searchable archive of approximately 30,000 Clinton emails that had been obtained through FOIA litigation.157 While designing the archive, one WikiLeaks member explained the reason for building the archive to another associate: -[W]e want this repository to become “the place” to search for background on hillary’s plotting at the state department during 2009-2013. . . . Firstly because its useful and will annoy Hillary, but secondly because we want to be seen to be a resource/player in the US election, because eit [sic] may en[]courage people to send us even more important leaks.
b. WikiLeaks’s First Contact with Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
Shortly after the GRU’s first release of stolen documents through dcleaks.com in June 2016, GRU officers also used the DCLeaks persona to contact WikiLeaks about possible coordination in the future release of stolen emails. On June 14, 2016, @dcleaks_ sent a direct message to @WikiLeaks, noting, “You announced your organization was preparing to publish more Hillary’s emails. We are ready to support you. We have some sensitive information too, in particular, her financial documents. Let’s do it together. What do you think about publishing our info at the same moment? Thank you.”159 Investigative Technique Around the same time, WikiLeaks initiated communications with the GRU persona Guccifer 2.0 shortly after it was used to release documents stolen from the DNC. On June 22, 2016, seven days after Guccifer 2.0’s first releases of stolen DNC documents, WikiLeaks used Twitter’s direct message function to contact the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account and suggest that Guccifer 2.0 “[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.”160 On July 6, 2016, WikiLeaks again contacted Guccifer 2.0 through Twitter’s private messaging function, writing, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Guccifer 2.0 persona responded, “ok . . . i see.” WikiLeaks also explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”
c. The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Materials to WikiLeaks
Both the GRU and WikiLeaks sought to hide their communications, which has limited the Office’s ability to collect all of the communications between them. Thus, although it is clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to WikiLeaks, The Office was able to identify when the GRU (operating through its personas Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks) transferred some of the stolen documents to WikiLeaks through online archives set up by the GRU. Assange had access to the internet from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England. 62 Investigative Technique On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject “big archive” and the message “a new attempt.”163 The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”164 Using the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, GRU officers sent WikiLeaks an encrypted file and instructions on how to open it.165 On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirmed in a direct message to the Guccifer 2.0 account that it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”166 On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC computer networks.167 The Democratic National Convention began three days later. Similar communications occurred between WikiLeaks and the GRU-operated persona DCLeaks. On September 15, 2016, @dcleaks wrote to @WikiLeaks, “hi there! I'm from DC Leaks. How could we discuss some submission-related issues? Am trying to reach out to you via your secured chat but getting no response. I’ve got something that might interest you. You won't be disappointed, I promise.”168 The WikiLeaks account responded, “Hi there,” without further elaboration. The @dcleaks_ account did not respond immediately. The same day, the Twitter account @guccifer_2 sent @dcleaks_ a direct message, which is the first known contact between the personas.169 During subsequent communications, the Guccifer 2.0 persona informed DCLeaks that WikiLeaks was trying to contact DCLeaks and arrange for a way to speak through encrypted emails.170 An analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016.171 Based on information about Assange’s computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails for transfer to WikiLeaks (as the GRU had previously done in July 2016 for the DNC emails).172 The WikiLeaks site also released PDFs and other documents taken from Podesta that were attachments to emails in his account; these documents had a creation date of October 2, 2016, which appears to be the date the attachments were separately staged by WikiLeaks on its site.173 Beginning on September 20, 2016, WikiLeaks and DCLeaks resumed communications in a brief exchange. On September 22, 2016, a DCLeaks email account dcleaksproject@gmail.com sent an email to a WikiLeaks account with the subject “Submission” and the message “Hi from DCLeaks.” The email Investigative Technique contained a PGP-encrypted message with the filename “wiki_mail.txt.gpg.”174 The email, however, bears a number of similarities to the July 14, 2016 email in which GRU officers used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to give WikiLeaks access to the archive of DNC files. On September 22, 2016 (the same day of DCLeaks’ email to WikiLeaks), the Twitter account @dcleaks_ sent a single message to @WikiLeaks with the string of characters Investigative Technique The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016. For example, public reporting identified Andrew Müller-Maguhn as a WikiLeaks associate who may have assisted with the transfer of these stolen documents to WikiLeaks
On October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks released the first emails stolen from the Podesta email account. In total, WikiLeaks released 33 tranches of stolen emails between October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The releases included private speeches given by Clinton;177 internal communications between Podesta and other high-ranking members of the Clinton Campaign;178 and correspondence related to the Clinton Foundation.179 In total, WikiLeaks released over 50,000 documents stolen from Podesta’s personal email account. The last-in-time email released from Podesta’s account was dated March 21, 2016, two days after Podesta received a spearphishing email sent by the GRU.
d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen Materials
As reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian government emerged, WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing. The file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks’s claims about the source of material that it posted. Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”180 Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting, “I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, “If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter…that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”181 After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by WikiLeaks had come from Russian
What serious person is calling for his death?
That depends on your definition of "serious" ... But why are you asking? I mean, Google is your friend here.
He's the reason we got Trump in 2016. He likes to pick and choose which facts to leak and which to keep concealed in order to further his own agenda. Not to mention he gets this information from foreign agents who stole it from our government.
Edward Snowden is far more deserving of recognition for his whistleblowing. He didn't do it to personally profit from it, just because he knew it was the right thing to do.
More like Assange outright feel into that z-tard hole and never once apologise for it cos he has no conscience.
Because Assange kicked the DNC's dog. The Republican's were going to hate him no matter what because rationality never figured into their "my country, right or wrong" stupidity, but apparently because he released the DNC's executive corruption and didn't pull something out of his ass regarding the oTheR SidE, he's obviously a russian asset.
I found the multiple allegations of rape to be credible. I don't support rapists.
that didn't happen... he was never actually accused of rape, and the women who had complained about him retracted their complaints and said they were used as part of a political conspiracy against him.
he had condoms break while having sex with two different women who didn't know about each other. it was a questionable coincidence, there was a question about if he had torn condoms on purpose... the women had only wanted him to be compelled to take an hiv test.
now tell me more about why you found "multiple allegations" credible????!?
that has been quite publicly disproven for quite some time now...
Could you please source this claim?
Yeah, not sorry, I don't debate people who rabidly support rapists, either.
he has literally never even been accused of raping anyone
can you not read?
im not saying he's innocent, i'm saying there was never actually any real accusation...
but, clearly you're a rapist or you wouldn't be saying that.
He raped 3 women
because every time you type in "wikileaks" or "assange" online, an army if shills come in saying easily disproven lies about him.
he's not that widely hated by real people... but everyone's afraid to talk about him
Personally? Because being a (white male) whistle blower shouldn't protect him from facing consequences for his sexual abuses, yet it seems to nonetheless.
Fuck him (though I've not said a word about him before this for longer than I can remember, so I don't know if I fall in to the category of "hating on him", I just don't give a shit about him, and definitely don't think he deserves the halo the public seem to have bestowed on him).
But he didn’t commit any sexual offenses in the US. There’s no reason to extradite him other than for his work as a journalist. I mean I think the guy is a scumbag but that’s an important freedom that the US intelligence services have been trampling for decades. Espionage and journalism are clearly distinct, but our legal system maliciously conflates them.
He's a traitor to the USA. Do you need anymore reason on Internet to be hated?
Not an American, nor was he living in America at the time. I fail to see how "foreign citizen acts in ways contrary to my country's best interests" equals "treason".
Now you understand what imperialism is or why they also hate Russian and chinese too.
Read into what is known and what he is accused of, and decide for yourself whether he is a traitor or whistleblower. While it won’t change anything for him, you don’t have to agree with the government’s position
I fully support him, but here I answer the thread question.
Because people with money told the actors they hire to pretend to inform you of current events to only say that he's bad because he represents a threat to their class.
figures the correct answer has all the downvotes...
The same bad actors have muddied the lines through limiting online discourse and pushing their message consistently enough to drag some well meaning, but lacking in critical thinking skills, people to join the cause.
Like algorithms for social media, they'll feed you little bits that become normalized, and sudde ly the stuff that was crazy 5 years ago seems tame and pointless to fight against now.
I heard Q likes him
Funny how hearing a message associating someone with a movement, true or not, swayed your opinion. Almost as if it proves my point.
they like all sorts of stupid crazy shit... that doesn't matter at all