3 ms·
Well then you clearly know very little about Assange or Wikileaks. A. The majority of Wikileaks' leaks are not related to the U.S. at all. Wikileaks is hardly
by MacsHeadroom 12y ago
Well then you clearly know very little about Assange or Wikileaks.
A. The majority of Wikileaks' leaks are not related to the U.S. at all. Wikileaks is hardly biased.
B. Assange is directly responsible for the creation of Wikileaks and indirectly responsible for dozens of spin-offs. Hundreds of major cases of whistelblowing probably never would have happened if it weren't for Assange. So yes, wistleblowing needs Assange.
C. Assange set himself up to be the scapegoat. He's sacrificing himself for a greater cause. Your analysis of his motives are insulting.
- jevgeni 12y agoSeriously don't care about whether my analysis is insulting or not. But you really think, that the whistleblowers were just held back, because they didn't have a website to post their stuff to? Furthermore, if Assange wanted, he could easily spread the leaks anonymously and be quite persistent about it. That would actually preclude him or anyone else of being a martyr. Sounds like a win-win to me, unless, of course, you want either to stroke your ego or follow your own political agenda.
- jevgeni 12y agoBecause downvoting is way easier, than dealing with a valid argument.
- rational-future 12y agoBecause all your "arguments" are extremely stupid. You're just trying to make stuff up, instead of saying "Hey, I was wrong".