It's like "Al Qaeda Affilate"... Congratulations on your shiny new propaganda catchphrase.

Perhaps you will want to take up the headline with The Local's headline editor

distributor of any and all bullshit stories anywhere worldwide that you imagine make Assange look bad or Wikileaks like an evil venture. So you didn't write it, but it was in a sense written for you, so that you could foist it on us. Such a waste of time.

I really don't know how the admins put up with such a vile truth-suppression authoritarian.

Its laughable the handle of this poster in that he represents the exact opposite. Kind of like Bush's "Clean Air Act", or "No Child Left Behind". Along with the grainy Harriet Tubman avatar, he reeks of over-the-top desperation. There very definitely IS a struggle for progress in this world, and when a light into the dark goings on in corporate and high government offices is revealed to the general public it pushes progress forward. (ie. Tunisia) So anyone working so actively to squelch this progress by throwing mud at those who do, is highly suspect in my books.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS AND HARRIET TUBMAN! BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!

... Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress ...

Don't look now but your desperation is showing

a much larger number of bad ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it ..."

Thomas Paine
Common Sense (1776)

This designation of William is quite old: within a century or so of the invasion in 1066, some of the ancient law records refer explicitly to "William the Bastard"

write anti-Assange headlines for his use on DU!!

You could have just admitted you were wrong. I think you would have looked the bigger person.

"Struggles" (he says to me) "you should control everything!"
"I dunno, Mr President" (I says) "It sounds like a lot of work, and I don't think it pays enough"

But he can be very persuasive

I promise, we won't tell a soul. Well, maybe a hundred thousand will read the secret of your success, but other than that, mum's the word!

Sorry!

Seems there's been an increase lately in nonsensical attacks on sympathetic institutions by persons claiming to be doing it in support of Assange.

It's all part of a conspiracy to discredit Assange - to bring him down. (For those who may have been unaware, that was sarcasm)

It is highly likely that Assange has affiliated himself with people very capable of doing this sort of thing - people who might even call themselves "Anonymous". A bunch of young hackers who think they're part of a revolution, who think they're doing something grand. Why they would go after after a hospital though... I can't begin to fathom.

It's no secret that I don't like the man - I think he's a severe narcissist, the sort that thinks the world revolves around him. While I do believe he's done some (potentially) good things in revealing secrets that the government was trying to keep hidden... the man undoubtedly has his own agenda. I don't think he's directing these hackers, but the idea that news groups, posters here and other people are engaged in a campaign to discredit him is absurd.

Frankly, both Assange and the groups that call themselves anonymous (who ever they may actually be) are subject to the same laws as everyone else. There should be legal consequences for illegal actions. Bradley Manning was tortured for his part in aiding Assange... and Assange himself? Well, he's got a giant following and a whole lot of sympathy... but where is his courage? His conviction? His integrity? I have seen no evidence of such.

Setting him aside for the moment - these so called anonymous hackers should face the legal consequences of their actions.

Not what I said, not even what I implied. What I am suggesting, rather, is that Manning had to face the consequences of what Assange did, where Assange himself seems able to escape over and over again. Despite being wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities in regards to cases of rape. I'm not inclined to believe that there's some kind of universal government conspiracy to bring him down. Rather, I believe the man uses others as his scape goats and leaves them hanging. If he had some sort of "dooms day" file, it's threatened release could have potentially gotten Manning out of a nightmare. He didn't release it, or threaten to release it, so my suspicion is that he's full of shit and doesn't have any such thing.

Also, I never said a single fucking thing to imply that I condone torture, nor did I condone it in any way. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

I don't know where you stand on the issue and frankly I don't care, but if you're going to make shit up I see no reason to read anything you have to say. I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt by assuming you didn't actually read the entire post - if you did, indicate any evidence that you have to support your claim that I condone, or have ever condoned torture. When you fail to find it, I would appreciate an apology. If not, then your integrity is as questionable as Julian Assange's.

There are probably dozens or more of small bands of socially conscious geeks worldwide that adopt the name. I think that's the point. There is no top authority to tell them the limits of their "work". So maybe a few of them thought this was a good idea, maybe it presented itself as an easy door to break into and they foolishly thought this would help. Or it very well could have been a false flag operation. Who knows?

But I don't get your hatred of Julian Assange. struggle4progress seems to be on the payroll to discredit Wikileaks and is a lost cause, but you seem to dismiss Wikileaks simply because you despise Assange himself. Myself, I think Assange comes across as defensive, short-tempered, and a little arrogant. Mostly because the only context I've seen him in is being interviewed by hostile agenda-driven reporters. He is someone whose personality I am not drawn to to go have a beer with. But I can separate that from the effort and courage he displayed in setting up Wikileaks in the first place. He didn't have do that, he seems like a brilliant guy and could have started up his own for-profit corporation and been relaxing in his Australian mansion by now. Why would he chose this kind of grief? Look to his past. He always was a hacktivist even as a youth. Its not like he was handed Wikileaks on some kind of golden platter.

I may not like the man, but I appreciate what he has done, and I am praying that he can get back on his feet again after this concerted effort by the elite establishment to bring him down and to continue to keep the public in the dark.

Wow its worse than I thought.

The "payroll" comment was over the top, but for someone as prolifically hell bent on a one man crusade against Assange there must be SOMETHING you get from this. Even if its some kind of deluded glory in tearing down a media celebrity just for the hell of it.

In your myriad of anti-Assange posts, you have never, that I recall, ever detailed exactly WHY you hate him so much. Would you at least do the rest of us the courtesy of an explanation?
Is Wikileaks a threat to you personally somehow? Do you work for the government in a "sensitive" area?
Do you also despise Bradley Manning for leaking the files in the first place?
Or is it just a personal hatred for the man based on what you have seen of him and read? On his appearance? On his womanizing? His frosty demeanor?
Do you honestly think all government should be allowed to be as secretive as THEY decide? That we should all be satisfied with whatever they tell us is the truth (even under Republicans)? If so, how does this move the struggle for progress ahead?

All you ever do is post any article you find that has any hint of smearing this man and his organization. You provide no context or reason. I am curious. Wikileaks with Manning have helped expose war crimes and government abuse from all over the globe. It may even have spurred on The Arab Spring by sparking the revolt in Tunisia with information about that dictatorship revealed. So I'd just like to know WHY, if you are not paid, you are hell bent on smearing their work at every opportunity?

If someone was consistently and so prolifically posting anti-Planned Parenthood or anti-ACLU or any other progressive organization that was moving the struggle for progress forward I would also be suspicious. This is what is so baffling. Especially on a progressive board like this.

They would somehow say different things?

You are only doing ad hominem attacks.

There is nothing wrong with being interested in a subject. You seem to think it's only legit if the person has the same opinion as you do.

If you are suggesting that struggle4progress would only occasionally posted a negative slanted story on Wikileaks. And if its just "being interested in a subject", where are the positive stories or even neutrally balanced stories? No, he is hell-bent on a one man crusade to discredit Wikileaks which to me smells a little off.

And WHAT OPINION? That's the point of the post you replied to! He doesn't seem to have ANY opinion other than "Assange: BAD". Once again he declined the opportunity to say exactly WHY he hates the man and his work so much. I'd really like to know. The kind of hit and run posting that he does is the worst kind of community behavior IMO.

No one needs to justify why they post something written by someone else.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they aren't legitimate stories. Who cares why he doesn't like Assange? Apparently quite a lot of other people don't like him, either.

they could easily have done so by now. No place is really safe when enough people in the right places want to get rid of you. It could be made to look like a complete accident, a heart attack... a fall down the stairs, a head on car collision.

I am not convinced of Assange's courage. I believe Manning has a great deal of courage, I believe a number of the people working for Assange have demonstrated courage... but I do not feel that Assange himself has. In his shoes, I can tell you that I would be shouting to everyone I could about the treatment of Bradley Manning, I'd be speaking to any media icons who would listen - and if I had anything resembling dirt on government or military officials, I would have used it in an effort to secure his release.

Assange, however, seems to be too busy running and hiding to do these things. It is a fact that if the elite establishment wanted him dead badly enough, he would be dead.

I'm not suggesting he should make a martyr of himself, I'm suggesting he could have demonstrated courage by taking more of a stand in defense of the man who REALLY started Wikileaks.

to audiences. He seems to enjoy it more now than he did a couple of years ago.

Self-absorbed? Most probably. But publishing Wikileaks' documents, not just those he obtained from the US was a public service.

I think that if there were convincing proof that Assange had somehow extorted or otherwise obtained the Wikileaks materials by force or by tricking someone, that person would have been convicted by now.

So far, I haven't heard of a conviction. Not of anyone. Did I miss it?

I seriously doubt that there is evidence that Assange somehow conspired with or forced someone to steal government documents. Maybe. It's always possible. But by this time, we would probably have a conviction of someone. It's been a long, long time since accusations were made.

In fact it has been so long that I don't see how anyone could believe let's say some sort of confession of complicity with Assange by someone. I think a loner who had access to the materials anonymously placed them in Assange's hands or contacted Assange to provide them. It is my understanding that Assange was generally soliciting confidential trade secret and government documents from any source that would provide them.

Perhaps a public trial of one of the people who is proved to have provided material to Assange will clarify just how the materials were provided to him and why. It would be interesting to know for sure.

The Assange case says more about the extreme and unreasonable amount of secrecy in governments around the world at this time than about Assange.

Dictatorships have always conducted their business with an extreme amount of secrecy. And a certain amount of secrecy is really necessary to a government. But our government, especially during the Bush years, has been overdoing the secrecy for a long time. This is especially true about events that occurred in Iraq and are occurring in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

Our government is using secrecy to make democracy meaningless. We might as well have no vote at all if we are deprived by our government of access to information we need in order to vote intelligently.

Some governments fix elections. Some only permit one candidate to run or deny a place on the ballot to certain candidates. Our government just makes sure that we have no idea what is being done in our name around the world so that when we vote, the morality of our leaders in conducting our military and diplomatic affairs will not be in question.

shadowy amorphous anonymous organizations, the actions of which are attributed only in consequence of difficult-to-trace claims of responsibility. So I have no over-arching theories about "Anonymous" as an organization

(2) There were, in the late summer, a number of cyber-attacks, that were anonymously claimed to be actions in support of Assange: in these cases, the only known connection between the targets and Assange, was the very weak link that the targets were located in Sweden (where Assange is wanted for prosecution on sexual allegations) or in the UK (where the courts have uniformly held that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for prosecution). Taking the claims, at face value, probably cannot shed any light on Assange himself but may shed important light on the (essentially demented) strategic thinking of some Assangists, since the targets really seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Assange case

(3) The news story in the current OP is related to those late summer cyber-attacks -- but involves a Swedish hospital not known earlier to have been attacked

(4) The stories about Anonymous turning against Assange date from later, in the fall. There are many plausible ways to fit these various stories together, by paying closer attention to the time line, or by imagining factionalism within Anonymous, or by suspecting that the claims of responsibility are not uniformly credible, or in other ways. At this point, please recall point (1): it's rather difficult to make clear statements about shadowy amorphous anonymous organizations.

(5) I am not the original source of the Swedish or UK cyber-attack news reports, nor am I the original source of the Anonymous-turns-against-Assange news reports, nor have I concocted any conspiracy theories from these reports. I have never myself claimed that the cyber-attacks were (or were not) coordinated, nor have I claimed that Assange himself was (or was not) in any way involved. I do think the cyber-attacks are moronic, not only in terms of the party they seek to defend, but also in choice of target, from every possible point-of-view, including their possible propaganda value

With the help of Bob "The Dog"

Caution: Possibly obscure literary cultural references. However, I have it on good authority that Wasp is enjoying herself at bars and luxury hotels in Gibralter under a Norwegian passport in the name of Irene Nesser.

put them down.

A four foot eleven, 90 lb woman kicks the shit out of two bikers.

Or just trying to threaten the Swedes in general.