back to article Google hits 'prove we killed no Afghans' – Assange™

Julian Assange™, globally famous Wikileaks supremo, has claimed that his organisation is "more accountable" than democratic governments and has also claimed credit for the rise of anti-corruption sentiment in India. He also suggested that the number of Google hits generated by typing an organisation's name followed by "blood on …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Why do I think...

    ...that El Reg is really going to have fun with this TM thing!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    WTF?

    >>> He invited people pondering the matter to Google "Wikileaks" and "blood on its hands" versus "Pentagon" and "blood on its hands" and compare the number of results*.

    Is he really presenting this BS as a credible measure of accountability? He's more deluded than I thought.

    1. James O'Shea

      he's a twat

      "He's more deluded than I thought." Nope. I think that he's still got a far way to go before he reveals just how deluded he really is.

    2. TeeCee Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: WTF?

      I imagine that Assange(tm) himself may have cause to doubt its credibility after: 1) umpty-something-thousand commentards on umpty-thousand sites all ask whether Googling "Wikileaks has blood on its hands" is an accurate measure of anything and 2) Google's webcrawler does its stuff.

      Go on, mention that Wikileaks has blood on its hands in your post, you know you want to.....

    3. DavCrav

      Just did a comparison:

      "Third Reich" "blood on its hands": 8,510.

      "Khmer Rouge" "blood on its hands": 10,800.

      "Wikileaks" "blood on its hands": 30,300.

      "Soviet Union" "blood on its hands": 41,300.

      "Pentagon" "blood on its hands": 125,000.

      So from this, we can see that Wikileaks is more than three times as dangerous as the Third Reich, but Stalin and the Pentagon are worse.

      Give me a break.

    4. Scorchio!!
      Thumb Up

      Re: WTF?

      Yes, he is deluded, but also there are moments of insight:

      http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=9

      "He said that some leaks risked harming innocent people—“collateral damage, if you will”—but that he could not weigh the importance of every detail in every document. [...] A year and a half ago, WikiLeaks published the results of an Army test, conducted in 2004, of electromagnetic devices designed to prevent IEDs from being triggered. The document revealed key aspects of how the devices functioned and also showed that they interfered with communication systems used by soldiers—information that an insurgent could exploit. By the time WikiLeaks published the study, the Army had begun to deploy newer technology, but some soldiers were still using the devices. I asked Assange if he would refrain from releasing information that he knew might get someone killed. He said that he had instituted a “harm-minimization policy,” whereby people named in certain documents were contacted before publication, to warn them, but that there were also instances where the members of WikiLeaks might get “blood on our hands."

      And so it is that others have said....

      https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=1

      "Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

      Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.” "

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/27/nyt_on_assange/

      "After the NYT published articles based on classified documents WikiLeaks provided on the US-led war in Afghanistan, Assange was “angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared – rightly, as it turned out – that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets,” Keller writes."

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351927/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-new-book-Afghan-informants-deserve-killed.html

      "Assange's apparent gung-ho attitude in an early meeting to naming U.S. informants stunned his media collaborators, the new book claimed.

      The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'"

      Please note that, for quoting facts, Julians little friends will rate this down. I can only smile because it demonstrates their difficulty with reality.

      Being rated by dunces does not alter the truth one tiny bit.

      1. Rafael 1
        Go

        Memify this!

        "The Register" "blood on its hands": 4980

        "El Reg" "blood on its hands": 20

        "The Pope" "blood on its hands": 24800

        "You" "blood on its hands": 523000

        "Snooki" "blood on its hands": 3920

        "andre the giant" "blood on its hands": 17

        "the moderatrix" "blood on its hands": zero hits (so far!)

        1. Displacement Activity

          NFTR

          "the moderatrix" "blood in its hands": 1

          "Rafael 1" "blood on its hands" : 4 (is there something you're not telling us?)

          wikileaks blood on its hands : 3,680,000

          pentagon blood on its hands : 3,630,000

      2. Mike Moyle
        Coat

        Middle School semantics...

        "The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.''"

        Back in the Dark Ages when I was in Middle School, we had a short session on critical reading and word "slanting" ("I am big, you are heavy, he is fat," "I am a freedon-fighter, he is a terrorist." and so on.

        Has Assange ever clarified the difference between "whistle-blowers" and "informants"?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Mike Moyle

          --"Has Assange ever clarified the difference between "whistle-blowers" and "informants"?"

          Is there a difference?

          Has he actually shown any more concern about 'whistle blowers' than about 'informants'?

      3. wayneh

        Facts?

        Problem is these are for the most part a grouping of unsubstantiated claims by people with either an axe to grind or a vested interest in running Assange/Wikileaks down. They may or may not be true, but can't be labeled as facts. They are in dispute and unless you were there how can you know the truth?

        Wikileaks did in fact offer the US government the opportunity to have input into redacting documents (which is the normal practice)(the proof of this is on Wikileaks site and undisputed by the US government). They refused, so that a few early document releases were inadequately redacted is as much the fault of the US government as it is Wikileaks.

        The CIA as far back as 2008 planned to destroy Wikileaks according to a leaked document. The document can be obtained at http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18_Mar_2008

        The summary of this document;

        This document is a classified (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks. ``The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to WikiLeaks.org cannot be ruled out. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses ``trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whistleblowers, the report recommends ``The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site. [As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that ``Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the WikiLeaks.org website. The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks---U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.

        1. Scorchio!!

          Re: Facts?

          Perhaps you were addressing me, I do not know. However, the material I cite includes the words of St Julian himself and his friend Birgitta Jonsdottir. There's no need for me to defend or to adumbrate. Assange clearly regards Afghan informants in a theocratic regime to 'have it coming'. Perhaps the same is true of Assange and his source[s]. What do you think?

          Just in case a reminder is needed these theocratic creatures abuse (to put a gentle emphasis on the true horror of their deeds) people in their own country, and gave shelter to people who caused the deaths of some 3,000 in Manhattan, one day about 10 years ago. People unable to escape from the encroaching horror of death by burning avgas threw themselves out of the building, to a faster death.

          Then there is this:

          http://www.rawa.org/f-hang.htm

          http://www.rawa.org/zarmeena.htm

          1. wayneh

            Facts

            It is not clear this is Assange's opinion, because as mentioned, most of these supposed facts are in dispute. To claim you have some sort of fly on the wall knowledge is a thinly veiled attempt at demonisation, as is your 9/11 reference.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Or...

              "It is not clear this is Assange's opinion, because as mentioned, most of these supposed facts are in dispute. To claim you have some sort of fly on the wall knowledge is a thinly veiled attempt at demonisation, as is your 9/11 reference."

              Or perhaps you should choose your idols more carefully.

              1. wayneh

                Or...

                "Or perhaps you should choose your idols more carefully."

                And whats your point?

                Obviously the combined resources of the US intelligence services don't consider Assange as an idiot. Otherwise why would they be expending so much time and resources on discrediting him and Wikileaks?

                Even his most ardent critics openly admit his intelligence, expert planning capabilities and technical expertise.

                Many people blindly considered President Bush jnr an idiot. When you consider his aims, this perception gave him the room to achieve exactly what he wanted. So who were the idiots in that case?

                1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

                  Erm.....

                  It may have passed you by, but I thought everyone knew that even an idiot can be dangerous?

                  Doesn't matter how smart or otherwise you are, put the wrong information/weapon/whatever into your hand and you could be dangerous.

                  Would you consider all rogue gunmen to be smart? I'm sure you'd consider them dangerous though.

                  So whether energy is being expended by the Govt or not has pretty much zero bearing on whether or not the man is an idiot. Personally I think he's acting like an idiot, but is probably much smarter than this (much like the reference you made to Bush).

                  Problem is, he could have the highest IQ on the planet, but when his ego is doing the driving it just isn't going to show

      4. DavCrav

        If we are trusting Google hits = truth

        "earth is round": 720,000

        "earth is flat": 5,700,000.

        This should become the standard answer to that type of reasoning.

        1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: If we are trusting Google hits = truth

          Aw, you're no fun.

        2. Shakje
          Happy

          Google wins at telling the truth

          "something exists": 104,000,000

          "nothing exists": 113,000,000

          "we are in the matrix": 189,000,000

          also:

          "shakje is god": 62,600

          "shakje is not god": 8,930

          Go figure.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        @Scorchio

        "Please note that, for quoting facts, Julians little friends will rate this down. "

        I'm rating it down because I'm sick of you ending your posts with pathetic attempts to intimidate people into not downvoting you.

        1. david wilson

          @AC

          >>"I'm rating it down because I'm sick of you ending your posts with pathetic attempts to intimidate people into not downvoting you."

          I hardly think it counts as /intimidation/ - looks more getting retaliation in first after extensive experience of that particular subset of people who seriously do downvote posts even if the posts are entirely factual if the facts don't fit with what they want to believe, or who downvote simple questions if the honest answer to the question is something that they don't want to read.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            @David Wilson

            You need to read a few more of his/her posts. There is a consistent pattern of it and it's pathetic.

            "getting retaliation in first" is an excuse people use for attacking others without provocation.

    5. Steven Knox
      FAIL

      Truthiness

      >>>He invited people pondering the matter to Google "Wikileaks" and "blood on its hands" versus "Pentagon" and "blood on its hands" and compare the number of results*.

      Clearly nobody told him that The Colbert Report is satire, so he actually believes that truth is determined by the market.

    6. Robert E A Harvey
      Thumb Down

      "He's more deluded than I thought."

      >He's more deluded than I thought.

      And he's a self-obsessed, self-important tosser who gets off on publicity.

      Thing is, I think wikileaks is a good idea. But He's spoiling it for me.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    conflict of interest looms

    "You vote with your wallets every week if you believe that our work is worthwhile or not," he continued. "If you believe we have erred, you do not support us."

    and yet Wikileaks is independent and impartial? For how much longer?

  4. mightykipper

    blood on hands per year...

    Any analysis of Assange's ridiculous assertion that the number of hits on google for "Pentagon"/"Wikileaks" and "Blood on their hands" is indicative of how relatively bad they are should take account of the amount of time each institution has been around for.

    For ease, (and because it's as sensible as the assertion itself) I'm using the 'housing' for each institution rather than the institution itself (so the wikileaks website rather than whatever 'whistleblower' network they had set up, and The Pentagon, rather the the Department of Defense) we have:

    The Pentagon:

    Finished building in 1943.

    125000 / (2011-1942) = 1 850 (roughly)

    Wikileaks:

    Launched 2006.

    30000 / (2011-2006) = 6000

    Previously I was on wikileaks' side, but having taken Assange's words as gospel I must conclude that he is more relatively evil and in need of stopping than The Pentagon.

    1. M Gale

      Interestingly..

      ..typing in "the register" and "blood on their hands" shows this post on the very first page, out of 7,000-something results.

      The Register must be evil! Well. I suppose at least Simon Travaglia is.

  5. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Spin it as you might...

    Throwing up 15'000 previously unaccounted-for dead Afghans [Iraq war logs reveal 15,000 previously unlisted civilian deaths: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/true-civilian-body-count-iraq] _does_ count for something.

    And all because a pipeline didn't get okayed and a frat boy and a poodle get instrumented in a jiffy. Nice.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby
      WTF?

      Huh?

      "And all because a pipeline didn't get okayed and a frat boy and a poodle get instrumented in a jiffy. Nice."

      Huh?

      I guess you're making your decisions based on inuendo and rumors and jokes.

      The reality is that the Bush Administration actually believed that Saddam had WMDs.

      After his capture, Saddam admitted to this charade but was surprised that the US fell for it. It was meant to keep Iran at bay.

      It wasn't just Bush, but Congress voted to go to war too.

      1. Nuffnuff

        Credulousness

        is another tool in the governmental box. In that case it was used quite deliberately. Ref interviews with the Bush govt's disaffected Iraqi source.

      2. Robert E A Harvey
        Troll

        Bush admin

        >The reality is that the Bush Administration actually believed that Saddam had WMDs.

        A fair number of then believe that the world was made in 4004BC by a sky fairy.

        Troll, cos we don't have any other supernatural beings.

  6. Dennis Wilson

    Blood on hands.

    Googled "mother theresa blood on hands" and came up with 1,330,000 results.

    Googled "Assange Blood on hands and came up with about 452,000 results.

    In the lead though is...................

    ........................ "Popeye blood on hands" with about 1,510,000

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Works better

      if you actually quote "blood on hands"

      and spell Mother Teresa correctly

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Terminator

      How dare you...

      ...when you're clearly more evil than St. Julian ;-)

      "dennis wilson blood on hands": 554,000 results

      Homo hominem lupus est!

  7. Christoph

    It might have gone better ...

    if they'd had some actual whistleblowers there.

    http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/04/whistleblowers-not-welcome-at-new-statesmanfrontline-debate/

  8. mraak

    Pentagon

    Pentagon also saved some lives, believe it or not. Entire Bosnia and Kosovo woud become Srebrenica mass masacre in the middle of Europe if they wouldn't stop Milosevic. That's one example. AssAnge (tm) has yet to prove that he's saved lives.

    1. CD001

      *pssst*

      That was a UN peacekeeping mission NOT just the Pentagon or the US ... I don't think Hollywood has rewritten that piece of history yet has it?

      Saying "the Pentagon has saved lives" might be true but by that yardstick it's also true that Hitler (I call Godwin's Law on myself) made peoples' lives better by pushing for "family cars" (Volkswagon) and heavily backing the construction of the autobahn.

      It's kind of weighting your argument to highlight the good points and downplay the bad ... Julian Assange - founding Wikileaks good, being a monumental, egotistical twit ... not so much.

      1. mraak

        Huh?

        Saying "the Pentagon has saved lives" *IS* true to all the Bosnians that survived the Milosevic 4 year siege, silently tolerated and thus supported by indifferent people like yourself.

  9. mraak
    Paris Hilton

    jesus blood on hands

    About 577,000 results (0.27 seconds)

    1. MeRp

      To be fair...

      Isn't Jesus known for having blood on his hands in a more literal sense? Something about nails piercing his skin or some such?

      1. maclovinz
        Happy

        @MeRp

        To be fair....Imma get into a bit of a tiff over what you just said since it is not based on irrefutable evidence.

        You were going on what you hear in the Bible. I'm not saying it didn't happen either, but is there any physical proof that anything that was said to happen in The Bible, which was put together at The Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., AFTER His supposed existence, actually took place?

        Why were other gospels removed?

        To put it another way: The individuals that put together this book were not even conceived when He was said to be here.

        Distortion to serve one's purpose. People that say that they find the Bible to be a complete work and won't open themselves up to other gospels written by actual characters named in the Bible are simply ignorant and don't want to know that there may be another aspect to the story. I.E. the Gospels of Mary and Judas.

        Without a complete set of information from said individuals, is it literally IMPOSSIBLE to know (as they call it) the Way, the TRUTH, and the Light.

        IF there is a supreme being, I think he would want us to find out for ourselves. Not blindly listen to something someone behind an altar tells us.

        I am merely opening myself up to all of the many possibilities.

        1. MeRp
          Stop

          So...

          You don't think it is irrefutable that Jesus is famous (at least in part) for having his hands pierced? Whether that is historically accurate or not is rather immaterial, is it not?

          George Washington is famous (in part) for saying that he cannot tell a lie, even though that tale is not historically accurate. Thus, there are Google hits that roughly correlate with that.

  10. Lamont Cranston

    I wonder if he'll be able to come up with anything better

    once he is extradited and put on trial? Or will the prosecution simply need to present the results of searching for "Julian Assange sexual assault" on google.se, and wait for Mr Trade Mark to confess all?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Shame really

    Here is someone who should be subjected to a mental health act detention order, and instead (thanks to the wonders of the world wide interwebs) he is busy melting down in public.

    Would never have happened when I were a lad.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Hes not deluded..

    or the messiah... hes just a very naughty boy.

  13. The main man

    Is this guy still on?

    I had forgotten he was still around. Please go away

  14. wayneh

    A vexed question?

    Assange as traitor a vexed question? It's just a plain stupid question. He is not American so how can he be a traitor?

    And if the article author and author's of comments here bothered to read the cables (and other releases), they would know there are many things revealed such as 10's of thousands previously unreported civilian deaths in the current "War On Terror". These facts alone (and there are many other important revelations by Wikileaks) make Wikileaks and Assange an important addition to the worlds media. A media that all too often acts like an extension of government press offices, with holding information simply to appease the government in power, win influence, be on the senator or president's speed dial. The New York Times, by its own admission helped cover up the Raymond Davis incident, a former Special Forces soldier (now working for CIA via company once named Blackwater) who shot and killed two Pakistanis on January 27. Why did they conceal this? Because the US government asked them to. No matters of national security, no reason given, one can only assume the US government wants to keep what's going on in Pakistan as quite as possible. When the mainstream press becomes so subservient that it keeps important news stories like this from the public, for no good reason, I say thank god we now have Wikileaks.

    No one disputes that at times he gets a bit carried away, but can all of you honestly say you don't? At least he is out there trying to make a better world. What are all of you doing to make a better society?

    1. Gordon 10 Silver badge
      Stop

      Hang on a sec

      None of the items you list have come exclusively from Wikileaks afaik which takes most of the wind out of your sails. Wikileaks is not the be all and end all of whistle blowing and investigative journalism thank god so to suggest it is is somewhat disengeuous. You can approve of the concept without either approving of Wikileaks or Asshats current actions.

      1. wayneh

        Hang on a sec →

        The previously undisclosed civilian deaths in the "War on Terror" did come from Wikileaks.

        I did not claim the New York Times cover up source was Wikileak's. This was used as an example of a press too compliant to government deceit.

        There's a great article on Salon.com about the cause of US media's compliance to government doctrine, makes interesting reading. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/10/journalism/index.html

  15. heyrick Silver badge
    FAIL

    So he responds to criticism with a threat to sue?

    Bravo, Assange, you've just lost the war.

    1. byrresheim

      Criticism != libel

      There is actually a difference between criticising you and demeaning you. And that is why we have libel laws and judges to apply them.

      And if you don't like your own countries libel laws: go ahead & change them. It's a democracy, is it not?

      Talking about libel tourism to the UK when the alleged victim, the alleged wrongdoer, and the alleged deed all are located in the UK seems a bit uncalled for.

  16. MonkeyBot

    Nothing of interest...

    "thus far, where the documents have been of any interest, really just the US government."

    Personally I found the details of Barclays's tax avoidance plans, Trafigura's illegal dumping, etc to be very interesting. Mind you, I'm not a journalist so I can understand things without them being slathered in web 2.0 gubbins and served up in some Google maps mashup.

    It only started going downhill when Assange decided he wanted to be famous.

    1. wayneh

      Nothing of interest...

      I'm not so sure Assange wanted to be famous. Nothing in his past prior to Wikileaks suggests this. The fact that we're all here talking about Assange rather than the many serious revelations is one of the tactics the CIA planned for and included in the leaked secret document at; http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18_Mar_2008

      It's not in Wikileak's interest nor especially Assange's interest that we're constantly discussing him rather than revelations contained in leaked documents.

  17. Bryce Prewitt

    Can we go back to calling Jimbo Wales a creepy uneducated fatso please?

    Wikileaks is good and necessary. Julian Assange is not.

    Unfortunately, it seems to me that the way most people in the Western World (tm) world is that they need a figurehead to guide an organization, lest no one will follow or understand it. I don't agree with it, that just seems to be the way it is.

    At any rate, no matter how much of a jerk-ass Assange may be, it's worth noting that he (1) is better than the idiots the general populace have consistently elected (insert conspiracy theories about the political systems in America and England here) and (2) he's far more of a real journalist than anyone around today (insert conspiracy theories about the Grauniad/NYT taking him down to please their masters or because he made them look bad, etc). That doesn't not make him a twat and that doesn't make him Ed Murrow, but it does make people like him important and necessary (for now), whether we like it or not.

    The way out of this future, or one worse than it, is to hold our governments accountable (through violence if necessary) and to expect the best out of the fourth estate (and not just petty and jealous tabloid reporting). We do both and then suddenly prima donna's like Assange won't have anything to grasp onto for fame and fortune and we'll all live in a much better world than we do now.

    I love the Register, especially when it is at its most controversial and muckrakey. Hell, I even love reading Orlowski's columns these days - it took me a couple of years, but I finally came around. That said, I enjoyed the crusade against Wikipedia far more than I enjoy this one. The Register does more than its fair share of investigative journalism and for that I am infinitely grateful, but until you guys start pointing out the failures and corruptions of our respective governments in a way that is equally as successful and consistent as Wikileaks - and it doesn't fucking matter if they're the "sky is blue" sort of reports that everyone all ready knows, as it needs to be pointed out constantly, forcefully and expertly that our governments are either/both incompetent and/or evil - then it comes off just a bit petty to constantly attack this asshat *as if* his actions completely nullify those of Wikileaks.

    Yes, again, Wikileaks would be better off without him, just in the same way that the Register would be better off if it had more Lewis Page/Andrew Orlowski articles and less Lucy Orr/Andrew Bailey/Mike Plant videogame reviews.

  18. ratfox

    florida pastor blood on hands

    A cool 6,840,000 results... But get this:

    bbc blood on hands – 28,900,000 results! Ouch.

    Wonderful logic, Assange™

    1. heyrick Silver badge
      Happy

      Wonderful logic

      kittens blood on hands - 10,100,000 results

      And, for the hell of it - zombie babies ate my dingo - 257,000 results (awesome!)

      1. foo_bar_baz
        FAIL

        Et tu, heyrick

        No results found for "zombie babies ate my dingo"

        Poor show, what.

    2. foo_bar_baz
      FAIL

      If you start playing this silly game, please do it correctly.

      bbc "blood on its hands" : 75 200 results

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: If you start playing this silly game, please do it correctly.

        commentard "blood on its hands": 1 result

        1. CD001

          Hmmm...

          "Sarah Bee" "blood on its hands" : 1 result

          ...

          Be afraid, be very afraid

          1. heyrick Silver badge

            ...even scarier...

            "sarah bee" "blood on her hands" : 1 result

            ...

            Oh

            crap!

            ...

            <quiver!><quiver!>

            ...

            @ foo_bar_baz - notice I didn't put quotes around the string, of course something that daft is unlikely to have a direct result... ;-)

  19. oldredlion
    FAIL

    ahem

    Could you put the links to the New Statesman articles at the top? It'd save time and we'd get to read something useful.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Go

    Difference between a Spy and Whistleblower?

    Easy.

    A Spy would report to a limited number of people. A very select group, or even a single contact, all of his information.

    A Whistleblower, on the other hand, tries to get that information spread out as fast as possible to as many people as possible.

    There's a bit of an anomaly here with Wikileaks- they kept hold of some of the data and looked over other bits before releasing it, etc- but the basic intent for the information wasn't to sell it to shady contacts in foreign governments, but was to get it out to everyone.

    A Traitor, on the other hand, is a lot harder to define. It's someone who does something that harms the team he's supposed to be a part of. It also implies that they were trusted by the group and that their actions were for personal gain AND would be detrimental to the group.

    So Manning may be a traitor, but he's not a spy unless specifically contracted to get information from the military (rather than just getting it to upload to Wikileaks).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Traitor v Whistleblower

      Major General Carl Schurz, an officer who fought for the Union side in the American Civil War, uttered the definitive remark about this vexed subject:

      "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right".

      A traitor deliberately does something that harms his country. A whistleblower, in the spirit of Schurz (and Bradley Manning), seeks to put his country right when it is doing wrong.

      Only an idiot believes that his nation's leaders must be followed blindly, regardless of where they lead and what they do.

  21. Bounty

    new website

    For some odd reason I now want to start up a new website dedicated to ranking things with "blood on its hands"

  22. alwarming
    Go

    Most people trying the variations of the search...

    ever heard of double quotes ?

    1. Thorsten

      Why?

      1. its a stupid suggestion to get a meaningful ranking by googling that phrase

      2. you get much more impressive numbers if you don't, so much less fun if you quote the phrase

      3. the whole Assange(tm) saga is beyond satire anyway

      1. alwarming
        Thumb Up

        Re: Why?

        I understand the movie is a spoof but if the camera angle and lighting are not good, it irritates me.

        Having said that, I like your point no.2 &3!

  23. dlc.usa

    Marginalization

    A common approach to preventing the general acceptance of truth that would be an impediment to an entity's objectives is to marginalize that truth. The easiest way to do that is to persuade everyone that the truth-speaker is insane. If that statement is accepted then most people will not invest any time considering the merit of what the truth-speaker is saying. The easiest way of doing that is to simply render the truth-speaker insane (if you have the means). This also pays a dividend by demotivating other potential truth-speakers. I am not saying this is what has happened in this case, only that it cannot be ruled out to the best of my understanding to date. IMHO, of course--YMMV.

    1. Galidron
      WTF?

      RE Marginalization

      And this is generally done by the "truth-speaker's" supporters?

      1. dlc.usa

        Of Course Not

        All the subverting entity needs to do is stealthfully bring about the insane condition needed and let nature take its course.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Not Wikileaks but...

    "Pentagon" "blood on its hands" - 125,000 results

    "Assange" "blood on his hands" - 200,000 results

  25. Bernard M. Orwell
    Stop

    *facepalm*

    Assange you blithering tit!

    Up to now, despite your increasingly bizaare proclaimations and declaimations, I've largely sought to defend you because, fundamentally, I believe that the leaking of these documents is a good thing for the world.

    But you, old chap, are just going from strength to strength in demonstrating what an ego-centric nutjob you actually are and I can no longer countenance supporting you. I shall watch with interest as you do a first rate impression of the Oozle-Oozle bird* and pray that you don't do Wikileaks any further damage with your constant series of own-goals and blue-on-blue schoolboy errors.

    Please, go away quietly and cease damaging the real causes involved here.

    For the record, I continue to support the cause of Wikileaks, governmental openess at all levels, opposition to illegal war, american/western imperialism and the calls for proper & humane treatment of Bradley Manning.

    Assange, however - well, you're off my list. Bye!

    (* the Oozle-Oozle bird is well known for his strange behaviour of flying round in ever decreasing circles uttering nonsensical cries until it finally vanishes up it's own ass.....ange).

    1. Risky
      Jobs Horns

      Left(,3)

      On the other hand I think the diplomatic cable leaks have been a bad thing. I can't see any benefit to the common good.

      However I agree that the treatment of Manning is stupid and injust and that Assange can safely truncated at 3 characters. I wish he would go away, but could accept a return as the next Bond villan.

      That said I checked his logic:

      "Apple" "blood on its hands" 75,600

      "Microsoft" "blood on its hands" 39,100

      which seems fair to me.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Assange

    Can someone just hang him already? Not for the wikileaks stuff, just for being the most ridiculously creepy / insane man on the planet.

  27. Thomas 4

    Wikileaks does make the world a safer place

    ....except for that bit of it currently sitting in a cell on suicide watch with all the rights of a convicted terrorist.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    True but trivial

    As democratic governments AREN'T accountable, Assange's statement is trivially true.

    Think it through. When was the last time that

    1. A democratic government was voted out because of the attacks it had conducted on foreigners?

    2. An individual member of a democratic government was tried by a court of law for war crimes?

    Why was New Labour voted out? Not because of Iraq or Afghanistan...

    Why was Dubya voted out? Oh wait a minute, he wasn't - a US president only gets two terms of office anyway.

    Why was Tony Blair arrested and tried? Oh wait a minute he wasn't...

    You get my drift.

    1. Galidron

      War Crimes

      I don't know of any instance in history where the "victors" have been tried for war crimes no matter weather they've committed them or not. It's not as if the US has never started war's against foreign powers for little reason.

      Spanish American War - journalists decided a ship was blown up rather then a boiler accident.

      Mexican American War - US wanted more land.

      Maybe not really a war but still a crime

      Trail of tears - didn't like the natives so we kicked them out even though the supreme court granted their right to stay.

      I'm sure British history has plenty of examples of questionable behavior, but in the US we don't believe in learning other countries' history.

  29. Sil_W

    Wikileaks lost its way

    Originally, as I understood it, the point of Wikileaks was to provide a channel for people to expose corruption and wrongdoing in their company or organisation, and it stands to reason that this could and should include governments.

    The problem is that Wikileaks recently seems less about exposing such wrongdoing as it is about causing maximum embarrassment and inconvenience to the governments that JulAss* openly despises - particularly that of the USA. For example, while we may question the foreign policies of the United States, there seems little purpose in publishing a list of their strategic assets beyond an attempt to harm their interests. That's not what I understood Wikileaks to be about.

    While Wikileaks was a channel and clearing house for anonymous information from true whistleblowers it served a valuable purpose, but I think its credibility can only be damaged while it's serving as a vehicle for JulAss' political grandstanding.

    (* He could trademark that.)

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It will be good

    It will be good when they finally hang this moron so we don't need to read his dribble.

  31. Bernard M. Orwell
    Joke

    @AC 20:51

    You know, I think hanging him might be just a *little* harsh.

    After all, if we start inflicting capital punishment for the crime of being a dick, I suspect we'd see a lot less posts on this forum.

  32. Azimuth07
    Go

    More Google Truth

    2,110 results found for "assange is a wanker"

    No results found for "assange is not a wanker"

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Google truth? [stretching Assangian logic to its limits]

      I get 11 results. Including this page...

      Conversely:

      "the pope is a wanker" - 29

      "obama..." - 29

      "steve jobs..." - 30

      "gordon brown..." - 31

      "tony blair..." - 41

      "bill gates..." - 43

      "god..." - 48

      "bush..." - the outright democratically elected winner with 2,020 results!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022