Where Does Wikileaks Money Come From? No solid facts, just some speculation. Makes for interesting reading. The short is that it can't be cheap and China's a suspect.
A million dollars really isn't a lot of money. It's not at all inconceivable that this amount would be raised from small donations. 4000 people matching my last donation, for instance, even without major sponsors giving a hundred thousand here or there. Fingering China as Wikileak's patron in lieu of actual evidence screams of ridiculous paranoia.
Ignoring the fact that you were busted for being inconsistent in your stated donation, Wikileaks was blowing through a large amount of money well before they became notorious. If nothing else, someone kicked in a good-sized start-up fee. (Note that I started to say, "big start-up fee" but for a government, even $5 million annually for this kind of return is really small change.)
What? Where and when did this happen? And even then, a million dollars (and it wouldn't have been that much before Wikileaks became notorious) is not a lot of money. If I wanted to, I could commit the same resources. Julian Assange may have been wealthy before Wikileaks, or he may have a silent partner or friend who was. To jump to the foreign government conspiracy angle is laughable, especially for such a tiny sum. If we were talking about $100 million, then perhaps you'd have a point. $1m and less? Not so much.
^ I did say this was just an interesting theory. But for you to dismiss it just because it's a small amount is pretty "small-time" thinking on your part. Not every plan by a government has to be some monstrously expensive inefficient mess that only Democrats in the U.S. government would dream up.
Possible? Sure. But it's also possible that Julian Assange is an alien from Alpha Kentauri and that Wikileaks is their vehicle for terrestrial domination. Just because something is possible does not mean that is has a probability worth giving it serious consideration.
Yeah, this is pretty paranoid, and the author did no research on the organization whatsoever. For one thing, it's well-documented that Wikileaks is staffed entirely by volunteers, including Assange. That's 1.2-1.3 million off the top. It's a pretty pathetic organization that's so well-known that can't raise the remaining 160k that they would require for servers and travel. This blog post does not pass the smell test.
True, but there is the interesting point about the dog that doesn't bark. So even if it is a case where independent donations are keeping wikileaks going, I also find the lack of data from China to be curious. I cant see them having security that good.
They've had some egg on their face already about their true feelings about North Korea, and I thought I saw "China" as a subject in the Cablegate index, but I wanted to confirm that before saying so. However, it seems like AT&T is blocking me from reaching any IP address or hostname associated with WikiLeaks at the moment.
Well, first of all, it's not at all true that there's a lack of Chinese data. From the American embassy in Beijing: http://wikileaks.nl/origin/64_0.html Also, keep in mind that less than .33% of all the cables have been published thus far.
A LOT of dogs aren't barking, not just China. I don't hear Uruguay or Greenland complaining either, so...?
Tasvir's not really all that mysterious -- it's just the acrid, sinus-searing stench of curry that lends him that illusion. But as soon as he says anything, it's dispelled. The illusion of mystery, that is, not the stench.
This article is retarded. First of all, the socio-economic analysis is China is outlandish. Demand is lagging? When growth has returned to double digits since the global financial crisis? China's middle class growth is flat? China wants to conquer South Korea and Japan to take "comfort women" to restock its population? These are just varying degrees of ridiculous. And the main argument, that nothing suggestive about China has surfaced in the Wikileaks incident, is false. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/29/wikileaks.new.documents/index.html?eref=edition China's official response to the Yeongpeon incident was as weak as "both sides need to behave themselves better." But through the cables, we understand that China is (quite understandably) fed up with North Korea, and that some senior officials actually favor unification "under Seoul's control." That is no less than damning for China's relationship with North Korea. As others have mentioned, the amount of funding in question is hardly in the exclusive range of a sovereign government, much less necessary to have come from the world's second largest economy. Show us some real evidence rather than hyper-flawed conjecture.
Note this is from Fox, but they're talking about a NYT news story from yesterday, so take that for what it's worth. and Fox provides the link to the NYT article
I don't think it's China. It's more likely that the leaker either lacked the time or just wasn't able to get a lot of cables about China. I do think George Soros however is in on the funding.
I agree it ain't China. Some of the leaks deal with their views on North Korea, about how they act like spoiled children and how the Chinese supposedly would support a unified Korea under southern control. That's not the kind of stuff you want your supposed "ally" to see or to have leaked.
The sheer volume of stuff leads one to think it's just Assange trolling for as much stuff as he could get as cheap as he could get it. That may be a wrong conclusion, too, but it's hard to imagine he's the one virtuous, "I don't care about the money or fame" person in the world. If he can find a gullible service member to dump him a huge set of documents by feeding their dissatisfaction in such a way he doesn't have to pay for it, then so much the better for him. Again, it's just an idea. It seems unlikely we'll ever know the real story.
Wikileaks used to be entirely anonymous, but it became necessary to have a spokesperson when people with no ties to Wikileaks were making shit up about what they were leaking. So they needed deniability, and it comes in the form of Julian Assange. Since he was already editor-in-chief, it made sense to have him be the one to say "no, this guy is full of shit" when someone claimed to be talking on Wikileaks' behalf.
Conspiracy theorists like to say that its the NSA or CIA (seeing as how running such an operation would give them advance knowledge of not only what had escaped, but who was responsible).