Maybe there should be an option: "I will defend Wikileaks in my words and actions, but not step over any bounds in doing so" or is that the same as "I'm too chicken"?

That's along the lines of stopping child abuse by changing your Facebook profile picture to a cartoon character.

Disagree: A lot of people are on the fence simply because they have no idea how WL works or why it's important. Explaining the issue to these 'under-informed' people (normals) could have a good amount to do with swaying public opinion.

No one should be attacked, neither Wikileaks or it's enemies.

If I really had to choose "I would attack people making stupid polls on HN"

Obviously you have a limited interpretation for the word attack:

Amongst the others:

  .. .to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize   
  severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's 
  statement. 

In fact your post is technically an attack suggesting no attacking. Still you feel justified to go around attacking?

Seriously - get over yourself - Do you really have nothing better to do than make comments like this?

You seem to forget that people are getting seriously polarized over this issue, and with all the DDoSing and hacking going on I simply don't like that word "attacking" being used in this context.

The second part of my message was obviously not serious.