|
On December 08 2010 02:11 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 01:59 mechavoc wrote:
Hmm is it possible that he isn't a good guy, and he actually did something wrong? or Do we just assume that big bad governments are always the bad guys? How is that even relevant? The leaks are confirmed true. Why do you care about whether Assange is "good or bad"? He could be child eating, psychopathic murderer. It doesn't make the leaks any less true. This is a common disconversation tactic to try to diverge the attention of what is being discussed to the figure of the person making the speech. It's "How to win a discussion without being right 101". ie.: - Here's proof of corruption - Yea... that's proof of corruption indeed. But you know what, you're a nazi child molester! - So what? Sue me, literally. Here's still proof of corruption and you should be held accountable for it. And that won't change whether I get sued for being a nazi child molester or not.
Not entirely true.
Yes, what assagne is or is not wouldn't affect the reliability or weight of wikileaks (even tho it would be seen different in public). Still when he did something bad (against the law, not the leaks) he should face the court no matter what awesome job he did with wikileaks, and everything would be fine. Now, that he hasn't done anything bad or against the law and is still arrested because the governments can, that's a really bad thing and literally against everything our governments (should) stand for.
|
On December 08 2010 01:16 FrankWalls wrote:
such a joke, america had this leak stuff coming. the guy is a hero for exposing some of the corruptness of our government.
Lol really? Most of what was revealed was already known to an extent most of what wikileaks revealed was raw data vs just the summations or speculations. Hardly deep levels of corruption.
But Wikileaks crossed a few lines in the process, mostly becuase they never asked and in turn revealed confidential papers that were not yet cleared by the state department. Which would count to a form of spying which the US can hold people for and seeing as they aren't official spies(afawk) they are unlikely to get traded back to their counties.
|
On December 08 2010 02:12 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 02:07 Whiladan wrote:On December 08 2010 02:05 Nizaris wrote:On December 08 2010 02:01 Whiladan wrote:On December 08 2010 01:59 Nizaris wrote:On December 08 2010 01:56 Whiladan wrote:On December 08 2010 01:54 Nizaris wrote:On December 08 2010 01:52 dcberkeley wrote:On December 08 2010 01:35 Krigwin wrote:
Guys, this is serious. This could be the last time we ever hear about this guy.
Next thing you know, his plane to Sweden has a mysterious accident. Maybe it gets hijacked by a terrorist. Maybe while he's in custody, he trips and falls in the shower and breaks his neck. Maybe while he's on the way to the courthouse, he stops to tie his shoes, falls and hits some bullets with his face. Maybe he just has a sudden heart attack and doctors can't explain it. Maybe one of the Interpol agents escorting this guy goes crazy and kills him, and later investigations show he was always a little overzealous and that the agency thought he had some mental issues and was already considering moving him to another position and they think maybe personal life troubles attributed to his breakdown.
A lot of people want this guy dead. A lot. Now I know we'd all like to believe the US government is a lot more competent than to blatantly murder the guy when the whole world's watching, but it's hard to have such faith in the government after some of these leaks. Plus, they're not the only players here with something to gain from his death. Political prisoners are almost always freed even in the worst of countries; Castro, Mandela, Suu Kyi. It is more dangerous to kill and make a martyr than just to put in jail where they are irrelevant. but if he is convicted of being a spy it's the death penalty so either way it doesn't look good for him. He is charged with crimes related to sexual misconduct... until they extradite him to the US yes. That's purely speculation and sensationalizing at this point. Ya it is speculation, but if he ends up in jail in Sweden the US has the right to ask them to extradite him right? If he has been charged with spy-ing in the US by then. No, I'm sure our Fuhrer Stalinbama will send his baby-killer hit squad to take him out during the trial. Take your sensational anti-american bullshit to a thread that is actually relevant. good argument, i was honestly asking a question. That is if it is possible he will end up in the US if you didn't get it the first time. Take your pro-American bullshit to a thread that is actually relevant cuz anti Americanism is certainly relevant here? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8166607/WikiLeaks-US-Senators-call-for-WikiLeaks-to-face-criminal-charges.htmlThey haven't charged him as a spy just yet, only call him a terrorist.
The simple fact of the matter is that America has not requested extradition and they also had no part in the arrest. Yet your first post reads:
"US probly paying those 2 chicks lots of dollars to lie.
I wouldn't have waited for them to come get me, the cia will plant evidence against him and he's gonna get fucked"
You're either trolling or you're so full of shit that you actually believe what you're spouting.
|
On December 08 2010 02:04 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 02:02 Iplaythings wrote:
USA is starting to look like china, except they speak english.
Sigh... Super powers doing whatever the fuck they want, and noone can do anything about cus theyre the big boys in the school yard... China? you're too nice. I was thinking of Stalin.
was referring to current state powers, and Stalin is too rough.
They dont kill their own agents just because they dont believe them 
On December 08 2010 02:07 Whiladan wrote:
No, I'm sure our Fuhrer Stalinbama will send his baby-killer hit squad to take him out during the trial. Take your sensational anti-american bullshit to a thread that is actually relevant.
Take your sensational pro-american bullshit to a thread that is actually relevant
See what I did there? If you dont believe that america has propaganda, as China, first of all, I strongly recommend you to force yourself to look at it all from a neutral perspective, I can tell you didnt.
but youre right that people (and myself) probally overrate america's influence, surely Sweden and Britain wouldnt bend over to USA so easily
|
On December 08 2010 02:00 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 01:52 dcberkeley wrote:On December 08 2010 01:35 Krigwin wrote:
Guys, this is serious. This could be the last time we ever hear about this guy.
Next thing you know, his plane to Sweden has a mysterious accident. Maybe it gets hijacked by a terrorist. Maybe while he's in custody, he trips and falls in the shower and breaks his neck. Maybe while he's on the way to the courthouse, he stops to tie his shoes, falls and hits some bullets with his face. Maybe he just has a sudden heart attack and doctors can't explain it. Maybe one of the Interpol agents escorting this guy goes crazy and kills him, and later investigations show he was always a little overzealous and that the agency thought he had some mental issues and was already considering moving him to another position and they think maybe personal life troubles attributed to his breakdown.
A lot of people want this guy dead. A lot. Now I know we'd all like to believe the US government is a lot more competent than to blatantly murder the guy when the whole world's watching, but it's hard to have such faith in the government after some of these leaks. Plus, they're not the only players here with something to gain from his death. Political prisoners are almost always freed even in the worst of countries; Castro, Mandela, Suu Kyi. It is more dangerous to kill and make a martyr than just to put in jail where they are irrelevant. Right, it'd be much worse to kill him and thus turn him into a martyr. But you're assuming all the players involved will be thinking rationally and having such foresight. Plus, he's perhaps the most extreme political prisoner there has ever been in human history. Also, him being somehow extradited and never being heard from again is also a possibility.
No, it's not a possibility.
He isn't going to disappear into the night or vanish to some third world country the CIA uses for extraordinary rendition-esque purposes, nor is he going to DIE or some other equally retarded suggestion.
He's going to get tried, freed, and will continue to do his thing because it'd be the most supremely retarded asinine dumbshit thing in the world to actually consider that governments (rather, people actually in power) seriously weigh the option of assassination against such a high-profile figure that's being blasted across every media channel in existence.
People love to just throw out extreme exaggerations without actually thinking about them. Korean border spat? WORLD WAR 3. Iran announces some new resumption of a nuclear facility? WORLD WAR 3. US Carrier sent to the Persian Gulf or the Yellow Sea? Yep, you guessed it, the internets will call WW3 without missing a beat. This paragraph is a bit of rant, to be sure, but people need to calm the fuck down sometimes.
Hmm is it possible that he isn't a good guy, and he actually did something wrong? or Do we just assume that big bad governments are always the bad guys?
No. You see, governments are inherently evil creatures seeking to destroy the civil liberties of its citizens and maintain a power monopoly to further their ends, that's been common knowledge since day one of the world pretty much.
See, the American government wants Assange, so they pressure the Swedes to issue this arrest. Because, duh, the US has so much power and pull as to actually scare the Swedes into abandoning their clearly superior moral standing into doing something as dirty as issuing the arrest warrant. Sweden's third largest exporter is the United States, it's clear to anyone with half a brain that the US could simply cut off Swedish imports and damage their domestic economy if they didn't arrest Assange. Thus it is evident in the grand scheme of things that Sweden is a US puppet that responds to political pressure much like a dog eagerly awaits his next meal.
While we're at it, let's define "Government" too, because that's an interesting question.
What is the American government? Is it Obama? Does Obama want Assange dead/killed/imprisoned? Or maybe the CIA director? The CIA as a whole? Or NSA? Or random senators and political figures? Top level military commanders?
Anyways, Assange should be kicking himself that he leaked these cables. The US is going to be immediately tighten up security in such areas and there's no guarantee that further documents won't be classified at a higher level of secrecy, even if there's no real grounds to do so. So good job Assange, you leaked a bunch of largely useless shit instead of waiting for something really good and having another Iran-Contras or Watergate. To make a SC reference, he revealed his carrier tech switch when he only had like 1 carrier instead of waiting for a whole fucking control group.
|
On December 08 2010 02:21 Whiladan wrote:
You're either trolling or you're so full of shit that you actually believe what you're spouting.
I'd go with the latter option, since this thread has clearly turned from being about a current news issue into an excuse for every country with a napoleon complex to vent their America hatred.
|
Oh, the request for extradition we are expected that to happen openly and not in the elite and cozy club known as diplomacy?
Goverment is goverment, it feels a need to shroud its operations in darkness. Why? Because its acting within the borders the missinformed and sheepish 'public' have granted it by voting? Or does it act on its own, whoever we vote to hold the rudder means little when the ship crew will say 'Aye captain I'll do that' and go about their business as they have always done and will continue to do if the crew is not replaced.
|
Probably much of the confusion over US policy in this thread is a result of being native to an area that hasn't had any cause for secrecy, a position that has grown out of countless centuries of irrelevancy.
|
On December 08 2010 02:20 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 01:16 FrankWalls wrote:
such a joke, america had this leak stuff coming. the guy is a hero for exposing some of the corruptness of our government. Lol really? Most of what was revealed was already known to an extent most of what wikileaks revealed was raw data vs just the summations or speculations. Hardly deep levels of corruption.
I expect that the 'insurance file' has the stuff we're all interested in to be honest. I have scanned through a couple of hundred of the cables released so far and they are all fairly banal and typical descriptions and assessments of diplomatic positions and strategic assets. However, I expect there is a fair share of extremely important dirty laundry which WILL be aired if Assange, by some miracle, manages to avoid an 'unfortunate accident' on his way to the courthouse.
|
On December 08 2010 02:23 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 02:00 Krigwin wrote:On December 08 2010 01:52 dcberkeley wrote:On December 08 2010 01:35 Krigwin wrote:
Guys, this is serious. This could be the last time we ever hear about this guy.
Next thing you know, his plane to Sweden has a mysterious accident. Maybe it gets hijacked by a terrorist. Maybe while he's in custody, he trips and falls in the shower and breaks his neck. Maybe while he's on the way to the courthouse, he stops to tie his shoes, falls and hits some bullets with his face. Maybe he just has a sudden heart attack and doctors can't explain it. Maybe one of the Interpol agents escorting this guy goes crazy and kills him, and later investigations show he was always a little overzealous and that the agency thought he had some mental issues and was already considering moving him to another position and they think maybe personal life troubles attributed to his breakdown.
A lot of people want this guy dead. A lot. Now I know we'd all like to believe the US government is a lot more competent than to blatantly murder the guy when the whole world's watching, but it's hard to have such faith in the government after some of these leaks. Plus, they're not the only players here with something to gain from his death. Political prisoners are almost always freed even in the worst of countries; Castro, Mandela, Suu Kyi. It is more dangerous to kill and make a martyr than just to put in jail where they are irrelevant. Right, it'd be much worse to kill him and thus turn him into a martyr. But you're assuming all the players involved will be thinking rationally and having such foresight. Plus, he's perhaps the most extreme political prisoner there has ever been in human history. Also, him being somehow extradited and never being heard from again is also a possibility. No, it's not a possibility. He isn't going to disappear into the night or vanish to some third world country the CIA uses for extraordinary rendition-esque purposes, nor is he going to DIE or some other equally retarded suggestion. He's going to get tried, freed, and will continue to do his thing because it'd be the most supremely retarded asinine dumbshit thing in the world to actually consider that governments (rather, people actually in power) seriously weigh the option of assassination against such a high-profile figure that's being blasted across every media channel in existence. People love to just throw out extreme exaggerations without actually thinking about them. Korean border spat? WORLD WAR 3. Iran announces some new resumption of a nuclear facility? WORLD WAR 3. US Carrier sent to the Persian Gulf or the Yellow Sea? Yep, you guessed it, the internets will call WW3 without missing a beat. This paragraph is a bit of rant, to be sure, but people need to calm the fuck down sometimes.
Pretty cool rant bro. I'd argue that it's a pretty asinine bullshit move to launch this kind of blatantly transparent smear campaign against the man involving some case of consensual sex that wouldn't even be considered a felony in the US and turn it into an international manhunt, and if the people involved are willing to be that obvious, then anything's possible, but that's just me. You're free to disagree, but unless you're prophetic, let's not throw around blanket absolutes like "it's not a possibility" without some evidence at hand, that just makes you as bad as the people you're raging about.
|
On December 08 2010 02:24 FrostOtter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 02:21 Whiladan wrote:
You're either trolling or you're so full of shit that you actually believe what you're spouting.
I'd go with the latter option, since this thread has clearly turned from being about a current news issue into an excuse for every country with a napoleon complex to vent their America hatred.
If america didnt put him on the worlds terror list for being a good journalist (aka, propaganda, cencoring) it wouldnt have been.
Even though I personally have a lot of America hatred, I would notice that this just seems a little TOO convienient, especially for my liking
Thats as good as I can do with neutrality, even though I am probally half socialistisk in my viewpoints, and I would guess youre rightwing... So noone will agree, but hey, disagreements' cool enough
|
On December 08 2010 01:31 FrostOtter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 01:19 wadadde wrote:On December 08 2010 01:09 FrostOtter wrote:On December 08 2010 01:07 accela wrote:On December 08 2010 00:47 emythrel wrote:
I am a huge supporter of free speech, but wikileaks isn't free speech.
Free speech is the right to say anything you want, to write anything you want. Not to publish documents you obtained illegally. The military have good reason to keep some things "top secret" to protect lives of soldiers, spies and civilians.
I have the right to say that the government shouldn't keep those things secret, I have the right to protest to have those documents released.... I do not have the right to obtain them illegally and then publish them.
We have an elected government for a reason, if you want to change how that government works then you have to become a part of it or lobby it.... not just release sensitive documents without any care for the consequences.
Anyone who thinks that we as a society have the right to know every detail should remember one thing, while we have that right, we as an individual are not qualified to understand most of these documents and even if explained to us by an expert, most people still wouldn't understand them. That is why we have elections and a trained military and intelligence services.... they specifically train and prepare to udnerstand these things and protect us.
The british government is not perfect, no government is, but they have the right to protect their operatives and soldiers. How would you feel if you're every move was posted online by someone else, without your permission? Would you then say "free speech" or would you want to have that person arrested for harassment and invasion of privacy? You pretty much contradict yourself. When you support the freedom of speech there can be no "but". Be able to read/write/say anything you want BUT certain things is just not freedom. The same goes for democracy. A real democracy REQUIRES citizens to have full access to any information that has to do with their country so they can valuate and vote accordingly. I think everyone here seems to be ignoring that there are not any democracies in the world (at least as far as major countries are concerned). Most of us have governments that are some form of republic. So the "true" democracy argument doesn't hold water-- we aren't a democracy, we are a republic, and there is indeed a difference. Your state can become more democratic. Forcing a degree of openness seem to be - at least in part - one of the aims of genuine journalists. The alternative is being lied to until keeping up appearances is no longer deemed worth the effort by the powerful few. The only way to become more democratic is to have the people decide legislative matters. That is the definition of democracy. There is a difference between being lied to and being kept from certain things, and I think everyone except for 15-year-old anarchists recognize that distinction. I am in full support of anyone revealing government scandals, such as targeting of civilians or something along those lines. Revealing anything else serves little purpose other than to be inflammatory. Juan Cole, in the article I posted on the previous page, sums up my position pretty well.
Yes, having freedom of speech, freedom of information and a free press does imply (feel free to point out that these are basically all the same thing) that stuff that serves little purpose (in your opinion) will see the light of day. What's the problem here?
No, the distinction between 'being kept from the truth' and 'being lied to' isn't all that relevant within a system where the opinion of citizens is supposed to matter to the rulers. Don't you want a more democratic system? Surely you realize that openness doesn't require the institutional improvements to precede it. Surely you realize that both are essential for much-needed change.
Frankly, your narrative disgusts me. Shock journalism isn't what's lacking. What's lacking (not just in the US) is obedience of 'democratically' elected leaders to their masters. Self-governance is meaningless without an obstinate, cantankerous press that works tirelessly to keep the actions of its governments in the light; all the actions; you don't get to pick and choose which truths are useful and therefore acceptable for dissemination.
You say reckless/pointless/meaningless. I say brave and essential. Being more idealistic or 'progressive' than the average nobody, doesn't make me a "15-year-old anarchist". Americans have both been lied to and been kept from the truth as much as possible on numerous occasions in the recent past. How dare you whine about the difference?! Ugh, sorry. People like you piss me off. Mustn't start repeating myself.
|
On December 08 2010 02:30 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 02:23 Elegy wrote:On December 08 2010 02:00 Krigwin wrote:On December 08 2010 01:52 dcberkeley wrote:On December 08 2010 01:35 Krigwin wrote:
Guys, this is serious. This could be the last time we ever hear about this guy.
Next thing you know, his plane to Sweden has a mysterious accident. Maybe it gets hijacked by a terrorist. Maybe while he's in custody, he trips and falls in the shower and breaks his neck. Maybe while he's on the way to the courthouse, he stops to tie his shoes, falls and hits some bullets with his face. Maybe he just has a sudden heart attack and doctors can't explain it. Maybe one of the Interpol agents escorting this guy goes crazy and kills him, and later investigations show he was always a little overzealous and that the agency thought he had some mental issues and was already considering moving him to another position and they think maybe personal life troubles attributed to his breakdown.
A lot of people want this guy dead. A lot. Now I know we'd all like to believe the US government is a lot more competent than to blatantly murder the guy when the whole world's watching, but it's hard to have such faith in the government after some of these leaks. Plus, they're not the only players here with something to gain from his death. Political prisoners are almost always freed even in the worst of countries; Castro, Mandela, Suu Kyi. It is more dangerous to kill and make a martyr than just to put in jail where they are irrelevant. Right, it'd be much worse to kill him and thus turn him into a martyr. But you're assuming all the players involved will be thinking rationally and having such foresight. Plus, he's perhaps the most extreme political prisoner there has ever been in human history. Also, him being somehow extradited and never being heard from again is also a possibility. No, it's not a possibility. He isn't going to disappear into the night or vanish to some third world country the CIA uses for extraordinary rendition-esque purposes, nor is he going to DIE or some other equally retarded suggestion. He's going to get tried, freed, and will continue to do his thing because it'd be the most supremely retarded asinine dumbshit thing in the world to actually consider that governments (rather, people actually in power) seriously weigh the option of assassination against such a high-profile figure that's being blasted across every media channel in existence. People love to just throw out extreme exaggerations without actually thinking about them. Korean border spat? WORLD WAR 3. Iran announces some new resumption of a nuclear facility? WORLD WAR 3. US Carrier sent to the Persian Gulf or the Yellow Sea? Yep, you guessed it, the internets will call WW3 without missing a beat. This paragraph is a bit of rant, to be sure, but people need to calm the fuck down sometimes. Pretty cool rant bro. I'd argue that it's a pretty asinine bullshit move to launch this kind of blatantly transparent smear campaign against the man involving some case of consensual sex that wouldn't even be considered a felony in the US and turn it into an international manhunt, and if the people involved are willing to be that obvious, then anything's possible, but that's just me. You're free to disagree, but unless you're prophetic, let's not throw around blanket absolutes like "it's not a possibility" without some evidence at hand, that just makes you as bad as the people you're raging about.
I'd argue that it's equally retarded to, as you say, "throw around blanket absolutes", that the US is behind this smear campaign without "some evidence at hand". But it's blatantly transparent, right? How did the US pressure Sweden into issuing this warrant? Any evidence? Any ideas? Any...well any anything besides an assumption based on zero evidence?
Because assertions based on zero evidence are just so entertaining!
|
On December 08 2010 02:30 Iplaythings wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 02:24 FrostOtter wrote:On December 08 2010 02:21 Whiladan wrote:
You're either trolling or you're so full of shit that you actually believe what you're spouting.
I'd go with the latter option, since this thread has clearly turned from being about a current news issue into an excuse for every country with a napoleon complex to vent their America hatred. If america didnt put him on the worlds terror list for being a good journalist (aka, propaganda, cencoring) it wouldnt have been. Even though I personally have a lot of America hatred, I would notice that this just seems a little TOO convienient, especially for my liking Thats as good as I can do with neutrality, even though I am probally half socialistisk in my viewpoints, and I would guess youre rightwing... So noone will agree, but hey, disagreements' cool enough
We may disagree, but at least you have the common sense to realize that there are better places to decry your hate for us rednecks. 
|
Am I the only one who think it would be interesting to know what educational level people in this thread have completed? I'm beginning to smell a trend...
Actually I think age and political stance would be pretty interesting as well :O
|
Just to top it all of:
5.30pm: With perfect timing an email arrives from Philip Crowley at the state department:
The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC. The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and
innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.
The Guardian
|
On December 08 2010 02:31 wadadde wrote:
Yes, having freedom of speech, freedom of information and a free press does imply (feel free to point out that these are basically all the same thing) that stuff that serves little purpose (in your opinion) will see the light of day. What's the problem here?
Did I say there was?
No, the distinction between 'being kept from the truth' and 'being lied to' isn't all that relevant within a system where the opinion of citizens is supposed to matter to the rulers.
Who then elect representatives with the clear understanding that, while the public wants to know about major decisions, it is impractical for the populace at large to have a hand in running the country, or to even know how to run a country.
Don't you want a more democratic system? Surely you realize that openness doesn't require the institutional improvements to precede it. Surely you realize that both are essential for much-needed change.
By democratic, you mean rule by the people? Why would I want that? I live in America and have seen enough Americans to know that I don't want my neighbors making policy decisions. And before you comment on the Americans, it is the same in your country. There are ignorant people everywhere, and I doubt that making them more in charge out of some notion of "Democracy" (as opposed to the more correct "republic") would do the country any good. Also, when did we decide that democracy (or, again, republic is what we actually mean) is flawless?
Frankly, your narrative disgusts me.
What narrative?
Shock journalism isn't what's lacking. What's lacking (not just in the US) is obedience of 'democratically' elected leaders to their masters. Self-governance is meaningless without an obstinate, cantankerous press that works tirelessly to keep the actions of its governments in the light; all the actions; you don't get to pick and choose which truths are useful and therefore acceptable for dissemination.
I agree with you, except for the fact that I disagree that 100 percent of everything the government does is up for grabs. Which is not to say that I know where to draw the line, or that I think anyone knows where to draw the line. But I do believe that somewhere there is a line. The press reporting on the location of some facility of strategic importance, for instance, I do not believe is necessary. Not that I even necessarily believe that it should be illegal, but that the press should, on occasion, express some good sense. I don't know. There is a line, is basically what I am saying.
You say reckless/pointless/meaningless. I say brave and essential.
Congratulations. Perhaps next you can start telling me how one man's criminal is another man's hero, or a multitude of other platitudes that I am sure that I have never heard of before and equally sure will completely change my mind in this situation.
Being more idealistic or 'progressive' than the average nobody, doesn't make me a "15-year-old anarchist".
No, but being idealistic makes you rather silly insofar as history and politics are concerned.
Americans have both been lied to and been kept from the truth as much as possible on numerous occasions in the recent past. How dare you whine about the difference?! Ugh, sorry. People like you piss me off. Mustn't start repeating myself.
People like me piss you off? Do you even know what kind of person I am? People like me that believe the FCC should only be responsible for monitoring government frequencies, not censorship laws. People like me that have considered moving to places like Australia or Britain, but disagree with the levels of censorship in those countries. Just because I am not clamoring to blow Julian Assange like half of the internet community right now does not mean that I am some henchman for whatever conspiracy you imagine.
|
On December 08 2010 02:33 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 02:30 Krigwin wrote:On December 08 2010 02:23 Elegy wrote:On December 08 2010 02:00 Krigwin wrote:On December 08 2010 01:52 dcberkeley wrote:On December 08 2010 01:35 Krigwin wrote:
Guys, this is serious. This could be the last time we ever hear about this guy.
Next thing you know, his plane to Sweden has a mysterious accident. Maybe it gets hijacked by a terrorist. Maybe while he's in custody, he trips and falls in the shower and breaks his neck. Maybe while he's on the way to the courthouse, he stops to tie his shoes, falls and hits some bullets with his face. Maybe he just has a sudden heart attack and doctors can't explain it. Maybe one of the Interpol agents escorting this guy goes crazy and kills him, and later investigations show he was always a little overzealous and that the agency thought he had some mental issues and was already considering moving him to another position and they think maybe personal life troubles attributed to his breakdown.
A lot of people want this guy dead. A lot. Now I know we'd all like to believe the US government is a lot more competent than to blatantly murder the guy when the whole world's watching, but it's hard to have such faith in the government after some of these leaks. Plus, they're not the only players here with something to gain from his death. Political prisoners are almost always freed even in the worst of countries; Castro, Mandela, Suu Kyi. It is more dangerous to kill and make a martyr than just to put in jail where they are irrelevant. Right, it'd be much worse to kill him and thus turn him into a martyr. But you're assuming all the players involved will be thinking rationally and having such foresight. Plus, he's perhaps the most extreme political prisoner there has ever been in human history. Also, him being somehow extradited and never being heard from again is also a possibility. No, it's not a possibility. He isn't going to disappear into the night or vanish to some third world country the CIA uses for extraordinary rendition-esque purposes, nor is he going to DIE or some other equally retarded suggestion. He's going to get tried, freed, and will continue to do his thing because it'd be the most supremely retarded asinine dumbshit thing in the world to actually consider that governments (rather, people actually in power) seriously weigh the option of assassination against such a high-profile figure that's being blasted across every media channel in existence. People love to just throw out extreme exaggerations without actually thinking about them. Korean border spat? WORLD WAR 3. Iran announces some new resumption of a nuclear facility? WORLD WAR 3. US Carrier sent to the Persian Gulf or the Yellow Sea? Yep, you guessed it, the internets will call WW3 without missing a beat. This paragraph is a bit of rant, to be sure, but people need to calm the fuck down sometimes. Pretty cool rant bro. I'd argue that it's a pretty asinine bullshit move to launch this kind of blatantly transparent smear campaign against the man involving some case of consensual sex that wouldn't even be considered a felony in the US and turn it into an international manhunt, and if the people involved are willing to be that obvious, then anything's possible, but that's just me. You're free to disagree, but unless you're prophetic, let's not throw around blanket absolutes like "it's not a possibility" without some evidence at hand, that just makes you as bad as the people you're raging about. I'd argue that it's equally retarded to, as you say, "throw around blanket absolutes", that the US is behind this smear campaign without "some evidence at hand". But it's blatantly transparent, right? How did the US pressure Sweden into issuing this warrant? Any evidence? Any ideas? Any...well any anything besides an assumption based on zero evidence? Because assertions based on zero evidence are just so entertaining!
Please quote exactly where I stated in that post that the US is behind the smear campaign.
Please quote exactly where I stated in that post that the US pressured Sweden into issuing this warrant.
Also, those aren't "blanket absolutes". Please learn the definition of terms before you try to throw them around. A blanket absolute statement would be something like "It's not a possibility". "I think the US is behind this arrest" is not an absolute statement, it's an opinion, or a baseless assertion at worst. Don't try to be cute and use others' words when you don't even understand them.
|
On December 08 2010 02:18 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 02:11 VIB wrote:On December 08 2010 01:59 mechavoc wrote:
Hmm is it possible that he isn't a good guy, and he actually did something wrong? or Do we just assume that big bad governments are always the bad guys? How is that even relevant? The leaks are confirmed true. Why do you care about whether Assange is "good or bad"? He could be child eating, psychopathic murderer. It doesn't make the leaks any less true. This is a common disconversation tactic to try to diverge the attention of what is being discussed to the figure of the person making the speech. It's "How to win a discussion without being right 101". ie.: - Here's proof of corruption - Yea... that's proof of corruption indeed. But you know what, you're a nazi child molester! - So what? Sue me, literally. Here's still proof of corruption and you should be held accountable for it. And that won't change whether I get sued for being a nazi child molester or not. Not entirely true. Yes, what assagne is or is not wouldn't affect the reliability or weight of wikileaks (even tho it would be seen different in public). Still when he did something bad (against the law, not the leaks) he should face the court no matter what awesome job he did with wikileaks, and everything would be fine. Now, that he hasn't done anything bad or against the law and is still arrested because the governments can, that's a really bad thing and literally against everything our governments (should) stand for.
That's a bit too polite a way of phrasing it. Assange was the public face of wikileaks and any attack against him is an ad hominem attack against the organization as a whole. It doesn't matter that the materials leaked are authentic or that there's real issues that need to be addressed. The whole organization could get discredited in the eyes of dumb people (mainstream media viewers) which is more important and effective then trying to cover up the truth (which only makes governments look bad and is impossible in the information age).
I wouldn't worry until they do something like bump up the charges to rape again, or extradite to the US.
|
A man in chains knows he should have acted sooner for his ability to influence the actions of the state is near its end. To deal with powerful conspiratorial actions we must think ahead and attack the process that leads to them since the actions themselves can not be dealt with
Wikileaks/Assange what is the purpose with it all, analysis
Found this an interesting read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
