We're not talking about Assange

Strell

Strell

CAGiversary!
Feedback
288 (100%)
I guess he just got arrested in London.

I'll be honest - I have not put in the necessary time and effort to research what he has done and whether or not it is a sort of noble freedom fighter whistleblower thing versus a forthelulz potential terrorist thing, seeing as how our country has no ability anymore to distinguish levels of nuance and has to paint someone as either Hitler's tennis partner or Captain America on a hunting trip havin' a beer.

So is he good? Bad? Both? Is it an intentions angle? About the only thing I can come to terms with is that he does something, a day later he's a rapist, a day after that he's a weird Israeli-supporting terrorist, a day after that there's bounties out for him, which all sounds not unlike it when a Scientologist denouncer is found having "committed suicide." All the bullshit corruption by the military and corporations in the last few years, and it takes less than a week to make this guy into the puffed up maniac I'm supposed to believe him to be? There's people who should be way ahead in line than him.

But again, this is sort of an amalgamated response based on information I'm not really confirming on my own, and instead see people all around me blowing up in different directions at this whole thing.

So, educate me, if someone can distill it down a bit. I'm willing to do my part and read links that appear objective - I just don't have the time to sift through it all and am hoping someone might have a quickly compiled list.

Also if you're a dumbass - and sadly those of you that are seem painfully unaware of this fact - please refrain from replying.
 
It seems the charges are completely bullshit. It's one of those laws on the books no one prosecutes for unless everyone freaks out. The prosecutor says it's not political but that's... difficult to imagine, much less believe. I've read lawyers saying he needed to turn himself in and go in to the trial blasting but I'm not sure that's right. If charges like these can appear out of thin air, so can a hostile trial.

Allegedly less than 9k of 200k documents have been released. And allegedly American media firms have been quietly helping Wikileaks redact and withhold especially damaging stuff (names of informants, etc.).

I really, REALLY want to see what Wikileaks has on the unidentified US bank because short of murder, I can't imagine them doing worse than they already have.

I think Assange is a force for good. I've seen interviews and his personality left a bunch to be desired in the public face of an entity like Wikileaks, but he seems to believe he's doing right and I think I agree.
 
[quote name='Strell']
Also if you're a dumbass - and sadly those of you that are seem painfully unaware of this fact - please refrain from replying.[/QUOTE]

I know you likely included me in that inference, so lets just get this out of the way now before we get down to brass tacks.

icQb96.jpg

Assange is an Anarchist. He hasn't really shown us anything we didn't already know, other than reassuring us that our government lies to us. What would be the motive for doing that? Who gains from the people losing further trust in government?

More importantly than asking what his agenda might be or if he's good or bad, I think it's very informative to closely watch for those that openly support him and what he's doing; again - who gains from destabilization and creating further distrust in government?
 
It's not that the analogy in that image is so terribly illogical, it's that you think you're smart for copypasta'n it. I could deal with one or the other, but it's insufferable when it's a one-two punch of derp.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I know you likely included me in that inference, so lets just get this out of the way now before we get down to brass tacks.

icQb96.jpg

Assange is an Anarchist. He hasn't really shown us anything we didn't already know, other than reassuring us that our government lies to us. What would be the motive for doing that? Who gains from the people losing further trust in government?

More importantly than asking what his agenda might be or if he's good or bad, I think it's very informative to closely watch for those that openly support him and what he's doing; again - who gains from destabilization and creating further distrust in government?[/QUOTE]
Fox News?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']other than reassuring us that our government lies to us.[/QUOTE]

eeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. woah there, cowpoke.

that line is one I hear enough w/r/t wikileaks and assange. and it's not something I buy, really. It's certainly less politically damning than Daniel Ellsburg's Pentagon Papers in the mid-60's. THOSE documents showed the government lied to us, specifically w/ LBJ planning to bomb Vietnam while he was on the campaign trail fighting Barry Goldwater against that very idea.

That was the government lying to us - two parties colluding toward the same goal, while making play theatre on the public stage.

How is wikileaks showing that? The cables (still not used to that phrase as denoting communication, but whateva) show the US as being kinda pricks in terms of foreign diplomacy, being concerned about Iran's nuclear development, and having a guffaw, from time to time, about how stupid some of our allies were. There's NOTHING in the released info so far that has shocked me. Why? Because the US's foreign diplomacy is kind of prickish and our allies can be pretty stupid.

Really, what cable revelations have actually surprised you? What made you gasp, or jump out of your chair in amazement? What's made you call your friends and say "GUESS WHAT I JUST READ?" B/c the Pentagon Papers takes the cake in terms of political shockers.

The wikileaks documents show a government doing what we're pretty sure government does. Acting shocked about it is akin to being given a guided tour of a sausage factory and coming out screaming "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DOOOOO IN THERE?!?!?!?!" Yeah, of course we do. It's sausage, it ain't pretty. But it's dang tasty.

All that said, those people on the right using terrorist terminology to describe Assange (Palin calling him a terrorist, McCain calling him an enemy combatant, all the talk shows saying he is guilty of treason - a-buh? he's not American?!?!) is frightening to me. How some of you people can't see where the looming fascism is coming from is fuckin' beyond me.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Assange is an Anarchist. He hasn't really shown us anything we didn't already know, other than reassuring us that our government lies to us.[/QUOTE]
I always questioned the Al-Masri torture thing because it sounded too cloak and dagger to be real. The data dump by Wikileaks all but confirmed it.

That was some seriously awful shit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']All that said, those people on the right using terrorist terminology to describe Assange (Palin calling him a terrorist, McCain calling him an enemy combatant, all the talk shows saying he is guilty of treason - a-buh? he's not American?!?!) is frightening to me. How some of you people can't see where the looming fascism is coming from is fuckin' beyond me.[/QUOTE]

Remember, these are the same types of people who rallied behind the PATRIOT Act. Are you really surprised by their reactions toward someone who brings to light what the government does behind our backs?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']eeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. woah there, cowpoke.

that line is one I hear enough w/r/t wikileaks and assange. and it's not something I buy, really. It's certainly less politically damning than Daniel Ellsburg's Pentagon Papers in the mid-60's. THOSE documents showed the government lied to us, specifically w/ LBJ planning to bomb Vietnam while he was on the campaign trail fighting Barry Goldwater against that very idea.

That was the government lying to us - two parties colluding toward the same goal, while making play theatre on the public stage.

How is wikileaks showing that? The cables (still not used to that phrase as denoting communication, but whateva) show the US as being kinda pricks in terms of foreign diplomacy, being concerned about Iran's nuclear development, and having a guffaw, from time to time, about how stupid some of our allies were. There's NOTHING in the released info so far that has shocked me. Why? Because the US's foreign diplomacy is kind of prickish and our allies can be pretty stupid.

Really, what cable revelations have actually surprised you? What made you gasp, or jump out of your chair in amazement? What's made you call your friends and say "GUESS WHAT I JUST READ?" B/c the Pentagon Papers takes the cake in terms of political shockers.

The wikileaks documents show a government doing what we're pretty sure government does. Acting shocked about it is akin to being given a guided tour of a sausage factory and coming out screaming "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DOOOOO IN THERE?!?!?!?!" Yeah, of course we do. It's sausage, it ain't pretty. But it's dang tasty.

All that said, those people on the right using terrorist terminology to describe Assange (Palin calling him a terrorist, McCain calling him an enemy combatant, all the talk shows saying he is guilty of treason - a-buh? he's not American?!?!) is frightening to me. How some of you people can't see where the looming fascism is coming from is fuckin' beyond me.[/QUOTE]

I can't believe I'm going to say this (there's always a first for everything) but I 100% agree with Myke on this post.

I haven't really seen or heard anything about these cables that is that damaging, embarrassing definitely, but not really that damaging. The little bit of information regarding Iran that's been released they've pretty much already scoffed at anyway.


I really think Assange's motivations are a deep-seeded hatred of the U.S. but eh, let him. Its not like he's the only one in the world who hates us... As far as him being a terrorist, that's laughable at best. They keep calling everyone a terrorist and all they are doing is watering down the term.



And finally, I apologize in advance for my digression, but why the fuck is Sarah Palin still being asked for commentary on everything?!? I'm fucking tired of hearing from this loser governor who couldn't maintain her job running what could arguably be the easiest state in the US. How do people not see through her being in all of this just for the money?
 
With only 960 of the nearly 252,000 cables released, there's a long way to go yet.

Some of the highlights:

Joe Liebermann. What a douche. I hope Schiff takes his seat in 2012, so Liebermann can go take a post in the Chinese government or something.

Beck, Palin, Huckabee, et al calling for execution for treason (lolololol, an Aussie committing treason in America lololololololololololol)


WikiLeaks Cable suggests funny business w/r/t Bin Laden and Afghanistan before 9/11
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=64803

Controversial Drug Given to All Guantanamo Detainees Akin to "Pharmacologic Waterboarding"
http://www.truth-out.org/controversi...erboarding6558
http://www.alternet.org/rights/14906..._malaria_drug/

Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010...-investigation

The spying stuff
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/28/h...-card-numbers/

Despite Conclusive Evidence, White House Denies Clinton Ordered Spying
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/01/d...rdered-spying/

Wikileaks cable corroborates evidence of US airstrikes in Yemen
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.p...0119801&lang=e

Few videos from Demoracy Now about the US thwarting Spain on a few issues, not gonna put a bunch of videos in the thread

Saudi Arabia is still the leading source of funding for Al CIAda (when are we going to show Sri-Lanka our bombing prowess, by the way?)

Info about our support for the military coup in Hounduras (we seem to like supporting that sort of thing)

Israeli Mafia’s Growing Influence
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...ing-influence/

Foreign contractors hired Afghan 'dancing boys'. ‎DynCorp, the US company whose employees were involved in the incident in the northern province of Kunduz. Dyncorp veering into child sexual exploitation in afghanistan, Blackwater killing civilians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...d-dancing-boys

Cable reveals US contractor bought Afghan policemen drugs, little boys.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/c...cable-reveals/

WikiLeaks Cables Confirm Secret U.S. War Ops in Pakistan:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/...stan_confirmed

Then there's Abdullah calling for us to invade Iran (screw Saudi Arabia, seriously)

Those are some of the highlights that I've seen, at least. I didn't come up with all of the headlines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RedvsBlue']And finally, I apologize in advance for my digression, but why the fuck is Sarah Palin still being asked for commentary on everything?!? I'm fucking tired of hearing from this loser governor who couldn't maintain her job running what could arguably be the easiest state in the US. How do people not see through her being in all of this just for the money?[/QUOTE]

ratings. she brings 'em.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']eeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. woah there, cowpoke.

that line is one I hear enough w/r/t wikileaks and assange. and it's not something I buy, really. It's certainly less politically damning than Daniel Ellsburg's Pentagon Papers in the mid-60's. THOSE documents showed the government lied to us, specifically w/ LBJ planning to bomb Vietnam while he was on the campaign trail fighting Barry Goldwater against that very idea.

That was the government lying to us - two parties colluding toward the same goal, while making play theatre on the public stage.

How is wikileaks showing that? The cables (still not used to that phrase as denoting communication, but whateva) show the US as being kinda pricks in terms of foreign diplomacy, being concerned about Iran's nuclear development, and having a guffaw, from time to time, about how stupid some of our allies were. There's NOTHING in the released info so far that has shocked me. Why? Because the US's foreign diplomacy is kind of prickish and our allies can be pretty stupid.[/quote]

Well, in general, from the little I've read so far - it's easy to say that the torture stuff was a lie.... kinda. I'm still looking through it.....

Really, what cable revelations have actually surprised you? What made you gasp, or jump out of your chair in amazement? What's made you call your friends and say "GUESS WHAT I JUST READ?" B/c the Pentagon Papers takes the cake in terms of political shockers.

The wikileaks documents show a government doing what we're pretty sure government does. Acting shocked about it is akin to being given a guided tour of a sausage factory and coming out screaming "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DOOOOO IN THERE?!?!?!?!" Yeah, of course we do. It's sausage, it ain't pretty. But it's dang tasty.
Click to expand...
Like you, I'm not really surprised by anything. If anything, I'm surprised by how innocuous it was based on my extreme beliefs about our government. I expected more.

If anything, the only thing that stands out is the CIA asking UN diplomats to spy on other diplomats, even collecting their DNA. That's pretty embarrassing shit. But it makes me laugh.

All that said, those people on the right using terrorist terminology to describe Assange (Palin calling him a terrorist, McCain calling him an enemy combatant, all the talk shows saying he is guilty of treason - a-buh? he's not American?!?!) is frightening to me. How some of you people can't see where the looming fascism is coming from is fuckin' beyond me.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the Ron Paul vid I posted? That's basically what he is saying. This is a point I agree with you on. This is why what I find most interesting about this whole affair; that different people of different political leanings and agendas are going to use this for their 'call to action'. It can be scary, for both left and right, if we don't watch this and keep it in check.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Consensual sex without a condom is the worst crime one can commit.[/QUOTE]

That's all you got?

I cna't help but think that this whole Wikileaks thing is much ado about nothing. Does the US government do shady shit? Well duh. Should it? Nope, but what else you gonna do with human nature? At least this isn't Rowanda where we're just openly killing people in the streets.
 
[quote name='nasum']That's all you got?

I cna't help but think that this whole Wikileaks thing is much ado about nothing. Does the US government do shady shit? Well duh. Should it? Nope, but what else you gonna do with human nature? At least this isn't Rowanda where we're just openly killing people in the streets.[/QUOTE]
How sure about that are you? I mean really. Think about that very hard before you reply.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']100% positive.[/QUOTE]

Same here. I don't think the federal government is gunning down minorities in the streets for the simple fact of being in a different tribe.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']100% positive.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='depascal22']Same here. I don't think the federal government is gunning down minorities in the streets for the simple fact of being in a different tribe.[/QUOTE]

Blackwater mercenaries and civilians were gunning people down in New Orleans after Katrina.

A man in San Francisco was shot and killed in the back while restained on the BART.

A man was killed in NY outside of a bar in a car with contradictory reports from police between witnesses and video.

South Central. Need I say more.

Just a few easy examples here. It's not exactly "open season," but its more than just coincidences.
 
facepalm dohdough, facepalm...
I'm sure you'd like to consider anytime a minority is killed by a cop as equal to genocide, but it just isn't and 99.99% of the population will agree with that.
What you've stated above is random examples and not evidence of a calculated campaign orchestrated by the government as policy to murder civilians.
 
[quote name='Strell']Also if you're a dumbass - and sadly those of you that are seem painfully unaware of this fact - please refrain from replying.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm out... although I obviously can't follow directions.
 
[quote name='nasum']facepalm dohdough, facepalm...
I'm sure you'd like to consider anytime a minority is killed by a cop as equal to genocide, but it just isn't and 99.99% of the population will agree with that.[/QUOTE]
Over 50% of the population in the United States doesn't believe in evolution or thinks the only thing holding black people back is because they're poor and lazy. What's your point. 100% of members of some isolated tribes think that spit with clean your hands.

Genocide? I'd say not in the conventional sense, but you don't need bullets to wage war with someone or some group. You also did not use genocide as a qualifier.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Over 50% of the population in the United States doesn't believe in evolution or thinks the only thing holding black people back is because they're poor and lazy. What's your point. 100% of members of some isolated tribes think that spit with clean your hands.

Genocide? I'd say not in the conventional sense, but you don't need bullets to wage war with someone or some group. You also did not use genocide as a qualifier.[/QUOTE]

Rwanda was the qualifier. I think we can all agree genocide was what happened there.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Rwanda was the qualifier. I think we can all agree genocide was what happened there.[/QUOTE]
Sure it was, as well as the "we're not gunning people down in the streets" part.

I'm also not going to say that there isn't a concerted effort to restrict people based on colorism/race...especially since a lot of disproportionate oppression falls on black people. Yes, actions may be similar, not always taken to a violent extreme, and not the exactly the same, but like I said, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
 
murdering cats, now there's something I can get behind!

if you can stretch physically as well as you can logically, you'd be like the Yoga Master from whom every wants classes
 
[quote name='nasum']facepalm dohdough, facepalm...
I'm sure you'd like to consider anytime a minority is killed by a cop as equal to genocide, but it just isn't and 99.99% of the population will agree with that.
What you've stated above is random examples and not evidence of a calculated campaign orchestrated by the government as policy to murder civilians.[/QUOTE]


Of course this is not Rwanda. He did not say that. In relatively democratic societies like ours, gov't cannot commit crimes openly. They must conduct them in a convoluted fashion as there is some semblance of accountability.

Recently, information on police murdering blacks and the cover-up have made it to a few media and criminal charges have been filed. Most people can't put the disproportionate use of policing efforts in context. To see the "war" against blacks and minorities, all you need to look at is the US prison system. That's institutionalization of a race-based campaign of oppression. How about that recent study that although whites use pot more, blacks are more prosecuted for related pot related offenses? Didn't hear about that? Why wouldn't I be surprised?
 
quick list on what i think of this



Most, not all, of the cables are not damaging. Many are embarrassing, but thus far there really aren't any that will directly harm America.

I'm tired of people painting Assansge as some type of freedom fighting journalist. He is not a journalist, he isn't working on some story for Newsweek. He used an Army private to illegally steal classified information and is putting it out there for the sole purpose of making the United States look bad.

Private Manning is going to take the brunt of the punishment, not Assange. Treason for Assange? No. Treason for Manning? To be determined, we will have to see what's in the thousands and thousands of other cables to come.

The real problem? That most of this information would be readily available to a PFC in the first place. Our intelligence agencies need to take a long hard look at how the classify and store information after this, and I'm sure they're already on it.

Probably more stuff, I need to get back to work...
 
Agree with myke. If they're going to prosecute Wikileaks don't they have to prosecute NYT et al., since they published the same information?

Also, irony: Assange's condom breaks during a sexual encounter (supposedly), and he's the head of Wikileaks. Yum.
 
[quote name='nasum']That's all you got?

I cna't help but think that this whole Wikileaks thing is much ado about nothing. Does the US government do shady shit? Well duh. Should it? Nope, but what else you gonna do with human nature? At least this isn't Rowanda where we're just openly killing people in the streets.[/QUOTE]
Well, not in our streets at least.

Most of this doesn't surprise me, some of it is a little Tom Clancy-like. Expecting Jack Ryan to show up at any moment. Personally I think Assange should be commended for sticking his own neck out to release this stuff. Not many would be able to handle being on the run, being wanted by some of the most powerful nations in the world. If he hadn't turned himself threes nothing to say he wouldn't have just been "taken care of".
 
[quote name='IRHari']Agree with myke. If they're going to prosecute Wikileaks don't they have to prosecute NYT et al., since they published the same information?

Also, irony: Assange's condom breaks during a sexual encounter (supposedly), and he's the head of Wikileaks. Yum.[/QUOTE]
I won't pretend to know a damn thing about Swedish law, but whatever they're using to arrest him seems strange at best. The women involved have said it was consensual, so there can't be rape there, but the question of protection seems to be what they're going on.

Just seems really strange and convoluted to me.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Blackwater mercenaries and civilians were gunning people down in New Orleans after Katrina.

A man in San Francisco was shot and killed in the back while restained on the BART.

A man was killed in NY outside of a bar in a car with contradictory reports from police between witnesses and video.

South Central. Need I say more.

Just a few easy examples here. It's not exactly "open season," but its more than just coincidences.[/QUOTE]

Are you fucking serious?

This is really just the coincidence that white people are often the ones in power and they are also often racist.
 
So it seems neither of them ever said he raped them. The only conclusion I can come to is that in Sweden there are laws concerning the use of condoms? Because it seems to me that it's either that or the chance he may have an STD.

This whole thing sounds ridiculous.
 
[quote name='bk187']Are you fucking serious?

This is really just the coincidence that white people are often the ones in power and they are also often racist.[/QUOTE]

You must be new to the board.

White people are *always* racists.

Anyway, with regards to the sex/rape thing...
http://www.alternet.org/story/149100/the_9_weirdest_things_about_the_wikileaks_story

If this link is to be believed, then it was rape by US definition:
According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use.
Click to expand...

Again, if this is all to be believed, at the point the women said "stop" and Assange did not stop, it's pretty much rape.
 
[quote name='bk187']Are you fucking serious?

This is really just the coincidence that white people are often the ones in power and they are also often racist.[/QUOTE]
Yes...it's just coincidence. It's not like white people ever did anything to stop black people from upward mobility or enfranchisement. Nope. Nothing at all.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You must be new to the board.

White people are *always* racists.
[/QUOTE]

Did that poster really think that there was some orchestrated conspiracy of the entire American government against minorities? Holy paranoia, batman.
 
Everybody knows everything is either sheer coincidence or a grand conspiracy at the highest levels of government.
 
The new papers released seem to confirm that Britain did release the Lockerbie bombers because Libya threatened their oil supply or at the least, BP's Libya interests.

I thought I was a pretty jaded dude, but these leaks on Al Masri and the Lockerbie bombers are making me feel naive. I didn't think the western world would be shitbags like that. We're fucking shitbags.
 
I'm not sure I see the relationship b/w size of government and corruption. Would these things not have happened otherwise? Help me understand those conditions and how that would work.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not sure I see the relationship b/w size of government and corruption. Would these things not have happened otherwise? Help me understand those conditions and how that would work.[/QUOTE]

Just curious - do you think there is a relationship between size of corporations and corruption?
 
[quote name='speedracer']The new papers released seem to confirm that Britain did release the Lockerbie bombers because Libya threatened their oil supply or at the least, BP's Libya interests.

I thought I was a pretty jaded dude, but these leaks on Al Masri and the Lockerbie bombers are making me feel naive. I didn't think the western world would be shitbags like that. We're fucking shitbags.[/QUOTE]
I felt a little conspiritorial for believing it was about BP and their oil interests back when it all happened, guess I wasn't being paranoid after all. Funny thing is that back then they tried to lay it all in the lap of the Scottish government. Shitbags indeed.
 
[quote name='nasum']Reginald Denny?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Reginald Denny was handcuffed on his stomach and shot in the back by police officers.

You're a fucking bigger idiot than bob. Get bent you fucking racist.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not sure I see the relationship b/w size of government and corruption. Would these things not have happened otherwise? Help me understand those conditions and how that would work.[/QUOTE]

Simples
All governments are corrupt
Bigger Governments = more corruption.

Ok I'm being facetious, the one thing that annoys me the most are comments from our esteemed world leaders like "This is an attack on the international community" or "This is an attack on democratic authority".

Maybe if the world wasn't run by people making back-room deals and then lying about it, or by people who have lied so much throughout their careers that they can now lie to themselves about their own motives, it'd be a safer world for the rest of us. I mean for everyone by that, not just us in the West.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top