bloodyminded Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 (edited) Sorry all your hyperbolic rambling about "criminals" and "prison" lead me to believe you might think something illegal is happening. Glad we could clear that up that wikileaks is just a media organization thats legally disseminating information that they legally obtained from a third party and that their activities would be protected in any that you or I could tolerate living in. Incidentally, I have heard more than one person--including in the editorial of a major American newspaper (I forget which one at the moment, but I will find it, because it's so wonderful)--asking aloud why US authorities haven't arrested Assange for "treason." My experience here on this board suggests to me that a few people will not even understand the problem with such an idea. Edited November 30, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 Government has resisted new media, and reinventing their communications processes for our current era. As a result, new media has hit them like a thunderclap. The subtext of what people like Hilary Clinton said would be..."Awh shit..now the whole world knows that we are dishonest - dis-honourable...and governed by dark forces..how the hell are we going to prove to the people we are good when we are evil...You can not keep power unless the guise and ruse of goodness is used". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 (edited) Incidentally, I have heard more than one person--including in the editorial of a major American newspaper (I forget which one at the moment, but I will find it, because it's so wonderful)--asking aloud why US authorities haven't arrested Assange for "treason." My experience here on this board suggests to me that a few people will not even understand the problem with such an idea. <hand shooting up>...pick me pick me please! Edited November 30, 2010 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 <hand shooting up>...pick me pick me please! I can't pick you; I can't imagine that you don't instantly perceive the illogic absurdity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 <hand shooting up>...pick me pick me please! Far more likley he will be extradited to Sweden to face rape charges or perhaps charged in Australia if he ever returns that facing treason charges called for in editorials of imaginary major american newspapers... Now that doesn't mean that wiki leaks or the leakers will never be charged with a crime in the US...treason it won't be....more likely espionage. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334160/U-S-launch-criminal-investigation-WikiLeaks-dossier-Hillary-Clinton-describes-attack-international-community.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Far more likley he will be extradited to Sweden to face rape charges or perhaps charged in Australia if he ever returns that facing treason charges called for in editorials of imaginary major american newspapers... Now that doesn't mean that wiki leaks or the leakers will never be charged with a crime in the US...treason it won't be....more likely espionage. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334160/U-S-launch-criminal-investigation-WikiLeaks-dossier-Hillary-Clinton-describes-attack-international-community.html Earlier a senior Republican had urged the Attorney General to designate WikiLeaks a 'foreign terrorist organisation'. That guy one-upped ya Morris. I mean... your insane rambling about throwing the CEO's of media corporations in jail because the government doesnt like what theyre reported was pretty sweet... but this retards "terrorist organisation" schtick actually makes you seem rational and reasoned! Now that doesn't mean that wiki leaks or the leakers will never be charged with a crime in the US Its true! They could even be CONVICTED of a crime in the US. Its totally possible... all they would have to do is travel to the US then commit a crime of some kind.... Edited December 1, 2010 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 I mean... your insane rambling about throwing the CEO's of media corporations in jail because the government doesnt like what theyre reported was pretty sweet... I can only assume this is another one of your smert reeding comperhenshun moments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Far more likley he will be extradited to Sweden to face rape charges or perhaps charged in Australia if he ever returns that facing treason charges called for in editorials of imaginary major american newspapers... From Jeffrey Goldberg, citing Seth Lipsky approvingly in The Atlantic (True, not a newspaper--but more respected, as "a publication always astute and precise in its reporting and commentary" (quoted from a previous editor of the NYTimes): "Seth Lipsky argues that Lincoln, and FDR as well, would have pretty much tried to hang the Wikileaks founder for treason." And of course we can count on Sarah Palin (in between her remarks that criticism of her or those who agree with her constitutes "attacks on my freedom of speeech" [sic]; while being not quite literate enough to be clear, she made a remark probably similar in sentiment to Lipsky's Imperial understanding of the U.S of Earth (though difficult to tell for sure, given that she doesn't understand how to use the English language): she wondered aloud why the U.S. government "can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 And of course we can count on Sarah Palin (in between her remarks that criticism of her or those who agree with her constitutes "attacks on my freedom of speeech" [sic]; while being not quite literate enough to be clear, she made a remark probably similar in sentiment to Lipsky's Imperial understanding of the U.S of Earth (though difficult to tell for sure, given that she doesn't understand how to use the English language): she wondered aloud why the U.S. government "can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act." Kind of surprised at her reaction. I would imagine the Tea Party types would support this kind of embarrassment for the ruling elite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Kind of surprised at her reaction. I would imagine the Tea Party types would support this kind of embarrassment for the ruling elite. I imagine the majority of self-proclaimed Tea-Partiers--particularly now that more of their leaders have become ensconced in and thus seduced by the elite political classes (much as Sarah Palin has long been, her "rogue" self-assessment notwithstanding)--remain theoretically of a libertarian bent, but practically are pro-government and hostile to any perceived "attack" on the American political class generally. That would be my reading of it, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 I imagine the majority of self-proclaimed Tea-Partiers--particularly now that more of their leaders have become ensconced in and thus seduced by the elite political classes (much as Sarah Palin has long been, her "rogue" self-assessment notwithstanding)--remain theoretically of a libertarian bent, but practically are pro-government and hostile to any perceived "attack" on the American political class generally. That would be my reading of it, anyway. Hmmm.... did a Google News search and appears I was wrong about the Tea Party attitude... way wrong... Tea Party Group calls for Wikileaks Leader to be Killed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Hmmm.... did a Google News search and appears I was wrong about the Tea Party attitude... way wrong... Tea Party Group calls for Wikileaks Leader to be Killed Jeez. Aside from some obvious problems, it appears that these people aren't deep thinkers. "So long as he's not an American citizen" loses some of its meaning when one considers they're supporting a distinctly Imperial idea of America. So much for "small government," huh? An Imperial government is not "small" by definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Their complaint seems to be that the leak came from outside America. But it was an American that leaked the information. Do they support the death penalty for him ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Their complaint seems to be that the leak came from outside America. But it was an American that leaked the information. Do they support the death penalty for him ? Probably. Just not an extrajudicial death penalty, an action which they restrict to only 95% of the world's population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 They should be treated as violations of official secrets and the leakers imprisoned accordingly. They are doing anyone any favours. Unfortunately the US does not have an Official Secrets Act So this new wave of leaks is not an concern then. Right?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 So this new wave of leaks is not an concern then. Right?? Do you know what it is you are trying to say? Because I don't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Why should the US negotiate with possible criminals? The US did respond to their offer...they advised them of legal consequences and the Wikilinks people chose to publish anyway.... I imaqine Julian feels that he won't be extradited for this charge or the other less tasteful ones... Should be asking why DOES the US negotiate with criminals? Like Anwar Al-Awlaki #3 Al-Qeuda dining at the Pentagon a couple months after 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Do you know what it is you are trying to say? Because I don't... That's ok Dancer if you don't understand what the big kids are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 That's ok Dancer if you don't understand what the big kids are talking about. I don't listen much to big kids, but I was commenting on your gobblygook, which I believe was a comment on my post. If you don't feel you are up to explaining what you meant, I sure as hell won't blame you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Should be asking why DOES the US negotiate with criminals? Like Anwar Al-Awlaki #3 Al-Qeuda dining at the Pentagon a couple months after 9/11. You trotting out that nebulous allegation yet again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 You trotting out that nebulous allegation yet again? Even when the government admits to it you think it is false.. Keep your head in the sand, or in your ass, whatever is more comfortable for you. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/national/main6978200.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Even when the government admits to it you think it is false.. Keep your head in the sand, or in your ass, whatever is more comfortable for you. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/national/main6978200.shtml So you think the government admits it do you? "The Army has found no evidence that the Army either sponsored or participated in the event described in this report," spokesman Thomas Collins said. Now please if you are up to it, explain what crimes he was accused of at the time, and what negotiations between him and the government were....thanks and here's your tinfil back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 So you think the government admits it do you? I really enjoy our chats. However I don't feel that intellectually challenged when I read your posts. Now please if you are up to it, explain what crimes he was accused of at the time, and what negotiations between him and the government were....thanks and here's your tinfil back... This is why I said to be quite because the big kids were talking, and at least know what they were talking about. You got a brain use it, go search for the information yourself. He is part of Al-queda, a crime in of itself... right? After the dinner, he was tied to the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shootings and now the Yemen printer cartridge bombings. Only a fool would dismiss this informaiton as useless. Which you seem to be doing, but a rape charge is much more important compared to how all our governments are screwing us every way they can. Keep posting and keep Dancing!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 I really enjoy our chats. However I don't feel that intellectually challenged when I read your posts. That's because I try to talk to your level. You're welcome. Now lets try this again and I will again simplify it for you. What were the crimes he was accused of during the alleged pentagon dinner reception that would have, at the time, made him a criminal. Maybe you can cite the charges and the dates filed. You link this non event to negotiating with criminals. What were the negotiations that you claim happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 That's because I try to talk to your level. Must be hard to come down to my level when you are already in that hole looking up at me. Now lets try this again and I will again simplify it for you.What were the crimes he was accused of during the alleged pentagon dinner reception that would have, at the time, made him a criminal. Maybe you can cite the charges and the dates filed. Again, I thought being part of Al-Queda (a terrorist organization) was enough. Are you defending terrorists now? (See how that works?) You link this non event to negotiating with criminals. What were the negotiations that you claim happened? No this shows that a sex offender (to you) is more important than a real terrorist who actually has committed terrorism on 3 different occasions. What you deem as a priority is nothing but a sideshow to a bigger issue which you and I have yet to understand. Everybody Dancer now !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.