21 Dec 10
2 edits
there is a rather excellent video here on the subject, not only of wikileaks and its ideology, the attempts to suppress it, but also Mr Assange himself.
http://stagevu.com/video/firvecbgtojp
Wiki Rebels The Documentary,
warning : contains some harrowing video footage of US Military atrocities, including the wanton killing of innocents, as well as children.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by The SnapperThis.
I think that, if you watch the video again, it seems that Assange is willing to answer the question until the interviewer uses the terms 'forced her legs apart' and 'holding her down'. This would appear to point to the interviewer's sensationalist, tabloid tendencies as Assange notes.
It is also wrong to accuse him of being a hypocrite with regard t ...[text shortened]... is accused if is probably, at best, unsubstantiated allegations and, at worst, a fit up.
As for the OP, "hypocrite wuss", "LMAO @ this clown", "playground bully". Bit carried away, aren't you?
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by Metal BrainI think you win the Flaming Tomato for highest strawman of the year.
You want him in an American prison, so it doesn't surprise me that you are being overly critical. Seems to me that you hate him for exposing the truth about government lies. Why are you such a supporter of lies over the truth?
I do NOT "want him in an American prison." Go, find the post where I said anything to that effect.
I double dog dare you.
Seems to me that you hate him for exposing the truth about government lies.
Totally clueless.
I have actually said on this board the opposite - that I thought the exposures of Wikileaks have amounted to a whole lot of nothing, in terms of "American lies." There were some interesting exposures regarding the hostility of Arab governments to Iran and some funny intelligence memos that were leaked, but "American lies"? I didn't see any significant ones.
Why are you such a supporter of lies over the truth?
When did you stop beating your wife?
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by PalynkaThe reporter was asking him to comment on a specific quote from his accuser. If he didn't want to answer, he didn't have to; but to stomp off and curse at the reporter for asking the types of questions that reporters generally ask is BS. This is a man whose entire public existence is predicated upon digging for and exposing information; that nobody's information is private... except his, of course. He doesn't have a qualm in the world about exposing private communications of one anonymous small fry government employee to another; but when it comes to a reporter asking him to comment on a quote, all of a sudden, the reporter is a "tabloid shmuck."
This.
As for the OP, "hypocrite wuss", "LMAO @ this clown", "playground bully". Bit carried away, aren't you?
No, I stand by my characterizations.
21 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76it appears to me that you have neither read nor understand ANYTHING about the information that wikileaks has made available, for if you had, you would not have uttered your statement. Killing of innocents and children and a wanton disregard for human life is hardly trivia is it! Are you also diminishing the value of life? For that is what you are asserting, or did you mean something else when you stated, 'private communications of one anonymous small fry government employee to another'.
The reporter was asking him to comment on a specific quote from his accuser. If he didn't want to answer, he didn't have to; but to stomp off and curse at the reporter for asking the types of questions that reporters generally ask is BS. This is a man whose entire public existence is predicated upon digging for and exposing information; that nobody's informatio of a sudden, the reporter is a "tabloid shmuck."
No, I stand by my characterizations.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76I recall you saying he was guilty of treason.
I think you win the Flaming Tomato for highest strawman of the year.
I do NOT "want him in an American prison." Go, find the post where I said anything to that effect.
I double dog dare you.
Seems to me that you hate him for exposing the truth about government lies.
Totally clueless.
I have actually said on this board the opposite ...[text shortened]... such a supporter of lies over the truth?[/quote]
When did you stop beating your wife?
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by Metal BrainI made a joking reference to him being "hung, drawn and quartered" for treason.
I recall you saying he was guilty of treason.
Then, a few dopes didn't realize I was joking, so I had to say specifically that I was joking.
Then, I said specifically that I was joking again.
All in that same thread.
For the record (and the very last time):
- I don't think that Assange is guilty of treason
- I don't think that Assange should be hanged, drawn and quartered
- They don't hang, draw and quarter people any more
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76We can't see your sarcasm while you are typing on the keyboard. If you think it was so apparent maybe you are the dope.
I made a joking reference to him being "hung, drawn and quartered" for treason.
Then, a few dopes didn't realize I was joking, so I had to say specifically that I was joking.
Then, I said specifically that I was joking again.
All in that same thread.
For the record (and the very last time):
- I don't think that Assange is guilty of treason
...[text shortened]... ould be hanged, drawn and quartered
- They don't hang, draw and quarter people any more
21 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You still haven't noticed that Assange's personality traits or private affairs are about as relevant to the whole affair as the size of no1marauder's penis. All of the evident animosity you show for this particular man shows you're getting carried away.
The reporter was asking him to comment on a specific quote from his accuser. If he didn't want to answer, he didn't have to; but to stomp off and curse at the reporter for asking the types of questions that reporters generally ask is BS. This is a man whose entire public existence is predicated upon digging for and exposing information; that nobody's informatio of a sudden, the reporter is a "tabloid shmuck."
No, I stand by my characterizations.
I'm sure a lot of people are happy that the debate seems to be changing from the content of the leaks to the man who divulged them. That was the whole point of this charade, obviously.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell, maybe. I had thought that reference to an arcane form of torture would give away that fact that it was not a serious suggestion. But, whatever.
We can't see your sarcasm while you are typing on the keyboard. If you think it was so apparent maybe you are the dope.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't like the guy. I admit it. My disdain for him is beside the point. You don't think his character is a matter of interest? Fine. I can respect that. But he's a public figure and a lightning rod, which he either knew or should have known was going to occur based on his chose life path. Discussions of his character are as relevant as that of any public figure.
You still haven't noticed that Assange's personality traits or private affairs are about as relevant to the whole affair as the size of no1marauder's penis. All of the evident animosity you show for this particular man shows you're getting carried away.
I'm sure a lot of people are happy that the debate seems to be changing from the content of the leaks to the man who divulged them. That was the whole point of this charade, obviously.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76They aren't relevant to the bigger picture of the information he has released though. Many, even if you aren't one of them, would prefer that people get distracted by the shiny object that is say, him walking out of an interview over the information that may rightfully be damning of our government.
I don't like the guy. I admit it. My disdain for him is beside the point. You don't think his character is a matter of interest? Fine. I can respect that. But he's a public figure and a lightning rod, which he either knew or should have known was going to occur based on his chose life path. Discussions of his character are as relevant as that of any public figure.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Fair enough. I don't mind people disliking him (why should I?), I just want to keep stressing that these details are of little relevance for people's political opinions while the leaked documents are not. If you are not muddling these two things, great. It's actually more in accordance with my view of your personality.
I don't like the guy. I admit it. My disdain for him is beside the point. You don't think his character is a matter of interest? Fine. I can respect that. But he's a public figure and a lightning rod, which he either knew or should have known was going to occur based on his chose life path. Discussions of his character are as relevant as that of any public figure.
But I think that in every talk about his personal life, it should be stressed how irrelevant that is. Because some people do tend to forget that. Apologies for the repetition, but I think it bears repeating.
21 Dec 10
4 edits
I agree with Pal and PP. Assange's character has nothing to do with Wikileaks. I just can't stand the guy and am using this opportunity to drag him through the mud a bit.
Why, you ask, do I not like him? Is it because he released documents that may hurt US interests? Well, one can never rule out the workings of one's subconscious, but I don't think so.
Here's the thing. Government bureaucrats are people too. Nobody here would want their private emails released to the public, even if you're the most straight laced guy in the world. If some diplomat thinks that Silvio Burlesconi is a moron and shoots off an email to his superior to that effect, I don't think that it's proper to release that to the public. Legal? Yes. Proper? Moral? I don't think so. That's just one example, of course. But it's not like Assange was a run of the mill reporter and this thing fell into his lap. He's made a career of publicly airing other people's dirty laundry; a more sophisticated National Enquirer. He styles himself as an advocate for the public disclosure of the truth, but the effect of what he did was to strip people naked in public for no good reason.
Plus, he apparently thinks he's entitled to be seen as a hero for all his great work of convincing one jerk-off to copy the files for him. His "poison pill" grandstanding is nauseating as well. From what I've seen of him and his personality, I have no trouble believing that he's capable of being a rapist, though of course, I don't have adequate information to make a judgment on that issue.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Assange was not the first journalist Manning went to with the information. The first journalist turned him in.
I agree with Pal and PP. Assange's character has nothing to do with Wikileaks. I just can't stand the guy and am using this opportunity to drag him through the mud a bit.
Why, you ask, do I not like him? Is it because he released documents that may hurt US interests? Well, one can never rule out the workings of one's subconscious, but I don't think so.
He ...[text shortened]... f course, I don't have adequate information to make a judgment on that issue.
Maybe this is just a plot to censor the internet by having only approved journalists immune from anti-free speech legislation. I am waiting for the other parts of the wikileaks cables to be released before I judge.
I do think it is odd that nothing significant (damaging) has been released so far.