Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.

Issues you have.

LOL!

Kanluwen wrote:Sure it is.

WikiLeaks accepts material without wanting to know how it's acquired. All they do is verify that the material is actually reliable.

That isn't the same thing.

Stolen goods, and copied information, are not the same thing.

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Yep, nothing going on here at all.

I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.

So your argument is that it is a conspiracy. Well bravo.

You sure it isn't more that a brown fella got bail and the white guy didn't? I mean, lots of people during that same time period got bail but you seem obsessed with the guy of Pakistani/Indian descent.

You call for looking at the evidence, perhaps you should take your own advice. i would stake an army box you haven't read the case files, just news reports, and probably just internet news reports. I'm also willing to bet you haven't read the judges written decisions on either case. Bail has to do with a) likelihood to skip bail and b) the resources to do so. The first guy didn't have them and the second (Assange) apparently did.

I would suggest you wind your neck in sunshine as I hope you're not suggesting I'm racist?

This gentleman is obviously of Indian or Pakistani descent and will probably have a large extended family back in that country, which to me, based on other cases we have had in the UK, makes for a possible escape route for him. Making that comment does not mean it has anything to do with his colour. We have had cases in the UK where the UK Police have had to hunt down suspects in Pakistan & Indian because they have murdered someone and fled back there. Honour killings are a real nightmare because in their culture it's a done thing so the family will protect them. In this case however the fact that he has been identified in the first place helps, but my original point stands about it being a possible risk.

When your immigration people stop targetting, as posisble bombers, middle eastern looking travelers or travelers with muslim sounding names you can take a moral high ground.

With regard to the case against Assange, "On August 31, Stockholm police interviewed Mr Assange. The rape charge was later dropped but the case was taken over and the investigation reopened by Marianne Ny, the Director of Prosecutions in Sweden."

Which is why I'm suspicious of the whole. If there is a case he should be banged up that goes without saying.

When your immigration people stop targetting, as posisble bombers, middle eastern looking travelers or travelers with muslim sounding names you can take a moral high ground.

You really couldn't be more wrong. Did you miss the whole thing In the news about how everyone who was traveling was being thoroughly searched regardless of their ethnicity? It was a pretty big deal.

THis is why I'm in favour of wikileaks...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

Unsurprising behavior from DynCorp (or any PMC for that matter).

Their employees were caught sex-trafficking teenage girls in Bosnia a couple years back.

*edit mentioned in the article herp derp...

efarrer wrote:THis is why I'm in favour of wikileaks...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

That's horrendous.

What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.

It's a shame Assange gets so much press, stuff like Bacha Bazi is disgusting but no one notices because it gets buried underneath all the DDoS attacks and sex by surprise drama.

Monster Rain wrote:

efarrer wrote:THis is why I'm in favour of wikileaks...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

That's horrendous.

What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.

You have misread public opinion on Assange in many countries. In many places he already is a hero. The 'douchebag' is the person who leaked the information to wikileaks, not anyone at wikileaks.

Orlanth wrote:You have misread public opinion on Assange in many countries. In many places he already is a hero. The 'douchebag' is the person who leaked the information to wikileaks, not anyone at wikileaks.

I suppose that's true.

Assange is just the face of it, you know?

Orlanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

efarrer wrote:THis is why I'm in favour of wikileaks...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

That's horrendous.

What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.

You have misread public opinion on Assange in many countries. In many places he already is a hero. The 'douchebag' is the person who leaked the information to wikileaks, not anyone at wikileaks.

If WikiLeaks came forward and decried the actions of what their "supporters" are doing, they'd get a much better public image.
If they released specific cables, documents, etc, with an in-depth look as to why those specific pieces are important to be made public knowledge...they'd get a much better public image.

As it is now, they're acting like a lot of conspiracy theorists do whenever new documents are made public. They point towards what's missing and say "See? This is proof! This is what they don't want you to know!".

Lol.

That link made me laugh because i was shocked how many Afghans are aggressively homosexual.

We were told before we went literally hundred of different things you have to do to not offend the locals, (which hand to shake with, dont show the soles of your feet, refuse food or tea etc etc etc) and one of them was "oh and make sure you you dont walk around shirtless or naked or anything because the Afghans find it offensive"

The next day i was stood on the crummy pallet we set up as a make shift shower hidden behind the only proper building in the FOB, and halfway through it as i was bending over to give my feet a good scrub i heard a sliver of movement behind me, and turned to see a group of about 8 Afghan police who were chuckling, nudging each other, and basically doing their best to look at my lungs.

Several of them wore eyeliner and minced about in weird femine clothes, one of the blokes from the ANA was shagging one of the blokes from the ANP in a field (reported by the sentries!) and the local elder told me in a meeting (I was working as the Intelligence officer at our location and met the old pervert with the fetid breath once a week for a chat) "You are much more handsome than your predecessor" as put his hand on my knee.

Sadly i was under orders not to shoot any friendly civilians.

But anyway yeah, Afghans are raving. Which is bizarre considering the Taliban werent too keen on homos.

Maybe they feel liberated eh?

I've spent a bit of time in South America, and its essentially the same way in many of the countries there.

The official position is very hostile to homosexuality, the reality of the matter is that its rampant, and highly aggressive. Far more so than any of the European nations I've been to.

Kanluwen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

efarrer wrote:THis is why I'm in favour of wikileaks...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

That's horrendous.

What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.

You have misread public opinion on Assange in many countries. In many places he already is a hero. The 'douchebag' is the person who leaked the information to wikileaks, not anyone at wikileaks.

If WikiLeaks came forward and decried the actions of what their "supporters" are doing, they'd get a much better public image.
If they released specific cables, documents, etc, with an in-depth look as to why those specific pieces are important to be made public knowledge...they'd get a much better public image.

As it is now, they're acting like a lot of conspiracy theorists do whenever new documents are made public. They point towards what's missing and say "See? This is proof! This is what they don't want you to know!".

You should look at their site.

It doesn't present things the way you think it does.

Wolfstan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Yep, nothing going on here at all.

I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.

So your argument is that it is a conspiracy. Well bravo.

You sure it isn't more that a brown fella got bail and the white guy didn't? I mean, lots of people during that same time period got bail but you seem obsessed with the guy of Pakistani/Indian descent.

You call for looking at the evidence, perhaps you should take your own advice. i would stake an army box you haven't read the case files, just news reports, and probably just internet news reports. I'm also willing to bet you haven't read the judges written decisions on either case. Bail has to do with a) likelihood to skip bail and b) the resources to do so. The first guy didn't have them and the second (Assange) apparently did.

I would suggest you wind your neck in sunshine as I hope you're not suggesting I'm racist?

mattyrm wrote:Lol.

That link made me laugh because i was shocked how many Afghans are aggressively homosexual.

We were told before we went literally hundred of different things you have to do to not offend the locals, (which hand to shake with, dont show the soles of your feet, refuse food or tea etc etc etc) and one of them was "oh and make sure you you dont walk around shirtless or naked or anything because the Afghans find it offensive"

The next day i was stood on the crummy pallet we set up as a make shift shower hidden behind the only proper building in the FOB, and halfway through it as i was bending over to give my feet a good scrub i heard a sliver of movement behind me, and turned to see a group of about 8 Afghan police who were chuckling, nudging each other, and basically doing their best to look at my lungs.

Several of them wore eyeliner and minced about in weird femine clothes, one of the blokes from the ANA was shagging one of the blokes from the ANP in a field (reported by the sentries!) and the local elder told me in a meeting (I was working as the Intelligence officer at our location and met the old pervert with the fetid breath once a week for a chat) "You are much more handsome than your predecessor" as put his hand on my knee.

Sadly i was under orders not to shoot any friendly civilians.

But anyway yeah, Afghans are raving. Which is bizarre considering the Taliban werent too keen on homos.

Maybe they feel liberated eh?

Alright, even I chuckled at this one. Good story.

And this be strange, but I am agreeing with Kan in this one.

Kilkrazy wrote:
You should look at their site.

It doesn't present things the way you think it does.

I looked at it when the Apache video "leaked"(since it was already available if you knew where to look, and the investigation already made its findings public).

WikiLeaks presented themselves exactly like my feelings on the subject. So yes. I've looked at their site.

And as a sidenote?
That doesn't change the fact that WikiLeaks has a genuine chance to show that they're not just doing civil disobedience for civil disobedience's sake by decrying the BS that is being done in their name.

Monster Rain wrote:

efarrer wrote:THis is why I'm in favour of wikileaks...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

That's horrendous.

What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.

+1 yet again. Hell, seems like its easier to read the thread and just cosign than it is to actually try and debate a point. Doesn't raise the blood pressure either.

The words in the link did not prepare me for the horror of the actual story at all.

Ahtman wrote:The words in the link did not prepare me for the horror of the actual story at all.

Sorry I was in a hurry this morning and couldn't find enough words to adequately describe my feelings regarding that leak. Hopefully this results in serious criminal charges


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Sure it is.

WikiLeaks accepts material without wanting to know how it's acquired. All they do is verify that the material is actually reliable.

It appears more like journalism. Or is only journalism when one of your guys decides it's important (cough Plame cough)

efarrer wrote:It appears more like journalism. Or is only journalism when one of your guys decides it's important (cough Plame cough)

I don't know, do you think it is journalism to just drop 250000 documents on someones doorstop, shrug, then walk away? The people digging through the documents that Wikileaks has posted are journalists, Wikileaks is more of a repository.

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
You should look at their site.

It doesn't present things the way you think it does.

I looked at it when the Apache video "leaked"(since it was already available if you knew where to look, and the investigation already made its findings public).

WikiLeaks presented themselves exactly like my feelings on the subject. So yes. I've looked at their site.

And as a sidenote?
That doesn't change the fact that WikiLeaks has a genuine chance to show that they're not just doing civil disobedience for civil disobedience's sake by decrying the BS that is being done in their name.

IIRC they already did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

efarrer wrote:It appears more like journalism. Or is only journalism when one of your guys decides it's important (cough Plame cough)

I don't know, do you think it is journalism to just drop 250000 documents on someones doorstop, shrug, then walk away? The people digging through the documents that Wikileaks has posted are journalists, Wikileaks is more of a repository.

You may be right.
It makes the information public... so I have to give it some points for at least allowing journalism to occur. To be fair they do verify documents before leaving the flaming bag of bad puppy poo on the doorstep. Although much was a little less then suprising...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/02/f-database-wikileaks-canada-cables-full-text-search.html?appSession=173190195757738&RecordID=2&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=

To prepare, you this is nowhere near the other link for horror factor. It's almost kinda funny

efarrer wrote:THis is why I'm in favour of wikileaks...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

Yeah, a lot of what they do is great, but they need to vet documents before releasing them. Theres a big difference between reporting on major and covered up crimes and revealing things like Operation Eagle Shield and threatening the nuclear drawdown of russia and its integration into a Eurasian security system.

By refusing to be careful about exactly what they release they help to point out a lot of little issues and destabilize the cause of world peace at the same time. Not to mention all the informants they are helping to kill by not redacting source names.

ShumaGorath wrote:

efarrer wrote:THis is why I'm in favour of wikileaks...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

Yeah, a lot of what they do is great, but they need to vet documents before releasing them. Theres a big difference between reporting on major and covered up crimes and revealing things like Operation Eagle Shield and threatening the nuclear drawdown of russia and its integration into a Eurasian security system.

Shuma sums it up nicely. Although folks like myself would REALLY love full transparency there are some things that shouldn't be headline news.

Not personally familiar with Eagle Sheild, but I can certianly recognize the bad that can come of these things....even if I hate to say it.

Did anything interesting happen on page 12? I skipped that one.

What a read, though.

Fortunately, the thread now seems to be turning on the more pertinent wikileaks stuff (with the occasional/residual Burn Assange).

The most we've heard on the news here was how the US viewed one of our politician, and the rest focussed on the more "diplomaticaly" embarassing stuff.
I'm not against full freedom of press (by divulging delicate information), but I'd be delighted to know how my government is spending so much of our money, and if wrong, then to see the ones involved brought to justice.

...Ha, like that would ever happen here. Or apparently anywhere.

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Yep, nothing going on here at all.

I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.

So your argument is that it is a conspiracy. Well bravo.

You sure it isn't more that a brown fella got bail and the white guy didn't? I mean, lots of people during that same time period got bail but you seem obsessed with the guy of Pakistani/Indian descent.

You call for looking at the evidence, perhaps you should take your own advice. i would stake an army box you haven't read the case files, just news reports, and probably just internet news reports. I'm also willing to bet you haven't read the judges written decisions on either case. Bail has to do with a) likelihood to skip bail and b) the resources to do so. The first guy didn't have them and the second (Assange) apparently did.

I would suggest you wind your neck in sunshine as I hope you're not suggesting I'm racist?

It's cute how you get upset at the mere possibility and then wildly over react and show prejudice as well as some pretty muddled thinking. I especially like the idea that becuase there are racists in one country you can't notice them in another. If it helps you, a good deal of our racism is a direct descendant of British attitudes at the time of colonization. I also wasn't implying it, I was pretty much straight out asking you if that was your problem. You seem obsessed with the gentleman's ethnicity when it really didn't make a difference in the slightest as to the determination of bail, yet you kept going back to it even after it had pointed out that it wasn't an issue. You didn't make 'a comment', you made multiple comments.

I wasn't merely, or at least not completely suggesting racism either. It could have been prejudice stemming from anti-immigration or who knows. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, ect ect. You could have just said "No, that wasn't what I meant at all", but instead I get a personal insult and an overreaction, which is somewhat telling I suppose.

Wolfstan wrote:When your immigration people stop targetting, as posisble bombers, middle eastern looking travelers or travelers with muslim sounding names you can take a moral high ground.

While there are a lot of reasons why this is an incredibly stupid argument, I'm just going to offer one simple one: British National Party. Also, having talked with African ex-patriots I wouldn't get my nose up at other countries airport Customs until your are spotless either.

Again with the overreaction and the goofy idea that becuase America has it's fair share of ignorant fools somehow we should ignore the British ones.

And, let's be honest, no one tarred the British Empire; we are talking about just you so don't wrap yourself in the flag. You were the one that said things that might be questionable so you got questioned and then you jumped straight to country bashing, as if somehow that would shield you from criticism becuase you had the powerful insight that the US has some prejudiced folk living there.

You act like I should know you and just automatically assume you aren't some BNP, frothing at the mouth madder. It is not that you know he has family elsewhere (as a lot of people charged with crimes do) it is that you keep jumping to the immigrant well and it becomes suspect. Again, I don't know you so I have to ask why it seems that way. You can then either say yes, or point out that that wasn't how you meant to come off. You haven't really done either.

Your reasons for going back to the same position are still anemic and ignore legal precedent and it is this willful ignorance that also makes it seem like you have something personal against people of Pakistani/Indian descent.

You may not mean to come off that way, but you are being a bit suspect.

So, looks like the 'rape victim' worked with the CIA.

Not exactly.

Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba.

In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter.

So basically she is part of a few anti-Castro groups that have U.S. funding. This means approximately nothing, unless you're Cuban and think that Castro was a good idea. Assange is a worthless twit. Whether or not the rape charges have any validity will be discussed in court, but all of the people jumping to defend him are grasping at straws.

Wolfun wrote:So, looks like the 'rape victim' worked with the CIA.

Besides having already been posted, 'worked' with the CIA is still a bit of a stretch. It presumes a level of information and cooperation we don't know. There is nothing to say she actually knew that one of the Anti-Castro groups had some CIA influence. It is like finding out that a GW store you went to had an MI5 guy that played there and suddenly in the news you are tied to the intelligence community.