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.

Melissia wrote: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.

Well:

She just happens to end up associating with a group openly supported by an admitted CIA agent who himself committed mass murder when he actively participated in the terrorist bombing of a jetliner carrying a Cuban sports team…an act that was of a piece with America’s secret foreign policy of violent attacks against Cuban state interests.

And now she just happens – after admittedly consensual sex – to have gone to Swedish authorities to report the sex ended without a condom…which just happens to be the pretext for Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” informing the world’s police forces of charges against Julian Assange.

There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.

What's more amusing is that Assange is reported to have ties to that same group. It's supposedly how the two met, and why Ardin was able to get Assange to speak at the event where the incident occurred.

Wolfun wrote:There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.

I don't believe this is a conspiracy to set up. Does that make me stupid all fo the sudden, or does it make you paranoid and grasping at straws to defend your vaunted Assange, who freely and openly admits that he doesn't care about whistleblowing anymore and just wants to do everything he can to damage the United States?

There is a difference between intelligence and paranoid delusion.

Melissia wrote:

Wolfun wrote:There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.

I don't believe this is a conspiracy to set up. Does that make me stupid all fo the sudden, or does it make you paranoid and grasping at straws to defend your vaunted Assange, who freely and openly admits that he doesn't care about whistleblowing anymore and just wants to do everything he can to damage the United States?

There is a difference between intelligence and paranoid delusion.

Someone's feisty. Considering I've never used Wikileaks, nor could I care any less if the guy was assassinated or imprisoned. Does it make me paranoid to think he's being set up? No, because I go with logic and my gut. If someone is staging an open, one man war against the States, good for him. If he suddenly is arrested by 'raping' someone who has ties to the CIA, who admited that it was consensual, then goes to the police for a condom being removed... That strikes me as oddly peculiar.

But, by all means, have a hissy fit about what I think. If I thought you were stupid, I would have called you stupid. I just thought we were having a debate like adults. Didn't realize we were supposed to start throwing insults like children. <3

Wolfun wrote:

Melissia wrote: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.

Well:

She just happens to end up associating with a group openly supported by an admitted CIA agent who himself committed mass murder when he actively participated in the terrorist bombing of a jetliner carrying a Cuban sports team…an act that was of a piece with America’s secret foreign policy of violent attacks against Cuban state interests.

And now she just happens – after admittedly consensual sex – to have gone to Swedish authorities to report the sex ended without a condom…which just happens to be the pretext for Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” informing the world’s police forces of charges against Julian Assange.

There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.

There's so much fail in your post I don't know where to begin.

1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman who had no previous sexual contact between them got STDs. How? Assange told them both "the condom split", and after being told to stop and put a new condom on--he kept going. That's entirely enough pretext for a rape charge, especially when the accused leaves the country in a hurry, refuses STD tests and then drops off the map.
2) Luis Posada Carriles hasn't been with the CIA for longer than you've likely been alive. He left(more like fled) the CIA after they began investigating him back in 1968. He moved to Venezuela, taking a crapload of CIA weapon caches with him. He became a naturalized citizen and even went on to head Venezuela's intelligence service before he committed the bombing that ticked them off so bad.

Oh, and if you want to talk about "the US harboring him"?
He's not being extradited because he likely faces torture in Venezuela and Cuba. We tried to deport him to 7 other countries that could have tried him because they had citizens killed during his attacks; but none want him.
If that's your idea of a "CIA connection", I want some of what you're smoking because that has to be some good gak.
3) Coincidences can in fact just be coincidences, despite what the man on the corner in the tin hat is telling you. And again: Assange is stated to have links to the "Ladies in White" group. He's supposed to have helped them distribute information that they obtained.

Kanluwen wrote:
1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman who had no previous sexual contact between them got STDs.

Do you really not see any problem with this sentence?

@Wolfun: You essentially said that if people don't believe what you believe they are stupid and wonder why you got a feisty reaction.

For the record, you aren't using logic anywhere in here, just your gut. If you truly utilized logic, you would be presenting a different answer than than "two things happened so it must mean X".

I don't know what happened but I do know automatically assuming it is a government conspiracy is just as ridiculous as automatically assuming he id guilty.

Wolfun wrote:Someone's feisty.

Maybe if you didn't just call everyone who disagreed with you stupid you'd get more polite responses from these so-called stupid people.

Kanluwen wrote:
There's so much fail in your post I don't know where to begin.

1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman who had no previous sexual contact between them got STDs. How? Assange told them both "the condom split", and after being told to stop and put a new condom on--he kept going. That's entirely enough pretext for a rape charge, especially when the accused leaves the country in a hurry, refuses STD tests and then drops off the map.
2) Luis Posada Carriles hasn't been with the CIA for longer than you've likely been alive. He left(more like fled) the CIA after they began investigating him back in 1968. He moved to Venezuela, taking a crapload of CIA weapon caches with him. He became a naturalized citizen and even went on to head Venezuela's intelligence service before he committed the bombing that ticked them off so bad.

Oh, and if you want to talk about "the US harboring him"?
He's not being extradited because he likely faces torture in Venezuela and Cuba. We tried to deport him to 7 other countries that could have tried him because they had citizens killed during his attacks; but none want him.
If that's your idea of a "CIA connection", I want some of what you're smoking because that has to be some good gak.
3) Coincidences can in fact just be coincidences, despite what the man on the corner in the tin hat is telling you. And again: Assange is stated to have links to the "Ladies in White" group. He's supposed to have helped them distribute information that they obtained.

Fail for what? An opinion? Then I reject your own opinion for being full of fail.

Lets face it, we're not going to reach an agreement. The fact that someone has ties to the CIA and is accusing someone who the American Government perceives (and has been trying to get done as being a terrorist) strikes me as being particularly odd.

But, from what happened with people like Richard Marcinko and Red Cell, it could be quite easily for them to say any gak they like about people like Luis Posada Carriles. Doesn't really mean anything.

As far as I'm concerned, it's obviously some kind of set up (and I don't care about the asshat Assange in the slightest), and if you want to think I'm stupid, it's no skin off of my pretty little nose. <3

Wolfun wrote:Fail for what? An opinion?

God I'm so tired of that damn excuse for not thinking. You aren't being criticized for having an opinion but becuase your opinion is poorly thought out and silly. Try making an honest to god response and not falling back on crappy excuses such as "lolopinion". No gak it's your opinion. You aren't writing a fact sheet so it is going to have to be an opinion, isn't it?

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman, who had no previous sexual contact between them, both got STDs.

Do you really not see any problem with this sentence?

I needed a comma and different wording?

But really. I see no problem if that is what really happened. If it was the CIA, they wouldn't be using STDs as a way to set him up. They'd have killed a hooker and left her in Assange's apartment then called the cops or something.

The other woman was a member, by the by, of an event that Ardin was running in Sweden that Assange was a guest speaker at.

I think it was about protecting confidential sources in the media.

Kanluwen wrote:

Wolfun wrote:

Melissia wrote: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.

Well:

She just happens to end up associating with a group openly supported by an admitted CIA agent who himself committed mass murder when he actively participated in the terrorist bombing of a jetliner carrying a Cuban sports team…an act that was of a piece with America’s secret foreign policy of violent attacks against Cuban state interests.

And now she just happens – after admittedly consensual sex – to have gone to Swedish authorities to report the sex ended without a condom…which just happens to be the pretext for Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” informing the world’s police forces of charges against Julian Assange.

There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.

There's so much fail in your post I don't know where to begin.

1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman who had no previous sexual contact between them got STDs. .

Why do you keep saying that? There hasn't been any evidence reported to indicate it.

Kanluwen wrote:If it was the CIA, they wouldn't be using STDs as a way to set him up.

Why not? Seems like a good idea to me.

I don't think they'd want to risk their agents getting an STD, which is often incurable, just to set someone up. At least not someone as relatively inconsequential (yes, I said it) as Julian Assange, who would be nothing without the people helping him.

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfun wrote:Fail for what? An opinion?

God I'm so tired of that damn excuse for not thinking. You aren't being criticized for having an opinion but becuase your opinion is poorly thought out and silly. Try making an honest to god response and not falling back on crappy excuses such as "lolopinion". No gak it's your opinion. You aren't writing a fact sheet so it is going to have to be an opinion, isn't it?

It was an opinion? I was always brought up to believe, that if I think something that someone disagrees with, I was being a stubborn asshat. I mean, I had a difference of opinion to them.

The fact that I took an article and used it to portray my side of an argument, shows it as my opinion. As he said "My post was full of fail" that's pretty much saying that my opinion was full of fail. How was that an excuse, exactly... (And I'm pretty sure that if I put forth more points to my argument, it's not me 'not thinking'...)?

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you keep saying that? There hasn't been any evidence reported to indicate it.

You mean other than Assange outing the women, who previously were unnamed?
Other than the warrant that was issued?
Try reading something other than WikiLeaks sometime.

dogma wrote:Why not? Seems like a good idea to me.

Do you know how hard it would be to find an agent willing to be exposed to any STD that the spread of, knowingly or unknowingly through sexual contact, would actually be enough to get Assange jail time?

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that you should ACTIVELY INSULT EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU.

I have opinions, but if I insulted everyone who disagreed with me I'd be permabanned from this forum because that's quite a damn few people

Melissia wrote:Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that you should ACTIVELY INSULT EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU.

I have opinions, but if I insulted everyone who disagreed with me I'd be permabanned from this forum because that's quite a damn few people

I have to say, it was more of a swing at American's in general who are stereotyped as being stupid, than you. =P

I am an American and I disagree with you, so even if that post isn't directed at me, it's still calling me stupid.

Wolfun wrote:The fact that I took an article and used it to portray my side of an argument, shows it as my opinion.

Which is precisely why you don't need to point out that it is your opinion. I'm not just talking about you though as it is a rampant problem.

Wolfun wrote:As he said "My post was full of fail" that's pretty much saying that my opinion was full of fail.

Actually what you failed at was reading. Your post wasn't criticized for being full of fail, that was aimed at a different one. My criticism isn't that it isn't possible that the CIA was involved, mine is that your level of certainty is unfounded. There is not enough information to create a steadfast position on the incident and to pretend otherwise is delusional or oblique.

Wolfun wrote:

Melissia wrote:Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that you should ACTIVELY INSULT EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU.

I have opinions, but if I insulted everyone who disagreed with me I'd be permabanned from this forum because that's quite a damn few people

I have to say, it was more of a swing at American's in general who are stereotyped as being stupid, than you. =P

So you admit you were being purposefully insulting to a great number of posters here. This thread isn't about insulting each others countries. No country here is without merit of fault so let's not start tossing stones or using stereotypes.

Old news, but

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."

But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

And then we have

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

Now, what exactly are these enemies and what can they do to put american lives to risk?

Sounds to me that so far Assange is only guilty of embarassing US diplomats, who where criticized by brazillian president Lula da Silva (I have no actual written quote for this) who said something along the lines that his diplomats didn't use their free time to mock politicians from other countries.

Assange's timely arrest (and Interpol's interest in him) for such charges, coupled with some ties to the CIA on behalf of one of the women, the refusal of bail, his unknown whereabouts, raises some eyebrows, I think everyone can agree on that.

Regarding the last few posts, http://bash.org/?23396 (some f-bombs in there, read at your own discretion).

Because the leaks listed names, professions, locations, etc of informants in Afghanistan, which are easily accessible by any terrorist with an internet connection, and therefor they know who exactly amongst the civilian population is working against them.

Melissia wrote:Because the leaks listed names, professions, locations, etc of informants in Afghanistan, which are easily accessible by any terrorist with an internet connection, and therefor they know who exactly amongst the civilian population is working against them.

This is true.

Also, we all know Assange is a dead man. It just depends on who gets to him first, probably China.

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you keep saying that? There hasn't been any evidence reported to indicate it.

You mean other than Assange outing the women, who previously were unnamed?
Other than the warrant that was issued?
Try reading something other than WikiLeaks sometime.

None of those things gives evidence that the women have contracted STDs.

I took your advice and looked up a bunch of news reports about the case. There is nothing that says that the women contracted STDs.

Which news reports have you read, which say they did?

Melissia wrote:Because the leaks listed names, professions, locations, etc of informants in Afghanistan, which are easily accessible by any terrorist with an internet connection, and therefor they know who exactly amongst the civilian population is working against them.

The Afghanistan leak hasn't been connected to any killings in Afhganistan.

July 2010, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/25/wikileaks (don't know about the validity of this site, if it isn't reliable I will recheck the sources)

The Guardian describes the documents as "a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fueling the insurgency."

In addition to those two newspapers, WikiLeaks also weeks ago provided these materials to Der Spiegel, on the condition that all three wait until today to write about them. These outlets were presumably chosen by WikiLeaks with the intent to ensure maximum exposure among the American and Western European citizenries which continue to pay for this war and whose governments have been less than forthcoming about what is taking place [a CIA document prepared in March, 2010 -- and previously leaked by WikiLeaks -- plotted how to prevent public opinion in Western Europe from turning further against the war and thus forcing their Governments to withdraw; the CIA's conclusion: the most valuable asset in putting a pretty face on the war for Western Europeans is Barack Obama's popularity with those populations].

Note how obviously lame is the White House's prime tactic thus far for dismissing the importance of the leak: that the documents only go through December, 2009

I wouldn't like to see him dead, though. I can understand that many Americans dislike him for the bad image he gave to it's diplomats (and thus, smeared the face of the country) but people are seemingly unconcerned about things like the DynCorp scandal. I would say that it was the prime objective of the leaks. Also, and this is my opinion, the American diplomats (not the American people, mind you) had it coming (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6075584/wikileaks_and_hillary_clinton_espionage.html).

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you keep saying that? There hasn't been any evidence reported to indicate it.

You mean other than Assange outing the women, who previously were unnamed?
Other than the warrant that was issued?
Try reading something other than WikiLeaks sometime.

None of those things gives evidence that the women have contracted STDs.

I took your advice and looked up a bunch of news reports about the case. There is nothing that says that the women contracted STDs.

Which news reports have you read, which say they did?

BBC's report, CNN's, and MSNBC's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Destrado wrote:I can understand that many Americans dislike him for the bad image he gave to it's diplomats (and thus, smeared the face of the country) but people are seemingly unconcerned about things like the DynCorp scandal.

Probably because the DynCorp scandal is buried amidst all the crap that they leaked. How many cables was it that they leaked again?

WikiLeaks just dumped the crap. They didn't make any effort to weed out the chaff. They put it all there and said "Here you go, here's your proof your government is hiding things!".

Unfortunately, most of that proof is just the opinions that diplomats(which every nation effectively use as an "intelligence corps") have of the people they deal with on a regular basis.

I've read BBC's report. It doesn't say that. It's possible there is more than one report from the BBC, and I have read a different one to the one you read, which says different things.

Do you have the URL of the report you read?

Not saved, because it was last week that I read it.

I think it was their timeline of the events and what led to the arrest charges originally being filed though.

Kanluwen wrote:BBC's report, CNN's, and MSNBC's.

I'm sorry, could you get specifics? I looked in BBC and I could find nothing about the STD. The only pieces I found spoke of both the women being afraid. And while the STD claim is serious, and he should be held responsible for that, the rape charges seem to be out of place. The chief prosecutor in charge (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341) found no reason to go for rape charges.

edit:Leaving it for the sake of consistency, but please ignore the "specifics" as I've read your most recent post. The rest of my post might be pertinent about his charges, however.

The arrest warrant is withdrawn. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne.

Ms Rosander says the investigation into the molestation charge will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.

On September the 1st, however,

Director of Prosecutions Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Mr Assange. Ms Ny is also head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular.

One of the articles I've read also mentions one of the victims throwing Assange a party after they had sex. Hardly what you do when someone rapes you. The STD charges are somewhat odd, in that he could have had no prior knowledge (if he did have any medical information saying he had an STD, it would've been out in the public, I assume), so even if they have it, who is to say that he didn't get it from woman A and passed it to woman W? For this to happen, he doesn't have to be behind bars. Less credible sources and conspiracy theorists say that his public image must be tarnished so as to make people forget about him.

WikiLeaks just dumped the crap. They didn't make any effort to weed out the chaff. They put it all there and said "Here you go, here's your proof your government is hiding things!".

Unfortunately, most of that proof is just the opinions that diplomats(which every nation effectively use as an "intelligence corps") have of the people they deal with on a regular basis.

(http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6075584/wikileaks_and_hillary_clinton_espionage.html)

DNA and biometric data on foreign leaders were in the leaked in cable information published by WikiLeaks.

The United States collecting this information worries me. It wasn't just the diplomats' opinion. This is serious, and other countries deserve to know about this. This isn't playing nice.

Well, this turned into a flame war fast. I am still for the black site drop off idea.