The continuing story of Julian Assange...Wikileaks.

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.

**Gibbsey**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Shuma i have come to the conclusion that you are a troll, congratulations on being so sucessful thus far.

You aren't the first one to call me that or congratulate me for it. Much like the rest though, you aren't looking very good doing it rather then answering any of the points I've raised (as you failed to do in your last post to me as well).

Although i may not be a man-of-the-yemen-town this does not change the fact that the people were lied to, like it or not in a country that is supposed to be a democracy the government should not lie to the people that it should be representing, even American air strikes on yemen approved targets would of been acceptable.

Idealism is great until you're country is in the midst of a civil war and is being used as a training camp for international terrorists. At that point idealism has basically just cost you the farm. You're quite right, they lied to their people, and by doing so they were endeavoring to protect them from themselves. This was the polite thing to do for the yemenese people, and the best thing to do for their government. We could have just told them that we were going to bomb these areas regardless of their wishes. Is that a good alternative? Or how about just letting these camps run for a few years unharassed while they plan and implement terrorist acts on civilians locally and abroad?

Good old dogmatic idealism! Getting people killed since biblical times.

Now what if americans were lied to like this? would that be acceptable in a western nation? no? then why should it be acceptable here, especially with the loss of civilian life.

The difference being that America is a western nation at peace with itself, not battling a fundamentalist insurgency and it doesn't have sizable infiltration from violent fundamentalist terrorists. The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

You are really not doing yourself any favors by calling me a troll then equivocating and making appeals to idealism that are utterly unrealistic.

Hmmm likely, then maybe it shouldent be toted as fact

If I was toting it as fact I wouldn't have used the word likely. Thats the entire point of what I just said.

Hmmm in regards to "toting it as fact" and "likely" since when was i refering to you, im sorry but when i reply to one of your posts with that sentiment then reply with what you said. Replying about what you said when im refering to another post entirely is nonsensical

Also in regards to the rest of what you said, i think i found your perfect characterization

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

**ShumaGorath**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state.

**Gibbsey**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."

So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know

**ShumaGorath**

Hmmm in regards to "toting it as fact" and "likely" since when was i refering to you, im sorry but when i reply to one of your posts with that sentiment then reply with what you said. Replying about what you said when im refering to another post entirely is nonsensical

Then why did you respond to ahtman with something that I said?

Also in regards to the rest of what you said, i think i found your perfect characterization

Will you actually respond to one of my points in a fashion other then ad hominim and equivocation in this video?

:edit: guess not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

Thats not what I said and you reeaaaallly need to either learn some political history or stop trolling the thread. No one is impressed.

**Emperors Faithful**

ShumaGorath wrote:Rights are defined and awarded by situation.

Gotcha. Not that I agree with this, but I still gotcha.

What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant.

C'mon. I've like you, Shuma, but you know better than to try that.

You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state.

So those born in different, poorer situations in different political climates should have different, more restricted, rights than those born into more priveliged situations? Or is it that you believe this is simply a reality, and that any attempt to do otherwise is somehow...wrong? (that's what I've garnered from your resonse so far).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

EDIT: For grammar.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

Thats not what I said and you reeaaaallly need to either learn some political history or stop trolling the thread. No one is impressed.

He wasn't being serious, Shuma. Just cheeky.

**Gibbsey**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Hmmm in regards to "toting it as fact" and "likely" since when was i refering to you, im sorry but when i reply to one of your posts with that sentiment then reply with what you said. Replying about what you said when im refering to another post entirely is nonsensical

Then why did you respond to ahtman with something that I said?

Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.

Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.

Yep especially if their cover has been blown, should be pretty easy to find out if an informant died after being exposed. Dont you think this is something that would be released to show that Wikileaks is responsable for it? Also if the informant has been found out why would reveling that he died because of the release affect anymore of the network? i mean if they already found the guy and noone else then the rest of the network should remain intact unless their info is revealed

The CIA can neither deny or confirm. Even after Valerie Plame was outed guess what the CIA said? The CIA can neither deny or confirm. We aren't talking about whether an NFL player is being traded to another team.

is it that hard to follow? it also carries on from there

ShumaGorath wrote:

Also in regards to the rest of what you said, i think i found your perfect characterization

Will you actually respond to one of my points in a fashion other then ad hominim and equivocation in this video?

:edit: guess not.

That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon

ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

Thats not what I said and you reeaaaallly need to either learn some political history or stop trolling the thread. No one is impressed.

nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"

as you have said:

"You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."

**ShumaGorath**

Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."

So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know

Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.

That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon

Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).

nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"

Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

**Emperors Faithful**

ShumaGorath wrote:Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.

AUSTRALIA!!!

No, wait...

New Zealand? They never seem to do anything wrong... bloody stinking kiwi goody two-shoes grumble grumble grumble

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

Er, Shuma. There's a line somewhere around here.

**Gibbsey**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."

So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know

Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.

That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon

Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).

nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"

Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

I agree rights are not real things, they are a human construct, but this is one that a country that is democratically elected should provide. This is not a civil war this is an insurgency, if mexican cartels started invading texas and started hiding out there does that mean the people lose all rights?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

Er, Shuma. There's a line somewhere around here.

And he wonders why i dont take him srsly

**Emperors Faithful**

After 20 pages of "Burn the Heretic!" in one form or another, a discussion on Rights and their nature or whether they should be universally awarded is about as serious as it can get.

**ShumaGorath**

Gibbsey wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."

So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know

Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.

That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon

Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).

nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"

Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

I agree rights are not real things, they are a human construct, but this is one that a country that is democratically elected should provide. This is not a civil war this is an insurgency, if mexican cartels started invading texas and started hiding out there does that mean the people lose all rights?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

Er, Shuma. There's a line somewhere around here.

And he wonders why i dont take him srsly

I'm done here, go take some ethics and phi classes for the rights bit, some current events classes for the yemen bit, and some debate classes so that you're better able to interface with other peoples arguments. Short of all that just get outside and talk to some real people. Regardless, I'm gonna let Emperors or Ahtman deal with whatever you're point is (you don't seem to actually have one, and while I can identify with that position, you also don't know what you're talking about).

Later gator!

**Gibbsey**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."

So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know

Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.

That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon

Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).

nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"

Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

I agree rights are not real things, they are a human construct, but this is one that a country that is democratically elected should provide. This is not a civil war this is an insurgency, if mexican cartels started invading texas and started hiding out there does that mean the people lose all rights?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

Er, Shuma. There's a line somewhere around here.

And he wonders why i dont take him srsly

I'm done here, go take some ethics and phi classes for the rights bit, some current events classes for the yemen bit, and some debate classes so that you're better able to interface with other peoples arguments. Short of all that just get outside and talk to some real people. Regardless, I'm gonna let Emperors or Ahtman deal with whatever you're point is (you don't seem to actually have one, and while I can identify with that position, you also don't know what you're talking about).

Later gator!

I dont take kindly to being told to go back to "world of warcraft" and to "get outside and talk to some real people" so i completely approve of this, feel free to come back when you can make valid arguments without personal attacks.

Also i apologize for beleiving that a country's people should have rights, should i sign the letter of apology along with the citizens of yemen? I mean for the naive assumption that they should be told the truth by their government in a time of turmoil, maybe as part of some misguided attempt to gain trust in the government?

**Emperors Faithful**

So Gibbsey...what was your point again?

**Gibbsey**

Emperors Faithful wrote:So Gibbsey...what was your point again?

Being called things like "silly boy" and "go back to wow" really have no point in a thread like this and they kind of offend me.

"The CIA cant tell us" is not correct to use when accusing someone of being responsible for someones death.

That yemen citizens "have no rights" because their country has an insurgency is rediculous, expecially how since the country is a democracy the government only gains the right to govern through the people.

Being an ass is not a criminal offense nor can you extradite over it

Also Assange hasnt comitted treason (not a citizen) neither is he in violation of US espionage laws (no crime in american juristiction (if he violates it even if he was in american juristiction is a completely different agrument and one i dont want to get into))

And anything else i may have said has been lost in this thread by the repeat of the same old arguments and baseless assumptions/accusations

Oh and getting back on topic

**dogma**

Gibbsey wrote:
That yemen citizens "have no rights" because their country has an insurgency is rediculous, expecially how since the country is a democracy the government only gains the right to govern through the people.

Which country? Because Yemen routinely scores in the lowest tier on all major democracy indexes.

**Gibbsey**

dogma wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
That yemen citizens "have no rights" because their country has an insurgency is rediculous, expecially how since the country is a democracy the government only gains the right to govern through the people.

Which country? Because Yemen routinely scores in the lowest tier on all major democracy indexes.

I have to agree with this, they have a long way to go and honestly they could slip in either direction. But to stretch it to "they have no rights"? even if the government is not willing to show any transparancy to its people why are wikileaks suddenly the bad guys to show them how they are being lied to?

**dogma**

Kanluwen wrote:
Where was the deflection, at all, there Dogma?

I asked you a question, and you asked an entirely different question in response, that's basically the definition of deflection.

And you're doing it again be asking "where the deflection was" when it is plain as day what was done. I mean, its possible that you simply don't know what you're doing, but that requires me to also accept that you are entirely incompetent, and I'm not ready to do that.

Kanluwen wrote:
But since apparently you're going to be a smug git:

I'm not the one that seems to struggle answering a simple question.

Kanluwen wrote:
The "means of a given person" is what they can reliably have access to without liquidating everything they own.

It's why when police officers, who haven't won the lottery or come into money, have suddenly started buying things like boats or expensive cars are looked at with suspicion.

That doesn't help you expose corruption in the diplomatic class. It isn't illegal to accept money from non-governmental sources.

You shouldn't consider politics to be analogically similar to police work.

But yeah, I was apparently right that the reason behind your hesitation in answering was the realization of how doing so weakened your position.

**Emperors Faithful**

Okay then.

**dogma**

Gibbsey wrote:
I have to agree with this, they have a long way to go and honestly they could slip in either direction. But to stretch it to "they have no rights"? even if the government is not willing to show any transparancy to its people why are wikileaks suddenly the bad guys to show them how they are being lied to?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

**mattyrm**

I really must protest. Wow is NOT "nice and simple" it is incredibly hard work, requiring teams of adventurers to work together, toiling in their efforts to finally end the threat to thee good citizens of Azeroth.

**Peter Wiggin**

Gibbsey wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.

I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets

Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they

OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."

So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know

Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.

That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon

Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).

nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"

Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

I agree rights are not real things, they are a human construct, but this is one that a country that is democratically elected should provide. This is not a civil war this is an insurgency, if mexican cartels started invading texas and started hiding out there does that mean the people lose all rights?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.

Er, Shuma. There's a line somewhere around here.

And he wonders why i dont take him srsly

I'm done here, go take some ethics and phi classes for the rights bit, some current events classes for the yemen bit, and some debate classes so that you're better able to interface with other peoples arguments. Short of all that just get outside and talk to some real people. Regardless, I'm gonna let Emperors or Ahtman deal with whatever you're point is (you don't seem to actually have one, and while I can identify with that position, you also don't know what you're talking about).

Later gator!

I dont take kindly to being told to go back to "world of warcraft" and to "get outside and talk to some real people" so i completely approve of this, feel free to come back when you can make valid arguments without personal attacks.

Also i apologize for beleiving that a country's people should have rights, should i sign the letter of apology along with the citizens of yemen? I mean for the naive assumption that they should be told the truth by their government in a time of turmoil, maybe as part of some misguided attempt to gain trust in the government?

God I disagree just because I disagree. Rawr I am rite n' you are rong!!!!!!!! SEMANTICS OMG FALLACY (mod) shut up guys.............................RAWR I'M RITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**loki old fart**

"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here

**Emperors Faithful**

loki old fart wrote:"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here

Loki, that was a creul and unnecessary remark aimed that you aimed at Peter Wiggin.

**Kilkrazy**

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/10/assange_indictment_soon/

From Friday.

**Peter Wiggin**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
loki old fart wrote:"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here

Loki, that was a creul and unnecessary remark aimed that you aimed at Peter Wiggin.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FU U h8 caeke

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/10/assange_indictment_soon/

From Friday.

If they do that, things have the serious potential to pop off. I really hope they don't attempt it...for the sake of civil well being.

**loki old fart**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
loki old fart wrote:"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here

Loki, that was a creul and unnecessary remark aimed that you aimed at Peter Wiggin.

Loki, that was a cruel and unnecessary remark that you aimed at Peter Wiggin
There fixed that typo

**Emperors Faithful**

loki old fart wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
loki old fart wrote:"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here

Loki, that was a creul and unnecessary remark aimed that you aimed at Peter Wiggin.

Loki, that was a cruel and unnecessary remark that you aimed at Peter Wiggin
There fixed that typo

Shaddup.

**loki old fart**

lol

**Destrado**

Peter Wiggin wrote:Hi, that was me....at like page 3 I think.

After reading MANY articles and looking up past case information I think it really is just a strange coincidence....and the "ties" that the girl has to the CIA are laughable at best. I'm a conspiracy believer, but at least look at the facts before screaming about the Tri Lateral Commision. lol

Lol @ being told to check the facts by you, given I've read almost all your posts since the beggining of the thread...

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/

Please, do share those articles. The ties might be laughable like you say... yet there she was, and funnily enough, it happened with her. After she consented. But then said she retracted. The case was filed, and then reopened. He's given an international arrest warrant. And you call yourself a conspiracy believer

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66P35Y20100726

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10746832 (this isn't wiki related, but still an interesting read)

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/07/wikileaks-and-the-war.html

I'd say most posters here only care about the image of their country given what's hot in the news. And absolutely love the profissional profile (and absolutely impartial, of course) assesment that's been made of Assange, as well as the well-thought punishment for whatever crimes he might've commited.

**Frazzled**

When dissing other posters in a slanted manner it helps to spell properly. You spelled professional wrong.