By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Anonymous Supports Wikileaks as Assange is Arrested

Kantor on 07 December 2010
badgenome said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

So, they are illegally hacking websites that have exercised their legal right to choose who they do buisness with, because someone got arrested for a rape charge that will only help him and his cause.

Not sure i'm getting the why.

 

Also, why are they saying they don't know who committed the Cyberattacks?  Some guy claimed responsibility for those.

 

The rape charges are completely unrelated, I mean they do nothing but hurt the US since everyone thinks it's behind it anyway.  Don't think the government is that stupid.

It's extremely naïve to assume that Assange just happened to have a rape case filed against him after he published and shared leaked confidential information (which, incidentally, is not a crime).

Is it really when you look at the specific charges against him? Supposedly, he boinked one chick even though the condom broke, and then he boinked another chick without a condom at all, and the two chicks found out about one another and compared notes and got really pissed off. Under fucked up Swedish laws that seem to have been designed solely to appease militant feminists, this may constitute rape. I'd like to think that my government would at least coerce women to claim to have been really raped, not just Swedish raped.

But that can be proven.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Kantor on 07 December 2010
Kasz216 said:

Also, what your saying is...basically anyone who is doing anything famous or important can rape as many people as they want, because we have to assume they are innocent because they are doing something important.

You don't see the logical fallacy there?

But he's being set up, because the governments want to put themselves in a no-win situation... and the women find it fun to constantly be showered with death threats and hate mail.

Interpol doesn't throw around Red Notices for screwing people without a condom.

It's not so much to try and convict him. This is just about the most ridiculous grounds for prosecution I have ever heard. They want to make him look stupid and discredit him, so people don't like him any more.

They're desperate. They can't legally take down the website, they've tried and failed to do so illegally, they're just doing whatever they can.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

alekth on 07 December 2010

Well, hope that rape case (that is now called sex by surprise lol) is handled soon... though I do wonder what sort of new evidence there could be in a case like that, since it's been dismissed once already. How do you prove, after half an year, that you didn't consent to having sex without a condom, but were tricked (not forced) into doing it. And basically that only concerns the morning sex with the second lady. Because if a court manages to judge whether a condom broke or was torn on purpose months earlier, well that's one pretty messed up court.

He refused to get tested for VD though and that also appears to be punisheable... but really curious what new evidence motivates reopening the case.



Zkuq on 07 December 2010
Chairman-Mao said:
Kenology said:

Wow.  You really don't want to get on the wrong side of the US government.

Shame on those government officials who are being so afraid of the people knowing all about it's dirty, subversive wars across the globe and trying to take the people's right to know away.

Long live, Wikileaks!


Do you even read what you write before you post it? He was giving away US secrets!! Do you seriously think that's okay? Would you be happy if all of your country's secrets got out? How anyone can defend him is beyond me. I hope he gets killed, or at least put in a dark room for 40 years. 

Considering what kind of stuff has been going on behind the curtain, I wouldn't think twice if I could decide whether that kind of secrets should be let out. But if I had to do it myself... Well, I might just think twice, but even then, if I was sure of my success, I might just do it myself.

Anyway, my point is that whatever's been happening doesn't deserve to stay hidden, no matter what. Not everything Wikileaks has revealed hasn't been necessary (important 'targets'? why?) but I still defend the deed.



Kasz216 on 07 December 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

So, they are illegally hacking websites that have exercised their legal right to choose who they do buisness with, because someone got arrested for a rape charge that will only help him and his cause.

Not sure i'm getting the why.

 

Also, why are they saying they don't know who committed the Cyberattacks?  Some guy claimed responsibility for those.

 

The rape charges are completely unrelated, I mean they do nothing but hurt the US since everyone thinks it's behind it anyway.  Don't think the government is that stupid.

It's extremely naïve to assume that Assange just happened to have a rape case filed against him after he published and shared leaked confidential information (which, incidentally, is not a crime).

A) Didn't the original case start BEFORE these leaks?

B) I see a connection, just not a crazy conspiracy theorist connection when there is literally zero benefit towards this conspiracy theory for the US or Sweeden.

Ever think that the leaks make him more famous, therefore more likely to get people to date him, and put him in a better chance to alledgedly aquatience rape people?

I mean, that's like saying you find it Naive that Tiger woods just happened to start cheating on his wife after he got famous.

Or that Ben Rothelesburger just started happened trapping women in bathrooms after he became successful.

a) No, it did not. It started before the Cables, but after the Afghan War diaries.

b) Sweden is doing what the USA is telling it to do. And the American government is trying to stop this man with all of their might. They clearly don't want any of this stuff getting out, which is believable, because the cables show that they are a bunch of spineless cowards who refuse to say what they believe for fear of vaguely offending someone - even when they all believe the same thing.


A) Yes.   After he became famous... and therefore is in a more likely position to daterape people.

B)  What?  You do know Wikileaks isn't one guy right?  He could turn up dead tommorrow and it wouldn't change a thing.  Except he'd suddenly be a lot more vindicated and Wikileaks would get a lot of support.  If this is the US government's doing, they are literally working against their own interests.  Heck, Assange isn't even the most important person in Wikileaks.  He's just the frontman.



Around the Network
Kantor on 07 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

So, they are illegally hacking websites that have exercised their legal right to choose who they do buisness with, because someone got arrested for a rape charge that will only help him and his cause.

Not sure i'm getting the why.

 

Also, why are they saying they don't know who committed the Cyberattacks?  Some guy claimed responsibility for those.

 

The rape charges are completely unrelated, I mean they do nothing but hurt the US since everyone thinks it's behind it anyway.  Don't think the government is that stupid.

It's extremely naïve to assume that Assange just happened to have a rape case filed against him after he published and shared leaked confidential information (which, incidentally, is not a crime).

A) Didn't the original case start BEFORE these leaks?

B) I see a connection, just not a crazy conspiracy theorist connection when there is literally zero benefit towards this conspiracy theory for the US or Sweeden.

Ever think that the leaks make him more famous, therefore more likely to get people to date him, and put him in a better chance to alledgedly aquatience rape people?

I mean, that's like saying you find it Naive that Tiger woods just happened to start cheating on his wife after he got famous.

Or that Ben Rothelesburger just started happened trapping women in bathrooms after he became successful.

a) No, it did not. It started before the Cables, but after the Afghan War diaries.

b) Sweden is doing what the USA is telling it to do. And the American government is trying to stop this man with all of their might. They clearly don't want any of this stuff getting out, which is believable, because the cables show that they are a bunch of spineless cowards who refuse to say what they believe for fear of vaguely offending someone - even when they all believe the same thing.


A) Yes.   After he became famous... and therefore is in a more likely position to daterape people.

B)  What?  You do know Wikileaks isn't one guy right?  He could turn up dead tommorrow and it wouldn't change a thing?  Except he'd suddenly be a lot more vindicated and Wikileaks would get a lot of support.  If this is the US government's doing, they are literally working against their own interests.

a) "You're that guy who posted the Afghan War Diaries!" (let's ignore the fact that nobody really knows or cares what he looks like) "I'm going to leave my drink unattended!". It's one thing to be a sports celebrity, and quite another to be an internet activist.

b) He's the head of the organisation. Of course Wikileaks wouldn't be destroyed, but it would be demoralised.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

alekth on 07 December 2010

Err... maybe he doesn't want to die in the name of Wikileaks?



Kasz216 on 07 December 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

So, they are illegally hacking websites that have exercised their legal right to choose who they do buisness with, because someone got arrested for a rape charge that will only help him and his cause.

Not sure i'm getting the why.

 

Also, why are they saying they don't know who committed the Cyberattacks?  Some guy claimed responsibility for those.

 

The rape charges are completely unrelated, I mean they do nothing but hurt the US since everyone thinks it's behind it anyway.  Don't think the government is that stupid.

It's extremely naïve to assume that Assange just happened to have a rape case filed against him after he published and shared leaked confidential information (which, incidentally, is not a crime).

A) Didn't the original case start BEFORE these leaks?

B) I see a connection, just not a crazy conspiracy theorist connection when there is literally zero benefit towards this conspiracy theory for the US or Sweeden.

Ever think that the leaks make him more famous, therefore more likely to get people to date him, and put him in a better chance to alledgedly aquatience rape people?

I mean, that's like saying you find it Naive that Tiger woods just happened to start cheating on his wife after he got famous.

Or that Ben Rothelesburger just started happened trapping women in bathrooms after he became successful.

a) No, it did not. It started before the Cables, but after the Afghan War diaries.

b) Sweden is doing what the USA is telling it to do. And the American government is trying to stop this man with all of their might. They clearly don't want any of this stuff getting out, which is believable, because the cables show that they are a bunch of spineless cowards who refuse to say what they believe for fear of vaguely offending someone - even when they all believe the same thing.


A) Yes.   After he became famous... and therefore is in a more likely position to daterape people.

B)  What?  You do know Wikileaks isn't one guy right?  He could turn up dead tommorrow and it wouldn't change a thing?  Except he'd suddenly be a lot more vindicated and Wikileaks would get a lot of support.  If this is the US government's doing, they are literally working against their own interests.

a) "You're that guy who posted the Afghan War Diaries!" (let's ignore the fact that nobody really knows or cares what he looks like) "I'm going to leave my drink unattended!". It's one thing to be a sports celebrity, and quite another to be an internet activist.

b) He's the head of the organisation. Of course Wikileaks wouldn't be destroyed, but it would be demoralised.


A) So... i'm guessing you don't know he picked up these women at speeches he was giving, as himself, about his work at Wikileaks and leaking the Afghan War diaries right.  I'm guessing people who go to the speech and here the guy talk about being that guy, knows who he is. 

Or that these people who accused him are pro-wikileaks supporters... and who's entire political careers show support towards wikileaks like causes. (Being left wing liberal feminist advocates or at least the first woman was.) 

 

B) No they wouldn't if anything they'd be enraged and more motivated then ever.



Kenology on 07 December 2010
Chairman-Mao said:
Kenology said:

Wow.  You really don't want to get on the wrong side of the US government.

Shame on those government officials who are being so afraid of the people knowing all about it's dirty, subversive wars across the globe and trying to take the people's right to know away.

Long live, Wikileaks!


Do you even read what you write before you post it? He was giving away US secrets!! Do you seriously think that's okay? Would you be happy if all of your country's secrets got out? How anyone can defend him is beyond me. I hope he gets killed, or at least put in a dark room for 40 years. 

Please don't try to insult me just because I have a different opinion than you on the matter.

The US gives away its "secrets" under the Freedom of Information Act where it comes clean on all the shady shit it's done in decades past.  There's nothing secret about US imperial ambitions and covert ops anymore anyway.  People are already hip to it.

FREE Julian Assange!!!  < If that's beyond you then... that's on you. *shrugs* 

It would've been too obvious if they CIA just assassinated him anyway.  But this type of retailiation is pretty lame.



Kasz216 on 07 December 2010
Kenology said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Kenology said:

Wow.  You really don't want to get on the wrong side of the US government.

Shame on those government officials who are being so afraid of the people knowing all about it's dirty, subversive wars across the globe and trying to take the people's right to know away.

Long live, Wikileaks!


Do you even read what you write before you post it? He was giving away US secrets!! Do you seriously think that's okay? Would you be happy if all of your country's secrets got out? How anyone can defend him is beyond me. I hope he gets killed, or at least put in a dark room for 40 years. 

Please don't try to insult me just because I have a different opinion than you on the matter.

The US gives away its "secrets" under the Freedom of Information Act where it comes clean on all the shady shit it's done in decades past.  There's nothing secret about US imperial ambitions and covert ops anymore anyway.  People are already hip to it.

FREE Julian Assange!!!  < If that's beyond you then... that's on you. *shrugs* 

It would've been too obvious if they CIA just assassinated him anyway.  But this type of retailiation is pretty lame.

If the CIA was out to get him, they'd of dump child porn on his computer or frame him for murder.

They aren't going to frame him for a crime that has an 8% conviction rate, where pretty much everbody is on the accused rapists side to begin with.  Not to mention, even if he does go to jail... how does that benefit the US in any way?  Hell, it's more likely to get him a Nobel Peace Prize then anything else.

You are seeing conspiracies where there are none.