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

Forums - General Discussion - Wikileaks + US diplomacy = biggest "diplomatic" storm ever incoming !

Lostplanet22 on 07 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:

Worst case: he stays in UK until 14th December...Then he will send to Sweden where he eventually get deported to the USA where he may get the Death Penalty...

You would still turn yourself in?

And you are saying what I said before....Considering how impossible it is to prove rape;..it is also impossible to prove their was no rape...and the easiest way to find someone..

It is all fishy

The facebook page that got deleted, his name dissapearing on the Times most important people of 2010 list...

Lucky their are people going on with Wikileaks...but also scary considering the 256 password code can be give any moment to the whole world..And then all wikileaks documents will be leaked..Even the ones Assange didn't want to leak because they were to extreme..

Yes?  Because there is no actual way that would happen.  Under what would he get the death penalty in America?

The "We don't like you so die act of 1956"?

Getting sent to America would literally be the BEST case scenario for him.  You conspiracy theorists are missing the important part in that, it makes no logical sense for this to be a conspiracy... in anwyay, because the suspected goverments do nothing but LOSE by this happening.

It's "9/11 was an inside job" all over again.


That's why politician(s) say on national television that he should get killed?  Thx to people saying stuff like he should be killed the suspecting goverment are already losing a lot...

Which, is kind of the point?

The whole point of a conspiracy theory is "IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OBVIOUS".

You don't embark on a giant conspiracy theory to kill someone, while simaltaniously saying "THIS GUY SHOULD BE KILLED".

And you certaintly don't do it right in the middle of a big shitstorm.  You do it after things have died down... and even then, you just get someone to shoot him.

Seriously, tell me an endgame with this rape charge that in any way helps the US government.

Not only the US government;..But what are many hoping and I am not making this up that this would be the end of Wikileaks;.

Why is their an General/commanding Officer in Afghanistan saying this is good news?  It is good news because that would bring justice for the swedisch girls;.or good news because he thinks this is/will be the end of Wikileaks?  The sources of Assenge are probably shitting bricks......'What if he mentions my name'   and it also gives a message for the rest of wikileaks...

A)  Are you suggesting he wouldn't be happy that an accused rapist has been arrested?  Besides he's a general, what does he know?

B) The source of the leak was already caught.  What makes you think they even deal with names in the era of the internet?

C) Mentions their names how and why exactly?  Assuming there even are names.

D) Gives what message to the rest of Wikileaks?  If you post information we'll completely botch a conspiracy against you and make you 10 times more famous?  Yeah, great message there.

Your just blinded by the fact that he's famous and claiming a conspiracy where there is no credible or useful reason for their to be one.

A)  No I am suggesting he is happy because it could bring down wikileaks...Sure he is happy for the girls aswell but I doubt that is the main reason he is happy about it :).

B) All sources are caught?   C) Because they want to know how they could leak and who did it ...

D) It gives the message 'We have Assenge...And he could name some people...  Like who are also working on wiki leaks and who they have met etc;....

A) If he thinks it can bring down Wikileaks, he's a moron... because it can't.  So I'm more likely to go with A.  I mean, he was clearly asked his opinion on that guy being arrested for rape.  What was his response going to be other then "Great"?   "That sucks because I enjoy rape?"

B) All the US ones.

C) We already know who did it and how.  It was one lower ranking army serviceman who illegally downloaded all the files while having access to the system.

D) Everyone who works for Wikinks is public knowledge?

A)  all I read was.....'This morning I heard Assenge got arrested and I am happy about it'....No word about Rape....In fact it is also no rape but molesting..  If it is translated right from Swedish..

B)  Hmm ok would rather be news for me but ok..

C) It is not only about the ones leaked now, leaked before, and the ones who come after this big 250k documents..

D)  No,  but some are still anonymous...and prefer that way...Working/supporting for wikileaks is not always a positive thing...



 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 07 December 2010
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Lostplanet22 said:

Worst case: he stays in UK until 14th December...Then he will send to Sweden where he eventually get deported to the USA where he may get the Death Penalty...

You would still turn yourself in?

And you are saying what I said before....Considering how impossible it is to prove rape;..it is also impossible to prove their was no rape...and the easiest way to find someone..

It is all fishy

The facebook page that got deleted, his name dissapearing on the Times most important people of 2010 list...

Lucky their are people going on with Wikileaks...but also scary considering the 256 password code can be give any moment to the whole world..And then all wikileaks documents will be leaked..Even the ones Assange didn't want to leak because they were to extreme..

Yes?  Because there is no actual way that would happen.  Under what would he get the death penalty in America?

The "We don't like you so die act of 1956"?

Getting sent to America would literally be the BEST case scenario for him.  You conspiracy theorists are missing the important part in that, it makes no logical sense for this to be a conspiracy... in anwyay, because the suspected goverments do nothing but LOSE by this happening.

It's "9/11 was an inside job" all over again.


That's why politician(s) say on national television that he should get killed?  Thx to people saying stuff like he should be killed the suspecting goverment are already losing a lot...

Which, is kind of the point?

The whole point of a conspiracy theory is "IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OBVIOUS".

You don't embark on a giant conspiracy theory to kill someone, while simaltaniously saying "THIS GUY SHOULD BE KILLED".

And you certaintly don't do it right in the middle of a big shitstorm.  You do it after things have died down... and even then, you just get someone to shoot him.

Seriously, tell me an endgame with this rape charge that in any way helps the US government.

Not only the US government;..But what are many hoping and I am not making this up that this would be the end of Wikileaks;.

Why is their an General/commanding Officer in Afghanistan saying this is good news?  It is good news because that would bring justice for the swedisch girls;.or good news because he thinks this is/will be the end of Wikileaks?  The sources of Assenge are probably shitting bricks......'What if he mentions my name'   and it also gives a message for the rest of wikileaks...

A)  Are you suggesting he wouldn't be happy that an accused rapist has been arrested?  Besides he's a general, what does he know?

B) The source of the leak was already caught.  What makes you think they even deal with names in the era of the internet?

C) Mentions their names how and why exactly?  Assuming there even are names.

D) Gives what message to the rest of Wikileaks?  If you post information we'll completely botch a conspiracy against you and make you 10 times more famous?  Yeah, great message there.

Your just blinded by the fact that he's famous and claiming a conspiracy where there is no credible or useful reason for their to be one.

A)  No I am suggesting he is happy because it could bring down wikileaks...Sure he is happy for the girls aswell but I doubt that is the main reason he is happy about it :).

B) All sources are caught?   C) Because they want to know how they could leak and who did it ...

D) It gives the message 'We have Assenge...And he could name some people...  Like who are also working on wiki leaks and who they have met etc;....

A) If he thinks it can bring down Wikileaks, he's a moron... because it can't.  So I'm more likely to go with A.  I mean, he was clearly asked his opinion on that guy being arrested for rape.  What was his response going to be other then "Great"?   "That sucks because I enjoy rape?"

B) All the US ones.

C) We already know who did it and how.  It was one lower ranking army serviceman who illegally downloaded all the files while having access to the system.

D) Everyone who works for Wikinks is public knowledge?

A)  all I read was.....'This morning I heard Assenge got arrested and I am happy about it'....No word about Rape....In fact it is also no rape but molesting..  If it is translated right from Swedish..

B)  Hmm ok would rather be news for me but ok..

C) It is not only about the ones leaked now, leaked before, and the ones who come after this big 250k documents..

D)  No,  but some are still anonymous...and prefer that way...Working/supporting for wikileaks is not always a positive thing...

A)  You don't think a reporter asked him a question there?

B) Ok

C) The ones before were already caught, and if he's arrested, how is he going to give info about further leaks?

D) I'm pretty sure everyone who works for them actually is public... and if it isn't, i can gurantee the government does already know.



Kantor on 07 December 2010

Well, here's some interesting news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11944645

This is the kind of government bullshit that needs to be public.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kasz216 on 07 December 2010
Kantor said:

Well, here's some interesting news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11944645

This is the kind of government bullshit that needs to be public.


Yeah, that's a good one.  Though it's not particularly surprsing. 

I remember having arguements a loooong time ago about that on here... where so many people were claiming there was nothing behind it.

This stuff is great... the majority of the stuff they are posting though is just... needless.



NJ5 on 08 December 2010

So he turned himself in, and gets denied bail due to flight risk. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 08 December 2010
NJ5 said:

So he turned himself in, and gets denied bail due to flight risk. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.


It probably has to do with the fact that he refused to give the court is address.  Like he literally refused to tell the court where he lived... and when he finally did give them a location it was in Australia.

Would you give bail to someone who refuses to tell you where he's staying?



NJ5 on 08 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:

So he turned himself in, and gets denied bail due to flight risk. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.


It probably has to do with the fact that he refused to give the court is address.  Like he literally refused to tell the court where he lived... and when he finally did give them a location it was in Australia.

Would you give bail to someone who refuses to tell you where he's staying?


Could be because of that, but I'm not discounting other reasons what with the amount of companies apparently being pressured to deny service to Wikileaks (how else to explain Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, a Swiss bank that didn't freeze Nazi bank accounts etc pounding on Wikileaks?).



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Kasz216 on 08 December 2010
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:

So he turned himself in, and gets denied bail due to flight risk. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.


It probably has to do with the fact that he refused to give the court is address.  Like he literally refused to tell the court where he lived... and when he finally did give them a location it was in Australia.

Would you give bail to someone who refuses to tell you where he's staying?


Could be because of that, but I'm not discounting other reasons what with the amount of companies apparently being pressured to deny service to Wikileaks (how else to explain Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, a Swiss bank that didn't freeze Nazi bank accounts etc pounding on Wikileaks?).

You aren't discarding other reasons... when he very specifically refused to tell the court where he was staying?  Can you think of any court that would be fine releasing someone on bail with zero knowledge as to where said accused criminal would be?

Also, "A swiss bank that idn't freeze nazi bank accounts" kinda ignores the fact that the EU just crushed swiss banks like 6  months ago due to EU tax codes.

I'm sure various US officals called up these places and said "We don't appreciate you doing buisness" with them.  I doubt they actually threatened them with any kind of legal action.  (Which there are none.)

More likely then not they were politicians who got money from the lobbiest and have called back to say "This is too far keep working with them and forget me supporting "insert legislation here"".   



NJ5 on 08 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:

So he turned himself in, and gets denied bail due to flight risk. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.


It probably has to do with the fact that he refused to give the court is address.  Like he literally refused to tell the court where he lived... and when he finally did give them a location it was in Australia.

Would you give bail to someone who refuses to tell you where he's staying?


Could be because of that, but I'm not discounting other reasons what with the amount of companies apparently being pressured to deny service to Wikileaks (how else to explain Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, a Swiss bank that didn't freeze Nazi bank accounts etc pounding on Wikileaks?).

You aren't discarding other reasons... when he very specifically refused to tell the court where he was staying?  Can you think of any court that would be fine releasing someone on bail with zero knowledge as to where said accused criminal would be?

Also, "A swiss bank that idn't freeze nazi bank accounts" kinda ignores the fact that the EU just crushed swiss banks like 6  months ago due to EU tax codes.

I'm sure various US officals called up these places and said "We don't appreciate you doing buisness" with them.  I doubt they actually threatened them with any kind of legal action.  (Which there are none.)

More likely then not they were politicians who got money from the lobbiest and have called back to say "This is too far keep working with them and forget me supporting "insert legislation here"".   


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11945875

"PayPal says US advised it to stop Wikileaks payments"

Confirms my suspicion that the US gov pressured these companies to stop servicing Wikileaks.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Kasz216 on 08 December 2010
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:

So he turned himself in, and gets denied bail due to flight risk. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.


It probably has to do with the fact that he refused to give the court is address.  Like he literally refused to tell the court where he lived... and when he finally did give them a location it was in Australia.

Would you give bail to someone who refuses to tell you where he's staying?


Could be because of that, but I'm not discounting other reasons what with the amount of companies apparently being pressured to deny service to Wikileaks (how else to explain Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, a Swiss bank that didn't freeze Nazi bank accounts etc pounding on Wikileaks?).

You aren't discarding other reasons... when he very specifically refused to tell the court where he was staying?  Can you think of any court that would be fine releasing someone on bail with zero knowledge as to where said accused criminal would be?

Also, "A swiss bank that idn't freeze nazi bank accounts" kinda ignores the fact that the EU just crushed swiss banks like 6  months ago due to EU tax codes.

I'm sure various US officals called up these places and said "We don't appreciate you doing buisness" with them.  I doubt they actually threatened them with any kind of legal action.  (Which there are none.)

More likely then not they were politicians who got money from the lobbiest and have called back to say "This is too far keep working with them and forget me supporting "insert legislation here"".   


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11945875

"PayPal says US advised it to stop Wikileaks payments"

Confirms my suspicion that the US gov pressured these companies to stop servicing Wikileaks.

A) So... you are conceding the point then that it would be stupid for a UK court to give bail to someone who refuses to tell the UK court where he would be?

B) How is that pressure?  Unless you can provide an actual threat of some sort, you are suggesting the US government shouldn't be able to ask people to not do things?   The actual statement suggests the opposite and that there was no threat.