Julian Assange Arrested

Biznatch said:
Would you still feel that way if instead of helping the gop/trump campaign by selectively releasing damaging material for the democrats, he helped the dems by only releasing damaging material about the gop?..... Because a real 'voice of free speech and truth in a world full of corruption and destruction' wouldn't be selectively releasing material to only hurt one party. That makes him a partisan hack, not a hero or whistleblower/journalist, and yes I would still say that if he was targeting the GOP instead. If you want to expose corruption, expose it all, not just the party you dislike.
Click to expand...

The problem with your statement is that most "journalists" only report on what they want to come out. They will actively make up stories in an attempt to harm only one side while hiding and/or downplaying any stories which are harmful to the side they prefer. There are whole major media outlets doing this. They will do their best to selectively "report" going so far as to completely and intentionally take anything said or done out of context to help their side or harm the other side.

Whether Assange or Wikileaks is selectively releasing things is irrelevant especially since everything they have released has been 100% true. Wikileaks and Assange aren't writing stories and dribbling out just a tiny bit of information to make the stories seem plausible (which is what most of the major media outlets do). They are releasing full documentation with no leading story attached so people have the option of looking over everything doing their own investigations of the material and come up with their own conclusions. This is the exact opposite of the "journalists" your touting as great do.

I'm no personal fan of Assange or Wikileaks even but it takes some sort of major blinders to say what they have done is wrong and then hold up so called journalists of major media outlets as some sort of paragon to be followed.
 
SmokeRngs said:
................They are releasing full documentation with no leading story attached so people have the option of looking over everything doing their own investigations of the material and come up with their own conclusions.....................
Click to expand...

And this is the absolute worst thing that anyone should do.


At issue here is that they are releasing information without any understanding of what the information actually and truly represents. There is no context to it. Have you ever heard the saying "Ignorance is a dangerous thing" ?

I have seen so many instances of people completely misinterpreting these documents. I have seen training slides portrayed as evidence that the NSA hacks Google. Now I can't say if the NSA does or doesn't hack Google, but a training slide where the name Google, is used because it's an obvious easily understood name representative of a class of business is not evidence that the NSA hacks Google.

I has seen Intelligence Service activities portrayed as having violated the laws that restrict US Law Enforcement when in fact, they don't have to follow the same laws because the Department of Defense is not a Law Enforcement service.

And although, as you say, Julian Assange did not "characterize" much of the information that he published, others did, and they did so almost universally from positions of ignorance, and frequently couched in a narrative of evil intent.

And what's more, if there is truth to some of the rummors associated with the charges then Assange didn't just publish what Manning and Snowden outed, he assisted and possibly even instigated their criminal actions.

I think everyone needs to come to terms with that because it's an entirely different issue that has nothing at all to do with the 1st Amendment.

I get where you are going with the media, I don't disagree at all. I'm not supporting the other guy on this. I'm just adding what I hope is a clarifying view of what Assange did and why it was so dangerous.
 
Jagger100 said:
No Proof of this as of yet, but don't let that stop you.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right Manafort didn't share that polling data and Don Jr. didn't want that dirt on the Clinton campaign. Stone wasn't in contact with anyone either. You may not be able to indict but ignoring all of this is even dumber than half the drivel that comes out of Trump's mouth on any given day.
 
Again, you guys want to drag this into politics then you'll get this locked for sure.
 
post about a political figure or topic, but can't talk about politics?

I never understood this logic in forums...
 
Delicieuxz said:
Assange was wanted for questioning but was never charged. At least one of the women responsible for the case starting regretted making the accusation and I think also said that she was pushed into making a case. The case was eventually dropped.
Click to expand...

mesyn191 said:
This is completely false. You're looking at some conspiracy Q types as sources if you're reading this stuff.
Click to expand...

Delicieuxz said:
Maybe I was mistaken about one of the women making accusations against Assange because all the article from a certain point onward only mention a single accuser against Assange. Who was the other woman and where did her accusation disappear to?
Click to expand...

It turns out that I was correct all along: One of the women said that she was pushed by police into making her rape allegation against Assange, and regrets doing it. She subsequently dropped her case. That's why there's now only a single woman accusing Assange.



So, I was correct about everything.
 
Last edited:
Youn said:
post about a political figure or topic, but can't talk about politics?

I never understood this logic in forums...
Click to expand...


It's an IA Security issue.

Look at it this way, Manning outed information that feel way outside of what his job demanded.

He either had "approved" access to more than his job demanded, or he improperly gained access, or someone provided him with unapproved access.

All three of these are an IA Security issue and that's IT today. Anyone in the business would get this.

Even guys who just come here for gaming should be able to see it once it's explained to them.

I figure you get it too, your just a little wrapped up on where the discussion is going and it's affecting your perception of the issue.
 
Delicieuxz said:
So, I was correct about everything.
Click to expand...
Uh your "source" is Wikileaks which Assange controls.

That would be like if I cited a blog that I wrote as "evidence" to prove a point.

If you want to do that sort of thing then fine but you can't claim to be honest or reasonable to do so since doing that sort of thing is a obvious no-no.
 
Delicieuxz said:
It turns out that I was correct all along: One of the women said that she was pushed by police into making her rape allegation against Assange, and regrets doing it. She subsequently dropped her case. That's why there's now only a single woman accusing Assange.

So, I was correct about everything.
Click to expand...

So rape is ok as long as you only rape one woman?
 
mesyn191 said:
Uh your "source" is Wikileaks which Assange controls.

That would be like if I cited a blog that I wrote as "evidence" to prove a point.

If you want to do that sort of thing then fine but you can't claim to be honest or reasonable to do so since doing that sort of thing is a obvious no-no.
Click to expand...

name a time wikileaks gave out false information.

i'll wait,
 
mesyn191 said:
Uh your "source" is Wikileaks which Assange controls.

That would be like if I cited a blog that I wrote as "evidence" to prove a point.

If you want to do that sort of thing then fine but you can't claim to be honest or reasonable to do so since doing that sort of thing is a obvious no-no.
Click to expand...

WikiLeaks is a medium, not a source. The sources are the text messages collected from the woman's phone by the Swedish prosecutors. Assange's lawyer was permitted to read them at the police station and make notes of them. If there was any inaccuracy in what WikiLeaks reported, the Swedish prosecutors would make it known, and so would the women, along with every Assange-hating MSM outlet.

Assange's November 2016 statement on his questioning at the Ecuadorian embassy

88.Her behaviour towards me on the night in question and in the morning made it clear that she actively and enthusiastically wanted me to have sex with her. This is also shown by text messages "SW" sent to her friends during the course of the evening I was at her home and during that week, which the Swedish police collected from her phone. Although the prosecutor has fought for years to prevent me, the public and the courts from seeing them, my lawyers were permitted to see them at the police station and were able to note down a number of them, including:

—On 14 August 2010 "SW" sent the following text to a friend: I want him. I want him. Followed by several more of similar content (all referring to me) in the lead-up to the events in question (13:05);

—On 17 August "SW" wrote that we had long foreplay, but nothing happened (01:14); then it got better (05:15);

—On 17 August, after all sex had occurred, “SW” wrote to a friend that it ”turned out all right” other than STD/pregnancy risk (10:29);

—On 20 August "SW", while at the police station, wrote that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26); and that she was “chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him” because she “only wanted him to take a test” (17:06);

—On 21 August "SW" wrote that she “did not want to accuse” Julian Assange “for anything”, (07:27); and that it was the “police who made up the charges (sic)” (22:25);

—On 23 August "AA" (the other woman whose case was dropped in August 2015) wrote to "SW" that it was important that she went public with her story so that they could form public opinion for their case (06:43);

—On 23 August "SW" wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing (16:02);

—On 26 August "AA" wrote to "SW" that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper (13:38);

—On 28 August "AA" wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid (12:53); and "SW" wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid (15:59);

89.These text messages clearly show what really happened between "SW" and me. It is clearly consensual sex between adults. The communication between "AA" and "SW" later sadly speaks for itself.
Click to expand...


Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar


kirbyrj said:
So rape is ok as long as you only rape one woman?
Click to expand...

Neither here or there. My comments aren't about evaluating rape, but statements about what the record of events is.
 
Last edited:
kirbyrj said:
So rape is ok as long as you only rape one woman?
Click to expand...

Also, the text messages revealed that the other woman wasn't actually asleep:

Then a day later she explicitly texts her friend that she had not, in fact, been asleep.

—18 August, 06:59 am: I was half asleep.
Click to expand...




Soulstorm brew said:
Mr Assange details notes taken by his lawyers at a Swedish police station after they were allowed to read text messages sent between SW and AA — the two women who made allegations against the WikiLeaks founder.

According to Mr Assange's statement the text messages included the following:

  • On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".
  • On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".
  • According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".
  • On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"
  • On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.
  • On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.
  • On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276
Click to expand...

I missed your post before. You'd already posted about the texts.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Also, the text messages revealed that the other woman wasn't actually asleep
Click to expand...

Does that even matter? An unwilling victim is still an unwilling victim. Let's not pretend that Assange is some sort of moral person here because the one victim wasnt asleep.
 
lcpiper said:
And this is the absolute worst thing that anyone should do.


At issue here is that they are releasing information without any understanding of what the information actually and truly represents. There is no context to it. Have you ever heard the saying "Ignorance is a dangerous thing" ?

I have seen so many instances of people completely misinterpreting these documents. I have seen training slides portrayed as evidence that the NSA hacks Google. Now I can't say if the NSA does or doesn't hack Google, but a training slide where the name Google, is used because it's an obvious easily understood name representative of a class of business is not evidence that the NSA hacks Google.

I has seen Intelligence Service activities portrayed as having violated the laws that restrict US Law Enforcement when in fact, they don't have to follow the same laws because the Department of Defense is not a Law Enforcement service.

And although, as you say, Julian Assange did not "characterize" much of the information that he published, others did, and they did so almost universally from positions of ignorance, and frequently couched in a narrative of evil intent.

And what's more, if there is truth to some of the rummors associated with the charges then Assange didn't just publish what Manning and Snowden outed, he assisted and possibly even instigated their criminal actions.

I think everyone needs to come to terms with that because it's an entirely different issue that has nothing at all to do with the 1st Amendment.

I get where you are going with the media, I don't disagree at all. I'm not supporting the other guy on this. I'm just adding what I hope is a clarifying view of what Assange did and why it was so dangerous.
Click to expand...
It’s unclear to me why a foreigner would be expected to treat cables and documents with the deference a particular country desires. He is not a citizen of the United States. There is no implied allegiance and there never was.
It seems naive to expect a foreigner to push a narrative of a government when reporting.
 
Retronym said:
It’s unclear to me why a foreigner would be expected to treat cables and documents with the deference a particular country desires. He is not a citizen of the United States. There is no implied allegiance and there never was.
It seems naive to expect a foreigner to push a narrative of a government when reporting.
Click to expand...

It may not be expected, but said foreigner should be careful when the country he lives in has various treaties and alliances with the United States.
 
Master_shake_ said:
name a time wikileaks gave out false information. i'll wait,
Click to expand...
Here you go.

More routinely they go and shade the truth rather than outright lie about stuff and try to promote stuff like Seth Rich murder conspiracies.

They have given good or interesting information in the past, but over the years they've lost creditability.

Delicieuxz said:
WikiLeaks is a medium, not a source.
Click to expand...
My bad, I'd read elsewhere Wikileaks was the source.

The real source, going by the link you gave, appears to be Assange's lawyers which isn't any better.

Also logic games blog posts aren't proof either dude.

Delicieuxz said:
Neither here or there. My comments aren't about evaluating rape, but statements about what the record of events is.
Click to expand...
Your earlier posts sure read like they were dude.

Once you couldn't really discredit the first witness you then seamlessly switched goal posts to trying to discredit the other one too.

All without ever really explaining why you're cool with Assange lying about leaving the embassy after Manning was freed either when I asked you about that too.
 
Retronym said:
It’s unclear to me why a foreigner would be expected to treat cables and documents with the deference a particular country desires. He is not a citizen of the United States. There is no implied allegiance and there never was.
It seems naive to expect a foreigner to push a narrative of a government when reporting.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing something here. Secret documents are not for public release. Because they weren't prepared for public release, the intended consumers of the information all have some things in common.
They have all been informed under what legal authority the information was collected.
They have all been informed under what conditions the information is collected.
They have all been informed under what restrictions the collection activity is conducted.

This process means that every document is being read and the information used with this knowledge in place. It establishes context surrounding the documents that can be very important to the correct understanding of the document/information.

It should go without saying that a country conducting Intelligence Collection on an enemy country would not pull any punches. A document that says that this country is using a method that would be illegal to use against it's citizens, without the knowledge that it is only being used against it's enemies, would be misleading in the extreme, should that document find it's way to public release.

According to the news, it looks like the US is going to charge Assange with taking an active role in helping Manning access information illegal, and released that information publicly. I think the courts will figure this out one way or the other. I don't think Manning was treaty unfairly, I see no reason to think Assange will be treated any differently.

But the concept that classified documents can be fully understood, without the context I have been talking about, is very mistaken and it's more dangerous than the uninformed can easily grasp.

So I was not trying to say that Assange should be pushing the US story. I'm saying that you can't fairly interpret these documents and the revelations within without a full understanding of the who, how, when, why, etc that is involved.
 
mesyn191 said:
Your earlier posts sure read like they were dude.
Click to expand...

To someone as disingenuous and searching for an out as you, maybe (at least so you'll claim). But, otherwise, that's completely absurd.

Once you couldn't really discredit the first witness you then seamlessly switched goal posts to trying to discredit the other one too.
Click to expand...

This is also absurd. I never switched goal posts - when I didn't immediately find confirmation of what I said:

"At least one of the women responsible for the case starting regretted making the accusation and I think also said that she was pushed into making a case. The case was eventually dropped."

I allowed that maybe I was mistaken:

"Maybe I was mistaken about one of the women making accusations against Assange because all the article from a certain point onward only mention a single accuser against Assange. Who was the other woman and where did her accusation disappear to?"

However, we all now know that I was correct in my initial comment.

And I didn't make a further comment about the 2nd woman at that point.

"Who was the other woman and where did her accusation disappear to?" - refers to the first woman who is not still pursuing charges against Assange.

But, you're projecting because you dug yourself into a hole and had all your arguments that you doubled and tripled-down on debunked. And you clearly aren't good with owning up to having been wrong.

The facts about the one woman being pushed by police into making allegations against Assange and regretting it are not attempts to discredit her but statements of fact... since those are facts, as you now have seen.


You made another assertion: That a 2016 article you posted refutes the claim that Swedish prosecutors had been invited to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy going far back, but refused to.

You were likewise wrong about that claim, and shown so.

Debunking your false claims isn't moving goal posts, dude. That's simply correcting the misinformation you argued.


All without ever really explaining why you're cool with Assange lying about leaving the embassy after Manning was freed either when I asked you about that too.
Click to expand...

Now, that is some actual goal post shifting - like I said, you're projecting as a defence. You're retreading fallacies because your arguments are debunked:

Delicieuxz said:
That's not something I've made an argument about, so why would I randomly start trying to argue it?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kirbyrj said:
Does that even matter? An unwilling victim is still an unwilling victim. Let's not pretend that Assange is some sort of moral person here because the one victim wasnt asleep.
Click to expand...

Of course it matters where people make allegations that Assange started having sex with this woman while she was sleeping. He didn't. That matters wherever it's asserted otherwise.

It sounds to me like you don't particularly care what the truth is, but just want to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion despite what the facts might be.

Conclusions are only valid if they're arrived at after substantiating all the facts. You and some other people look like you want to start with a chosen conclusion and then try to find excuses for why the facts don't matter in the face of the pre-chosen conclusion.
 
lcpiper said:
I had understood that he had claimed the women's restroom for his personal use, is that what he did to try and drive them out of it?

Marking his territory?
Click to expand...

If you've ever been inside a women's restroom you'd know this is likely pure slander against him. If you've never been in a women's restroom, I don't recommend doing so. Women flat out trash restrooms that aren't theirs and they don't have to clean.
 
In this country you are by law presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Some of you need to remember that the media isn't evidence and the court of public opinion isn't a court of law.
 
SmokeRngs said:
If you've ever been inside a women's restroom you'd know this is likely pure slander against him. If you've never been in a women's restroom, I don't recommend doing so. Women flat out trash restrooms that aren't theirs and they don't have to clean.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that just be all the more reason he would claim it for himself?
 
Dekoth-E- said:
In this country you are by law presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Some of you need to remember that the media isn't evidence and the court of public opinion isn't a court of law.
Click to expand...

Issuing an arrest warrant isn't a presumption of guilt. It's a means by which the presumed actor can be brought to stand for the charges against him and is based on probable cause.
 
kirbyrj said:
Issuing an arrest warrant isn't a presumption of guilt. It's a means by which the presumed actor can be brought to stand for the charges against him and is based on probable cause.
Click to expand...

Correct, which is why I said nothing about him being arrested. My contention is with everyone here basically declaring him guilty of everything.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
The real question is why was he smearing shit on the walls?
Click to expand...
Could have described an inept attempt to clean out his cat's litterbox.
But let's decline to say how much, or whose in hope of misleading to
the worst possible conclusion.

Perhaps the dude doubled over sick on Equadoran ceviche and failed
to notice that he'd left a roostertail up the wall like a full nitro dragboat?
Shit happens...
 
Last edited:
SmokeRngs said:
If you've ever been inside a women's restroom you'd know this is likely pure slander against him. If you've never been in a women's restroom, I don't recommend doing so. Women flat out trash restrooms that aren't theirs and they don't have to clean.
Click to expand...


Too intimate, TMI :eek::wtf:
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Correct, which is why I said nothing about him being arrested. My contention is with everyone here basically declaring him guilty of everything.
Click to expand...


I've always left guilt as something to be decided by others. I do not think I have presumed his guilt, only that he should have faced this and settled it instead of creating this circus and dragging it out.
 
The Brits just gave him a year for breaking bail. Next is a hearing for extradition to the US with a chance that Sweden may reopen their rape investigation.
 
mesyn191 said:
Here you go.

More routinely they go and shade the truth rather than outright lie about stuff and try to promote stuff like Seth Rich murder conspiracies.

They have given good or interesting information in the past, but over the years they've lost creditability.


My bad, I'd read elsewhere Wikileaks was the source.

The real source, going by the link you gave, appears to be Assange's lawyers which isn't any better.

Also logic games blog posts aren't proof either dude.


Your earlier posts sure read like they were dude.

Once you couldn't really discredit the first witness you then seamlessly switched goal posts to trying to discredit the other one too.

All without ever really explaining why you're cool with Assange lying about leaving the embassy after Manning was freed either when I asked you about that too.
Click to expand...
Daily Kos, omfg. lolololol.
 
Last edited:
hlfbkd420 said:
Bye Bye Asshat!!! I mean AssHinge...
Click to expand...

You dont like him because of why?

Would you be happier having no knowledge of the complete and utter disregard for human rights, liberty, and life from governments around the world especially the oh so perfect US govt.?

I guess if you hate learning how evil the government is then yes, let's behead the messenger who warned us of despotism.
 
Last edited:
Dekoth-E- said:
In this country you are by law presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Some of you need to remember that the media isn't evidence and the court of public opinion isn't a court of law.
Click to expand...

You cant expect the idiocracy to even know what liberty is anymore.

7 deployments in 2 wars showed me that it was all worth nothing but pure shit because we were fighting for a bunch of people that would rather have full blown communism, poverty equally distributed, and make believe safety from make believe foes. We really live in the new dark ages of pure concentrated idiotic masses of sheep.

Yeah let's behead Assange. Hes guilty of warning Earth about pure evil and warning Americans about thier despotic totalitarian regime of a government.

If America was attacked head on today, I wouldn't fight to save the nation because people want freedom, they dont give a rat's ass about liberty anymore, I would only fight to save my family from being killed. Nothing more.

Now watch as a litany of make believe over the top charges are tallied up to make Assange more evil than Usama Bin Laden.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top