FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Julian Assange

Julian Assange

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

Would I be that for off the mark if I said he was a self obsessed nut job bothered more about his view of right an wrong than the real world?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Is he that bloke who's accused of rape that lives in an embassy in London ?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

"Is he that bloke who's accused of rape that lives in an embassy in London ? "

Thats the one

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Imo, yes, way wide of the mark. Assanges leaks and cables are all backed up, even if they put him away it would still be being systematically leaked. I think he's doing a great job of bringing the leaks to the forefront, keeping it in people's minds, but the problem is a whole lot of the media condemn him.and say he's a threat to our national security seemingly without even reading the cables.

A lot of the cables detail civilian deaths, America's general assholery and invasion of people's privacy.

I also think that with no wikileaks, there'd most likely be no Ed Snowden, who, again, if you read into it, has exposed massive surveillance operations both in the Nsa, and closer to home GCHQ.

tl;Dr I think Assange/wikileaks/Snowden are all vitally important in bringing important issues to the forefront and into the public domain. Checks and balances are essential.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

And if a 'leak' causes your death or that of a family member?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Imo, yes, way wide of the mark. Assanges leaks and cables are all backed up, even if they put him away it would still be being systematically leaked. I think he's doing a great job of bringing the leaks to the forefront, keeping it in people's minds, but the problem is a whole lot of the media condemn him.and say he's a threat to our national security seemingly without even reading the cables.

A lot of the cables detail civilian deaths, America's general assholery and invasion of people's privacy.

I also think that with no wikileaks, there'd most likely be no Ed Snowden, who, again, if you read into it, has exposed massive surveillance operations both in the Nsa, and closer to home GCHQ.

tl;Dr I think Assange/wikileaks/Snowden are all vitally important in bringing important issues to the forefront and into the public domain. Checks and balances are essential."

From what I've read about him he's more of a threat to women than national security.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And if a 'leak' causes your death or that of a family member?"

....like who, exactly?

You can't say that without evidence. Information trumps ignorance every time for me. I'd much rather know. If people know,they can do.something about it.

Also, with changing witness statements? One of the girls threw a party for Assange the day after he raped her? Texts bragging of their conquests? US pressuring any country that doesn't do as they wish? America wants Assange, call me a tin foil hat head but I just think the Swedes want to ship him on to America and get in the 'good lads club'. At the very least it's a smear campaign to tarnish his name, much like Snowden's.

Also, on the whole, most UK media is biased.

Not to mention the secret service going to the Guardians offices and demanding and overseeing the destruction of the Snowden hard drives - a threat - despite them knowing there were.numerous, safeguarded copies?

It all stinks of it, to me.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"And if a 'leak' causes your death or that of a family member?

....like who, exactly?

You can't say that without evidence. .........."

You don't need evidence to ask a question. Indeed, asking questions is the best way to get evidence.

I asked "And if a 'leak' causes your death or that of a family member?"

I'm not saying it will, just 'if'.

That still OK?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Very true. Theoretically?

It depends how.

Should they be publishing how to break encryption on our military's comms? No, and if a family member or myself died because of this, no. Though I still wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, though.

Publishing about drone strikes?

Can't see how, but that'd be ok.

Through protest or action as a result of the leaks? That'd be fine, I'd have no problems dying to help pave the way to a fairer, more open society (worldwide). I was dead for billions of years before I was alive, didn't feel a thing. How bad can it be?

I don't hate 'the west' but it'd be blind to admit we're perfect and free of fuck ups and injustice. Our rights are being eroded in the name of freedom and counter terrorism. There wasn't this level of scrutiny and surveillance during 'the troubles' and especially not on everyday citizens, just trying to scrape their way through life life anyone else.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Very true. Theoretically?

It depends how.

Should they be publishing how to break encryption on our military's comms? No, and if a family member or myself died because of this, no. ..........."

And if the same leaks allowed decryption of the passwords etc protecting our bank accounts - all in the name of Freedom of Information?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Theoretically, no. But that's really not what wikileaks is about. They're not about screwing over the common man, they're about exposing corruption.

If, like Anonymous, they leaked it as the banks were unwilling to plug the holes (like Sony) then yeah, you could argue would more lose out in a short term high exposure or a long term low exposure to criminals etc.

But I digress, when have wikileaks ever released said banking encryption? They're revealed dodgy dealings in Icelandic banks and fraud at Barclays, but to.my knowledge, that's about it.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Theoretically, no. But that's really not what wikileaks is about. They're not about screwing over the common man, they're about exposing corruption.

But I digress, when have wikileaks ever released said banking encryption? They're revealed dodgy dealings in Icelandic banks and fraud at Barclays, but to.my knowledge, that's about it."

That's the trouble with "to my knowledge", the fact is we simply don't know what's been leaked or to whom and we don't don't what's been leaked by the recipients of the leaks and so on.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If you're concerned, go to the website, download the archives and sift through. You'll find some interesting reading in there either way mate.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"If you're concerned, go to the website, download the archives and sift through. You'll find some interesting reading in there either way mate."

Yeah, like it's going to be a full and open explanation of what they've passed on and to whom.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't think he raped anyone he is only to be extradited to Sweden so the Americans can get him

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think he raped anyone he is only to be extradited to Sweden so the Americans can get him "

There must be something in the water in Coventry.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Wikileaks doesn't pass anything on - it is, by nature, open. Just head to the website and have a read. Read their about section too. They remove people's names if they feel it may endanger them.

Journalists just read the leaks and comment them, or may get nudged towards certain leaks, that's about it.

They slow drip the info so everything gets its day in the Sun, I.e. so we don't get 100 scandals and lose focus. That huge 349GB file of leaks had the keys systematically released so people had time to read it and digest it in sections.

Its there if you want it, download it.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Wikileaks doesn't pass anything on - it is, by nature, open. ......."

So they just sit on it all and rejoice in how clever they are?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Would it matter if they did? Would it actually change the information contained therein if they did? Even if they decided to act like assholes - they'd still be right. The slow release idea is good imo.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would I be that for off the mark if I said he was a self obsessed nut job bothered more about his view of right an wrong than the real world? "

The 'real world' as you put it or ones view of it is shaped by the propaganda and the media one is bombarded with on a daily basis. If the regime and media keep telling you something from their percieved informed position of authority, eventually many will believe it and it will become their reality or 'real world'.

It takes real bravery to go up against any regime especially when you have conclusive proof that will cause it embarrassment.

I don't much care about who Julian Assange is as a person. I do though care what organisations like wikileaks do.

They show us that we are often being duped or misled. They help make certain decision makers think twice about the decisions they are taking.

They help many to get closer to understanding the actual real world.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *phroditeWoman over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"Would I be that for off the mark if I said he was a self obsessed nut job bothered more about his view of right an wrong than the real world?

It takes real bravery to go up against any regime especially when you have conclusive proof that will cause it embarrassment.

I don't much care about who Julian Assange is as a person. I do though care what organisations like wikileaks do.

They show us that we are often being duped or misled. They help make certain decision makers think twice about the decisions they are taking.

They help many to get closer to understanding the actual real world. "

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would I be that for off the mark if I said he was a self obsessed nut job bothered more about his view of right an wrong than the real world?

It takes real bravery to go up against any regime especially when you have conclusive proof that will cause it embarrassment.

I don't much care about who Julian Assange is as a person. I do though care what organisations like wikileaks do.

They show us that we are often being duped or misled. They help make certain decision makers think twice about the decisions they are taking.

They help many to get closer to understanding the actual real world. "

Pretty much spot on the money.

Only difference is I do care about Assange, in much the same way as Snowden. Smear campaigns. Smear campaigns everywhere. I think they're both very brave men, and there's not a doubt in my mind that Assange is innocent. The 'evidence' just doesn't add up. They're making 5 from 2+2.

Guess the Americans didn't like him releasing footage of US gunships indiscriminately mowing down civilians for fun...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Pretty much spot on the money.

Guess the Americans didn't like him releasing footage of US gunships indiscriminately mowing down civilians for fun..."

Brave ? Hiding away for a year is hardly brave.

And if you're so convinced of his innocence you shouldn't mind him having his day in court.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Releasing information like that in the first place is brave. Think about it, where does he have to go now? Pretty much nowhere. The US will just pressure governments to turn him over, as they always do. They'll harass you anywhere (just ask Kim.com/megaupload).

Maybe he has no faith in a fair trial? I know I wouldn't. Ask Kim.com about the Americans forgery of evidence whilst your there too. You really think they'd let him get away with embarrassing a world superpower?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Releasing information like that in the first place is brave. Think about it, where does he have to go now? Pretty much nowhere. The US will just pressure governments to turn him over, as they always do. They'll harass you anywhere (just ask Kim.com/megaupload).

Or maybe he has a guilty conscience.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I also think that with no wikileaks, there'd most likely be no Ed Snowden, who, again, if you read into it, has exposed massive surveillance operations both in the Nsa, and closer to home GCHQ.

BLOODY HELL.... GCHQ, the government "spy centre" is carrying out surveillance and spying on people.... Whatever next!!!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

Or maybe he has a guilty conscience.

It's hard to imagine a thief having a guilty conscience.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Or maybe he has a guilty conscience.

It's hard to imagine a thief having a guilty conscience."

Fair point.

It's funny how criminals are the ones who never have faith in having a fair trial.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So on that note, you think it's perfectly acceptable for the government to spy on everyday citizens do you? Know who else was fond of surveillance on citizens? The USSR. What a great beacon of light on human rights and personal freedoms they were. Do you think the government should be reading your private emails, Facebook, phone calls etc do you? What about here? Do you like the fact that they monitor you here? Would you be fine if everyone knew it at your workplace.

You call him a thief? For exposing corruption, Human rights abuse etc? The world could do with more of those types of thieves.

Put down the Daily bile ans go read from a credible news source.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"So on that note, you think it's perfectly acceptable for the government to spy on everyday citizens do you? Know who else was fond of surveillance on citizens? The USSR. What a great beacon of light on human rights and personal freedoms they were. Do you think the government should be reading your private emails, Facebook, phone calls etc do you? What about here? Do you like the fact that they monitor you here? Would you be fine if everyone knew it at your workplace.

You call him a thief? For exposing corruption, Human rights abuse etc? The world could do with more of those types of thieves.

Put down the Daily bile ans go read from a credible news source. "

If anyone's going to do all those things, and I don't doubt someone is, I'd much prefer it to be the paid employees of an elected government - regardless of how much I might dislike that government - rather than a self-appointed wee gobshite whose only interest is publicity.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You call him a thief? For exposing corruption, Human rights abuse etc? The world could do with more of those types of thieves.

Put down the Daily bile ans go read from a credible news source. "

So in that note do you think it's fine to have unprotected sex with someone without their consent ?

And if the government are monitoring my emails and phone calls they will get bored a lot quicker than I will.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I would be suspicious of the allegations against Assange as they surfaced once the major disclosure was under way. None the less the accusations have to be investigated because we (hopefully) live in [European] democracies and as the allegation stem from Sweden he should be allowed to return to that country and given the chance to clear his name.

The Wikki disclosures show the skulduggery that is at play in the world of international politics and like Assange if government's are using illegal means to suppress or doctor information it has to be exposed. My father fought a war to allow me to say what I am saying without fear of any repercussions from democratically elected government's. If its wrong its wrong.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

",,,,,,,,, My father fought a war to allow me to say what I am saying without fear of any repercussions from democratically elected government's. If its wrong its wrong. "

Your Father and my Mother probably served in the same war.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

After watching the program last night secret documents were released with names showing that should have been redacted, however, it has brought to light the fact the the USA forces have been routinely killing unarmed civilians and summarily executing suspects with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Whilst accepting civilian deaths as part of the collateral damage in the process. Having roaming hit squads executing suspects and civilians without trial is okay? Sounds like the sort of thing that went on in Europe in the 1930's...

They are also sending drones over sovereign nations that they are not at war, with killing suspects and civilians as and when they see fit. How many innocent civilians have been put to death since 911? How many of those people had any connection to what happened on that day? Horrific as it was, the reaction to it has brought far more death and destruction.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If he has nothing to hide he should cone out of hiding and prove his innocence. Those claiming he won't get a fair trial are probably the same people who believe all his conspiracies.

Frankly GCHQ and other intelligence agencies can monitor whatever the hell they like imo as long as it prevents another 9/11 or London bus bomb attack. The only people with anything to fear are those who are up to no good.

Claiming people are indoctrinated by the mainstream media may seem like a valid defense but you could say the same about the other end of the spectrum, the people who support Assange could be viewed as foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts!

As long as the sun comes up every morning, my car starts and my kids are healthy then I'm all good. It may seem ignorant to some, perhaps it is, but its all out of our control, its been going on for years and there's bugger all any of us can do about it. So just live your lives and be thankful no one tried to blow you up today...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

",,,,,,,,, My father fought a war to allow me to say what I am saying without fear of any repercussions from democratically elected government's. If its wrong its wrong.

Your Father and my Mother probably served in the same war.

Good men and women are still putting their lives on the line every day. Some of the info Assange and his chums are whoring round the world to all and sundry - anyone who'll pay his prices -puts those lives in greater danger."
I have friends on active service at the moment and they are upholding the values of freedom of speech and justice some of whom are trying to ensure we do not have totalitarian states come to power in Iraq and Afghanistan. So its somewhat of a self defeating argument you put forward. We in the democratic world, which is far from perfect, live by rules in which the attempted murder of a school girl for seeking her human right to education and attending school, is abhorrent and the people who would do such things want a closed totalitarian (intolerant)state. I am not aware of the financial arrangements of Wikki leaks and if they (or Assange) seek personal profit from the activity then yes that is completely at odds with the intention. Freedom of speech is an expensive commodity, unfortunately.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

How has he put our front line troops in danger? By exposing human rights abuses? I think you'll find he doesn't sell information either and his defence is financed by crowdfunding.

So your saying rape is the same as sex with no condom? I've had sex without a condom with long-term partners, had them fall off etc. Does this make me an uber rapist or something?

Besides, wikileaks can run entirely without Assange.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"How has he put our front line troops in danger? By exposing human rights abuses? I think you'll find he doesn't sell information either and his defence is financed by crowdfunding.

So your saying rape is the same as sex with no condom? I've had sex without a condom with long-term partners, had them fall off etc. Does this make me an uber rapist or something?

Besides, wikileaks can run entirely without Assange. "

If a woman wishes you to wear a condom and you wait till she is asleep then you enter her without a condom then yes I do think you have raped her. Call me old fashioned but I prefer my partners to be awake before I have sex with them.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yeah...cos that story has never changed one bit now, has it?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

Regardless of whether we should be fighting in Afghanistan etc, we are and any leaks like this bring succour to the enemy - like a 21st century version of careless talk costs lives.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So we should just ignore it and bomb the hell out of and shoot anyone who disagrees with us, doesn't look like us or has differing religious beliefs?

What a progressive morality.

Just so long as it's not the good old Brits...

We need to all learn to get along with each other before we're fighting over a smouldering crater we once called Earth.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"So we should just ignore it and bomb the hell out of and shoot anyone who disagrees with us, doesn't look like us or has differing religious beliefs?

What a progressive morality.

Just so long as it's not the good old Brits...

We need to all learn to get along with each other before we're fighting over a smouldering crater we once called Earth."

No, but I'm not in favour of handing the other side the ammo to bomb and shoot us with.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So we should just ignore it and bomb the hell out of and shoot anyone who disagrees with us, doesn't look like us or has differing religious beliefs?

Has anyone said that? Is that what you really think is happening?

I've served in several conflicts, Afghanistan and Iraq included. I've seen 'questionable' conduct by coalition forces but nothing on the scale some people claim. On the flip side I've seen horrific breaches of human rights from the other sides. Last time I checked, and it wasn't recently, no one from the coalition forces kidnapped an innocent aid worker claiming them to be an infidel and chopped their head off on the internet or set up operations behind human shields.

The problem with sites like Wikileaks is that they try to expose criminal acts etc, and in some cases that's an admirable thing but frequently they don't take operational difficulties into account or the fact that sometimes these things need to be done in order to save more lives. I know because I've personally done it. I won't post what I had to do in an open forum but it cost one life and saved at least 30 lives possibly hundreds.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So we should just ignore it and bomb the hell out of and shoot anyone who disagrees with us, doesn't look like us or has differing religious beliefs?

What a progressive morality.

Just so long as it's not the good old Brits...

We need to all learn to get along with each other before we're fighting over a smouldering crater we once called Earth."

Can't see anything in this thread that suggest we do this.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs. The problem is that the few let down the majority, same with anything. Same with Afghanis. Most are just caught in the middle of horrendous bloodshed. When that's a government sponsored and endorsed minority it's a very serious issue.

We don't take aid workers, no, but if the Americans have a slight suspicion you might possibly be involved in terrorism, off to Guantanamo you go. Often without charge. Let's not even go there on waterboarding etc. That's just fucked up.

I personally don't blame the soldiers - most of them, anyway -it's the higher ranking officers behind their desks and governments that are at fault.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs. The problem is that the few let down the majority, same with anything. Same with Afghanis. Most are just caught in the middle of horrendous bloodshed. When that's a government sponsored and endorsed minority it's a very serious issue.

I personally don't blame the soldiers - most of them, anyway -it's the higher ranking officers behind their desks and governments that are at fault."

Personally, and call me what you like, I think that if waterboarding one suspect stops another 9/11 or big terrorist attack that claims innocent civilian lives then its acceptable. The chance of surviving a waterboarding is far greater than that of decapitation!...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And if a 'leak' causes your death or that of a family member?"

I have not read everything, but have read quite a lot of the leaked information. Everything as far as I can see is documentation of historical events (history starts yesterday!) The problem is it shows bad diplomacy and bad behaviour authorised at high level by politicians. Therefore the only death threatened are death of careers.

The accusations of rape do seem a little convenient, and I would not be surprised IF he ever ends up in a Swedish court it will be followed very quickly by a flight to the USA.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Personally, and call me what you like, I think that if waterboarding one suspect stops another 9/11 or big terrorist attack that claims innocent civilian lives then its acceptable. The chance of surviving a waterboarding is far greater than that of decapitation!..."

Semi agree, problem is that as Snowden's leaks have shown everyone is a suspect, so are you volunteering to pop over to Guantanimo for a spot of interrogation in case you may know something or someone?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm not going to call you anything - your just as entitled to your opinion as I am mine, even if we disagree.

I agree with the one person theory, too. Greatest happiness for the greatest number and all that. The problem is, it's not just one person they take. The Americans do it wholesale and we back them.

Just imagine if it's your father they taken, for disagreeing with the americans and condemning them for killing innocents. He wasn't Pro-terrorism, just thought things could be done better and differently.

Then add a little human rights abuse and it's all gone horribly wrong.

Waterboarding leaves no physical.scars, but who's to say on the mental toll it takes on people. Broken limbs are easy to fix. Broken minds? Not so easy.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I see the point you're trying to make. I'm currently not to be found armed or acting suspiciously in an active war zone and have nothing to hide. There's nothing to be found on my computer, on my phone or in my home that could be considered suspicious and if asked I would willingly attend an interview at GCHQ or Guantanamo. Hopefully that would be enough to prove I have no useful information and waterboarding is not necessary...lol

What people need to understand is that things like waterboarding are not the first line of interrogation, its a fairly last resort option and 'usually' only considered if there's a great enough threat.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would I be that for off the mark if I said he was a self obsessed nut job bothered more about his view of right an wrong than the real world? "

He is an interesting guy and its interesting how the media portray him. I am not for or against but the film about his early life is fascinating.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm not going to call you anything - your just as entitled to your opinion as I am mine, even if we disagree.

I agree with the one person theory, too. Greatest happiness for the greatest number and all that. The problem is, it's not just one person they take. The Americans do it wholesale and we back them.

Then add a little human rights abuse and it's all gone horribly wrong.

Waterboarding leaves no physical.scars, but who's to say on the mental toll it takes on people. Broken limbs are easy to fix. Broken minds? Not so easy."

I partially understand and agree as my grandparents were subjected to similar circumstances by the Russians during and after WWII.

I will add though, we have released plenty of suspects after finding that their detainment was possibly unjust or they were completely innocent most of them, although treated 'roughly' were not waterboarded and didn't sustain any long term physical or psychological injuries.

Could that be said of the other side?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The accusations of rape do seem a little convenient, and I would not be surprised IF he ever ends up in a Swedish court it will be followed very quickly by a flight to the USA.

Probably not convenient for the woman involved though.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........"

What's a 'special' sub? The £5 Footlong?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant. "

I think someone's "best mate" has been telling someone porkies.

Of course, if either of them told us, they'd have to kill us.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant. "

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation."

What???? Are you now hinting you served at Hereford ??

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation.

What???? Are you now hinting you served at Hereford ?? "

I think you've got the wrong end of the last few posts. Start from the beginning and work your way down.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation."

A better question (because anyone who's seen Ronin will know about the boathouse question) is, what is the Bergen weight for the fandance...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation.

What???? Are you nowserved at Hereford ??

I think you've got the wrong end of the last few posts. Start from the beginning and work your way down. "

Have read them all just pointing out after you said the op didn't know what

Classified meant because he said he had a mate who served on a special sub that it's not classified so why shouldn't he mention it. Just because I chose not to post on this before dosn't mean I haven't read all posts

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation.

What???? Are you nowserved at Hereford ??

I think you've got the wrong end of the last few posts. Start from the beginning and work your way down.

Have read them all just pointing out after you said the op didn't know what

I know my humour isn't for everyone but I didn't think it flew that high.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation.

What???? Are you nowserved at Hereford ??

I think you've got the wrong end of the last few posts. Start from the beginning and work your way down.

Have read them all just pointing out after you said the op didn't know what

I know my humour isn't for everyone but I didn't think it flew that high. "

Humours a strange thing

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation.

What???? Are you now hinting you served at Hereford ?? "

I've made it clear previously that I have never been a member of the British Army.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If he does ever have his day in court they may as well have it in the Australian outback, for roos!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, it's not classified or anything, I just don't want to tell you which. It's that simple. All nuclear powered subs are pretty special in my books to be honest, and a bit of a technical marvel. A submarine is, by definition special, it's a ship that sails underwater, mate. They're hardly commonplace. But no, no silly Hollywood fantasies.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation.

What???? Are you now hinting you served at Hereford ??

I've made it clear previously that I have never been a member of the British Army."

Ah right my mistake

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

Can anyone remind me of the leaks that Assange etc have managed from terrorist organisations?

With the best will in the world he has a belief in himself that will cost lives.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Or save lives?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

"Or save lives?"

I'm pretty sure he'll save a few terrorists lives and cost some soldiers theirs

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Maybe there'll be less drone attacks on innocent people as a consequence of these revelations???????

Hey, if people don't mind governments nosing into their private emails, phone conversations etc, that's their prerogative, but personally, I'll tell them to fuck right off!

My Grandfather fought a war for my freedom; - not to be spied upon by some nosey, controlling, corrupt bastards!! Rant over

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

"Maybe there'll be less drone attacks on innocent people as a consequence of these revelations???????

Hey, if people don't mind governments nosing into their private emails, phone conversations etc, that's their prerogative, but personally, I'll tell them to fuck right off!

My Grandfather fought a war for my freedom; - not to be spied upon by some nosey, controlling, corrupt bastards!! Rant over"

If one drone attack saves one British citizen or soldiers life then get the f*ckers in the air

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Maybe there'll be less drone attacks on innocent people as a consequence of these revelations???????

Hey, if people don't mind governments nosing into their private emails, phone conversations etc, that's their prerogative, but personally, I'll tell them to fuck right off!

My Grandfather fought a war for my freedom; - not to be spied upon by some nosey, controlling, corrupt bastards!! Rant over

If one drone attack saves one British citizen or soldiers life then get the f*ckers in the air"

Sorry dude but I care about the mass slaughter of innocent people, which in recent wars, Iraq in particular, as been vastly prevalent; we obviously differ on this point.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

"Maybe there'll be less drone attacks on innocent people as a consequence of these revelations???????

Hey, if people don't mind governments nosing into their private emails, phone conversations etc, that's their prerogative, but personally, I'll tell them to fuck right off!

My Grandfather fought a war for my freedom; - not to be spied upon by some nosey, controlling, corrupt bastards!! Rant over

If one drone attack saves one British citizen or soldiers life then get the f*ckers in the air

Sorry dude but I care about the mass slaughter of innocent people, which in recent wars, Iraq in particular, as been vastly prevalent; we obviously differ on this point."

To be brutally honest if it's the mass slaughter of innocent people (seriously "mass" slaughter? ). I want it to be some one elses people doing the dieing. I think Patton put it as " I don't want to die for my country I want some dumb son of a bitch to die for theirs"

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

if what wikileaks does saves one life, he should be applauded.

if it costs one life, he should get sent down for manslaughter.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Hardly surprising!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Maybe there'll be less drone attacks on innocent people as a consequence of these revelations???????

Hey, if people don't mind governments nosing into their private emails, phone conversations etc, that's their prerogative, but personally, I'll tell them to fuck right off!

My Grandfather fought a war for my freedom; - not to be spied upon by some nosey, controlling, corrupt bastards!! Rant over

If one drone attack saves one British citizen or soldiers life then get the f*ckers in the air

Sorry dude but I care about the mass slaughter of innocent people, which in recent wars, Iraq in particular, as been vastly prevalent; we obviously differ on this point.

the mass killing of civilians has to be in context though hasnt it?

its hardly like what the nais used to do to jews in the war, line them up and spray them with bullets.

however, particulalry in the examples you give, there has been a dirty war fought, where the 'enemy' used civilians as shields, and to engage them one on one would cost needless lives.

is it really the fault of the soldiers when its the 'enemy' putting their own people in harms way?

im not justifying it in any way, im saying there are unfortunately casualties of war, then there are those that are thrown to the dogs

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, let's face it it's not - I know many decent soldiers, past and serving. My best mate serves on 'special' subs........

Isn't that information meant to be classified. Oh sorry forgot you didn't know what the word classified meant.

Not really is it. We all know they exist and that people serve on them

Deary me. It's the old 'what colour is the boathouse at Hereford?' conversation."

ronin

i have followed this thread and the way i see it is that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist

i think he should answer any questions he is required to answer to in a court of his peers.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yep, in Sweden only!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yep, in Sweden only!"

is that were he is accused of rape i ask as i honestly do not know.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yeah, I believe so.

The strangest thing is that although we have, Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

But if this rape case doesn't smell of a CIA job, nothing does!!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yeah, I believe so.

The strangest thing is that although we have, Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

But if this rape case doesn't smell of a CIA job, nothing does!!"

like i said i don't really know his case however i believe he should answer any allegations of rape and if they are found to be a fabrication then any extradition to the land of the free and the home of the brave would be laughed out of court

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yeah, I believe so.

The strangest thing is that although we have, Sweden doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

But if this rape case doesn't smell of a CIA job, nothing does!!"

well he was asking for trouble if he raped someone that worked for the CIA

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes, he's accused of rape in Sweden, but I cannot implore you enough to check out the evidence and the timeline of these accusations.

But that's a side show really, he's been smart enough to enable wikileaks to run without his input. If theoretically he did go down, it would not stop the leaks. His work in persuading and helping key figures/leakers into sharing the information has been very influential, and I think on a larger scale, a conviction may put future whistleblowers off from leaking classified information. The Americans will badly want to make a show of him and get revenge.

But do I think he's guilty? Not a chance.

You say drone strikes are different from Nazi brutality, but I'd ask how? Is there really a difference between gassing/shooting someone to dropping a warhead on them anonymously and blowing them, their families and anyone who happens to be there to hell? Drone strikes are no less impersonal or respectful of human life. And they happen a lot. Under the Obama administration drone strikes have been increased by a ridiculous amount, though I can't remember the exact figure/ratio.

I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Killing innocents almost wantonly is abhorrent. Death squads even more so. Yes there's going to be civilian casualties in any war, but that shouldn't mean we should recklessly endanger life.

Oh, and when you describe someone as 'them' and 'what they've done/do' you clearly show a lack of knowledge of people. Not everyone is 'one of them'. A lot are just regular people trying to get by, herding there goats or whatever. There's the jihadists, the coalition, and the poor bastards stuck in the middle of the shitstorm getting hassle from both sides. Spare a thought for these people.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

likening drone strikes to what the nazis did to the jews is not only insensitive, but grossly wrong.

as said, in the middle east, those that are opposed to the allied forces, were/are fighting a dirty war, using civilians as shields, not to mention hiding in populated areas and fighting from peoples homes.

the nazis systematically searched out and murdered innocent people living their daily lives, simply because of their religion.

all credibility you had for arguing any points has now been thrown out the window.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

sorry to sound callous but first and foremost he needs to defend himself in court against the charges of rape because there is a woman out there who is seeking justice.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm sorry but atrocities are atrocities. I completely disagree. The difference is they search for you with a satellite, send a piece of code, kill you and anyone around you. It's barbaric. And it does nothing for our reputation. The US sends drones over to Pakistan.

You can't win a war through fear and hatred. They will still attack you, and probably in Britain. Look at the Troubles for example. What we really need is education and understanding, and proper foundations for these places to flourish, democracy and meritocracy.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

well, atrocities may well be such, but i cant remember any Jews starting on the Nazi's, or Jew forces holding their own people as sheilds in order to shoot their enemies, and hope they dont shoot back.

everything in the world isnt black and white, right and wrong.

not every killing is the same.

maybe if certain forces fought a proper war, it would save many many innocent lives, but how can you plead for others to make innocent lives a priority, when their own people dont care about them?

maybe you should be more worried about the atrocities caused by the governments of their own countries before you accuse the liberation forces of the same.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *inaTitzTV/TS over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I think that our security services should be accountable for their actions.

On the other hand, I do believe Assange to be a knob of high order.

There was a wonderful transcript in Private Eye of their communication with him. He didn't come off well. I daresay you can't believe all you read, but Private Eye is hardly a pillar of the establishment.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would I be that for off the mark if I said he was a self obsessed nut job bothered more about his view of right an wrong than the real world?

It takes real bravery to go up against any regime especially when you have conclusive proof that will cause it embarrassment.

I don't much care about who Julian Assange is as a person. I do though care what organisations like wikileaks do.

They show us that we are often being duped or misled. They help make certain decision makers think twice about the decisions they are taking.

They help many to get closer to understanding the actual real world.

Pretty much spot on the money.

Guess the Americans didn't like him releasing footage of US gunships indiscriminately mowing down civilians for fun..."

The US needs pulling down a peg or two.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"well, atrocities may well be such, but i cant remember any Jews starting on the Nazi's, or Jew forces holding their own people as sheilds in order to shoot their enemies, and hope they dont shoot back.

everything in the world isnt black and white, right and wrong.

not every killing is the same.

maybe if certain forces fought a proper war, it would save many many innocent lives, but how can you plead for others to make innocent lives a priority, when their own people dont care about them?

maybe you should be more worried about the atrocities caused by the governments of their own countries before you accuse the liberation forces of the same."

".....A proper war...." What's that then?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down now. I fully support our armed forces. I think they do an incredible job under very difficult circumstances. What I don't approve of, is a very small percentage of the coalition forces per se. I don't think it's right that we should just kill these people.

It's kind of hypocritical to bang on about fair trials then saying murder by air is ok.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Whoa whoa whoa, slow down now. I fully support our armed forces. I think they do an incredible job under very difficult circumstances. What I don't approve of, is a very small percentage of the coalition forces per se. I don't think it's right that we should just kill these people.

It's kind of hypocritical to bang on about fair trials then saying murder by air is ok."

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

It's kind of hypocritical to bang on about fair trials then saying murder by air is ok."

If al queda want to hand themselves in to the nearest nato unit then call off the drones. Until then far happier seeing them turned to mush from 20k feet than risking a single British life.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

"I'm sorry but atrocities are atrocities. I completely disagree. The difference is they search for you with a satellite, send a piece of code, kill you and anyone around you. It's barbaric. And it does nothing for our reputation. The US sends drones over to Pakistan.

Its hard to educate someone who kills the teachers or doesn't permit women to go to school al all.

Meritocracy based on what? "I can read the Quran better than you".

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There was no need for either of the Iraqi wars or Afghanistan - that's the last three wars we've been involved in over the last 20-odd years & much of our own & US making.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

everything in the world isnt black and white, right and wrong.

not every killing is the same.

maybe if certain forces fought a proper war, it would save many many innocent lives, but how can you plead for others to make innocent lives a priority, when their own people dont care about them?

maybe you should be more worried about the atrocities caused by the governments of their own countries before you accuse the liberation forces of the same.

".....A proper war...." What's that then? "

one that isnt carried out by hiding in, and acting as, civilians.

a sly war.

face to face is the only way to wage a war lol

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Like in German occupied Europe? French residence?

I will say this only once;

Allo allo, anyone home? Lolz

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Like in German occupied Europe? French residence?

I will say this only once;

Allo allo, anyone home? Lolz

ah yeah, but that was the cheese eating surrender monkies lol.

they very rarely count in the worlds best war acts lol

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We were amongst them!!

There's no such thing as a clean war - its as dirty as it takes!!

Just ask anyone who's served in either of the world wars - they rightly despise it!!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

but at least the vast majority of the enemy wore grey, with them helmets that look like a potty.

in the middle east conflicts, and vietnam, the enemies of the alliance forces were almost totally hidden in with the civilian populace

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Guerilla warfare has existed for millennia: see Trojan horses for example.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

It's kind of hypocritical to bang on about fair trials then saying murder by air is ok."

'Murder' by air is quite a loaded term.

Was Dresden murder by air? Was Coventry?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If anyone thinks drones turning desperate peoples' families into clouds of blood, guts and bone fragments is going to make Al Quaeda stop bearing a huge fucking grudge on western civilisation, you're sadly out of your depth.

They're just the testing ground for the future of covert warfare where those that make the decisions to terrorise and murder people at a vast disadvantage, and don't want to deal with the guilt, have soldier suicide statistics on their hands or face war crime charges, can surgically remove you from the face of existence for whatever reason they choose.

There's a saying that's clearly forgotten in the face of war and prejudice:

Don't treat others the way you wouldn't want to be treated, and don't stand by and watch when somebody else does!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Soldiers still come home wearing a body bag - for what?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I know. Maybe and maybe pretty much. Though Coventry was also a large manufacturing base. Though the same has been argued of Dresden, but some industry was left intact. If I'm honest, I wouldn't say I'm really qualified to make a judgement as I don't know enough of the facts. Naturally I know about Coventry, and some about Dresden, but I still don't think I know enough or have seen enough of the evidence (I've never been to Dresden) to make a judgement.

Also I cannot yet, unfortunately, fix the past. When science reaches that point, I'll happily let you know. But that does not mean we cannot help to shape the future.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

Getting off topic....

No one has rationalised why Assange has the right to do what he did

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Because we 'supposedly' live in the free world & yes, freedom of information is an important part of that!!

The Guy's a hero!!! (& strangely from oz)

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

"Because we 'supposedly' live in the free world & yes, freedom of information is an important part of that!!

The Guy's a hero!!! (& strangely from oz)"

Remind me who voted for him. What his elected position is and who he is accountable to ...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Remind me who elected Winston Churchill as PM in 1940? King George VI. That wasn't exactly a bad move, was it?

But I digress. I fully support democracy, and since when did whistleblowers need to become elected to tell the truth? If you think it's only the elected who should tell the truth and speak out against crimes against humanity, then I disagree.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

he isnt the whistleblower though, is he?

doesnt he rely on others putting themselves at risk to enable him to make money off the back of it?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Because we 'supposedly' live in the free world & yes, freedom of information is an important part of that!!

The Guy's a hero!!! (& strangely from oz)

Remind me who voted for him. What his elected position is and who he is accountable to ..."

That has to be one of the stupidest question I've heard on here - and the competition is pretty damn fierce; - congratulations!!! LOLZ

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, but he was known for his warning of us about the Nazis and privy to secret documents.

He relies on others to leak information to wikileaks (not him) and was influential in persuading several leakers, including CIA officials, to leak information to wikileaks. Ironically, a lot of the leaks we're leaked through proxy servers (Tor network) and is encouraged - a system developed by the US Navy. This is another reason the Snowden leaks are important - it's been proven the NSA has cracked encryption on most of the common types. Also, several Tor servers have been cracked by the NSA. Tor is no longer 'safe '. Though a new system has been developed already.

Assange's defence fund is crowd-funded (like kickstarter). The only money wikileaks makes is to keep itself running.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

assange warned us about the Nazi's?

he doesnt look that old!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"No, but he was known for his warning of us about the Nazis and privy to secret documents.

Assange's defence fund is crowd-funded (like kickstarter). The only money wikileaks makes is to keep itself running."

Isn't TOR where the Silk Road and its ilk tried to hide?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, Churchill was.

Yes I'd imagine silk road probably did use Tor. It used to be an effective way of concealing one's identity online, hence why wikileaks used to recommend it. But since it's been cracked its no longer feasible. But people are intelligent, hackers have already created alternatives. But then the NSA employs hackers to hack the other hacker's work, and the cycle continues. Where there is a will, there is a way.

They said the Nissan GTR's encryption was unhackabled. Nope, done in less than 24 hours. There are now numerous flavours of 1k+bhp GTR's.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *obbygggMan over a year ago

Birmingham

"No, but he was known for his warning of us about the Nazis and privy to secret documents.

Assange's defence fund is crowd-funded (like kickstarter). The only money wikileaks makes is to keep itself running."
What Nazis?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *or Fox Sake OP Couple over a year ago

Thornaby

Firstly Churchill was elected. Assange is self appointed. Assange doesn't care if nato take casualties. ..he is simply, put a dangerous egotist more bothered about self promotion than peoples lives. If he ever crawls out of that embassy he can sue me. After he stands trial for rape.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

& is found not guilty

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Soldiers still come home wearing a body bag - for what?"

For Queen, country, and freedom apparently.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not oil?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Soldiers still come home wearing a body bag - for what?

For Queen, country, and freedom apparently. "

Mostly for a secure job (though that's no longer always the case) + pay and rations.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Not oil?"

soldiers do not dictate policy they only enforce the will of parliament who are elected by us the great british public

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Soldiers still come home wearing a body bag - for what?

For Queen, country, and freedom apparently.

Mostly for a secure job (though that's no longer always the case) + pay and rations."

Rations are paid for at source ie taken out of wages. All that I knew joined because they wanted to be in the armed forces.uch the same as doctors want to be doctors etc etc !

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Not oil?

soldiers do not dictate policy they only enforce the will of parliament who are elected by us the great british public

Obviously soldiers don't decide but the rest of your argument ......hmmmmmmm, not entirely sure about that????

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Not oil?

soldiers do not dictate policy they only enforce the will of parliament who are elected by us the great british public

Obviously soldiers don't decide but the rest of your argument ......hmmmmmmm, not entirely sure about that????"

to be honest im a little confused were you suggesting with your not oil comment were you suggesting that the British armed forces dilated policy

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Not oil?

soldiers do not dictate policy they only enforce the will of parliament who are elected by us the great british public

Obviously soldiers don't decide but the rest of your argument ......hmmmmmmm, not entirely sure about that????

to be honest im a little confused were you suggesting with your not oil comment were you suggesting that the British armed forces dilated policy

Whatever put that in to your mind?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Soldiers still come home wearing a body bag - for what?

For Queen, country, and freedom apparently. "

Not oil?

Well, it certainly wasn't for Saddam's 'apparent' WMD's was it? or were you one of the few who actually believed Colin Powell's address to the UN?

Personally, I was shocked that a country could send it's soldiers off to War based on that lack of evidence.

......but for oil/$'s - I'm not so sure, are you?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Soldiers still come home wearing a body bag - for what?

For Queen, country, and freedom apparently.

Not oil?

Well, it certainly wasn't for Saddam's 'apparent' WMD's was it? or were you one of the few who actually believed Colin Powell's address to the UN?

Personally, I was shocked that a country could send it's soldiers off to War based on that lack of evidence.

......but for oil/$'s - I'm not so sure, are you?"

its not in question that we went to war on a pack of lies however the British armed forces did not tell these lies i am pretty sure it was robin cook who resigned his cabinet post whilst Claire short stayed over then then labour governments (tony Blair) failure to gain another united nations mandate then chose to follow George bush jnr into war like the good little poodle he was.

at no point did the British armed forces dictate policy it was our American cousins therefore to suggest otherwise is an insult to our forces

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Soldiers still come home wearing a body bag - for what?

For Queen, country, and freedom apparently.

Not oil?

Well, it certainly wasn't for Saddam's 'apparent' WMD's was it? or were you one of the few who actually believed Colin Powell's address to the UN?

Personally, I was shocked that a country could send it's soldiers off to War based on that lack of evidence.

......but for oil/$'s - I'm not so sure, are you?"

So where is all this oil that we went to war for ? The war for oil myth has been debunked a few years ago and I can't believe people are still reeling it out like a broken record.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Oil = money, I guess

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

......& there proved to be a lot less WMD's than oil in Iraq!

I believe that the ultimate insult to the coalition forces was sending them there in the first place, don't you?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"......& there proved to be a lot less WMD's than oil in Iraq!

I believe that the ultimate insult to the coalition forces was sending them there in the first place, don't you?"

im sorry you have completely last me now if you scroll up and look at the original not oil? remark it looked like you were insinuating that the British soldiers did not join the armed forces for queen country and freedom but for oil

would that be the point?

as for wmd and oil and everything else i could not care less about those issues

all that matters to me is that when our forces are sent into war in our name by the government of the people they come safe and sound, the injured are taken care of correctly and the families of any dead soldiers are looked after.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Read earlier!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Read earlier! "

nice to have a straight answer

you would be a good politician

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"......& there proved to be a lot less WMD's than oil in Iraq!

I believe that the ultimate insult to the coalition forces was sending them there in the first place, don't you?

would that be the point?

as for wmd and oil and everything else i could not care less about those issues

Well said

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Firstly Churchill was elected. Assange is self appointed. Assange doesn't care if nato take casualties. ..he is simply, put a dangerous egotist more bothered about self promotion than peoples lives. If he ever crawls out of that embassy he can sue me. After he stands trial for rape."

....I think you'll find Churchill was appointed wartime PM by the King. So no, your wrong. Churchill wasn't elected. Not until 1951.

Have you asked Assange for his view on Coalition casualties? No? Then howcan you speak for him and say he doesn't care?

I really don't get where you're getting this self promotion thing from.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Oil = money, I guess "

So where is all the money then ??

Unless Blair, Brown and Cameron are hiding it in the loft of number 10 I think you'll find that that argument is now bogus.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Thousands of companies profit Tom wars, some are linked to the very people who send us to war in the first place!!!

If you want our soldiers to remain in one piece, I would suggest a good starting point would be refusing to send them to unjust warsn. Genius!!!

There's no such thing as a war without a bodybag - fact!!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thousands of companies profit Tom wars, some are linked to the very people who send us to war in the first place!!!

If you want our soldiers to remain in one piece, I would suggest a good starting point would be refusing to send them to unjust warsn. Genius!!!

There's no such thing as a war without a bodybag - fact!!

you go on mastermind specialized subject stating the obvious

you still haven't clarified your original point which was your insinuation that soldiers joined for oil and out of duty.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Can you quote where I said exactly what you just said? Delusions?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Can you quote where I said exactly what you just said? Delusions? "

i have read the piece wrong and that i must apologise

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I have to admit I was wondering where you were coming from - but no worries dude/ette - I'm off to Kathmandu; peace man!!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

"Have we done a Julian Assange thread? "

Yes

Mr ddc

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would I be that for off the mark if I said he was a self obsessed nut job bothered more about his view of right an wrong than the real world? "

He certainly isn't the figurehead for freedom and democracy the majority would want - not in the slightest - but with WikiLeaks he gave the world a platform on which to view the truth.

Our opinions of the truth, however, tend to become so far removed from the context of the crime that it might as well be another world, and it really is.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nfamyMan over a year ago

Goole

"Would I be that for off the mark if I said he was a self obsessed nut job bothered more about his view of right an wrong than the real world? "

He's a bit of a Cock Wombat

With a deluded sense of self worth.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And if a 'leak' causes your death or that of a family member?"
very unlikely! Leaks are about forces killing civilians either deliberatly or through incompetence, torture etc.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A lot of the cables detail civilian deaths, America's general assholery and invasion of people's privacy.

I also think that with no wikileaks, there'd most likely be no Ed Snowden, who, again, if you read into it, has exposed massive surveillance operations both in the Nsa, and closer to home GCHQ.

tl;Dr I think Assange/wikileaks/Snowden are all vitally important in bringing important issues to the forefront and into the public domain. Checks and balances are essential.

From what I've read about him he's more of a threat to women than national security. "
opinion is it's a trumped up charge so the American govt. Can nab him if he gets extradited to Sweden

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes we have.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)