501–510 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scary timing. So one possible reason this could be is to stop him from rallying the troops.
You actually believe some 4channers when he says he is a intelligence officer? I have a bridge to sell you...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did that repeatedly with nothing delivered, previously. All of a sudden they feel the need to actually release something.
They released on-schedule; they filter through the data they receive to avoid releasing information that can endanger individuals. This takes time, and they made it clear that it would be completed close to the election.
Sweden has hunted Assange for 6 years for the 'crime' of being promiscuous with the wrong women. Oh, and he did not use a condom, but the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards. Only later when those two women who thought they'd scored a celebrity found out he'd been rather generous in dealing out his celebrity amongst those who offered him hospitality did they come with a claim of rape. S…
>the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards >the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before I don't care what you think about this specific case, but statements like these show a great deal of ignorance about how most sex crimes happen and the relationship between the abuser and the victim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's pretty well known that Assange claims to have a vendetta against HRC. The details of that vendetta don't make much sense. It's clearly easier for him and his supporters to claim that they're acting out of enmity towards Clinton --- a minor figure in virtually all of Assange's dealings with the US --- than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly supporting Donald Trump. Nerddom and the…
You write as if Trump is just as dirty as Clinton and Assange is simply choosing to not release that information. It is possible that Clinton is, as Trump says, the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics. She's been hit with scandal after scandal. And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did.
Um, are you just blanking 2004 out of your head? This is just the same stuff all over again. All of the screaming and shouting about birth certificates and generally shady connections? His ultimate Muslim agenda to bring down the Great Satan that is America?
Absolutely nothing of worth is coming from the leaked documents, despite all hell being raised about a smoking gun (that no one can point to) in them. It literally is a witch hunt. If these past 4 elections aren't going to kill the GOP in general, I don't know if anything will. It should be disgusting the out right lies and propaganda that they employ, with a complete lack of integrity and standards. But people still buy into the juicy conspiracy theories and the generally "known and accepted" unknowns.
If HRC is the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics, then then last 4 decades of investigations and general obstructionism were undertaken by the most incompetent politicians in the history of politics. Not just one, a whole collection of individuals (senators, house members, governors) from one party who despite their best efforts continually fails at proving claims they have no problem repeating until people start to believe them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If hundreds of pieces of direct evidence don't suffice, then I'm not sure what does. The Clinton Foundation has done countless extremely illegal and unethical things. Between CTR, the Bernie fiasco, the fake Craigslist ads, the "public and private" positions, I'm not sure how you can say that HRC isn't trying to create an alternate reality.
Not sure I entirely buy this, Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation high marks. [1] You might be able to make some arguments for crossing some ethical lines, but to say they have done "countless extremely illegal and unethical things" is pushing the conspiratorial line. [1] https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillar...
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/clinton-cash-autho...
It is very likely Assange knows the difference between an internet connection that is just suffering an outage, and an internet connection that has been deliberately cut. If the "outage" only affects the embassy, and no other clients on the same fibre, and if the ISP is unable to give information due to "security issues", that would for example, be a big red flag, I would imagine (I have no insight into what the situation really is, I'm just giving a for instance).
Wikileaks also seems to be a broadly decentralised organisation, from what little they've given away in past press releases about how they operate. I'm sure I remember they once boasted about their crypto phones, etc. So it is unlikely Assange has lost contact with the world, or that he personally is maintaining their Twitter feed. The issue here is more what this portends, rather than what it might do to Wikileaks.
[1] http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/London-Threatens-Quito...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is exactly why I deplore the term "terrorist". The U.S. throws the term terrorist around with reckless abandon while proudly parading its strategy of "Shock and Awe"[1] and weapons like the "Daisy Cutter"[2] around on CNN. How are those two examples anything other than naked attempts to instill terror in it's enemies??? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82
Edward Peck says it best: In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. https://en.…
If we applied the laws we used to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg, every single post WWII US President/government would be considered to have committed war crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's pretty well known that Assange claims to have a vendetta against HRC. The details of that vendetta don't make much sense. It's clearly easier for him and his supporters to claim that they're acting out of enmity towards Clinton --- a minor figure in virtually all of Assange's dealings with the US --- than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly supporting Donald Trump. Nerddom and the…
You write as if Trump is just as dirty as Clinton and Assange is simply choosing to not release that information. It is possible that Clinton is, as Trump says, the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics. She's been hit with scandal after scandal. And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just go visit. He already agreed that it would be ok long ago.
It's not that simple. They had to find a procedure that is acceptable to Swedish, Ecuadorian and British courts. These negotiations have only recently been completed and a meeting has tentatively been booked for the end of October.
hmm I would suggest there's something more to this than "Internet cut off". There's pretty much no chance you could cut off all connectivity from a building in the heart of london ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Embassy+of+Ecuador/@51.4... ) From that location you have Base station's covering all 4 major UK mobile networks and I'd guess a large number of wi-fi hotspots. So to "cut off" internet access, you've g…