News1 min ago
What's Going On? - Free Speech, My *rs*
Julian Assange's internet accounts have just been closed down before he was due to release the promised revelations on Hillary Clinton.
The 'Russia Today' news channel has been blocked from UK audiences (so I have heard, can anyone confirm this please?).
And I cannot get the Aljazeera news channel at the moment here in Germany.
The 'Russia Today' news channel has been blocked from UK audiences (so I have heard, can anyone confirm this please?).
And I cannot get the Aljazeera news channel at the moment here in Germany.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Oh yeah, Julian Assange ...
In the 1980s, Russia invaded Afghanistan.
"You can't interfere in foreign countries", said the US. The US sent the Afghans lots, and lots, and lots of weapons, to fight the Russians.
Twenty years later, the US (remember, "You can't interfere in foreign countries"? ... that US!) ... also invaded Afghanistan.
This gave the US a chance to see if the weapons they had sent to Afghanistan were still working properly (they were), as the Afghans shot at Americans with the weapons supplied for free by the US.
The US government's handling of the Afghan war was a shambles. Bungled missions, excessive civilian casualties, failed objectives ...
The US government and army all knew it was going wrong, but tried to deceive the public. But there were lots of documents detailing how we were being misled, trying to achieve some hair-brained objective that was never going to succeed. American officials created thousands of documents and memos, largely to cover their own backs for when it all went wrong. But, officially, we were being fed a different story. And the death toll continued to climb.
Only one person had the courage to produce the evidence to show how badly we were being misled ... Julian Assange.
This was embarrassing for the US government, and especially for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ... who had hoped to be able to carry on lying to Congress, and misleading the public, while Allied soldiers died for no reason ... American deaths never being something that's kept Hillary awake at night (literally not, in the case of the Benghazi attack!)
Also, the documents showed that Secretary of State Clinton had been illegally spying on British and allied diplomats. Very embarrassing to get caught out stabbing the UK in the back.
"Damn!" said Hillary. This person has exposed our lies and illegal activities.
"Wait! Let's have him arrested and extradited for his mishandling of classified government documents! Let's pretend that he's a threat to national security (even though the real threat to national security is me!)"
SCREECH! BRAKES HARD! ... Hillary Clinton thinks that people should be arrested if they mishandle government documents?
Aahaaaahh haaaa haaa ha haaa haaaaaa!!
Obviously she thinks differently if the person mishandling the documents is Hillary Clinton.
But the Swedish authorities are uncooperative. "Julian Assange has done nothing wrong. Just because he's embarrassed you, by exposing something that YOU'VE done wrong ... we can't extradite him for that!"
(Then ... in the way that has always happened when a Clinton has been under threat .. cue the convenient appearance of Hillary's stooges ...)
"Ah haaa" says Hillary ... I've got these women ... oops, I mean here are two women I've never met before, who claim that Mr Assange sexually assaulted them"
"Who???" says Julian.
"Arrest him! He's a witch!" yells Hillary.
(Mr Assange is taken in by the Ecuadorian Embassy, who are not taken in by Hillary's comical efforts to turn Julian Assange from "exposer of the truth", into "alleged rapist")
And, as ever, no matter how unpleasant Hillary becomes, with her nasty little plots to save herself by attacking innocent people ...
... there are plenty of people who actually believe ... yes, they really do believe ... that she is telling the truth.
In the 1980s, Russia invaded Afghanistan.
"You can't interfere in foreign countries", said the US. The US sent the Afghans lots, and lots, and lots of weapons, to fight the Russians.
Twenty years later, the US (remember, "You can't interfere in foreign countries"? ... that US!) ... also invaded Afghanistan.
This gave the US a chance to see if the weapons they had sent to Afghanistan were still working properly (they were), as the Afghans shot at Americans with the weapons supplied for free by the US.
The US government's handling of the Afghan war was a shambles. Bungled missions, excessive civilian casualties, failed objectives ...
The US government and army all knew it was going wrong, but tried to deceive the public. But there were lots of documents detailing how we were being misled, trying to achieve some hair-brained objective that was never going to succeed. American officials created thousands of documents and memos, largely to cover their own backs for when it all went wrong. But, officially, we were being fed a different story. And the death toll continued to climb.
Only one person had the courage to produce the evidence to show how badly we were being misled ... Julian Assange.
This was embarrassing for the US government, and especially for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ... who had hoped to be able to carry on lying to Congress, and misleading the public, while Allied soldiers died for no reason ... American deaths never being something that's kept Hillary awake at night (literally not, in the case of the Benghazi attack!)
Also, the documents showed that Secretary of State Clinton had been illegally spying on British and allied diplomats. Very embarrassing to get caught out stabbing the UK in the back.
"Damn!" said Hillary. This person has exposed our lies and illegal activities.
"Wait! Let's have him arrested and extradited for his mishandling of classified government documents! Let's pretend that he's a threat to national security (even though the real threat to national security is me!)"
SCREECH! BRAKES HARD! ... Hillary Clinton thinks that people should be arrested if they mishandle government documents?
Aahaaaahh haaaa haaa ha haaa haaaaaa!!
Obviously she thinks differently if the person mishandling the documents is Hillary Clinton.
But the Swedish authorities are uncooperative. "Julian Assange has done nothing wrong. Just because he's embarrassed you, by exposing something that YOU'VE done wrong ... we can't extradite him for that!"
(Then ... in the way that has always happened when a Clinton has been under threat .. cue the convenient appearance of Hillary's stooges ...)
"Ah haaa" says Hillary ... I've got these women ... oops, I mean here are two women I've never met before, who claim that Mr Assange sexually assaulted them"
"Who???" says Julian.
"Arrest him! He's a witch!" yells Hillary.
(Mr Assange is taken in by the Ecuadorian Embassy, who are not taken in by Hillary's comical efforts to turn Julian Assange from "exposer of the truth", into "alleged rapist")
And, as ever, no matter how unpleasant Hillary becomes, with her nasty little plots to save herself by attacking innocent people ...
... there are plenty of people who actually believe ... yes, they really do believe ... that she is telling the truth.
Yes jim, and there's quite a lot of things which require digging up, including inquiring into her sanity;
http://
http://
In 1979 (actually) the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan because a barely lucid Brezhnev was told his communist mate was up against it there.
In 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan because they supposed that there was a huge danger to the western world posed by the insurgents there. Actually there might have been something to be said for the Soviet invasion had they not spoiled it with a campaign of rank brutality against the locals. It was probably a regime with upholding. I don't think the dictum was ever 'don't interfere in foreign countries' more do what you think is in your best interests at the time.
The other lesson learned was: Afghanistan is a sod of a place to invade. It effectively did for the Soviet regime: sowed the final seeds of decay that led to Gorbachev and the rise of Russian nationalism
In 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan because they supposed that there was a huge danger to the western world posed by the insurgents there. Actually there might have been something to be said for the Soviet invasion had they not spoiled it with a campaign of rank brutality against the locals. It was probably a regime with upholding. I don't think the dictum was ever 'don't interfere in foreign countries' more do what you think is in your best interests at the time.
The other lesson learned was: Afghanistan is a sod of a place to invade. It effectively did for the Soviet regime: sowed the final seeds of decay that led to Gorbachev and the rise of Russian nationalism
It was actually Bradley what's his/her name (isn't he now another Chelsea?) who pinched the documents and is deservedly banged up for it.
Assange is just the receiver. Not sure he's done anything wrong of a non sexual nature: just likes to grandstand on the back of other people's crimes.
As for the US spying on the U.K. that is hardly going to be a shock. It's just embarrassing when it gets out - for both sides.
Assange is just the receiver. Not sure he's done anything wrong of a non sexual nature: just likes to grandstand on the back of other people's crimes.
As for the US spying on the U.K. that is hardly going to be a shock. It's just embarrassing when it gets out - for both sides.
For Ichkeria...
"Swedish prosecutors had been due to question Assange at the embassy this week, but last week Ecuador’s attorney general said the long-awaited interview would be delayed until 14 November to ensure that Assange’s legal team could attend. The interview will be conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor, based on a list of questions from the Swedish chief prosecutor and a police investigator, who will be present. The Ecuadorean will later report the findings to Sweden."
The above is from today's (19th) Guardian website, so I've got a new diary entry now! As a matter of interest, Assange's access to the internet was closed by Ecuador's embassy, since he was interfering in the local politics of a sovereign state!!
"Swedish prosecutors had been due to question Assange at the embassy this week, but last week Ecuador’s attorney general said the long-awaited interview would be delayed until 14 November to ensure that Assange’s legal team could attend. The interview will be conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor, based on a list of questions from the Swedish chief prosecutor and a police investigator, who will be present. The Ecuadorean will later report the findings to Sweden."
The above is from today's (19th) Guardian website, so I've got a new diary entry now! As a matter of interest, Assange's access to the internet was closed by Ecuador's embassy, since he was interfering in the local politics of a sovereign state!!
//Assange's access to the internet was closed by Ecuador's embassy, since he was interfering in the local politics of a sovereign state!! //
Curious timing, and It's taken them a long time to come to that conclusion.
Which sovereign state is he 'interfering' with?
Clinton is on record as saying, 'can't we drone this guy?
Curious timing, and It's taken them a long time to come to that conclusion.
Which sovereign state is he 'interfering' with?
Clinton is on record as saying, 'can't we drone this guy?
https:/
Above is the web-page I took material from earlier, Khandro. Clearly, the sovereign state Assange was deemed to be "interfering with" - by the very people supposedly 'sheltering' him! - was the USA.
I suspect Ecuador may well, despite their protestations to the contrary, be getting rather tired of their 'guest'!
Above is the web-page I took material from earlier, Khandro. Clearly, the sovereign state Assange was deemed to be "interfering with" - by the very people supposedly 'sheltering' him! - was the USA.
I suspect Ecuador may well, despite their protestations to the contrary, be getting rather tired of their 'guest'!
QM; Something is now rotten in the state of Equador and the putrefaction is coming from the Clinton camp.
I've always been rather ambivalent about Asange, but I now feel I would like to support him, a. because it is right to do so, and b. because it might get up the noses of ichi and the rest of the neocons.
I've always been rather ambivalent about Asange, but I now feel I would like to support him, a. because it is right to do so, and b. because it might get up the noses of ichi and the rest of the neocons.
Latest Posts
Attempted Robbery In Cape Town
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Business & Finance7 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
News34 mins ago
