Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: Wikileaks  (Read 8088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #60 on: December 16, 2010, 06:44:14 PM »

...what?
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #61 on: December 16, 2010, 08:03:22 PM »

The original prosecutor who heard these charges threw the case out and said they were ridiculous.

Once Assange started being a thorn in certain people's sides it suddenly stopped being ridiculous.

I still don't like the guy, but the way they're going about trying to take him down is pretty :fail:.

So because the case has been reopened, it's somehow frivolous?

I also like that you're still thinking that this is some plot to take him down, rather than

1. he's a public figure
2. he may have raped somebody

As ghoulish as it sounds, that makes it a lead item in the news. We're not talking Al Capone here. Wikileaks will still operate without its founder.
Logged

Norondor

  • Where I'm at is: Fuck you, get shot
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 4184
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #62 on: December 16, 2010, 09:06:21 PM »

do you mean that to imply that you do not think it is a plot to take him down
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #63 on: December 17, 2010, 05:20:10 AM »

I'd say it's certainly possible. I'd also say it's possible that it isn't.

There's cynicism and then there's knee-jerk non-thought.
Logged

Royal☭

  • Supreme Court Judge President
  • Tested
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #64 on: December 17, 2010, 05:36:49 AM »

do you mean that to imply that you do not think it is a plot to take him down

I think it's opportunistic.  Sex criminals don't normally end up on Interpol's most wanted list.  But if he really raped those girls (and it's starting to sound like he may just have), then fuck that guy sidewise, he deserves to serve time in jail.  The problem that a lot of liberals and leftists seem to be overlooking is that people seem to be conflating this with Wikileaks.  They should have disassociated the Assange name awhile back so that they could just exist as Wikileaks, not Wikileaks by Julian Assange.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #65 on: December 17, 2010, 05:58:14 AM »

Well, they were trying to support their founder at first. Even if it IS just a coincidence, the timing is hilariously suspect enough that I'm sure his associates straight up assumed it was a smear job and stood by him at first.

Now, it looks like some of them are going to start rival firms, but I actually don't think that's such a bad thing anyway.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #66 on: December 17, 2010, 06:11:36 AM »

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/12/michael-moore-doubles-down-on-rape.html

Oh boy. Not only did Michael Moore jump on the victim-blaming bandwagon, but he also put up bail money.
Logged

jsnlxndrlv

  • Custom Title
  • Tested
  • Karma: 24
  • Posts: 2913
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #67 on: December 17, 2010, 06:21:03 AM »

I've read it suggested that some (but obviously not all) WikiLeaks participants preferred having such a controversial and high-profile figurehead because it encouraged anti-WikiLeaks organizations to focus on smearing him rather than digging up info on people who are actually integral to WikiLeaks' ability to function. The idea being that, yeah, Assange may attract controversy (which is true regardless of whether or not he's guilty of the crimes he's being charged with here), but an organization that gets as much institutionalized opposition as WikiLeaks does has to have a sacrificial lamb if they don't want to be destroyed.

As for Moore—putting up bail money isn't objectionable. His opinion on the case may be unseemly, but a case this high-profile is going to generate a lot of unseemly opinions in both directions. The public does not have a way of knowing whether or not he engaged in unconsensual sex. What we have is just piles of irrelevant, distracting information: he's the figurehead of a group that various government agencies want to discredit; she wrote her Master's thesis (in part) on the use of rape as a weapon in promoting matriarchy. Her teaching career included two charges of sexual harassment against a student for "looking at his notes" rather than directly at her, thus implying the intent to marginalize and discredit her gender; his nomadic lifestyle was used against him to attempt to deny him the option of bail. His gender is notorious for their proclivity to sexually assault others; her country is suggested to be socially, politically, and occupationally mired in male privilege, but that the public recognition of this fact has resulted in powerful weapons to point the finger at men, through the use of härskarteknik ("master suppression technique"), which have closed off public discourse through over-use and over-application.

All of this is irrelevant to the question of whether he's guilty or not, which we cannot know. Democratic concepts of justice would have it that he's innocent until proven guilty, but rape is a particularly noxious crime, and its victims have a history of mistreatment and misrepresentation by the system that's supposed to prosecute on their behalf.

It's an ugly situation.
Logged
Signature:
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #68 on: December 17, 2010, 07:25:23 AM »

Just because it seems politically expedient to allege Assange is a rapist so doesn't make the allegations of rape any less valid.

I also find it sickening that the allegations of rape only seem to be used as leverage against him.



I think it's opportunistic.  Sex criminals don't normally end up on Interpol's most wanted list.



I'm not saying it's never appropriate to hold an accused rapist on $300,000 bail -- hell, I can think of plenty of cases where it would be.  But I've never heard of it happening before.

But if he really raped those girls (and it's starting to sound like he may just have), then fuck that guy sidewise, he deserves to serve time in jail.



The problem that a lot of liberals and leftists seem to be overlooking is that people seem to be conflating this with Wikileaks.  They should have disassociated the Assange name awhile back so that they could just exist as Wikileaks, not Wikileaks by Julian Assange.

He's certainly been a convenient way for the media to take the focus off the actual content of the leaks, and yeah, it smears the organization by association.  But Wikileaks will still do fine if they cut off ties with him after a conviction (or keep ties with him after an acquittal).  There's OpenLeaks, too, besides.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #69 on: December 19, 2010, 08:54:33 AM »

Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #70 on: December 19, 2010, 09:13:53 AM »

Jeez, how long was the Globe and Mail waiting to use that headline?

Quote
Bjorn Hurtig, Mr. Assange’s Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain.

:glee: Seriously!  I know, right?
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #71 on: December 19, 2010, 09:28:03 AM »

Jeez, how long was the Globe and Mail waiting to use that headline?

I guess they were holding it in for a while.

Dohohohohohohohohohohoho!
Logged

Royal☭

  • Supreme Court Judge President
  • Tested
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #72 on: December 19, 2010, 09:43:27 AM »

The best part about this are the people shitting all over themselves to point out how upset Assange is over these leaks, without realizing there is a difference between leaking the personal information on a private individual and leaking confidential documents of a public government.

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #73 on: December 19, 2010, 09:52:31 AM »

Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #74 on: December 19, 2010, 10:06:15 AM »

The best part about this are the people shitting all over themselves to point out how upset Assange is over these leaks, without realizing there is a difference between leaking the personal information on a private individual and leaking confidential documents of a public government.

It's also worth noting that a: this in no way resolves the case (for those who care). And b: the whole thing might just be thrown out now that the police reports been leaked. This is one of the worst police fuckups I've ever seen*.

*Assuming normal western police forces and not some random third-world dictatorship where the "police" are random locals paid in sugar packets and worn-out shoes.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #75 on: December 19, 2010, 10:08:12 AM »

It did the trick, though.  Julian Assange, you are now discredited.
Logged

Royal☭

  • Supreme Court Judge President
  • Tested
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #76 on: December 19, 2010, 10:23:12 AM »

To you, a guy who has been hell bent on discrediting Julian Assange for a week.  But does knowing the allegations against Assange make the documents released by him any less revelatory?

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #77 on: December 19, 2010, 10:24:27 AM »

It did the trick, though.  Julian Assange, you are now discredited.

Not really. Even if you just skim the leaked report, it raises some really bizarre questions.

Like "why did she let him stay for a week and throw him a party?"

I'm not saying that it's impossible that she felt pressured or confused or that she's necessarily lying - my whole point so far has simply been that we still don't know what really happened. This simply reinforces that.

Hell, we don't even know if this police report is real! Sure we've got the Guardian's word and they're somewhat reputable, but newspapers have been hoodwinked before and a detailed police report is something REALLY ODD to leak. I mean the number of people whose heads'd be on the block for leaking that is pretty fucking small.

Down on the ground, we really just don't know and we may not ever find out. But for the crazed Assange supporters there's MORE than enough material to not only sustain the OMG CONSPIRACY theory (not least of which is the fact of the leak itself) but to even give it more adherents.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #78 on: December 19, 2010, 10:48:40 AM »

To you, a guy who has been hell bent on discrediting Julian Assange for a week.

What?  My previous stance was "I don't like the guy but I think this is bullshit."

Now my stance is "I don't like the guy for very good reasons."

I never wanted to personally discredit Assange.  I did talk about what the government could do to make that happen because that's what a competent evil government would do.  My point was that they were not a competent evil government because they were not doing that.  Someone, somewhere, just got the memo.

I know you feel like everybody's against you because, well, you're really trying to turn everyone against you.  But between you and me, I'm celebrating his downfall because I think he was hurting Wikileaks.  He's one of those liberals with absolutely no grace, who just dives face-first into whatever untenable position appeals to very personal set of ethics, and who honestly keeps hurting the cause he's fighting for by alienating people.  Nudge.

At any rate, I think at the very least Assange's name will soon be disassociated from *leaks, and that's altogether a good thing.  Not only in terms of publicity, but because I suspect that the rest of the team is much more level-headed and won't just throw a bunch of papers on the floor and say "HEY LOOK AT ALL THIS STUFF!!!!!!"
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #79 on: December 19, 2010, 10:54:20 AM »

Also oh shit I only now realized what I did in the fourth panel up there.

:nyoro~n:
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6