There are many thousands of people imprisoned in Uzbekistan alone who should not be imprisoned and who suffer much worse conditions than even the genuine horrors of Wandsworth being visited on Julian Assange. But the Assange case has implications for ever deteriorating Western freedoms which should not be overlooked.
Then there are many war criminals who ought to be in jail and who are not. Most prominent of these are Bush, Blair, Cheney, Straw and their crew. A minor figurewho ought to be in jail is Anna Ardin. Here are two tweets she published after being “raped” by Julian Assange:
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
She subsequently deleted and tried to expunge those. I doff my hat to Rixstep:
http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml
For another avowed feminist trying to bring Assange down, analyse the use of language in this article by the Guardian’s useless Helen Piddle. For a worm like her to use words like bizarre and raggle-taggle in relation to John Pilger really defies rationality.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-celebrity-supporters
“this arrest very clearly is an attempt to …”
Everybody agree they know what’s goin’ on.
Just nobody agree what it is that’s goin’ on.
Although ‘most everbody think there’s a conspiracy to get Mr. Mendax. Hey Angry, tinfoilers, at ’em boy.
@qark
I’m not sure that angry will welcome your appearance. Stay near your phone, fuckwit.
@Vronsky
“Stay near your phone, fuckwit. ”
Who’s this foul-mouthed moron issuing threats?
And here’s another Tinfoiler for Angry:
Did FDR Engineer Pearl Harbor?
http://takimag.com/article/did_fdr_engineer_pearl_harbor
“Did FDR Engineer Pearl Harbor?”
No.
@Writerman
“Another US pundit of Fox News, or maybe that should be Fucks News! has called for the assassination of the traitor Assange by US special forces. ”
But here’s an odd thing, Assange quotes Rupert Murdoch (Fox News and NewsCrap, Prop.) with approval in an article published just this week:
“IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide’s The News, wrote: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27017.htm
@Angry:
‘”Did FDR Engineer Pearl Harbor?”
No.’
Well that’s not much of a argument is it. I mean, at least you could give some details on the mental pathology of the author of the article, which concludes that FDR did indeed engineer Pearl Harbor. Or you might even rebut the historical evidence cited by the author.
Or is that in your universe conspiracies are logically impossible? Like, you know, the alleged conspiracy to nail Assange with false charges of rape?
“But here’s an odd thing, Assange quotes Rupert Murdoch (Fox News and NewsCrap, Prop.) with approval in an article published just this week:”
He was writing in the Australian you dimwit! The Australian is owned by Murdoch and the point of the article was to slam the Aussie PM.
“Well that’s not much of a argument is it.”
Who gives a fuck? I never promised you one.
“I mean, at least you could give some details on the mental pathology of the author of the article, which concludes that FDR did indeed engineer Pearl Harbor.”
The web address says Taki on it. I don’t need to link to that pompous bigot’s site.
Now, FDR “engineering the attack on Pearl Harbor” might be believed by him. But who cares what he believes? My best guess is that at that time in history the Japanese Navy wouldn’t have allowed him use of their planes and Nazi Germany hadn’t promised FDR that they’d declare war on the US providing he lets just one attack in.
Oh dear. Looks as if the rest of the evening might be spent listening to angry talking to (American verb: dialoging) another instance of angry. It’s not quite a soliloquy – can we find a word – bililoquy? Nulliloquy? Moniloquy? Uniloquy?
@Angry
“you dimwit”
“I don’t give a fuck”
Yes, very cogent.
But what does this mean?
“My best guess is that at that time in history the Japanese Navy wouldn’t have allowed him use of their planes …”
Him? Who’s he. The Japanese Navy were using their own planes, obviously. If you had followed the link to “that pompous bigot’s site” (nice bit of vituperation there) you would have seen that the engineering consisted in denying the Navy warning of the attack when Washington had evidence that the attack was imminent. So I don’t see your point.
But my main point was why do you not attack the conspiracy theory that has been floated here, namely, that Assange is the victim of trumped up charges — a reasonable interpretation it seems to me, though by definition, I suppose, I am merely a tinfoiler.
@Vronsky
“Oh dear. Looks as if the rest of the evening might be spent listening to angry talking to (American verb: dialoging) another instance of angry.”
I’d be happy to talk with you if had anything sensible to say and were prepared to apologize for your insulting language.
Huh? is that really Vronsky? angrysoba was responding to Jaded I mean Qark. and anyone who wants to call taki a pompous bigot is welcome to, in my view.
@Angry
“”But here’s an odd thing, Assange quotes Rupert Murdoch (Fox News and NewsCrap, Prop.) with approval in an article published just this week:”
He was writing in the Australian you dimwit! The Australian is owned by Murdoch and the point of the article was to slam the Aussie PM.”
So we are to understand that Assange is just like any other member of the presstitutes corps. He takes money from the devil and slants his argument to please the proprietor.
That seems reasonable. To draw attention to that possibility was the reason I posted the link. So was that so dim?
Avaaz have a petition going to help WikiLeaks:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/
Alan Campbell, folks don’t care, eh? Go to the Avaaz page I’ve linked, and watch the signatures pour in, from all over the world.
Hey Mark Golding, I just saw your name scroll past at Avaaz. Was that you, or a namesake?
I might have jumped to a conclusion about qark (who is a newcomer). The use of the word ‘tinfoilers’ was a bit of a red rag to a bull, and rather too reminiscent of our resident advocate of US foreign policy. Your post might have been meant ironically, but it was a first post (that I’ve seen), so I don’t know you, and it was unhelpfully brief. Your early attachment to the word ‘moron’ is also not awfully encouraging.
I won’t apologise for bad language. I’ll apologise for inappopriate language, but the appropriateness is yet to be determined.
Introduce yourself, and tell us a little.
NB: This is a Vronsky Stage 1 Apology. You’ll get Stage 2 if you seem not to be a cunt. Oops, bad word again. Sorry!
I think I remember Qark from a while back – if memory serves, he’s a genuine enough poster.
Pah, an online petition! It’s hardly Grunwick, is it?
Vronsky,
Thanks for your note.
Re: your questions. I’m incognito. I am a disembodied argumentative mechanism. I have prejudices, it is true, the chief of which is a preference for truth over power, i.e., I’m a loser.
” The use of the word ‘tinfoilers’ was a bit of a red rag to a bull”
Yes, I understand. My reaction is the same. As it happens, I was using the term ironically, since there are some who seem to think calling someone a tinfoiler automatically overturns their argument.
Cheers, mate
Here’s a critical assessment of Assange:
“Assange no Do-gooder
By Ezra Levant
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2010/12/07/16453756.html
… Then there’s Assange’s threat that if he’s treated improperly – say, if he’s forced to stand trial for rape in Sweden – he’ll release another batch of secrets, he has labelled “insurance.”
If a real journalist had real news, he’d publish it for its own sake. But by using his “news” as a bargaining chip, he gives away his game. It’s not journalism. It’s espionage. It’s a weapon of war. And if police try to hold him accountable to the law, he’ll use his weapon. …”
Why are Sarah Palin and Mick Huckabee not being served with Interpol arrest warrants for incitement to terrorism and murder? If you, I or the geyser on the Clapham bus called in public through the mass media for someone’s assassination, we rightly would be charged with incitement to commit acts of terrorism, or incitement to murder, would we not?
I call for the issuing of such a warrant. I ask why such a warrant has not been issued. Two (sadly) enormously influential US politicians calling for the assassination of an individual is redolent of the actions of a Mafia godfather. These are criminal actions and should be treated accordingly.
If Sarah Palin or Mick Huckabee every deign to set foot in the UK (the incitement occurred while their intended victim was on UK soil), they should be immediately arrested and denied bail.
Qark, see your point; on the other hand, Assange obviously sees himself and is seen as Wikileaks. He seems to have no team to speak of, or am I wrong? Guardian editors wouldn’t need that protection because some brave soul in the office would step over their bloody corpses and carry on the struggle (hem hem).
Well said, Suhayl. But in fact it’s worse – they’ve called for him to be treated like any other person they’ve wiped out, which presumably means without any regard whatsoever to innocent bystanders, sorry, ‘collateral damage’. Drop a Hellfire missile down on a shopping centre in southeast England if Assange might be there. Heck, drop one on the jail where he’s currently being held!
So it’s not just threatening murder on an individual who’s in the country perfectly legally, we’re all being terrorised by extension, by having bloodthirsty, ham-fisted goons swaggering around performing extra-judicial executions. Palin, Huckabee and the rest of these redneck morons are performing acts of terrorism with their shrill calls for murder.
this is really not showing many people in a good light, is it? and i’d guess it’s made the public feel more worried, confused, overwhelmed and fucked off in a passive way than ever. yet, as everyone apart from the Guardian are aware, the cables themselves were pretty standard stuff. and none top top secret. so why this huge public reaction from governments, i want to know. why hilary clinton charging around the world looking bloody worried at the start, for instance? why didn’t she skype?
glenn, yes.
@Suhayl
“Why are Sarah Palin and Mick Huckabee not being served with Interpol arrest warrants for incitement to terrorism and murder?”
Right on! But why not Obama too? He actually runs Assassination Inc., plus Torture Inc. and Rendition Inc.
See the WSJ says Assange is in breach of the espionage act.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule
which may explain why the Russians are saying he should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
It would be interesting to know Craig’s position on secrecy in the conduct of diplomacy. Should it all be conducted openly? And how could cheating be prevented, e.g., secretly ganging up to mug someone, while publicly declaring peace and goodwill to all humanity? And if secrecy is sometimes desirable, then why should it not be protected by law?
qark
Full Stage 2 apology: I’m sorry.
Clark
Look forward enormously to your contributions here, but occasionally want to smack you. Avaaz? The EU? I’m running scared of sounding like Alfred, but I might as well go for it and say it’s the – um – er -(draws in breath) – Whore of Babylon! I haven’t a clue what that means, it just sounds adequately bad.
The stated objective of avaaz is to get 1M signatures. Out of all of Europe? That would mean that nobody gives a toss ?” if they succeed it will be a wonderful endorsement of the status quo.
There was a petition to the Scottish Parliament for an inquiry into the conviction of Al Megrahi (not quite exactly that, but you can google the details). There was an online petition (the Scottish government has new, hi-tech ways of ignoring things) which collected a little over 1500 names. OK, the website was down for most of the period of the petition so you couldn’t sign even if you wanted to but still, I’d extrapolate 2000 at tops. I could probably recite the names and phone numbers of most of the signatories off the top of my head. A miserable total like that means that no real, healthy, well-adjusted person gives a damn – the petition is just a list of sad fucks like me and my pals.
Vronsky,
Don’t mention it.
Wikileaks: US-Nato plan to defend Baltics from Russia
I don’t know a thing about strategy. But this leak is sure looks like an attack on Western security, as that would be judged by those in power. So what are western governments to do? Ask the military to stick flowers in the barrels of their guns, or go after the SOB by all legitimate means (which in the US, apparently, means a Hellfire missile strike involving the potential for substantial slaughter of innocent bystanders)?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11933089
“The latest leaked documents show that in January this year, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently signed a confidential cable saying allies in Nato had agreed to expand the contingency plan to defend Poland, to include the Baltic states.
“The nine Nato divisions involved would be American, British, German and Polish, the Guardian says, citing information leaked to Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza.
“The cables say the military plans should not be discussed publicly as it might lead to an unnecessary increase in Nato-Russia tensions …
Vronsky, you’re right. In meaningful, relative terms, a million signatures are nothing. But in absolute terms, it is big, not so easy to brush aside. Does it matter that Avaaz is running it? I remember an earlier discussion where their site was described as corporate, but have they actually done something bad? Should I be boycotting them?