Julian Assange's rape allegations continued

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Xlo

Cueball wrote:

One wonders why it is that some people who seem so concerned for Manning's welfare

this a comment you might regret making if

NOT CONFIRMED wrote:
Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald twittered "a major story brewing is the cruel, inhumane treatment - torture - to which Bradley Manning is being subjected".

turns out to be true haha though hopefuly this article from the Guardian points in the opposite direction

Guardian: Nov 30th 2010 wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-bradley-man... He is said by friends to be on antidepressants and only a limited list of visitors are able to see him, yet one who saw him in recent weeks told the Guardian he was "doing surprisingly well, he is in high spirits".

perhaps they are torturing him with xanax and valium? Or maybe you should take a few and calm down with the personnal attacks :)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yes, that's right. I couldn't hear the details.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Closing for length.

If there's a way to dial back the personal invective in any future continuations, do it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Xlo wrote:

Cueball wrote:

One wonders why it is that some people who seem so concerned for Manning's welfare

this a comment you might regret making if

NOT CONFIRMED wrote:
Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald twittered "a major story brewing is the cruel, inhumane treatment - torture - to which Bradley Manning is being subjected".

turns out to be true haha though hopefuly this article from the Guardian points in the opposite direction

Guardian: Nov 30th 2010 wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-bradley-man... He is said by friends to be on antidepressants and only a limited list of visitors are able to see him, yet one who saw him in recent weeks told the Guardian he was "doing surprisingly well, he is in high spirits".

perhaps they are torturing him with xanax and valium? Or maybe you should take a few and calm down with the personnal attacks :)

They are not personal attacks. They are observations about your hypocrisy. Far be it for Courage to Resist to bellyache about some imagined ill-will on the part of Wikileaks or Assange. They are more concerned about getting the job done for Bradely Manning. You on the other hand should at least be looking for a second job, rather than bellyaching about Assange on the internet, so that you donate as much money as you can to the cause you assert Assange has abandoned.

But of course it so much easier to be an internet jockey than actually do something for the causes you support. Indeed, if you really did support Courage to Resist, you would be taking up their views, and promoting them. But you don't. You fill in the blanks with miles and miles of internet screed, none of which they support or suggest.

Heed for example, the words of Loraine Reitman (a member of the group's steering committee) in the same Wired article you linked too

Quote:
"WikiLeaks is the reason we've been able to get so much money and donations," she told Threat Level. "They've been linking to us and tweeting about us, and every time they do it, donations come in."

But you are so busy with your personal internet crusade you spend all your time attacking an important source of revenue generation for Bradely Manning. Face it, you don't give a shit about Bradely Manning, you are just a sneering punk, with nothing better to do with your time than engage in your personel hollier than though crusade to make yourself feel better about what a low-life you are.

-=+=-

ABC News has expanded its piece on WikiLeaks financial situation.  (Full version [url=http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=12394736]here[/url]).

The Icelandic MP has more to say.  (She comes off as more critical):

Quote:

Birgitta Jonsdottir was one of the early backers of WikiLeaks, and introduced a bill that would make Iceland a safe haven for whistleblowers.

She told ABC News that after working closely with Assange, she had become deeply disillusioned.

"Very many people have forgotten the fact that Bradley Manning has been sitting in jail for 200 days," said Jonsdottir. "And his defense fund is struggling to get together the money to pay for his lawyers."

At the same time, WikiLeaks is providing the money for Assange's defense fund.

(And note that it isn't actually Jonsdottir who is saying WikiLeaks is paying the laywers.  It is a statement by the journalist writing the article.  I assume a journalist wouldn't make a blanket statement like that unless he had solid proof).

The former second-in-command of WikiLeaks (now starting OpenLeaks) was also disillusioned by the treatment of Manning:

Quote:

Domscheit-Berg said he and others pressed for the money to be transferred "for quite a while," but that Assange would not comment on why it had not been transferred, other than to say "it was all taken care of." "That, to me," said Domscheit-Berg, "says that it's time to leave this organization."

There are also comments from another early WikiLeaks member that Assange was money and fame-hungry:

Quote:

Another of WikiLeaks' early leaders said Assange's goal from the beginning was to make a lot of money and seek personal fame. 

"No question," said John Young. "All the signs are there. It's a well-known aspect of underground hacking. Much money to be made here."

The WikiLeaks was first registered to Young, a New Yorker who has his own web site, Cryptome.org, that has published government secrets from around the world, including the names of British and Japanese spies.

Young said Assange had always hoped to be put behind bars, as a way to further establish his fame, like a marketing tool.

Said Young, "He was trained as an actor and he has a wonderful speaking voice. He works on his appearance, he works on his slow speaking thing. He loves to provoke people, he loves to make dramatic statements. He loves to be thrown in jail. He'll love to have a show trial."

Then the article ends with this bombshell:

Quote:

A spokesman for WikiLeaks told ABC News that there had been a delay and he was no longer sure how much of the $50,000 that WikiLeaks would be able to send.

There is always the possibility, however, all these people are stooges in the employ of the U.S. government and are intent on smearing Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks project.  Best to keep that in mind.

Pages

Topic locked