'Some' nobodies think a 'somebody' is a 'nobody'-whereas the sometime 'nobody' is really a 'somebody'.
(From a nobody).
There is a song in this:
Nobody
...and:
Freddie's Somebody
How is it people can't see through Assange?
- Thread starter random
- Start date
'Some' nobodies think a 'somebody' is a 'nobody'-whereas the sometime 'nobody' is really a 'somebody'.
(From a nobody).
There is a song in this:
Nobody
...and:
Freddie's Somebody
Like that song.
Yes it is interesting. What defines someone as a nobody or a somebody. Because in your family you are probably a somebody but in the medical world probably a nobody (unless you are a skilled neurosurgeon).
I guess in this context, world politics, a somebody would be someone who is discussed by world political leaders, appears in the press on political issues and does things which impacts on the world politics. In this case Assange to me is a somebody in the political realm. Not saying I agree with everything he does but for me it makes him a somebody in that realm.
Me on the other hand I am a nobody in the political realm. Noone in politics give a care about what I do or say and certainly anything I posted on the internet would have no impact on the political stage. So in that realm I am a nobody.
Yes it is interesting. What defines someone as a nobody or a somebody. Because in your family you are probably a somebody but in the medical world probably a nobody (unless you are a skilled neurosurgeon).
I guess in this context, world politics, a somebody would be someone who is discussed by world political leaders, appears in the press on political issues and does things which impacts on the world politics. In this case Assange to me is a somebody in the political realm. Not saying I agree with everything he does but for me it makes him a somebody in that realm.
Me on the other hand I am a nobody in the political realm. Noone in politics give a care about what I do or say and certainly anything I posted on the internet would have no impact on the political stage. So in that realm I am a nobody.
4 Corners Tonight 14 Feb
is doing a story on Private Bradley Cooper, the person alleged to have provided the leaked files to Wiki leaks.
The Forgotten Man
is doing a story on Private Bradley Cooper, the person alleged to have provided the leaked files to Wiki leaks.
The Forgotten Man
The issue as I see it is that many of the 'Big-Wigs' (a term I shudder to use, for it makes me sound like some conspiracy wacko), are simply trying to create a classic ad-hominem / strawman argument.
Julian Assange may be a tool. He may be an absolute idiot that never pays his mates back, always finishes the milk off in the fridge and will never change the toilet roll to a new one once he's done. WHO CARES!?
If the information that is submitted to his organisation and subsequently released by it is relevant, exposes lies by the government and various other corporations and should be heard by the general public, then why does it matter if Julian Assange is a ****?
Julian Assange may be a tool. He may be an absolute idiot that never pays his mates back, always finishes the milk off in the fridge and will never change the toilet roll to a new one once he's done. WHO CARES!?
If the information that is submitted to his organisation and subsequently released by it is relevant, exposes lies by the government and various other corporations and should be heard by the general public, then why does it matter if Julian Assange is a ****?
With a name like television
, 'm sure you've seen ti many times....it's easier to ridicule the person for something unrelated to the facts being debated yet ?can you please let me know where do they give out qualifications in exposing government lies, i might take a course for my self development.
No point explaining again, strannik and the rest of us rad what you wrote. we understood what you wrote. we just don't agree with your view. you seem to think we are in such a minority we must be dumb or blind, but we're not any of those things. EVERYONE doesn't agree with you except for a handful off badddies unfortunately.
You said he's dangerous cause he's unqualified - so strannik was correct to ask.
What qualifications would satisfy you ? what qualifications would a person need to have for you to say the sort of thing Assange/wikileaks is doing is not wrong ?
I believe your answer would be "none".
Which makes it both an irrelevant and incorrect point for you to make, that Assange is "unqualified".....
You said he's dangerous cause he's unqualified - so strannik was correct to ask.
What qualifications would satisfy you ? what qualifications would a person need to have for you to say the sort of thing Assange/wikileaks is doing is not wrong ?
I believe your answer would be "none".
Which makes it both an irrelevant and incorrect point for you to make, that Assange is "unqualified".....
Is that bad? Just about the only thing I admire about the Yanks is that they resolved their own problems.
IF Assinage prompted some of the downtrodden to rise up, he should be cheered. We in the West will just have to make new friends.
I support what Wikileaks are doing, though I think that there should have been more care when making some of their releases. But I do have my doubts about Assange.
He strikes me as being a narcissist, and is controlling the flow of information to increase his own importance. For example, he was hinting at huge revelations that don't seem to have been released. Weren't there some earth shattering secrets on the banks due out a while back? I haven't heard anything yet.
In a sense he's becoming bigger than Wikileaks, rather than being an integral part of it. And having been compromised by events in Sweden, he's probably damaging the organisation's mission. If he had a slightly lower profile, maybe being more of a figurehead than defining figure, he'd probably do more good.
I don't know how serious the charges against him in Sweden are, but basically the women involved agreed to have sex provided a condom was used. Assange was unwilling to do so, which breaks the condition under which consent was granted.
I'm not convinced that the US will extradite him. A big trial would allow him to be portrayed as a martyr. The claims that he'd face the death penalty are hot air, as the treaties that govern the process don't allow a European government to hand someone over if this is a genuine threat. Oh, and there would need to be agreement from both the UK and Sweden for him to be sent to the States. It'd be easier to ship him direct from the UK.
If he's charged in Sweden then his reputation is damaged, and a conviction would destroy it. That's a much lower risk strategy for the US government, and it falls into the hoist by his own petard category.
He strikes me as being a narcissist, and is controlling the flow of information to increase his own importance. For example, he was hinting at huge revelations that don't seem to have been released. Weren't there some earth shattering secrets on the banks due out a while back? I haven't heard anything yet.
In a sense he's becoming bigger than Wikileaks, rather than being an integral part of it. And having been compromised by events in Sweden, he's probably damaging the organisation's mission. If he had a slightly lower profile, maybe being more of a figurehead than defining figure, he'd probably do more good.
I don't know how serious the charges against him in Sweden are, but basically the women involved agreed to have sex provided a condom was used. Assange was unwilling to do so, which breaks the condition under which consent was granted.
I'm not convinced that the US will extradite him. A big trial would allow him to be portrayed as a martyr. The claims that he'd face the death penalty are hot air, as the treaties that govern the process don't allow a European government to hand someone over if this is a genuine threat. Oh, and there would need to be agreement from both the UK and Sweden for him to be sent to the States. It'd be easier to ship him direct from the UK.
If he's charged in Sweden then his reputation is damaged, and a conviction would destroy it. That's a much lower risk strategy for the US government, and it falls into the hoist by his own petard category.
Allegedly - remember he has not even been charged yet let alone convicted. He is being extradited for questioning not trial, which is the basis of the defence against, as extraditions are 'usually' for someone who has been charged and is required to stand trial.
Mr Fish,
i think the issue more lies in the fact that the US couldn't profit from it.
It's like cracking down on "ilegal" cigarette sales - they're only illegal because the govt aren't getting their share of tax revenue.
the same applies to biofuel, alcohol etc.
the US make profit out of war. if they can finance a coup and overthrow that coup govt later to profit from the "re-building" - they will. period. that's disaster capitalism and was realised late in WW2. that's afghanistan. that's iraq. that's chile. that's panama. that's argentina. that's cambodia. that's korea (but that one backfired).
if the people manage to do this for themselves then the US is redundant in the "global democratic movement" - and they miss out on profit for their taxpayer subsidised private corporations.
which is why i was worried about the egyptian army - but clearly for nothing.
The US will and is trying everything in their power to extradite him. Commentary from major political players indicate their contempt and desire to see Wikileaks be silenced. Refer to comments made by Hilary Clinton, Jo Lieberman who has called him a terrorist, he is the Chair of the US Senate Homelands Security Committee. VP Joe Biden has called him a high-tech terrorist.
They are keeping Private Bradley Manning, the person alleged to have provided the cables and documents to Wikileaks and in contact with Assange, in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day. If they can prove the link, they will indict him for conspiracy under the Espionage Act.
So what is the difference between Wikileaks or a national newspaper publsihing this information or even re-publishing the information as was the case here. The Pentagon papers were leaked in the US to the NY Times in 1971. What is the difference?
because wikileaks is viral, a newspaper is not.
he cannot be prosecuted under US law, even the FBI have admitted this. the information was given to him, he did not source it. no request was made for information, structured or implied. his actions do not fit the US definition of terrorism. his actions do not fit the US definition of espionage. he is protected as a journalist under the first amendment.
end of discussion. case closed.
he cannot be prosecuted under US law, even the FBI have admitted this. the information was given to him, he did not source it. no request was made for information, structured or implied. his actions do not fit the US definition of terrorism. his actions do not fit the US definition of espionage. he is protected as a journalist under the first amendment.
end of discussion. case closed.
