abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 This guy really is a paranoid schizophrenic.. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02assange.html?_r=1 . Yeah, everyone is out to get him..whatever! Somehow the "Guardian" in UK, as well as other organizations that in EVERYTHING else show a decidedly anti-semitic or at the least, an anti-Israel, bent on everything they report, are all in a "Jewish" plot to ruin him. The guy really needs to be incarcerated in a rubber room for his own protection I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 This guy really is a paranoid schizophrenic.. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02assange.html?_r=1 . Yeah, everyone is out to get him..whatever! Somehow the "Guardian" in UK, as well as other organizations that in EVERYTHING else show a decidedly anti-semitic or at the least, an anti-Israel, bent on everything they report, are all in a "Jewish" plot to ruin him. The guy really needs to be incarcerated in a rubber room for his own protection I think. Assange denies having made any such claim about a 'Jewish Conspiracy' and to be misreported by the Guardian journalist. To quote from the article...Mr. Assange said that “in particular” the Private Eye report that he believed in a “ ‘Jewish conspiracy’ is false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has tried to justify one smear with another.” “That he has a reputation for this, and is famed to have received more libel suits in the U.K. than any other journalist as a result, does not mean that it is right,” Mr. Assange’s statement said. So, it appears you believe the journalist is as pure as the driven snow with his article while Assange should be incarcerated for being mentally ill despite his denials and the alleged history the journalist has for attracting libel suits. Hmmmm..... Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 No, it may appear that way, while to me, it appears that you, who are usually one in these posts to defend such as NYT journalists, and Guardian journalists, find this one to be entirely wrong..so that can lead myself to say also Hmmmm.... Edit..I do understand "standing up for a countryman" in Assange on your part...but really , he is giving your country an awful name. I cannot even go to my own homeland and IMPLY there was no holocaust without threat of arrest, so my personal feelings on this aside, he IS paranoid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I cannot even go to my own homeland and IMPLY there was no holocaust without threat of arrest, so my personal feelings on this aside, he IS paranoid. WTF has Holocaust denial got to do with this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 WTF has Holocaust denial got to do with this? In the story above, the entire reason Assange believes there is a "Jewish conspiracy" is because of the question of His Russian assistant being a "holocaust denier". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ahhhh... I see. Guilty by association. That may be a viable way to accuse people of wrongdoings in your country but last I checked it's not a valid modus operandi here. Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ahhhh... I see. Guilty by association. That may be a viable way to accuse people of wrongdoings in your country but last I checked it's not a valid modus operandi here. Regards KR Not sure what that means....Assange claims there is a Jewish conspiracy against him and his organization, because of someone mentioning his associate..they did not need to mention his associate, granted, but that does not take away the fact he is deluded if he believes there is a Jewish conspiracy against him, brought on by people who themselves in every other thing they do, are mostly anti-Jew. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Hang on. Isn't the media supposed to be controlled by Jews? I get so confused by these people. Can't they just feck off and sell gold or something instead of controlling/not controlling the world media? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 haha Affen I always wonder about the "controlled by Jews" also..who is it that thinks that? The media stories I see are probably 70% anti-, 20% neutral, and 10% pro- Jewish viewpoint. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not sure what that means....Assange claims there is a Jewish conspiracy against him and his organization, because of someone mentioning his associate..they did not need to mention his associate, granted, but that does not take away the fact he is deluded if he believes there is a Jewish conspiracy against him, brought on by people who themselves in every other thing they do, are mostly anti-Jew. -established that Assange denied having made the claim of "Jewish conspiracy" -established that the journalist making the report is of questionable integrity and has a history of publishing rubbish Given that any thread examining the influence/behaviour of the Jewish people quickly degrades to lockdown, and is therefore an effective tactical choice when seeking to arouse emotional argument, how about we call this **** for what it is and agree not to discuss such propaganda again. Eh? Have a look at Assange's stated motives: they aren't about harming others. If you wish to ascribe motive to him that he hasn't indicated in his behaviour, you're either claiming to be able to read minds or are being deliberately dishonest with what intellect you claim to posess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 If by his behavior, you also include his personal behavior, the sexual assault in Sweden, then that opens up many more "targets of opportunity" regarding him. And I mostly agree with you, a bad idea to put this up. However, I do also find it hypocritical that several times on these boards, I HAVE BEEN THE ONE showing where journalists have been biased, and always shouted down as if it does not exist (bias in journalists)...and now suddenly it is a "biased" journalist, from, of all things, a newspaper that 99.9999 % of the time is in agreement with "their side"..and that is somehow a defense.....now if the journalist worked for faux news, I could understand the entire argument...but this is the "Anti-faux news" media..wow, are they biased also?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Regarding the alleged sexual assault, it's going to be judged in the Swedish courts: there's little to be gained in pleading non-bias if you're going to predict the outcome. Too, it brings up the philosophical question of regarding isolated behaviours and extrapolating to an entire personality, particularly where a soldier's behaviour might be examined. Regarding the "bias" of the article writer and his association with The Guardian, if the story came from a reliable source it wouldn't have been written by this particular author. I'm sure there were (probably still are) competent, capable journalists working for Fox - they don't write the crap that appeals to the lowest intellect capable of forking over money in return for sensate reward. I agree that the Guardian does tend towards bias - but usually to a factually verifiable or intellectually rigorous analysis of events. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ragarded the sexual assault, all people should know that the sex was consensual, and the qualms about him not wearing a condom came later (because when one woman was banging with him, she was unaware of his "multiple dealings", and thus didn't fear STDs). So she stated that he refused to put on a condom retroactively. He may have not been transparent, but I think he didn't commit rape. Well, I see this thread has enough gasoline dripping from it, so I sidestep. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 That last sentence of yours, is my point. I do not see how people can assume the best of a news source, EXCEPT when it hits them "where it hurts"..if you grant that the Guardian is in general tending towards a "factually verifiable..." point in it's stories..then please note that the person in question here, is not a "whacked reporter on the fringe" but rather the EDITOR of the paper, the one who in general is responsible for content. So if the "editor" of the Guardian is being accused on one hand of being biased, only because he seems to suddenly for whatever reason tell a story against someone who in general he is on the side of, then who is really biased here? the editor? the 'target' of the story? or the readers who eat up most of the garbage put out by that paper, but here suddenly find it distasteful when he hits a target they actually like, as compared to most of the time when that paper is hitting on targets on MY side of things? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Anyway..rant over, forgive me, but I just get a kick out of all the Australians on here coming to the rescue of someone who is an insult to their country really. In person, most Australians I have met have been great, mostly soldiers, but some media as well. I can only hope more are like that, than are like Assange. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I don't personally think it was because of him being Australian. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 I don't personally think it was because of him being Australian. Haha, I know.. I just have become accustomed to everything I post being jumped on by Aussies haha but maybe it is because they dominate this "off topic" board, also. Still, most I have actually met, I think the best of. They remind me of Texans in the USA..independent, rugged, always ready to step up. Good qualities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Can I be honest? It is, in general, the fact that you come with minority opinions (as I anderstood by all the major posters), at least in this board, and you just have a way of striking someone's nerve. Your biggest blunder was titling a thread "an interesting beginning to the global warming farce". To put such a title on a forum someone should at least expect some degree of consensus, but... you were alone against all as I recall. The assange thread had a good, neutral title - but then you call a man whose work many people admire a paranoid, and... Tact, dude. Tact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Haha..well, as I put up on the other topic, I do actually LIKE debates, and debate SHOULD be able to be civil, but in general I get met with a bunch of insults, so the day I put up that thread, I had a drink, and ..voila..a thread title just came to me hahaha...but yes, I know..and most of my words on here, even the harsher sounding ones, I am actually laughing as I write them. Not sure what my "opponents" think of me, but most of them, at least, I like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Plus, remember the misunderstandings that arise out of meatspace. If you're speaking softly with your voice, it's a thing: the words on a screen can be charged with whatever emotion by the beholder! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Plus, remember the misunderstandings that arise out of meatspace. If you're speaking softly with your voice, it's a thing: the words on a screen can be charged with whatever emotion by the beholder! That is quite true. Also, English itself is mostly a second language to me, although I would not say that is an excuse, I did very well with it in school. Rather it really is that sometimes I just like to debate. In school, we used to be assigned an argument, and have to defend it, even if it was something we disagreed with. I found that to be intellectually honest and challenging, and have kept it as something I use still even professionally. I just find quite often on these boards, that people are stuck oftentimes in their particular view, and refuse to even admit there can be a debate, and that tends to be viewed by myself as needing a "push" sometimes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Assange has stepped up, and he's hitting well above his weight. His take on the fallout from his actions may be a little naive - he is human, he is flawed - but his courage and sense of fairness aren't to be called into question. As far as I'm aware, he hasn't used the information that came to him for the purposes of blackmail or financial gain. His organisation gave the US State Department the opportunity to enter into a dialogue regarding the effect of the releases and was refused. Someone in the US wanted this information published, knowing that releasing it to the normal chanels of distribution (i.e. the commercial media) was going to be playing into the hands of the people identified in the information as liars, cheats and morally reprehensible. The hope that real change could be effected from the release of these documents has proved to be a vain one. I really don't think Assange is an insult to my country, whatever my Prime Minister might say publicly. I think, rather, that he's an indication of what an outback Queenslander educated in the seventies and eighties is capable of doing - upsetting an awful lot of people by doing the right thing. Ron, I know you say you're worried about the fallout for your buddies in war zones. Trust me, that's crap - it's a soundbite designed to garner hostility towards the messenger. The fallout is in the shift that might have been generated in the political sphere and I can't see that it will have any effect whatsoever: we know our leaders are a bunch of lying, incompetent thieves and we know we're bought and sold for their personal gain. There doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. The idealist thought it might just be possible to turn this ****fight around. Too bad he was wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pešadija Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 They taught you eristics in school? That's pretty hardcore. A peculiar thing to teach to children, at the very least. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ron, I know you say you're worried about the fallout for your buddies in war zones. Trust me, that's crap - it's a soundbite designed to garner hostility towards the messenger. The fallout is in the shift that might have been generated in the political sphere and I can't see that it will have any effect whatsoever: we know our leaders are a bunch of lying, incompetent thieves and we know we're bought and sold for their personal gain. There doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. The idealist thought it might just be possible to turn this ****fight around. Too bad he was wrong. Assange has already been quoted as saying he did not care that the informants he named were likely to be killed. These are people in the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan who are trying to rid those countries of their terrorists, and some of whom were killed(beheaded)within hours of the release of their names. They are not my "fellow soldiers" but they ARE people who have stood up to terror, and helped my fellows to try to fix things there. I just had the quote from him last week to a NYT reporter,that the informants "DESERVED" to die... and will find it again, was going to put IT up last week, but knew I get these same types of replies anyway. I do not view him as an idealist, I view him as a politician...many of whom also claim to be idealists..they say what their supporters want to hear...he is the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 They taught you eristics in school? That's pretty hardcore. A peculiar thing to teach to children, at the very least. Well this was at West Point, not primary school. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.