It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Arrested in London

page: 38
<< 35  36  37   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:29 AM

Originally posted by ilandrah
Cables at a glance

That should help I think

and the US is angry with him why again?

Looks to me like he outted many countries and their leaders, not much here is surprising,

The Main Leaks So Far

* Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
* Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
* US instructs spying on key UN officials
* China's changing ties with North Korea
* Yemen approved US strikes on militants
* Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
* Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
* Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
* Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak"
* The extent of corruption in Afghanistan
* Chinese leadership 'hacked Google'
* A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

But you are only showing the ones that MSM let out..
There are many more about other countries etc..
MSM have been very selective, there is a thread on ATS with some of the other stuff,

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by Misoir

If this isnt a set up I dont know what is...He should be getting the nobel peace prize they gave to kissinger the rodent...they should pry it from his cold excecuted hand....

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:01 AM
Just thought i'd post a bit of a news update which will probably be breaking in america very soon.

Taken from

Sun, 12/12/2010 - 09:39

In an interview with The Daily Mail, Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, said that he had seen police documents that prove Mr Assange is innocent, and that the accusers had a "hidden agenda" when they went to the police:

"From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place. It was, I believe, more about jealousy and disappointment on their part. I can prove that at least one of them had very big expectations for something to happen with Julian."


So, one hoax down.. how many more to go? Wonder what the next faux revelation will be against Julian?


posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks

Assange and Wikileaks have done nothing that any journalist worth his salt would have done if presented with evidence that was contained in those documents.

Wrong. Journalists have a code of ethics. They do not , for example, report information unless it can be verified by multiple sources. It is not clear if WikiLeaks has fully researched the credibility of its sources. Furthermore, journalists weigh the public's "right to know" against other parties' "right to privacy" and legitimate concerns for national security. Exposing corruption or illegal activities is in the public's best interests and is fair game. Indiscriminately publicizing routine confidential communications is not. When WikiLeaks leaked the illegal rendition documents it was serving the public interest; when it publicized unflattering comments made by American diplomats about world leaders, it was undermining international understanding.

Wrong?!! Are you for real? The information is directly from diplomatic cables hence all the outrage from the US government. There is no need for verification from multiple sources.
You need to go and do a little research yourself before you go making foolish statements like this.

There is nothing worse than a pseudo expert such as yourself.
Now go away and come back when you know what you are talking about.

edit on 12-12-2010 by The Ghost Who Walks because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:10 AM

I keep hearing the word "treason" bandied about, but the fact of the matter is it could only be called treason if he were an American citizen. Nor is it espionage---he didn't spy on anyone. This information was handed to him on a platter, unsolicited.

Not true. When a person joins a conspiracy, they adopt all criminal actions that have occured before they joined as if they did it themselves. It is call complicity and people are in jail for this now. If Manning is a traitor and Assange assisted, even after the fact, then Assange can be tried for treason. As an aside for the armchair warriors, they can be charged with treason also.
edit on 12-12-2010 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by Nite_wing

If Manning is a traitor and Assange assisted, even after the fact, then Assange can be tried for treason. As an aside for the armchair warriors, they can be charged with treason also.
Ooh, thats scary!

IDK if you missed my earlier input, just ignored it, or didn't understand it. In case of the latter, let me try to translate my thoughts into very basic concepts & American English for you:
95% of humans are not US Citizens. Do the math. We dont give a rats ass what your laws are. We do care about your governments criminal activities which do/have been intend/ed to force its will on the majority of us.

Regardless of jurisdiction or enforcability, you are correct: most legal systems recognise any support for/given, any hinderance in detection, or any benefit derived from, a crime as some degree of complicity in that crime. Also, most legal systems rest on the premis that ignorance is no defence. Thus, any American, by their own law, is guilty of conspiracy to commit whatever crimes their govt committed/s in their name, regardless of whether they knew they were doing it or not. Period.

There is no court that you can be tried in for your offences, but law & order do exist for a reason. Nobody likes being told what to do, but we accept it b/c the consequences of everyone doing whatever they can without regard to whomever that pisses off have historically proven disasterous to societies: "live by the feud; die by the feud". So we get to this: since you are a criminal conspirator against whom no legal action can be taken & since that means that law & order cannot be sought as a remedy by anyone who is pissed off by your offences, you should not be surprised when people form a posse to lynch you.
You reckon Uncle Sam is big & bad enough to live by the feud? Fine. Again, do the math.
Reverting to my native idiom: dont come running to me on your 2 broken legs...

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:01 PM
I was about to make a new thread but there's too many already. Here's a very good documentary piece on wikileaks by SVT
edit on 12/12/2010 by PsykoOps because: typo

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow

Condi whips WikiLeaks. Condoleezza Rice politically dominates Julian Assange. (YouTube)

December 3, 2010. Condoleezza Rice replies to a question by Katie Couric and one from a member of a studio audience about WikiLeaks.

Condoleezza Rice
I think what has happened is a crime. It is up to the Justice Department to figure out exactly what crime it is but it's got to be prosecuted and punished or it's going to keep happening and I hope the penalty is really severe because maybe that will deter this kind of behaviour.

The United States cannot exist in a world where we can't share information within the government with the expectation that is somehow going to end up on the front pages of newspapers. You can't do business that way. So I hope it is prosecuted and prosecuted severely.

The event was organised by the Council on Foreign Relation for their HBO History Makers Series.

Wikileaks - Heroes, Villains, Other?

My answer "Villains", right now, primarily because Condoleezza Rice as my choice for world leader says so.

The Independent: WikiLeaks vs The Machine

If, as the Independent says, this is a fight between WikiLeaks and "The Machine", I, for one, am siding with the machine.

I, at least, know the value of discipline and loyalty to the leaders of the free world, whereas it seems Assange and WikiLeaks want to make the headlines irrespective of outcome - sometimes doing good, sometimes risking danger to others.

WikiLeaks is too anarchic right now and Condi should be supported as and when she decides to crack the whip on them.

As Condoleezza Rice, who is, in my opinion anyway, the leader of the free world, precisely promotes freedom and human dignity for all the people in the world therefore WikiLeaks should be more careful to take their lead from her.

I think WikiLeaks needs a new management ethos and organisation hierarchy which works with Condi and her staff at the US State Department (or ex-staff but you know what I mean).

If Assange and WikiLeaks come to order, give an undertaking to toe the line and generally work with "the machine" then maybe Condi will be less severe in the punishments she is looking for.

Generally it is the best advice to appease Condi and give her what she is asking for, most times anyway. The "New World Order" is not an Imperial dictatorship but the world does need a president and it should be Condi, not Assange.

Advice to Assange supporters regarding WikiLeaks-vs-The-Machine

If I was speaking to Assange, his legal advisors or supporters, here is what I would say to them.

Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow
Now if you think Julian Assange should decide what gets published in this world and not Condi then I trust that you have some political videos, with or without music, to post in defence of your man or some other evidence showing how many millions of people Assange has saved from tyranny and disease? No? Oh dear. Assange's defence - strike one.

There is no legal defence to an accusation by Condi because it is primarily a political offence, not just a legal offence.

One course of action is a guilty plea to whatever charge they come up with, agree to co-operate and be very, very sure to get the best possible water-tight plea bargain you can get. No really. You need it written in blood from the US president and you need to give them whatever they want to guarantee the plea bargain.

Either that or flee to sanctuary somewhere. Russia wants to recommend Assange for the Nobel Peace prize I hear and President Putin has described the arrest of Assange as "not democratic" so maybe Assange might get asylum in Russia IF he can get to Russia and maybe via Sweden is the best way to Russia?

Condoleezza Rice walks on this earth without living parallel, IMHO. She is the nearest thing to a messenger of God, and that's coming from an atheist! She is here to save us from our worst selves and we should be grateful.

So I would think Assange's best tactic to ever be a free man in the West is to apologise a lot, salute Condi, or better yet grovel low to Condi, get in line and start taking orders from Condi or rather from her staff because he is too low in the food chain to get direct access to Condi.

Otherwise Assange could be in for a very, very long hard time in a US jail. Some in the US want to execute him. The US is not very forgiving about this kind of thing. Research "Jonathan Pollard" if you doubt me in any way.

I have tried to put in a word for mercy for Pollard as have many others but still he suffers, and that was for maybe a suitcase worth of documents, not the masses of volumes Assange has distributed.

Next to Pollard's 25 years and counting in prison, a stretch in a Swedish prison for a sexual offence and maybe an exit to Russia afterwards if he can avoid extradition to the US after the Swedish case is disposed of, is like a slap on the wrist.

I am not sure why I am giving any advice to Assange at all. I am such a soft touch for a loser I guess, being a loser myself.

I guess I feel sorry for Pollard, think he has had too hard a time and don't wish that on anybody with naive fantasies of doing good by leaking documents.

The Swedish extradition is not Assange's real problem. It may be his best option if he can't square things with Condi and that is going to be very, very hard to achieve.

Maybe I could have, should have tried to warn WikiLeaks about this before they got themselves in such difficulty but I didn't see this far ahead.

We should not ignore the possibility that the bogus Swedish "sex" charge could actually be a rescue-Assange bid which WikiLeaks supporters in Sweden have concocted to try to rescue Assange from a pending US extradition to a much worse fate.

Admittedly, my theory doesn't explain why Assange isn't jumping at the chance to be extradited to Sweden especially if he is expecting a US extradition attempt.

The BBC have addressed themselves to the legal theory if the USA apply to extradite Assange as well.

Originally posted by The BBC
BBC: Q&A: Arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

What would happen if the United States made a request to extradite Mr Assange from the UK?

When there are two competing claims to extradite someone, the home secretary has to decide which takes precedence. In making that decision, he or she will take into account the relative seriousness of the offences for which the person's extradition is sought, where the offences were committed, and the timing of the two requests.

Extradition to the United States is governed by the Extradition Act 2003. This provisions governing extradition between the two countries has been criticised for creating a lop-sided relationship under which the United States no longer has to provide prima facie evidence - normally in the form of witness statements - that an offence has been committed.

That criticism was voiced in relation to the case of the so called 'Nat West Three'.

If Mr Assange is extradited to Sweden and the United States wanted to extradite him from there, they would need the consent of the United Kingdom.

Such an extradition would be conducted in accordance with Swedish law and the extradition arrangements agreed between Sweden and the United States.

It has been suggested that it would be easier for the United States to extradite Mr Assange from Sweden than from the United Kingdom.

This does not appear to be the case as the United States would have to show that there were reasonable grounds for the extradition from Sweden. This is arguably a higher test than the test which applies when an extradition is sought from the United Kingdom.

But as the Gary McKinnon extradition case shows, the political realities when there is media / famous person / public sympathy for the accused person can push legal theory to the side and a political special case made.

On 20 July 2010 Tom Bradby, ITN political editor, raised the Gary McKinnon issue with President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron in a joint White House press conference who responded that they have, in fact, discussed it and are working to find an 'appropriate solution'

I predict there will be more politics in the Assange case where feelings run higher on both sides - Assange is more of a villain or more of a hero to most than ever McKinnon is.

I think though that the US has more political clout with the UK than Sweden has so Assange may have missed his chance to take the Swedish extradition option.

The lawyers will want to milk this for every fat fee they can get, and the extraordinary rendition option, by-passing the courts' extradition procedure - I don't know if the Obama - Cameron team are so keen on as the Bush - Blair team, so maybe that is out too?

The real terrorist websites out there

The real question is this - if the machine can shut down WikiLeaks easily enough - why are they not shutting down all those pro-Al Qaeda pro-Taliban pro-terrorist Jihadi websites?

If they can arrest Assange who is a thorn in the foot of the machine, why not arrest those running pro-terrorist websites who are really trying to murder and kill us all and end our freedoms - they are our real enemies whom the machine should be going after.

A few such terrorist websites have been taken down and some webmasters jailed but I have a strong feeling more are out there and those should be the priority target of the machine.

Here is a reminder from a 2007 video I have recently (re-)uploaded about what a real terrorist website looks like and I sincerely hope that such real terrorist websites are the ones the authorities are cracking down on mostly.

On-line UK terrorists convicted, 2007: too little, too late! (YouTube)

Video details
ABC World News, Charlie Gibson anchors in the newsroom. Jim Sciutto reporting from London in 2007.

MSNBC: Britain convicts its first online-terror culprits.

The FIRST UK convictions for inciting Jihadi terrorism on the internet in July 2007.

That's two years after the 52 people killed in the London bombings and nearly 6 years after the thousands killed in the US 9/11 terrorist attacks. So, the UK was slow to take action against on-line terror to save lives and the problem of terrorist websites world wide is a current and continuing problem in the war on terror.

The internet battlefield

Any such WikiLeaker can be tracked down from WikiLeaking, not from being in personal contact with Assange but by being in contact with leakers, websites and the mass media and leaving a trail of clues back to the WikiLeaker.

Assange was very public and made himself an easy target but there is no way for the invisible man to provide a full WikiLeaking service.

The only exception I can see to that vulnerability is when one country hosts a WikiLeaking website which WikiLeaks other countries' secrets.

In other words, if Moscow WikiLeaks Washington's secrets and vice versa then I suppose it would take a lot more than Interpol to arrest a WikiLeaker then.

For example, if right now, Assange was really a UK or HM secret agent, and so the UK refused to hand him over to the US, then he would be a lot harder to shut down.

The point also applies to terrorist websites. If a terrorist website and webmaster is a secret agent of a country then he or she will be harder to shut down.

For example, if an Al Qaeda terrorist website is a secret agent of the Saudi government, say, maybe Obama and Cameron and other western leaders dare not insist that the Saudis close it down because such a confrontation would involve a serious fall-out in relations with the Saudis and be perceived as unacceptable interference in their internal affairs and the west doesn't want to offend them and lose business deals with the Saudis?

So the West's leaders may feel powerless.

Rather than admit all that, confront the real problems, which are difficult and would require sorting out by very clever people, they make up false excuses for doing nothing such as "we keep the sites up so we can track the enemy".

The enemy websites can be hard to track because our police are too slow and don't have enough skills and expertise, not like Assange has. The terrorist websites close down at a whiff of trouble and spring up elsewhere. Our police are not able to patiently track down the webmasters and organisers. Our police have not invested in enough competent internet detectives and as I have mentioned, they don't get co-operation in some countries where the government is sympathetic to the terrorists.

The terrorist websites are major recruiting mechanisms which are the primary method of increasing the size of the enemy, especially in the west or in countries with a middle-class with internet access. Just monitoring the terrorist websites means monitoring them recruiting new people, making new terrorists.

The curious and wanna-be terrorists meet on jihadi websites / forums, meet up with their new terrorist handlers then go off to discuss in private somewhere where they are not being tapped and tracked.

New people should not be allowed to be lured into and brainwashed into becoming terrorists. This is just adding to the problem and increasing the danger.

Instead, find a way to close down the websites, arrest the webmasters and prosecute and jail them as was done in the video I posted above.

The point of asking and demanding that those terrorist websites get shut down is to force governments to confront the real problems, whatever they are.

If the reason terrorist websites are not being shut down is because of our rotten, corrupt, spineless, incompetent governments then it is worth knowing that because to win the war on terror we may have to change the governments, "throw the bums out", as Condi says.

Or if that is not the problem, we need to find out what is, because if there is a will for good governments to shut down terrorist websites then there is a way.

Here is one idea worth considering. If Assange and company were to turn over a new leaf, stop leaking our secrets, help out in tracking down terrorist webmasters and organisers - helping The Machine instead of being a thorn in its side, this would be a good outcome of this unhappy WikiLeaks story.

All the more reason for Assange to start co-operating with the US, make a deal with them as soon as possible before Condi busts him up with her golf club and does him such a terrible injury that he becomes too disabled to function as a internet fighter for any side in the internet battles which are going on.

After Condi is finished with him, Assange won't be typing much with his broken fingers and the next time he leaks he will be urinating blood from his bleeding kidneys.

Assange makes bail and no sign of US extradition yet. Why?

BBC: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange freed on bail

This BBC web-page contains an interview with Julian Assange and Kirsty Wark. Listening to it, I thought at one point, Kirsty was going to ask Assange if he understood the Swedish word for "No".

Assange could be extradited to Sweden but that would only be if there is a political agreement to let the Swedes extradite him first instead of him being directly extradited from Britain to the US.

The US Department of Justice don't seem to be in too much of a hurry to extradite him to the US. They say they want to prepare their case thoroughly but I suspect there is more to it than that.

The US doesn't need a strong case nowadays to extradite someone to the US. They just need political consent from the UK authorities which in 99% of cases is not a problem.

I am beginning to suspect that the US Justice Department are slow-balling this one because they want to, or have agreed to, allow the Swedes first crack at Assange.

In that respect Assange may be right in the sense that the Swedes are indeed co-operating with the US.

However, such Swedish-British-American co-operation is not necessary to get Assange extradited directly to the US from Britain so the Swedish detour may instead be intended to give Assange a further opportunity to placate the US authorities by agreeing to desist with WikiLeaks spreading US classified documents, perhaps revealing his sources or doing some kind of a deal the US might accept as an alternative to prosecuting and jailing him in the USA?

Perhaps the US authorities are allowing for the taste of prison Assange had last week and a further spell in Swedish custody to serve as a wake-up-and-smell-the-prison-coffee moment of realisation for Assange of his dire predicament and legal danger he is in?

Such a change of heart on the part of Assange might be his one last chance to back off with WikiLeaks, understand that The Machine will not countenance defeat on this one, and try to cut the best deal / plea-bargain on offer with the US?

The "Monopoly" extradition game

Assuming the Swedish sex charges are some kind of "set-up", let's consider them in "Monopoly" board-game terms.

Compared to other simpler set-ups, such as a go-directly-to-the-US-do-not-pass-Go-do-not-collect-£200, the Swedish Chance card set-up may play better for Assange.

If he goes to Sweden, Assange at least passes "Go" one more time and could use that further circuit around the board to come to a working arrangement, deal or plea bargain with the US.

If Assange gets a life-sentence in the US, he will need a very great deal more luck than throwing a double to get out. Pollard has been in there for 25 years for passing classified US documents!

If however, Assange doesn't take the Swedish Chance card then sooner or later the USA will run out of patience, he will go directly to the USA and then he will lose the game.

Now I don't know. All I know is that Condi has got involved. She is very tough but she is also a very compassionate person at the same time. If she has to crush Assange's nuts in a US prison for life to protect US interests then that is exactly what she will do.

However, if there is a more humane solution which also protects US interests then Condi might be exploring that possibility for a while but not stating it explicitly so as to retain the option of pressing ahead with the extradition to the US?

Obama slow to take Condi's get-Assange advice?

The final decision to act or still to delay US action to get Assange to the US by extradition, extraordinary rendition or whatever, is that of US President Barack Obama.

I think I heard a former US state department official on Sky NEWS today saying words to the effect that the relative foreign and defence policy inexperience of President Obama combined with a flat-footed response of Attorney General Holder at the US Justice department is contributing to drift or slow progress towards a US extradition of Assange directly from the Britain to the USA, despite Secretaries Clinton and Gates urging action.

This could be. This insider's comment are much more likely to be well informed than my pure guess that Condi and indeed the whole US foreign and policy establishment wants to allow an opportunity for Assange to be extradited to Sweden to talk about what he has or has not being doing in the bedroom while he think things over as regards WikiLeaks leaking classified US documents and the difficulties that lands him in with the US!

We know Condi wants the US Justice Department to hurry up with the president's ordered review of possible charges but if that is all that the president has asked for then the review of charges could be complete already.

It is hurrying up with the extradition of Assange that the president needs to order and what Condi has in mind but whether President Obama is persuaded of the need for a hurried extradition or if he wants Holder to hold US options open while Sweden beckons for Assange we just don't know.

Condi could be frustrated at Obama allowing Holder allowing Assange an opportunity to slip from the firmer British control to a less firm Swedish grip but her loyalty to her president means she will not want to embarrass the president in public.

Condi will be giving her advice in private directly to Clinton, Gates and Obama himself.

We on the outside are left unsure as to what to think about Holder holding still and what to say about the current gap between Condi's last heard public leadership on WikiLeaks and the Obama administration's no action as yet over Assange.

I have written to the US Department of Justice inquiring about this matter but received no reply as yet though "no comment" would be expected if there was a secret indictment in the works apparently.

Condi needs to appreciate that we her loyal supporters cannot read her mind, much as we are trying to do so. She is our leader. We have taken her leadership on this matter as far as we can at the moment.

If we are to go further then we need a further lead from her but if we get her lead then we will follow.

All we can do right now is repeat Condi's call for Holder to hurry and for really severe punishment and prosecution of Assange while we are left wondering why nothing to that effect seems to be visible or audible as yet from the US administration.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Nite_wing

Originally posted by riiver

Originally posted by AntiCitizenZone

Good they got him! Anyone who lives in America, and dosent want to see him brought to justice for his crimes against our country is just un-patriotic. Freedom of speech is one thing. Treason and espionage are another, As we all wait for this big scarry "poison pill" that probably dosent exist, I hope hes being WATERBOARDED! It kills me how some of the people here are so infauated with this guy. Maybe you should put up your homes to help get your hero out of jail so he can start some wars and get us all killed.
edit on 8-12-2010 by AntiCitizenZone because: Didnt mean to reply to a specific persons post ! But cant seem to fix it.......

edit on 8-12-2010 by AntiCitizenZone because: (no reason given)

I keep hearing the word "treason" bandied about, but the fact of the matter is it could only be called treason if he were an American citizen. Nor is it espionage---he didn't spy on anyone. This information was handed to him on a platter, unsolicited.

Not true. When a person joins a conspiracy, they adopt all criminal actions that have occured before they joined as if they did it themselves. It is call complicity and people are in jail for this now. If Manning is a traitor and Assange assisted, even after the fact, then Assange can be tried for treason. As an aside for the armchair warriors, they can be charged with treason also.
edit on 12-12-2010 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)

Like Condi I am not a lawyer so this needs to be a matter for the US Department of Justice to look at.

WikiLeaks look to have had some input into the leaking the US classified documents, allowing perhaps a charge of incitement to, solicitation of, conspiracy to esponiage or to theft of classified documents..

Also there must be, isn't there, a general crime of recruiting a US state employee to breach his or her legal requirements, or recruiting a military officer to disobey a lawful order or to violate the constitution of the United States to any purpose, not only to steal documents, but as with Major Nidal Malik Hasan who did the Fort Hood shooting, but to kill Americans, to wage war on the US?

There seem to be certain websites of hostile organisations which are acting in concert with susceptible Americans to mislead them and cause them to betray their duties, commit treason.

So the crime of incitement, solicitation or conspiracy to treason perhaps?

I see certain parallels in the way jihadist websites and WikiLeaks are operating to pervert citizens and officers from their duty. Isn't that a crime already even if it needs applying in a new way suited for the internet age?

edit on 19-12-2010 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2010 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by Misoir

It has become very apparent to me that this Julian Assange character, (if he is truly out to do and be what he claims) is an egotistical sensationalist. It shouldnt be always about HIM. It should be about the supposed "secrets" he's harboring that we deserve to know right?

Why is that 9 out of 10 people on the street know his name and what it is he's allegedly doing with wikileaks, yet almost NO ONE can recall anything truly groundbreaking that has come to light by his hand. Shouldnt it be the other way around? Everyone knows where he's currently holed up, what he had for lunch, what his current hair color is, but has life for us peasants changed AT ALL? Has life for TPTB changed AT ALL?

He has gone from underground, rebel hero of the people, to joining the ranks of Kim Kardashian and the like, and all in record time.

He makes continuous threats, has the gall to order high ranking politicians to step down (which I wish they would by the way! ) due to his supposed mammoth amount of classified info and his illustrious "insurance" file ( which I'm really starting to doubt is even worth its weight in sand ), but then doesnt back any of this up.

If he was really working for the people he would have released everything, and if its truly as grand as he thinks it is, the average Joe Blow on the street will be able to recall the contents of the leaks, and will say Julian Assange who?

In my eyes he's nothing more than a govt operative taking everyone for a ride, or a really good snake oil salesman who has joined the ranks of other overnight celebs who really have no talent or purpose.

I predict he lands a sweet MTV contract for a new reality show in 2011.

"what happens when you pair the cast of the Jersey Shore with an international man of mystery?

"JULIAN IN JERSEY---- he's on the run, and he's DTF"

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:11 AM
The exposure given to Julian is not without a cause. As long as he is getting news and attention, it will be a worthwhile project for humankind, for he is only the messenger, with an important message to send.

As long as he is getting attention, people like you will BE ALWAYS REMINDED of what he had done. He is the AWAKENING of the masses, to find out more, and there lays the key to the MESSAGE.

And the message had been about the deprediations done to our fellow brothers and sisters by divine creation, innocents murdered for fun, corruption at the highest levels in many levels, eunarchish behavior by our elected leaders who says one thing in private but another in public, etc.

The message is more vital, to awake more of the masses whom are like you, addicted to 'blue' pills, that all is fine and glory. To awake would mean we must confront our mistakes, both leaders and the People, to correct them so that we may progress, or damnation and doom awaits.

May Julian be as newsworthy as long as possible. This had been his purpose all along, for he, like Bradly Manning and many other whisteblowers on the side of mankind, knew they may had hurt the pride of TPTB and will have to face the ultimate consequences of their bullying tactics, and murder even one day, but had courageously made their stand, regardless if to live or to die, so that mankind and people like you will rise up and do the necessary, if not for yourself, but for your family, friends, relatives and those who care about you and you love.


top topics

<< 35  36  37   >>

log in