Julian Assange
- Started
- Last post
- 200 Responses
- pr20
So England has to respect the laws of one country (Sweden) but not those of another Ecuador? Sounds to me like some laws are more "righter" then the others or rather the laws are followed selectively depending on the feeling of the ones in power.
- WhiteFace0
- Thanks! That what was brilliant.ToxicDesign
- i hate british peopleautoflavour
- qoob0
- pr20
Are there "freedom fighters" in Ecuador so CIA can sponsor them to topple that "regime"?
- TheBlueOne0
"point out something wiki have leaked which any basement "conspiracy theorist" wasn't yelling about"
You know, maybe because most shit is pretty obvious, and they're really aren't any grand conspiracies that people can't conceive of out of power.
It's pretty obvious to infer that powers stage manage stuff. It's proving it that's the rub, which is what wikileaks does. It's one thing to say "Hey, you think the government has spyware in my phone?" ANother thing to say "Hey, here's a signed document from some lackey ordering Apple to put this bit of code into their phone."
To come along and say "Well, everyone conspiracy theorist puts this stuff out there" is like saying "pffft, I can do that, they're just runnign around in a circle." when watching the Olympics. Go out and try it.
Of course, you know, the PTB, you know control everything. They have wheels within wheels and shit and....whatever bro. You know, stay cool keyboard commandos.
- set2
- mg330
Bill Maher interviewed him in the recent episode. I missed some of it, but it was interesting.
- georgesIII0
I don't get what you're implying TBO,
are you saying conspiracy nutjcases have never be right,
I guess it depends of our point of views,I ask again what is wikileaks? what information did they bring forth that was actually vetted and resulted true. Most of their leaks aren't really leaks.
If you take the time to look for the information you can see that the system isn't secret but have been tested in many forms around the world.EXAMPLE: most of this info is already in the public domain, so we should all applaud Assange as the hero of freedom for releasing emails of people that can actually read the fuckn news ??
here are some nutcase links
-http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/…
http://www.denverpost.com/breaki…
http://arstechnica.com/business/…
http://www.extremetech.com/extre…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/200…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB…
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/ar…
(daily mail..) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/…- now read this and tell me how surprising this whole thing is
http://www.theblaze.…georgesIII - very naive to think that wikileaks didn't have an impact. people might assume lots of things but with those cables they had the proof.pr2
- proof.pr2
- pleeeeeasegeorgesIII
- what "pleeees"?? Every of the article you point to is so outlandish that a person almost doesn't want to believe it.pr2
- now read this and tell me how surprising this whole thing is
- _niko0
I don't think it will end well, Britain will be the laughing stock of the world if he gets away. Too much at stake for them.
- 20020
Oh Georgey you adorable conspiracy nut job you!
- 20020
Tbo and george
Two conspiracy nuts trying to out nut one another
Someone popcorn me
- NBQ000
She must be so happy now...
- 20020
CIA crack ghetto black people
Math done
- Llyod0
well have fun living in Ecuador
- yurimon0
Any one who uses the word conspiracy theory in the manor it was intended to be used in its media debut, in my opinion is an idiot.
That word is used to shut people up and stop thinking. when you say "your a conspiracy theorist" you are literately shutting your brain down and effectively giving in to your indoctrination and social conditioning. which is ok. you can be an idiot if you want.Next time why dont you present an argument with proof or have a dialogue based on research to challenge someone.
Intelligent people question and can change their mind upon making conclusions based on experience or proof.
There is too much information out there. I am talking about historic documents and books written by the same people who have the power and intention for the exact same change they described.
So my challenge to all of you is to go ahead prove someone wrong based on something more tangible then your name calling.