‘Everyone else must take my place’: Assange in letter from British prison Wheres Anonymous?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Waterglass

Sweet Christ, the hubris and idolatry heaped on this mentally ill, perverted charlatan by a handful of wannabe Benjamin Franklin Gates is hilarious. As I proposed in the previous topic on this loon's healthy, when you consider his penchant for unprotected sex with strangers and the fact that his hygiene was a self imposed disaster plus he was smearing his own excrement on the walls of the apartment he was squatting in for some time, it seems your hero is about as sane and stable as some indigent begging quarters for their next hit of meth on the street corner.

The US may have weapons that can take someone out from illness, but they had zero need to waste them on this wretch.

I think you are laboring under the mistaken belief that the US are the good guys.

I would have thought that the Wikileaks released video of a US gunship mowing down innocent people, and then mowing down those that came to their aid, indicates that the US are the clearly the very bad guys.

... and I think that your parents probably had unprotected sex, too. Perhaps they didn't even know each other that well at the time, who knows? On the sliding scale of good to evil, I think that unprotected sex with strangers is stupid, but not a particularly great moral failing, especially if there was a perception of consent.

US being good guys or not , Assange is accused of violating the US Espionage Act

And it does not apply to him.

In the same way that the UK can't charge US drivers with culpable dangerous driving on the wrong side of the road.

Is your second paragraph supposed to make sense? If an American driver - or driver of any nationality - drives on the wrong side of the road in the UK and the police witness it they would pull them over and (if there are no mitigating circumstances, and that doesn't include being so stupid you took no notice of the flow of the rest of the traffic) then arrest for dangerous driving if appropriate.

Were you trying to make some other point?

What is codes for the insurance files. I suppose you mean the decryption keys.

If 2019 after the time line shift, every thing with computing began to be referred to as "codes".

edit:

Actually 'codes" is only half of everything. The other half is "gigs".

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

1. You're under the mistaken belief that there is such a thing as good guys or bad guys where international politics go. There is only strength and weakness. The weak exist to justify the strong, and all it takes is one slip up or one bout of conscience for a strong nation to instantly be turned into a weakened bitch. Basic fact, the US can gun down whatever foreign "innocent people" they want to, as long as their attention doesn't turn to doing that to Americans I honestly don't care.

Oh dear. Such a philosophy as a guide would create a psychopathic 'bully world' where the greatest tyrant would always be the one in power.

'Might' does not make 'right'.

You see, in the 'real' world, there are many countries that reject such ultra-right-wing nonsense. America is one of those countries. You need to acquaint yourself with the Constitution and how it was designed specifically to prevent such a situation and grant "liberty to all".

And, you'd better hope that there are 'better angels' driving international relationships because otherwise nothing restrains China or Russia from allying and simply wiping America out for its historical belligerence against them and many other countries. Undoubtedly an alliance between the Communist countries would be more powerful, and stronger than the US. Fortunately for us, their philosophies are also based on ideas of equality (especially in terms of wealth) and they have been far less 'expansionist' than the US.

2. I wasn't referring to his morals, I was saying that in 2019 unprotected sex with strangers will cause illness. It's far more likely that Assange has the syphilis than it is that the US is using some sort of sci-fi weapon on him.
And, for the record, my parents were married to each other for a couple of years before I was born.

That's nice, but they did have unprotected sex, so that's 50% of the alleged 'crime', already.

Wow.

I didn't think so much wrong could be typed in one post.

Revisionist history is taught well down there, eh?

Also, Russia and China could ally, but we'd only have to last long enough for them to turn on each other and stab each other in the back. You really think such paranoid countries wouldn't simultaneously be trying to fight us and also come out on top against their geographical rival? Not to mention the fact that their economies would buckle under a sustained war effort, and it would result in a stalemate, as neither would risk a ground war on US soil. Only thing left is MAD.

There is no such thing anymore as a 'winnable war'. Especially between superpowers. There are only levels of 'national suicide'.

Also, take a look at the post WW2 conflict histories of China, Russia and the US. The US is really quite 'warry'.

Aussie and Kiwi's needed us in WWII and you should understand you would be speaking Japanese and Europe would be speaking German had we not FINALLY joined in the war. IS that what you mean?

Aussie & New Zealand were a long, long way away from Japan.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Seems to me that we actually worked together as nations against a common enemy

Not to mention the defeat of Japan began with the Russian win in Manchuria and that the Russians also got to Berlin before the US.

Seems you (as a nation) were working with them at the time, too.

Lend-lease got Russia out of their own backyard. They were having a lot of trouble moving their artillery/anti-tank weapons around to counter the Blitzkrieg.

a reply to: dragonridr

I'd say he's his own worst enemy. Narcissists generally are. They view the world through the lens of I'm always right, the world is wrong and if you can't see it my way, that's on you. Bow down before me world, the rules don't apply to me.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Waterglass

Sweet Christ, the hubris and idolatry heaped on this mentally ill, perverted charlatan by a handful of wannabe Benjamin Franklin Gates is hilarious. As I proposed in the previous topic on this loon's healthy, when you consider his penchant for unprotected sex with strangers and the fact that his hygiene was a self imposed disaster plus he was smearing his own excrement on the walls of the apartment he was squatting in for some time, it seems your hero is about as sane and stable as some indigent begging quarters for their next hit of meth on the street corner.

The US may have weapons that can take someone out from illness, but they had zero need to waste them on this wretch.

I think you are laboring under the mistaken belief that the US are the good guys.

I would have thought that the Wikileaks released video of a US gunship mowing down innocent people, and then mowing down those that came to their aid, indicates that the US are the clearly the very bad guys.

... and I think that your parents probably had unprotected sex, too. Perhaps they didn't even know each other that well at the time, who knows? On the sliding scale of good to evil, I think that unprotected sex with strangers is stupid, but not a particularly great moral failing, especially if there was a perception of consent.

US being good guys or not , Assange is accused of violating the US Espionage Act

And it does not apply to him.

In the same way that the UK can't charge US drivers with culpable dangerous driving on the wrong side of the road.

Is your second paragraph supposed to make sense? If an American driver - or driver of any nationality - drives on the wrong side of the road in the UK and the police witness it they would pull them over and (if there are no mitigating circumstances, and that doesn't include being so stupid you took no notice of the flow of the rest of the traffic) then arrest for dangerous driving if appropriate.

Were you trying to make some other point?

US drivers in the US, drive on a different side of the road to UK drivers, in the UK. It is invalid to apply UK laws to US drivers in the US.

Left- and right-hand traffic From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By contrasting the differences between national legal systems, I was trying to highlight that Julian Assange, a non-US resident and a non-US citizen, cannot be legitimately charged under the US Espionage Act for things he allegedly did entirely outside of US jurisdiction.

Not only that, the Espionage Act was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of United States enemies during wartime. Assange did none of that. All Assange did, is what every News service does.

Espionage Act of 1917 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

1. You're under the mistaken belief that there is such a thing as good guys or bad guys where international politics go. There is only strength and weakness. The weak exist to justify the strong, and all it takes is one slip up or one bout of conscience for a strong nation to instantly be turned into a weakened bitch. Basic fact, the US can gun down whatever foreign "innocent people" they want to, as long as their attention doesn't turn to doing that to Americans I honestly don't care.

Oh dear. Such a philosophy as a guide would create a psychopathic 'bully world' where the greatest tyrant would always be the one in power.

'Might' does not make 'right'.

You see, in the 'real' world, there are many countries that reject such ultra-right-wing nonsense. America is one of those countries. You need to acquaint yourself with the Constitution and how it was designed specifically to prevent such a situation and grant "liberty to all".

And, you'd better hope that there are 'better angels' driving international relationships because otherwise nothing restrains China or Russia from allying and simply wiping America out for its historical belligerence against them and many other countries. Undoubtedly an alliance between the Communist countries would be more powerful, and stronger than the US. Fortunately for us, their philosophies are also based on ideas of equality (especially in terms of wealth) and they have been far less 'expansionist' than the US.

2. I wasn't referring to his morals, I was saying that in 2019 unprotected sex with strangers will cause illness. It's far more likely that Assange has the syphilis than it is that the US is using some sort of sci-fi weapon on him.
And, for the record, my parents were married to each other for a couple of years before I was born.

That's nice, but they did have unprotected sex, so that's 50% of the alleged 'crime', already.

Wow.

I didn't think so much wrong could be typed in one post.

Revisionist history is taught well down there, eh?

Also, Russia and China could ally, but we'd only have to last long enough for them to turn on each other and stab each other in the back. You really think such paranoid countries wouldn't simultaneously be trying to fight us and also come out on top against their geographical rival? Not to mention the fact that their economies would buckle under a sustained war effort, and it would result in a stalemate, as neither would risk a ground war on US soil. Only thing left is MAD.

There is no such thing anymore as a 'winnable war'. Especially between superpowers. There are only levels of 'national suicide'.

Also, take a look at the post WW2 conflict histories of China, Russia and the US. The US is really quite 'warry'.

Aussie and Kiwi's needed us in WWII and you should understand you would be speaking Japanese and Europe would be speaking German had we not FINALLY joined in the war. IS that what you mean?

Aussie & New Zealand were a long, long way away from Japan.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Seems to me that we actually worked together as nations against a common enemy

Not to mention the defeat of Japan began with the Russian win in Manchuria and that the Russians also got to Berlin before the US.

Seems you (as a nation) were working with them at the time, too.

Lend-lease got Russia out of their own backyard. They were having a lot of trouble moving their artillery/anti-tank weapons around to counter the Blitzkrieg.

Or one could be cynical and suggest that lend-lease was entirely profitable and advantageous to American interests.

They weren't donating the output of their factories to the war effort.

They were expanding their markets and making profit. Other countries call that 'war profiteering'.

The US hardly can claim the moral high ground. For three years, the US sat watching all their allies being systematically destroyed. It wasn't until the US itself was actively attacked that it joined the war effort.

Most historians now identify the defeat of the German forces at Stalingrad as the real point where the war in the European theater turned around.

That had nothing to do with America at all.

However, in the Pacific, most would agree that the battle of Midway was the turning point against Japan and due to America.