Julian Assange walks out of CNN interviews

Originally posted by thecinic
Well then he shouldn't have ran from the questions that the journalist was asking AND answered them like a man. If he can't represent WIKILEAKS in an orderly fashion he shouldn't be the spokesman. He needs to resign and let someone who doesn't have a RAPE accusation against them represent them. Tell Assange that one!

edit on 24-10-2010 by thecinic because: (no reason given)

You are absolutely stunning with your completely unproductive reasoning. Do you even care about the atrocity of the 104,000 deaths? Apparently not.. lemme break it down for you.

1: The interview was supposed to be about the documents.
2: She went elsewhere and she was warned.
3: She didn't heed it and he left.
4: why couldn't she have been a true reporter and interviewed him on what they agreed upon?
5: The RAPE accusations were withdrew by the same person who charged them for no reason.

Your viewpoint is similar to the viewpoint of someone standing in a walmart line about to buy their "ding ding puff" and while standing in line they see the headlines on the "GOSSIP WORLD" mag.. which of course is sold right beside "ding ding puffs"

b

On a side note, most people who agree to be interviewed like this, unless they are complete fools, set some agreed upon groundrules. I can't claim to know how smart the man is, but if I was in his shoes, one of the set ground rules I would have set was to stay away from my personal life, as it is not really pertinent to the leaks. Maybe there was a verbal agreement about that, she decided to break it, and he walked off because of it.

Originally posted by thecinic

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by thecinic

 

I think it's questionable when anybody claims to know another persons motives. If you knew the parties personally, this might be something more than a very skewed perspective. The only thing I can say with any real clarity, is I've had some experience with Assange and from everything I've seen he's a bit of an idealist. I suggest reading over his posts from back in '99 on the AUCRYPTO list. This will give you a pretty good sense what type of person he is.

edit on 24-10-2010 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

Well then he shouldn't have ran from the questions that the journalist was asking AND answered them like a man. If he can't represent WIKILEAKS in an orderly fashion he shouldn't be the spokesman. He needs to resign and let someone who doesn't have a RAPE accusation against them represent them. Tell Assange that one!

edit on 24-10-2010 by thecinic because: (no reason given)

Consider that he didn't have rape allegations until well into his time as WL spokesperson. Does that not say anything to you? I guy in a position as public as his A.) is going to be careful of what they do and B.) probably has a lot of women interested in hooking up with him simply because of the fame. Not that it 100 percent didn't happen, but it's unlikely or very overblown. Who is to say the next spokesperson wouldn't have some bogus charge pop up? Also his stepping down would be more of an admission to guilt. Staying is showing that he did nothing wrong and is fighting it. Also she's no journalist, I haven't seen new real journalists, that are professional outside of WL in 30 years. He has said his piece about the allegations, they are old news, he's answered about them. The new news is the recent leak. That's all anyone wanted to hear about. If you were going to watch the interview, what would you be watching to hear about? After this I'm done replying to you since you refuse to think on a level above complete ignorance.

Flash a little money at somone and they will say anything rape accusations true or not.

Just like if you tortoure someone you can get them to say just about anything true or not.

What if the women got paid to say he raped them and then got paid to say he didn't looks like the women are the smart ones in that game.


Still walking out of an interview shows me Assange is not the man to be representing wikileaks and should resign!

reply to post by dubiousone


Obviously some of you will never see what is going on here, so there is really no point in trying.

Assange was interviewed when the afghan war docs were released by Larry King on CNN live, and it was a much more friendly interview back then... So why was this one so different?

Assange needs to be given a rogue image, that of an enemy of the USA. It was accomplished, but the acting was poor and the scripting obvious as hell.

As long as you bought it that is all that matters.

Assange is just a front man for a much bigger operation...

Just imagine the accuracy and amount of intelligence they have and will collect from the release and spread of the wikileaks insurance files alone.

Governments have teams cracking those files, and everyday average and highly skilled hackers alike, globally working on it.

Whether wikileaks is government or not is irrelevant at this point, the agenda is obvious, at least it should be to anyone who has barely followed what has been released.

Several objectives are rather clear, influence elections and the political environment in Iraq and destabilize the region even more, nearly assuring conflict and war, which may include an increase of troops and escalation of US military operations as well as covert missions in the region... Again! (Can't let Iran have Iraq) not yet!

By demonizing the US led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it increases the possibility of terrorist attacks on US and western interests... Another possible catalyst for war.

The US political season and elections can use the Iraq war to debate the right's positions on it in the near mid-term elections.. (focus diversion from the economy etc)

And most importantly, wikileaks activities WILL serve as a catalyst for the advancement of legislation and laws that will ultimately give the government virtually complete control over the internet.

So far... Mission accomplished!

Maybe they will give Julian a Nobel peace prize now?

Originally posted by thecinic
Flash a little money at somone and they will say anything rape accusations true or not.

Just like if you tortoure someone you can get them to say just about anything true or not.

What if the women got paid to say he raped them and then got paid to say he didn't looks like the women are the smart ones in that game.


Still walking out of an interview shows me Assange is not the man to be representing wikileaks and should resign!

edit on 24-10-2010 by thecinic because: (no reason given)

he has leaked some stuff of criminal acts and you are saying he should resign, [snip]

Originally posted by thecinic
Flash a little money at somone and they will say anything rape accusations true or not.

Just like if you tortoure someone you can get them to say just about anything true or not.

Walking out of an interview shows me Assange is not the man to be representing wikileaks and should resign!

[snip]
I could be wrong but your statement is so self contradictory it's humorous.

Admitting that the rape charges could be fake and then expecting someone to answer charges in a off topic manner during an greed upon interview is.. juvenile reasoning.

I believe you shouldn't be representing attempted reasoning and should resign!

b

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Only a coward or a guilty man would walk away from something he could defend against.

Actually no. It takes intelligence and shows decency to do so.

Besides it is also about protection from the very media that would use edited part of an interview to change the meaning about what was said to portray another reality.

Let me give you an example (and this is made up OK ?) :

Journalist : So now what can you tell us about those charges in Sweden ?

Interviewee : Those are false accusations. However I do admit having met those women like 2 days apart in various speeches and conventions and signed autographs, but commiting those violence of course I can't admit those accusations and they're based on false testimony and are basically a smear campaign to discredit me.

Now what do you see airing on TV 2 days later as a trailer to explain what the deal with Wikileaks :

Energic CNN music / video of helicopter / Big title "THE IRAQ FILES" / video of troops at a checkpoint / cut / Hillary Clinton saying "we condemn the release of the document" / more energic CNN music / interviewee saying "I do admit ... commiting violence ... 2 women" / More energic CNN music... And so on and then the reports begin...

See what I did there ?

reply to post by dubiousone

reply to post by fortunofiasco


Please see my previous post somewhere above yours in this thread.

Believe!

Follow!

Comply!

It really does not matter why he walked out now does it?

I will agree, it was an intelligent thing of him to do, only it wasn't his idea.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by fortunofiasco

 

Please see my previous post somewhere above yours in this thread.

Believe!

Follow!

Comply!

It really does not matter why he walked out now does it?

I will agree, it was an intelligent thing of him to do, only it wasn't his idea.

In this case why did you write this in the first place :

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Only a coward or a guilty man would walk away from something he could defend against.

Why ? Couldn't you just have skipped that part and go directly to the next conspiracy argument ?

Or is it that anytime someone debunks something you say you have to invent something new ?

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by dubiousone

 

Several objectives are rather clear, influence elections and the political environment in Iraq and destabilize the region even more, nearly assuring conflict and war, which may include an increase of troops and escalation of US military operations as well as covert missions in the region... Again! (Can't let Iran have Iraq) not yet!

By demonizing the US led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it increases the possibility of terrorist attacks on US and western interests... Another possible catalyst for war.

The US political season and elections can use the Iraq war to debate the right's positions on it in the near mid-term elections.. (focus diversion from the economy etc)

And most importantly, wikileaks activities WILL serve as a catalyst for the advancement of legislation and laws that will ultimately give the government virtually complete control over the internet.

Those are all plausible reactions that could result from the leak, I will give you that. But to claim that was his objective for releasing in the first place, is just speculation.

reply to post by fortunofiasco


All of my posts are completely related, and I've posted something very similar in another discussion before this.

I've invented nothing new, my initial post stands exactly the way I intended it to be.

Given time, you'll see which is more accurate.

That's just wrong and it the second time someone walk out. First Whoopi and Joy and now Julian.

Here to not be very popular again!

WARNING/DISCLAIMER:This post is speculation and just a conspiracy

I personally felt like this fumbled interview was botched intentionally. People keep seeing attacks on Mr Assange, but notice how people are falling in love with him for it? When the media wants the masses to really hate someone, they make sure it happens...but here we have lame attack, after lame attack, on him time and time again, resulting in him looking like a hero to the common TV viewer.

Robin Hood here is getting a sweet deal.

Before anyone accuses me of being some agent or anti-freedom guy...I am not pro war, nor do I support the MURDER being done across seas on ALL SIDES.

But I felt this way since it all began. I felt this way WAY before Assange began getting the rest of the world to open their eyes. I feel it is a very strong possibility (I'd put money on it) that "The Media" is working with Assange, and still suspect his origins to be directly related to certain agencies.

I have no proof...so...its a conspiracy theory. Sue me...That's why we are all here.

But this interview appeared to me as an "intentionally pro-Assange promotional piece" in a transparent counter-informational package, placed in plain site of a nation "too easy to program".

If they wanted you to hate Assange...the majority wouldn't come away from this "supporting Assange and feeling he was done dirty by the interview".

MM

"Maybe they will give Julian a Nobel peace prize now?"

Why not? He sure as hell isn't getting an Oscar after that lousy performance.

Oh guys I got a new good one ha ha !

On her facebook page, the last current user comment, as of this post, says this :

"and about the lightning on the set: Assange seems to have a constant fiery belt of red in his frame (blood, dislike, fear), while cloudy white light happens to be behind you (innocence, openness, trust) - no red at all. - Was that a coincidence, or just not-so-subtle producing?"

At first when I read it, I was like "lol conspiracy theorist" but hey I checked the video to see what possible little light could be the cause of this guy's paranoïa, ya know just for a chuckle...

Well I let you guys check the video again and see for yourself.

Another attempt to rid our minds of the facts that our nation murdered thousands upon thousands of people. for him walking out of that interview. Im suprised they didnt ask him about the Mel Gibson voicemails or Lindsey Lohans rehab stint...