Julian Assange walks out of CNN interviews

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
ATTENTION, PLEASE

What part of this post is not being understood......
CEASE AND DESIST from personal remarks NOW!!!!

Everyone should cease and desist writing anything negative against Assange as he's a member of the website. So all negative remarks are a personal attack on his character! Therefore this entire thread is an attempt to bash a member of ATS. Woe, woe!

Where do you draw the line, hrm?

And for those asking, "Why'd he walk? WHY'D HE LEAVE?!" and then answering in the same breath, "SHAME, SHAME!"

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Everyone should cease and desist writing anything negative against Assange as he's a member of the website. So all negative remarks are a personal attack on his character! Therefore this entire thread is an attempt to bash a member of ATS. Woe, woe!

Pretty much everyone here is defending him on the contrary, the original post included, so why is it you would say this thread is bashing him ???

Have you even read a few posts or just the title ?

As for the Larry King Video it already has been posted in this thread and conversations have started on pretty much how Larry King is no better than the first CNN journalist and is even sometimes using dirty rethoric tricks to further this agenda.

Originally posted by fortunofiasco
Pretty much everyone here is defending him on the contrary, the original post included, so why is it you would say this thread is bashing him ???

Operative phrase "pretty much everyone" and I'm not even sure if that would stand a statistical analysis if we were do a post count for or rabidly against.

Have you even read a few posts or just the title ?

Pro-tip: see whether members have posted in a thread by adding the mem flag to the URL.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Everyone should cease and desist writing anything negative against Assange as he's a member of the website. So all negative remarks are a personal attack on his character! Therefore this entire thread is an attempt to bash a member of ATS. Woe, woe!

Where do you draw the line, hrm?

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by fortunofiasco
Pretty much everyone here is defending him on the contrary, the original post included, so why is it you would say this thread is bashing him ???

Operative phrase "pretty much everyone" and I'm not even sure if that would stand a statistical analysis if we were do a post count for or rabidly against.

Allright, I've re-read all the threads and each and every post until now and here are the numbers :

1) People that cheer or defend Assange or Bash CNN and MSM : 88

2) People that don't take any side but theorize on possible conspiracies. They don't bash Assange though : 8

3) People that asked questions without taking side (was only CNN given interviews ? what's the sound we hear at 3:45 ? etc.) : 5

4) People that have inarticulate views and write in such a way I can't make out what they think or what or what side they're on : 7

5) People that bash Assange for good (Rapist, govt plant, coward) : 7

--------

Now for more simple figures, the following *ranges* :

1) people NOT bashing Assange : 88-101

2) people bashing Assange : 7-14

Of course I have only counted one "vote" per user, and i haven't counted more for the troll that have screamed "rapist" pretty much every single page...

I'd like to add that normally the hahem... cough... burden of proof, would fall on you to do the job I just did Xtraeme for your allegation of "this entire thread is an attempt to bash".

Am not doing the math but it's roughly 90%-10% at first glance... Let's say I made a few mistake, this is going nowhere above 80/20 at most...

So Operative phrase still ? or good perception ?

Originally posted by fortunofiasco
Of course I have only counted one "vote" per user, and i haven't counted more for the troll that have screamed "rapist" pretty much every single page...

While I applaud your gusto in going through all of the posts and collecting some real numbers on which side of the line people land. I specifically called for,

I'm not even sure if that would stand a statistical analysis if we were do a post count for or rabidly against.

I think perhaps you misunderstood my point. I was suggesting that there's a disproportionate acceptance amongst ATS staff in terms of allowing strongly worded, if not downright defamatory, posts against Assange. Whereas people who even allude to small logical stupidities posted by ATS'ers are immediately labeled "off topic," or have their posts outright edited by moderators who usually use the T&C as justification for their actions.

This is why counting by post, not members is interesting. Make sense now?

The bias in one direction shows hypocrisy. ATS is allowing negative language against others when the person isn't a member of the site.

Wow, did this thread really turn in to post counting? On top of that, people are getting upset about the specifics of the post counting?

I also think that it is peculiar that so many people go on and on about COINTELPRO, propaganda and disinformation, but we then tend to see these same people blindly scapegoating Assange without even drawing any sort of comparisons to the aforementioned topics such as disinformation.

Have these people never actually read COINTELPRO documents? Is it not abundantly clear that while Assange does face a very serious allegation of rape, the most important element of "the wikileaks story" is being derailed?

Am I missing something? This was THE record setting release of "secret" information in human history, right?

I thought that was what ATS is all about; revealing the hidden.

I applaud the overall tone of this thread and most of the participants, but still cant believe the amount of people that cant see the obvious works of the worlds largest propaganda machine in effect right now.

There are so many instances throughout history of this same tactic being pulled by TPTB. We need not look any further than Daniel Ellsberg. I wont mention his historical significance, if I need to, you should just deactivate your ATS account now. I will mention that his opinion on this is very available. He has been making nearly every appearance with Assange. Ellsberg speaks from experience.

Julian Assange faces accusations of one of the most offensive acts one can participate in. He should certainly face these charges without cowardice, but an accusation should not be the main subject of curiosity for these reporters that are being presented with the largest classified document leak in history.

Sorry if I was ranting.

reply to post by Brahmanite


I have already explained in the original post, and then more precisely on page 15 (please check here) that this thread is NOT about the files and their content but about the treatement of the information by the MSM, mainly CNN, specifically by Atika Shubert AND that there are already *other* threads dealing with the files and their content.

Hope it clears it up I certainly hope I won't have to re-explain this at every pages.

-----

Originally posted by Xtraeme
While I applaud your gusto in going through all of the posts and collecting some real numbers on which side of the line people land. I specifically called for,

I'm not even sure if that would stand a statistical analysis if we were do a post count for or rabidly against.

I know you did ask for post count, hence why I explained I did a count per user instead because I believe a post count doesn't make sense and gives weight only to trolls and to people repeating the same thing over and over while being oblivious to other people's posts. Now anyway, there is only one very obvious rabid troll that could skew the count, but even then, even with a post count we're not going anywhere near what you qualified as :

"this entire thread is an attempt to bash" (Assange)

Originally posted by XtraemeI think perhaps you misunderstood my point. I was suggesting that there's a disproportionate acceptance amongst ATS staff in terms of allowing strongly worded, if not downright defamatory, posts against Assange. Whereas people who even allude to small logical stupidities posted by ATS'ers are immediately labeled "off topic," or have their posts outright edited by moderators who usually use the T&C as justification for their actions.

Again you're not checking your facts there have been people edited on both sides of the fence. The troll has been edited, YOU indeed have been edited, some people in favour of Assange have been edited, some conspiracy theorists that didn't take side have been edited, and lastly some people bashing Assange have been edited as well.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
This is why counting by post, not members is interesting. Make sense now?

And again I disagree with you. Counting by post would foremost and only be a call to trolls to come troll more.

Anyway, at this point i'm considering you're trolling this thread because :

1) You're stating as facts things that are untrue, whether they're counted by user or post count. I've done the user count, and it's heavily against your statement. And since there has been but only one obvious diffamatory troll, even when doing a count by posts we would still not be anywhere close : this thread is heavily in favour of Assange no matter what kind of count is made.

2) You're not the one bringing proofs, you're only bringing unproven statements, over and over again.

3) Your view about the fact that "there's a disproportionate acceptance amongst ATS staff in terms of allowing strongly worded, if not downright defamatory, posts." IS off topic and i'd appreciate you bring the point directly to the ATS staff instead of polluting this thread with it.

Originally posted by fortunofiasco
I know you did ask for post count, hence why I explained I did a count per user instead because I believe a post count ... gives weight only to trolls and to people repeating the same thing over and over while being oblivious to other people's posts. Now anyway, there is only one very obvious rabid troll that could skew the count

Exactly! Glad you understood my point.

3) Your view ... IS off topic and i'd appreciate you bring the point directly to the ATS staff instead of polluting this thread with it.

Perhaps you should have sent your diatribe to me as a personal message if you felt this strongly about your viewpoint rather than "polluting this thread" with more rubbish, eh? Guess it wasn't that off topic after all.

On topic ...

(thread)

Enjoy boys and girls!

Originally posted by fortunofiasco
reply to post by Brahmanite

 

I have already explained in the original post, and then more precisely on page 15 (please check here) that this thread is NOT about the files and their content but about the treatement of the information by the MSM, mainly CNN, specifically by Atika Shubert AND that there are already *other* threads dealing with the files and their content.

Hope it clears it up

I certainly hope I won't have to re-explain this at every pages.

Well, if you would have really read my post you should have noticed that the main focus of it was highlighting the coverage of wikileaks by the MSM.

I feel like you may be in defense mode. My last post was not related to the content of the leaks. my last post was specifically talking about the coverage.

reply to post by Vilkata


I also wanted to add as a continuation of my previous post here that I really don't think Assange is as safe as we would like to assume.

What I mean by that is, the whole "killing him would just make him a martyr" reasoning doesn't fly.

Mainstream Media followers would just figure the CIA took him out, or someone else, and do nothing about it, going about their day.

Those who believe he is a hero would continue to believe he is, put up a thread on here talking about what a great loss it was.......and do nothing about it, going on about their day.

Anyway you look at it him walking out of the CNN interview and then BARLY spitting out to larry king finally saying he didn't do it makes Assange look very suspicious and discredited.

How is wanting to avoid what is in that context, true or not, an ad hominem attack used to detract from the subject at hand, the deaths of over a hundred thousand Iraqis?

If this leak had been about the deaths of even several hundred american soldiers, and Assange was doing an interview for that, would the rape charges have even been brought up? And even if they had, would there really be any question as to which topic should have been more pertinent to the interview?

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by theability

 

Atika Shubert is no rookie. Claiming her journalistic inexperience can be used to dismiss the pathetic interview is not a valid excuse.
She has been with CNN for 10 years. Interviewed heads of state, covered many topical international locations as a foreign correspondent, like Israel.
She has no excuse.
She knew exactly what she was doing, which makes it even worse.

Here is a proper piece of coverage on the leaks.

Between 1:11 - 1:25. Quote, "The U.S. reportedly asked Britain, Germany, Australia and other western governments to open criminal investigations into Julian Assange and severely restrict his international travel...". I fail to recall the last time I've laughed hard enough to produce a migraine. America the mighty, America the world superpower, leans a weak shoulder upon and barks the order to, "open criminal investigations...severely restrict his international travel..." as if to say, Britain, Germany, Australia and other western governments must obey, but do not have the freedom to decline. Called upon as if the government's of these countries are activated via "flip-switch" or "programmed specifically to follow orders like SkyNet and it's Terminators.".

Say. Doesn't the CIA or other government affiliated private/secret spook organizations have a myriad of indoctrinated assassins, suited in black, instructed to intimidate the individual and or their family threats of fear and death? Is it because you can't dispose of people by shoving them off a canyons edge or through the window on the top floor of "Bethesda Naval Hospital" anymore? Lose the touch in masking murder with suicide or did the heart attack gun backfire and kill an expendable agent? Oh wait, call upon the dogs without freewill to apprehend the suspect for a straight-away extradition trip to a privately owned prison in or outside the United States to be erased. I await and stand correction if that isn't the updated protocol in todays date.

In addition, 0:45 - 1:07. Those are speakers fluent in the "Forked Tongue", but they must have carelessly forgot what they typed in that obtained letter which contradicts every statement claiming that they were , "compromising intelligence sources, practices, and the endangerment of the lives of people". Here's the sum of it all, "professional liars caught in a lie".

Still, the battle wages on as "Julian Assange takes on the supposed World Superpower" as one mans bright light slowly but surely sears an entire land enveloped in darkness, specially brought to you by the beloved TPTB.

Originally posted by Vilkata
How is wanting to avoid what is in that context, true or not, an ad hominem attack used to detract from the subject at hand, the deaths of over a hundred thousand Iraqis?

If this leak had been about the deaths of even several hundred american soldiers, and Assange was doing an interview for that, would the rape charges have even been brought up? And even if they had, would there really be any question as to which topic should have been more pertinent to the interview?

Should read:
(I didn't edit it in time)

Originally posted by Vilkata
How does wanting to avoid what is in that context, true or not, an ad hominem attack used to detract from the subject at hand, the deaths of over a hundred thousand Iraqis, make Assange look suspicious and discredited?

If this leak had been about the deaths of even several hundred American soldiers, and Assange was doing an interview for that, would the rape charges have even been brought up? And even if they had, would there really be any question as to which topic should have been more pertinent to the interview?

reply to post by thecinic


Says you, which means.. well nothing.
2nd

What is with the double standard? This guy can dish it out, but he can't take it? Shame on him! He has acted in the manner of a spy and a trader, yet some consider him a hero. Even so, how is it possible that we might so easily dismiss the skeletons in his closet? Fighting the good fight is never easy, and it often comes with some personal sacrifice. If this guy was truly a freedom fighter, he wouldn't be afraid to get a little mud on his face. To me, it seems as though he wnated to blackmail a bunch of powerful people, and now, he is upset that they don't want to play by his rules. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

reply to post by onthedownlow


Easy to dismiss? The accusation's were never dropped, there isn't enough evidence to charge him in a court of law, and with the presumption of innocence, everything leads to his being innocent. The only hint of guilt is two women's claims under suspect circumstances.

On the other side of that, there are numerous reasons for TPTB to try to discredit him, this being a great example of how to do that.

Presumption of innocence, lots of reason for those that could to frame/discredit him. i at least have to lean in the direction of his innocence.

And as far as having to make sacrifice's, given the nature of what this man does, he has to basically have no personal life, and any semblance he has of a personal life must be hidden from public view, or it will be used against him, or at least to track him.

Sure, it doesn't seem fair that someone doing so much for transparency to be so elusive, and does look convinient when going with the theory that he is a government plant. But that isn't proof or even evidence on its own, since it makes as much sense for him to have to be so secretive if he is what he appears to be, as well.

Originally posted by onthedownlow
What is with the double standard? This guy can dish it out, but he can't take it? Shame on him! He has acted in the manner of a spy and a trader, yet some consider him a hero.

I think the word you're looking for is "traitor".

It does not surprise me that you think non americans should be considered traitors as well. The US government certainly does act like it's head of a one world government.

duplicate post

Assange is vulnerable, he's just a person after all and they will always do whatever they can to discredit him.

Check out this brilliant article about the idea of decentralization of WikiLeaks:
www.zeropoint.org...