BCM Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Assange no longer suspicious lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 did anyone take seriously the earlier smear campaign where they tried to blame Assange for the revealing of 'hundreds of afghani sources' making him seem to be a reckless person who doesn't care if innocent Afghanis get killed or not. hilariously he offered the military a grace period or window of time to redact whatever names they wanted from the list.... they refused... then pretended that Assange asked them no such thing.. but then were caught lying if you compile the entirty of their public statements regarding it. see Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents? i find this part particularly funny After the last release, the Pentagon very flamboyantly accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of innocent Afghans, even accusing them of having "blood on their hands" (despite the absence of a single claim that anyone was actually harmed from the release of those documents). If Pentagon officials are truly concerned about the well-being of Afghan sources identified in these documents -- rather than exaggerating and exploiting that concern in order to harm WikiLeaks' credibility -- wouldn't they be eager to help WikiLeaks redact these documents? That would be the behavior one would expect if these concerns were at all genuine. Instead, the Pentagon is doing the opposite: first lying by denying that WikiLeaks ever sought this help, then refusing to provide it in response doesn't surprise me that a fake rape charge was made up for him, seems like the fuckers are trying anything that will stick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pulsewarrior Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 did anyone take seriously the earlier smear campaign where they tried to blame Assange for the revealing of 'hundreds of afghani sources' making him seem to be a reckless person who doesn't care if innocent Afghanis get killed or not. hilariously he offered the military a grace period or window of time to redact whatever names they wanted from the list.... they refused... then pretended that Assange asked them no such thing.. but then were caught lying if you compile the entirty of their public statements regarding it. see Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents? i find this part particularly funny After the last release, the Pentagon very flamboyantly accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of innocent Afghans, even accusing them of having "blood on their hands" (despite the absence of a single claim that anyone was actually harmed from the release of those documents). If Pentagon officials are truly concerned about the well-being of Afghan sources identified in these documents -- rather than exaggerating and exploiting that concern in order to harm WikiLeaks' credibility -- wouldn't they be eager to help WikiLeaks redact these documents? That would be the behavior one would expect if these concerns were at all genuine. Instead, the Pentagon is doing the opposite: first lying by denying that WikiLeaks ever sought this help, then refusing to provide it in response doesn't surprise me that a fake rape charge was made up for him, seems like the fuckers are trying anything that will stick or perhaps you don't know shit and your opinion means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 did anyone take seriously the earlier smear campaign where they tried to blame Assange for the revealing of 'hundreds of afghani sources' making him seem to be a reckless person who doesn't care if innocent Afghanis get killed or not. hilariously he offered the military a grace period or window of time to redact whatever names they wanted from the list.... they refused... then pretended that Assange asked them no such thing.. but then were caught lying if you compile the entirty of their public statements regarding it. see Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents? i find this part particularly funny After the last release, the Pentagon very flamboyantly accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of innocent Afghans, even accusing them of having "blood on their hands" (despite the absence of a single claim that anyone was actually harmed from the release of those documents). If Pentagon officials are truly concerned about the well-being of Afghan sources identified in these documents -- rather than exaggerating and exploiting that concern in order to harm WikiLeaks' credibility -- wouldn't they be eager to help WikiLeaks redact these documents? That would be the behavior one would expect if these concerns were at all genuine. Instead, the Pentagon is doing the opposite: first lying by denying that WikiLeaks ever sought this help, then refusing to provide it in response doesn't surprise me that a fake rape charge was made up for him, seems like the fuckers are trying anything that will stick or perhaps you don't know shit and your opinion means nothing. whoa there, adrian lamo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 fookin world makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 did anyone take seriously the earlier smear campaign where they tried to blame Assange for the revealing of 'hundreds of afghani sources' making him seem to be a reckless person who doesn't care if innocent Afghanis get killed or not. hilariously he offered the military a grace period or window of time to redact whatever names they wanted from the list.... they refused... then pretended that Assange asked them no such thing.. but then were caught lying if you compile the entirty of their public statements regarding it. see Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents? i find this part particularly funny After the last release, the Pentagon very flamboyantly accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of innocent Afghans, even accusing them of having "blood on their hands" (despite the absence of a single claim that anyone was actually harmed from the release of those documents). If Pentagon officials are truly concerned about the well-being of Afghan sources identified in these documents -- rather than exaggerating and exploiting that concern in order to harm WikiLeaks' credibility -- wouldn't they be eager to help WikiLeaks redact these documents? That would be the behavior one would expect if these concerns were at all genuine. Instead, the Pentagon is doing the opposite: first lying by denying that WikiLeaks ever sought this help, then refusing to provide it in response doesn't surprise me that a fake rape charge was made up for him, seems like the fuckers are trying anything that will stick or perhaps you don't know shit and your opinion means nothing. i always value the opinion of people who *offer no counter argument or facts of their own the highest. thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 did anyone take seriously the earlier smear campaign where they tried to blame Assange for the revealing of 'hundreds of afghani sources' making him seem to be a reckless person who doesn't care if innocent Afghanis get killed or not. hilariously he offered the military a grace period or window of time to redact whatever names they wanted from the list.... they refused... then pretended that Assange asked them no such thing.. but then were caught lying if you compile the entirty of their public statements regarding it. see Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents? i find this part particularly funny After the last release, the Pentagon very flamboyantly accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of innocent Afghans, even accusing them of having "blood on their hands" (despite the absence of a single claim that anyone was actually harmed from the release of those documents). If Pentagon officials are truly concerned about the well-being of Afghan sources identified in these documents -- rather than exaggerating and exploiting that concern in order to harm WikiLeaks' credibility -- wouldn't they be eager to help WikiLeaks redact these documents? That would be the behavior one would expect if these concerns were at all genuine. Instead, the Pentagon is doing the opposite: first lying by denying that WikiLeaks ever sought this help, then refusing to provide it in response doesn't surprise me that a fake rape charge was made up for him, seems like the fuckers are trying anything that will stick or perhaps you don't know shit and your opinion means nothing. whoa there, adrian lamo. full on LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 bahahaha this thread rules because of that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest analogue wings Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Next time two girls implausibly offer you a 3 way, ask yourself this: Have I just pissed off the most powerful government in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scrambled Ears Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Next time two girls implausibly offer you a 3 way, ask yourself this: Have I just pissed off the most powerful government in the world? they like to butter you up before the Guantanamo anal fisting sessions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest abusivegeorge Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 LMAO @ this page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorjamb Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 no that's iceland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 the case has been reopened: http://mashable.com/2010/09/01/assange-sexual-assault-case-reopened/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marf Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 "what did ii i iiii doo wroooong!" yeah yeah.. this is how we do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 might be one of them koch brothers pulling the strings again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mafted Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 did anyone take seriously the earlier smear campaign where they tried to blame Assange for the revealing of 'hundreds of afghani sources' making him seem to be a reckless person who doesn't care if innocent Afghanis get killed or not. hilariously he offered the military a grace period or window of time to redact whatever names they wanted from the list.... they refused... then pretended that Assange asked them no such thing.. but then were caught lying if you compile the entirty of their public statements regarding it. see Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents? i find this part particularly funny After the last release, the Pentagon very flamboyantly accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of innocent Afghans, even accusing them of having "blood on their hands" (despite the absence of a single claim that anyone was actually harmed from the release of those documents). If Pentagon officials are truly concerned about the well-being of Afghan sources identified in these documents -- rather than exaggerating and exploiting that concern in order to harm WikiLeaks' credibility -- wouldn't they be eager to help WikiLeaks redact these documents? That would be the behavior one would expect if these concerns were at all genuine. Instead, the Pentagon is doing the opposite: first lying by denying that WikiLeaks ever sought this help, then refusing to provide it in response doesn't surprise me that a fake rape charge was made up for him, seems like the fuckers are trying anything that will stick yep, that's exactly what i thought when i saw it. it's too coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 I don't think they intend to make the charges stick. It's just a classic character defamation tactic. Discredit him by making him seem like a shady pervert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ricky Downtown Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 did anyone take seriously the earlier smear campaign where they tried to blame Assange for the revealing of 'hundreds of afghani sources' making him seem to be a reckless person who doesn't care if innocent Afghanis get killed or not. hilariously he offered the military a grace period or window of time to redact whatever names they wanted from the list.... they refused... then pretended that Assange asked them no such thing.. but then were caught lying if you compile the entirty of their public statements regarding it. see Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents? i find this part particularly funny After the last release, the Pentagon very flamboyantly accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of innocent Afghans, even accusing them of having "blood on their hands" (despite the absence of a single claim that anyone was actually harmed from the release of those documents). If Pentagon officials are truly concerned about the well-being of Afghan sources identified in these documents -- rather than exaggerating and exploiting that concern in order to harm WikiLeaks' credibility -- wouldn't they be eager to help WikiLeaks redact these documents? That would be the behavior one would expect if these concerns were at all genuine. Instead, the Pentagon is doing the opposite: first lying by denying that WikiLeaks ever sought this help, then refusing to provide it in response doesn't surprise me that a fake rape charge was made up for him, seems like the fuckers are trying anything that will stick yep, that's exactly what i thought when i saw it. it's too coincidental. you guys should be detectives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest underscore Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 yep, that's exactly what i thought when i saw it. it's too coincidental. you guys should be detectives pretty big lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyrex Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Rape charges have been reinstated after more questioning (increased payoff) of the victim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Rape charges have been reinstated after more questioning (increased payoff) of the victim... This will never end, obviously. Perlence Assrange 6-36 imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mafted Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 and why do you think that? intuition? it trumps naivety pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 and why do you think that? intuition? it trumps naivety pretty well. Because a rape accusation follows you around forever, regardless of the outcome/truth. Just ask Kobe Bryant. Kobe really is a huge fucking rapist, though, lol. (I just wanted to say "Perlence Assrange") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.