Wikileaks

[The Fish 10857]

And Leazes....do you advocate Alan Rusbridger being shot in the head and left in a ditch too?

 

 

why do I get the impression that some people on here would rather see UK or US servicemen killed than muslim terrorists or sympathisers ?

because by creating that impression you have some thing to aim your anger towards, despite it being so far from the truth it's unbearable to continue arguing with you about it.

 

is that so ? How are you getting on with your sisters these days ?

Not sure what this has to do with anything?

 

Simple fact is, what I say is true. Muslim terrorist sympathisers need to shake their heads and wake up. Why exactly are these sympathisers so angry with the west ?

 

you say you get the impression that people on here would rather UK soldiers die, than terrorists. This is not true. It is, in fact, false.

 

So why exactly do you need to make up positions for people like myself? I think my position is fairly balanced, my arguments are less and less about your stand-point and more and more about the way you argue. When it's clear that people are making reasonable points, based on valid arguments, you throw an absolute curveball by accusing them of holding positions so incredible that you feel the need to defend yourself. It's honestly worthy of the ridicule you inevitably end up on the end of. But then, when you're actually being stripped apart you accuse your antagonists of being naive, or do-gooders or one of your other petty little labels.

 

You're over 50 for the love of God. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I was laughing at the phrasing you used.

 

"despotic"?

 

They've said they're going to expose this despotism apparently; well thanks, I had no idea that Russia was like this.

 

Where?

 

I was paraphrasing your post, I said I was laughing at the way you phrased it. Since you are quite obviously a lugubrious dullard I am not surprised that you do not understand where my mirth comes from, after all you are the man who thinks an influential cultural figure and legendary comedian like Richard Pryor isn't funny, but Dave Gorman is.

[LeazesMag 0]

they've said they're going to expose the "despotic" regime of the Russian government.

 

Oh wow I thought everyone danced in furs and drank from chocolate fountains in Russia

 

Also find it odd to quote a story that insists Wikileaks should expose Russian corruption, then laugh at the notion that they're planning to do exactly that.

 

corruption is the way of the world squire. The sooner you accept it and get on with your life the better. Because there most definitely is fuck all you can do about it.

 

You've shown yourself to be above worrying about corruption. The way you're happy to leave MPs claiming tens of thousands from your taxes and muslim asylum seekers claiming benefits they aren't entitled to.

 

there's easy solutions if we had the bottle to take them, and didn't worry about what the hand wringing brigade think, but I get the feeling you spend a lot of time worrying about this sort of thing ?

 

You won't find any posts from me claiming I'm happy with MP's fiddling their claims, nor being happy with muslim asylum seekers claiming benefits they aren't entitled too, in fact you will find most comments I make on this particular baby to be the exact opposite if you take the trouble to read properly. Isn't it you who makes out a case for keeping immigrants here, who are "british" You certainly seem to think they can do what they want once they do arrive here because they are "entitled" to.

 

Point well and truly missed.

 

No Leazes, I'm well aware how you feel about immigrants. That was the point. My advice is to sopt worrying about it cos there'll always be immigrants. The sooner you accept it and get on with your life the better

 

I don't worry about them, shown by the fact I don't probably spend hours and hours trawling internet sites about this sort of thing and posting them and links to then on here.

 

I've got my views on mp's fiddling claims, and immigrants who ought not to be here, its just a shame corruption doesn't extend to the degree where the more decisive action that is required to deal with it, isn't able to be carried out.

 

You might be worried however, if a druggie or a terrorist moves in next door to you. Until then, keep pretending its not a problem and protest about your "right to know" government operational classified material like your geography teacher told you to.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

So why exactly do you need to make up positions for people like myself? I think my position is fairly balanced, my arguments are less and less about your stand-point and more and more about the way you argue. When it's clear that people are making reasonable points, based on valid arguments, you throw an absolute curveball by accusing them of holding positions so incredible that you feel the need to defend yourself. It's honestly worthy of the ridicule you inevitably end up on the end of. But then, when you're actually being stripped apart you accuse your antagonists of being naive, or do-gooders or one of your other petty little labels.

 

You're over 50 for the love of God. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

You've obviously never kicked a ball in your life

[LeazesMag 0]

And Leazes....do you advocate Alan Rusbridger being shot in the head and left in a ditch too?

 

 

why do I get the impression that some people on here would rather see UK or US servicemen killed than muslim terrorists or sympathisers ?

because by creating that impression you have some thing to aim your anger towards, despite it being so far from the truth it's unbearable to continue arguing with you about it.

 

is that so ? How are you getting on with your sisters these days ?

Not sure what this has to do with anything?

 

Simple fact is, what I say is true. Muslim terrorist sympathisers need to shake their heads and wake up. Why exactly are these sympathisers so angry with the west ?

 

you say you get the impression that people on here would rather UK soldiers die, than terrorists. This is not true. It is, in fact, false.

 

So why exactly do you need to make up positions for people like myself? I think my position is fairly balanced, my arguments are less and less about your stand-point and more and more about the way you argue. When it's clear that people are making reasonable points, based on valid arguments, you throw an absolute curveball by accusing them of holding positions so incredible that you feel the need to defend yourself. It's honestly worthy of the ridicule you inevitably end up on the end of. But then, when you're actually being stripped apart you accuse your antagonists of being naive, or do-gooders or one of your other petty little labels.

 

You're over 50 for the love of God. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

I see, you think I'm over 50 so I should teach you all my wisdom, is that it ? Thats what I'm doing, funny guy Your arguments aren't balanced, they are one sided and ignorant. Why do you think your opinion is fairly balanced ? I think mine is too, get it ? You do see that you can't on one hand say I should be showing a balanced view because I'm over 50, but only when it suits you ? What sort of age are you showing yourself to be when you make such a statement ?

 

I stand by my comment that I get the feeling some people would rather see our soldiers die than muslim terrorists. Thats not a label, its a feeling based on the constant sniping and attacks made towards the west and the US in particular.

[The Fish 10857]

So why exactly do you need to make up positions for people like myself? I think my position is fairly balanced, my arguments are less and less about your stand-point and more and more about the way you argue. When it's clear that people are making reasonable points, based on valid arguments, you throw an absolute curveball by accusing them of holding positions so incredible that you feel the need to defend yourself. It's honestly worthy of the ridicule you inevitably end up on the end of. But then, when you're actually being stripped apart you accuse your antagonists of being naive, or do-gooders or one of your other petty little labels.

 

You're over 50 for the love of God. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

You've obviously never kicked a ball in your life

 

You stir almost as well as Parky.

[ChezGiven 0]

Ahmadinejad reckons WikiLeaks claims are 'psychological warfare'.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The US could have reduced Persia to rubble during the hostage crisis if it weren't for the relentless peace-mongering of Jimmy Carter

[The Fish 10857]

you say you get the impression that people on here would rather UK soldiers die, than terrorists. This is not true. It is, in fact, false.

 

So why exactly do you need to make up positions for people like myself? I think my position is fairly balanced, my arguments are less and less about your stand-point and more and more about the way you argue. When it's clear that people are making reasonable points, based on valid arguments, you throw an absolute curveball by accusing them of holding positions so incredible that you feel the need to defend yourself. It's honestly worthy of the ridicule you inevitably end up on the end of. But then, when you're actually being stripped apart you accuse your antagonists of being naive, or do-gooders or one of your other petty little labels.

 

You're over 50 for the love of God. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

I see, you think I'm over 50 so I should teach you all my wisdom, is that it ?

No, I think you have been around long enough that you should be able to frame your opinions in reasoned and reasonable statements, rather than project a stand point onto people who disagree with you as if you're a kid in a school yard. fwiw I don't want any British soldier to die, and I'd be delighted if every terrorist was wiped from the face of the planet with great vengeance and furious anger. However, I know that's not likely. And I know that violence begets violence, imposing ones beliefs creates an angry reaction. Whether it be calls for the sacking of a poppy wearing man, or wading into another country and presuming you can solve millennia of tribal conflicts by building a road.

 

Your arguments aren't balanced, they are one sided and ignorant. Why do you think your opinion is fairly balanced ? I think mine is too, get it ?

The point is Leazes you have no idea what my arguments actually are. You spend every post creating exaggerated positions for others.

 

You do see that you can't on one hand say I should be showing a balanced view because I'm over 50, but only when it suits you ? What sort of age are you showing yourself to be when you make such a statement ?

I genuinely have struggled to understand what this garbled sentence means, but I think you're suggesting that your statements are fair and balanced, and by my asking you to refrain from fabricating other peoples opinions I show myself to be immature? If this is the case I'd suggest you re-read you conversations on here as that's simply not a true reflection of the discussions.

 

I stand by my comment that I get the feeling some people would rather see our soldiers die than muslim terrorists. Thats not a label, its a feeling based on the constant sniping and attacks made towards the west and the US in particular.

You're confused, the fact you think people on here want to hug-a-Hussain is not the label I was talking about. It's your need to call people "naive", "do-gooder", etc.

 

You do realise that you slate the Americans on here more so than most other posters do, right? Oh and I think the attacks you perceive, aren't actually attacks on the West, nor on the US. I think they're disappointment and frustration, we're supposed to be the civilised lot, yet the people acting in our name commit acts of selfish aggression and condone torture when it suits them, decrying it when it does not.

 

This doesn't mean I think we should warmly embrace the fanatics and zealots, but we sure as shit shouldn't stoop to their level.

 

 

My over-riding point is that you simply have to stop creating a preposterous opinion for the people who disagree with your view because it makes you look addled and pathetic.

[Happy Face 29]

I was laughing at the phrasing you used.

 

"despotic"?

 

They've said they're going to expose this despotism apparently; well thanks, I had no idea that Russia was like this.

 

Where?

 

I was paraphrasing your post, I said I was laughing at the way you phrased it. Since you are quite obviously a lugubrious dullard I am not surprised that you do not understand where my mirth comes from, after all you are the man who thinks an influential cultural figure and legendary comedian like Richard Pryor isn't funny, but Dave Gorman is.

 

 

A "lugubrious dullard"? Last week I was a "lugubrious, tree-humping invertebrate" and before that Fish was a "lugubrious, drink addled popinjay".

 

Don't let us bring you down man, you just keep bringing the funny.

 

Glad you're left to research my thoughts on stand up comedians rather than anything on topic. Clear sign you've lost the debate. You're wrong on that too like. Read my posts and you'll see I've called Dave Gorman a dick, canny shit and fucking wank, while I've referred to Pryor as classic.

[Happy Face 29]

I don't worry about them, shown by the fact I don't probably spend hours and hours trawling internet sites about this sort of thing and posting them and links to then on here.

 

Yeah, far better to enter into an argument without arming yourself with any facts and basing your entire stance on preconceived notions. Reality does tend to cloud issues.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Clear sign you've lost the debate.

 

Oh well I'm glad for you you feel like you've achieved something, perhaps it will awake you from your lugubrious stupor, though I doubt it. I also love the fact you think I should be researching your thoughts on topics. Why would I do that? A guy who displays a religious fervor in his hero-worship of Assange and Juan Cole, no thanks.

 

Talking about reality, the reality is Assange's agenda for the Mid-East was never a tenable strategy, and the fact that he has tried to push this agenda via Wikileaks (he is open about this at least) is my problem with the site.

[Guest alex]

Zany tbh.

[AgentAxeman 178]

WikiLeaks latest... the Pope may be Catholic

 

By Richard Littlejohn

 

 

The ‘explosive’ diplomatic cables posted on WikiLeaks seem to be little more than a mish-mash of gossip and rumours, stuff you could have read in the newspapers, statements of the bleedin’ obvious and wild speculation about the sex lives of politicians, especially gays.

 

While other media outlets have focused on the geopolitical fall-out from the 250,000 leaked documents, this column prefers to trade in tittle-tattle.

WikiLeaks cartoon

 

 

Here are a handful of ‘Top Secret Not for Foreign Eyes’ (NOFORN) U.S. government communiques that have landed on my desk.

 

You can judge their accuracy for yourselves:

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Hiram J. Baconburger, CIA Station Chief, London. To: Executive Director, Langley. Dated: 15/11/09. Name redacted.

 

Subject displays increasingly irrational behaviour, indicative of deep psychological flaws. Reports suggest delusion bordering on paranoia. High incidence of bullying staff, including throwing telephones. Blames America for domestic difficulties and claims to have saved the world. All available evidence points to complete breakdown. See attached YouTube video for further analysis. Though happily married, subject has been forced to deny rumours that he’s gay.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Hank Cheeseburger III, political attache, Court of St James. To: Deputy Chief of Staff, White House. 12/04/10. Codename: Squeaker.

 

Subject is a sanctimonious dwarf, installed in anti-democratic political coup. He is accompanied everywhere by a tall blonde woman, believed to be his psychiatric nurse.

 

Known colloquially as ‘Sally from the Alley’, she has a history of promiscuity, heavy drinking and drug-taking and is given to intemperate outbursts on Twitter. Subject is a definite security risk and probably gay.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Randolph Delmonico Jnr, CIA Station Chief, Paris. To: Director, State Department. Dated: 9/25/10. Codename: Napoleon.

 

Subject is a sanctimonious dwarf, accompanied everywhere by attractive actress/model/whatever, formerly the mistress of prominent English rock star.

 

Napoleon is a classic cheese-eating surrender monkey and puppet of Germans. Probably gay.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Agent Carlos Burrito, Secret Service, U.S. Embassy, Rome. To: European Director, Pentagon. Name redacted.

 

The 74-year-old subject continues to indulge in erratic behaviour, is widely rumoured to use prostitutes and is believed to be addicted to prescription drugs to enhance his flagging sexual performance.

 

Despite his apparent predilection for extremely young women, he is probably gay.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Wendell Kendall IV, CIA station, London. To: Director, Langley. Dated: 7/18/10. Codename: Lord Fauntleroy.

 

Once believed to be a Conservative, subject is revealed to be a closet liberal. Pays lip service to Atlantic Alliance while running down the military and selling off aircraft carriers to finance socialistic welfare system. Continues to provide safe haven for terrorists.

 

Though married to a member of the aristocracy, he attended the all-male Eton College and is therefore probably gay.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Special Agent Condoleezza Goodbody, attending UN climate change summit, Cancun, Mexico. To: U.S. Energy Secretary. Dated: 11/29/10. Codename: Windy Miller.

 

Subject observed at close quarters in Jacuzzi, eating lobster. If he continues to pursue present policy of closing coal-fired and nuclear power stations and relying solely on renewables, Britain will run out of electricity within a decade. Recently left his wife for a former lesbian, so is probably gay.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Antonio Soprano, U.S. mission in Vatican City. To: Chief of Staff, White House. Dated: 11/30/10. Codename: Pontiff.

 

Reports of ill-health can be discounted, after subject seen recently performing Mass in public. Former member of Hitler Youth, the subject has never married and is believed to be celibate.

 

Despite softening his stance on condoms, it is still safe to presume that the Pope is a Catholic.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Special Agent Joseph McCarthy, CIA station, London. To: Director, Langley. Dated: 11/27/10. Codename: Red Ed.

 

Puppet of Left-wing labour unions, defeated his elder brother to seize power in bloodless coup. Father was leading Marxist. Subject supports high taxes, big government and is proud to be a socialist. Almost certainly a Communist. Says he ‘forgot’ to sign his son’s birth certificate. Borderline gay.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Jilly Concarne, European Affairs Specialist, London. To: Controller: FBI Washington. Dated 9/15/10. Codename: Cleggover.

 

Subject not considered a threat until recently. Favours strong Federal Europe as counterweight to U.S. Unlikely to survive next general election.

 

Even though he claims to have slept with more than 30 women, he is a Liberal Democrat so if not exclusively gay, almost certainly helps them out when they’re busy.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Charles J. Moron, special envoy to Court of St James. To: Deputy Director (Protocol), White House. Dated: 11/15/10. Subject: Prince William.

 

Son of the late Princess Diana and King Charles, subject is tipped as future head of state. Entered military service after university, but his career has been hampered by shortage of helicopters.

 

Despite an eight-year relationship with a woman called Katie Waite, he appears to have no intention of getting married. Probably gay.

 

SECRET/NOFORN

 

From: Deputy Director (Protocol), White House. To: Charles J. Moron. Dated 11/18/10.

 

You’re fired!

 

 

[toughguymick@hotmail.co.uk 0]

Why the fuck do boozed up geordies give a fuck about wikileaks? Get back to watching byker grove with your tins of skol super and leave the wikileaks talk to someone who knows what their talking about. This fucking wikileaks means fuck all its only the views of certain people not the american governments thoughts or policies. We need to know about the chinese government and their policies and why the fuck they saving all their cash up. I'm learning chinese and I suggest others do as one day they going to take over the world.

[Meenzer 15526]

Ah Littlejohn, barely capable of writing a column with some reference to the cock.

[Meenzer 15526]

And speaking of the cock...

[manc-mag 1]

Why the fuck do boozed up geordies give a fuck about wikileaks? Get back to watching byker grove with your tins of skol super and leave the wikileaks talk to someone who knows what their talking about. This fucking wikileaks means fuck all its only the views of certain people not the american governments thoughts or policies. We need to know about the chinese government and their policies and why the fuck they saving all their cash up. I'm learning chinese and I suggest others do as one day they going to take over the world.

 

Yeah I'd have my insecurities too if I sounded like a five year old girl on helium.

[AgentAxeman 178]

Ah Littlejohn, barely capable of writing a column with some reference to the cock.

 

 

 

 

He just loves it.......................... (alledgedly)

[AgentAxeman 178]

Why the fuck do thieving bin dippers give a fuck about boozed up geordies giving a fuck about wikileaks?

 

 

[Isegrim 9775]

Why the fuck do boozed up geordies give a fuck about wikileaks? Get back to watching byker grove with your tins of skol super and leave the wikileaks talk to someone who knows what their talking about. This fucking wikileaks means fuck all its only the views of certain people not the american governments thoughts or policies. We need to know about the chinese government and their policies and why the fuck they saving all their cash up. I'm learning chinese and I suggest others do as one day they going to take over the world.

Good idea, Pinky. Nalf.

[Guest alex]

When you learning English btw? You write like a 5 year old sending a telegram.

[toughguymick@hotmail.co.uk 0]

Why the fuck do thieving bin dippers give a fuck about boozed up geordies giving a fuck about wikileaks?

 

LOL just find it funny people who stand in the streets, half naked freezing their bollocks of, pissed as a fart shouting wye aye man actually give a fuck about wikileaks.

[Meenzer 15526]

When you learning English btw? You write like a 5 year old sending a telegram.

 

He love cream of sum yung guy </wacky>.

[Rob W 0]

Why the fuck do boozed up geordies give a fuck about wikileaks? Get back to watching byker grove with your tins of skol super and leave the wikileaks talk to someone who knows what their talking about. This fucking wikileaks means fuck all its only the views of certain people not the american governments thoughts or policies. We need to know about the chinese government and their policies and why the fuck they saving all their cash up. I'm learning chinese and I suggest others do as one day they going to take over the world.

Good idea, Pinky. Nalf.

Tom Lehrer got there first

 

Wernher von braun.

 

Gather round while I sing you of wernher von braun,

A man whose allegiance

Is ruled by expedience.

Call him a nazi, he won't even frown.

"ha, nazi schmazi," says wernher von braun.

 

Don't say that he's hypocritical,

Say rather that he's apolitical.

 

"once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

That's not my department," says wernher von braun.

 

Some have harsh words for this man of renown,

But some think our attitude

Should be one of gratitude,

Like the widows and cripples in old london town

Who owe their large pensions to wernher von braun.

 

You too may be a big hero,

Once you've learned to count backwards to zero.

"in german oder english I know how to count down,

Und I'm learning chinese," says wernher von braun.