Wikileaks

[Park Life 71]

It was widely known for some time that Pakistan were ok with the drone attacks in spite of their public protestations; common sense really when you view how the situation has panned out. I only raise this in response to Ewerk's 'educating yourself about the world comment'.

 

eedit*

 

Not all of WikiLeaks' enemies are content to just make statements and issue press releases. The site was down for American and European visitors for several hours Tuesday, the result of what it said was a high-powered "distributed denial of service attack," in which "remote computers commandeered by rogue programs bombard a website with so many data packets that it becomes overwhelmed and unavailable." WikiLeaks says the "malicious traffic" was coming it at 10 gigabits per second Tuesday, or 28 times faster than the average denial of service attack. WikiLeaks was able to get back online later Tuesday with help from Amazon's server-for-rent service. No one has claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attack. On Sunday, WikiLeaks weathered a smaller attack by a hacker who calls himself "The Jester" and describes himself as a "hacktivist for good."

 

The Associated Press

 

 

Interpol has issued a "Red Notice" for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in relation to alleged sexual misconduct, reports the BBC. A Red Notice amounts to a request for people to contact the international police organization if they know anything about Assange's location. Assange, 39, is wanted for questioning in Sweden regarding allegations of rape* and molestation in the country in August. Assange, who remains in hiding and frequently changes location to avoid detection, has said the charges are part of a campaign to discredit him. His mother, Christine, has voiced her concern about the alert. "He's my son and I love him and obviously I don't want him hunted down and jailed. I'm reacting as any mother would," she said in a radio interview. "A lot of stuff that's written about me and Julian is untrue." If Interpol were to locate Assange, he could be extradited to the United States, although some countries might be reluctant to hand him over, given that the maximum penalty under the U.S. Espionage Act is the death penalty.

 

Read original story in BBC

 

*I thought the rape charge was dropped due to lack of evidence?

 

 

 

In an interview published Monday in Forbes magazine, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said a "big U.S. bank" would be next on the organization's list for a major leak. Now, the blogosphere is abuzz with the theory that the bank is Bank of America, based on a 2009 interview with Assange where he mentioned having "5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives." Bank of America has said there is no proof that WikiLeaks is in possession of any bank data, reports CNN. In the Forbes interview, Assange said his information could "take down a bank or two"* and that it provided evidence of an "ecosystem of corruption." Assange said the leak would "give a true and representative insight into how banks behave" including "all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices." As with the diplomatic cables released in recent days, however, some say that unethical practices at banks aren't exactly a revelation. "Anyone who follows the banking industry knows these guys are essentially insolvent," Wall Street commentator Barry Ritholtz told Fortune. "So we're not going to get surprised there."

 

CNN

 

*Let's see if he can back that up. He often sounds deluded and naive, prototypical hacker type tbh.

 

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010...julian-assange/ - Interview link

 

If and when they take him down and they will, there are thousands ready to take his place.

[Park Life 71]

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it strikes me that these leaks show other governments engaged in far more hypocritical behavior.

 

Agree with this and made a similar point above. I think the leak does the US more help than harm. Getting diplomats to spy on allies is embarrassing, but not outrageous in comparison to the pressure they're apparently getting on Iran.

 

How do you think it will help the US?

 

They've been banging the war drum against Iran for donkeys and getting a lot of stick for it, It does them no harm to have it shown that everyone else wants to get in there privately, even if they won't say so publicly.

 

If the US wanted a war with Iran they could have instigated it already, they have had ample opportunity - see the hostage crisis around 1980.

 

I'm not suggesting anything like a conspiracy theory whereby the US have manipulated a leak to justify an attack though. Just that if they do decide to attack, it would be hard for the states that pushed for it in these memos to condemn it.

 

Just imagine the hilarity if Iran already had nukes and wiped israel off the face off the map for a silly air strike on a reactor. [/Asanage]

[Park Life 71]

I only said that because there is a view that the US is trying to instigate a war with Iran, based on their policy towards Iran's nuclear development.

 

I feel like writing here about a conspiracy theory crackpot where I work who has no problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons, he thinks it is a more open and free society than the 'police state' we live in (he would rather live there than here he says). Similarly he thinks this of North Korea. Stories of the regimes from those countries is just 'BBC propaganda'. We also kill 'millions and millions' of Afghans and Iraqis every year, far more than Saddam Hussein ever did, any information to the contrary is 'BBC propaganda'. When I put it to him that it may be difficult to purchase books in Iran he responded that you can't buy a book in Britain that hasn't been edited to warp your mindset to fit the police state. He loves wikileaks, he went to the student riots in Liverpool (he is not a student, though he says everything taught in universities is 'lies'. I asked him if he was protesting so he could pay less to be taught lies. He said the whole world is a big lie), and he thinks the film the Matrix is the best film ever, as it is the truth. He took the red pill he says (didn't mean anything to me), he read out a speech from the Matrix that he had saved on his phone at this point, which apparently served to prove his point that Britain murders millions and millions of innocent Iraqis on an annual basis.

 

Was he like a tall bloke with a blog about NUFC finances?

[Happy Face 29]

I only said that because there is a view that the US is trying to instigate a war with Iran, based on their policy towards Iran's nuclear development.

 

I feel like writing here about a conspiracy theory crackpot where I work who has no problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons, he thinks it is a more open and free society than the 'police state' we live in (he would rather live there than here he says). Similarly he thinks this of North Korea. Stories of the regimes from those countries is just 'BBC propaganda'. We also kill 'millions and millions' of Afghans and Iraqis every year, far more than Saddam Hussein ever did, any information to the contrary is 'BBC propaganda'. When I put it to him that it may be difficult to purchase books in Iran he responded that you can't buy a book in Britain that hasn't been edited to warp your mindset to fit the police state. He loves wikileaks, he went to the student riots in Liverpool (he is not a student, though he says everything taught in universities is 'lies'. I asked him if he was protesting so he could pay less to be taught lies. He said the whole world is a big lie), and he thinks the film the Matrix is the best film ever, as it is the truth. He took the red pill he says (didn't mean anything to me), he read out a speech from the Matrix that he had saved on his phone at this point, which apparently served to prove his point that Britain murders millions and millions of innocent Iraqis on an annual basis.

 

Has he sacked anyone for wearing a poppy though?

[Park Life 71]

I only said that because there is a view that the US is trying to instigate a war with Iran, based on their policy towards Iran's nuclear development.

 

I feel like writing here about a conspiracy theory crackpot where I work who has no problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons, he thinks it is a more open and free society than the 'police state' we live in (he would rather live there than here he says). Similarly he thinks this of North Korea. Stories of the regimes from those countries is just 'BBC propaganda'. We also kill 'millions and millions' of Afghans and Iraqis every year, far more than Saddam Hussein ever did, any information to the contrary is 'BBC propaganda'. When I put it to him that it may be difficult to purchase books in Iran he responded that you can't buy a book in Britain that hasn't been edited to warp your mindset to fit the police state. He loves wikileaks, he went to the student riots in Liverpool (he is not a student, though he says everything taught in universities is 'lies'. I asked him if he was protesting so he could pay less to be taught lies. He said the whole world is a big lie), and he thinks the film the Matrix is the best film ever, as it is the truth. He took the red pill he says (didn't mean anything to me), he read out a speech from the Matrix that he had saved on his phone at this point, which apparently served to prove his point that Britain murders millions and millions of innocent Iraqis on an annual basis.

 

Has he sacked anyone for wearing a poppy though?

 

 

Or worse still was he caught reading a book?

[Meenzer 15931]

I only said that because there is a view that the US is trying to instigate a war with Iran, based on their policy towards Iran's nuclear development.

 

I feel like writing here about a conspiracy theory crackpot where I work who has no problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons, he thinks it is a more open and free society than the 'police state' we live in (he would rather live there than here he says). Similarly he thinks this of North Korea. Stories of the regimes from those countries is just 'BBC propaganda'. We also kill 'millions and millions' of Afghans and Iraqis every year, far more than Saddam Hussein ever did, any information to the contrary is 'BBC propaganda'. When I put it to him that it may be difficult to purchase books in Iran he responded that you can't buy a book in Britain that hasn't been edited to warp your mindset to fit the police state. He loves wikileaks, he went to the student riots in Liverpool (he is not a student, though he says everything taught in universities is 'lies'. I asked him if he was protesting so he could pay less to be taught lies. He said the whole world is a big lie), and he thinks the film the Matrix is the best film ever, as it is the truth. He took the red pill he says (didn't mean anything to me), he read out a speech from the Matrix that he had saved on his phone at this point, which apparently served to prove his point that Britain murders millions and millions of innocent Iraqis on an annual basis.

 

Has he sacked anyone for wearing a poppy though?

 

 

Or worse still was he caught reading a book?

 

A book he was given by his geography teacher?

[Park Life 71]

Wikileaks controversy highlights debate over shield law

By Paul Farhi

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, August 21, 2010

 

Until just a few weeks ago, news organizations thought they were cruising toward a long-cherished goal: Congressional passage of a federal shield law to protect journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources.

 

Then came Wikileaks.

 

The notoriety surrounding Wikileaks.org's release of nearly 76,000 secret military documents last month has complicated, and possibly imperiled, enactment of shield legislation pending in the Senate, proponents and opponents of the measure both say.

 

Wikileaks apparently obtained the documents, describing the U.S. military's conduct of the war in Afghanistan, from a military source and posted them on the Internet. The release sparked praise and criticism, the latter from government officials who said the revelations could endanger U.S.-led forces and their Afghan allies. At the same time, Wikileaks made the documents available to the New York Times and two other news organizations, which published stories based on them. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says that his group plans to release an additional 15,000 documents this month.

 

The shield legislation would protect journalists from having to reveal anonymous sources when challenged by prosecutors in federal court. The protection wouldn't apply in all cases, however. In matters involving terrorism and national security, government lawyers could ask a judge to remove the shield. The bill passed the House and a Senate panel last fall, and it may come up for Senate debate after the August recess.

 

Supporters of the bill point out that such a law wouldn't affect Wikileaks. As a "virtual" organization, with no fixed address or country of origin, Wikileaks isn't subject to U.S. law, meaning it couldn't be protected or subjected to disclosure by an American court.

 

Nevertheless, Wikileaks seems to be overshadowing the discussion.

 

"It's true that some members of Congress are concerned" in the wake of Wikileaks' disclosures, says Kevin Smith, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, which has been advocating for a shield law for years. "There's a guilt-by-association factor here."

 

But opponents of the legislation say it gives judges too much leeway to determine what's in the "public interest" when it comes to protecting journalists in cases involving national security. They fear that investigators would have to release sensitive information to convince a judge to force a reporter to reveal his sources. For these reasons, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary committee, has called the bill "deeply and fundamentally flawed."

 

One Republican aide, who was not authorized by his boss to speak publicly about the issue, said, "The Wikileaks controversy highlights some of the significant national security concerns about the shield legislation." As a result, he predicted the measure would not move forward this year

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0082005402.html

Edited December 1, 2010 by Park Life

[LeazesMag 0]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

 

Seriously HF. No wind up, no "banter"....just why exactly do you spend so much of your time raking around the internet looking for all this sort of thing ?

 

Yeah, why the fuck are you looking to educate yourself on what's going on in the world?

 

I already am thanks.

 

 

 

...further proof LM really doesn't have a fucking clue.....

 

ewerk and yourself.....were talking to HF.

 

stick with the program....there will be a short quiz.

 

omg. I'm used to people jumping and making comments addressed to me for no reason. Just like you have done. You can go back to Canada now, or wherever you come from.

 

 

 

awwwww muffin...you sound like you need a hug

 

ah. Shame. You think everybody agrees with you then

[LeazesMag 0]

I only said that because there is a view that the US is trying to instigate a war with Iran, based on their policy towards Iran's nuclear development.

 

I feel like writing here about a conspiracy theory crackpot where I work who has no problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons, he thinks it is a more open and free society than the 'police state' we live in (he would rather live there than here he says). Similarly he thinks this of North Korea. Stories of the regimes from those countries is just 'BBC propaganda'. We also kill 'millions and millions' of Afghans and Iraqis every year, far more than Saddam Hussein ever did, any information to the contrary is 'BBC propaganda'. When I put it to him that it may be difficult to purchase books in Iran he responded that you can't buy a book in Britain that hasn't been edited to warp your mindset to fit the police state. He loves wikileaks, he went to the student riots in Liverpool (he is not a student, though he says everything taught in universities is 'lies'. I asked him if he was protesting so he could pay less to be taught lies. He said the whole world is a big lie), and he thinks the film the Matrix is the best film ever, as it is the truth. He took the red pill he says (didn't mean anything to me), he read out a speech from the Matrix that he had saved on his phone at this point, which apparently served to prove his point that Britain murders millions and millions of innocent Iraqis on an annual basis.

 

Has he sacked anyone for wearing a poppy though?

 

 

Or worse still was he caught reading a book?

 

A book he was given by his geography teacher?

 

maybe

[LeazesMag 0]

I only said that because there is a view that the US is trying to instigate a war with Iran, based on their policy towards Iran's nuclear development.

 

I feel like writing here about a conspiracy theory crackpot where I work who has no problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons, he thinks it is a more open and free society than the 'police state' we live in (he would rather live there than here he says). Similarly he thinks this of North Korea. Stories of the regimes from those countries is just 'BBC propaganda'. We also kill 'millions and millions' of Afghans and Iraqis every year, far more than Saddam Hussein ever did, any information to the contrary is 'BBC propaganda'. When I put it to him that it may be difficult to purchase books in Iran he responded that you can't buy a book in Britain that hasn't been edited to warp your mindset to fit the police state. He loves wikileaks, he went to the student riots in Liverpool (he is not a student, though he says everything taught in universities is 'lies'. I asked him if he was protesting so he could pay less to be taught lies. He said the whole world is a big lie), and he thinks the film the Matrix is the best film ever, as it is the truth. He took the red pill he says (didn't mean anything to me), he read out a speech from the Matrix that he had saved on his phone at this point, which apparently served to prove his point that Britain murders millions and millions of innocent Iraqis on an annual basis.

 

sounds just like the old CND fruitcakes used to

[Happy Face 29]

[LeazesMag 0]

 

you do spend your life raking around for this sort of thing don't you

[Happy Face 29]

 

you do spend your life raking around for this sort of thing don't you

 

No, I have a twitter list that links me to many items that might amuse or interest me in the world of current affairs. There's zero raking involved my friend.

 

Here's the list if you'd like to follow it too....

 

http://twitter.com/#!/MikeAshleyLies/news

[LeazesMag 0]

 

you do spend your life raking around for this sort of thing don't you

 

No, I have a twitter list that links me to many items that might amuse or interest me in the world of current affairs. There's zero raking involved my friend.

 

Here's the list if you'd like to follow it too....

 

http://twitter.com/#!/MikeAshleyLies/news

 

how much time do you spend doing this ?

[Happy Face 29]

 

you do spend your life raking around for this sort of thing don't you

 

No, I have a twitter list that links me to many items that might amuse or interest me in the world of current affairs. There's zero raking involved my friend.

 

Here's the list if you'd like to follow it too....

 

http://twitter.com/#!/MikeAshleyLies/news

 

how much time do you spend doing this ?

 

Reading the news? Maybe an hour a day.

 

Love the way you see actually reading the news as a reason to fault someone.

 

Strange that you deem it necessary to actually go to the match to have an opinion on that though.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

you do spend your life raking around for this sort of thing don't you

 

No, I have a twitter list that links me to many items that might amuse or interest me in the world of current affairs. There's zero raking involved my friend.

 

Here's the list if you'd like to follow it too....

 

http://twitter.com/#!/MikeAshleyLies/news

 

how much time do you spend doing this ?

 

Reading the news? Maybe an hour a day.

 

Love the way you see actually reading the news as a reason to fault someone.

 

Strange that you deem it necessary to actually go to the match to have an opinion on that though.

 

I don't think its a fault at all, everyone should do it. Only that you seem to spend an excessive amount of time hawking around the internet for anti-US propaganda.

 

Which is entirely up to you of course.

 

Going to watch a football team is nothing to do with your political views mind.

[tinofbeans 91]

glad thats been cleared up then.

[Happy Face 29]

Top Ten Middle East Wikileaks Revelations so Far

 

1. The British government’s official inquiry into how it got involved in the Iraq War was deeply compromised by the government’s pledge to protect the Bush administration in the course of it.

 

2. Afghan President Hamid Karzai routinely pardons drug dealers and corrupt officials.

 

3. Karzai’s brother, Ahmad Wali, is called a corrupt drug dealer. He is chief of the provincial council of Qandahar and said to be more powerful than the province’s governor. A US official wrote, “While we must deal with AWK as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker. End Note.”

 

4. The Boston Globe reports of Senator John Kerry that he urged the return of the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace: “In the meeting last February with the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Kerry said Syria should be involved simultaneously in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, saying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “needs to compromise and work the return of the Golan Heights into a formula for peace,’’ according to the summary of Kerry’s remarks.”

 

5. Israeli General admits that Israel’s narrow focus on its qualitative military edge often conflicts with the global interests of the United States.

 

6. Former US-appointed interim prime minister of Iraq in 2004-early 2005, Iyad Allawi, is Alleged to have urged a US attack on Iran. He denies the report.

 

7. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told the US to forget about democracy in Iraq and instead install a dictator (“the Iraqis are too tough.”) He also warned the US to stay in Iraq militarily, asserting that otherwise the Iranians would take over the country. Mubarak had vigorously opposed the US march to war against Iraq in 2002-2003.

 

8.The Israelis wanted military dictator Pervez Musharraf to remain in power.

 

9. Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the current Pakistani chief of staff, allegedly considered making a coup in spring, 2009, when Nawaz Sharif was leading a popular movement in the streets to demand the reinstatement of the dismissed supreme court chief justice. Kayani considered moving against President Asaf Ali Zardari in case his weakness might allow Nawaz to return to power.

 

10. Aside from that occasion, Kayani, is said to have learned from dictator Gen. Musharraf not to try to rule directly. He is adept at staying behind the scenes but using other institutions to protect the interests of the military. He succeeded in foiling an American plan to put civilian politicians in control of the military. (Obviously, this French assessment of Kayani was made before, or in ignorance of, his having toyed with a coup in spring 2009).

 

http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/top-ten-mi...ons-so-far.html

[The Fish 11133]

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.

 

no response Leazes?

 

to be honest, I'm bored trying to educate some of you lot now as to the ways of the world. You asked for my "56 year old view" [like you have done re football issues] and you've got it. And just like you were in the football issues, you're wrong.

 

What?! When have I asked for you 56yr old view? Show me ONE post where I've done that and I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've ignored the entirety of my post and yet again fabricated an argument instead. The irony is not lost on me.

 

Pssst

[Happy Face 29]

Authoritarian governments and tightly controlled media in China and across the Arab Middle East have suppressed virtually all mention of the documents, avoiding the public backlash that could result from such candid portrayals of their leaders' views.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

The US struck its first blow against WikiLeaks after Amazon.com pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/0...-servers-amazon

 

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

 

no response Leazes?

 

to be honest, I'm bored trying to educate some of you lot now as to the ways of the world. You asked for my "56 year old view" [like you have done re football issues] and you've got it. And just like you were in the football issues, you're wrong.

 

What?! When have I asked for you 56yr old view? Show me ONE post where I've done that and I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've ignored the entirety of my post and yet again fabricated an argument instead. The irony is not lost on me.

 

Pssst

 

repetitive and boring. People might block you mind

[The Fish 11133]

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.

 

no response Leazes?

 

to be honest, I'm bored trying to educate some of you lot now as to the ways of the world. You asked for my "56 year old view" [like you have done re football issues] and you've got it. And just like you were in the football issues, you're wrong.

 

What?! When have I asked for you 56yr old view? Show me ONE post where I've done that and I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've ignored the entirety of my post and yet again fabricated an argument instead. The irony is not lost on me.

 

Pssst

 

repetitive and boring. People might block you mind

So no response then. No surprise.

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

 

no response Leazes?

 

to be honest, I'm bored trying to educate some of you lot now as to the ways of the world. You asked for my "56 year old view" [like you have done re football issues] and you've got it. And just like you were in the football issues, you're wrong.

 

What?! When have I asked for you 56yr old view? Show me ONE post where I've done that and I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've ignored the entirety of my post and yet again fabricated an argument instead. The irony is not lost on me.

 

Pssst

 

repetitive and boring. People might block you mind

So no response then. No surprise.

 

[The Fish 11133]

...

[tooner 243]

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.

 

no response Leazes?

 

to be honest, I'm bored trying to educate some of you lot now as to the ways of the world. You asked for my "56 year old view" [like you have done re football issues] and you've got it. And just like you were in the football issues, you're wrong.

 

What?! When have I asked for you 56yr old view? Show me ONE post where I've done that and I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've ignored the entirety of my post and yet again fabricated an argument instead. The irony is not lost on me.

 

Pssst

 

repetitive and boring. People might block you mind

So no response then. No surprise.