Julian Assange Speech

Daithi 1

Video speaks for itself, conspiracy wise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1ZyrHT-HRM

juan.kerr

Hope he enjoyed his Christmas couped up in the embassy while he avoids facing the music.

Jonny7

Strange the way "they" can kill 3,000 Americans, 20 children, and control the world's press ..

but they just can't disappear this gentleman

IngazZagni

Jonny7 wrote: »

Strange the way "they" can kill 3,000 Americans, 20 children, and control the world's press ..

but they just can't disappear this gentleman

While I don't believe most of this conspiracy stuff I think it would make perfect sense for "them" to keep guys like this around as it makes them look like loonies to most other folk. Having no one like this would make it more suspicious imo.

Jonny7

Oh, so "they" keep a reasonable man like Assange in the news and "they" keep Wikileaks open..

Why not go further and speculate that both himself and the Wikileaks organisation are in fact both conspiracies in themselves to dripfeed the public and cover up the real CTs.. 911, NWO, etc.

Daithi 1

juan.kerr wrote: »

Hope he enjoyed his Christmas couped up in the embassy while he avoids facing the music.

Yes, he's clearly just a non rubber using rapist, trying to avoid extradition to America, for his crimes against slappers in Sweden. Nothing more.

Daithi 1

Why the sudden interest ?

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Oh, so "they" keep a reasonable man like Assange in the news and "they" keep Wikileaks open..

Why not go further and speculate that both himself and the Wikileaks organisation are in fact both conspiracies in themselves to dripfeed the public and cover up the real CTs.. 911, NWO, etc.

Bingo, now your getting it!
And i thought there was no hope for you Jonny

FREETV

Torakx wrote: »

Bingo, now your getting it!
And i thought there was no hope for you Jonny

Well they didn't release any good UFO stuff, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Torakx

FREETV wrote: »

Well they didn't release any good UFO stuff, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Never considered that or looked into it, but good point if true.
If they didnt, it would help make them look more legit than the rest of the groups releasing abduction interviews and whistleblowers.
Somebody must represent the opposition (as seen in mainstream politics).
Wiki Leaks, Anonymous,Alex Jones et al.

biko

Jonny7 wrote: »

Strange the way "they" can kill 3,000 Americans, 20 children, and control the world's press ..

but they just can't disappear this gentleman

Not for lack of want though. I suppose he's still too high-profile

Torakx

I think the fact he has so much high profile airtime in the US media,might be another indicator this is all a play to enact something bigger.
Like an international internet monitoring system for "terrorism".
Or the fabled internet 2.0

Assange would have been stopped well before he got too much public attention, if he was such a theat that they are mentioning warfair.

I always apply the Problem Reaction Solution framework to these types of stories, to check if their might be motives, ignored by the mainstream media.
Wikileaks combined with Anonymous, seem to me, to be the perfect excuses needed to attack international rights, regarding the internet and users.
If we lose control of the internet to a centralised agency, we face further implications with controlling our rights.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

I think the fact he has so much high profile airtime in the US media,might be another indicator this is all a play to enact something bigger.
Like an international internet monitoring system for "terrorism".
Or the fabled internet 2.0

Assange would have been stopped well before he got too much public attention, if he was such a theat that they are mentioning warfair.

I always apply the Problem Reaction Solution framework to these types of stories, to check if their might be motives, ignored by the mainstream media.
Wikileaks combined with Anonymous, seem to me, to be the perfect excuses needed to attack international rights, regarding the internet and users.
If we lose control of the internet to a centralised agency, we face further implications with controlling our rights.

Yeah but..

Torakx

Thats a really good ideology,once used responsibly.
I didnt say there wasnt evidence or that there was, or established your criteria for evidence in this case.

If you have been an avid boards CT reader, you might have a good idea of why i would come to these conclusions.
Im refering aswell to my general theories regarding Alex Jones, David Icke et al, being plants to lead "truthers" astray and/or to discredit the "truth movement" or used in some other manor.
Questioning a theory on the basis of evidence is fair game.
But having to contend with conspiracy, in the true sense of the word,you might agree, adds a certain amount of caution when relying solely on physical evidence.

Saddam Husein was taken down for having nuclear weapons capabilities.There was no evidence to show he had these.
But apparently that doesnt matter then, right?
So it was ok to dismiss any other circumstantial evidence, like a history of biological weapons or whatever?
I dont want to lead the topic astray here.
My point is that the world isnt so black and white.
We might argue over certain things being apparent or not.

Why not tell me, why i cant possibly be correct?

Ironbar

The media is being bought off....

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/cnn-reporter-admits-that-the-obama-administration-pays-for-cnn-content-make-up-your-own-mind/question-3295063/

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Saddam Husein was taken down for having nuclear weapons capabilities.There was no evidence to show he had these.

It wasn't nuclear weapons, although Bush did mention a debunked claim that Saddam was importing yellowcake from Niger. It was regarding biological and chemical weapons (some of which had been supplied by Western countries)

Jonny7

Ironbar wrote: »

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/cnn-reporter-admits-that-the-obama-administration-pays-for-cnn-content-make-up-your-own-mind/question-3295063/

Partisan blog.

Here's the CNN response
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/cnn-internationals-response-to-the-guardian/

Ironbar

Here's an independent article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/04/cnn-international-documentary-bahrain-arab-spring-repression

Jonny7

Ironbar wrote: »

Here's an independent article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/04/cnn-international-documentary-bahrain-arab-spring-repression

That's the original, my link is the CNN response to that.

Really shows up the partisan rhetoric on Sodahead. Not defending CNN, but there's clearly two sides to this story.