Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Wikileaks sparks worldwide diplomatic crisis Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 
   

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-17-2010 07:47 PM
InfiniteEclipse 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange | Media | The Guardian

"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.

"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."
12-16-2010 05:39 PM
snowjeeper just that facebook is "new" to old people.
12-16-2010 04:31 PM
InfiniteEclipse
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
yeah not to your 55 year old mom though, facebook is new to her. Man I can't wait to be old and help fuck up things for the younger generation.
talking to me? I was referring to them awarding Times to mark (a couple years late)... not sure what my mother has to do with any of this
12-16-2010 03:45 PM
snowjeeper yeah not to your 55 year old mom though, facebook is new to her. Man I can't wait to be old and help fuck up things for the younger generation.
12-16-2010 02:49 PM
InfiniteEclipse Couple years late with that one
12-16-2010 02:35 PM
snowjeeper I vomited a little in my mouth when I read that yesterday. What a crock of shit.
12-16-2010 02:29 PM
david_z Shut up and accept Mark Zuckerberg as the most important person of the year.
12-16-2010 01:26 PM
InfiniteEclipse bail granted

WikiLeaks founder released from British custody

12-13-2010 10:16 AM
ev13wt Not many people can handle the truth. Our goverment seems to think that we can't handle the truth about what they do with our tax money! Why? Like the military video where civs are killed...

What exactly is dangerous about these leaks? Are we in danger because we now know the truth about certain things? Who decides what we can handle? The goverment? Would we be safer if we know less? Can we trust "the goverment"? I sure as hell don't.

We are paying for this information with our taxes, do we not have a right to know every last detail? Where is there any lobby behind this information flow? Wiki leaks has no lobby, no profit, no need to shape the public perception. So why is our goverment against this? How can a president that promises "change" be against transparency of goverment? High diplomacy? Media preparing us to accept certain "facts" - that are different than what is "really" intended? Life is simple in the news. Hey look: Bad guy. We are gonna have to attack the bad guy, no way around it. Then more sons and dughters die for some "cause" that is ultimately controlled by commercial interests.

Less secrets in goverment, more transparancy.
12-13-2010 09:46 AM
PaoloSmythe alot of american policy in the past has been based upon 'plausible deniability'. if something horrendous is done, people would sooner believe it wasn't the 'good guys' who were responsible, so give them hope of this being so. this is not so easy in the age of information.

and so what we are muddling through at the moment, is a tricky transition from a few 'deniable truths' being managed, to an environment so saturated in dispicable deeds, that few are surprised or even care anymore!

we receive news of a bad deed (either covered up or not) and who is brought to book? is that not a vital function within a civilisation? that those who behave contrary to the 'greater good', receive a negative consequence to their actions?

stick Assange in irons and most will cheer "victory" when he is eventually released (and he will be). this will be enough, to allow us to forget those who really deserve incarceration. one of the oldest tricks in the book.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome