Greenwald is the go to guy for a lot of good info on Assange. He has left Salon and is now with The Guardian. He starts on the 20th. Comment is Free section.
I have rarely, if ever, seen such a miasma of lies, character assassination, and disinfo about anyone in my life. The NYT just ran a piece where they brought up Assange's supposed lack of toilet flushing skills. I mean, who gives a shit?
After a lot of criticism the Times has pulled that reference.
International law is being systematically undermined. Only the weak have need of the law. America is strong, the hegemon, these "international laws" that you speak of are only for little countries.
Tell a policeman that he is breaking the law. After he finishes beating you, he'll laugh at you.
Assange did commit a crime in England. This is indisputable, albeit a fairly minor one. He most certainly violated the terms of his bail.
However, storming the Embassy is insanely out of proportion to that crime.
It's clear that our masters have decided to destroy Assange, he is to be a lesson to anyone who imagines that they can challenge the power of the state.
Obama just said the US killed "thousands" in Iraq, so using his math, I'd say we prolly broke and arm or two. No biggie. The election is the important thing, have to keep our eye on the ball!
Then you had better read Greenwald's reply with a less jaundiced eye. Glenn has repeatedly made clear that he has the utmost respect for Juan Cole, as do I. The fact that he disagrees with him on this means nothing.
Professor Cole's support for this intervention is predicated on his apparent belief that our motives are pure, that 'we' are there for the reasons stated.
Never mind that UN Resolution 1973 is already being forgotten. What if this about bases in Libya, what if Libya is going to be a staging ground for an attack on Syria? What if the new regime is a hard core Islamist regime? What will 'we' do then?
When has America's stated reasons and intentions for intervention ever been accurate and true? We know our history.
I hope Professor Cole does not have to eat his hat on this one.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Precisely, shoot a few less, have a better strategy, blah, blah.
Tape is fine, just use masking tape leaves no residue.
Why would someone "trust" a spammer?
That mutt looks familiar.
Wow, a "matrix" well, that's A-Okay then! Why didn't you say so before.
My "disposition" is much better now.
Greenwald is the go to guy for a lot of good info on Assange. He has left Salon and is now with The Guardian. He starts on the 20th. Comment is Free section.
I have rarely, if ever, seen such a miasma of lies, character assassination, and disinfo about anyone in my life. The NYT just ran a piece where they brought up Assange's supposed lack of toilet flushing skills. I mean, who gives a shit?
After a lot of criticism the Times has pulled that reference.
Extradited for WHAT???
What he is accused of doing would be a very minor offence in most Western countries. It was not "rape" in the popular sense of the word.
The original posters point was that Assange did not commit any crime in Britain.
Oh, the Poodle court has ruled has it? Well, that's it then. Back to sleep!
International law is being systematically undermined. Only the weak have need of the law. America is strong, the hegemon, these "international laws" that you speak of are only for little countries.
Tell a policeman that he is breaking the law. After he finishes beating you, he'll laugh at you.
I don't approve of any this, btw. Just to clear.
Assange did commit a crime in England. This is indisputable, albeit a fairly minor one. He most certainly violated the terms of his bail.
However, storming the Embassy is insanely out of proportion to that crime.
It's clear that our masters have decided to destroy Assange, he is to be a lesson to anyone who imagines that they can challenge the power of the state.
Obama just said the US killed "thousands" in Iraq, so using his math, I'd say we prolly broke and arm or two. No biggie. The election is the important thing, have to keep our eye on the ball!
Then you had better read Greenwald's reply with a less jaundiced eye. Glenn has repeatedly made clear that he has the utmost respect for Juan Cole, as do I. The fact that he disagrees with him on this means nothing.
Professor Cole's support for this intervention is predicated on his apparent belief that our motives are pure, that 'we' are there for the reasons stated.
Never mind that UN Resolution 1973 is already being forgotten. What if this about bases in Libya, what if Libya is going to be a staging ground for an attack on Syria? What if the new regime is a hard core Islamist regime? What will 'we' do then?
When has America's stated reasons and intentions for intervention ever been accurate and true? We know our history.
I hope Professor Cole does not have to eat his hat on this one.