Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

LaoPo · December 11, 2010

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

How biting friendly you are, aren't you?

Maybe you forgot, but (even hiding) attacks on fellow members are not really appreciated according to the forum rules.

Discuss the content, not the member, OK?

LaoPo

softgeorge · December 11, 2010

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

According to the UN, there are 6,830,000,000 citizens of the world.

That means there are 6,823,,437,374 citizens that have NOT registered their support for Wikileaks.

When you get to 68,300,000 let us know. That will be 1% of the world's population.

How many of these numbers have access to the internet?

I don't know how many have internet access, but I will answer your question with another.

How many of your 6.8 million are really people and not simply entries? The Wikileaks linked group "Anonymous" shut down several web sites by flooding the web sites with e-mail. Maybe it is 3.4 million individuals posting two times, or 1.7 million posting four times, or....well, perhaps you get my point.

Are you in position to say "anonymous" has not inflated the numbers by using multiple posts per person or hacker? Not without a complete audit of the numbers performed by a reputable auditing firm.

Your numbers are highly suspect and totally irrelevant.

PS: I know. I know. Wikileaks has disavowed any connection to Anonymous. Any thinking individual knows that is spin.

_______________________________________________________________________

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

Maybe it's one person posting 6,800,000 times a little silly don't you think. Maybe maybe maybe, maybe is a strong argument

KhunAussie52 · December 11, 2010

6,562,626 is the number or supporters from around the world who have voiced there support for Wikileaks to date!!

The numbers are growing by the second.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php

According to the UN, there are 6,830,000,000 citizens of the world.

That means there are 6,823,,437,374 citizens that have NOT registered their support for Wikileaks.

When you get to 68,300,000 let us know. That will be 1% of the world's population.

How many of these numbers have access to the internet?

I don't know how many have internet access, but I will answer your question with another.

How many of your 6.8 million are really people and not simply entries? The Wikileaks linked group "Anonymous" shut down several web sites by flooding the web sites with e-mail. Maybe it is 3.4 million individuals posting two times, or 1.7 million posting four times, or....well, perhaps you get my point.

Are you in position to say "anonymous" has not inflated the numbers by using multiple posts per person or hacker? Not without a complete audit of the numbers performed by a reputable auditing firm.

Your numbers are highly suspect and totally irrelevant.

PS: I know. I know. Wikileaks has disavowed any connection to Anonymous. Any thinking individual knows that is spin.

_______________________________________________________________________

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

Maybe it's one person posting 6,800,000 times a little silly don't you think. Maybe maybe maybe, maybe is a strong argument

maybe that is what you want to believe.............so sad for you!!!!

mark45y · December 11, 2010

Certainly many people think that death is a possible outcome of some of the WikiLeaks....blah...blah.....rinse and repeat...and again.....why not try once more.....I don't think anyone's looking so I'll try again.....

Here you have a perfect example of why these forums are utterly pointless. Again and again, posts have been made which show this claim to be untrue and again and again you simply ignore it and repeat it over and over and over and over again. And all the while - seemingly without feeling the slightest shame about endlessly repeating yourself - you utterly fail to offer up any evidence which would encourage others to take you seriously.

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn't take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to "punish" any Afghan listed as having "collaborated" with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. "We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland's Parliament

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member "commission" after the Afghan documents were posted "to find about people who are spying." He said the Taliban had a "wanted" list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

"After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people," he said.

End of quotes.

A lot of people think it is possible. All I am asking is, If the leaks are implicated in death of Americans or Allies would it change your attitude toward WikiLeaks or is that an acceptable cost of Freedom of Speech?

"After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn't take long for the Taliban to react"

I have read those allegations on this forum before and my questions are:

Is there any proof that this happened?

any links ?

any documents to proof what they say ?

What were the reactions by the Taliban ? any links to prove this ? How do they know ?

Or is it all hearsay ?

LaoPo

It has all been posted before but since there are three WikiLeaks threads (lot of interest) I can't tell you exactly where. But you can look. People get upset at me for posting things two or three times. Lord knows I don't want to upset anyone. Or you can google any of the article titles. I hardly think it is relevant though as we are talking about what if or maybe situations. I don't think many of these things are like instant rice. It takes time to plan a military operation or the downfall of a government.

KhunAussie52 · December 11, 2010

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

How biting friendly you are, aren't you?

Maybe you forgot, but (even hiding) attacks on fellow members are not really appreciated according to the forum rules.

Discuss the content, not the member, OK?

LaoPo

over 300,000 in 24 hours! Let's reach 1,000,000

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?r=act

they also except pay pal

long live freedom of speech and expression

chuckd · December 11, 2010

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

How biting friendly you are, aren't you?

Maybe you forgot, but (even hiding) attacks on fellow members are not really appreciated according to the forum rules.

Discuss the content, not the member, OK?

LaoPo

What in God's name are you talking about? Where have I made an attack on you or any fellow members? ("even hiding"...whatever that means)

I was simply pointing out the web address to you, which had been in each previous post before that, as you had requested.

I pointed out the site used by KhunAussie 52 was looking for donations and you could donate through either Mastercard or Visa.

That is all I said and that is all I meant. Point out the attack I made on you in the quoted post.

If you wish to accuse me of attacking you, then you should know what you are talking about. In this case you don't.

chuckd · December 11, 2010

According to the UN, there are 6,830,000,000 citizens of the world.

That means there are 6,823,,437,374 citizens that have NOT registered their support for Wikileaks.

When you get to 68,300,000 let us know. That will be 1% of the world's population.

How many of these numbers have access to the internet?

I don't know how many have internet access, but I will answer your question with another.

How many of your 6.8 million are really people and not simply entries? The Wikileaks linked group "Anonymous" shut down several web sites by flooding the web sites with e-mail. Maybe it is 3.4 million individuals posting two times, or 1.7 million posting four times, or....well, perhaps you get my point.

Are you in position to say "anonymous" has not inflated the numbers by using multiple posts per person or hacker? Not without a complete audit of the numbers performed by a reputable auditing firm.

Your numbers are highly suspect and totally irrelevant.

PS: I know. I know. Wikileaks has disavowed any connection to Anonymous. Any thinking individual knows that is spin.

_______________________________________________________________________

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

Maybe it's one person posting 6,800,000 times a little silly don't you think. Maybe maybe maybe, maybe is a strong argument

Yeah, sort of like Assange saying..."If we make these stolen documents public, MAYBE nobody will get hurt."

LaoPo · December 11, 2010

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

How biting friendly you are, aren't you?

Maybe you forgot, but (even hiding) attacks on fellow members are not really appreciated according to the forum rules.

Discuss the content, not the member, OK?

LaoPo

What in God's name are you talking about? Where have I made an attack on you or any fellow members? ("even hiding"...whatever that means)

I was simply pointing out the web address to you, which had been in each previous post before that, as you had requested.

I pointed out the site used by KhunAussie 52 was looking for donations and you could donate through either Mastercard or Visa.

That is all I said and that is all I meant. Point out the attack I made on you in the quoted post.

If you wish to accuse me of attacking you, then you should know what you are talking about. In this case you don't.

You addressed your quoted post at me PERSONALLY, telling me that "they" were looking for donations, in a biting.....below the belt voice/manner, suggesting I should use my creditcards to make a donation to WikiLeaks.

If you think that's funny than I don't understand your kind of humor since you addressed the quoted post to me PERSONALLY and it escapes me completely WHY you did so.

AND, about your sentence:

I was simply pointing out the web address to you, which had been in each previous post before that, as you had requested.

I was asking for a web address ? when and where ?

Are you referring to my rhetorical question: "Where is the anti-WikiLeaks poll? Would be interesting to see who's pro or contra." ?

sigh..unbelievable. I suggest you discuss the content and not me.

LaoPo

KhunAussie52 · December 11, 2010

Mr. Lao Po:

The web site is in the original post made by Khunaussie52 and is in the quoted portion above. They are looking for donations. You can probably use Mastercard or Visa to donate something to them.

How biting friendly you are, aren't you?

Maybe you forgot, but (even hiding) attacks on fellow members are not really appreciated according to the forum rules.

Discuss the content, not the member, OK?

LaoPo

What in God's name are you talking about? Where have I made an attack on you or any fellow members? ("even hiding"...whatever that means)

I was simply pointing out the web address to you, which had been in each previous post before that, as you had requested.

I pointed out the site used by KhunAussie 52 was looking for donations and you could donate through either Mastercard or Visa.

That is all I said and that is all I meant. Point out the attack I made on you in the quoted post.

If you wish to accuse me of attacking you, then you should know what you are talking about. In this case you don't.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?r=act

Yes they are asking for donations

Also, this is the site for an online petition

300.000 a day adds up to much angst, against those who are against freedom of speech and expression

The site is used by me is an example of the growing support for Julian Assange and wikileaks.

Ulysses G. · December 11, 2010

Maybe you forgot, but (even hiding) attacks on fellow members are not really appreciated according to the forum rules.

Discuss the content, not the member, OK?

You have attacked me personally and my posting style in a number of posts and chuckd is not attacking you in any way. What is this really about.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Ulysses G.

philw · December 11, 2010

Yeah, sort of like Assange saying..."If we make these stolen documents public, MAYBE nobody will get hurt."

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

So what ??

The point is the exposure of the posing, lies and machinations of those who are accountable.

elliss · December 11, 2010

looks like USA , is going to charge him with treason .

as them yankee boys , say in the movies ,

WE,RE GOINNA NAIL, THAT SONA OF A BITCH .

RIP :jap:

KhunAussie52 · December 11, 2010

Yeah, sort of like Assange saying..."If we make these stolen documents public, MAYBE nobody will get hurt."

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

So what ??

The point is the exposure of the posing, lies and machinations of those who are accountable.

Maybe you could quote Julian Assange...................instead of guess work!!!

KhunAussie52 · December 11, 2010

looks like USA , is going to charge him with treason .

as them yankee boys , say in the movies ,

WE,RE GOINNA NAIL, THAT SONA OF A BITCH .

RIP :jap:

And how will they achieve that.More lies and deception.

like the trumped up charges in Sweden.

You disgust me!!!!:jap:

chuckd · December 11, 2010

How biting friendly you are, aren't you?

Maybe you forgot, but (even hiding) attacks on fellow members are not really appreciated according to the forum rules.

Discuss the content, not the member, OK?

LaoPo

What in God's name are you talking about? Where have I made an attack on you or any fellow members? ("even hiding"...whatever that means)

I was simply pointing out the web address to you, which had been in each previous post before that, as you had requested.

I pointed out the site used by KhunAussie 52 was looking for donations and you could donate through either Mastercard or Visa.

That is all I said and that is all I meant. Point out the attack I made on you in the quoted post.

If you wish to accuse me of attacking you, then you should know what you are talking about. In this case you don't.

You addressed your quoted post at me PERSONALLY, telling me that "they" were looking for donations, in a biting.....below the belt voice/manner, suggesting I should use my creditcards to make a donation to WikiLeaks.

If you think that's funny than I don't understand your kind of humor since you addressed the quoted post to me PERSONALLY and it escapes me completely WHY you did so.

AND, about your sentence:

I was simply pointing out the web address to you, which had been in each previous post before that, as you had requested.

I was asking for a web address ? when and where ?

Are you referring to my rhetorical question: "Where is the anti-WikiLeaks poll? Would be interesting to see who's pro or contra." ?

sigh..unbelievable. I suggest you discuss the content and not me.

LaoPo

I addressed it to you since none of your posts were quoted and I wanted to get the web site to you.

Yes, it was in response to your so-called rhetorical question and my remarks about the donations were meant as humorous. The smiley didn't give you a clue???

I can now see you have no sense of humor and will refrain from any attempts to be either helpful or humorous with you in the future.

You are unlikely to see any smileys from me in the future.

LaoPo · December 11, 2010

How biting friendly you are, aren't you?

Maybe you forgot, but (even hiding) attacks on fellow members are not really appreciated according to the forum rules.

Discuss the content, not the member, OK?

LaoPo

What in God's name are you talking about? Where have I made an attack on you or any fellow members? ("even hiding"...whatever that means)

I was simply pointing out the web address to you, which had been in each previous post before that, as you had requested.

I pointed out the site used by KhunAussie 52 was looking for donations and you could donate through either Mastercard or Visa.

That is all I said and that is all I meant. Point out the attack I made on you in the quoted post.

If you wish to accuse me of attacking you, then you should know what you are talking about. In this case you don't.

You addressed your quoted post at me PERSONALLY, telling me that "they" were looking for donations, in a biting.....below the belt voice/manner, suggesting I should use my creditcards to make a donation to WikiLeaks.

If you think that's funny than I don't understand your kind of humor since you addressed the quoted post to me PERSONALLY and it escapes me completely WHY you did so.

AND, about your sentence:

I was simply pointing out the web address to you, which had been in each previous post before that, as you had requested.

I was asking for a web address ? when and where ?

Are you referring to my rhetorical question: "Where is the anti-WikiLeaks poll? Would be interesting to see who's pro or contra." ?

sigh..unbelievable. I suggest you discuss the content and not me.

LaoPo

I addressed it to you since none of your posts were quoted and I wanted to get the web site to you.

Yes, it was in response to your so-called rhetorical question and my remarks about the donations were meant as humorous. The smiley didn't give you a clue???

I can now see you have no sense of humor and will refrain from any attempts to be either helpful or humorous with you in the future.

You are unlikely to see any smileys from me in the future.

Good

LaoPo

JUDAS · December 11, 2010

I've followed this thread from the start and made a few posts. Whilst looking at it again a thought struck me. Those posting here are taking this issue in a serious manner with terms such as national security, threat to life, espionage and terrorist being used. I haven't counted and don't intend to but with 585 posts atm I'm guessing there are no more than around 40 or so individual contributors. Some of those 40ish are made up of regulars who appear on any thread involving the USA. How many members log onto TV per day? I'll guess at a thousand, certainly at least that many since the thread started. Around 40 posters from a thousand members per day or around 4% deem the topic worth a comment.

Looks like, if TV is in any way representative of public opinion , that most people actually don't give a dam_n. Just my observation and, please feel free to check my estimated figures

chuckd · December 11, 2010

Yeah, sort of like Assange saying..."If we make these stolen documents public, MAYBE nobody will get hurt."

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

So what ??

The point is the exposure of the posing, lies and machinations of those who are accountable.

Maybe you could quote Julian Assange...................instead of guess work!!!

Sure. I'll be happy to furnish some quotes for you from his upcoming trial for sex crimes.

Will you be needing any when his espionage trial comes up later?

KhunAussie52 · December 11, 2010

Yeah, sort of like Assange saying..."If we make these stolen documents public, MAYBE nobody will get hurt."

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

So what ??

The point is the exposure of the posing, lies and machinations of those who are accountable.

Maybe you could quote Julian Assange...................instead of guess work!!!

Sure. I'll be happy to furnish some quotes for you from his upcoming trial for sex crimes.

Will you be needing any when his espionage trial comes up later?

Yes Private manning will be put on trial.

As for Julian Assange.I do not think so!!!

As for the sex crimes.....probably Americas idea to frame him!!!!

chuckd · December 11, 2010

Yeah, sort of like Assange saying..."If we make these stolen documents public, MAYBE nobody will get hurt."

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

So what ??

The point is the exposure of the posing, lies and machinations of those who are accountable.

Maybe you could quote Julian Assange...................instead of guess work!!!

Sure. I'll be happy to furnish some quotes for you from his upcoming trial for sex crimes.

Will you be needing any when his espionage trial comes up later?

Yes Private manning will be put on trial.

As for Julian Assange.I do not think so!!!

As for the sex crimes.....probably Americas idea to frame him!!!!

Is that last sentence an example of "guess work" in operation?

Wallaby · December 11, 2010

Come on chuckd, I'll have one of your smiles. We need more to lighten up a bit.

LaoPo · December 11, 2010

Putin is real advocate of free speech. What a hypocrite.

Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko has accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of involvement in his death, in a statement dictated before he died.

Mr Litvinenko, 43, who died in a London hospital on Thursday evening and is thought to have been poisoned, said his killer was "barbaric and ruthless".

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/6180068.stm

WikiLeaks cables: Russia 'was tracking killers of Alexander Litvinenko but UK warned it off'

Claim that British intelligence was incompetent will deepen diplomatic row sparked by move to deport MP's Russian researcher

Jamie Doward and Emily Dyer

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 11 December 2010 21.30 GMT

Alexander Litvinenko, in intensive care shortly before his death from poisoning at University College Hospital, London, in 2006. Photograph: Natasja Weitsz/Getty Images

Russia was tracking the assassins of dissident spy Alexander Litvinenko before he was poisoned but was warned off by Britain, which said the situation was "under control", according to claims made in a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The secret memo, recording a 2006 meeting between an ex-CIA bureau chief and a former KGB officer, is set to reignite the diplomatic row surrounding Litvinenko's unsolved murder that year, which many espionage experts have linked directly to the Kremlin.The latest WikiLeaks release comes after relations between Moscow and London soured as a result of Britain's decision to expel a Russian parliamentary researcher suspected of being a spy.

The memo, written by staff at the US embassy in Paris, records "an amicable 7 December dinner meeting with ambassador-at-large Henry Crumpton [and] Russian special presidential representative Anatoliy Safonov", two weeks after Litvinenko's death from polonium poisoning had triggered an international hunt for his killers.

During the dinner, Crumpton, who ran the CIA's Afghanistan operations before becoming the US ambassador for counter-terrorism, and Safonov, an ex-KGB colonel-general, discussed ways the two countries could work together to tackle terrorism. The memo records that "Safonov opened the meeting by expressing his appreciation for US/Russian co-operative efforts thus far. He cited the recent events in London – specifically the murder of a former Russian spy by exposure to radioactive agents – as evidence of how great the threat remained and how much more there was to do on the co-operative front."

The memo contains an observation from US embassy officials that Safonov's comments suggested Russia "was not involved in the killing, although Safonov did not offer any further explanation".

More:

http://www.guardian....tvinenko-murder

LaoPo

LaoPo · December 11, 2010

US embassy cables: Russian official hints that Russia was not involved in Litvinenko murder

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 11 December 2010 21.30 GMT

Excerpt from ORIGINAL message:

"Tuesday, 26 December 2006, 11:45

S E C R E T PARIS 007904

SIPDIS

EO 12958 DECL: 11/21/2016

TAGS PARM, FR">FR

SUBJECT: S/CT CRUMPTON MEETS RUSSIAN COUNTERPART TO EXTEND

COUNTER-TERRORISM COOPERATION

Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor XXXXXXXXXXXX for reasons 1.4 b and d.

Summary In a meeting to discuss Russian-US counterterrorism cooperation, a Russian official drops a curious hint. He says that "recent events in London" - the murder of Alexander Litvinenko - show how vital cooperation is. The author of the cable inserts a comment, noting that the implication is that the Russian state was not, as some believe, involved in the killing. Later, the Russian makes another startling claim: that both the Russian and British authorities were aware of the presence in London of 'radioactive material' - which is what killed Litvinenko. The key passages are highlighted in yellow. (Blue - LP)

<snip>

2. (S) In a December 7 dinner meeting with Ambassador-at-Large Henry Crumpton,

Russian Special Presidential Representative Anatoliy Safonov welcomed several proposals aimed at extending bilateral counterterrorism (CT) cooperation.

Safonov opened the meeting by expressing his appreciation for U.S./Russian cooperative efforts thus far.

He cited the recent events in London - specifically the murder of a former Russian spy by exposure to radioactive agents - as evidence of how great the threat remained and how much more there was to do on the cooperative front.

(Comment: The implication was that the FOR was not involved, although Safonov did not offer any further explanation.)

Safonov noted the daunting number of countries that posed particular terrorism threats, mentioning North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, Libya, Iran, India, and Israel (sic?).

He described a range of dangers, stressing the more immediate threats posed by nuclear and biological terrorism, but also acknowledging the risks of chemical terrorism. Safonov highlighted coverage of transit corridors as one of the most promising areas of U.S./Russian CT cooperation and commented that the U.S. and Russia should continue to refine this effort.

Sign In

Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US