WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

@wandeljw,

Wandel - you seem to be imagining things: I most certainly did not omit the qualifying phrase. Here it is again:
[quote]...if through these leaks even one of them … ends up dead...[/quote]
Are you so ignorant as to imagine enemies only read Australian-source leaks and bypass the NYT, the Guardian, der Spiegel et al?

For the record, this is a link to my post to which you were responding:
http://able2know.org/topic/164540-88#post-4448592

Perhaps you will address it at your convenience. Thank you.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

Yes, Sweden is calling for the extradition of Assange and not the US, however you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the mere conduct of overumpeling two women is the main issue here.

I thought we took time to clear up the use of these terms? Why be so casual as if it actual was a joke?

I thought of a comparison. If a man forced himself on a woman and an investigation was launched into allegations about sexual assault, the man's defense lawyer might stand at a podium and say "he's being charged for playing 'just the tip'. I don't even know what that means." Now just because the phrase is used doesn't mean we should go around repeating it as if that was the legal term or to promote that what is happening was merely anything.

It's not sex, it's "just the tip"

It's not sexual assault, it's mere "overumpeling"

I think we should move away from using slang about this case. It isn't a joke.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Wandel - you seem to be imagining things: I most certainly did not omit the qualifying phrase. Here it is again:
...if through these leaks even one of them … ends up dead...
Are you so ignorant as to imagine enemies only read Australian-source leaks and bypass the NYT, the Guardian, der Spiegel et al?

For the record, this is a link to my post to which you were responding:
http://able2know.org/topic/164540-88#post-4448592

Perhaps you will address it at your convenience. Thank you.

Sorry. I should have stated that both qualifying phrases should be included. You still omit "because an internet general back in Australia is releasing this information...."

The two phrases make it clear that Trembath is referring to casualities caused by the leaks themselves, not the list of battle circumstances stated by you in your post.

You also ask whether it is possible to make a connection between the leaks and any casualities. Captain Trembath would be able to determine that better than any of us could. That would require further disclosure of battle information and Trembath, of course, is opposed to that.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Sorry. I should have stated that both qualifying phrases should be included. You still omit "because an internet general back in Australia is releasing this information...." That would require further disclosure of battle information and Trembath, of course, is opposed to that.

Thank you for the correction. I now question the "further" in your reply unless you can show that any such information has been disclosed. The captain is perfectly correct in starting with "if" - and I see nobody posting here who would wilfully endanger the troops.

3 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I think we should move away from using slang about this case. It isn't a joke.

OK fa. Spades are spades. It basically means not ejaculating on an egg in its natural state i.e. potentially fertilisable. Anything short of that can be seen as mere social play.

That is recognised in law by rape sentences being reduced where the rapist uses a condom.

Graduating backwards one might argue, theologically, that seeking fame is an aspect in the foreplay. Which is why celibate priests behave in a fashion that is found nowhere else in the evolutionary canon. That starting Wikileaks expressed an intention to "overumple" possibly due to an incapacity to achieve the objective in the normal way which, using shorthand, might be called "serenade".

By being in bed with the man after an evening of various types of foreplay a woman has granted permission for "overrumpeling" and to prove rape she needs to prove ejaculation on to the egg took place against her expressed wish. Which is easy to do if she objects by simply going to a police station and having samples taken which can be linked forensically to the man. Or even saving them herself as Exhibit 1.

If anyone rises to the responsible positions of prosecutor or judge without knowing that simple stuff there is something wrong with the recruitment process.

1 Reply

@spendius,

"Bundling" was the traditional nomenclature.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Sorry. I should have stated that both qualifying phrases should be included. You still omit "because an internet general back in Australia is releasing this information...." That would require further disclosure of battle information and Trembath, of course, is opposed to that.

Thank you for the correction. I now question the "further" in your reply unless you can show that any such information has been disclosed. The captain is perfectly correct in starting with "if" - and I see nobody posting here who would wilfully endanger the troops.

The captain was referring to Wikileaks posts. I am also certain that no one posting on this this thread would want to see troops endangered by leaks.

I do not have access to the leaks. Captain Trembath does have access and appears to have been bothered about leaks concerning the Afghan situation.

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

It's not sexual assault, it's mere "overumpeling"

I think we should move away from using slang about this case. It isn't a joke.

"sexual assault" is the new terminology here, before 1970 it was rarely used. I for one dont feel any compulsion to use rape feminist terminology or definitions, nor condemn others who stray from it. We are all free people, we have the right to our own opinions and the right to voice these opinions in our own words.
http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+the+term+sexual+assault&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS244US244&prmd=ivns&sa=X&ei=vC8OTYe4DpOisAOczNmnAg&ved=0CGkQpQI&tbs=tl:1,tlul:1930,tluh:2010

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

We're saying the same thing, then. The captain wisely stayed with the hypothetical "if" and we all hope it stays hypothetical.

I've got to leave soon (if European airports open up given this latest blatant manifestation of global warming over there) so I'd like to quickly cover the appallingly common ignorance of history mentioned on the previous page by Walter, Setanta, and others.
1. The Lusitania was found years ago in the Irish Sea and her cargo shown to include artillery and ammunition - and any vessel carrying war materiel in a war zone is by any definition a warship. That was the information given to Captain Schwieger by the German Admiralty, and it was well known to Churchill, then in charge of the British Admiralty, who chose to keep quiet. The Schwieger family threw a huge party in Berlin after the wreck was finally located and examined - at last free of the horrible accusation that their relative had sunk a passenger ship.
2. The Ems telegram: to this day there's a widespread impression that Germany attacked France in 1870, when the opposite is true.
3. I also believe that Wilson was a fool in getting bamboozled into sending troops to the European front in 1917 - see Lusitania above. That Churchill never told him the truth speaks volumes about the motives of that country - never mind the Zimmerman telegram.

Merry Christmas to all here.

3 Replies

@failures art,

I am working backwards here, as so much has been written since I was here last...
--

failure art, have you actually read the entire article that was written in the Guardian on the full allegations from Sweden? If not, please do so ....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

I am the first one to protect any woman who has been raped, this is a serious
crime that isn't reported in 80 % of the cases. However, to make light of
such a serious crime and press charges because a condom was broken during
consensual sex in case a) and not having used a condom in case b)
is not rape in my books. Furthermore, in case a) Assange stayed for an additional week at the apartment, in case b) he was re-invited. Both women filed charges when they found out that Assange had sex with both of them and then they filed charges in order for him to get tested for any STDs.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

and any vessel carrying war materiel in a war zone is by any definition a warship.

Oh lord the fools did sink a passenger ship full of civilians of many nations, a great many of them citizens of neutral nations such as the US and no matter how you try to rewrite history or spin it was not a warship.

And there was also the little matter of Germany trying to get Mexico to attack us.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandel,
now there is disgust about soldiers on the front line? Where was all the outcry
the previous 5 years when unnecessary lives of NATO soldiers were lost, or
all the american soldiers in Iraq? Any new casualty will be blamed on wikileaks - how convenient is that?

While we are at it, may I remind you how the US treats is veteran soldiers?
Do you remember when the troops came back from the first Golf war ? They
were denied treatment for post war syndrome and many were possibly exposed to chemical warfare. Let's not forget Vietnam where US troops were subjected to Agent Orange without them knowing and without receiving treatment afterwards.

Now with wikileaks, we all of a sudden remember our poor troops. Halleluha!

Every one of those solders who died in combat, regardless of his nationality is one too many.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

wandel,
now there is disgust about soldiers on the front line? Where was all the outcry
the previous 5 years when unnecessary lives of NATO soldiers were lost, or
all the american soldiers in Iraq? Any new casualty will be blamed on wikileaks - how convenient is that?

While we are at it, may I remind you how the US treats is veteran soldiers?
Do you remember when the troops came back from the first Golf war ? They
were denied treatment for post war syndrome and many were possibly exposed to chemical warfare. Let's not forget Vietnam where US troops were subjected to Agent Orange without them knowing and without receiving treatment afterwards.

Now with wikileaks, we all of a sudden remember our poor troops. Halleluha!

Every one of those solders who died in combat, regardless of his nationality is one too many.

Death in battle is always tragic. The disgust comes from the soldiers themselves. The soldiers on the front line do not want unnecessary risk caused by "internet generals."

2 Replies

@msolga,

I missed that completely MsOlga. I haven't read any cables about the Middle East yet. I started with Germany (naturally) and moved towards Central Asia, yet
the cable you have posted here is interesting too. I wonder what Ali Abdullah Saleh got in return for the cover up? Equipment and training alone can't be it!

It is understandable why the US did this however. They feared severe repercussions on US soil from Al Quaeda.

This hasn't been the first time that the US is looking for allies in conflict prone
areas. We remember the built up of military equipment and training Iraq has received from the US in order to protect themselves from then public enemy # 1 - Iran. Not a decade passed and Iraq turned on the US.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

Contraband and second explosion
her cargo shown to include artillery and ammunition - and any vessel carrying war materiel in a war zone is by any definition a warship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania#Contraband_and_second_explosion

The telegraph on the wreck of LusitaniaThe "Prize rules" or "Cruiser rules", laid down by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, governed the seizure of vessels at sea during wartime, although changes in technology such as radio and the submarine eventually made them redundant. Merchant ships were to be warned by warships, and their passengers and crew allowed to abandon ship before they were sunk, unless the ship resisted or tried to escape, or was in a convoy protected by warships. Limited armament on a merchant ship, such as one or two guns, did not necessarily affect the ship's immunity to attack without warning, and neither did a cargo of munitions or materiel.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Death in battle is always tragic. The disgust comes from the soldiers themselves. The soldiers on the front line do not want unnecessary risk caused by "internet generals."

wandel, the soldiers don't want any additional risk, I don't dispute that, but they might be surprised to learn, that due to their own government wrong doing they were put on risk in the first place. In the end, they're still in combat and at
risk, regardless.

It's like giving an diabetic tons of ice cream where it puts him on risk. All of a sudden there is a new publication out that states why the diabetic received so much ice cream and how detrimental it is for his health. Now they all blame the publication for endangering the diabetic even further, while still feeding him ice cream. Who is to blame here in the first place?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You've shown time and again that you are the one who hates the US, Bill. You welcome, you praise those who debauch the very notion of what America was supposed to be, what the propaganda line has been, what this same propaganda line still is.

You yourself have gone from absolute disbelief about the numerous war crimes/mass murder/crimes against humanity committed by the USA to I don't care about those events, it's my country right or wrong.

That is illustrative of a depravity that few in this world have ever shown. Where it exists in others of other countries, and no doubt it does, they don't go prancing about, bragging about these things.

I feel so sorry for you and those near you.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

1. The Lusitania was found years ago in the Irish Sea and her cargo shown to include artillery and ammunition - and any vessel carrying war materiel in a war zone is by any definition a warship.

Do you have a source for this HS?

2 Replies

@CalamityJane,

So true! As I've said often in the past, it's wrong for any president to confer with generals about the extension of wars. There's a conflict of interest issue that seems absent from most commander in chiefs ability to see. Generals can only make themselves known and accomplish status from wars, not peace.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Generals can only make themselves known and accomplish status from wars, not peace

And yet we produced a Colin Powell who seemingly was always trying to put the brakes on others push towards war...

0 Replies

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know