Assange arrested

[wasab]

9 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The you didn't actually read the previous information I presented you, because otherwise you would know what you're claiming is false:

 

Ford's anti-Jew publications ran from 1920 to 1927.

 

Hitler became leader of the Nazi party in 1921, and leader of Germany in 1933.

 

In 1931, before Hitler was the leader of Germany, he called Henry Ford his inspiration and said he would try to put Henry Ford's ideas into practice.

 

Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews started in 1933, after Hitler became Germany's leader.

 

https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about/nazi-germany-1933-39/beginning-of-persecution.html

 

 

I can see that no matter what information is presented you, you simply default to an indoctrinated fairy-tale vision of the US.

And Hitler had been anti semantic before 1920. He has been anti semite before the outbreak WWI in the 1914. He has been consuming anti semantic propaganda before he joined the German army in 1914, heck, he had been doing it back while he was in art school and backing Vienna's anti semetic mayor. 

 

If you did read my posts, you would see just by chronological order, you still make no sense. 

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

You mean Hindenburg. Lundendorff never even became president as far as I know.

Yeah, that guy. Copy and paste the wrong name. 

[wasab]

5 minutes ago, Noctus said:

It's quite apparent you didn't bother reading the other detailed replies of why he didn't leave the embassy and how Sweden didn't bother going to interview/investigate him in the embassy. It's also evident by the factual replies after your reply that you will happily ignore them or strawman certain points. You act like Assange personally dicked ur mom in the ass then stuck it in your mouth. Done with your stupid replies.

He wanted US extradition as an excuse to avoid rape charges. What other reason is there?

[Delicieuxz]

6 minutes ago, wasab said:

And Hitler had been anti semantic before 1920. He has been anti semite before the outbreak WWI in the 1914. He has been consuming anti semantic propaganda before he joined the German army in 1914, heck, he had been doing it back while he was in art school and backing Vienna's anti semantic mayor. 

 

If you did read my posts, you would see just by chronological order, you still make no sense. 

You're missing or ignoring the point:

 

You claimed:

21 minutes ago, wasab said:

Hitler had been genocidally anti semetic well before Ford. 

A false claim. Hitler wasn't in a position to be that against Jews before he became Germany's chancellor, and Ford's writings were published long before then and Hitler cited Ford as his inspiration and vowed to put Ford's ideas into practice 2 years before he became Germany's chancellor.

 

Hitler's own claims about himself directly contradict what you've been trying to argue, and so your claim is fiction.

[Noctus]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

He wanted US extradition as an excuse to avoid rape charges. What other reason is there?

Jesus, you are thick as shit. Have you even read the information presented to you in this thread? I suggest you go back and re-read, instead of ignoring the points brought to you and then post garbage like the above quote.

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

You're missing or ignoring the point:

 

You claimed:

A false claim. Hitler wasn't in a position to be that against Jews before he became Germany's chancellor, and Ford's writings were published long before then and Hitler cited Ford as his inspiration 2 years before he became Germany's chancellor.

 

Hitler said for himself what contradicts your claim, and so your claim is fiction.

When did Hitler cited Ford as source of fact for the Jewish back stabbing conspiracy theories so prevelent in Germany at that time? You are simply connecting dots taht still make zero sense. 

[wasab]

4 minutes ago, Noctus said:

Jesus, you are thick as shit. Have you even read the information presented to you in this thread? I suggest you go back and re-read, instead of ignoring the points brought to you and then post garbage like the above quote.

No. I am so smart that I am the only one realizing Assange is a manipulative rapists who abuses his popularity to avoid rape charges. 

[Trik'Stari]

On 4/11/2019 at 7:19 AM, Delicieuxz said:

That case resulted in an out-of-court settlement, and an apology. There was no judgment against Trusted Reviews for publishing the allegedly-confidential material.

 

Look at the cases cited by Giulani in the video where other US media organizations published stolen confidential US government documents without being punished for it.

I have a question.

 

Who holds the press and the government accountable, when both blatantly lie to the general public?

 

That's of bigger concern to me than whether or not journalists should be allowed to publish stolen government documents that others stole. Personally I'm for freedom of the press, but what about the responsibility of the press to not tell blatant lies on air?

[Master Delta Chief]

37 minutes ago, wasab said:

If the US minds it's own business, the entire Europe would either be under German Nazism or stalinsts communism by the end of 1950s, the entire Pacific and east Asia would be under Japanese imperialism. 

I'm sorry, but you don't know that and neither does anyone else, including me. For all we know, the allied forces could've won against Nazi Germany in WW2 without the assistance of the US. It would've been a costly one though but nevertheless, no one can tell what would've happened if the US didn't assist the allies. 

 

US shouldn't always meddle in other countries businesses, but rather focus on it's allies and react less aggressive when things happen. 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Taliban's blend in with the civilians and calling most drone strikes are targeting the civilians is just blatantly untrue.

Don't you realize how completely contradictory this sentence is? If the talibans hide among the civilians, and the strikes target the talibans, it is absurd to claim that the strikes don't hit civilians in higher numbers than they hit talibans. On one hand you're saying you can't know who or where the talibans are, then you claim to know with absolute certainty that the civilian casualties are far smaller... that doesn't make sense.

5 minutes ago, wasab said:

Yeah? What did the US do to deserve 9/11? For stopping Iraq from annexing Kuwait?

Nobody fucking deserves 9/11, I never said or implied that. What I said is that the US' military and political actions in the middle east are the direct cause of 9/11.

 

Iraq probably should have stayed out of Kuwait, but guess what - it's none of the US' business and their intervention has only made things worse for all parties involved (except the US' oil industry).

10 minutes ago, wasab said:

Gaddafi government freaked of Leftist rhetorics and communists policies. If the commie sounding people's revolutionary council and his immense Soviet support do not tick you off his leftist orientation, you are quite either ignorant or deliberately dishonest. 

No, you're the one who takes a dictator's claims of working for his people at face value here. Even Hitler claimed to be a socialist, which was just an obvious fucking lie. Nothing about Geddafi's regime was socialist or communist; there was no democracy, no attempt at equal wealth distribution, no equal rights for minorities. You sound like the only things you know of "the left" come from McCarthy era red scare propaganda.

14 minutes ago, wasab said:

And Hitler had been anti semantic before 1920. He has been anti semite before the outbreak WWI in the 1914. He has been consuming anti semantic propaganda before he joined the German army in 1914, heck, he had been doing it back while he was in art school and backing Vienna's anti semantic mayor.

Semitic. The term you're looking for is antisemitic.

12 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Hitler's own claims about himself directly contradict what you've been trying to argue, and so your claim is fiction.

To be fair, I don't think Hitler is a very reliable source... even when it comes to himself. Though in the case of praising someone's ideas he can probably be trusted to mean what he's saying.

[Noctus]

4 minutes ago, wasab said:

When did Hitler cited Ford as source of fact for the Jewish back stabbing conspiracy theories so prevelent in Germany at that time? You are simply connecting dots taht still make zero sense. 

He literally said to the a detroit news outlet during an interview that ford was his inspiration in 1931. And:

Quote

 

Numerous historians have noted that Ford is the only American mentioned in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” memoir. After asserting that Jews were increasingly exerting control over American labor, Hitler wrote, “one great man, Ford, to their exasperation, still holds out independently.”

Experts on Hitler have noted Ford’s literature influenced Hitler’s writing in “Mein Kampf.” Reading “The International Jew,” which became a hit in Germany after being published in German in 1922, helped push Hitler further into “conspiratorial anti-Semitism,” Thomas Weber wrote in “Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi.”

“Henry Ford is important for having provided to Hitler confirmation, coming from the very heart of America, of an idea that had been brewing in his mind,” Weber wrote. The idea was that Jews’ control of global finance was behind the world’s problems.

“Henry Ford thus turned into an anti-Semitic icon for Hitler.”

 

Quote

Copies of  “The International Jew” began re-appearing in the 1930s in the U.S., South America and Europe, especially in Germany, where the Nazi Party was poised to take power. Books wound up on a table in the office of Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party in Munich.

It's pretty well documented by experts all over the world, your dumb ass just doesn't want to acknowledge it. 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Master Delta Chief said:

I'm sorry, but you don't know that and neither does anyone else, including me. For all we know, the allied forces could've won against Nazi Germany in WW2 without the assistance of the US. It would've been a costly one though but nevertheless, no one can tell what would've happened if the US didn't assist the allies. 

 

US shouldn't always meddle in other countries businesses, but rather focus on it's allies and react less aggressive when things happen. 

Also, the US only intervened when they were directly attacked by the Japanese... so in that case it technically was their business. It hasn't been ever since.

[Noctus]

10 minutes ago, wasab said:

No. I am so smart that I am the only one realizing Assange is a manipulative rapists who abuses his popularity to avoid rape charges. 

Hahahaha you are funny

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Master Delta Chief said:

I'm sorry, but you don't know that and neither does anyone else, including me. For all we know, the allied forces could've won against Nazi Germany in WW2 without the assistance of the US. It would've been a costly one though but nevertheless, no one can tell what would've happened if the US didn't assist the allies. 

 

US shouldn't always meddle in other countries businesses, but rather focus on it's allies and react less aggressive when things happen. 

Besides the US, soviets union was the only other major power strong enough stop Hitler. You like stalinst communism better? 

[wasab]

3 minutes ago, Noctus said:

He literally said to the a detroit news outlet during an interview that ford was his inspiration in 1931. And:

It's pretty well documented by experts all over the world, your dumb ass just doesn't want to acknowledge it. 

Again, when did Ford said the Jews backstab when the German Army in the back when they were literally one step away from history? 

 

These theories did not have any outside inspirations. They are all purely German, no one elses. 

[Noctus]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Again, when did Ford said the Jews backstabber German Army in the back when they were literally one step away from history? 

Jesus christ, you didn't even read my quote did you? Use that "smarter than everyone else brain" and google. It's not hard to find several sources, but you won't, because that conflict's with your argument.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

55 minutes ago, wasab said:

This is like tracing the cause of Nazism all the way back to Adolf Hitler's ancestors from thousands of years ago and blaming them for starting WWII. 

 

No, Taliban exists because of commies that coup the moderate Afghan constitutiona monarchy. 

 

ISIS happens because Arab spring destabilizes Middle East. 

Are you fucking serious right now?  I'm giving you direct cause for the rise of the Taliban and you start to go back 40 years and several jumps all the way to the Saur Revolution whilst claiming that I am the one who's tracing everything almost back to Adam and Eve?  

 

Arab spring didn't destabilize the middle east, it was already completely unstable as a result of decades of western meddling with their affairs and governments.

ISIS grew as a direct result of the 2nd Gulf war, which was started by the US under false pretenses (unless you happen to have proof that Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction?).  They then joined Al-Qaida, who as we discussed earlier are also a direct result of the US not minding their own business.

 

As for bringing in the Nazi discussion: history is always written by those who win the war, and they always make themselves look like the good guys while depicting the losers as the bad guys.  The US' track record over the last 75 years makes it clear that they're at least as bad. 

[Delicieuxz]

26 minutes ago, wasab said:

Yeah? What did the US do to deserve 9/11? For stopping Iraq from annexing Kuwait? 

 

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...

[wasab]

18 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Don't you realize how completely contradictory this sentence is? If the talibans hide among the civilians, and the strikes target the talibans, it is absurd to claim that the strikes don't hit civilians in higher numbers than they hit talibans. On one hand you're saying you can't know who or where the talibans are, then you claim to know with absolute certainty that the civilian casualties are far smaller... that doesn't make sense.

Nobody fucking deserves 9/11, I never said or implied that. What I said is that the US' military and political actions in the middle east are the direct cause of 9/11.

You seriously believe the US military would rather spend expensive multimillion dollars military weapons and resources to kill civilians than actual terrorists? You gotta be kidding me. 

18 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

Nobody fucking deserves 9/11, I never said or implied that. What I said is that the US' military and political actions in the middle east are the direct cause of 9/11.

Sure, without the US intervention, we would all have perfectly sane dictators and perfectly moderate Muslims in the middle East right now. What you posted is nothing but down right superficial and completely over looking the religious, ideological, and social causes behind so many Muslim terrorists. 

 

18 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

No, you're the one who takes a dictator's claims of working for his people at face value here. Even Hitler claimed to be a socialist, which was just an obvious fucking lie. Nothing about Geddafi's regime was socialist or communist; there was no democracy, no attempt at equal wealth distribution, no equal rights for minorities. You sound like the only things you know of "the left" come from McCarthy era red scare propaganda.

Semitic. The term you're looking for is antisemitic.

To be fair, I don't think Hitler is a very reliable source... even when it comes to himself. Though in the case of praising someone's ideas he can probably be trusted to mean what he's saying.

I said leftist which encompasses communists but also wide variety groups that are left of the political spectrum. Don't twist what I said. The fact he uses communist rhetorics and enacts socialists programs is enough to place him in the left. He doesn't need to be downright communist to be part of it. 

[wasab]

5 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...

I never said they did. 

[wasab]

9 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

Are you fucking serious right now?  I'm giving you direct cause for the rise of the Taliban and you start to go back 40 years and several jumps all the way to the Saur Revolution whilst claiming that I am the one who's tracing everything almost back to Adam and Eve?  

 

Arab spring didn't destabilize the middle east, it was already completely unstable as a result of decades of western meddling with their affairs and governments.

ISIS grew as a direct result of the 2nd Gulf war, which was started by the US under false pretenses (unless you happen to have proof that Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction?).  They then joined Al-Qaida, who as we discussed earlier are also a direct result of the US not minding their own business.

 

As for bringing in the Nazi discussion: history is always written by those who win the war, and they always make themselves look like the good guys while depicting the losers as the bad guys.  The US' track record over the last 75 years makes it clear that they're at least as bad. 

Middle East has been destabilize ever since the rise of nationalism and the decline of the Ottoman empire. Western powers only speed up the process, the root reasons such as national consciousness and deep religious fundamentalism did not need the help of the west whatsoever. They are chief reasons why the middle East is so mess up. Stop blaming everything g on western colonialism. It is not going to justify why so many post colonial nations have crazy dictators or theocratic government. 

[Master Delta Chief]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

Besides the US, soviets union was the only other major power strong enough stop Hitler. You like stalinst communism better? 

No, of course not. I take granted for the freedom I have today thanks to the allied forces who have liberated the majority of European countries. All I said was, that you or anyone else wouldn't know what would've happened if the US didn't assist in the war in Europe, that's all. We can only speculate on the potential other outcomes if certain events didn't happen.

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Also, the US only intervened when they were directly attacked by the Japanese... so in that case it technically was their business. It hasn't been ever since.

Yeah, I know. What I actually meant with that is that when the US was never attacked by Imperial Japan. Of course then again you could speculate whether if they would've entered the war in Europe anyway. All we can do is speculate.

[Delicieuxz]

12 minutes ago, wasab said:

You seriously believe the US military would rather spend expensive multimillion dollars military weapons and resources to kill civilians than actual terrorists? You gotta be kidding me.

How do you think the military industrial complex, which US politicians are huge fans of investing in, make their money? It isn't by not using their munitions, but by using them and then having the US government buy more from the tax dollars of the average non-politician US public.

 

So, yes, the US loves to fire off expensive munitions everywhere it can while not actually accomplishing anything. That's the goal of the military industrial complex and is why the US funds terrorists and protects them.

 

The only thing the military industrial complex and its investors love more than firing off expensive munitions without accomplishing anything is firing them off to steal other countries' oil.

 

Quote

Sure, without the US intervention, we would all have perfectly sane dictators and perfectly moderate Muslims in the middle East right.

Maybe. Iran would certainly have been far better off if the US and UK hadn't overthrown its democratically-elected leader in 1953 to install a bloody dictator so that they could steal Iran's oil.

 

Today, the US derides Iran's influence in the Middle East that undermines the US' own - but all the Iran-US hostility was, again, created by the US when the US overthrew Iran's elected government.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

13 minutes ago, wasab said:

the root reasons such as national consciousness and deep religious fundamentalism did not need the help of the west whatsoever.

The west did help though.  And they kept helping by moving people off their land to redraw the map of the region.

 

Sure, the region is always at war.  Then again so are certain regions in Africa.  But nobody cares about those because there's no oil there.

[Master Delta Chief]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

Middle East has been destabilize ever since the rise of nationalism and the decline of the Ottoman empire. Western powers only speed up the process, the root reasons such as national consciousness and deep religious fundamentalism did not need the help of the west whatsoever. They are chief reasons why the middle East is so mess up. Stop blaming everything g on western colonialism. It is not going to justify why so many post colonial nations have crazy dictators or theocratic government. 

That is probably true regarding the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but you cannot deny the fact that the British Empire and the French didn't kept their word when sorting out the new countries in the middle-east after WW1. They 'promised' that they would've created a unified Arab state. Instead, they took a few territories for their own and basically called them mandates.