Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2016 16:54:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blackfeather on Dec 12, 2016 16:58:32 GMT
So is the FBI about justice? Or is it about politics? They have so little credibility left then get accused by a prime minister of trying to frame someone, pretty much shoots them down as anything other than police state bullies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 17:49:54 GMT
Assange has released his story, and it makes sense to me.
I know that there are those who do not care for him, but I certainly admire his attempt to get the truth out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by whereiwant2b on Dec 13, 2016 4:01:00 GMT
As far as I can tell, 2 FBI agents came to interview a supposed Assange contact in 2011. The minister told them that they had to use Icelantic police to do it. The agents left.
At least that is what this guy said in 2013. No planload, no plot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozarks Tom on Dec 13, 2016 4:24:22 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2016 6:45:15 GMT
As far as I can tell, 2 FBI agents came to interview a supposed Assange contact in 2011. The minister told them that they had to use Icelantic police to do it. The agents left.
At least that is what this guy said in 2013. No planload, no plot.
Here is the actual interview from 6 days ago: www.sott.net/article/336346-Ogmundur-Jonasson-The-Icelandic-minister-who-declined-cooperation-with-the-FBI-on-the-side-of-WikiLeaks
Ögmundur Jónasson: The Icelandic minister who declined cooperation with the FBI, on the side of WikiLeaksMarta Pacheco Katoikos Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:06 UTCMap |
|
|
|
Post by whereiwant2b on Dec 13, 2016 13:50:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 7thswan on Dec 13, 2016 18:32:20 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 23:22:07 GMT
Why would anyone trust those sites you listed and there interpretation, especially the first two? 
Slate is one of the most liberal left leaning publications out there. The second one: World Socialist Website: Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). [The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) is the name of two Trotskyist internationals; one with sections named Socialist Equality Party which publishes the World Socialist Web Site, and another linked to the Workers Revolutionary Party in Britain.] Really???  Mr. Ögmundur Jónasson, as Minister of the Interior, Iceland, had every right to be offended and alarmed with American interference in Icelandic affairs. whereiwant2b, let me ask you something: would you defend as vigorously a planeload of FSB (formerly known as the KGB) agents running amok in America, interfering in American lives and affairs, without permission from our government? Even with the permission of our U.S. Government, such a spectacle would be a disgrace and an outrage which should be cause for an international diplomatic uproar. Of course, Obama and his U.S. Justice department run by Loretta Lynch gets away with this, just as Hillary got away with asking of Assange, "Can't we just drone him?"   
|
|
|
|
Post by whereiwant2b on Dec 15, 2016 13:53:47 GMT
Why would anyone trust those sites you listed and there interpretation, especially the first two?
Slate is one of the most liberal left leaning publications out there. The second one: World Socialist Website: Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). [The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) is the name of two Trotskyist internationals; one with sections named Socialist Equality Party which publishes the World Socialist Web Site, and another linked to the Workers Revolutionary Party in Britain.] Really??? Mr. Ögmundur Jónasson, as Minister of the Interior, Iceland, had every right to be offended and alarmed with American interference in Icelandic affairs. whereiwant2b, let me ask you something: would you defend as vigorously a planeload of FSB (formerly known as the KGB) agents running amok in America, interfering in American lives and affairs, without permission from our government? Even with the permission of our U.S. Government, such a spectacle would be a disgrace and an outrage which should be cause for an international diplomatic uproar. Of course, Obama and his U.S. Justice department run by Loretta Lynch gets away with this, just as Hillary got away with asking of Assange, "Can't we just drone him?" No I would not take anyone's word about anything if it seems implausible. The point is that Mr Jonasson's intrepretation is biased because he is predisposed to interpret what might be an aggressive attempt to collect evidence as a conspiracy . It's in his political make up. Which is why I suggested looking to his past speeches and actions. HE is very much in agreement with left wing sites that you proceed to declare are as unreliably biased. Therefore HE is unreliably biased too. The point is not to believe anyone else but to use their words as evidence of their thinking and how it creates what they say. In this case, if very traditionally liberal Jonasson prefers to converse with very liberal news sites because their views are the same, AND he provides nothing in the line of evidence for saying there was a conspiracy, why should his opinion be given credence? A "planeful" of agents might very well simply be trying to gather evidence. Liberal Mr Jonasson chooses to call that a conspiracy to frame Assange because of his bias, whereas it is more likely simply following up leads. Nothing was "created" at all ,much less a frame up. Believe him if you want. But then I hope that the same principles will apply to believing Mr. Jonnason's opinions on global warming as he has opinions on that too. Among many other opinions shared with Slate. Or you can accept his word for the bits that are real facts while reserving the right to not accept his opinions. It is ok to come up with a different conclusion or even, as in this case, realize that the facts don't allow a valid conclusion to be formed at all. There just are not enough facts and of course I question someone like Mr. Jonasson who pretends there are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 0:40:10 GMT
Why would anyone trust those sites you listed and there interpretation, especially the first two?
Slate is one of the most liberal left leaning publications out there. The second one: World Socialist Website: Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). [The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) is the name of two Trotskyist internationals; one with sections named Socialist Equality Party which publishes the World Socialist Web Site, and another linked to the Workers Revolutionary Party in Britain.] Really??? Mr. Ögmundur Jónasson, as Minister of the Interior, Iceland, had every right to be offended and alarmed with American interference in Icelandic affairs. whereiwant2b, let me ask you something: would you defend as vigorously a planeload of FSB (formerly known as the KGB) agents running amok in America, interfering in American lives and affairs, without permission from our government? Even with the permission of our U.S. Government, such a spectacle would be a disgrace and an outrage which should be cause for an international diplomatic uproar. Of course, Obama and his U.S. Justice department run by Loretta Lynch gets away with this, just as Hillary got away with asking of Assange, "Can't we just drone him?" No I would not take anyone's word about anything if it seems implausible. The point is that Mr Jonasson's intrepretation is biased because he is predisposed to interpret what might be an aggressive attempt to collect evidence as a conspiracy . It's in his political make up. Which is why I suggested looking to his past speeches and actions. HE is very much in agreement with left wing sites that you proceed to declare are as unreliably biased. Therefore HE is unreliably biased too. The point is not to believe anyone else but to use their words as evidence of their thinking and how it creates what they say. In this case, if very traditionally liberal Jonasson prefers to converse with very liberal news sites because their views are the same, AND he provides nothing in the line of evidence for saying there was a conspiracy, why should his opinion be given credence? A "planeful" of agents might very well simply be trying to gather evidence. Liberal Mr Jonasson chooses to call that a conspiracy to frame Assange because of his bias, whereas it is more likely simply following up leads. Nothing was "created" at all ,much less a frame up. Believe him if you want. But then I hope that the same principles will apply to believing Mr. Jonnason's opinions on global warming as he has opinions on that too. Among many other opinions shared with Slate. Or you can accept his word for the bits that are real facts while reserving the right to not accept his opinions. It is ok to come up with a different conclusion or even, as in this case, realize that the facts don't allow a valid conclusion to be formed at all. There just are not enough facts and of course I question someone like Mr. Jonasson who pretends there are. I'm not going to wade through that gaggle of leftist sites which you claim, without quoting a single specific statement from a single specific source, proves Mr. Jonasson is a leftist and prone to believe in conspiracy theories. Where is your evidence of your claims against Mr. Jonasson? However, I don't care what Mr. Jonasson's political persuasion is, since I believe he is defending his country and its people from aggression by the Obama Administration. The Obama White House has a vendetta against Julian Assange and anyone he associates with, because Assange has helped to expose the criminality swirling around President Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the DNC. Just because I believe Mr. Jonasson is telling the truth about the aggression of the Obama-Lynch U.S. Justice Department in Iceland does not mean I have to believe his misguided beliefs concerning some other completely different aspect of reality (climate change and its nature). On the contrary, I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. Mr. Jonasson was the Minister of the Interior in Iceland at the time of the incident involving the FBI Agents' unwanted actions in that nation. He was directly involved in dealing with that situation from a position of high authority in Iceland. I believe him, because he was there, as an eyewitness. I will certainly believe him before I ever entertain some anonymous internet poster's attempt at character assassination. Why do so many people today want to destroy the messenger because they don't like the message? The ancient Greeks would kill a messenger bearing bad news. How little people have change in the last several thousand years. When people don't like a message today, they call it fake news, they call it conspiracy theory, they consign it to Area 52, they attempt to character assassinate the messenger, people like: Julian Assange, Stephen Bannon, Donald Trump, etc. Hillary Clinton and the Democrat establishment have lied about Donald Trump to such a wild degree that they now see Russian agents under nearly every bed. They call the writers and speakers they disagree with things like: racist, sexist, homophobe, anti-Semite, etc., in their heavy handed, though quite misguided and ill-advised, attempts to silence them. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."-Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
|
|
Post by whereiwant2b on Dec 16, 2016 1:02:06 GMT
There's no news at all much less bad news. Mr. Jonasson will tell you in his own words about his views. These are not "leftist sites" rendering their opinions- this is him giving interviews to them. His own words. Beside every one of those sites basically agrees with your view.
But no matter what his views are, he has provided zero connection between his stating that FBI agents came and anything that illuminates that they were there to "frame" Assange. That allegation simply springs from his mouth without any basis given at all. Apparently there is no such evidence.
The FBI could simply have been there to follow up on leads and get interviews to develop a case. To say they meant to frame him is an opinion, not a fact. Could be he's right but he has not given a scrap of evidence of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackfeather on Dec 17, 2016 5:20:46 GMT
I don't know what the FBI was doing in this case nor do I care. One must remember though the FBI is noted for finding stupid Muslims who want to be a somebody, encouraging them to do Jihad, supplying them with materials then arresting them and claiming they are protecting us from terrorists. Most of these Muslims are dumber than a post. It is doubtful that these Muslims would have ever become involved had not the FBI encouraged them. I have a real problem with this. These type of sting operations are immoral. Just imagine if God worked this way, he knows our weaknesses so he sets up an operation, tempts us gets us to sin then consigns us to the lake of fire. We wouldn't think that fair so why is it fair for a government to find a person's weakness, tempt him, encourage him to do wrong, then consign him to prison? So the FBI is not above framing someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Dec 17, 2016 17:48:24 GMT
I don't know what the FBI was doing in this case nor do I care. One must remember though the FBI is noted for finding stupid Muslims who want to be a somebody, encouraging them to do Jihad, supplying them with materials then arresting them and claiming they are protecting us from terrorists. Most of these Muslims are dumber than a post. It is doubtful that these Muslims would have ever become involved had not the FBI encouraged them. I have a real problem with this. These type of sting operations are immoral. Just imagine if God worked this way, he knows our weaknesses so he sets up an operation, tempts us gets us to sin then consigns us to the lake of fire. We wouldn't think that fair so why is it fair for a government to find a person's weakness, tempt him, encourage him to do wrong, then consign him to prison? So the FBI is not above framing someone. Worse yet after they do the deed the public swallows the Govt. story hook line and sinker, even defends them. |
|
