Freedom of speech = Terrorism?
Ostap Bender
Key GOP Pol: WikiLeaks a Terrorist Group
Rep. Peter King, Incoming Chairman of House Homeland Security
Committee, Urges White House to Group WikiLeaks with al Qaeda
The incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says
WikiLeaks should be officially designated as a terrorist organization.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the panel's next head, asked the Obama
administration today to "determine whether WikiLeaks could be
designated a foreign terrorist organization," putting the group in the
same company as Al Qaeda and Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese cult that
released deadly sarin gas on the Tokyo subway.
"WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria" of a U.S.-designated
terrorist organization, King wrote in a letter to Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton reviewed by CNET. He added: "WikiLeaks presents a
clear and present danger to the national security of the United
States."
/////////////////////
Which proves what we knew all along: when the Republicans talk about
their "War on Terror", they mean war on the freedom of speech.
captain!
"Ostap Bender" <ostap_be...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6699965d-6ff5-40ad...@u9g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
////////////////
-the guy is obviously being a f'kn loser though wouldn't you agree? no good
comes from him doing this, unlike when he released the helicopter vid, which
really did expose a horrible crime.
...and then there's obama, just bumbling along and not taking a stand, like
usual (until he can no longer avoid the issue).
btw, enjoy the very appropriate acronym for "The War Against Terror".
Dmitry
wrote:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/29/politics/main7098919.shtml?...
Hillary Clinton described it as an "attack on the international
community". I don't know what "community" she is trying to
represent, but people are entitled to know the truth - even if the
truth is bitter.
Tadas Blinda
> > Rep. Peter King, Incoming Chairman of House Homeland Security
> > Committee, Urges White House to Group WikiLeaks with al Qaeda
>
> > The incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says
> > WikiLeaks should be officially designated as a terrorist organization.
> > Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the panel's next head, asked the Obama
> > administration today to "determine whether WikiLeaks could be
> > designated a foreign terrorist organization," putting the group in the
> > same company as Al Qaeda and Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese cult that
> > released deadly sarin gas on the Tokyo subway.
>
> > "WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria" of a U.S.-designated
> > terrorist organization, King wrote in a letter to Secretary of State
> > Hillary Clinton reviewed by CNET. He added: "WikiLeaks presents a
> > clear and present danger to the national security of the United
> > States."
>
> > /////////////////////
>
> > Which proves what we knew all along: when the Republicans talk about
> > their "War on Terror", they mean war on the freedom of speech.
>
> ////////////////
>
> -the guy is obviously being a f'kn loser though wouldn't you agree?
Who are you calling a « f'kn loser » ? Peter King ?
> btw, enjoy the very appropriate acronym for "The War Against Terror".
Why is it appropriate? Do you even know what a 'twat' is ?
captain!
"Tadas Blinda" <tadas....@lycos.es> wrote in message
news:659fae28-e440-4a33...@d24g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
////////////
-what does your reply have to do with the baltics/baltic culture?
Tadas Blinda
> "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
What do you have to do with Baltics / Baltic culture? You're not the
slightest bit interested. You only hang around here because
soc.culture.russian is such a cesspit. You are only remotely
interested in the Baltics because the russkies were there once.
Vidas
What truth ? That no one trusts Iran's leadership and Medvedev plays
second fiddle to Putin ? I'm not seeing any information in the
Guardian or elsewhere thats not already known...Sarkozy acts like an
emperor with no clothes ? I could have told you that a long time ago.
What is a shame is that the poor little US Army enlisted man who fell
victim to the Wikileaks manipulation and promises of fame will likely
spend the rest of his life in a military prison.
Compare what Wikileaks is doing to how normal people interact
Dmitry...If you told a friend something of confidence regarding
another friend or relative and that person you told the secret to not
only announced that information but published it for all to see around
you - would you be defending their presenting that even if the truth
is bitter ?
Vidas
I think he likes you Captain. Maybe if you posted articles in Baltic
French ?
captain!
/////////////////////
i am interested in both russian and baltic culture. nordic too!
i'm not partisan in my interests, nor do i have an agenda. i know it bothers
you that i won't be pulled into your little "us vs. them" world but my lack
of ties to the area insulates me from such negativity.
am i as "into" baltic culture as you are? no, of course not, but i don't
need to be a "tadas" in order to participate in the group. if you don't like
my posts, then feel free not to read them or even kill-file me. i won't be
offended.
p.s. i'm sure you'd be fascinated to know that at this moment i am watching
a very interesting tv show about gold mining in siberia.
captain!
"Vidas" <darsi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6f4a1b0e-b38c-404e...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
//////////////
ironically, i just realized that tadas is trying to silence me in a thread
titled "freedom of speech = terrorism". very nice.
captain!
///////////////
-and what's more is that we don't even know all of the leaked material yet.
they are "slow releasing" over the course of the next few days. the new york
times and possibly other media have agreed to self-censor some of the most
sensitive material after "consultation" with the US government. the nut jobs
in pakistan are starting to fly off the handle and accuse the usa of
disrespecting them based on leaked "concerns" over their potential nuclear
instability. the founder of wikileaks is now wanted on charges of rape (what
convenient timing:/ ).
The Black Monk
> "Vidas" <darsiau...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Someone capable of committing rape is certainly also capable of
deliberately leaking information leading to peoples' deaths. Freedom
of speech is about being allowed to speak one's opinions openly
without punishment, not about being able to steal classified
information and post it on-line (in this case, words spoken *by
others* and then posted *without the speakers' permission*).
regards,
BM
Dmitry
> > community". I don't know what "community" she is trying to
> > represent, but people are entitled to know the truth - even if the
> > truth is bitter.
>
> What truth ? That no one trusts Iran's leadership and Medvedev plays
> second fiddle to Putin ? I'm not seeing any information in the
> Guardian or elsewhere thats not already known...Sarkozy acts like an
> emperor with no clothes ? I could have told you that a long time ago.
Why is Clinton so worried then if everything published on that website
is already known to general public? Some information on Iraq war
details was quite useful to shut up those who are still preaching the
legitimacy of. There are benefits from "secret" information being
published.
>
> What is a shame is that the poor little US Army enlisted man who fell
> victim to the Wikileaks manipulation and promises of fame will likely
> spend the rest of his life in a military prison.
>
> Compare what Wikileaks is doing to how normal people interact
> Dmitry...If you told a friend something of confidence regarding
> another friend or relative and that person you told the secret to not
> only announced that information but published it for all to see around
> you - would you be defending their presenting that even if the truth
> is bitter ?
There is a difference between private and professional affairs. In
democratic world, governments are elected by people and should be
obliged to be transparent.
Vidas
> > > Hillary Clinton described it as an "attack on the international
> > > community". I don't know what "community" she is trying to
> > > represent, but people are entitled to know the truth - even if the
> > > truth is bitter.
>
> > What truth ? That no one trusts Iran's leadership and Medvedev plays
> > second fiddle to Putin ? I'm not seeing any information in the
> > Guardian or elsewhere thats not already known...Sarkozy acts like an
> > emperor with no clothes ? I could have told you that a long time ago.
>
> Why is Clinton so worried then if everything published on that website
> is already known to general public? Some information on Iraq war
> details was quite useful to shut up those who are still preaching the
> legitimacy of. There are benefits from "secret" information being
> published.
Oh come on Dmitry...The information didnt concern Clinton. What she is
concerned about is any perceived breach of trust !
Can you point to something printed in the Guardian that undermines
Clinton ?
> > What is a shame is that the poor little US Army enlisted man who fell
> > victim to the Wikileaks manipulation and promises of fame will likely
> > spend the rest of his life in a military prison.
>
> > Compare what Wikileaks is doing to how normal people interact
> > Dmitry...If you told a friend something of confidence regarding
> > another friend or relative and that person you told the secret to not
> > only announced that information but published it for all to see around
> > you - would you be defending their presenting that even if the truth
> > is bitter ?
>
> There is a difference between private and professional affairs. In
> democratic world, governments are elected by people and should be
> obliged to be transparent.
Sorry. Democracies have the same rights to discretion and trust as any
individual. The problem with Wikileaks isnt the information. It's the
breach of trust that is created when a sense of confidentiality
between peers is violated - in this case by a third party who is
publishing the information for personal gain.
Hackers have always been rather sloppy moralists.
Dmitry
> On Dec 1, 11:19 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > > Hillary Clinton described it as an "attack on the international
> > > > community". I don't know what "community" she is trying to
> > > > represent, but people are entitled to know the truth - even if the
> > > > truth is bitter.
>
> > > What truth ? That no one trusts Iran's leadership and Medvedev plays
> > > second fiddle to Putin ? I'm not seeing any information in the
> > > Guardian or elsewhere thats not already known...Sarkozy acts like an
> > > emperor with no clothes ? I could have told you that a long time ago.
>
> > Why is Clinton so worried then if everything published on that website
> > is already known to general public? Some information on Iraq war
> > details was quite useful to shut up those who are still preaching the
> > legitimacy of. There are benefits from "secret" information being
> > published.
>
> Oh come on Dmitry...The information didnt concern Clinton. What she is
> concerned about is any perceived breach of trust !
Between who? Is it a campaign for confidentiality?
>
> Can you point to something printed in the Guardian that undermines
> Clinton ?
No, I can't, but she used the word "agressive" in describing the
action US government is going to take. Why being agressive?
> > > What is a shame is that the poor little US Army enlisted man who fell
> > > victim to the Wikileaks manipulation and promises of fame will likely
> > > spend the rest of his life in a military prison.
>
> > > Compare what Wikileaks is doing to how normal people interact
> > > Dmitry...If you told a friend something of confidence regarding
> > > another friend or relative and that person you told the secret to not
> > > only announced that information but published it for all to see around
> > > you - would you be defending their presenting that even if the truth
> > > is bitter ?
>
> > There is a difference between private and professional affairs. In
> > democratic world, governments are elected by people and should be
> > obliged to be transparent.
>
> Sorry. Democracies have the same rights to discretion and trust as any
> individual. The problem with Wikileaks isnt the information. It's the
> breach of trust that is created when a sense of confidentiality
> between peers is violated - in this case by a third party who is
> publishing the information for personal gain.
I still don't understand what "trust" you are referring to.
>
> Hackers have always been rather sloppy moralists.
It is not so much about moral, any decent journalist will support the
release of information, it is about letting public know the details
that mainstream media has failed to provide.
I'm in favour of wikileaks.
Vidas
> On Dec 2, 2:26 am, Vidas <darsiau...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh come on Dmitry...The information didnt concern Clinton. What she is
> > concerned about is any perceived breach of trust !
>
> Between who? Is it a campaign for confidentiality?
Governments communicate with an understanding of confidentiality
Dmitry. It's called diplomacy. It's been around for hundreds of years.
Businesses interact in the same way. You have honest dialogue
regarding relations with the understanding going in that the
discussions are confidential.
Without some reasonable expectation of trust and confidentiality -
nations, nor businesses nor individuals will have trusted discussions
with anyone. What the glorified hacker in charge of Wikileaks wants is
to disrupt that communication - and get rich doing it. The truth angle
is a sham.
> > Can you point to something printed in the Guardian that undermines
> > Clinton ?
>
> No, I can't, but she used the word "agressive" in describing the
> action US government is going to take. Why being agressive?
Citation please.
> > > There is a difference between private and professional affairs. In
> > > democratic world, governments are elected by people and should be
> > > obliged to be transparent.
>
> > Sorry. Democracies have the same rights to discretion and trust as any
> > individual. The problem with Wikileaks isnt the information. It's the
> > breach of trust that is created when a sense of confidentiality
> > between peers is violated - in this case by a third party who is
> > publishing the information for personal gain.
>
> I still don't understand what "trust" you are referring to.
Trusted conversations occur in society every day at every level. If
you don't trust that the discussion you're having with someone is
privileged or confidential - you either won't have that kind of
dialogue or you'll simply not tell the truth. That's what Wikileaks is
trying to disrupt.
> > Hackers have always been rather sloppy moralists.
>
> It is not so much about moral, any decent journalist will support the
> release of information, it is about letting public know the details
> that mainstream media has failed to provide.
Any decent journalist would have no problem explaining privilege to
you Dmitry. At least in the US, journalists have Constitutional
protection that allows them to claim special privilege in protecting
sources. What you're saying is that no one should be able to claim
privilege ? That's not a democracy thats anarchy.
>
> I'm in favour of wikileaks.
I hope that Bradley Manning will be comforted by your support. He'll
spend the rest of his life in a military prison while Assange will
make millions publishing books and speaking at public functions.
Hooray for truth. Truth is a sham.
captain!
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4cbd6af-4424-46f7...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
regards,
BM
//////////
BM, thank you very much for your comment. i was starting to feel that i was
the only one who was thinking along those lines. i have recently been in a
(mostly european) forum where i was the only one in the discussion who did
not think that assange is some sort of "God Of Freedom of Speech". it was so
frustrating. i wrote several comments and deleted all of them before sending
because they were just too bitter :/
captain!
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4cbd6af-4424-46f7...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
regards,
BM
- further comment: this is proving to be a surprisingly divisive issue.
on the lighter side of things, check out this video in which assange
himself makes a guest appearance. it appears to have been done in late
october before the most recent leak although you'll notice that the
description has been updated. it's actually quite well done although i
couldn't help but notice the lack of mention of tony blair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXbCwq4ewBU&feature=player_embedded
captain!
On Dec 3, 1:08 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2:26 am, Vidas <darsiau...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> What the glorified hacker in charge of Wikileaks wants is
to disrupt that communication - and get rich doing it. The truth angle
is a sham.
vidas, i lean towards your side of the arguement in general but why do you
think he is motivated by money? did you read/hear something about it or are
you just assuming?
Ostap Bender
Yes, indeed, all these leaks say EXACTLY what all of us expected the
State department's memos to say.
This is all totally unexciting, harmless and predictable information.
That's why the Republican's claim that the release of this harmless
information is "terrorism" is so disturbing: they are again using the
pretext of "the war on terror" (TWAT) to take away basic freedoms from
average Americans.
Look, Bush declared that America is at this TWAT war more than 9 years
ago, soon after my daughters were born. And this claim that "we are
at war" has been used by the government to turn USA from a great
democracy to a vile Big Brother state. What is most shocking is that
since there will always be a chance of a terrorist attack, this TWAT
will never come to an end. My daughters will have spent their entire
lives living in a country which harasses its citizens under the
pretext of an invisible war.
First, the Cold War, now TWAT.... Why can't the Ameircan politicians
live a day without scaring the US citizens into submission?
> What is a shame is that the poor little US Army enlisted man who fell
> victim to the Wikileaks manipulation and promises of fame will likely
> spend the rest of his life in a military prison.
That US Army guy did indeed break the law and committed a crime. But
it was not terrorism, was it?
Ostap Bender
What's your point? That accused rapists should be tried on the charges
of deliberately leaking information leading to peoples' deaths?
> Freedom
> of speech is about being allowed to speak one's opinions openly
> without punishment, not about being able to steal classified
> information and post it on-line (in this case, words spoken *by
> others* and then posted *without the speakers' permission*).
I doubt that Captain will disagree that the US Army guy, who gave
these materials to Wikileaks, is guilty of a major crime.
But what about my question as to whether the publishing of these
materials is "terrorism"?
The Black Monk
Setting aside the bogus claim that this is terrorism, what "basic
freedom" is taken away from "average Americans" when confidential
communication between diplomats is leaked?
Do you consider the lack of relase of confidential comunication among
Russian diplomats to be another example of the lack of basic human
freedoms in that country? How abut Canada, France, Germany and all
theother countries in which confidential communication between
diplomats is not transcribed and placed on the internet.
BM
> Look, Bush declared that America is at this TWAT war more than 9 years
> ago, soon after my daughters were born. And this claim that "we are
> at war" has been used by the government to turn USA from a great
> democracy to a vile Big Brother state. What is most shocking is that
> since there will always be a chance of a terrorist attack, this TWAT
> will never come to an end. My daughters will have spent their entire
> lives living in a country which harasses its citizens under the
> pretext of an invisible war.
>
> First, the Cold War, now TWAT.... Why can't the Ameircan politicians
> live a day without scaring the US citizens into submission?
>
> > What is a shame is that the poor little US Army enlisted man who fell
> > victim to the Wikileaks manipulation and promises of fame will likely
> > spend the rest of his life in a military prison.
>
> That US Army guy did indeed break the law and committed a crime. But
> it was not terrorism, was it?
>
>
>
> > Compare what Wikileaks is doing to how normal people interact
> > Dmitry...If you told a friend something of confidence regarding
> > another friend or relative and that person you told the secret to not
> > only announced that information but published it for all to see around
> > you - would you be defending their presenting that even if the truth
> > is bitter ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Black Monk
It's certainly not terrorism. But neither is it freedom of speech.
BM
vello
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d4cbd6af-4424-46f7...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will be third. Of course, we can look at things this way that sole
responsible of any leak is clerk giving secrets up - and foreign spies
are just officers doing their job legally in other country. But till
we send spies into court, there must be something what stops making
secrets stealing a business branch -)
Vidas
> "Vidas" <darsiau...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Witnesses and friends of Manning have referred to Mannings believing
this hand over of data to Wikileaks would bring him fame and
recognition.
In the Western pretext - fame and recognition mean money.
Assange and the Wikileaks group has an active fundraising operation
and always has.
Vidas
wrote:
> > What truth ? That no one trusts Iran's leadership and Medvedev plays
> > second fiddle to Putin ? I'm not seeing any information in the
> > Guardian or elsewhere thats not already known...Sarkozy acts like an
> > emperor with no clothes ? I could have told you that a long time ago.
>
> Yes, indeed, all these leaks say EXACTLY what all of us expected the
> State department's memos to say.
>
> This is all totally unexciting, harmless and predictable information.
> That's why the Republican's claim that the release of this harmless
> information is "terrorism" is so disturbing: they are again using the
> pretext of "the war on terror" (TWAT) to take away basic freedoms from
> average Americans.
Certain segments of the Republican party have developed an active
paranoia - they distrust everyone and everything. They would like to
paint Wikileaks as part of the general global conspiracy of people who
are just jealous of how the US is the greatest country ever created by
God Himself.
This point of view is in the minority though. Declaring a virtual
entity as a terrorist group is a huge stretch.
>
> Look, Bush declared that America is at this TWAT war more than 9 years
> ago, soon after my daughters were born. And this claim that "we are
> at war" has been used by the government to turn USA from a great
> democracy to a vile Big Brother state. What is most shocking is that
> since there will always be a chance of a terrorist attack, this TWAT
> will never come to an end. My daughters will have spent their entire
> lives living in a country which harasses its citizens under the
> pretext of an invisible war.
Much of the shoe pounding going on in Washington is for domestic
consumption. You may be subject to various scans if you fly
commercially these days but little of the Big Brother aspect distills
down to the average person.
And your living in the Bay area brings little sympathy from me as I
watch the snow fall out my window. You're not suffering out there.
>
> First, the Cold War, now TWAT.... Why can't the Ameircan politicians
> live a day without scaring the US citizens into submission?
Because submission is important to them.
>
> > What is a shame is that the poor little US Army enlisted man who fell
> > victim to the Wikileaks manipulation and promises of fame will likely
> > spend the rest of his life in a military prison.
>
> That US Army guy did indeed break the law and committed a crime. But
> it was not terrorism, was it?
No. Even though what he did was criminal technically - what he did was
incredibly stupid and naive. I wouldn't find life in prison as
punishment fitting that crime - but the rules are what they are and he
knew that he was committing a crime.
Dmitry
> On Dec 3, 1:08 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:26 am, Vidas <darsiau...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Oh come on Dmitry...The information didnt concern Clinton. What she is
> > > concerned about is any perceived breach of trust !
>
> > Between who? Is it a campaign for confidentiality?
>
> Governments communicate with an understanding of confidentiality
> Dmitry. It's called diplomacy. It's been around for hundreds of years.
>
> Businesses interact in the same way. You have honest dialogue
> regarding relations with the understanding going in that the
> discussions are confidential.
>
> Without some reasonable expectation of trust and confidentiality -
> nations, nor businesses nor individuals will have trusted discussions
> with anyone. What the glorified hacker in charge of Wikileaks wants is
> to disrupt that communication - and get rich doing it. The truth angle
> is a sham.
Hundreds years ago it was easy to hide information. It isn't today.
Governments and businesses have to get used to it. I lived in the
world where information was hidden from people (often hidden
"agressively") - this is no good. I don't know who is in charge of
Wikileaks, but I believe that people have rights to know the details
(if they are interested). In democratic world, politicians are
representatives of people. It worth very little if there is no trust
between public and politicians.
>
> > > Can you point to something printed in the Guardian that undermines
> > > Clinton ?
>
> > No, I can't, but she used the word "agressive" in describing the
> > action US government is going to take. Why being agressive?
>
> Citation please.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Wikileaks-39We39ll-take-aggressive-action.6644043.jp
It was also shown on Sky and BBC over and over. The matter was
discussed in many political programs here. In one of them, "This
Week", they brought Meat Loaf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_Loaf
in order to fill the gap, as there aren't many representatives of
"anti-wikileaks" camp here.
> > > > There is a difference between private and professional affairs. In
> > > > democratic world, governments are elected by people and should be
> > > > obliged to be transparent.
>
> > > Sorry. Democracies have the same rights to discretion and trust as any
> > > individual. The problem with Wikileaks isnt the information. It's the
> > > breach of trust that is created when a sense of confidentiality
> > > between peers is violated - in this case by a third party who is
> > > publishing the information for personal gain.
>
> > I still don't understand what "trust" you are referring to.
>
> Trusted conversations occur in society every day at every level. If
> you don't trust that the discussion you're having with someone is
> privileged or confidential - you either won't have that kind of
> dialogue or you'll simply not tell the truth. That's what Wikileaks is
> trying to disrupt.
At my level, I never disclose confidential information. It is part of
my job to receive a lot of confidential information, but it is done
verbally without any physical record of it. Information delivered in
such way is safe. Wikileaks is no threat to those individuals who
trust me.
> > > Hackers have always been rather sloppy moralists.
>
> > It is not so much about moral, any decent journalist will support the
> > release of information, it is about letting public know the details
> > that mainstream media has failed to provide.
>
> Any decent journalist would have no problem explaining privilege to
> you Dmitry. At least in the US, journalists have Constitutional
> protection that allows them to claim special privilege in protecting
> sources.
I've lost you here, Vidai. You are not referring to journalist
prectices in pre-Gorby USSR? I hope not.
> What you're saying is that no one should be able to claim
> privilege ? That's not a democracy thats anarchy.
What I am saying is that journalist should have freedom to inform
people. Knowlege is privilege - lack of information is disadvantage.
> > I'm in favour of wikileaks.
>
> I hope that Bradley Manning will be comforted by your support. He'll
> spend the rest of his life in a military prison while Assange will
> make millions publishing books and speaking at public functions.
> Hooray for truth. Truth is a sham.
I personally prefer truth.
Ostap Bender
It's not freedom of speech for the guy who illegally leaked these
documents. He deserves jail. He betrayed the trust that he swore to
uphold.
But it is freedom of speech for Assange to publish them and for us to
read them.
Ostap Bender
I agree: none. That's my point.
Why are you arguing my own point and expect me to disagree?
My point is that Wikileak's publication of these documents is NOT
terrorism, and that the entire War on Terror's real goal is to shut up
Americans, to bug our phones, and to imprison and torture us without a
trial.
> Do you consider the lack of relase of confidential comunication among
> Russian diplomats to be another example of the lack of basic human
> freedoms in that country?
No. Why?
Moreover, Russia suffers from leaks even more than USA. Take, for
example, the Russian intelligence officer (whoever he is) who betrayed
(sold?) Anna Chapman and Co to the FBI. The American government
considers him a hero. And yet, Assange's source, who did the same, is
a "terrorist" and a criminal.
Americans complain that Wikileaks publication can result in some US
spies being arrested. Well, Anna Chapman and Co were arrested, and
this is considered a good act....
> How abut Canada, France, Germany and all
> theother countries in which confidential communication between
> diplomats is not transcribed and placed on the internet.
How abut them?
I guess they are luckier than USA and Russia.
Ostap Bender
You are as profound as always. Is that a general paraniodal
observation, or does it have something to do with the Wikileaks
incident? Are toy, by any chance, implying that the "crime" that
Assange has been accused of in Sweden, proves that such "criminals"
are prone to "deliberately leak information leading to peoples'
deaths"?
Let's see what crime Assange is "guilty" of:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=78430#ixzz17bd7e2xa
Wikileaks Julian Assange rape charge for not using condoms
Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is
punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for
rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against
WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden
and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and
dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity....
///////////////////////////////
So, you REALLY believe that people, who don't use condoms, are prone
to "deliberately leak information leading to peoples' deaths"? Wow.
I always thought that to devout Catholics like yourself,, it is the
people ho DO use condoms, who are the REAL criminals.... :-)
In the Soviet Union, they even had a rhyming joke about paranoidal
sovok thinking likes yours: "Segodnya nosit Adidas, a zavtra Rodinu
prodast!"
"Those, who wear Adidas t-shirts today, are bound to betray their
Motherland tomorrow".
> Freedom
> of speech is about being allowed to speak one's opinions openly
> without punishment,
Aha! Now I see your logic. Freedom of speech is about being allowed to
speak one's opinions openly without punishment, and freedom of sex is
about being allowed to shoot one's load openly without a condom. Thus,
those who love the freedom of speech, hate condoms. :-)
> not about being able to steal classified
> information and post it on-line (in this case, words spoken *by
> others* and then posted *without the speakers' permission*).
So, to you, publishing classified information, obtained by somebody
else, is like a REAL rape? Or like not wearing a condom?
The Black Monk
Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
latter i sn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
act. But not to Assange.
Besides, if it is theft for someone to steal your wallet and give its
contents to someone else it doesn't become okay if the guy
distributing its contents to others isn't the actual thief.
BM
The Black Monk
You seem to have (or pretend to have) a specific disability in the
ability to consider underlying causes for things. This is a general
pattern in your posts across multiple subjects. For example, earlier I
posted about how Ukrainian politicians who want closer ties to Russia,
also allow (if not support) journalists getting killed and beaten up
more in Ukraine. You - unable or unwilling to consider underlying
causes - jumped to the conclusion that I claimed those journalists
were killed for the sake of better relations between Russia and
Ukraine. Which is absurd, of course. And then you accuse me of
paranoia, even though your misinterpretation of what I wrote is the
sort of thing that paranoid people do.
The simple, normal interpretation of what I wrote in this thread is
that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one area.
Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused of rape
(also bad). Moreover both acts involve forms of violation, power and
control - as does his release of the confidential information. I
don't know of any studies looking into the relationship between
hacking (hacking isn't such a new thing) and rape but there is
certainly a link betwen "low-tech" hacking (burgalirizng women's
apartments, voyeurism, etc.) and rape.
> Let's see what crime Assange is "guilty" of:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=78430#ixz...
>
> Wikileaks Julian Assange rape charge for not using condoms
>
> Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is
> punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for
> rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against
> WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden
> and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and
> dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity....
>
> ///////////////////////////////
So you take his lawyer's word for it? So do you believe that anyone
having sex in Sweden without a condom goes to prison? Are, according
to you, all Swedish babies conceived in vitro?
> So, you REALLY believe that people, who don't use condoms, are prone
> to "deliberately leak information leading to peoples' deaths"? Wow.
A more realistic interpretation is that she wanted to have sex,
changed her mind when she knew he didn't have a condom or that it was
defective, and he continued against her will. Yes, that is rape.
Or the Swedish government is a puppet of the USA. Who is accusing
whom of paranoia again?
> I always thought that to devout Catholics like yourself,, it is the
> people ho DO use condoms, who are the REAL criminals.... :-)
Thanks for sharing what you always thought.
> In the Soviet Union, they even had a rhyming joke about paranoidal
> sovok thinking likes yours: "Segodnya nosit Adidas, a zavtra Rodinu
> prodast!"
>
> "Those, who wear Adidas t-shirts today, are bound to betray their
> Motherland tomorrow".
More Ostapian fantasies of my thinking. Conspiracy theories are rather
Sovet, aren't they?
> > Freedom
> > of speech is about being allowed to speak one's opinions openly
> > without punishment,
>
> Aha! Now I see your logic. Freedom of speech is about being allowed to
> speak one's opinions openly without punishment, and freedom of sex is
> about being allowed to shoot one's load openly without a condom. Thus,
> those who love the freedom of speech, hate condoms. :-)
I didn't think you would be one to trivialize rape.
> > not about being able to steal classified
> > information and post it on-line (in this case, words spoken *by
> > others* and then posted *without the speakers' permission*).
>
> So, to you, publishing classified information, obtained by somebody
> else, is like a REAL rape? Or like not wearing a condom?
See the first part of this post for an explanation of your defective
reasoning.
BM
The Black Monk
Then why did you refer to what wikileaks did as "freedom of speech" in
the title of this thread?
BM
Vidas
> > Governments communicate with an understanding of confidentiality
> > Dmitry. It's called diplomacy. It's been around for hundreds of years.
>
> > Businesses interact in the same way. You have honest dialogue
> > regarding relations with the understanding going in that the
> > discussions are confidential.
>
> > Without some reasonable expectation of trust and confidentiality -
> > nations, nor businesses nor individuals will have trusted discussions
> > with anyone. What the glorified hacker in charge of Wikileaks wants is
> > to disrupt that communication - and get rich doing it. The truth angle
> > is a sham.
>
> Hundreds years ago it was easy to hide information. It isn't today.
> Governments and businesses have to get used to it. I lived in the
> world where information was hidden from people (often hidden
> "agressively") - this is no good. I don't know who is in charge of
> Wikileaks, but I believe that people have rights to know the details
> (if they are interested). In democratic world, politicians are
> representatives of people. It worth very little if there is no trust
> between public and politicians.
I know that you lived in that world Dmitry and its clear that you
still live in that world to a significant degree. That world also
falsely presented itself as a democracy and the protector of truth. I
don't believe you know how to recognize the difference between that
world and today.
You know very well who the face of Wikileaks is. You're suddenly
unaware of who is in charge ? That seems odd as you've already
assigned them with your trust. Can you address that obvious conflict ?
Honestly ?
>
> http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Wikileaks-39We39ll-take-aggressi...
Is the best you could do ? The Scotsman ?
Do you believe that those in possession of stolen goods should be free
from prosecution - or free from addressing the consequences ?
I'm not asking you to make a value judgment as to whether or not
Assange is in possession of stolen materials. There is certainly some
suspicion of that though. Is that excusable ? Should there be no
investigation because you have an anti American bias ? Are the other
crimes the Swede's want to question him on excusable ? Do you dislike
Swede's also ? If Assange is a rapist do you excuse him of that as
well ?
>
> It was also shown on Sky and BBC over and over. The matter was
> discussed in many political programs here. In one of them, "This
> Week", they brought Meat Loafhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_Loaf
> in order to fill the gap, as there aren't many representatives of
> "anti-wikileaks" camp here.
Meat Loaf Dmitry ? Meat Loaf is your reference point ? Can Gintas
bring in Dame Edna to cross examine ? The Minister of Silly Walks as
arbiter ?
> > Trusted conversations occur in society every day at every level. If
> > you don't trust that the discussion you're having with someone is
> > privileged or confidential - you either won't have that kind of
> > dialogue or you'll simply not tell the truth. That's what Wikileaks is
> > trying to disrupt.
>
> At my level, I never disclose confidential information. It is part of
> my job to receive a lot of confidential information, but it is done
> verbally without any physical record of it. Information delivered in
> such way is safe. Wikileaks is no threat to those individuals who
> trust me.
You don't disclose confidential information yet champion others who
do ?
Does anyone trust you Dmitry ? Why should they ? Do you only consider
verbal communication as worthy of confidentiality ?
> > Any decent journalist would have no problem explaining privilege to
> > you Dmitry. At least in the US, journalists have Constitutional
> > protection that allows them to claim special privilege in protecting
> > sources.
>
> I've lost you here, Vidai. You are not referring to journalist
> prectices in pre-Gorby USSR? I hope not.
No. Absolutely not. And I am not at all surprised you can't follow.
>
> > What you're saying is that no one should be able to claim
> > privilege ? That's not a democracy thats anarchy.
>
> What I am saying is that journalist should have freedom to inform
> people. Knowlege is privilege - lack of information is disadvantage.
Journalists have the freedom to inform people in open societies. No
one has suggested otherwise. No one confuses Assange with a journalist
though. Again, I'm wondering if you know the difference here as well.
> > I hope that Bradley Manning will be comforted by your support. He'll
> > spend the rest of his life in a military prison while Assange will
> > make millions publishing books and speaking at public functions.
> > Hooray for truth. Truth is a sham.
>
> I personally prefer truth.
No, reading your posts from this last week - you personally prefer
conspiracy theories and narrow chauvinism.Your truth is superficial
and naive. Call in Meat Loaf again if you need to.
Tadas Blinda
>
> Hundreds years ago it was easy to hide information. It isn't today.
> Governments and businesses have to get used to it. I lived in the
> world where information was hidden from people (often hidden
> "agressively") - this is no good. I don't know who is in charge of
> Wikileaks, but I believe that people have rights to know the details
> (if they are interested). In democratic world, politicians are
> representatives of people. It worth very little if there is no trust
> between public and politicians.
>
>
> > > > > democratic world, governments are elected by people and should be
> > > > > obliged to be transparent.
>
>
> > > release of information, it is about letting public know the details
> > > that mainstream media has failed to provide.
>
>
I stumbled across "MATHABA", an acronym for "Media Active To Help All
Become Aware". It was founded in 1999, and is the first stateless news
agency. I notice that Wikipedia article often quote it.
Extracts from a MATAHABA article on Wikileaks:
The Truth About WikiLeaks
Posted: 2010/10/30
From: Mathaba
First, a further disclaimer right from the outset: this is not a
comprehensive piece, due to several resource constraints, Mathaba is
currently unable to do full justice to this important issue, but it is
considered more important to at least get some information out in good
time and encourage further investigation, debate and action: both from
WikiLeaks and from its (potential) supporters.
What is WikiLeaks?
WikiLeaks is largely the creation of Julian Assange and to this day
from all we can see is very heavily influenced, if not outright
controlled, by him. Since a few years when it first came on the scene
as a little known site, it gained respect for being a repository of
eventually a million or more documents and files that were leaked (or
hacked and uploaded) to the site, from a wide range of countries
around the world, but mostly from Asia.
WikiLeaks has consistently portrayed itself as a web site where those
who leak (“sources”) will not be revealed and where those sources can
securely and anonymously publish documents or files that they wish to
leak in order for documents and files in the public interest to gain
exposure and see the light of day. Journalists would then be able to
further examine those documents and add context to them as well as
give added exposure.
Who is Julian Assange?
Julian Assange is an exceptionally talented and intelligent former
computer “hacker” who strongly believes that governments and
government departments and agencies need a lot more transparency in
order to be kept in check against the excesses of abuses of power and
office that so often comes with secrecy. Corruption itself is able to
thrive where there is secrecy but not openness and this also applies
to corporations, banks, and organisations.
Julian Assange is an Australian citizen something the Australian
government and establishment media are not keen to highlight, for
obvious reasons: there is an obligation to protect and assist
Australian citizens, and this Aussie is being targeted by Australia's
powerful military ally master, the United States government and
notably the Pentagon (Department of Defence).
Is WikiLeaks Genuine?
This question is not so strange and a lot of people are now asking it.
First, if you don't agree with government openness and transparency,
and its importance to democracy, human rights and ultimately to peace
and well being, then this article is not for you. If you do, you will
be hoping that WikiLeaks is something that will multiply and be worthy
of support.
This writer would say that from all that can be seen of recent
developments inside and outside WikiLeaks, the “organisation” that has
no structure, and is stateless (things we understand well), is now
consisting almost entirely of volunteers and friends that are total
“yes men” to Julian Assange. Because of this, the essential question
is not so much whether WikiLeaks as it exists today is genuine, but
whether the man Julian Assange is genuine.
This is not a cake walk
We would like to caution the reader that in making that judgement, you
should not consider having a right to be too critical of the man,
until and unless you have borne the brunt of (real or faked) massive
Pentagon anger, calls for assassination and elimination, or at least
arrest and shipment to "Gitmo", by the world's current perceived
largest military, financial and political power.
If you are in that situation you will realise that stress, and being
able to sleep, on top of the huge amount of work involved in the past
six months over a massive amount of files “leaked” to you concerning
two major wars that are making and breaking that super power, all the
while staying calm and objective, is no easy feat. If someone fails to
achieve that totally, please cut him some slack.
You will also realise that attacking WikiLeaks “centre of gravity” was
(as exposed by other documents that were on WikiLeaks site) and is a
stated U.S. objective since 2008, and the “rape” charges fiasco in
Sweden as well as the denial of residence for him there, are part and
parcel of the usual dirty tricks campaigns, and surely not merely
coincidental.
Tensions and splits
It is in any case almost inevitable within any unstructured group
built around noble objectives but facing clear limits of resources and
thus having to make decisions on prioritisation where inevitable trade-
off will result, that cause rifts and splits will occur. The former
spokesman of WikiLeaks and perhaps the most senior personality
alongside Julian Assange, was Daniel Domscheit-Berg. He had valid
criticisms and a different idea on the direction WikiLeaks should take
(given the resource constraints) and left.
Assange hit back with some scathing remarks but again these should be
taken within the above contexts. It is not easy to avoid a bunker
mentality if actually living in a bunker nor to be dispassionate and
objective about a project so close to your heart that you have
invested so much in, or perhaps even devoted your life to. Nor is it
easy to consult constantly when action is required, and when in fact
most decisions turn out to be your way, and most actions tend to be
yours anyhow.
From what we can see it appears that in recent weeks if not months,
growing numbers of insiders have left WikiLeaks as they failed to
understand, or were not ready to tolerate, the strength and leadership
of its central figure, or otherwise disagreed with the direction the
operation was taking: concentration of resources on achieving massive
fame and results (yet to be assessed) on two major “leaks” that came
to WikiLeaks – both from the U.S. Military – on Afghanistan and on
Iraq.
Where are we now?
WikiLeaks has certainly achieved fame by working with major
establishment media houses after first releasing a video of the cold-
blooded massacre of civilians including children by the U.S. Military
captured on video and sound (“Collateral Murder”) and subsequently
coordinating the release of massive amounts of files from U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This fame has however not brought more strength to WikiLeaks,
apparently, but the opposite. The size of its teams and practical
support has dwindled, and its financial channels for receiving
donations as well as its web site, have been blocked, and neglected.
It is likely that Assange had expected that more, not less, support
would be engendered by the massive media coverage.
Some criticisms
Now we turn to some criticisms that may look petty to someone like
Assange, but which are in fact inexplicable or inexcusable on the face
of it. These are experiences we can directly attest to in our dealings
with the volunteers/staff of WikiLeaks, though not with Assange
himself. We hope that we would be granted direct contact with Assange,
since he knows how to contact us, so that we could throw light on some
of these issues and have his direct response – something immensely
helpful as we notice that a great many influential people are “waiting
to see” what happens to WikiLeaks and whether or not it is “genuine”
or a direct (or more likely indirect-useful-fool) tool of
“intelligence”.
Where are all the leaks?
Over a million files from around the world, leaked by thousands of
brave people in a range of countries, were stored and accessible on
the wikileaks.org website as well as 3rd party mirror sites. For
months now almost all of these are not available, and no, those mirror
sites only show text documents but not files – anything that involves
files or downloads is not accessible.
There is no excuse for this – other than a total lack of staff/
volunteers, or as a result of the departure of those who were
responsible for the web site. Otherwise it is a deliberate action,
that calls into question the very authenticity of WikiLeaks. It will
give rise to rumours that WikiLeaks either deliberately or by default
has served intelligence agencies by giving them along with the public,
access to all this leaked information which has lead some countries
(e.g. China and Thailand) to conclude rightly or wrongly that
WikiLeaks is an Israeli and/or U.S. intelligence-gathering front.
Those who put forward this theory back it up with other criticisms
such as funds received from the U.S.-Hungarian Jewish financier and
multi-billionaire George Soros, via his Open Democracy foundations
which largely concentrate on building “democracy” across Asia and the
former Soviet republics. The Asian tigers hate Soros with a vengeance
as they blame him for bringing about their financial collapse with its
negative consequences upon their societies and economies. They also
point to a perceived lack of exposure of Israel or an absence of
Israeli leaks on Wikileaks.org.
None of this is evidence, however, and could be presented as a
strategy. Here is one theoretical strategy that would “excuse” the
above omissions: WikiLeaks needed to establish itself and get some
support to get off the ground, so started with China and other Asian
governments, “soft targets” for western-based activists, and which
Soros and others would be likely willing to support. Once stronger,
and with massive publicity strategy, hard targets such as the U.S.
itself could then be taken on. Perhaps even all the other documents
then removed, so that everyone except the U.S. and its closest allies,
would not be too hostile and allow potential refuge for Assange and
WikiLeaks.
The excuse being given that the site(s) are under “scheduled
maintenance” and upgrades, is a lie. Any server administrator and data
base manager knows that maintenance doesn't take more than a few hours
at most. And during that time it is more often than not possible to
keep systems or copies thereof on-line. If it is due to a resource
shortage, just say it, and solicit more support. If it is due to the
few people who were handling these things walking out, then don't say
it, but still call it a “resource issue” since everyone knows there
are never enough resources for altruistic work.
Dishonesty occurs too often on the WikiLeaks website: for a site that
post millions of documents but adds few if any words itself, why is it
that such a high percentage of those few words are inaccurate at best?
As an example, currently any "404 error" page (document missing/not
found) has been modified instead to read:
Too Many requests or Request Incorrect
We are sorry but we cannot answer your request at the moment.
We will do our maximum to fix this as soon as possible.
Other strange things
As if it is not strange enough that almost all WikiLeaks files are no
longer accessible to the public, since well before the latest massive
“Iraq Leak”, even stranger is that the one thing WikiLeaks are keen to
keep going is an on-line chat facility (a heavily modified Internet
Relay Chat system) which allows anyone to easily chat in an “on-line
room” but not to see the identities and locations of anyone else (but
WikiLeaks themselves can quite possibly see the locations of everyone
else though they claim that they cannot).
This chat room often seems to contain messages about anything from
UFOs to conspiracies in general, 9/11 to WikiLeaks and religion,
almost anything goes. In several days of monitoring we found little of
importance or substance being discussed there, with the vast majority
of visitors just “lurking” and saying nothing. It it however being
used as a means to contact with WikiLeaks “staff” and that is
understandable, but the general chat facility is not.
Why not? Because WikiLeaks is strapped for resources, so why use
volunteers that are in short supply, for the manual handling of a busy
chat room that serves no useful purpose other than the gathering of
intelligence if a fake. Again there is a defence: there are two chat
rooms, having one for garbage chat keeps all the fools in there, and
the other one for contacting staff, more quiet.
So, we have ourselves once again conjured up a logical explanation
that lets WikiLeaks off the suspicion hook. But note one thing: if you
decide to give constructive criticism of WikiLeaks in that chat, you
may be quickly shot down by volunteers for “not celebrating the
largest leak of all time”, as we were insulted with the question
“which intelligence agency do you work for?” - this from a staff
member who afterwards claimed he was "only joking."
Now, what about these largest “leaks” of all time?
What is the source of the leaks?
Ahh, exactly. Manning? WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have never said it
was Manning. And they continue to claim that no source has ever been
compromised. And of course a fall guy is always needed. So let us
assume for a moment that this was not Manning. But a much higher level
within the U.S. DoD. And let us assume that these massive leaks (or
deliberate security vulnerability) were “leaked” via WikiLeaks in
order to achieve a few clear objectives:
What is really achieved?
The last 400,000 leaks have been heavily redacted and names removed
and the Pentagon says they “contain nothing new” (to them) but also,
the harm to them may be less than to others. For example, what if the
U.S. Military has changed much of its systems so that these files may
only throw some light on obsolete systems, procedure or facts already
known or compromised to their adversaries (Israel and Iran), for
example.
And what if, most of the damage by the release of the “Afghan logs”
has been to Pakistan, and most of the damage from the “Iraq logs” is
to Iran. Ahh but then what about the new information that can and will
help human rights lawyers in England, and enable further cases to be
taken against the British?
Yes. But this is Britain you are talking about. The British “judicial
system” is geared toward money-making for lawyers, and endless delays,
and justice delayed is almost never justice served. Memories will
fade, new issues will replace old ones, and ten years from now by the
time anything is achieved after constant delays, appeals, obfuscation
and legal chicanery, this will not be big news.
Kill the Internet
The real threat to democracy and transparency have been the various
plans emanating out of the United States to control, censor and even
to shut down the Internet or at least migrate everyone of the mass
Lemmings to another fast track lane and leave the existing Internet to
die a commercial death and then be disconnected.
Whether WikiLeaks can be used – and Manning as a scape goat – to
justify a “threat against the United States” and along with it the
image that many Hollywood films over the years have built up in
people's minds: that the intelligent evil master-mind that threatens
to control the world is a blond haired man, even if in fact this
person is really trying to do the opposite, is debatable.
Using WikiLeaks as the potential objective of providing an excuse to
control the Internet would surely be a shot in the foot: if the
Internet was interfered with because of WikiLeaks revelations, there
would be an outcry, whereas if it is controlled because of on-line
pornography etc. there is public support.
Ironically however, it is exactly an expose released by a “child
pornography insider” that resides (or more accurately now resided) on
the WikiLeaks.org web site but is still available to subscribers on
Mathaba, which shows that the attempt by governments to use child porn
as an excuse for Internet censorship and control are on rather shaky
ground, to say the least.
It is also WikiLeaks that has shown via many other leaked documents
from Australia, Thailand and elsewhere, that government attempts to
filter the net are hopeless at best and have aided in bringing much
criticism against the idea that people in government are capable
(Senator Conroy, Australia's communications minister an embarrassing
example of a fool) of managing such an affair, let alone keeping those
lists secret. The leaked Australian list has provided a huge bonus to
the consumers of illegal pornography, by giving them a ready list
(albeit including among others an innocent dental surgery) of links to
surf.
So where are we?
We are at a poor juncture. The following have been achieved thus far
this year by WikiLeaks:
* Massive publicity has been gained but squandered
* Anyone going to the website will however only see Iraq / Afghan
“war logs"
* The “upgrade” has resulted in a simple website now being even
more crippled
* Thousands if not millions of files are inaccessible or now hard
to find
* Massive public sympathy has been wasted by failure to address
issues
* No other heros that have done this for 11 years are publicised
* No further leaks have been processed, nor can be, and no
alternative is given
* Pakistan and Iran have received the most damage from recent
leaks
* Few if any within the U.S. have change their positions on the
war
* The masses are generally still as ignorant as before
* No alternative media alliance has resulted nor been called for
* Traditional establishment media have been given renewed
credibility
* Wikileaks didn't reach out to other natural allies and are
paranoid about criticisms
* It's all about WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks, but what is now
being done?
The future of WikiLeaks
At present, it looks very realistic that WikiLeaks may just fade off
the radar and not enter into the public mind to the degree that would
be necessary to gather a sustainable momentum, given the failure of
the small “organisation” to handle a rapid rise to fame in any
efficient manner thus far.
But the powers that wish to proceed with their plans, and who don't
really give a rats ass about these leaks and don't feel affected by
them, will continue and be able to fool a great many more people via
those same media networks (notably Al-Jazeera and New York Times) that
WikiLeaks gave credibility to, into believing that the Internet is a
national security threat to the United States of America. When in fact
it is only a security threat to the corrupt administration and
exposure of lies.
The “insurance file” which may be a copy of all that has been taken
off line, and perhaps more, still remains locked, and it is unclear at
what point – if ever – it would be released. The death or abduction of
Assange? Certainly if Assange is as real as he appears to be, that is
sadly a very real prospect. Then again, intelligent as he is, he could
nonetheless unwittingly be serving in actual fact the wishes of the
elite, to avert eyes from Israel, focus on the United States in ways
that does no practical harm to it, whilst giving more ammunition to
Israel's enemies in Iran and Pakistan.
Conclusion
The coming days and weeks, and via none less than Julian Assange
himself, may reveal answers to the above questions, and only then will
the many genuine people at all levels of power around the world know
whether WikiLeaks is something that they should be supporting further
and can trust. #
Dmitry
> > > nations, nor businesses nor individuals will have trusted discussions
> > > with anyone. What the glorified hacker in charge of Wikileaks wants is
> > > to disrupt that communication - and get rich doing it. The truth angle
> > > is a sham.
>
> > Hundreds years ago it was easy to hide information. It isn't today.
> > Governments and businesses have to get used to it. I lived in the
> > world where information was hidden from people (often hidden
> > "agressively") - this is no good. I don't know who is in charge of
> > Wikileaks, but I believe that people have rights to know the details
> > (if they are interested). In democratic world, politicians are
> > representatives of people. It worth very little if there is no trust
> > between public and politicians.
>
> I know that you lived in that world Dmitry and its clear that you
> still live in that world to a significant degree. That world also
> falsely presented itself as a democracy and the protector of truth. I
> don't believe you know how to recognize the difference between that
> world and today.
You can stick to your belief if you want; I am not going to outline
the differences between USSR and democracy – they are pretty obvious.
> You know very well who the face of Wikileaks is. You're suddenly
> unaware of who is in charge ? That seems odd as you've already
> assigned them with your trust. Can you address that obvious conflict ?
> Honestly ?
I was not interested who is doing Wikileaks until I heard it on news.
It is not so important who is doing it, the important part is that the
information became available to the public.
> >http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Wikileaks-39We39ll-take-aggressi...
>
> Is the best you could do ? The Scotsman ?
The Scotsman was the first that came up on google search. The news
was available in most press.
> Do you believe that those in possession of stolen goods should be free
> from prosecution - or free from addressing the consequences ?
It is an intellectual property and if there are copyright issues he
should be taken to court.
> I'm not asking you to make a value judgment as to whether or not
> Assange is in possession of stolen materials. There is certainly some
> suspicion of that though. Is that excusable ?
This is what police investigation and court are for.
> Should there be no
> investigation because you have an anti American bias ?
What does anti-American bias has to do with it? The information
published on Wikileaks exposed a variety of politicians from across
the globe. And if I am critical towards US foreign policies it
doesn’t necessarily mean that I am biased.
> Are the other
> crimes the Swede's want to question him on excusable ? Do you dislike
> Swede's also ? If Assange is a rapist do you excuse him of that as
> well ?
What kind of argument is this? If he has committed a crime, he should
be tried and convicted if found guilty.
> > It was also shown on Sky and BBC over and over. The matter was
> > discussed in many political programs here. In one of them, "This
> > Week", they brought Meat Loafhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_Loaf
> > in order to fill the gap, as there aren't many representatives of
> > "anti-wikileaks" camp here.
>
> Meat Loaf Dmitry ? Meat Loaf is your reference point ? Can Gintas
> bring in Dame Edna to cross examine ? The Minister of Silly Walks as
> arbiter ?
Not my reference point. Andrew Neil brought him in.
> > > Trusted conversations occur in society every day at every level. If
> > > you don't trust that the discussion you're having with someone is
> > > privileged or confidential - you either won't have that kind of
> > > dialogue or you'll simply not tell the truth. That's what Wikileaks is
> > > trying to disrupt.
>
> > At my level, I never disclose confidential information. It is part of
> > my job to receive a lot of confidential information, but it is done
> > verbally without any physical record of it. Information delivered in
> > such way is safe. Wikileaks is no threat to those individuals who
> > trust me.
>
> You don't disclose confidential information yet champion others who
> do ?
Did anyone disclosed information to Assange and trusted him to keep it
confidential?
> Does anyone trust you Dmitry ?
Yes. Many people do.
> Why should they ?
I didn’t say they should, I never ask for it, it is their choice.
> Do you only consider
> verbal communication as worthy of confidentiality ?
No. But if I had anything confidential to disclose to anyone I
wouldn’t do it in writing.
> > > What you're saying is that no one should be able to claim
> > > privilege ? That's not a democracy thats anarchy.
>
> > What I am saying is that journalist should have freedom to inform
> > people. Knowlege is privilege - lack of information is disadvantage.
>
> Journalists have the freedom to inform people in open societies. No
> one has suggested otherwise. No one confuses Assange with a journalist
> though. Again, I'm wondering if you know the difference here as well.
He is an editor in chief.
> > > I hope that Bradley Manning will be comforted by your support. He'll
> > > spend the rest of his life in a military prison while Assange will
> > > make millions publishing books and speaking at public functions.
> > > Hooray for truth. Truth is a sham.
>
> > I personally prefer truth.
>
> No, reading your posts from this last week - you personally prefer
> conspiracy theories and narrow chauvinism.Your truth is superficial
> and naive. Call in Meat Loaf again if you need to.
No, I’m not into conspiracy theories and I oppose chauvinism in any
form. You can of course make your own conclusions with regards to
what “my truth” is, but I don’t think accusing me in chauvinism helps
your argument. The best you could do was to concentrate on persona
who made this information available to public by highlighting the
crimes he is accused of. What’s next? Guardian is very keen on
disclosing this confidential info to public – have a go at Guardian…
My argument is not about Julian Assange, but people’s right to access
information.
Vidas
> > I know that you lived in that world Dmitry and its clear that you
> > still live in that world to a significant degree. That world also
> > falsely presented itself as a democracy and the protector of truth. I
> > don't believe you know how to recognize the difference between that
> > world and today.
>
> You can stick to your belief if you want; I am not going to outline
> the differences between USSR and democracy – they are pretty obvious.
Never asked you to outline any differences Dmitry. I know the USSR
wasnt a democracy even though Moscow referred to itself as the only
true democracy.
Calling oneself something, like editor in chief, doesn't automatically
make it true.
I'm all for activism and the exposing of wrongs be they governmental
or corporate. I'm even sympathetic to hacktivism. Assange is a grown
up hacker with some personality skills. Otherwise he's an electronic
burglar. He'd steal information from you if he thought it would bring
him benefit. He now threatens to use information in retribution to his
prosecution. Well, then it's not about finding the truth is it. It's
about saving his ass and he doesnt care who it hurts.
I know that you were active in protesting the SU Dmitry. Thats
something I admire about you. Wikileaks though, is not on par with
that activism and that struggle. Not even close.
>
> > You know very well who the face of Wikileaks is. You're suddenly
> > unaware of who is in charge ? That seems odd as you've already
> > assigned them with your trust. Can you address that obvious conflict ?
> > Honestly ?
>
> I was not interested who is doing Wikileaks until I heard it on news.
> It is not so important who is doing it, the important part is that the
> information became available to the public.
Ok. Within that information - what or how is it important for the
public ? Can you point to something disclosed that is important for
the public to know ?
> > Do you believe that those in possession of stolen goods should be free
> > from prosecution - or free from addressing the consequences ?
>
> It is an intellectual property and if there are copyright issues he
> should be taken to court.
What court ? He knows he's not subject to any US laws. And you know
very well that government communication isnt subject to copyright -
although I find it interesting that you're sensitive to copyright but
not confidentiality.
> > Should there be no
> > investigation because you have an anti American bias ?
>
> What does anti-American bias has to do with it?
It has a great deal to do with it. You think anyone would give a damn
if he released the emails of the UK royal family ?
The nature of these documents as being embarrassing to the US (which
frankly theyre not) is what is empowering this entire discussion. Look
at Gintas. He's literally exploding with glee.
The best part will be when Assange gets paid to be part of Fox News -
the other blessing that Australia has showered upon the US.
The information
> published on Wikileaks exposed a variety of politicians from across
> the globe. And if I am critical towards US foreign policies it
> doesn’t necessarily mean that I am biased.
Not you. Assange. His anti American paranoia is well known.
>
> > Are the other
> > crimes the Swede's want to question him on excusable ? Do you dislike
> > Swede's also ? If Assange is a rapist do you excuse him of that as
> > well ?
>
> What kind of argument is this? If he has committed a crime, he should
> be tried and convicted if found guilty.
The argument being that crimes of conscience and crimes of passion are
still crimes. For Assange to threaten that his prosecution will be met
with retribution indicates that he understands that he is subject to
prosecution on both and will use information in his tactic of
extortion to try and save himself.
He should be tried Dmitry. I agree. The problem is that there are
people who feel he should be above the law.
> > You don't disclose confidential information yet champion others who
> > do ?
>
> Did anyone disclosed information to Assange and trusted him to keep it
> confidential?
In law that argument fails. He knows what the information was when he
took possession of it. He knows the information was obtained illegally
- he certainly knows that Bradley Manning is in jail, no ?
>
> > Does anyone trust you Dmitry ?
>
> Yes. Many people do.
>
> > Why should they ?
>
> I didn’t say they should, I never ask for it, it is their choice.
Is trust implicit or is it earned ? It's a simple question. It is a
choice but it's one makes with careful consideration.
> > Journalists have the freedom to inform people in open societies. No
> > one has suggested otherwise. No one confuses Assange with a journalist
> > though. Again, I'm wondering if you know the difference here as well.
>
> He is an editor in chief.
And I'm the King of My Domain. Cause I said so. And the people I pay
to call me King will repeat it as directed. Great !
> > No, reading your posts from this last week - you personally prefer
> > conspiracy theories and narrow chauvinism.Your truth is superficial
> > and naive. Call in Meat Loaf again if you need to.
>
> No, I’m not into conspiracy theories and I oppose chauvinism in any
> form. You can of course make your own conclusions with regards to
> what “my truth” is, but I don’t think accusing me in chauvinism helps
> your argument.
It's not an accusation it's an observation. You like to follow Gintas
into jaunts of yankee stereotyping - regularly. When I pointed it out
once before your response was that you weren't including me in that
stereotyping. That was neither convincing nor comforting.
But when I post that citizens of the Commonwealth have a really
unattractive collection of relic monarchs, zero culinary heritage that
doesnt include boiling food to death and a pandemic reliance upon
alcoholism to just get by - well, thats just wrong !
> The best you could do was to concentrate on persona
> who made this information available to public by highlighting the
> crimes he is accused of.
What he is accused of is now very well known. Yet you defend him.
> What’s next? Guardian is very keen on
> disclosing this confidential info to public – have a go at Guardian…
> My argument is not about Julian Assange, but people’s right to access
> information.
Have you petitioned the British government to release diplomatic
communications Dmitry ? How important is that regard of yours
personally for the people's right to access information ? If that is
your argument. How have you promoted that right at home ?
Dmitry
> make it true.
May be not, but that is what he is addressed as in many articles and
Wikipedia.
> I'm all for activism and the exposing of wrongs be they governmental
> or corporate. I'm even sympathetic to hacktivism. Assange is a grown
> up hacker with some personality skills. Otherwise he's an electronic
> burglar. He'd steal information from you if he thought it would bring
> him benefit.
Is it know how much money he has made on releasing all this
information? Who pays for it? Wiki says that wikileaks in non-profit
organisation.
> He now threatens to use information in retribution to his
> prosecution.
Does he? I thought he has already released plenty and it keeps
getting released anyway. What else has he got in store?
> Well, then it's not about finding the truth is it. It's
> about saving his ass and he doesnt care who it hurts.
I’m sure he is intelligent enough to have known that publishing secret
information will get him into trouble.
> I know that you were active in protesting the SU Dmitry. Thats
> something I admire about you.
Thank you.
>Wikileaks though, is not on par with
> that activism and that struggle. Not even close.
Of course what I did was very different from wikileaks activities.
> > I was not interested who is doing Wikileaks until I heard it on news.
> > It is not so important who is doing it, the important part is that the
> > information became available to the public.
>
> Ok. Within that information - what or how is it important for the
> public ? Can you point to something disclosed that is important for
> the public to know ?
I think it is important that public has an access to information on
what politicians and governments are doing on their behalf. I am not
to judge which bits are important and which are not, but the
information should be available. Personally, I am not interested in
gossip items such as what a diplomat/politician has said about the
others. But I do think that every detail about Afghanistan and Iraq
wars should be made available to public from day 1 of each war. These
wars were not supposed to be private affairs. We, as a nation,
democratically elected Tony Blair and the money spent on killing
people in Asia are tax-payer’s money (he didn’t fund it from his
private bank account). I and every British tax payer should be able
to access details on the activities funded by public finances. Am I
being unreasonable?
> > It is an intellectual property and if there are copyright issues he
> > should be taken to court.
>
> What court ? He knows he's not subject to any US laws.
Are you saying that he was taking an advantage of freedom of speech
principles?
> And you know
> very well that government communication isnt subject to copyright -
> although I find it interesting that you're sensitive to copyright but
> not confidentiality.
As you mentioned it -)) Actually, I’m not sensitive to copyrights at
all. I am a member of PRS, but I don’t mind if anyone uses my pieces
for any purpose they like. Whatever music product I create belongs
to people, disregarding whether I was paid for this particular work or
not. As for confidentiality – I am sensitive, but I differentiate
between private and public.
> > > Should there be no
> > > investigation because you have an anti American bias ?
>
> > What does anti-American bias has to do with it?
>
> It has a great deal to do with it. You think anyone would give a damn
> if he released the emails of the UK royal family ?
Are you saying that Julian bullied United States?
> The nature of these documents as being embarrassing to the US (which
> frankly theyre not)
Of course they are embarrassing. If they weren’t we wouldn’t even
have this discussion.
> is what is empowering this entire discussion. Look
> at Gintas. He's literally exploding with glee.
You have an issue with Gintas -)) I like Gintas for his honesty and
share some views and areas of interests with him.
> The best part will be when Assange gets paid to be part of Fox News -
> the other blessing that Australia has showered upon the US.
Whatever it is, the governments should be transparent so their
citizens have an access to what they are doing.
> The information
> > published on Wikileaks exposed a variety of politicians from across
> > the globe. And if I am critical towards US foreign policies it
> > doesn’t necessarily mean that I am biased.
>
> Not you. Assange. His anti American paranoia is well known.
May be, I don’t know. But if you are interested in these issues you
should question why so many people on this planet are anti-American.
> > What kind of argument is this? If he has committed a crime, he should
> > be tried and convicted if found guilty.
>
> The argument being that crimes of conscience and crimes of passion are
> still crimes.
How does “me hating Swedes” question relate to this argument?
> For Assange to threaten that his prosecution will be met
> with retribution indicates that he understands that he is subject to
> prosecution on both and will use information in his tactic of
> extortion to try and save himself.
What would George Bush Junior do if he was taken to court for his
crimes? Assange didn’t order to kill anyone, he didn’t authorise
any torture of prisoners…
> He should be tried Dmitry. I agree. The problem is that there are
> people who feel he should be above the law.
Nobody should be above the law, but the politics should be
transparent.
> > > You don't disclose confidential information yet champion others who
> > > do ?
>
> > Did anyone disclosed information to Assange and trusted him to keep it
> > confidential?
>
> In law that argument fails. He knows what the information was when he
> took possession of it. He knows the information was obtained illegally
> - he certainly knows that Bradley Manning is in jail, no ?
Vidas, why do you have problem with information being available to
people?
> > I didn’t say they should, I never ask for it, it is their choice.
>
> Is trust implicit or is it earned ? It's a simple question. It is a
> choice but it's one makes with careful consideration.
It is a choice and the trust is earned.
> > > Journalists have the freedom to inform people in open societies. No
> > > one has suggested otherwise. No one confuses Assange with a journalist
> > > though. Again, I'm wondering if you know the difference here as well.
>
> > He is an editor in chief.
>
> And I'm the King of My Domain. Cause I said so. And the people I pay
> to call me King will repeat it as directed. Great !
It is not unusual when journalists intrude privacy of their targets.
> > No, I’m not into conspiracy theories and I oppose chauvinism in any
> > form. You can of course make your own conclusions with regards to
> > what “my truth” is, but I don’t think accusing me in chauvinism helps
> > your argument.
>
> It's not an accusation it's an observation.
I am disappointed that your observation skills go down as low as
accusing me in chauvinism.
> You like to follow Gintas
> into jaunts of yankee stereotyping - regularly. When I pointed it out
> once before your response was that you weren't including me in that
> stereotyping. That was neither convincing nor comforting.
I don’t like stereotyping, but you must understand why so many people
in this world disagree with US foreign policies and actions that
follow these policies.
> But when I post that citizens of the Commonwealth have a really
> unattractive collection of relic monarchs, zero culinary heritage that
> doesnt include boiling food to death and a pandemic reliance upon
> alcoholism to just get by - well, thats just wrong !
>
> > The best you could do was to concentrate on persona
> > who made this information available to public by highlighting the
> > crimes he is accused of.
>
> What he is accused of is now very well known. Yet you defend him.
I don’t defend him, but freedom of speech.
>
> > What’s next? Guardian is very keen on
> > disclosing this confidential info to public – have a go at Guardian…
> > My argument is not about Julian Assange, but people’s right to access
> > information.
>
> Have you petitioned the British government to release diplomatic
> communications Dmitry ? How important is that regard of yours
> personally for the people's right to access information ? If that is
> your argument. How have you promoted that right at home ?
I don’t have anything to hide.
Vidas
> Is it know how much money he has made on releasing all this
> information? Who pays for it? Wiki says that wikileaks in non-profit
> organisation.
Do you understand what a non profit is Dmitry ? Non profits can raise
money and can charge for services. Nonprofits pay salaries as they see
fit.
>
> > He now threatens to use information in retribution to his
> > prosecution.
>
> Does he? I thought he has already released plenty and it keeps
> getting released anyway. What else has he got in store?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/world/europe/07assange.html
>
> > Well, then it's not about finding the truth is it. It's
> > about saving his ass and he doesnt care who it hurts.
>
> I’m sure he is intelligent enough to have known that publishing secret
> information will get him into trouble.
Intelligent and sitting in jail would seem to be exclusive of each
other - but as you wish.
> > Ok. Within that information - what or how is it important for the
> > public ? Can you point to something disclosed that is important for
> > the public to know ?
>
> I think it is important that public has an access to information on
> what politicians and governments are doing on their behalf. I am not
> to judge which bits are important and which are not, but the
> information should be available. Personally, I am not interested in
> gossip items such as what a diplomat/politician has said about the
> others. But I do think that every detail about Afghanistan and Iraq
> wars should be made available to public from day 1 of each war. These
> wars were not supposed to be private affairs. We, as a nation,
> democratically elected Tony Blair and the money spent on killing
> people in Asia are tax-payer’s money (he didn’t fund it from his
> private bank account). I and every British tax payer should be able
> to access details on the activities funded by public finances. Am I
> being unreasonable?
No - so how are you compelling Assange or the British government to
release the truth ?
Hillary Clinton certainly had nothing to do with Tony Blair and the
vast majority of the Wikileaks docs came from the Bush era - which
ended two years ago.
The US hardly keeps you from compelling your own government to be
honest with you.
> > What court ? He knows he's not subject to any US laws.
>
> Are you saying that he was taking an advantage of freedom of speech
> principles?
I'm saying he was taking advantage of the fact that he operates in a
legalistically nebulous environment.
There is no court for Wikileaks.
>
> > It has a great deal to do with it. You think anyone would give a damn
> > if he released the emails of the UK royal family ?
>
> Are you saying that Julian bullied United States?
Assange is playing to his interests. Bullied ? No. That's juvenile.
But Assange knows very well what he's doing.
>
> > The nature of these documents as being embarrassing to the US (which
> > frankly theyre not)
>
> Of course they are embarrassing. If they weren’t we wouldn’t even
> have this discussion.
You think theyre embarrassing Dmitry. The reason we're having this
discussion is that you think theyre embarrassing and you think it's
good that the US is being embarrassed per your demi soviet POV.
As I've asked several times now - please point out some piece of what
Assange has released that is embarrassing to Clinton, Obama or the US.
You havent addressed any of them.
What I'm arguing is that you've fell victim to a publicity sham that
is founded upon an elemental anti American phobia.
Please present something - anything related to Assange or Wikileaks
that proves me wrong Dmitry.
>
> > is what is empowering this entire discussion. Look
> > at Gintas. He's literally exploding with glee.
>
> You have an issue with Gintas -)) I like Gintas for his honesty and
> share some views and areas of interests with him.
Everyone should have an issue with Gintas.
Honesty ? That makes me wonder if you understand the concept.
> > Not you. Assange. His anti American paranoia is well known.
>
> May be, I don’t know. But if you are interested in these issues you
> should question why so many people on this planet are anti-American.
Ok. I'll question it. Dmitry - why are you anti American ?
> > For Assange to threaten that his prosecution will be met
> > with retribution indicates that he understands that he is subject to
> > prosecution on both and will use information in his tactic of
> > extortion to try and save himself.
>
> What would George Bush Junior do if he was taken to court for his
> crimes? Assange didn’t order to kill anyone, he didn’t authorise
> any torture of prisoners…
You're diverting here Dmitry. Address the topic.
If you're truly concerned with truth and justice you wouldnt try to
divert the point.
> > In law that argument fails. He knows what the information was when he
> > took possession of it. He knows the information was obtained illegally
> > - he certainly knows that Bradley Manning is in jail, no ?
>
> Vidas, why do you have problem with information being available to
> people?
Dmitry, burglary isnt a path to truth. That's an elemental
consideration within any democracy that the rule of law is primary.
Why do you have a problem with democracy and the rule of law ?
> > And I'm the King of My Domain. Cause I said so. And the people I pay
> > to call me King will repeat it as directed. Great !
>
> It is not unusual when journalists intrude privacy of their targets.
Journalists are like assassins ? With targets ? Interesting.
> > It's not an accusation it's an observation.
>
> I am disappointed that your observation skills go down as low as
> accusing me in chauvinism.
Heh..Then quit providing me with the basic elements that allow me to
form my plain observation Dmitry. Your words are your words.
>
> > You like to follow Gintas
> > into jaunts of yankee stereotyping - regularly. When I pointed it out
> > once before your response was that you weren't including me in that
> > stereotyping. That was neither convincing nor comforting.
>
> I don’t like stereotyping, but you must understand why so many people
> in this world disagree with US foreign policies and actions that
> follow these policies.
I'm no fan of many US foreign policy positions Dmitry - but I dont
collapse into simpleton rhetoric in addressing them.
>
> > But when I post that citizens of the Commonwealth have a really
> > unattractive collection of relic monarchs, zero culinary heritage that
> > doesnt include boiling food to death and a pandemic reliance upon
> > alcoholism to just get by - well, thats just wrong !
Crickets ?
How does my purposeful example of simplistic chauvinism and
stereotyping differ from yours Dmitry ? Besides the fact that yours
isnt purposeful in its absurdity. You actually believe that bullshit.
Ostap Bender
> On Dec 9, 4:49 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
> capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
> and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one area.
> Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused of rape
> (also bad).
Let me understand your assertion. Are you saying that hackers are
significantly more likely to rape, murder and pillage than non-
hackers? If you can show that, you got yourself a PhD degree and a CNN
piece on unexpected discoveries.
> Moreover both acts involve forms of violation, power and
> control - as does his release of the confidential information.
Let me understand your assertion. Are you saying that releasing and
publishing confidential information and violent crimes - including
raping a woman and murdering a person - have a significant positive
correlation?
So, are corporate whistle blowers likely to rape, murder and pillage?
Here is a list of 97 of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_whistleblowers
How about Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times editors, who
published the notorious Pentagon Papers? Any potential/actual rapists
and murderers among them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
How about numerous Soviet and post-Soviet whistleblowers on KGB and
FSB activities? How about various Soviet defectors to the West who
shared confidential/classified Soviet information? Litvinenko?
Gordievsky? Stanislav Levchenko?
How about all those heroic American and British spies who stole secret
Soviet information and gave it to the MI5/6 and the CIA?
How about Soviet dissidents who often publicised secret/confidential
Soviet information? Potential "rapists"/"murderers"?
In general, are you saying that whistleblowers and dissidents, who
release confidential information, are more likely to be
"rapists"/"murderers"? Wow.
> I
> don't know of any studies looking into the relationship between
> hacking (hacking isn't such a new thing) and rape but there is
> certainly a link betwen "low-tech" hacking (burgalirizng women's
> apartments,
Why "women's"? What about men's?
>voyeurism, etc.) and rape.
How about a link between voyeurism and, say, bank robbery? Do you
REALLY think one exists?
In any way, do you see little difference between computer hackers and
common burglars in terms of their propensity to commit rape and other
VIOLENT crimes? Really?
> > So, you REALLY believe that people, who don't use condoms, are prone
> > to "deliberately leak information leading to peoples' deaths"? Wow.
>
> A more realistic interpretation is that she wanted to have sex,
> changed her mind when she knew he didn't have a condom or that it was
> defective, and he continued against her will. Yes, that is rape.
And you are saying that whistleblowers and computer hackers are more
likely to commit rape, murder and burglary than others, right?
> > In the Soviet Union, they even had a rhyming joke about paranoidal
> > sovok thinking likes yours: "Segodnya nosit Adidas, a zavtra Rodinu
> > prodast!"
>
> > "Those, who wear Adidas t-shirts today, are bound to betray their
> > Motherland tomorrow".
>
> More Ostapian fantasies of my thinking. Conspiracy theories are rather
> Sovet, aren't they?
What do you mean? I wasn't talking about conspiracy theories. I am
talking about your treating non-conformists, whistleblowers and
computer hackers as potential criminals.
> You seem to have (or pretend to have) a specific disability in the
> ability to consider underlying causes for things. This is a general
> pattern in your posts across multiple subjects. For example, earlier I
> posted about how Ukrainian politicians who want closer ties to Russia,
> also allow (if not support) journalists getting killed and beaten up
> more in Ukraine. You - unable or unwilling to consider underlying
> causes - jumped to the conclusion that I claimed those journalists
> were killed for the sake of better relations between Russia and
> Ukraine. Which is absurd, of course. And then you accuse me of
> paranoia, even though your misinterpretation of what I wrote is the
> sort of thing that paranoid people do.
Nonsense. I objected to your claim that "Ukrainian politicians who
want closer ties to Russia, also allow (if not support) journalists
getting killed and beaten up more in Ukraine". All but one such
murders were committed under Kuchma, who was no lover of Russia. Your
entire argument is based on one single murder committed under
Yanukovych, which you consider to be a statistically significant
sample.
Ostap Bender
Because Assange had a full freedom of speech to publish the
confidential papers that his source gave him, just as the New York
Times had a full freedom of speech to publish the confidential
Pentagon papers that Daniel Ellsberg gave them.
If the Republicans tried to treat the New York Times as a terrorist
organization, it would be an attack on the freedom of speech. Same
with Assange.
And the US Supreme Court agreed with me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
On Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of nine
excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page collection. For 15 days,
the Times was prevented from publishing its articles by court order
requested by the Nixon administration. Meanwhile, Ellsberg leaked the
documents to The Washington Post and 17 other newspapers.[11][12] On
June 30, the Supreme Court ordered publication of the Times to resume
freely (New York Times Co. v. United States).
Although the Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court,
an appellate court ordered that the Times temporarily halt further
publication. This was the first successful attempt by the federal
government to restrain the publication of a major newspaper since the
presidency of Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War. Ellsberg
released the Pentagon Papers to 17 other newspapers in rapid
succession.[16]
The right of the press to publish the papers was upheld in New York
Times Co. v. United States.
//////////////////////////
Sadly, the modern Republicans are trying to take away the hard-won
freedoms that the Americans won in the 1960s and 1970s.
My problem is that I learned the civics in the 1970s and am angry at
what's happening to USA now.
Ostap Bender
wrote:
Here is one more point. A major one. You are saying that a man, who
publishes confidential information given to him by a source, is more
likely to be a rapist and a murderer.
But that's exactly what newspaper and other media journalists and
editors do every day: they dig up information, confidential to
governments, corporations and public figures, and publish it. That's
their job. In fact, until the recent advent of the internet, all
people, who published confidential information given to them by a
source, were media journalists.
So, you think that journalists/editors are more likely to be rapists
and murderers?
There are different kinds of rape. There is the usual stereotypiucal
violent rape, where a stranger violently violates a woman. And there
is the one that goes like this:
A man and his wife/lover are engaged in consensual sex. The wife is
all excited and screams: "Give it to me, baby!". The husband takes out
a condom. The wife says: "It looks defective. I don't want to get
pregnant now". But the husband still has sex with her.
Did he do wrong? Yes. Is he a rapist in the usual sense? Not to me.
Ostap Bender
In fact, it appears that the charges against Assange are NOT "rape"
but "'Sex by Surprise':
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/
'Sex by Surprise' at Heart of Assange Criminal Probe
(Dec. 2) -- The international manhunt for WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange in a sex-crime investigation in Sweden apparently stems from a
condom malfunction.
////////////////////////////////////
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Arrest Warrant for "Sex Crimes" Against Wikileaks Founder Julian
Assange Is for "Sex Without a Condom", NOT Non-Consensual Rape Using
Force
Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian
Assange for "sex crimes".
Everyone assumed it was for rape.
But it turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against
having sex without a condom.
As Newsweek wrote in August:
A Swedish lawyer representing two women whose allegations
triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange has given [Newsweek column] Declassified the first on-
the-record confirmation of the allegations that led to the issuance—
and then rapid cancellation—of a warrant on a rape charge and to a
parallel investigation into alleged “molestation." Claes Borgstrom of
the Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two
women who said they had sexual relationships with Assange, said his
clients complained to the police of Assange's reluctance to use
condoms and unwillingness to be tested for sexually transmitted
disease.
***
Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had
not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the
principal concern the women had about Assange’s behavior—which they
reported to police in person—related to his lack of interest in using
condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women’s request,
for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of
the women’s alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began
with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women
claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn’t use a condom—
was published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included
a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assange’s declining to
submit to medical tests.
Similarly, the Daily Mail reported in August:
'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a
problem with the condom - it had split.
'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he
insisted that it was an accident.’
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and
untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B,
another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
***
The [second] woman admitted trying to engage her hero in
conversation.
Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over
him and, she said, would look at her ‘now and then’. Eventually he
took a closer interest.
***
What he did not tell her was that the party was being hosted by
the woman he had slept with two nights before and whose bed he would
probably be sleeping in that night.
***
‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,’ she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement,
except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted
he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her
without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she
seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Today, a former attorney for Assange - James D. Catlin - has confirmed
that the charges are for having sex without using a condom. He notes
that:
The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed
by prosecutors.
He also accuses the prosecutors of "making it up as they go along",
and said that Sweden's justice system is destined to become "the
laughingstock of the world" for pursuing the case against Assange.
And Assange's current London attorney - Mark Stephens - told AOL news
that he doesn't even know what the charges against Assange are, but
that they are not rape:
Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him
that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously
reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said
involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.
***
"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they
haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme
Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being
issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.
"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden --
not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as
if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls.
The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview
him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's
wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the
allegations against him."
The strange tale of Assange's brief flings with two Swedish women
during a three-day period in mid-August -- and decisions by three
different prosecutors to first dismiss rape allegations made by the
women and then re-open the case -- has more twists, turns and
conspiracy theories than any of [Swedish novelist] Stieg Larsson's
best-sellers.
So Assange might be a cad for sleeping with 2 women within a couple of
days, and he might be irresponsible for having sex without a condom
and then failing to submit to HIV tests afterwards.
But he has not been accused of rape under any traditional meaning of
that term.
Of course, this wouldn't be so surreal if the Department of Justice
hadn't launched a criminal probe of Wiklileaks, Assange didn't face
potential espionage charges, representative Peter King wasn't asking
that Wikileaks be designated a foreign terrorist organization like Al
Qaeda, and some people hadn't called for Assange's assassination (and
see this, this and this).
Indeed, Reuters provides some bizarre details courtesy of Assange's
current lawyer:
Tuesday, international police agency Interpol said it had issued a
"red notice" which allows arrest warrants issued by national police
authorities to be circulated to other countries to facilitate arrests
and help possible extradition.
"There is no arrest warrant against him. There was an Interpol red
notice, which is not a warrant, alerting authorities to monitor his
movements," Stephens told Reuters.
***
"We are in this position where we have never been told what the
allegations are against him, we do know that he hasn't been charged,
we do know that he has only been asked for as a witness," he said.
"We know that ... the offence is one of 'sex by surprise', which
is not an offence known in England. He has not been given the evidence
against him."
Stephens said Assange was willing to meet Swedish prosecutors but
they did not want to meet him.
"We are in a very, very surreal situation at the moment it's like
a Swedish fairytale."
Vidas
I received an email this morning asking how I missed this bit of
hilarious.
> You have an issue with Gintas -)) I like Gintas for his honesty...
His honesty ? Who is Gintas ?
Oh, you mean Tadas Blinda posting from Spain !
Or is that Santaka ? Imbieras ? Pas de deux ? Kamouraska ? There's
seven more but I can't remember them at the moment.
Yes - it's that kind of honesty that will serve him well in his second
career as a used car salesman.
Just be careful he doesn't proclaim another "extensive translation
project" only to show up at your doorstep with suitcase in hand.
The Black Monk
You are not using the analogy properly. The New York Times has every
right to publsh news about and from wikileaks. That is clearly freedom
of the press. Assange however is likely involved in a conspiracy.
Thus it is right to put him on trial for his actions in order to sort
this issue out.
> If the Republicans tried to treat the New York Times as a terrorist
> organization, it would be an attack on the freedom of speech.
I agree.
> Same with Assange.
Why?
> And the US Supreme Court agreed with me:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
>
> On Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of nine
> excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page collection. For 15 days,
> the Times was prevented from publishing its articles by court order
> requested by the Nixon administration. Meanwhile, Ellsberg leaked the
> documents to The Washington Post and 17 other newspapers.[11][12] On
> June 30, the Supreme Court ordered publication of the Times to resume
> freely (New York Times Co. v. United States).
Sure. But is Assange the New York Times or is he Ellsberg (who was put
on trial, and not convicted)? He likes to promote himself as the NY
Times, referring to himself as "editor-in-chief." I would like a jury
and judge to sort this out.
BM
> Although the Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court,
> an appellate court ordered that the Times temporarily halt further
> publication. This was the first successful attempt by the federal
> government to restrain the publication of a major newspaper since the
> presidency of Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War. Ellsberg
> released the Pentagon Papers to 17 other newspapers in rapid
> succession.[16]
>
> The right of the press to publish the papers was upheld in New York
> Times Co. v. United States.
>
> //////////////////////////
>
> Sadly, the modern Republicans are trying to take away the hard-won
> freedoms that the Americans won in the 1960s and 1970s.
>
> My problem is that I learned the civics in the 1970s and am angry at
> what's happening to USA now.- Hide quoted text -
The Black Monk
wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:37 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Someone capable of committing rape is certainly also capable of
> > > > deliberately leaking information leading to peoples' deaths.
>
> > > You are as profound as always. Is that a general paraniodal
> > > observation, or does it have something to do with the Wikileaks
> > > incident? Are toy, by any chance, implying that the "crime" that
> > > Assange has been accused of in Sweden, proves that such "criminals"
> > > are prone to "deliberately leak information leading to peoples'
> > > deaths"?
>
> > The simple, normal interpretation of what I wrote in this thread is
> > that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
> > capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
> > and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one area.
> > Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused of rape
> > (also bad).
>
> Let me understand your assertion. Are you saying that hackers are
> significantly more likely to rape, murder and pillage than non-
> hackers?
Why don't you just accept what I write at face value rather than try
to interpret it? I wrote in normal, clear English you know.
Given the nature of hacking I am sure that hackers are more likely to
engage in sneakier forms of crimes (embezzlement, credit card theft,
etc.) than overt ones (such as assualt). What Assange is accused of
(basically "date rape" in one case, sleeping with someione agaisnt
their will while they're sleepin in another) seems to fall between the
two types of crimes.
> If you can show that, you got yourself a PhD degree and a CNN piece on unexpected discoveries.
>
> > Moreover both acts involve forms of violation, power and
> > control - as does his release of the confidential information.
>
> Let me understand your assertion. Are you saying that releasing and
> publishing confidential information and violent crimes - including
> raping a woman and murdering a person - have a significant positive
> correlation?
Um, I was clearly referring to Assange's background in hacking. But
thanks for confirming that in your mind he is more than just a
journalist (such as the NY Times) but also a "whistleblower." I guess
this means that your other comments, comparing Assange to the NY Times
in the Ellsberg case, were dishonest?
> So, are corporate whistle blowers likely to rape, murder and pillage?
> Here is a list of 97 of them:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_whistleblowers
I know of one very well-known case, in which the whistleblower was
also a stalker who made his victim's life a living hell.
I don't thnk there's enough whistleblowers to provide a statistically
significant result wither way, however.
At any rate I was clearly referring to Asange's hacking background,
which provides a good clue towards interpreting his whistleblowing.
> How about Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times editors, who
> published the notorious Pentagon Papers? Any potential/actual rapists
> and murderers among them?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
Are either one of them computer hackers?
> How about numerous Soviet and post-Soviet whistleblowers on KGB and
> FSB activities? How about various Soviet defectors to the West who
> shared confidential/classified Soviet information? Litvinenko?
> Gordievsky? Stanislav Levchenko?
>
> How about all those heroic American and British spies who stole secret
> Soviet information and gave it to the MI5/6 and the CIA?
So now you're comparing them to computer hackers or criminals?
> How about Soviet dissidents who often publicised secret/confidential
> Soviet information? Potential "rapists"/"murderers"?
Only in your feverish mind, Ostap.
> In general, are you saying that whistleblowers and dissidents, who
> release confidential information, are more likely to be
> "rapists"/"murderers"? Wow.
Your mind takes such interesting twists, doesn't it? I hope it's a fun
trip.
> > I
> > don't know of any studies looking into the relationship between
> > hacking (hacking isn't such a new thing) and rape but there is
> > certainly a link betwen "low-tech" hacking (burgalirizng women's
> > apartments,
>
> Why "women's"? What about men's?
Most rapists are men and most victims are women. You didn't know that?
> >voyeurism, etc.) and rape.
>
> How about a link between voyeurism and, say, bank robbery? Do you
> REALLY think one exists?
There is, however, a strong link between voyeurism, serial burglary,
and rape.
> In any way, do you see little difference between computer hackers and
> common burglars in terms of their propensity to commit rape and other
> VIOLENT crimes? Really?
Assange's rape wasn't a violent one. It was a sneaky one, like
hacking.
> > > So, you REALLY believe that people, who don't use condoms, are prone
> > > to "deliberately leak information leading to peoples' deaths"? Wow.
>
> > A more realistic interpretation is that she wanted to have sex,
> > changed her mind when she knew he didn't have a condom or that it was
> > defective, and he continued against her will. Yes, that is rape.
>
> And you are saying that whistleblowers and computer hackers are more
> likely to commit rape, murder and burglary than others, right?
No, you are saying that I am saying that.
>
> > > In the Soviet Union, they even had a rhyming joke about paranoidal
> > > sovok thinking likes yours: "Segodnya nosit Adidas, a zavtra Rodinu
> > > prodast!"
>
> > > "Those, who wear Adidas t-shirts today, are bound to betray their
> > > Motherland tomorrow".
>
> > More Ostapian fantasies of my thinking. Conspiracy theories are rather
> > Sovet, aren't they?
>
> What do you mean? I wasn't talking about conspiracy theories. I am
> talking about your treating non-conformists, whistleblowers and
> computer hackers as potential criminals.
You don't think that computer hackers are criminals? Thanks for
admitting that.
> > You seem to have (or pretend to have) a specific disability in the
> > ability to consider underlying causes for things. This is a general
> > pattern in your posts across multiple subjects. For example, earlier I
> > posted about how Ukrainian politicians who want closer ties to Russia,
> > also allow (if not support) journalists getting killed and beaten up
> > more in Ukraine. You - unable or unwilling to consider underlying
> > causes - jumped to the conclusion that I claimed those journalists
> > were killed for the sake of better relations between Russia and
> > Ukraine. Which is absurd, of course. And then you accuse me of
> > paranoia, even though your misinterpretation of what I wrote is the
> > sort of thing that paranoid people do.
>
> Nonsense. I objected to your claim that "Ukrainian politicians who
> want closer ties to Russia, also allow (if not support) journalists
> getting killed and beaten up more in Ukraine". All but one such
> murders were committed under Kuchma, who was no lover of Russia. Your
> entire argument is based on one single murder committed under
> Yanukovych, which you consider to be a statistically significant
> sample.
Instead of making up things about what I say you should simply read
more carefully. The phrase " getting killed and beaten up more in
Ukraine" includes the words "and getting beaten up more." So when you
write the my "entire argument is bsed on one single murder" you are
clearly lying.
In addition to the one murder (there had been no murders in the 5
years under Yushchenko) the number of journalists being beaten had
also increased, which I wrote and provided links to. You dishonestly
ignore all that, of course, because you prefer the stories that you
invent to the truth.
The Black Monk
Pleae leave me out of your fantasies. My words were clear:
"The simple, normal interpretation of what I wrote in this thread is
that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one
area.
Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused of rape
(also bad). Moreover both acts involve forms of violation, power and
control - as does his release of the confidential information."
So a guy with a history of computer hacking who also released
information such as transcripts of private communications among
individuals, and about what bases are potential targets for
terrorists, etc. is likely to commit other forms of violations too. I
never use the word "murder."
> But that's exactly what newspaper and other media journalists and
> editors do every day: they dig up information, confidential to
> governments, corporations and public figures, and publish it. That's
> their job. In fact, until the recent advent of the internet, all
> people, who published confidential information given to them by a
> source, were media journalists.
>
> So, you think that journalists/editors are more likely to be rapists
> and murderers?
Amazing where your thoughts take you, isn't it. Wy don't you add
"serial killer" to your personal list?
You might enjoy this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/24/pressandpublishing.internationalcrime
Nice way of twisting things to suit your purposes. Assange and the
women accusing him weren't married, nor did the act occur in the
context of a longstanding consensual sexual relationship as your false
analogy implies. What Assange is accused of, a nonconsensual
encounter between two people who barely know each other which could
have resulted in pregnancy or STD. You don't think that would be a
crime, even though it was not a violent knife-point rape? Apparently
in Sweden such a thing is a crime.
Frankly the creepy nature of what he is accused of doing seems to fit
his profile as a hacker.
BM
> > And you are saying that whistleblowers and computer hackers are more
> > likely to commit rape, murder and burglary than others, right?
>
> > > > In the Soviet Union, they even had a rhyming joke about paranoidal
> > > > sovok thinking likes yours: "Segodnya nosit Adidas, a zavtra Rodinu
> > > > prodast!"
>
> > > > "Those, who wear Adidas t-shirts today, are bound to betray their
> > > > Motherland tomorrow".
>
> > > More Ostapian fantasies of my thinking. Conspiracy theories are rather
> > > Sovet, aren't they?
>
> > What do you mean? I wasn't talking about conspiracy theories. I am
> > talking about your treating non-conformists, whistleblowers and
> > computer hackers as potential criminals.
>
> > > You seem to have (or pretend to have) a specific disability in the
> > > ability to consider underlying causes for things. This is a general
> > > pattern in your posts across multiple subjects. For example, earlier I
> > > posted about how Ukrainian politicians who want closer ties to Russia,
> > > also allow (if not support) journalists getting killed and beaten up
> > > more in Ukraine. You - unable or unwilling to consider underlying
> > > causes - jumped to the conclusion that I claimed those journalists
> > > were killed for the sake of better relations between Russia and
> > > Ukraine. Which is absurd, of course. And then you accuse me of
> > > paranoia, even though your misinterpretation of what I wrote is the
> > > sort of thing that paranoid people do.
>
> > Nonsense. I objected to
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dmitry
> On Dec 14, 4:00 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > Is it know how much money he has made on releasing all this
> > information? Who pays for it? Wiki says that wikileaks in non-profit
> > organisation.
>
> Do you understand what a non profit is Dmitry ? Non profits can raise
> money and can charge for services. Nonprofits pay salaries as they see
> fit.
Of course I know what non-profit is, but creating non-profit
organisation is not the most efficient way to get rich.
> > > He now threatens to use information in retribution to his
> > > prosecution.
>
> > Does he? I thought he has already released plenty and it keeps
> > getting released anyway. What else has he got in store?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/world/europe/07assange.html
So he has something very special for emergency -)) Makes me curious
what would that be?
> > > Well, then it's not about finding the truth is it. It's
> > > about saving his ass and he doesnt care who it hurts.
>
> > I’m sure he is intelligent enough to have known that publishing secret
> > information will get him into trouble.
>
> Intelligent and sitting in jail would seem to be exclusive of each
> other - but as you wish.
So was he doing it for altruistic reasons or is he just stupid?
> > > Ok. Within that information - what or how is it important for the
> > > public ? Can you point to something disclosed that is important for
> > > the public to know ?
>
> > I think it is important that public has an access to information on
> > what politicians and governments are doing on their behalf. I am not
> > to judge which bits are important and which are not, but the
> > information should be available. Personally, I am not interested in
> > gossip items such as what a diplomat/politician has said about the
> > others. But I do think that every detail about Afghanistan and Iraq
> > wars should be made available to public from day 1 of each war. These
> > wars were not supposed to be private affairs. We, as a nation,
> > democratically elected Tony Blair and the money spent on killing
> > people in Asia are tax-payer’s money (he didn’t fund it from his
> > private bank account). I and every British tax payer should be able
> > to access details on the activities funded by public finances. Am I
> > being unreasonable?
>
> No - so how are you compelling Assange or the British government to
> release the truth ?
Ideally, government should release the truth. This way there would be
no room for "Assange". How am I "compelling"? I don't. I'm on this
“mission” -)))
> Hillary Clinton certainly had nothing to do with Tony Blair and the
> vast majority of the Wikileaks docs came from the Bush era - which
> ended two years ago.
Bush's presidency has ended (thanks God!), but the legacy is still
there.
> The US hardly keeps you from compelling your own government to be
> honest with you.
>
> > > What court ? He knows he's not subject to any US laws.
>
> > Are you saying that he was taking an advantage of freedom of speech
> > principles?
>
> I'm saying he was taking advantage of the fact that he operates in a
> legalistically nebulous environment.
He must be clever then.
> There is no court for Wikileaks.
Should they create one?
> > > It has a great deal to do with it. You think anyone would give a damn
> > > if he released the emails of the UK royal family ?
>
> > Are you saying that Julian bullied United States?
>
> Assange is playing to his interests. Bullied ? No. That's juvenile.
> But Assange knows very well what he's doing.
So you think he is not going to end up in jail?
> > > The nature of these documents as being embarrassing to the US (which
> > > frankly theyre not)
>
> > Of course they are embarrassing. If they weren’t we wouldn’t even
> > have this discussion.
>
> You think theyre embarrassing Dmitry. The reason we're having this
> discussion is that you think theyre embarrassing and you think it's
> good that the US is being embarrassed per your demi soviet POV.
I don't think it is good that US has put itself in such position. I
would appreciate if you leave "demi soviet" type of phrases out of
this conversation. Verbal abuse doesn't help the argument.
> As I've asked several times now - please point out some piece of what
> Assange has released that is embarrassing to Clinton, Obama or the US.
> You havent addressed any of them.
Did you think I have read all of them? I don't have time for it.
From what I've seen, there was nothing embarrassing for Obama and
Clinton personaly, but some materials are embarrassing for US.
> What I'm arguing is that you've fell victim to a publicity sham that
> is founded upon an elemental anti American phobia.
There is a lot of anti-Americanism in UK, but there is no publicity
for it as such. I don't necessarily follow the popular views and tend
to have independent POVs. Julian in question may be "Americaphobe", I
don't know. Why do you think some people are Rusophobes? There must
be something about Russia that makes people think that way.
> Please present something - anything related to Assange or Wikileaks
> that proves me wrong Dmitry.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. Your view on Wikileaks is your own
opinion; and if you don’t see anything wrong with it then it is what
it is.
> > > is what is empowering this entire discussion. Look
> > > at Gintas. He's literally exploding with glee.
>
> > You have an issue with Gintas -)) I like Gintas for his honesty and
> > share some views and areas of interests with him.
>
> Everyone should have an issue with Gintas.
>
> Honesty ? That makes me wonder if you understand the concept.
I think I understand Gintas' concept. May be that's why I don’t have
an issue with him?
> > > Not you. Assange. His anti American paranoia is well known.
>
> > May be, I don’t know. But if you are interested in these issues you
> > should question why so many people on this planet are anti-American.
>
> Ok. I'll question it. Dmitry - why are you anti American ?
I am actually not too bad, I can even be pro-American when it gets
blindly accused in all sins of the world. But here you go: I don't
like when countries are trying to rule the rest of the world. I don’t
like wars, I don’t like US bullying other nations, I don’t like
brainwashing techniques used on population in order to get popular
support for all these actions. I don’t like lies produced by Bush’s
administration in order to justify his wars.
> > > For Assange to threaten that his prosecution will be met
> > > with retribution indicates that he understands that he is subject to
> > > prosecution on both and will use information in his tactic of
> > > extortion to try and save himself.
>
> > What would George Bush Junior do if he was taken to court for his
> > crimes? Assange didn’t order to kill anyone, he didn’t authorise
> > any torture of prisoners…
>
> You're diverting here Dmitry. Address the topic.
I can’t make any serious conclusions based on a couple of phrases in
NY Times.
> If you're truly concerned with truth and justice you wouldnt try to
> divert the point.
Today High Court released Assange on bail. I don’t think this
decision was influenced by any threats to release more secret
information.
>
> > > In law that argument fails. He knows what the information was when he
> > > took possession of it. He knows the information was obtained illegally
> > > - he certainly knows that Bradley Manning is in jail, no ?
>
> > Vidas, why do you have problem with information being available to
> > people?
>
> Dmitry, burglary isnt a path to truth. That's an elemental
> consideration within any democracy that the rule of law is primary.
Information gathered on public behalf belongs to public. There is no
law prohibiting freedom of speech. Or is there?
> Why do you have a problem with democracy and the rule of law ?
I don’t. I am in favor of information being made available to
public. Democracy is not about political elite trying to hide their
wrong-doings from people who elected them.
>
> > > And I'm the King of My Domain. Cause I said so. And the people I pay
> > > to call me King will repeat it as directed. Great !
>
> > It is not unusual when journalists intrude privacy of their targets.
>
> Journalists are like assassins ? With targets ? Interesting.
Do you not have undercover journalism in US?
> > > It's not an accusation it's an observation.
>
> > I am disappointed that your observation skills go down as low as
> > accusing me in chauvinism.
>
> Heh..Then quit providing me with the basic elements that allow me to
> form my plain observation Dmitry. Your words are your words.
What elements are you referring to when accusing me in chauvinism?
> > I don’t like stereotyping, but you must understand why so many people
> > in this world disagree with US foreign policies and actions that
> > follow these policies.
>
> I'm no fan of many US foreign policy positions Dmitry - but I dont
> collapse into simpleton rhetoric in addressing them.
You collapse into name-calling rhetoric, which is no good.
> > > But when I post that citizens of the Commonwealth have a really
> > > unattractive collection of relic monarchs, zero culinary heritage that
> > > doesnt include boiling food to death and a pandemic reliance upon
> > > alcoholism to just get by - well, thats just wrong !
>
> Crickets ?
>
> How does my purposeful example of simplistic chauvinism and
> stereotyping differ from yours Dmitry ? Besides the fact that yours
> isnt purposeful in its absurdity. You actually believe that bullshit.
Believe what? That you are a chauvinist? I suppose, by excluding you
from my “America-stereotype-list” I didn’t believe that you are -))
What is so purposeful in your example?
Dmitry
> On Dec 14, 4:00 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> I received an email this morning asking how I missed this bit of
> hilarious.
>
> > You have an issue with Gintas -)) I like Gintas for his honesty...
>
> His honesty ? Who is Gintas ?
>
> Oh, you mean Tadas Blinda posting from Spain !
How does it matter where he is posting from? He travels from place to
place - nothing wrong with that.
>
> Or is that Santaka ? Imbieras ? Pas de deux ? Kamouraska ? There's
> seven more but I can't remember them at the moment.
>
> Yes - it's that kind of honesty that will serve him well in his second
> career as a used car salesman.
OK. You, me and few others stay under the same name, but some prefer
changing them. Do you remember, Peteris used to be Perkons
-))) ....and so on... However, Gintas never pretended to appear as a
new person. Yes, I remember all these names of Gintas and there was
never a confusion what person we are talking to. Should I mention Hui
as an example of dishonesty when he was having conversation with
himself under different names??? Otherwise, I don't have problem with
people changing their screen names.
Tadas Blinda
> > Oh, you mean Tadas Blinda posting from Spain !
>
> How does it matter where he is posting from? He travels from place to
> place - nothing wrong with that.
Dmitry, you may have noticed that I am not reading stuff from a
certain person and I am certainly never responding to him.
I intend to keep ignoring his tantrums completely, but just once on
this occasion, let me clarify that I am who I am. Those who need to
know, know. Those who don't need to know, don't. There are a lot of
crazies out there in Internet world. One can't be too careful. I
notice that almost no one ever states their surname on Usenet. Eugene
and John are the only ones I can think of on SCB that do.
> OK. You, me and few others stay under the same name, but some prefer
> changing them. Do you remember, Peteris used to be Perkons
> -))) ....and so on... However, Gintas never pretended to appear as a
> new person. Yes, I remember all these names of Gintas and there was
> never a confusion what person we are talking to.
As you say, those who have been following SCB for a decade or so know
that I am a Lithuanian Australian, a former Australian public servant,
now a freelance translator, and yes, I shuttle between Australia and
Europe. My private life is my private life, I don't talk about it on
Internet, and I certainly don't talk about other people's lives or
make innuendoes about them.
One certainly has to wonder why certain people can't just live their
own lives and state their own opinions without continually being
obsessed about other people and dumping on them. Well the problem is
with the dumper, not the dumpee. "Now we return to normal
programming." ☺
Vidas
> > Oh, you mean Tadas Blinda posting from Spain !
>
> How does it matter where he is posting from? He travels from place to
> place - nothing wrong with that.
Yes. I post from my living room then from my downstairs office. I post
from place to place thus I should use a domain thats on the other side
of the planet. Right. He's in Australia as he freely admits.
> > Or is that Santaka ? Imbieras ? Pas de deux ? Kamouraska ? There's
> > seven more but I can't remember them at the moment.
>
> > Yes - it's that kind of honesty that will serve him well in his second
> > career as a used car salesman.
>
> OK. You, me and few others stay under the same name, but some prefer
> changing them. Do you remember, Peteris used to be Perkons
> -))) ....and so on... However, Gintas never pretended to appear as a
> new person.
*sigh*...Gintas changed posting names every time Peteris caused him to
blow up and have a tantrum - never to return.
Do you not remember Gintas' multiple promises to never return to SCB
Dmitry ? Then a few weeks go by and *poof* Santa appears !
Yes, I remember all these names of Gintas and there was
> never a confusion what person we are talking to.
Well, not for us. All he had to do was open his mouth and at least I
knew exactly who it was.
Should I mention Hui
> as an example of dishonesty when he was having conversation with
> himself under different names???
Yes, absolutely. Hui and Gintas used the same tactic.
Otherwise, I don't have problem with
> people changing their screen names.
Nor do I. It's a free usenet. I just can't describe purposeful
deception as honest. Sorry.
Vidas
> Dmitry, you may have noticed that I am not reading stuff from a
> certain person and I am certainly never responding to him.
uh-huh..
>
> I intend to keep ignoring his tantrums completely, but just once on
> this occasion, let me clarify that I am who I am. Those who need to
> know, know. Those who don't need to know, don't. There are a lot of
> crazies out there in Internet world. One can't be too careful. I
> notice that almost no one ever states their surname on Usenet. Eugene
> and John are the only ones I can think of on SCB that do.
Nothing wrong with pseudonyms on usenet...But 13 of them ? That's a
little suspicious let alone excessive. Dishonest ? In my opinion yes.
Gintas refers to himself as Tadas Blinda - by name. That's more than a
little weird.
> As you say, those who have been following SCB for a decade or so know
> that I am a Lithuanian Australian, a former Australian public servant,
> now a freelance translator, and yes, I shuttle between Australia and
> Europe. My private life is my private life, I don't talk about it on
> Internet, and I certainly don't talk about other people's lives or
> make innuendoes about them.
No no Gintuks..You've been totally civil to people at all times in
internet forums. You're a legend within the Lithuanian online
community known for your tolerance and friendly demeanor. You never
make judgmental comments or wish ill upon others. Never.
>
> One certainly has to wonder why certain people can't just live their
> own lives and state their own opinions without continually being
> obsessed about other people and dumping on them.
You know. Like Russian barbarians.
Fe...
Dmitry
> On Dec 16, 2:51 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > Oh, you mean Tadas Blinda posting from Spain !
>
> > How does it matter where he is posting from? He travels from place to
> > place - nothing wrong with that.
>
> Yes. I post from my living room then from my downstairs office. I post
> from place to place thus I should use a domain thats on the other side
> of the planet. Right. He's in Australia as he freely admits.
>
> > > Or is that Santaka ? Imbieras ? Pas de deux ? Kamouraska ? There's
> > > seven more but I can't remember them at the moment.
>
> > > Yes - it's that kind of honesty that will serve him well in his second
> > > career as a used car salesman.
>
> > OK. You, me and few others stay under the same name, but some prefer
> > changing them. Do you remember, Peteris used to be Perkons
> > -))) ....and so on... However, Gintas never pretended to appear as a
> > new person.
>
> *sigh*...Gintas changed posting names every time Peteris caused him to
> blow up and have a tantrum - never to return.
>
> Do you not remember Gintas' multiple promises to never return to SCB
> Dmitry ? Then a few weeks go by and *poof* Santa appears !
I don't remember this as I don't read all scb posts, but I take your
word for it. Yes, his temper is not always steady -)), but that also
applies to few other scb regulars. You are very critical of people,
nobody is perfect and everyone has problems of some sort. May be you
could try to see positive sides instead of constantly highlighting
negatives???
> Yes, I remember all these names of Gintas and there was
>
> > never a confusion what person we are talking to.
>
> Well, not for us. All he had to do was open his mouth and at least I
> knew exactly who it was.
>
> Should I mention Hui
>
> > as an example of dishonesty when he was having conversation with
> > himself under different names???
>
> Yes, absolutely. Hui and Gintas used the same tactic.
>
> Otherwise, I don't have problem with
>
> > people changing their screen names.
>
> Nor do I. It's a free usenet. I just can't describe purposeful
> deception as honest. Sorry.
I don't think honesty of person is determined by a number of screen
names he/she used. One thing is clear: you and Gintas don't like each
other and almost every conversation you have are just slagging each
other off. That's where it stands, and probably never change, but I
can't agree with you putting Gintas in the same category with Hui.
Tadas Blinda
> I don't think honesty of person is determined by a number of screen
> names he/she used. One thing is clear: you and Gintas don't like each
> other and almost every conversation you have are just slagging each
> other off. That's where it stands, and probably never change, but I
> can't agree with you putting Gintas in the same category with Hui.
There are all sorts of interesting things that can be discussed on SCB
and I intend to keep doing so, ignoring the obsessive onslaughts from
a certain quarter. I don't want to comment on this issue further, but
one last thing for the record. I'm not sure that it's fair to say
that Vidas and I are both "slagging each other off". It's one way
traffic. You would have to search a long way back to find when I last
used the word Vidas. Yes, for a while there I used to refer to his
unprovoked attacks as the barking of a junkyard dog, but I'm not even
giving my WOOF WOOF replies any more. I intend to quietly keep doing
my thing as if Vidas doesn't exist. If he hasn't got enough sense or
self-discipline to do the same, well ... draw your own conclusion.
Dmitry
Yes, this is true, I have noticed this. My comment was based on a
summary of a long period of time, not just recent exchanges.
> If he hasn't got enough sense or
> self-discipline to do the same, well ... draw your own conclusion.
I agree that disengaging from such exchanges is the most decent way of
dealing with the problem.
Vidas
> I don't remember this as I don't read all scb posts, but I take your
> word for it. Yes, his temper is not always steady -)), but that also
> applies to few other scb regulars. You are very critical of people,
> nobody is perfect and everyone has problems of some sort. May be you
> could try to see positive sides instead of constantly highlighting
> negatives???
I am critical of few people per se. Comments - you bet I'll be
critical of comments. People ? All of those people who I know
personally from SCB left long ago.They wonder why I bother. SCB has
little direction.
I take exception to what Gintas posts - I don't give a crap who he
is.. I take exception to his offering one standard while following
another - even Ostap commented a day or two ago at the gall Gintas
represents in decrying posts that aren't relevant while posting
irrelevant old news of his own. A post from 2 months ago where he
tried to assign me troll status only to receive criticism of his own
behavior in response - where are those suggestions of behavior
modification now ? He discarded all of them. There was a time when SCB
actually had some substance. I don't enjoy seeing it turned into a
grocery store gossip rag.
Let me also highlight that there are many posters here with which I
have had very few squabbles of any sort. I agree to disagree with you
on Assange but we differ little otherwise. I cant remember ever
disagreeing with Vello or Mr Anderson or Evaldas. I frankly find
Makarenko to be one of the very few remaining voices of reason on this
forum even though we used to hurl invective at each other. I'm sorry
he posts as irregularly as he does.
I could care less what kind of life Gintas lives but for some reason
people around him who are familiar with SCB feel the need to email me
about what he's doing and what he's saying ( I am apparently his
"nemesis" Dmitry ! ). Believe me - I never encouraged anyone to
communicate his daily adventures in hypocrisy to me. I have a life. I
have a job that takes alot of my time. Maybe they see me as the voice
of the silent majority that simply finds Gintas to be a pompous
hypocrite ? Frankly, I could do without it.
But when Gintas posts simplistic nonsense about Lithuania - he's going
to hear from me and he knows it. He understands that perfectly well
going in 10+ years so his woeful cries of girlish victimhood should
truly fall on deaf ears. He's trying to redefine it all because he's
using a newish posting ID that he'd like to keep relatively damage
free. Certainly free of his own posting history.
I oppose those things that Gintas posts that fully deserve being
opposed in content and context. This is an open forum. Thats what
happens in open forums. I could care less if my reads my posts or
doesnt. I'm not looking for his comments or approval. After 10+ years
- I've heard it all from him. There's nothing new in his head.
> I don't think honesty of person is determined by a number of screen
> names he/she used. One thing is clear: you and Gintas don't like each
> other and almost every conversation you have are just slagging each
> other off. That's where it stands, and probably never change, but I
> can't agree with you putting Gintas in the same category with Hui.
Thats fine. You don't have to agree but others may agree. Let people
read whats posted and draw their own conclusions about all of us - but
I'm not going to lower my standards simply because Gintas doesn't like
having his posts confronted. As I posted to him yesterday - he needs
to grow up.
Ostap Bender
> On Dec 9, 3:16 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 10:16 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 4, 12:56 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > > of deliberately leaking information leading to peoples' deaths?
>
> > > > > Freedom
> > > > > of speech is about being allowed to speak one's opinions openly
> > > > > information and post it on-line (in this case, words spoken *by
> > > > > others* and then posted *without the speakers' permission*).
>
> > > > these materials to Wikileaks, is guilty of a major crime.
>
> > > > But what about my question as to whether the publishing of these
> > > > materials is "terrorism"?
>
> > > It's certainly not terrorism. But neither is it freedom of speech.
>
> > It's not freedom of speech for the guy who illegally leaked these
> > documents. He deserves jail. He betrayed the trust that he swore to
> > uphold.
>
> > But it is freedom of speech for Assange to publish them and for us to
> > read them.
>
> Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
> latter i sn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
> Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
> act. But not to Assange.
How about NY Times, Washington Post and 17 other major US newspapers
publishing top secret Pentagon Papers that Daniel Ellsberg gave them?
I bet that if you really strain your brain, you will soon try to see
the analogy that I've been making in my posts between Assange's
publishing State Department telegrams and NY Times, Washington Post
and 17 other major US newspapers publishing Pentagon Papers. At least
try.
> Besides, if it is theft for someone to steal your wallet and give its
> contents to someone else it doesn't become okay if the guy
> distributing its contents to others isn't the actual thief.
So, how criminal, in your mind, were NY Times, Washington Post and 17
other major US newspapers in publishing Pentagon Papers?
How about all those newspapers, magazines and even TV programs like 60
Minutes that specialize in publishing confidential materials about
governments and private corporations that their whistleblower (an not
only) sources give to them in violation of their confidentiality
oaths?
The Black Monk
Your analogy is quite obvious. And I am saying that Assange's role may
quite different than that of these newspapers. He seems to be more
closely linked to the criminal leaking the information. He can be
grought up on charges of conspiracy. More like Ellsberg than like the
NY Times. The best way to sort this out is through a trial.
> > Besides, if it is theft for someone to steal your wallet and give its
> > contents to someone else it doesn't become okay if the guy
> > distributing its contents to others isn't the actual thief.
>
> So, how criminal, in your mind, were NY Times, Washington Post and 17
> other major US newspapers in publishing Pentagon Papers?
I've said many times, not at all. But Assange may not be the NY Times
here - he may be the Ellsberg. And Ellsberg was put on trial.
> How about all those newspapers, magazines and even TV programs like 60
> Minutes that specialize in publishing confidential materials about
> governments and private corporations that their whistleblower (an not
> only) sources give to them in violation of their confidentiality
> oaths?
Keep in mind that what Assange revealed not only whistleblowing.
Revealing what factories might be targets, or transcipts of private
conversations that do not involve criminality (suh as a US diplomat's
negative personal assesment of the Italian leader) is not
"whistleblowing."
BM
Dmitry
> > word for it. Yes, his temper is not always steady -)), but that also
> > applies to few other scb regulars. You are very critical of people,
> > nobody is perfect and everyone has problems of some sort. May be you
> > could try to see positive sides instead of constantly highlighting
> > negatives???
>
> I am critical of few people per se. Comments - you bet I'll be
> critical of comments. People ? All of those people who I know
> personally from SCB left long ago.They wonder why I bother. SCB has
> little direction.
I agree, there is no direction in scb. It is just a small number of
people having random discussions/conversations and arguments.
> I take exception to what Gintas posts - I don't give a crap who he
> is.. I take exception to his offering one standard while following
> another - even Ostap commented a day or two ago at the gall Gintas
> represents in decrying posts that aren't relevant while posting
> irrelevant old news of his own.
Yes, I have noticed, but there were worse scb examples of double
standards than this -)) Gintas is not really a "champion" in this
area.
> A post from 2 months ago where he
> tried to assign me troll status only to receive criticism of his own
> behavior in response - where are those suggestions of behavior
> modification now ? He discarded all of them. There was a time when SCB
> actually had some substance. I don't enjoy seeing it turned into a
> grocery store gossip rag.
As you said, there is no direction, but I found some discussions
interesting disregarding whether they are relevant to Baltics or not.
For me, some discussions in the past year had substance, but this is
different for each individual.
> Let me also highlight that there are many posters here with which I
> have had very few squabbles of any sort. I agree to disagree with you
> on Assange but we differ little otherwise.
True. We have far more views in common than disagreements. As I said,
I was not trying to prove you wrong - just interested in other views
on the issue.
> I cant remember ever
> disagreeing with Vello or Mr Anderson or Evaldas. I frankly find
> Makarenko to be one of the very few remaining voices of reason on this
> forum even though we used to hurl invective at each other. I'm sorry
> he posts as irregularly as he does.
I think I had a range of agreements and disagreements with everyone in
scb -)) I hope people don't hate me for disagreements with them
because I do not want to promote hatred in any size or form. As you
mentioned Vladimir - he insulted me more than anyone else (Andrjushka,
Hui and Henry don't count). I put it aside... I think Vladimir is a
very decent man and I genuinely like him. Similar with Peteris - some
of his slurs towards me were very rude, but it didn't discontinue my
respect for him.
> I could care less what kind of life Gintas lives but for some reason
> people around him who are familiar with SCB feel the need to email me
> about what he's doing and what he's saying ( I am apparently his
> "nemesis" Dmitry ! ). Believe me - I never encouraged anyone to
> communicate his daily adventures in hypocrisy to me. I have a life. I
> have a job that takes alot of my time. Maybe they see me as the voice
> of the silent majority that simply finds Gintas to be a pompous
> hypocrite ? Frankly, I could do without it.
If that's the case, wouldn't the best option be to ignore Gintas'
posts and commenting on him?
> But when Gintas posts simplistic nonsense about Lithuania - he's going
> to hear from me and he knows it.
Why? Do you really need to prove anything to Gintas?
> He understands that perfectly well
> going in 10+ years so his woeful cries of girlish victimhood should
> truly fall on deaf ears. He's trying to redefine it all because he's
> using a newish posting ID that he'd like to keep relatively damage
> free. Certainly free of his own posting history.
>
> I oppose those things that Gintas posts that fully deserve being
> opposed in content and context. This is an open forum. Thats what
> happens in open forums. I could care less if my reads my posts or
> doesnt. I'm not looking for his comments or approval. After 10+ years
> - I've heard it all from him. There's nothing new in his head.
In my observation, Gintas is not as stubborn as you think.
> > I don't think honesty of person is determined by a number of screen
> > names he/she used. One thing is clear: you and Gintas don't like each
> > other and almost every conversation you have are just slagging each
> > other off. That's where it stands, and probably never change, but I
> > can't agree with you putting Gintas in the same category with Hui.
>
> Thats fine. You don't have to agree but others may agree. Let people
> read whats posted and draw their own conclusions about all of us - but
> I'm not going to lower my standards simply because Gintas doesn't like
> having his posts confronted. As I posted to him yesterday - he needs
> to grow up.
It would be interesting if more people expressed their opinions. I
think what happened is that scb gradually transformed from a fierce
battleground to opinions/interests exchange place where personal
assaults are becoming more and more out of place.
Tadas Blinda
> I agree, there is no direction in scb. It is just a small number of
> people having random discussions/conversations and arguments.
Isn't that what Usenet is for, Dmitry? Exchange of views and
information?
As for O/T, I think some occasional O/T is not so bad (e.g. on music),
as long as it's not about the same thing all the time (e.g. Smirnoff
asking us Balts repeatedly why we are so ungrateful for "everything
the Russians did for you".) Perhaps the subject line should state
that it's O/T. And I'm far from being the only offender. There has
been tonnes of discussion of US politics, Sarah Palin, whatever.
As for Vidas, I swear this is the last time I will mention him. I
just want to say that I will continue to engage in rational discussion
with civilised people on topics that interest me. I will not respond
to vicious ad hominem attacks. (Nor will I launch any, which I
already haven't done for a few years anyway.)
I agree with your bottom line, Dmitry:
> It would be interesting if more people expressed their opinions. I
> think what happened is that scb gradually transformed from a fierce
> battleground to opinions/interests exchange place where personal
> assaults are becoming more and more out of place.
Indeed. So much of Usenet has been degraded to the level of a sewer
that we are priviliged to be in one of the few groups that still has
some semblance of a useful discussion group. We need to protect that
by minimising ad hominem wrangles, which nobody else is interested in
only make the wranglers look like idiots.
The Black Monk
>
> 'Sex by Surprise' at Heart of Assange Criminal Probe
>
> (Dec. 2) -- The international manhunt for WikiLeaks founder Julian
> Assange in a sex-crime investigation in Sweden apparently stems from a
> condom malfunction.
> ////////////////////////////////////
>
>
> Thursday, December 2, 2010
> Arrest Warrant for "Sex Crimes" Against Wikileaks Founder Julian
> Assange Is for "Sex Without a Condom", NOT Non-Consensual Rape Using
> Force
>
> Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian
> Assange for "sex crimes".
>
> Everyone assumed it was for rape.
>
> But it turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against
> having sex without a condom.
Looks like date-rape, if the woman was telling the police the truth:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40735131/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security
The details of their sexual encounter that weekend have been redacted
from the copy of the police report obtained by the Times. But the
Guardian, which said it had obtained an unedited version of the
document, reported Saturday that Ms. A told police Mr. Assange had
stroked her leg, then pulled off her clothes and snapped her necklace.
The report quotes her as saying that she “tried to put on some
articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but
Assange ripped them off again.”
According to The Guardian, Ms. A. told police that Mr. Assange pinned
her arms and legs to stop her reaching for a condom. Eventually one
was used — but, she told her police interviewer, he appeared to have
“done something” with it, resulting in its tearing.
-----------------
Mr. Borgstrom [the alleged victims' lawyer] said Mr. Assange’s
statement that he has “heard no evidence whatsoever” to support the
allegations was false, since the contents of the police report were
made available to his Swedish lawyers weeks ago. By presenting the
case as a vendetta, he said, Mr. Assange and his legal team were
misrepresenting a justice system that required approval from Sweden’s
highest appeal court before the extradition warrant was approved.
“Those who say that the judges in our court of appeal were influenced
by pressure from the United States don’t know what they’re talking
about,” he said. “It’s absurd”.
He said by presenting the allegations against him as part of a
political conspiracy, Mr. Assange had made “victims” of the two women,
who now faced vilification on the Internet and regular death threats.
----------------
Charming person incapable of commiting crimes or of being motivated by
something other than good idealism, no?
BM
>
> As Newsweek wrote in August:
>
> A Swedish lawyer representing two women whose allegations
> triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder
> Julian Assange has given [Newsweek column] Declassified the first on-
> the-record confirmation of the allegations that led to the ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ostap Bender
Yes, it is. But not to you, it wasn't. Your numerous responses to my
posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing Assange's
role to that of NY Times.
> And I am saying that Assange's role may
> quite different than that of these newspapers. He seems to be more
> closely linked to the criminal leaking the information.
How's that?
Have you seen the film "The Insider", which is a docudrama how a "60
Minutes" reporter befriends and patiently pushed a tobacco company
insider to go on 60 Minutes and divulge to the world incriminating
confidential information that he had about his employer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_%28film%29
The Insider is a 1999 film that tells the controversial true story of
a 60 Minutes television series segment, as seen through the eyes of a
real tobacco executive, Jeffrey Wigand. The 60 Minutes story
originally aired in November 1995 in an altered form because CBS’ then-
owner, Laurence Tisch, objected. The story was later aired on February
4, 1996.
The film stars Al Pacino (Lowell Bergman), Russell Crowe (Jeffrey
Wigand), Christopher Plummer (Mike Wallace), Bruce McGill (attorney
Ron Motley), Diane Venora, Michael Gambon, Philip Baker Hall (Don
Hewitt), Lindsay Crouse, Gina Gershon, Debi Mazar, Rip Torn, and Colm
Feore.
The movie was adapted by Eric Roth and Michael Mann from the Vanity
Fair magazine article "The Man Who Knew Too Much" by Marie Brenner.
Plot
Upon returning home to Berkeley, California, Bergman receives an
anonymous package containing documents relating to tobacco company
Philip Morris, and approaches a friend at the Food and Drug
Administration for the name of someone who can put the information in
layman’s terms. Bergman is referred to Wigand, and calls him at his
home, only to be steadfastly rebuffed. Curious with Wigand’s refusal
to even speak to him, Bergman eventually convinces him to meet at the
Seelbach Hotel in Louisville.
In the privacy of the hotel room, Wigand agrees to interpret and
explain the scientific tobacco-related documents, but stresses that he
cannot talk about anything else because of his confidentiality
agreement. After leaving with the documents, Wigand appears at a
meeting with Brown & Williamson CEO Thomas Sandefur (Gambon), who
orders him to sign an expanded confidentiality agreement, under threat
of revoking his severance pay and medical coverage and initiating
legal proceedings. Wigand, enraged at the threats and believing that
Bergman notified Sandefur about their confidential meeting, calls and
accuses Bergman of treachery.
Bergman visits Wigand’s house the next day and maintains that he did
not reveal anything to Brown & Williamson. Reassured, Wigand talks to
Bergman about the seven CEOs of "Big Tobacco" perjuring themselves to
the United States Congress about their awareness of nicotine’s
addictiveness, and that the CEOs should fear Wigand. Bergman says
Wigand has to decide for himself whether to blow the whistle on big
tobacco.
Bergman returns to Columbia Broadcast System Headquarters in New York
City, where he and Wallace discuss Wigand’s situation and the
potential damage he could do to Big Tobacco. A lawyer at the meeting
claims that Wigand’s confidentiality agreement, combined with Big
Tobacco’s unlimited checkbook, would effectively silence Wigand under
mountains of litigation and massive legal fees. Bergman proposes that
Wigand could be compelled to speak through a court order arising from
unrelated State litigation against Big Tobacco aimed at recovering
Medicare and Medicaid costs arising from tobacco-related illnesses.
They conclude this could give Wigand some protection against Brown &
Williamson should he do an interview for 60 Minutes.
The next night, Wigand and Bergman have dinner together, where Bergman
asks Wigand about incidents from his past that Big Tobacco might use
against him. Wigand reveals several incriminating incidents before
declaring he can’t see how they would affect his testimony. Bergman
assures him they will.
Bergman contacts Richard Scruggs (Feore) and Ron Motley (McGill) who,
with Mississippi’s attorney general Mike Moore, are suing Big Tobacco
to reimburse the state for Medicaid funds used to treat people with
smoking-related illnesses. The trio express an interest in Bergman’s
idea and tell him to have Wigand call them. Meanwhile, Wigand receives
death threats via email and finds a bullet in his mailbox, prompting
him to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation who, after subtly
accusing him of being emotionally unbalanced, confiscate his computer
for evidence.
Enraged over the threats to his family, Wigand phones Bergman and
demands to fly to New York and tape his testimony immediately. During
Wigand’s interview with Wallace, Wigand states that Brown & Williamson
is making their cigarettes more addictive. He continues by saying
Brown & Williamson have consciously ignored public health
considerations in the name of profit.
In Louisville, Wigand begins his new teaching job and talks to Richard
Scruggs. Upon returning home, Wigand discovers that Bergman has given
him some security personnel. Wigand’s wife is struggling under the
pressure and tells him so. Days later, Wigand travels to Pascagoula,
Mississippi, where he is served a restraining order issued by a State
court in the Kentucky to prevent him from testifying.
Though the restraining order, obtained by Brown & Williamson’s
lawyers, was thrown out in Mississippi, Wigand is threatened with the
contention that if he testifies and returns to Kentucky he could be
imprisoned for contempt of court. After a lengthy period of
introspection, Wigand goes to the Mississippi court and gives his
deposition, during which he says nicotine acts as a drug. Following
his testimony, Wigand returns to Louisville, where he discovers that
his wife and children have left him.
At this point the film shifts its emphasis from Wigand to Bergman.
Bergman and Wallace go to a meeting with CBS Corporate about the
Wigand interview. The applicability of a legal theory has emerged, one
known as tortious interference: if two parties have an agreement, such
as a confidentiality agreement, and one of those parties is induced by
a third party to break that agreement, the third party can be sued by
the other parties for any damages. The more truth Wigand tells, the
greater the damage, the theory applied goes, and a greater likelihood
that CBS will be faced by a multi-billion dollar lawsuit from Brown &
Williamson. It is later suggested that an edited interview take the
place of the original. Bergman vehemently disagrees, and claims that
the reason CBS Corporate is leaning on CBS News to edit the interview
is because they fear that the prospect of a multi-billion dollar
lawsuit could jeopardize the sale of CBS to Westinghouse. Wallace and
Don Hewitt agree to edit the interview, leaving Bergman alone in the
stance of airing it uncensored.
A PR firm hired by Big Tobacco initiates a smear campaign against
Wigand, dredging up details about his life and publishing a 500-page
dossier. Through Wigand, Bergman discovers that Big Tobacco have
distorted and exaggerated numerous claims, and convinces a reporter
from the Wall Street Journal to delay the story until it can be
disproven. Bergman contacts several private investigators who do begin
their own investigation. Bergman releases his findings to the Wall
Street Journal reporter and tells him to push the deadline. Meanwhile,
due to his constant fights with CBS management, Bergman is ordered to
go on "vacation" (which is really a suspension).
Soon after, the edited interview is broadcast. After bluntly telling
Wallace over the phone what he thought of the news broadcast, Bergman
attempts to call Wigand at his hotel but receives no answer. He
instead calls the hotel manager, who opens Wigand’s door but is
stopped by the chain. Peering into Wigand’s room, the hotel manager
spies Wigand sitting alone, lost in a daydream about the idyllic life
he could have led without his testimony. Per Bergman’s request, the
hotel manager convinces Wigand to accept Bergman’s phone call. Wigand
screams at Bergman, accusing him of manipulating him into his
position.
Bergman tells Wigand that he is important to a lot of people and tries
to assure Wigand that he is doing the right thing by offering that
"heroes like him are in short supply". After hanging up, Bergman
contacts The New York Times and reveals the scandal that occurred at
60 Minutes, after which the Times publishes a scathing article that
accuses CBS of betraying the legacy of their famous reporter, Edward
R. Murrow for bowing to such attempts to silence publication of a
truthful news story. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal exonerates
Wigand and reveals his deposition in Mississippi, while condemning Big
Tobacco’s 500-page smear as "the lowest form of character
assassination." 60 Minutes finally broadcasts the full interview with
Wigand.
In the final scene, Bergman talks to Wallace and he tells him that
despite their finally airing the piece, he is still quitting, saying,
"What got broken here doesn’t go back together again." The final shot
is of him leaving the building. A series of title cards appear stating
that a $246 billion settlement was made by tobacco companies with
Mississippi and other States in their lawsuit and that Wigand lives in
South Carolina. In 1996, Dr. Wigand won the Sallie Mae First Class
Teacher of the Year award, receiving national recognition for his
teaching skills. Lowell Bergman works for the PBS show Frontline and
teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of
California, Berkeley.
////////////////////////////
Would Assange's role be more " closely linked" than Bergman's? How
much pressure did Assange, to your knowledge, apply on his source? How
close, to your knowledge, was the relationship between Assange and his
source? How many meetings, to your knowledge, did Assange initiate
with him?
> He can be
> grought up on charges of conspiracy. More like Ellsberg than like the
> NY Times.
How's that? Are you saying that Assange had been given a secret
clearance from the US government and used it to steal secrets? or that
somebody else stole these secrets, and Assange published them, just as
NYT published the Pentagon papers?
> The best way to sort this out is through a trial.
Yes, there is going to be a trial of Assange's source.
> > Besides, if it is theft for someone to steal your wallet and give
its
> > > contents to someone else it doesn't become okay if the guy
> > > distributing its contents to others isn't the actual thief.
>
> > So, how criminal, in your mind, were NY Times, Washington Post and 17
> > other major US newspapers in publishing Pentagon Papers?
>
> I've said many times, not at all. But Assange may not be the NY Times
> here - he may be the Ellsberg. And Ellsberg was put on trial.
Why isn't Assange like NYT? And why is he like Ellsberg?
BTW, wasn't Ellsberg found not guilty?
> > How about all those newspapers, magazines and even TV programs like 60
> > Minutes that specialize in publishing confidential materials about
> > governments and private corporations that their whistleblower (an not
> > only) sources give to them in violation of their confidentiality
> > oaths?
>
> Keep in mind that what Assange revealed not only whistleblowing.
He revealed nothing. he published what another person revealed.
Your inability to distinguish the source and the publisher is amazing.
> Revealing what factories might be targets, or transcipts of private
> conversations that do not involve criminality (suh as a US diplomat's
> negative personal assesment of the Italian leader) is not
> "whistleblowing."
So, if a whistleblower reveals an insider/confidential information
about a criminal activity on the part of his company, he is OK. But if
this activity is not criminal - then HE is a criminal and should go to
jail? Interesting.
So, if after his revelations are published, the company executives
aren't convicted of relevant crimes or they settle out of court
without admitting their guilt, the whistleblower should be prosecuted
and persecuted?
Wow, given that most of the time whistleblowing doesn't result in
criminal sentences to the company executives, your approach would
surely scare potential whistleblowers shitless.
How about the newspaper that publishes these revelations? Should the
editors too be persecuted and thrown in jail ?
In general, newspapers are full of stories that reveal insider/
confidential information about governments and companies, and most of
the revealed deeds doesn't rise to being criminal. Are you saying that
revelation of ALL non-criminal confidential information about
individuals, corporations, local and federal governments, etc - is a
crime, and whatever blog or newspaper publishes them, should be
prosecuted? Or only those whose political goals you disagree with?
Tadas Blinda
wrote:
> Assange 'revealed' nothing. He only re-published what another person revealed.
>
> Your inability to distinguish the source and the publisher is amazing.
I have thought of an analogy which me be helpful – if anyone knows the
answer.
In libel/defamation law, can you get into trouble for quoting
libellous/defamatory comments?
I pointed out in an earlier post that I don't think the "passing on
stolen property" analogy holds up when we are dealing with
information, rather than a tangible asset. Sure, passing on a stolen
Picasso is illegal, that's a non-brainer. But that's because it's a
tangible asset worth a lot of money. The Wikileaks information is now
worthless in monetary terms, now that it's out in the public domain.
Hmmm, how about breach of copyright, theft of intellectual property?
Could it be argued that passing on the stolen cables is akin to
playing somebody's copyrighted music without their permission?
Assange is not an American citizen and he has never been to USA. I
don't see how the USA thinks it's going to charge Assange with a
'crime' and demand his extradition to stand trial. The behind-the-
scenes pressure that the US State Dept or whoever must be putting on
Britain, Sweden and Australia at the moment concerning Assange's
possible extradition would make interesting reading on Wikileaks! ☺
The Black Monk
wrote:
> On Dec 18, 7:08 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > I bet that if you really strain your brain, you will soon try to see
> > > the analogy that I've been making in my posts between Assange's
> > > publishing State Department telegrams and NY Times, Washington Post
> > > and 17 other major US newspapers publishing Pentagon Papers. At least
> > > try.
>
> > Your analogy is quite obvious.
>
> Yes, it is. But not to you, it wasn't. Your numerous responses to my
> posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing Assange's
> role to that of NY Times.
On December 9th on this thread I wrote:
"Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
latter isn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
act. But not to Assange."
I acknowledged and rejected your analogy of Assange tot he NY Times.
Try reading more carefully before making accusations, Ostap. Your
latest posts in the last couple of months are riddled with stupidity
and mistakes. Are you busy, and thus sloppy? Is so, that's
understandable and excusable. If not, are you okay? If not for your
intact grammar and spelling I'd be afraid that you suffered froma
stroke.
BM
> unrelated State ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ostap Bender
> On Dec 18, 11:47 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> > > > I bet that if you really strain your brain, you will soon try to see
> > > > the analogy that I've been making in my posts between Assange's
> > > > publishing State Department telegrams and NY Times, Washington Post
> > > > and 17 other major US newspapers publishing Pentagon Papers. At least
> > > > try.
>
> > > Your analogy is quite obvious.
>
> > Yes, it is. But not to you, it wasn't. Your numerous responses to my
> > posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing Assange's
> > role to that of NY Times.
>
> On December 9th on this thread I wrote:
>
> "Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
> latter isn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
> Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
> act. But not to Assange."
>
> I acknowledged and rejected your analogy of Assange tot he NY Times.
>
> Try reading more carefully before making accusations, Ostap. Your
> latest posts in the last couple of months are riddled with stupidity
> and mistakes. Are you busy, and thus sloppy? Is so, that's
> understandable and excusable. If not, are you okay? If not for your
> intact grammar and spelling I'd be afraid that you suffered froma
> stroke.
Why don't we return to addressing personal attacks here AFTER you
answer my questions as to what information you have that Assange was
"more closely linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did
NYT and WP to Ellsberg, or" 60 Minutes" to the tobacco insider, or
other journalists to their sources in thousands other cases.
I look forward to finding out from you how exactly Assange was
"closely linked to the criminal leaking the information".
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 18, 8:47 pm
Subject: Freedom of speech = Terrorism?
To: soc.culture.baltics
On Dec 18, 7:08 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 9:45 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 8:44 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 3:16 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 10:16 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 4, 12:56 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
> > > latter i sn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
> > > Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
> > > act. But not to Assange.
> > How about NY Times, Washington Post and 17 other major US newspapers
> > publishing top secret Pentagon Papers that Daniel Ellsberg gave them?
> > I bet that if you really strain your brain, you will soon try to see
> > the analogy that I've been making in my posts between Assange's
> > publishing State Department telegrams and NY Times, Washington Post
> > and 17 other major US newspapers publishing Pentagon Papers. At least
> > try.
> Your analogy is quite obvious.
Yes, it is. But not to you, it wasn't. Your numerous responses to my
posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing Assange's
role to that of NY Times.
> And I am saying that Assange's role may
How's that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_%28film%29
Plot
Vidas
> If that's the case, wouldn't the best option be to ignore Gintas'
> posts and commenting on him?
Dmitry - I don't think you realize how desperately important it is for
Gintas to appear as the intellectual heart of SCB.
I ignore the vast majority of his nonsense. Many of his posts never
receive a comment from me or anyone else. When our interests intersect
though - such as Lithuanian politics - if I disagree with him or find
his logic lacking all substance, as with his Grybauskaite declaring
war against corruption nonsense, I have every reason to interject. It
would be wrong for me not to. His creating false perceptions is a
problem for me and a problem for Lithuania's image. Lithuania has
enough struggles than to have him add some of his own.
Granted, most of his posts are simple copy and paste. He rarely
presents an actual opinion - mostly because they're terribly flawed.
His reposting of other peoples work without attribution has been
commented on repeatedly for years. He would very much like for people
to believe those posts were his work though.
Gintas doesnt want a discussion. He wants to be taken at face value on
anything he posts. Everyone is thoroughly encouraged to agree with
him. But disagree at your own peril.
On the other hand - anyone who's followed online Lithuanian political
discussion over the last decade knows exactly who Gintas is and the
viewpoint he represents. Gintas, as you well know - isn't shy. He's
"hit" every forum he can. Your point is taken Dmitry. Anyone who knows
Gintas at this point knows Gintas and who he is. He offers nothing
new.
>
> > But when Gintas posts simplistic nonsense about Lithuania - he's going
> > to hear from me and he knows it.
>
> Why? Do you really need to prove anything to Gintas?
The idea that one can prove anything to Gintas is abstract simply
because Gintas has long ago shut his mind to any view that sits in
opposition to his predestined chauvinism. Can someone who posts
something like "everyone knows that all Russians are barbarians" be
taken seriously ? I don't have to prove to him that he's totally out
of line. He knows it himself.
I have to be the bad guy. I understand. Gintas needs a bad guy as
otherwise someone might think of looking deeper into his posts.
Therein you will find Gintas as I and others know him. And you'll
understand why he is where he is and posting under yet another
pseudonym.
Vidas
This sounds familiar. Oh the irony..
http://www.lrytas.lt/videonews/?id=12927688511292521166&sk=2
Tadas Blinda
One more little repartee before I go back to ignoring the junkyard
dog. (The only sane thing to do.)
I will ignore most of what you wrote, because any objective onlooker
can see that you some sort of strange, unhealthy obsession with me,
stemming from your own feelings of inadequacy. You rave on endlessly,
seemingly incapable of understanding that no one gives a stuff about
your dislike of me, and that which you fantasise about – namely, that
some sort of avalanche of condemnation from SCB readers will bury me –
is never going to happen.
The only thing I wish to comment on is:
« When our interests intersect - such as Lithuanian politics - if I
disagree with him or find
> his logic lacking all substance, I have every reason to interject. It
> would be wrong for me not to. His creating false perceptions is a
> problem for me and a problem for Lithuania's image. Lithuania has
> enough struggles than to have him add some of his own. »
Well, what a comment on your hyper-inflated ego that is. Little Lord
Fauntleroy of Shit-cargo, self-appointed arbiter of logic and
protector of Lithuania's reputation.
Go on, keep making a laughing stock of yourself. I shall ignore your
antics and quietly go about my business – which I have every right to
do.
Vidas
> On Dec 20, 12:38 pm, Vidas <darsiau...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> One more little repartee before I go back to ignoring the junkyard
> dog. (The only sane thing to do.)
LOL ! Youre sounding more like Lukashenka every day Gintuks. See my
last post for a link.
>
> I will ignore most of what you wrote, because any objective onlooker
> can see that you some sort of strange, unhealthy obsession with me,
> stemming from your own feelings of inadequacy. You rave on endlessly,
> seemingly incapable of understanding that no one gives a stuff about
> your dislike of me, and that which you fantasise about – namely, that
> some sort of avalanche of condemnation from SCB readers will bury me –
> is never going to happen.
Never imagined such a thing nor do I care. Your previous flaming exits
from SCB tells all that needs to be told.
>
> The only thing I wish to comment on is:
> « When our interests intersect - such as Lithuanian politics - if I
> disagree with him or find
>
> > his logic lacking all substance, I have every reason to interject. It
> > would be wrong for me not to. His creating false perceptions is a
> > problem for me and a problem for Lithuania's image. Lithuania has
> > enough struggles than to have him add some of his own. »
>
> Well, what a comment on your hyper-inflated ego that is. Little Lord
> Fauntleroy of Shit-cargo, self-appointed arbiter of logic and
> protector of Lithuania's reputation.
Are all posters to SCB not entitled to their opinions Gintuk ? Is the
topic of this thread reaching new levels of irony because you would
rather I not post my opinion ?
You post something that I find to be in opposition to basic elemental
principles of democracy and the Lithuanian Presidents powers within
the Republic. I don't place my opinion in a higher regard. It's just
my opinion - and my opinion is that you're 100% wrong.
It is also my opinion that your sloppy mischaracterization of the
powers available to the Lithuanian President is contrary to the
Presidents powers established in the Lithuanian Constitution and
contrary to democratic principles of separation of powers within a
tripartite Republic.
Feel free to present points of fact in disagreement. With attributes.
My copy of Lithuania's Constitution is right next to me on my
bookshelf.
>
> Go on, keep making a laughing stock of yourself. I shall ignore your
> antics and quietly go about my business – which I have every right to
> do.
You do. Everyone has rights Gintuk. Same as I do...Except those
barbarian Russians. right ?
The Black Monk
wrote:
What personal attack? Do you consider it offensive to be in a hurry
and thus sloppy, or to have a stroke?
Or do you mean your own personal attack: "Your numerous responses to
my posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing
Assange's role to that of NY Times."
Yeah, you were insulting, and you were proven wrong. Either you lied,
or you were merely sloppy. And rather than acknowledge it, you want
you move on.
> here AFTER you
> answer my questions as to what information you have that Assange was
> "more closely linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did
> NYT and WP to Ellsberg, or" 60 Minutes" to the tobacco insider, or
> other journalists to their sources in thousands other cases.
Why don't you reply to several of my previous posts before demanding
that others do the same.
You can start here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/ffe8e49b07ced847?hl=en&dmode=source
And we will go from there.
And then I will address your comments about some movie that I never
saw whose examples are irrelvent because they don't involve state
secrets (Manning, the guy Assange was probably conspiring with, is
indicted on espionage charges - what doe sthis have to do with
corporate whistleblowing?).
Meanwhile, you can get a clue from here:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-conspiracy-case/
Good luck.
BM
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
The Black Monk
reply to one of my other posts. Doing so brings up some interesting
information I ound from a legal scholar, and it serves to yet again
demonstrate your ignorance/dishonesty and demogoguery, which is fun to
do sometimes.
On Dec 18, 11:47 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 18, 7:08 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 9:45 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
>
> Would Assange's role be more " closely linked" than Bergman's? How
> much pressure did Assange, to your knowledge, apply on his source? How
> close, to your knowledge, was the relationship between Assange and his
> source? How many meetings, to your knowledge, did Assange initiate
> with him?
Obviously, as you may be aware, there is a difference between
revealing confidential information about a government and doing so
about a private company. Do espionage laws cover revealing corporate
secrets? There is a difference between revealing the locations of
facilites around the world that the US is afraid could be a target for
terrorsts (as Assange did), and revealing corporate misbehavior. Vello
was essentuially correct when he compared Assange'as actions to that
of publishing leaked D-day invasion plans during World War II (and
that is assuming that he was not more closely linked to the leaker,
say by offering the leaker technical support for his crime). The
comparison of Assange to Lowell Bergman is therefore false. But it
fits well into your pattern of bad-faith argumentation.
> > He can be grought up on charges of conspiracy. More like Ellsberg than like the
> > NY Times.
>
> How's that? Are you saying that Assange had been given a secret
> clearance from the US government and used it to steal secrets? or that
> somebody else stole these secrets, and Assange published them, just as
> NYT published the Pentagon papers?
You do realize that Assange is not a journalist? In this case, the NY
Times now as then is the NY Times, Assange is likely (but a trial is
IMO necessary to confirm/disconfirm this) an Ellsberg.
Moreover the same justices who stated that the NY Times was allowed to
publish the info also satetd that the government was allowed to
prosecute the Times for doing so after the fact, if it wanted to do so
(it did not in that case). In other words, the first amendment
prevents the censorship of information (it can be published) but does
not shield someone from prosecution (even though the infromation
cannot be prevented from publication the person pubslihsin it can be
sent to jail). This implies that Assange, even if he is a journalist,
is free to be a martyr.
> > The best way to sort this out is through a trial.
>
> Yes, there is going to be a trial of Assange's source.
And, hopefully, of Assange.
> > > Besides, if it is theft for someone to steal your wallet and give
> its
>
> > > > contents to someone else it doesn't become okay if the guy
> > > > distributing its contents to others isn't the actual thief.
>
> > > So, how criminal, in your mind, were NY Times, Washington Post and 17
> > > other major US newspapers in publishing Pentagon Papers?
>
> > I've said many times, not at all. But Assange may not be the NY Times
> > here - he may be the Ellsberg. And Ellsberg was put on trial.
>
> Why isn't Assange like NYT? And why is he like Ellsberg?
Wikileaks offered technical support to Manning, and it actively
encouraged leaking of information. It did not just passively accept
his information.
Actually, come to think of it, Assange is not even like Ellsberg, he
is worse. Ellsberg revealed fro the most part US government lies and
other wrongdoing during Vietnam. He was pretyy much purely a
whistleblower. Assange in contrast seems to reveal for the sake of
revealing. Some of what he reveals was wrongdoing, but most of it was
not. Based on the breadth of waht was revealed, Assange seems to seek
"transparency" by releasing all secrets rather than to bring
wrongdoing to light. He is not a whistleblower, or journalist, but a
hacker who has taken on the US government (more on your lying
repeatred references to him as a whistleblower later).
> BTW, wasn't Ellsberg found not guilty?
Was he? From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers#Legal_case
Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an
extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court
ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior
restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the
press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of
the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times
and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the
documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the
Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities
in the government's case.
> > > How about all those newspapers, magazines and even TV programs like 60
> > > Minutes that specialize in publishing confidential materials about
> > > governments and private corporations that their whistleblower (an not
> > > only) sources give to them in violation of their confidentiality
> > > oaths?
>
> > Keep in mind that what Assange revealed not only whistleblowing.
>
> He revealed nothing. he published what another person revealed.
He revealed to the world what Manning revealed to him. The question is
whether or not Manning was guided into his activity by wikileaks,
whether he couldn't do it on his own. Therefore the original
revelation may have involved wikileaks. This is something that ought
to be investaged and presented at trial.
Here are some interesting legal opinions. I'll include only those of
Vladeck, a professor of law at American University Washington College
of Law, where he teaches and writes on federal jurisdiction,
constitutional law, national security law and international criminal
law. He has been involved in several cases challenging U.S. government
surveillance and detention of terrorism suspects and was part of the
legal team that challenged the Bush administration's use of military
tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Hardly a fascist anti-free speech villain.
The other two opinions by a defence attorney and by a Bush homeland
security lawyer might be less neutral, but they can be read on the
link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40653249/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security
The release of these diplomatic cables could not be more public, and
about half of the 250,000 cables that WikiLeaks gave to newspapers are
classified. Is there any doubt that Assange has violated the Espionage
Act?
Stephen I. Vladeck, law professor, American University: There’s little
doubt that Assange knowingly redistributed classified information. The
doubt, such as it is, is whether the Espionage Act requires more.
The act, for example, prohibits the willful communication, delivery,
or transmission to “any person not entitled to receive it” of “any
document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument,
appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information
relating to the national defense which information the possessor has
reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or
to the advantage of any foreign nation.” With regard to this last
clause — that is, the disclosure of “information relating to the
national defense” — courts have ruled that the defendant must have
acted in “bad faith.” But what does that mean, here?
The single biggest problem with the Espionage Act is that its limits
have never truly been tested, and so it is exceedingly difficult to
say with any certainty what it does and doesn’t proscribe.
As the then-general counsel of the CIA summarized in 1979, “[o]n the
one hand the laws stand idle and are not enforced at least in part
because their meaning is so obscure, and on the other hand it is
likely that the very obscurity of these laws serves to deter perfectly
legitimate expression and debate by persons who must be as unsure of
their liabilities as I am unsure of their obligations.”
Does it matter that WikiLeaks is the recipient and distributor of
stolen material, not the one who stole it?
Vladeck, law professor, American University: It may matter quite a
bit, both politically and for First Amendment reasons that I’ll get to
in a second. But for starters, it’s quite clear that the Espionage Act
applies on its face regardless of whether the individual who is
distributing classified information is the initial thief or an
intermediary. Indeed, the plain text of the statute would suggest that
even the 100th person to redistribute the same classified document
might still be liable, so long as he had the requisite mens rea
[criminal intent]. For better or worse, classified information doesn’t
become unclassified simply because it has been wrongly disclosed to
the public.
That being said, in the 93-year history of the Espionage Act, the U.S.
government has brought exactly one prosecution under the statute of
anyone other than the initial thief/spy/leaker, and that case —
concerning two American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists
accused of transmitting classified information to Israel — collapsed
in 2009.
The elephant in the room here (as it was in the AIPAC case) is the
First Amendment. Where information has already been leaked, there are
many who believe that the First Amendment protects the right of
Americans — journalists, in particular — to view and redistribute that
information.
Is Assange a journalist? Is WikiLeaks a news organization? If so, how
does that affect a case? How is Assange any different from the
newspapers that have republished the cables?
Stephen I. Vladeck, law professor, American University: Legally, at
least, I don’t think it matters whether or not Assange is a journalist
or WikiLeaks is a news organization.
The Supreme Court has long resisted the invitation to recognize
special constitutional protections for journalists, at least largely
because it is so difficult to draw the line between the “mainstream
media” and those private citizens who seek to publish information
through other means, including blogs, Twitter feeds, or, if they still
exist, pamphlets. In that sense, Assange may not be that different
from The New York Times or other media outlets that have republished
the cables. (Indeed, this will surely be one of his arguments.)
And I think this point goes a long way to explaining why this case is
potentially so momentous. Although the U.S. government has never
prosecuted a reporter or a newspaper for publishing classified
information, the text of the Espionage Act would seem to permit such a
prosecution, and several of the Supreme Court Justices who decided the
Pentagon Papers case in 1971 specifically suggested that The Times and
The Washington Post could be prosecuted after the fact for publishing
the Pentagon Papers, even while ruling that they couldn’t be enjoined
from publication.
So the real question is whether any prosecution of Assange would set a
dangerous precedent for potential future prosecutions of the press, or
whether the government would rely upon a novel theory that draws a
clearer distinction between what Assange did here and what any number
of newspapers have done both recently and in the past.
What is the greatest weakness of a defense? How might that be
overcome?
Stephen I. Vladeck, law professor, American University: Some of the
biggest issues for the defense may well arise out of statements
Assange has already made publicly.
If the prosecution boils down to whether Assange acted in bad faith,
and whether he reasonably should have known that these disclosures
would harm U.S. national security, he may have hurt his own cause by
being so publicly forthright throughout this controversy, especially
with regard to the effects of future leaks. If Assange’s publicly
stated goal is to bring down incumbent administrations, banks, and the
like, it may be hard for the defense to portray him as someone who
didn’t appreciate the harm that might result from the disclosures.
And if that weren’t enough, the U.S. government tried very hard to
make sure he was on notice, with letters to Assange from both the
State Department’s legal adviser and the Defense Department’s general
counsel underlining the point prior to the latest round of
disclosures.
> Your inability to distinguish the source and the publisher is amazing.
Repeating lies over and over again doesn't make them true.
> > Revealing what factories might be targets, or transcipts of private
> > conversations that do not involve criminality (suh as a US diplomat's
> > negative personal assesment of the Italian leader) is not
> > "whistleblowing."
>
> So, if a whistleblower reveals an insider/confidential information
> about a criminal activity on the part of his company, he is OK. But if
> this activity is not criminal - then HE is a criminal and should go to
> jail? Interesting.
You like to repeatedly use the word "whistleblower." Do you even know
what means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblowing
A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about alleged
wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. Usually
this person would be from that same organization. The alleged
misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of
a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest,
such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.
Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to
other people within the accused organization) or externally (to
regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups
concerned with the issues).
While some of what Assange revealed to the world can be whistleblowing
(such as the video of the criminal helicopter killing) most of the
info was not. Clearly, revealing the locations of targets the US is
afraid would be hit by terrorists (basically giving potential
terrorists a "hit list" of valuable targets) is not raising concern
about alleged wrongdoing or violations of laws. Nor is publsihing
confidential reports by diplomats about the Italian prime minister
being vain, etc.
So by repeatedly referring to Assange as a whistleblower, as if that
were all he did, you are either ignorant or a liar.
> So, if after his revelations are published, the company executives
> aren't convicted of relevant crimes or they settle out of court
> without admitting their guilt, the whistleblower should be prosecuted
> and persecuted?
Do Espionage laws apply to corporate matters? It seems this argument
is totally irrelvent here. And, again, is whistleblowing all that
Assange did?
> Wow, given that most of the time whistleblowing doesn't result in
> criminal sentences to the company executives, your approach would
> surely scare potential whistleblowers shitless.
Do Espionage laws apply to corporate matters? It seems this argument
is totally irrelevent here. And, again, is whistleblowing all that
Assange did?
> How about the newspaper that publishes these revelations? Should the
> editors too be persecuted and thrown in jail ?
Do Espionage laws apply to corporate matters? It seems this argument
is totally irrelevent here. And, again, is whistleblowing all that
Assange did?
> In general, newspapers are full of stories that reveal insider/
> confidential information about governments and companies, and most of
> the revealed deeds doesn't rise to being criminal. Are you saying that
> revelation of ALL non-criminal confidential information about
> individuals, corporations, local and federal governments, etc - is a
> crime, and whatever blog or newspaper publishes them, should be
> prosecuted? Or only those whose political goals you disagree with?
Don't mix state secrets with corporate ones. I understand that it
serves the purpose of your demogoguery, but it is irrelevent.
Getting back to state secrets:
The act, for example, prohibits the willful communication, delivery,
or transmission to “any person not entitled to receive it” of “any
document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument,
appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information
relating to the national defense which information the possessor has
reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or
to the advantage of any foreign nation.” With regard to this last
clause — that is, the disclosure of “information relating to the
national defense” — courts have ruled that the defendant must have
acted in “bad faith.”
I think that a trial would be a good place to figure out whether or
not Assange violated this law. Hopefully it will happen.
BM
Dmitry
> On Dec 19, 5:50 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > I agree, there is no direction in scb. It is just a small number of
> > people having random discussions/conversations and arguments.
>
> Isn't that what Usenet is for, Dmitry? Exchange of views and
> information?
>
> As for O/T, I think some occasional O/T is not so bad (e.g. on music),
> as long as it's not about the same thing all the time (e.g. Smirnoff
> asking us Balts repeatedly why we are so ungrateful for "everything
> the Russians did for you".) Perhaps the subject line should state
> that it's O/T. And I'm far from being the only offender. There has
> been tonnes of discussion of US politics, Sarah Palin, whatever.
There are more O/T discussions on scb than those related to Baltics.
People are interested to talk about all sorts of things. I'm fine
with this, if I am not interested I just don't participate.
> As for Vidas, I swear this is the last time I will mention him. I
> just want to say that I will continue to engage in rational discussion
> with civilised people on topics that interest me. I will not respond
> to vicious ad hominem attacks. (Nor will I launch any, which I
> already haven't done for a few years anyway.)
>
> I agree with your bottom line, Dmitry:
>
> > It would be interesting if more people expressed their opinions. I
> > think what happened is that scb gradually transformed from a fierce
> > battleground to opinions/interests exchange place where personal
> > assaults are becoming more and more out of place.
>
> Indeed. So much of Usenet has been degraded to the level of a sewer
> that we are priviliged to be in one of the few groups that still has
> some semblance of a useful discussion group. We need to protect that
> by minimising ad hominem wrangles, which nobody else is interested in
> only make the wranglers look like idiots.
I have learned many interesting things from various scb participants
and that is through civilised discussions. Personal verbal attacks
don't do any good, in my opinion.
Dmitry
> don't see how the USA thinks it's going to charge Assange with a
> 'crime' and demand his extradition to stand trial. The behind-the-
> scenes pressure that the US State Dept or whoever must be putting on
> Britain, Sweden and Australia at the moment concerning Assange's
> possible extradition would make interesting reading on Wikileaks! ☺
US government is making fool of itself again. They are literally
trying to charge an Australian with American treason. This won't help
to restore US reputation in the rest of the world.
The Black Monk
Have they issued formal charges yet? My impression is that he may be
tried for espionage, rather than treason, in which case of course he
does not have to be a US citizen.
regards,
BM
Dmitry
> On Dec 18, 12:50 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > If that's the case, wouldn't the best option be to ignore Gintas'
> > posts and commenting on him?
>
> Dmitry - I don't think you realize how desperately important it is for
> Gintas to appear as the intellectual heart of SCB.
It doesn't really matter how he would like to be perceived. Everyone
makes their own conclusions.
> I ignore the vast majority of his nonsense. Many of his posts never
> receive a comment from me or anyone else. When our interests intersect
> though - such as Lithuanian politics - if I disagree with him or find
> his logic lacking all substance, as with his Grybauskaite declaring
> war against corruption nonsense, I have every reason to interject. It
> would be wrong for me not to. His creating false perceptions is a
> problem for me and a problem for Lithuania's image. Lithuania has
> enough struggles than to have him add some of his own.
Both, you and Gintas have different opinions on Lithuanian politics.
Not a big deal (we even had Andriushka with completely different view
on Lithuania). There is nothing wrong with clashes of opinions. What
is wrong, I think, is how they are discussed. Me and Vello had lots
of disagreements on various wars/conflicts, but we never fell into
personal insult trap. I know very little about Lithuanian politics
and would be interested to read a discussion covering different views,
but not in the style you tend to communicate with each other. At the
end of the day, it is up to you how you prefer to communicate your
arguments, but I don't think this is very productive in terms of
presenting Lithuania's image.
> Granted, most of his posts are simple copy and paste. He rarely
> presents an actual opinion - mostly because they're terribly flawed.
> His reposting of other peoples work without attribution has been
> commented on repeatedly for years. He would very much like for people
> to believe those posts were his work though.
Copy/paste as opposed to sending a link is not a problem. It is about
what exactly is copy/pasted. When Gintas posted various articles in
French nobody took interest for obvious reasons, but again this didn't
do any harm to anyone. This is nothing. Think about _GOD_ (or have
you missed "the invasion"?). That individual posted tons of
information in Cyrillic that didn't interest anyone in scb. Karlamov/
Ostap read some of it and reported that the stuff is full of hatred
against Jews and Russians. Vladimir made an attempt to have an
argument with _GOD_, but not for long. Gintas expressed his protest
of the invasion in his own traditional way. I tried to encourage
people to stop feeding the beast. My problem with _GOD_ was that
because I use google groups, I had to go through pages and pages to
find "legitimate" posts.
> Gintas doesnt want a discussion. He wants to be taken at face value on
> anything he posts. Everyone is thoroughly encouraged to agree with
> him. But disagree at your own peril.
I discussed various topics with Gintas and never felt that he doesn't
want to discuss it with me.
> On the other hand - anyone who's followed online Lithuanian political
> discussion over the last decade knows exactly who Gintas is and the
> viewpoint he represents. Gintas, as you well know - isn't shy. He's
> "hit" every forum he can. Your point is taken Dmitry. Anyone who knows
> Gintas at this point knows Gintas and who he is. He offers nothing
> new.
>
>
>
> > > But when Gintas posts simplistic nonsense about Lithuania - he's going
> > > to hear from me and he knows it.
>
> > Why? Do you really need to prove anything to Gintas?
>
> The idea that one can prove anything to Gintas is abstract simply
> because Gintas has long ago shut his mind to any view that sits in
> opposition to his predestined chauvinism. Can someone who posts
> something like "everyone knows that all Russians are barbarians" be
> taken seriously ? I don't have to prove to him that he's totally out
> of line. He knows it himself.
OK, he says some controversial things and no one takes them seriously,
but he also posts many interesting articles, thoughts and comments
that encourage some fruitful discussions.
> I have to be the bad guy. I understand.
I don't think you or Gintas are "bad guys". You are just very
different from each other. You've got to accept that everyone is
different.
Vidas
Treason ? Not sure how that can be. Assange isn't an American.
Besides reading some populist demagoguery from certain political
segments in the US - I can't find any mention anywhere by the DOJ or
State Dept that Assange is going to be charged with anything. Trying
to extradite him would be truly stupid.
The US's bigger problem is figuring out how to keep its secrets -
secret. In that respect, Assange has done them a huge favor. I think
Assange is a media whore - but thats not a crime either.
Dmitry
Another amaizing victory!!! So unpredictable! Such a surprise! In a
way Belarus is a history museum of Sovok. The leader gets "elected"
until his death, though better than in other communist countries where
the power transfers to a closest relative.
He is the longest "serving" dictator in post-Soviet world. Good job
US is not Belarus - you would have Bush rulling forever.
Dmitry
> On Dec 20, 11:41 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > Assange is not an American citizen and he has never been to USA. I
> > > don't see how the USA thinks it's going to charge Assange with a
> > > 'crime' and demand his extradition to stand trial. The behind-the-
> > > scenes pressure that the US State Dept or whoever must be putting on
> > > Britain, Sweden and Australia at the moment concerning Assange's
> > > possible extradition would make interesting reading on Wikileaks! ☺
>
> > US government is making fool of itself again. They are literally
> > trying to charge an Australian with American treason. This won't help
> > to restore US reputation in the rest of the world.
>
> Have they issued formal charges yet?
No, and I hope they won't because it will look rediculous.
> My impression is that he may be
> tried for espionage, rather than treason, in which case of course he
> does not have to be a US citizen.
I am curious to see who will dare to extradite him, if ever.
>
> regards,
>
> BM
Vidas
This Guardian article touches on some points of fact finding that
could lead to a US indictment of Assange. If Assange coerced Benning
to hand over those documents and provided Benning with either the
means or instructions on transfer - Assange could be indicted for
espionage. Extradition would be a separate legal task. The indictment
from the US AG would have to come first though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-extradition-us
Dmitry
That's what Assange said, his main worry is to be extradited to US.
He certainly doesn't share "American dream" belief.
Vidas
It really doesnt matter whether he believes in the American Dream or
not - few Americans believe that Dream still exists. That Dream was
largely a romantic notion.
Nor do I want Assange here in the US. If you look at our major
newspapers - you find few articles about Assange. He's just not a
public priority here.
The near term will flush this issue out. Benning is going to
understand that he will sit in jail for decades while Assange makes
millions in speaking fees on the lecture circuit where he can avail
himself to his local female fan base (except maybe Sweden). Benning
may present some other conspiracy in an attempt to save himself. If
Benning implicates Assange in a conspiracy - life will get very
difficult for Assange no matter where he goes. No one likes spies. I'm
sure he understands that. Whichever country accepts Assange from now
on is going to be compelled to keep an eye on him.
Here's an interesting read from Oxford on issues of practical ethics
and Wikileaks.
http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2010/12/wikileaks-rights-and-wrongs.html
The Black Monk
Thank you, Vidas.
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
> On Dec 19, 5:55 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 8:35 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 11:47 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > > On Dec 18, 7:08 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I bet that if you really strain your brain, you will soon try to see
> > > > > > the analogy that I've been making in my posts between Assange's
> > > > > > publishing State Department telegrams and NY Times, Washington Post
> > > > > > and 17 other major US newspapers publishing Pentagon Papers. At least
> > > > > > try.
>
> > > > > Your analogy is quite obvious.
>
> > > > Yes, it is. But not to you, it wasn't. Your numerous responses to my
> > > > posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing Assange's
> > > > role to that of NY Times.
>
> > > On December 9th on this thread I wrote:
>
> > > "Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
> > > latter isn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
> > > Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
> > > act. But not to Assange."
>
> > > I acknowledged and rejected your analogy of Assange tot he NY Times.
>
> > > Try reading more carefully before making accusations, Ostap. Your
> > > latest posts in the last couple of months are riddled with stupidity
> > > and mistakes. Are you busy, and thus sloppy?
Yes, I am. As you have probably noticed I visit SCB quite infrequently
these days, because my real life is very busy, much busier that it was
last year. Thank god. Thus I have no time to deal with diversions,
demagoguery and obfuscations any longer.
> Is so, that's
> > > understandable and excusable. If not, are you okay? If not for your
> > > intact grammar and spelling I'd be afraid that you suffered froma
> > > stroke.
>
> > Why don't we return to addressing personal attacks
>
> What personal attack? Do you consider it offensive to be in a hurry
> and thus sloppy, or to have a stroke?
Yes, I do. I consider your projecting a stroke on me to be extremely
offensive. I would never imply that my discussion partner/opponent
suffers from a deadly disease lie a stroke. First of all, this would
mean that I think that they are so dumb that they act as if their
brain had suffered a stroke.
Second, even if the disease were not a stroke but, say, a liver
failure, it would be highly inappropriate to project a disease on
another person. In all of my life, both real and virtual, the only
person before you who tried to project a debilitating illness on me
was the scumball Rostyk, who thought that I had a diabetes and wrote 2
sadistic posts, describing the horrible and painful death that awaits
me.
In fact, this was the biggest insult that you have heaved on me so
far, ahead of your accusations of me being a "liar", "ukrainophobe",
etc. Also ahead of that rave that you posted awhile back about my ego
and Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech.
> Or do you mean your own personal attack: "Your numerous responses to
> my posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing
> Assange's role to that of NY Times."
>
> Yeah, you were insulting, and you were proven wrong.
I was? How?
> Either you lied,
> or you were merely sloppy. And rather than acknowledge it, you want
> you move on.
I have no idea why you concluded this.
> > here AFTER you
> > answer my questions as to what information you have that Assange was
> > "more closely linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did
> > NYT and WP to Ellsberg, or" 60 Minutes" to the tobacco insider, or
> > other journalists to their sources in thousands other cases.
>
> Why don't you reply to several of my previous posts before demanding
> that others do the same.
Yes, I knew that you have no evidence that Assange was "more closely
linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did NYT to
Ellsberg, and I was sure that you would find an excuse not to answer
my question.
> You can start here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/ffe8e49b07ced8...
>
> And we will go from there.
;Oh, you mean totally insane drivel from 2 months ago trying to
justify the idea that criticism of OUN(B)'s WWII massacres of 80 000
innocent Polish civilians and tens of thousands of innocent Jewish
civilians should be banned; and any Pole, Russian or Jew who dares to
do so, is an Ukrainophobe, neo-nazi and antisemite?
Well, as a matter of fact, by coincidence, I spent 5 hours the other
day composing a reply. I will need several more hours to finish this
reply. It should be ready in a couple of weeks.
Are you REALLY holding our current-events discussion of Assange to
that old thread? If so - that's fine. This will reduce my need to
waste time at SCB in the next few weeks. With my kids now being on a
holiday from school, every hour that I waste on SCB, is an hour stolen
from my time spent with my kids, something that i will never be able
to replace or forgive myself later.
> And then I will address your comments about some movie that I never
> saw
I posted the Wiki article that tells this story blow-by-blow. if
that's not enough information, here is the original Vanity Fair story
about this:
http://www.mariebrenner.com/PDF/TheManWhoKnewTooMuch.pdf
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Marie Brenner
VANITY FAIR, May 1996
> whose examples are irrelvent because they don't involve state
> secrets (Manning, the guy Assange was probably conspiring with, is
> indicted on espionage charges - what doe sthis have to do with
> corporate whistleblowing?).
Sorry if I didn't make it clear, all my responses here were prompted
by this post of yours:
On Dec 9, 9:37 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The simple, normal interpretation of what I wrote in this thread is
> that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
> capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
> and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one area.
> Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused of rape
> (also bad). Moreover both acts involve forms of violation, power and
> control - as does his release of the confidential information. I
> don't know of any studies looking into the relationship between
> hacking (hacking isn't such a new thing) and rape but there is
> certainly a link betwen "low-tech" hacking (burgalirizng women's
> apartments, voyeurism, etc.) and rape.
Where does it say anything about "state secrets"? You said that people
like Assange, who "release confidential information" are more likely
to be rapists. Since Assange's role is that of PUBLISHING
"confidential information", this role is the same as that of NY Times
editors, 60 Minutes editors and editors of all other newsmedia that
release/publish somebody else's secret and/or confidential information
many times each and every day. In fact, that's pretty much the
definition of "investigative reporting": digging up secret and/or
confidential information and releasing it to the public.
So, I want to know what evidence you have that people, who publish
confidential information, are more likely to commit rape.
If you can explain - please do. If not (as I expect, because there is
NO correlation between investigative reporting and being a rapist) - I
will move on to something else, like spending time with my kids or
another topic at SCB that wouldn't demand tens of hours for me to
respond in full detail. For example, responding to posts from Captain
or Vello or Tadas or Dmitry takes 10 minutes at the most.
> Meanwhile, you can get a clue from here:
>
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-conspiracy-case/
>
> Good luck.
Thanks. Not only I have read it but I will post it here:
U.S. Trying to Build Conspiracy Case Against WikiLeaks’ Assange
* By Kim Zetter Email Author
* December 16, 2010 |
* 12:16 am |
* Categories: WikiLeaks
*
U.S. federal prosecutors are looking for evidence that would help them
bring conspiracy charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange,
according to the New York Times.
Prosecutors are looking for anything that would suggest Assange
encouraged or helped Manning leak classified information by giving him
instructions on how to download files or requesting that Manning
obtain certain kinds of documents to send to WikiLeaks.
As Threat Level reported earlier this week, a conspiracy charge for
helping steal classified documents would help prosecutors avoid First
Amendment issues that would arise if they tried to prosecute Assange
under the Espionage Act.
The Times doesn’t cite any sources but says to make a conspiracy case,
prosecutors have been sifting through online chat logs of Manning’s
discussions with former hacker Adrian Lamo. In those, he confessed to
leaking classified material to WikiLeaks and of having a unique
relationship with Assange that went beyond what other sources might
have with the enigmatic leader of the secret-spilling site.
Their investigation has also included border searches of laptops and
cellphones of people connected tangentially to Manning or WikiLeaks.
Manning is charged under the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act (CFAA), the federal anti-hacking statute that prohibits
unauthorized computer access or access that exceeds authorization.
If prosecutors were to charge Assange for publishing classified
documents under the Espionage Act, it would be a political landmine
since it would open traditional media outlets, such as The New York
Times, to similar prosecutions for publishing classified information,
a quagmire the Justice Department likely wants to avoid.
But charging Assange with conspiracy under the CFAA instead would help
them avoid the constitutional issues. While journalists have generally
been protected from prosecution for publishing classified documents,
encouraging a source to obtain documents in a manner known to be
illegal is not protected.
According to the Times, prosecutors have been scouring one of
Manning’s chats with Lamo in which he described being in direct
communication with Assange using an encrypted service and having a
special relationship with him. Manning told Lamo in the chats that
Assange at one point offered him a position at WikiLeaks. Manning said
he wasn’t “interested right now” in a position with WikiLeaks because
he had “too much excess baggage” that he was trying to work through.
Prosecutors are also looking at claims Manning made that Assange
provided him with a special FTP address to upload classified documents
so that his submissions would go to the top of the queue for review by
WikiLeaks.
The Times points out that Threat Level has published excerpts from the
logs of Manning’s chats with Lamo, but wrongly states that the parts
in which Manning discusses his contact with Assange and the FTP server
were not among those excerpts. In the excerpt below, published last
June, Manning discusses the FTP server:
(02:48:52 PM) Lamo: How long between the leak and the publication?
(02:49:18 PM) Manning: some time in february
(02:49:25 PM) Manning: it was uploaded
(02:50:04 PM) Lamo: uploaded where? how would i transmit something if
i had similarly damning data
(02:51:49 PM) Manning: uhm… preferably openssl the file with aes-256…
then use sftp at prearranged drop ip addresses
(02:52:08 PM) Manning: keeping the key separate… and uploading via a
different means
(02:52:31 PM) Lamo: so i myself would be SOL w/o a way to prearrange
(02:54:33 PM) Manning: not necessarily… the HTTPS submission should
suffice legally… though i’d use tor on top of it…
(02:54:43 PM) Manning: but you’re data is going to be watched
(02:54:44 PM) Manning: *your
(02:54:49 PM) Manning: by someone, more than likely
(02:54:53 PM) Lamo: submission where?
(02:55:07 PM) Manning: wl.org submission system
(02:55:23 PM) Lamo: in the massive queue?
(02:55:54 PM) Manning: lol, yeah, it IS pretty massive…
(02:55:56 PM) Manning: buried
(02:56:04 PM) Manning: i see what you mean
(02:56:35 PM) Manning: long term sources do get preference… i can see
where the “unfairness” factor comes in
(02:56:53 PM) Lamo: how does that preference work?
(02:57:47 PM) Manning: veracity… the material is easy to verify…
(02:58:27 PM) Manning: because they know a little bit more about the
source than a purely anonymous one
(02:59:04 PM) Manning: and confirmation publicly from earlier
material, would make them more likely to publish… i guess…
(02:59:16 PM) Manning: im not saying they do… but i can see how that
might develop
(03:00:18 PM) Manning: if two of the largest public relations “coups”
have come from a single source… for instance
(03:02:03 PM) Manning: you yeah… purely *submitting* material is more
likely to get overlooked without contacting them by other means and
saying hey, check your submissions for x…
Manning also discussed his role as a source for WikiLeaks and
indicated that he had developed a relationship with Assange:
(2:04:29 PM) Manning: im a source, not quite a volunteer
(2:05:38 PM) Manning: i mean, im a high profile source… and i’ve
developed a relationship with assange… but i dont know much more than
what he tells me, which is very little
(2:05:58 PM) Manning: it took me four months to confirm that the
person i was communicating was in fact assange
So, "prosecutors are looking for anything that would suggest Assange
encouraged or helped Manning leak classified information", eh? But of
course. Total desperation times.
And"very little"? Is that what qualifies as a "close relation".
So, what exactly (and i mean EXACTLY, not hearsay) did Assange do
that NYTimes didn't do with Ellsberg, and 60 Minutes and Bergman
didn't with the tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand?
The Black Monk
But you still do them. Perhaps in your sloppiness you have mispoken -
you meant to say you no longer have time to deal with what you believe
to be others' diversions, demogoguery and obfuscations.
> > Is so, that's
> > > > understandable and excusable. If not, are you okay? If not for your
> > > > intact grammar and spelling I'd be afraid that you suffered froma
> > > > stroke.
>
> > > Why don't we return to addressing personal attacks
>
> > What personal attack? Do you consider it offensive to be in a hurry
> > and thus sloppy, or to have a stroke?
>
> Yes, I do. I consider your projecting a stroke on me to be extremely
> offensive.
Do you hate stroke victims?
> I would never imply that my discussion partner/opponent
> suffers from a deadly disease lie a stroke. First of all, this would
> mean that I think that they are so dumb that they act as if their
> brain had suffered a stroke.
So stroke victims act "dumb" according to you? Well, since you have
such a low opinion of stroke victims it is no wonder you felt so
insulted.
>
> Second, even if the disease were not a stroke but, say, a liver
> failure, it would be highly inappropriate to project a disease on
> another person. In all of my life, both real and virtual, the only
> person before you who tried to project a debilitating illness on me
> was the scumball Rostyk, who thought that I had a diabetes and wrote 2
> sadistic posts, describing the horrible and painful death that awaits
> me.
Was there anything sadistic about my post? On the contrary, I
expressed only concern. I noticed a marked deterioration in the
quality of your thinking, which I had held in high regard even when we
were at odds. I asked if you were alltright, and expressed my fear for
you. There was no gloating or desire for ill will whatsoever in my
words. It was a humane expression of concern for another person.
Are you always so ungrateful?
> In fact, this was the biggest insult that you have heaved on me so
> far, ahead of your accusations of me being a "liar", "ukrainophobe",
> etc.
So expressing concern for your well-being is "the biggest insult" I
have "heaved on you."?
> Also ahead of that rave that you posted awhile back about my ego and Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech.
You insulted one of the greatest people of the 20th century because
you felt he didn't pay enough attention to you. You even compared him
to Brezhnev. How dare he not reach out to Ostap Bender. your comments
are almost funny in their pettiness, like bitter complaints by George
Costanza:
"As I said, Solzhenitsyn immediately became a millionaire. In fact,
just a few years later, he was the main invited speaker at my college
graduation. We were all excited: this was the beginning our adult
lives! Our parents were there and all proud of us. Then came
Solzhenitsyn to the podium. He barely greeted us. He didn't look at
us. He didn't even look up. He just took out a piece of paper and,
like Brezhnev, stated reading it out loud. He simply told us that the
Communist system is militarily superior to the democratic system,
because it can mobilize resources better. Thus, he told us htat in a
few years we all will be living under the totalitarian Communist rule.
The only solution, in his view, was for the West to immediately turn
to the totalitarian system a la Middle Ages. In fact, he exalted the
pre-renaissance Middle Ages as the ideal height of human development,
and said that ever since Renaissance, Europe has been decaying. You
know, the stuff similar to what BM is saying these days in our group.
He then finished and left without saying goodbye or even looking at us
once. It didn't didn't even for a second occur to him that there was
an important event in the lives of thousands of young people going on.
All he cared about was himself and the fact that the next day, his
speech would become the front page news all over the World..."
And then, because he didn't want to be your friend in New England you
wrote:
"When a normal person is exiled, he does miss his home a lot. What
does he miss? His friends. The ability to talk in his native tongue.
The warmth of being with people from the same culture. That's why
Russian emigrants formed friendship circles among themselves. In my
parents' circle in Boston, there were also some major dissidents like
Korzhavin, Esenin-Volpin. Later, when I was at Stanford, our circle
included dissidents like Bukovskiy, Yarym- Agaev, Gudava, etc. But
Solzhenitsyn stayed away from everybody. Not once did he even
acknowledge the existence of any other exilees and refugees from
Russia. He didn't need Russian friends. He was a recluse and viewed
all others with disdain and a sense of superiority."
My observation seems to have been quite accurate:
"Okay, now we know where your obsessions are coming from. You were
horribly offended 31 years go when Solzhenitsin dared to ignore a
person as important as yourself and your family. So horribly offended
that when 31 years later someone else presents arguments similar to
those of the one who hurt your ego so much 31 years ago, you lose all
sense of logic and start obsessing over analogies etc."
I guess the last week I've just been collatoral damage to the effects
of your enormous bruised ego. After all, the FIRST critical thing
your wrote about Solzhenitsyn's speech was "He barely greeted us. He
didn't look at us. He didn't even look up." And then you compared this
to a speech by Brezhnev (did you become an exile during his rule?)."
> > Or do you mean your own personal attack: "Your numerous responses to
> > my posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing
> > Assange's role to that of NY Times."
>
> > Yeah, you were insulting, and you were proven wrong.
>
> I was? How?
It's on this very post:
> > > > > > > I bet that if you really strain your brain, you will soon try to see
> > > > > > > the analogy that I've been making in my posts between Assange's
> > > > > > > publishing State Department telegrams and NY Times, Washington Post
> > > > > > > and 17 other major US newspapers publishing Pentagon Papers. At least
> > > > > > > try.
>
> > > > > > Your analogy is quite obvious.
>
> > > > > Yes, it is. But not to you, it wasn't. Your numerous responses to my
> > > > > posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing Assange's
> > > > > role to that of NY Times.
>
> > > > On December 9th on this thread I wrote:
>
> > > > "Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
> > > > latter isn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
> > > > Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
> > > > act. But not to Assange."
>
> > > > I acknowledged and rejected your analogy of Assange tot he NY Times.
Did you get that this time?
>
> > Either you lied,
> > or you were merely sloppy. And rather than acknowledge it, you want
> > you move on.
>
> I have no idea why you concluded this.
...Because you're too busy to think clearly.
Reread it.
>
> > > here AFTER you
> > > answer my questions as to what information you have that Assange was
> > > "more closely linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did
> > > NYT and WP to Ellsberg, or" 60 Minutes" to the tobacco insider, or
> > > other journalists to their sources in thousands other cases.
>
> > Why don't you reply to several of my previous posts before demanding
> > that others do the same.
>
> Yes, I knew that you have no evidence that Assange was "more closely
> linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did NYT to
> Ellsberg, and I was sure that you would find an excuse not to answer
> my question.
Except I went ahead and replied anyways, here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/a7dc1598cc4b2a99?hl=en&dmode=source
I guess you didn't notice. Too busy to think clearly?
> > You can start here:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/ffe8e49b07ced8...
>
> > And we will go from there.
>
> ;Oh, you mean totally insane drivel from 2 months ago trying to
> justify the idea that criticism of OUN(B)'s WWII massacres of 80 000
> innocent Polish civilians and tens of thousands of innocent Jewish
> civilians should be banned; and any Pole, Russian or Jew who dares to
> do so, is an Ukrainophobe, neo-nazi and antisemite?
>
> Well, as a matter of fact, by coincidence, I spent 5 hours the other
> day composing a reply. I will need several more hours to finish this
> reply. It should be ready in a couple of weeks.
Wow - hours of work to try to rebutt a post that took me perhaps 30
minutes to write? I guess it's correct that it's much easier to state
the truth than it is to construct a lie.
Good luck with your propaganda piece. I will look forward to reading
it and replying to it.
> Are you REALLY holding our current-events discussion of Assange to
> that old thread? If so - that's fine. This will reduce my need to
> waste time at SCB in the next few weeks. With my kids now being on a
> holiday from school, every hour that I waste on SCB, is an hour stolen
> from my time spent with my kids, something that i will never be able
> to replace or forgive myself later.
So what about the hours you wrote earlier. No kids then? Don't they go
to sleep?
As well as get involved in computer hacking. Forgot that part which I
wrote?
> are more likely to be rapists. Since Assange's role is that of PUBLISHING
> "confidential information", this role is the same as that of NY Times
> editors, 60 Minutes editors and editors of all other newsmedia that
> release/publish somebody else's secret and/or confidential information
> many times each and every day.
That is his excuse - he now runs an organization where others do his
hacking for him.
> In fact, that's pretty much the
> definition of "investigative reporting": digging up secret and/or
> confidential information and releasing it to the public.
I didn't know investigative reporters hacked 100,000s of secret
confidential documents and put them all online. Or sorry - I didn't
know investigative reporters had others hack 100,000s of confidential
documents and place them online.
> So, I want to know what evidence you have that people, who publish
> confidential information, are more likely to commit rape.
Didn't you read what I wrote? Try again:
The simple, normal interpretation of what I wrote in this thread is
that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one
area. Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused of
rape (also bad). Moreover both acts involve forms of violation, power
and control - as does his release of the confidential information. I
don't know of any studies looking into the relationship between
hacking (hacking isn't such a new thing) and rape but there is
certainly a link betwen "low-tech" hacking (burgalirizng women's
apartments, voyeurism, etc.) and rape.
I never wrote that releasing confidential infromation in itself ought
to be linked to rape. I did describe it as a form of violation, power
and control. I did inquire about the relationship between computer
hacking to rape tweice in that paragraph.
Your seeming inability to read is amazing.
You really ought to get checked out, Ostap.
I do not, of course, expect you to admit your error. Only decent
people do that.
Now that further details of Asange's sexual practices have been leaked
it seems that his pattern of behavior makes more sense.
> If you can explain - please do. If not (as I expect, because there is
> NO correlation between investigative reporting and being a rapist)
I never claimed there was. That was your claim. either one of your
deliberate "diversions, demogoguery and obfuscations" or an example of
your sloppiness or something more frightening.
Just doing their jobs. So?
> And"very little"? Is that what qualifies as a "close relation".
He was in charge.
> So, what exactly (and i mean EXACTLY, not hearsay) did Assange do
> that NYTimes didn't do with Ellsberg,
We won't know whether evidence of Assange's involvement is
inadmissabvle hearsay until his trial. If he or his organization
provided any technical assistence to Manning's crime than this would
be a closer invovlement to it than just collecting infromation by a
whistleblower.
BTW NY Times didn't get off the hook over Ellsberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers#Legal_case
"Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an
extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court
ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior
restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the
press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of
the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times
and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the
documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the
Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities
in the government's case."
The paragrpaph above means that according tot he Supreme Court the
government can't prevent the publication of the classified information
by the media but that it may still, after this publication, prosecute
the publisher. If this were applied to Assange (even if he were
treated merely as an editor) it would mean that his site couldn't be
shut down but that he could still be sent to prison.
> and 60 Minutes and Bergman didn't with the tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand?
This example completely doesn't apply because Wigand did not commit
espionage.
BM
Dmitry
He must have known that this is likely to happen.
>
> Here's an interesting read from Oxford on issues of practical ethics
> and Wikileaks.
>
> http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2010/12/wikileaks-...
"What makes it wrong is that it harms named individuals, in
particular, the Afghans and Iraqis who risked their own good for the
good of their countrymen."
Information on Iraq and Afghanistan war was released by Wikileaks a
while ago, but there is no evidence (well, not that I heard of) that
any individuals were physically harmed as a result.
Ostap Bender
So, if I said: “I consider your projecting DEATH on me to be extremely
offensive”, would you would ask me: “Do you hate dead people?”
No, I don’t hate dead people. I don’t hate stroke victims. What I hate
and fear are death, stroke and other illnesses. And I consider those,
who project such illnesses on their conversation partners to be the
worst scum.
The reason why I have greatly reduced arguing with you is because you
twist each and every simple and clear sentence that I say, and give it
a new, totally insane and moronic interpretation.
> > I would never imply that my discussion partner/opponent
> > suffers from a deadly disease lie a stroke. First of all, this would
> > mean that I think that they are so dumb that they act as if their
> > brain had suffered a stroke.
>
> So stroke victims act "dumb" according to you? Well, since you have
> such a low opinion of stroke victims it is no wonder you felt so
> insulted.
Let’s see…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke
Stroke
A stroke is the rapidly developing loss of brain function(s) due to
disturbance in the blood supply to the brain.
////////////////////////////////////////////
So, you mean to tell me that when you asked me whether I suffer from a
rapidly developing loss of brain function(s), you DIDN’T mean it as an
insult to my intelligence? Really?!
So, with the above definition in mind, please explain what you meant
when you wrote:
> > > > > Your
> > > > > latest posts in the last couple of months are riddled with stupidity
> > > > > and mistakes.
and
> > > > > If not for your
> > > > > intact grammar and spelling I'd be afraid that you suffered from a
> > > > > stroke 3653R .
Was I wrong to interpret the words “stupidity” and “stroke” an insult
to the intelligence of my posts? Did you mean the terms “stupidity”
and “stroke” [rapidly developing loss of brain function(s)] in a
perfectly polite way?
> > Second, even if the disease were not a stroke but, say, a liver
> > failure, it would be highly inappropriate to project a disease on
> > another person. In all of my life, both real and virtual, the only
> > person before you who tried to project a debilitating illness on me
> > was the scumball Rostyk, who thought that I had a diabetes and wrote 2
> > sadistic posts, describing the horrible and painful death that awaits
> > me.
>
> Was there anything sadistic about my post? On the contrary, I
> expressed only concern. I noticed a marked deterioration in the
> quality of your thinking, which I had held in high regard even when we
> were at odds. I asked if you were alltright, and expressed my fear for
> you. There was no gloating or desire for ill will whatsoever in my
> words. It was a humane expression of concern for another person.
>
> Are you always so ungrateful?
Sorry, BM, for being ungrateful in return for you generous and loving
suggestion that I suffer from stupidity and from rapidly developing
loss of brain function(s).
I am so grateful to you!
Really? Is that what I said?
> you
> wrote:
>
> "When a normal person is exiled, he does miss his home a lot. What
> does he miss? His friends. The ability to talk in his native tongue.
> The warmth of being with people from the same culture. That's why
> Russian emigrants formed friendship circles among themselves. In my
> parents' circle in Boston, there were also some major dissidents like
> Korzhavin, Esenin-Volpin. Later, when I was at Stanford, our circle
> included dissidents like Bukovskiy, Yarym- Agaev, Gudava, etc. But
> Solzhenitsyn stayed away from everybody. Not once did he even
> acknowledge the existence of any other exilees and refugees from
> Russia. He didn't need Russian friends. He was a recluse and viewed
> all others with disdain and a sense of superiority."
>
> My observation seems to have been quite accurate:
>
> "Okay, now we know where your obsessions are coming from. You were
> horribly offended 31 years go when Solzhenitsin dared to ignore a
> person as important as yourself and your family. So horribly offended
> that when 31 years later someone else presents arguments similar to
> those of the one who hurt your ego so much 31 years ago, you lose all
> sense of logic and start obsessing over analogies etc."
Your observations seem to have been quite accurate only to a warped
mind like yours. To the rest of people, they seem vicious and idiotic.
In fact, the only two other people – other than you and me - who
participated in that discussion, wrote:
///////////////////////////////////////
From: wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr)
Date: Nov 28 2009, 9:20 pm
In article <8053b111-9aef-4a68-
b480-07acabdd8...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> said:
>
> You were all excited! Your parents were proud of you! And: "Then
> came Solzhenitsyn to the podium. He barely greeted us. He didn't
> look at us. He didn't even look up. He just took out a piece of
> paper and, like Brezhnev, stated reading it out loud...It didn't
> didn't even for a second occur to him that there was an important
> event in the lives of thousands of young people going on. All he
> cared about was himself and the fact that the next day, his speech
> would become the front page news all over the World..."
> What an awful crime, not paying enough attention to Ostap and
> instead giving a significant speech that would become front page
> news all around the world. Rather than appreciate the fact that
> you were fortunate enough to have been present, you were outraged
> that he didn't pay attention to you (reflected in your comparison
> of him to Brezhnev, your family's persecutor). Outraged enough
> that although you claim not to have thought about it, here it
> comes out with your visceral anger, 31 years later.
> What sad, bitter little man you present yourself as now.
I probably shouldn't even ask this, but why are you being such a
jerk?
-- wds
///////////////////////////////////////////
From: Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
Date: Nov 24 2009, 11:47 am
On Nov 24, 8:36 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, now we know where your obsessions are coming from.
> What sad, bitter little man you present yourself as now.
On the contrary, the observation is right on. If Solzhenitsyn had no
interest in the people he was addressing, his speech was a fraud.
Only the most blighted character would be so devoid of manners and
interest in others.
[snip]
Interesting that you would attack Ostap for this slice of personal
experience. Is Solzhenitsyn one of your heroes?
TCross
//////////////////////////////////
I assure you that to third parties, your behaviour towards me seems
bizarre, to put it very mildly and politely.
Look, BM, you tell me that you find my posts to be “stupid”. Such
situation happens a million times per day somewhere in the world, when
a listener thinks that the speaker is stupid. But it doesn’t always
mean that the speaker is the stupid one. Half of the time it is the
LISTENER who is too stupid to understand what the speaker is saying.
For example, now that he is 12, my own son understands what I say much
better than he did when he was 7. Mark Twain wrote: "When I was a boy
of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old
man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the
old man had learned in seven years."
You manage to misinterpret the simplest statements that are clear even
to half-retards. Let me give examples of this from earlier in this
post:
> > Yes, I do. I consider your projecting a stroke on me to be extremely
> > offensive.
>
> Do you hate stroke victims?
and
> So stroke victims act "dumb" according to you? Well, since you have
> such a low opinion of stroke victims it is no wonder you felt so
> insulted.
Or take your accusation:
> You even compared him to Brezhnev.
and
> Rather than appreciate the fact that you were
> fortunate enough to have been present, you were outraged that he
> didn't pay attention to you (reflected in your comparison of him to
> Brezhnev, your family's persecutor).
[Why was Brezhnev my “family's persecutor”? Nobody persecuted us.
Brezhnev was an unpleasant Soviet bureaucrat, but he was certainly not
as evil as, say, GW Bush]
and
> Comparing Solzhenitsyn to Brezhnev?
What I wrote was a simple observation:
> > He just took out a piece of paper and, like Brezhnev, started reading it out loud.
Is that not correct? If so – which part? The claim that Brezhnev read
out loud from a paper? Or that Solzhenitsyn read out loud from a paper
on that day?
The reason why I wrote this is because American politicians at that
time seldom, if ever, read from a paper. So, the only people whom I
had ever seen read from a paper, were Brezhnev and Solzhenitsyn.
Yet, you managed to misinterpret even the simplest remarks of mine and
twist them horribly.
And these are not exceptions. On an average post, you misunderstand at
least 10 or even 20 simple things that I say.
My suspicion has been that this is a very effective method that you
have discovered for defeating your opponents: you peck them to death
with hundreds of insane accusations, based on totally silly
misunderstanding of what they say, until they find themselves wasting
23 hours per day just answering and clarifying your
misinterpretations, at which point they give up. And at that point,
you either declare a victory, or accuse your opponents of
“dishonesty”, “stupidity” and willful failure to respond to all you
prolific posts.
If so – your strategy works brilliantly.
But if, on the other hand, your inability understand the simplest
sentences like “I consider your projecting a stroke on me to be
extremely offensive” is not fake but real, it is both amazing and
shocking. Shocking because I ask myself: “And I have wasted hundreds
of hours of my life arguing with THIS?! With a grown-up man who can't
even understand why I don't want a deadly incurable debilitating brain
disease projected on myself?!"
> I guess the last week I've just been collatoral damage to the effects
> of your enormous bruised ego.
You insult my ego no more than a mutt from a neighbouring street that
barks at me when I pass by. You insult not my ego but my intelligence
and my sense of fair play, as well as my growing horrified realization
that I have wasted an enormous fraction of my earthly life on arguing
with you.
> After all, the FIRST critical thing
> your wrote about Solzhenitsyn's speech was "He barely greeted us. He
> didn't look at us. He didn't even look up." And then you compared this
> to a speech by Brezhnev (did you become an exile during his rule?)."
No, we emigrated on our own volition. My feelings towards Brezhnev are
no worse than towards other Communist bureaucrats.
> > > Or do you mean your own personal attack: "Your numerous responses to
> > > my posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing
> > > Assange's role to that of NY Times."
>
> > > Yeah, you were insulting, and you were proven wrong.
>
> > I was? How?
>
> It's on this very post:
>
> > > > > > > > I bet that if you really strain your brain, you will soon try to see
> > > > > > > > the analogy that I've been making in my posts between Assange's
> > > > > > > > publishing State Department telegrams and NY Times, Washington Post
> > > > > > > > and 17 other major US newspapers publishing Pentagon Papers. At least
> > > > > > > > try.
>
> > > > > > > Your analogy is quite obvious.
>
> > > > > > Yes, it is. But not to you, it wasn't. Your numerous responses to my
> > > > > > posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing Assange's
> > > > > > role to that of NY Times.
>
> > > > > On December 9th on this thread I wrote:
>
> > > > > "Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
> > > > > latter isn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
> > > > > Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
> > > > > act. But not to Assange."
>
> > > > > I acknowledged and rejected your analogy of Assange tot he NY Times.
>
> Did you get that this time?
No. Please repeat this extremely important (even vital!) point again
and again. Are you saying that I may have initially missed a post of
yours or some part of that post?
> > > Either you lied,
> > > or you were merely sloppy.
Or may have initially missed a post of yours or some part of one of
your posts...
> >> And rather than acknowledge it, you want
> > > you move on.
>
> > I have no idea why you concluded this.
>
> ...Because you're too busy to think clearly.
When I think about something important, I do take my time. However, I
have to confess that I don't read ALL of your posts. One of my biggest
traits is that I get exceedingly and disproportionally angry whenever
I encounter injustice or demagoguery. In fact, that's the main reason
why I post to Usenet to begin with: to vent my frustration with
demagoguery, double standard, hypocrisy and unfairness on the part of
governments and media.
I have never encountered a bigger demagogue than you. Almost each and
every post of yours insults me in its demagoguery, double standards,
hypocrisy and unfairness. I way overreact to your demagoguery, and it
would be healthy and wise for me to even further limit my exposure to
them.
> Reread it.
>
>
> > > > here AFTER you
> > > > answer my questions as to what information you have that Assange was
> > > > "more closely linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did
> > > > NYT and WP to Ellsberg, or" 60 Minutes" to the tobacco insider, or
> > > > other journalists to their sources in thousands other cases.
>
> > > Why don't you reply to several of my previous posts before demanding
> > > that others do the same.
>
> > Yes, I knew that you have no evidence that Assange was "more closely
> > linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did NYT to
> > Ellsberg, and I was sure that you would find an excuse not to answer
> > my question.
>
> Except I went ahead and replied anyways, here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/a7dc1598cc4b2a...
>
> I guess you didn't notice. Too busy to think clearly?
Is that yet another post of yours that I may not have read?
In any case, I have no time to even follow that link. If you want to
say something to me, reply to me directly, instead of making me wade
through thousands of claims that you spew out in your various posts.
> > > You can start here:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/ffe8e49b07ced8...
>
> > > And we will go from there.
>
> > ;Oh, you mean totally insane drivel from 2 months ago trying to
> > justify the idea that criticism of OUN(B)'s WWII massacres of 80 000
> > innocent Polish civilians and tens of thousands of innocent Jewish
> > civilians should be banned; and any Pole, Russian or Jew who dares to
> > do so, is an Ukrainophobe, neo-nazi and antisemite?
>
> > Well, as a matter of fact, by coincidence, I spent 5 hours the other
> > day composing a reply. I will need several more hours to finish this
> > reply. It should be ready in a couple of weeks.
>
> Wow - hours of work to try to rebutt a post that took me perhaps 30
> minutes to write? I guess it's correct that it's much easier to state
> the truth than it is to construct a lie.
Or maybe that it takes much less time to write total idiocies than to
think things out? Let me re-phrase your own words: “you're too fast to
think clearly.”
> Good luck with your propaganda piece.
How do you know that it will be a “propaganda piece”?
I am glad that you finally admit that you pass judgment on articles
even before you see them.
> I will look forward to reading
> it and replying to it.
>
> > Are you REALLY holding our current-events discussion of Assange to
> > that old thread? If so - that's fine. This will reduce my need to
> > waste time at SCB in the next few weeks. With my kids now being on a
> > holiday from school, every hour that I waste on SCB, is an hour stolen
> > from my time spent with my kids, something that i will never be able
> > to replace or forgive myself later.
>
> So what about the hours you wrote earlier. No kids then?
In case you didn't know, school vacations in American schools started
this Monday.
> Don't they go
> to sleep?
Yes, they do sleep. (Sadly) they sleep the same number of hours as I
but they get up earlier and go to sleep earlier. They also live mostly
with my ex, and i don't get to see them as much as I want or should.
Why did you ask? What was your point?
Did Assange “hack 100,000s of secret confidential documents” before
putting them all online? Which computer(s) did he hack for that?
References please.
> Or sorry - I didn't
> know investigative reporters had others hack 100,000s of confidential
> documents and place them online.
I don’t know what you mean by “hack” here. What I know is that the
NYTimes editors, Washington Post editors and editors of 16 other
newspapers had Ellsberg steal top secret Pentagon Papers and published
them for the entire world to read.
Is computer hacking worse than physical theft?
> > So, I want to know what evidence you have that people, who publish
> > confidential information, are more likely to commit rape.
>
> Didn't you read what I wrote? Try again:
>
> The simple, normal interpretation of what I wrote in this thread is
> that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
> capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
> and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one
> area. Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused of
> rape (also bad). Moreover both acts involve forms of violation, power
> and control - as does his release of the confidential information. I
> don't know of any studies looking into the relationship between
> hacking (hacking isn't such a new thing) and rape but there is
> certainly a link betwen "low-tech" hacking (burgalirizng women's
> apartments, voyeurism, etc.) and rape.
But the word “bad” is a very subjective word. What’s “bad” to you, is
often “good” to me.
Is being a spy “good” or “bad”? Is a Chinese man, who spies on
Communist China for the CIA, “good” or “bad”? To China, he is bad. To
America, he is good.
So, to me, hacking is not necessarily “bad”. In fact, many hackers are
revered in the computer circles, and the top companies fall over
themselves to hire them.
And publishing these silly “confidential” State Department memos is
not “bad” to me. Nor am I alone. For example, my feeling is that at
least 95% of all journalists share my view and even admire Assange
(which I don’t, btw).
So, if you want me to appreciate your argument above, please replace
the word “bad” with meaningful and precise words.
> I never wrote that releasing confidential infromation in itself ought
> to be linked to rape. I did describe it as a form of violation, power
> and control. I did inquire about the relationship between computer
> hacking to rape tweice in that paragraph.
So, let’s get precise. Please formulate the exact probabilistic
formula that you claim.
To give you an example, if I wanted to say that there is correlation
between, say, low IQ and violent crime, I would write:
Let X be the random variable representing that a person has an IQ
below, say, 75.
Let Y be the random variable representing that a person has committed
a violent crime.
Then:
Corr (X, Y) >> 0
, meaning “correlation between X and Y is much greater than zero”.
Please tell me your X’s, Y’s and Z’s, so that I could understand the
exact correlation that you are claiming.
> Your seeming inability to read is amazing.
See earlier.
> You really ought to get checked out, Ostap.
I assume that this also is not meant as an insult. Right?
> I do not, of course, expect you to admit your error. Only decent
> people do that.
>
> Now that further details of Asange's sexual practices have been leaked
> it seems that his pattern of behavior makes more sense.
Whatever.
Let me instead try to go to the heart of our argument.
Imagine the following situation:
Some Chinese government clerk, call him X, writes to Assange that he
is thinking about giving him 100 000 confidential memos from the
Chinese Foreign Ministry. Assange treats him the way he treated
Manning. Finally, X passes these memos to Assange, and he publishes
them on Wikileaks.
1. Would you call Assange “bad” for doing this?
2. Would you say that this act of Assange's positively correlates with
rape?
3. If the Chinese government asked England to extradite him to China
on the charges of espionage, would you want England to oblige them?
Would your answers change if I told you that X also happens to be a
dissident?
Would your answers change if I replaced “Assange” with “Bergman”,
“England” with “USA”, and “Wikileaks” with “60 minutes”?
Please answer honestly.
Actually, it is Assange who did his job as a journalist. Are you
saying that all other Australian or English journalists wouldn't have
jumped at the chance to publish confidential memos from US, Russian or
Chinese foreign ministries? Really?
On the other hand, the job of the American prosecutors is to prosecute
those Americans who steal American secrets, not foreign journalists
living in foreign countries, who publish confidential US memos given
to them by an American government employee.
> > And"very little"? Is that what qualifies as a "close relation".
>
> He was in charge.
In charge of what? Wikileaks? Wikileaks’ work with whistleblowers and
insiders? Yes. So what? That’s his job as an Australian journalist and
athe Wikileaks editor and spokesman. Here is what Wiki says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
Julian Paul Assange is an Australian journalist,[4][5][6] publisher,[7]
[8] and Internet activist. He is the spokesperson and editor in chief
for WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website and conduit for news leaks.
//////////////////////////////////////////////
> > So, what exactly (and i mean EXACTLY, not hearsay) did Assange do
> > that NYTimes didn't do with Ellsberg,
>
> We won't know whether evidence of Assange's involvement is
> inadmissabvle hearsay until his trial. If he or his organization
> provided any technical assistence to Manning's crime than this would
> be a closer invovlement to it than just collecting infromation by a
> whistleblower.
So, YOU DON’T KNOW for sure? That’s exactly my point. Why are you so
tolerant of your own habit of accusing other people of crimes for
which you have no concrete evidence?
> BTW NY Times didn't get off the hook over Ellsberg:
Really? So, what punishment did NY Times suffer from the Supreme
Court?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers#Legal_case
>
> "Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an
> extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court
> ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior
> restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the
> press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.
> A majority of
> the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times
> and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the
> documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the
> Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities
> in the government's case."
>
> The paragrpaph above means that according tot he Supreme Court the
> government can't prevent the publication of the classified information
> by the media but that it may still, after this publication, prosecute
> the publisher. If this were applied to Assange (even if he were
> treated merely as an editor) it would mean that his site couldn't be
> shut down but that he could still be sent to prison.
Are foreign newspapers – Australian, English, Russian, etc – also
criminally responsible for violating the “Espionage Act” in USA?
Also, how can we even begin to compare the silly confidential memos,
released to Wikileaks, with the top secret war information released by
Ellsberg? That’s like comparing an arrow to a nuclear bomb.
Here is what Biden said before he was forced to change his story for
PR reasons:
http://thepage.time.com/2010/12/16/bidens-holiday-haymaker-to-kyl-on-start/
TRANSCRIPT: VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN ON MSNBC'S "ANDREA MITCHELL
REPORTS"
[BIDEN ON WIKILEAKS]
BIDEN: I came in, almost all of it was embraces. I mean it wasn't just
shaking hands. I know -- I know these guys. I know these women. They
still trust the United States. There's all kinds of things and --
MITCHELL: So there's no damage?
BIDEN: I don't think there's any damage. I don't think there's any
substantive damage, no. Look, some of the cables that are coming out
here and around the world are embarrassing. I mean, you know, to say
that, you know, for you to do a cable as an ambassador and say I don't
like Biden's tie, he doesn't look good and he's probably -- he's a
homely guy, that's not something ...
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > and 60 Minutes and Bergman didn't with the tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand?
>
> This example completely doesn't apply because Wigand did not commit
> espionage.
So, you are saying that it is a crime to spy on a government, but not
on a private company?
Is it a crime for an English/Australian news medium to publish Chinese
government’s confidential memos, but not a crime to publish top secret
memos belonging to a private corporation?
Tadas Blinda
wrote:
> On Dec 21, 6:31 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
OK, you two, no arguing on Yom Kippur, no arguing on Christmas (well,
almost).
Let's move onto something harmless. Ostap, I know you're interested
in food. I have a question for you. I hear that the food scene
(restaurants, catering, chefs) in Israel is dominated by Sephardic
Jews. With the consequence that some American Jews, who haven't had
decent gefilte fisch since their grandmother from Minsk died, and who
are happily preparing for a trip to Israel thinking that they will get
all that sort of thing there, end up disappointed. Is this true?
How's your Yiddish, Ostap? What's Yiddish for " to bake"? My theory
about the etymology of kugelis is that at the root of it is German or
Yiddish kuchen, whence kuchel, then kukel, then kugel(is). Trouble is
no one seems to have heard of any "kuchel", and the Jewish kegel is
quite different from kugelis. But so is the etymology:
Kugels have been a staple of Jewish cooking for centuries. Kugel,
which means "ball" in German, originally referred to balls of noodle
dough encased around ...
Sweet Dairy Noodle Kugel - Jerusalem Kugel - Broccoli Souffle - Potato
Kugel
kosherfood.about.com/od/sidedishes/p/kugel.htm
Smoked eel is a delicacy for the Christmas (Eve) table. I get a
Pavlovian response just from thinking about it .... Only 24 hours
away (in Australia).
The Black Monk
Well, if I saw you lying on the ground motionless and checked your
pulse, would you be offended?
I've noticed a stark drop in the quality of your posts. So I expressed
concern.
I'm sorry that you get angry when someone expresses concern for you.
> No, I don’t hate dead people. I don’t hate stroke victims. What I hate
> and fear are death, stroke and other illnesses. And I consider those,
> who project such illnesses on their conversation partners to be the
> worst scum.
So those that express concern for stroke victims or people who maybe
dying are projecting such things onto the sufferers and thus are "the
worst scum", according to you? How unfortunate.
> The reason why I have greatly reduced arguing with you is because you
> twist each and every simple and clear sentence that I say, and give it
> a new, totally insane and moronic interpretation.
No, that's what you've been doing. For example, when I wrote:
The simple, normal interpretation of what I wrote in this thread is
that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one
area. Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused
of rape (also bad). Moreover both acts involve forms of violation,
power and control - as does his release of the confidential
information. I don't know of any studies looking into the
relationship between hacking (hacking isn't such a new thing) and
rape but there is certainly a link betwen "low-tech" hacking
(burgalirizng women's apartments, voyeurism, etc.) and rape.
You twisted it to state that I claimed that anyone who releases
confiential information is a rapist. Or that I claimed that
investigative reporters are rapists, etc.
So when you wrote about me that "you twist each and every simple and
clear sentence that I say, and give it a new, totally insane and
moronic interpretation" you were describing exactly what YOU have been
doing. And THAT is the classic example of projection.
Got it now?
I initially used the word stupidity but then offered two non-insulting
interpretations. Apparently my kindness backfired.
> > > Second, even if the disease were not a stroke but, say, a liver
> > > failure, it would be highly inappropriate to project a disease on
> > > another person. In all of my life, both real and virtual, the only
> > > person before you who tried to project a debilitating illness on me
> > > was the scumball Rostyk, who thought that I had a diabetes and wrote 2
> > > sadistic posts, describing the horrible and painful death that awaits
> > > me.
>
> > Was there anything sadistic about my post? On the contrary, I
> > expressed only concern. I noticed a marked deterioration in the
> > quality of your thinking, which I had held in high regard even when we
> > were at odds. I asked if you were alltright, and expressed my fear for
> > you. There was no gloating or desire for ill will whatsoever in my
> > words. It was a humane expression of concern for another person.
>
> > Are you always so ungrateful?
>
> Sorry, BM, for being ungrateful in return for you generous and loving
> suggestion that I suffer from stupidity and from rapidly developing
> loss of brain function(s).
Well, I truly hope it isn't a stroke and that nothing bad comes of
your ignoring my observation and concern.
Seems like it, below:
> > you
> > wrote:
>
> > "When a normal person is exiled, he does miss his home a lot. What
> > does he miss? His friends. The ability to talk in his native tongue.
> > The warmth of being with people from the same culture. That's why
> > Russian emigrants formed friendship circles among themselves. In my
> > parents' circle in Boston, there were also some major dissidents like
> > Korzhavin, Esenin-Volpin. Later, when I was at Stanford, our circle
> > included dissidents like Bukovskiy, Yarym- Agaev, Gudava, etc. But
> > Solzhenitsyn stayed away from everybody. Not once did he even
> > acknowledge the existence of any other exilees and refugees from
> > Russia. He didn't need Russian friends. He was a recluse and viewed
> > all others with disdain and a sense of superiority."
Looks like he ignored your parents' circle in Boston when he was in
Vermont. Your interpretation of this "snub" is that Solzhenitsin "was
a recluse and viewed all others with disdain and a sense of
superiority."
How dare someone not pay attention to you or your family!
Hmmm...you claimed that to the rest of the people my observation
seemed vicious and idiotic. You quoted two other people. The first's
comments can support your clam of vicious, but neither one claimed
"idiotic." Moreover one of them was very much oppsoed to the content
of Solzhenytsin's speech.
Speaking of third parties on usenet discussions as arbiters, should I
quote statements about you from numerous third parties on this
newsgroup?
> Look, BM, you tell me that you find my posts to be “stupid”. Such
> situation happens a million times per day somewhere in the world, when
> a listener thinks that the speaker is stupid. But it doesn’t always
> mean that the speaker is the stupid one. Half of the time it is the
> LISTENER who is too stupid to understand what the speaker is saying.
Such as the example I presented above.
> For example, now that he is 12, my own son understands what I say much
> better than he did when he was 7.
So when your boy is 20 he will agree with you that the Holy Roman
Empire never existed and thus that never in its history were Austria
and Germany part of the same country until the 1930's, which is a
shockingly atupid thng you claimed in one of your posts and which
prompted me to remark on your amazing descent into stupid posts?
Poor boy!
> Mark Twain wrote: "When I was a boy
> of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old
> man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the
> old man had learned in seven years."
So who was smarter: Mark Twain or his father?
> You manage to misinterpret the simplest statements that are clear even
> to half-retards.
Do you hate retarded people as much as you do stroke victims?
Many people read papers. You specifically compared his reading to that
of Brezhnev. Please for a change try to stop being a demogogue.
> The reason why I wrote this is because American politicians at that
> time seldom, if ever, read from a paper.
How about academics? Professors? You wrote that this was your
graduation. So of all people you ever came across that read papers,
you compared Solzhenitsyn - a victim of Soviet oppression - to
Brezhnev, the Soviet leader. And this was a "coincidence" according to
you.
> So, the only people whom I
> had ever seen read from a paper, were Brezhnev and Solzhenitsyn.
Uh huh. Nobody in your school, for example, ever read from a paper.
> Yet, you managed to misinterpret even the simplest remarks of mine and
> twist them horribly.
>
> And these are not exceptions. On an average post, you misunderstand at
> least 10 or even 20 simple things that I say.
>
> My suspicion has been that this is a very effective method that you
> have discovered for defeating your opponents: you peck them to death
> with hundreds of insane accusations, based on totally silly
> misunderstanding of what they say, until they find themselves wasting
> 23 hours per day just answering and clarifying your
> misinterpretations, at which point they give up. And at that point,
> you either declare a victory, or accuse your opponents of
> “dishonesty”, “stupidity” and willful failure to respond to all you
> prolific posts.
Is this your failed attempt at saving face as decide to leave?
Because somehow I didn't see you interpeting my posts this way when I
tangled with others over Kosovo, or over Russian culpability for the
crimes of the Stalinist regime, or over whehter the Bolshevik rule in
Russia was the responsibility of the russian people or of a band of
criminals who hijacked the country.
This double standard by you shows that either you are a hypocrite or
that your claim is false and self-serving. Which is it?
> If so – your strategy works brilliantly.
>
> But if, on the other hand, your inability understand the simplest
> sentences like “I consider your projecting a stroke on me to be
> extremely offensive” is not fake but real, it is both amazing and
> shocking. Shocking because I ask myself: “And I have wasted hundreds
> of hours of my life arguing with THIS?!
That's sad, indeed, that you feel you have wasted hundreds of hours of
your life.
> With a grown-up man who can't even understand why I don't want a deadly incurable debilitating brain
> disease projected on myself?!"
Sheesh, express concern for a guy and this is what happens.
> > I guess the last week I've just been collatoral damage to the effects
> > of your enormous bruised ego.
>
> You insult my ego no more than a mutt from a neighbouring street that
> barks at me when I pass by. You insult not my ego but my intelligence
> and my sense of fair play, as well as my growing horrified realization
> that I have wasted an enormous fraction of my earthly life on arguing
> with you.
Yeah, you "waste" hours on a mutt from a neighboring street that barks
at you.
> > After all, the FIRST critical thing
> > your wrote about Solzhenitsyn's speech was "He barely greeted us. He
> > didn't look at us. He didn't even look up." And then you compared this
> > to a speech by Brezhnev (did you become an exile during his rule?)."
>
> No, we emigrated on our own volition. My feelings towards Brezhnev are
> no worse than towards other Communist bureaucrats.
You didn't answer the question. Was he the ruler when you were exiled?
I can answer this for you. Yes, he was. He presided over a system
that was bad enough that you and your family uprooted yourselves in
order to leave. And then you compare Solzhenitsyn to this, and no
other, man merely because Solzhenitsyn read a speech from a paper.
Before describing how Solzhenitsyn viewed others with disdain and a
sense of superiority.
> > > > Or do you mean your own personal attack: "Your numerous responses to
> > > > my posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing
> > > > Assange's role to that of NY Times."
>
> > > > Yeah, you were insulting, and you were proven wrong.
>
> > > I was? How?
>
> > It's on this very post:
>
> > > > > > > > > I bet that if you really strain your brain, you will soon try to see
> > > > > > > > > the analogy that I've been making in my posts between Assange's
> > > > > > > > > publishing State Department telegrams and NY Times, Washington Post
> > > > > > > > > and 17 other major US newspapers publishing Pentagon Papers. At least
> > > > > > > > > try.
>
> > > > > > > > Your analogy is quite obvious.
>
> > > > > > > Yes, it is. But not to you, it wasn't. Your numerous responses to my
> > > > > > > posts show that you couldn't comprehend that i was comparing Assange's
> > > > > > > role to that of NY Times.
>
> > > > > > On December 9th on this thread I wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Since the criminal did what he did for Assange's organization the
> > > > > > latter isn't uninvolved. Your point above would apply to the New York
> > > > > > Times or some other uninvolved organization reporting on this criminal
> > > > > > act. But not to Assange."
>
> > > > > > I acknowledged and rejected your analogy of Assange tot he NY Times.
>
> > Did you get that this time?
>
> No. Please repeat this extremely important (even vital!) point again
> and again.
Or you can try to simply read it again.
> Are you saying that I may have initially missed a post of yours or some part of that post?
Yes.
> > > > Either you lied,
> > > > or you were merely sloppy.
>
> Or may have initially missed a post of yours or some part of one of
> your posts...
Now why would you have done so?
>
> > >> And rather than acknowledge it, you want
> > > > you move on.
>
> > > I have no idea why you concluded this.
>
> > ...Because you're too busy to think clearly.
>
> When I think about something important, I do take my time. However, I
> have to confess that I don't read ALL of your posts. One of my biggest
> traits is that I get exceedingly and disproportionally angry whenever
> I encounter injustice or demagoguery. In fact, that's the main reason
> why I post to Usenet to begin with: to vent my frustration with
> demagoguery, double standard, hypocrisy and unfairness on the part of
> governments and media.
>
> I have never encountered a bigger demagogue than you. Almost each and
> every post of yours insults me in its demagoguery, double standards,
> hypocrisy and unfairness. I way overreact to your demagoguery, and it
> would be healthy and wise for me to even further limit my exposure to
> them.
Others have noted your own demogoguery. Since we know that you enjoy
projecting your problems onto others, it is likely that you are just
angry at yourself and that my posts serve as a convenient mirror for
your self-hatred.
>
> > Reread it.
>
> > > > > here AFTER you
> > > > > answer my questions as to what information you have that Assange was
> > > > > "more closely linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did
> > > > > NYT and WP to Ellsberg, or" 60 Minutes" to the tobacco insider, or
> > > > > other journalists to their sources in thousands other cases.
>
> > > > Why don't you reply to several of my previous posts before demanding
> > > > that others do the same.
>
> > > Yes, I knew that you have no evidence that Assange was "more closely
> > > linked to the criminal leaking the information" than did NYT to
> > > Ellsberg, and I was sure that you would find an excuse not to answer
> > > my question.
>
> > Except I went ahead and replied anyways, here:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/a7dc1598cc4b2a...
>
> > I guess you didn't notice. Too busy to think clearly?
>
> Is that yet another post of yours that I may not have read?
>
> In any case, I have no time to even follow that link. If you want to
> say something to me, reply to me directly, instead of making me wade
> through thousands of claims that you spew out in your various posts.
I did, in that post you ignored.
>
> > > > You can start here:
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/ffe8e49b07ced8...
>
> > > > And we will go from there.
>
> > > ;Oh, you mean totally insane drivel from 2 months ago trying to
> > > justify the idea that criticism of OUN(B)'s WWII massacres of 80 000
> > > innocent Polish civilians and tens of thousands of innocent Jewish
> > > civilians should be banned; and any Pole, Russian or Jew who dares to
> > > do so, is an Ukrainophobe, neo-nazi and antisemite?
>
> > > Well, as a matter of fact, by coincidence, I spent 5 hours the other
> > > day composing a reply. I will need several more hours to finish this
> > > reply. It should be ready in a couple of weeks.
>
> > Wow - hours of work to try to rebutt a post that took me perhaps 30
> > minutes to write? I guess it's correct that it's much easier to state
> > the truth than it is to construct a lie.
>
> Or maybe that it takes much less time to write total idiocies than to
> think things out?
So are you saying that you have spent five hours already, and many
more in the future, responding to "total idiocies?"
> Let me re-phrase your own words: “you're too fast to think clearly.”
Except the evidence here is that you are the one making the sloppy and
stupid mistakes.
> > Good luck with your propaganda piece.
>
> How do you know that it will be a “propaganda piece”?
Deduction.
> I am glad that you finally admit that you pass judgment on articles even before you see them.
If I see a pattern it is normal to expect something.
> > I will look forward to reading it and replying to it.
>
> > > Are you REALLY holding our current-events discussion of Assange to
> > > that old thread? If so - that's fine. This will reduce my need to
> > > waste time at SCB in the next few weeks. With my kids now being on a
> > > holiday from school, every hour that I waste on SCB, is an hour stolen
> > > from my time spent with my kids, something that i will never be able
> > > to replace or forgive myself later.
>
> > So what about the hours you wrote earlier. No kids then?
>
> In case you didn't know, school vacations in American schools started
> this Monday.
Not around here.
There is a difference between obtaining specific information for a
specific article (in this case, documenting wrongdoing) and leaking
100,000s of confidential documents indiscriminantly and sharing them
with the whole world. The latter is not journalism, it is akin to
hacking or theft.
How do you explian your stupidity in not being able to see the
difference between the two actions?
> Is computer hacking worse than physical theft?
It depends on the information. I'm sure some of the diplomats whose
confidential assessment of others' leaders in the service of theirown
country, whose words were hacked and given for the wrold to see, would
rather have had their wallets stolen than to have had their jobs
compromised.
> > > So, I want to know what evidence you have that people, who publish
> > > confidential information, are more likely to commit rape.
>
> > Didn't you read what I wrote? Try again:
>
> > The simple, normal interpretation of what I wrote in this thread is
> > that the sort of person who is capable of raping someone is also
> > capable of doing other bad things too, because rapists are bad people
> > and bad people don't necessarily limit their bad behavior to one
> > area. Assange has a history of being a hacker (bad) and is accused of
> > rape (also bad). Moreover both acts involve forms of violation, power
> > and control - as does his release of the confidential information. I
> > don't know of any studies looking into the relationship between
> > hacking (hacking isn't such a new thing) and rape but there is
> > certainly a link betwen "low-tech" hacking (burgalirizng women's
> > apartments, voyeurism, etc.) and rape.
>
> But the word “bad” is a very subjective word. What’s “bad” to you, is
> often “good” to me.
Trying to twist things.
> Is being a spy “good” or “bad”? Is a Chinese man, who spies on
> Communist China for the CIA, “good” or “bad”? To China, he is bad. To
> America, he is good.
>
> So, to me, hacking is not necessarily “bad”. In fact, many hackers are
> revered in the computer circles, and the top companies fall over
> themselves to hire them.
Yes, top prevent hacking by others. Game parks in Africa hire (former)
poachers. Does that make poaching of endangered animals subjective
too?
Nice attempt at the usual demogoguery.
> And publishing these silly “confidential” State Department memos is
> not “bad” to me. Nor am I alone. For example, my feeling is that at
> least 95% of all journalists share my view and even admire Assange
> (which I don’t, btw).
>
> So, if you want me to appreciate your argument above, please replace
> the word “bad” with meaningful and precise words.
>
> > I never wrote that releasing confidential infromation in itself ought
> > to be linked to rape. I did describe it as a form of violation, power
> > and control. I did inquire about the relationship between computer
> > hacking to rape tweice in that paragraph.
>
> So, let’s get precise. Please formulate the exact probabilistic
> formula that you claim.
>
> To give you an example, if I wanted to say that there is correlation
> between, say, low IQ and violent crime, I would write:
>
> Let X be the random variable representing that a person has an IQ
> below, say, 75.
>
> Let Y be the random variable representing that a person has committed
> a violent crime.
>
> Then:
>
> Corr (X, Y) >> 0
>
> , meaning “correlation between X and Y is much greater than zero”.
>
> Please tell me your X’s, Y’s and Z’s, so that I could understand the
> exact correlation that you are claiming.
Where is the Z in your formula?
I would say there is probably a correlation between computer hacking
and other "devious" crimes not involving brute physical force.
> > Your seeming inability to read is amazing.
>
> See earlier.
>
> > You really ought to get checked out, Ostap.
>
> I assume that this also is not meant as an insult. Right?
Right.
>
> > I do not, of course, expect you to admit your error. Only decent
> > people do that.
>
> > Now that further details of Asange's sexual practices have been leaked
> > it seems that his pattern of behavior makes more sense.
>
> Whatever.
>
> Let me instead try to go to the heart of our argument.
>
> Imagine the following situation:
>
> Some Chinese government clerk, call him X, writes to Assange that he
> is thinking about giving him 100 000 confidential memos from the
> Chinese Foreign Ministry. Assange treats him the way he treated
> Manning. Finally, X passes these memos to Assange, and he publishes
> them on Wikileaks.
>
> 1. Would you call Assange “bad” for doing this?
Yes.
> 2. Would you say that this act of Assange's positively correlates with
> rape?
This act plus his history of antisocial behavior and the nature of
such behavior altogether is probably positively correlated with all
sorts of non-brutal crimes, including his alleged creepy and criminal
habit of inseminating women against their will.
> 3. If the Chinese government asked England to extradite him to China
> on the charges of espionage, would you want England to oblige them?
I wouldn't blame England for taking advantage of this bad person for
the purposes of it own national security.
> Would your answers change if I told you that X also happens to be a dissident?
Perhaps. The problem is that some bad people can hide behind the label
of dissident, such as this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Einhorn
Please do not twist my words by claiming that I wrote that dissidents
are all bad people.
> Would your answers change if I replaced “Assange” with “Bergman”,
> “England” with “USA”, and “Wikileaks” with “60 minutes”?
The problem is that 60 minutes etc. didn't leak 100,000s of classified
documents.
So all other jounralists indiscriminantly release 100,000s of
classified documents on the internet? That's journalism?
> On the other hand, the job of the American prosecutors is to prosecute
> those Americans who steal American secrets, not foreign journalists
> living in foreign countries, who publish confidential US memos given
> to them by an American government employee.
We'll see if they decide to go after Assange on espionage charges.
> > > And"very little"? Is that what qualifies as a "close relation".
>
> > He was in charge.
>
> In charge of what? Wikileaks? Wikileaks’ work with whistleblowers and
> insiders? Yes. So what? That’s his job as an Australian journalist and
> athe Wikileaks editor and spokesman. Here is what Wiki says:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
>
> Julian Paul Assange is an Australian journalist,[4][5][6] publisher,[7]
> [8] and Internet activist. He is the spokesperson and editor in chief
> for WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website and conduit for news leaks.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////
That's what he says about himself.
AFAIK, if any part of the espionage occured on US soil, then yes.
> Also, how can we even begin to compare the silly confidential memos,
> released to Wikileaks, with the top secret war information released by
> Ellsberg? That’s like comparing an arrow to a nuclear bomb.
>
> Here is what Biden said before he was forced to change his story for
> PR reasons:
>
> http://thepage.time.com/2010/12/16/bidens-holiday-haymaker-to-kyl-on-...
>
> TRANSCRIPT: VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN ON MSNBC'S "ANDREA MITCHELL
> REPORTS"
>
> [BIDEN ON WIKILEAKS]
> BIDEN: I came in, almost all of it was embraces. I mean it wasn't just
> shaking hands. I know -- I know these guys. I know these women. They
> still trust the United States. There's all kinds of things and --
> MITCHELL: So there's no damage?
> BIDEN: I don't think there's any damage. I don't think there's any
> substantive damage, no. Look, some of the cables that are coming out
> here and around the world are embarrassing. I mean, you know, to say
> that, you know, for you to do a cable as an ambassador and say I don't
> like Biden's tie, he doesn't look good and he's probably -- he's a
> homely guy, that's not something ...
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Were you expecting him to say that the US would be crippled, to
project such weakness?
> > > and 60 Minutes and Bergman didn't with the tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand?
>
> > This example completely doesn't apply because Wigand did not commit
> > espionage.
>
> So, you are saying that it is a crime to spy on a government, but not
> on a private company?
Thatr's how the espionage laws work, isn't it? Someone could be fired
for spying on a company, or made to pay damages in a civil suit if his
spying causes financial harm to the company. He can't be tried for
espionage though.
> Is it a crime for an English/Australian news medium to publish Chinese
> government’s confidential memos, but not a crime to publish top secret
> memos belonging to a private corporation?
I don't think so. Do you know otherwise?
BM
Ostap Bender
> On Dec 21, 2:22 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 8:46 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can start here:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/ffe8e49b07ced8...
>
> > > And we will go from there.
>
> > ;Oh, you mean totally insane drivel from 2 months ago trying to
> > justify the idea that criticism of OUN(B)'s WWII massacres of 80 000
> > innocent Polish civilians and tens of thousands of innocent Jewish
> > civilians should be banned; and any Pole, Russian or Jew who dares to
> > do so, is an Ukrainophobe, neo-nazi and antisemite?
>
> > Well, as a matter of fact, by coincidence, I spent 5 hours the other
> > day composing a reply. I will need several more hours to finish this
> > reply. It should be ready in a couple of weeks.
>
> Wow - hours of work to try to rebutt a post that took me perhaps 30
> minutes to write? I guess it's correct that it's much easier to state
> the truth than it is to construct a lie.
A funny thing happened. When I clicked on your link yesterday, Google
Groups showed me your long post about the anti-OUN exhibit in Kiev.
That is the post that I had spent 5 hours on replying to.
But today, Google Groups showed me a different, much shorter post. In
fact, it shouldn't take me long to reply to it. Let's see:
On Oct 26, 6:25 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 7:46 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 25, 6:43 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 7:27 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 9, 4:39 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 9 Oct, 05:31, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 5, 4:52 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 3 Oct, 10:17, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 8:17 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/84775/
>
> > > > > > > > > Russian party set to win Latvian election
>
> > > > > > > > The situation in Latia is NOTHING like the situation in Ukraine. As
> > > > > > > > you yourself claim, the Eastern half of Ukraine is Russia, while
> > > > > > > > almost none of Latvia (with the possible exception of Dvinsk) is
> > > > > > > > Russia.
>
> > > > > > > I think even Dvinsk is not comparable to Donetsk -))
>
> > > > > > Probably not. And you, unlike the inhabitants of Donetsk, are no Homo
> > > > > > Sovieticus. Unlike the majority of Donetsk inhabitants. Good for
> > > > > > Latvia.
>
> > > > > > BM
>
> > > > > Some of it may have to do with Larvian borders were formed much more
> > > > > naturally than Ukrainian???
>
> > > > While BM claims that the Donetsk and the eastern half of Ukraine in
> > > > general are "Russia",
>
> > > I always claimed that the eastern 40% of Ukraine was Soviet, not
> > > Russian. In terms of nationality places such as Donetsk are something
> > > like 50% Ukrainian and 50% Russian but culturally they are 100%
> > > Sovok.
>
> > Actually, I was referring to the incident when you lied to me that one
> > of the perpetrators of the Golodomor "spent most of his formative
> > years in Russia", but when I pointed out to you that he hadn't left
> > Ukraine until the age of 20+, you told me that Eastern Ukraine is
> > "Russia".
>
> He lived in a Russian colony near the Russian border, when it was all
> still part of the Russian Empire. Nice fsailed atempt at demogoguery
> by you.
He lived in Ukraine, not Russia. The first time he moved from Ukraine
to Russia was in his 20s. Which part of this sentence do you find
untrue?
> > > > in reality they are historically Ukraine.
>
> > > Which is why just handing them over to the Sovoks occupying them is
> > > not a palatable option.
>
> > Your idea that Ukrainian citizens, living in Eastern Ukraine, are
> > "occupyers" is fascist
>
> Point out which aspect of fascist ideology this can be categorized
> under:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
>
> > and your hate for the majority of Ukrainians who voted for Yanukovych, is Ukrainophobic.
>
> Except the majority of Ukrainians didn't vote for him - he got 49% of
> the vote.
OK, sorry for my trying to write short sentences. I meant to say: ‘the
majority of Ukrainians who voted for a candidate in the second stage
run-off between Yanukovich and Timoshenko, voted for Yanukovych.” Did
you REALLY not understand that? Do I REALLY have to waste my time
explaining to you the simplest thoughts in excruciatingly minute
details?
> Moreover, even if they did, hating his presidency and
> considering his voters to be idiots is no more anti-Ukrainian than
> thinking the same of Bush and his supports makes one anti-American.
And yet, my outrage with and hate for the WWII slaughter of 100 000
innocent Polish civilians and tens of thousands of innocent Jewish
civilians committed by a tiny fraction of the Ukrainian population
called OUN, makes me in your eyes “anti-Ukrainian”. Do you want me to
search for your quotes to that effect?
> > > > The
> > > > real difference here is that the Latvian culture, language, history,
> > > > religion etc are quite different for Russia's, Ukrainians and Russians
> > > > have belonged to the same nation/people for the entire course of human
> > > > history, with a brief forced separation between the 13th and 17th
> > > > centuries.
>
> > > That's what Sovoks and Russian say, although they take different roads
> > > to get to this myth.
>
> > And Ukrainian nationalists like yourself and Ukrainian Nazis disagree
> > with this, although you take different roads to get to your myth.
>
> Do Ukrainian Nazis disagree with this? Any links, please, to what
> Ukrainian Nazis think about this?
Links to what? To materials that show that Ukrainian Nazis hate both
Russians and Jews, that they are against links between Ukraine and
Russia, and that they hate Russia and its policies? You mean, this is
news to you?
Well, the Nazi sites themselves are in Ukrainian, which makes it very
hard for me to search for specific keywords, but there are many sites
that belong to various popular Western Ukraine-based neo-Nazi parties,
two of which have been part of Yuschenko’s block “Our Ukraine”: Social-
Nationalist Party and KUN. (OK, Social-Nationalist Party is truly
Nazi, while KUN may not be Nazi but has been simply an anti-Semitic,
anti-Russian, anti-Polish, anti-non-Ukrainians party.
Here is the first Nazi ally of Yuschenko’s that comes to mind:
All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" - Ukrainian nationalist political party.
Professes an ideology of Social-Nationalism. The party was in favor of
protecting the rights of Ukrainians, as an indigenous nation and "the
presence in Ukraine exclusively Ukrainian culture, the state
development of Ukrainian language and full Ukrainisation, the return
of the column " nationality "in the passport, lustration,
rehabilitation of OUN-UPA [3].
In spring 2008, Oleg Tyagnybok announced his candidacy for the mayoral
election in Kiev. He received 1.37% of the vote. (Eighth place among
70 candidates). The early elections in Kyiv City Council, "Freedom"
was 2.08% of the vote. (10th place), improving his score in comparison
with the parliamentary elections in 2007 to 0.83%. (Then in Kiev party
got 1,25% of votes). Party surpassed even Yushchenko's party Our
Ukraine - People's Self-Defense, which received 2.01%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ukrainian_Union_%22Svoboda%22
All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" (Ukrainian: Всеукраїнське об'єднання
"Свобода") is a nationalist right-wing political party in Ukraine led
by Oleh Tyahnybok. Svoboda's ideology is centered around the concept
of "natiocracy", which centers around the right of each nation to have
complete control over its own ethnic territory. During recent local
elections in Eastern Galicia the party won significantly and became a
main forces in local government.
Elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of 2002
The [Social-Nationalist] Party participated in elections to the
Supreme Rada of Ukraine in 2002 as part of an electoral bloc of Viktor
Yushchenko Our Ukraine [8].
Here is their site:
http://www.svoboda.org.ua/pro_partiyu/istoriya/
All-Ukrainian Union "Freedom" (previous name - the National Social
Party of Ukraine) arose as a result of nationalist activists of NGOs:
Guard Movement, Student Fellowship, Oum "Heritage", the Ukrainian
veterans of Afghanistan. According to the ideological foundation of
the party taken the work of the Leader of Ukrainian Nationalists
Yaroslav Stetsko Two Revolutions.
//////////////////////////////
An interesting catalog of various ultra-nationalist parties from 1997
is here:
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw97-8/ukraine.html.
UKRAINE
Ukraine's ultra-nationalist parties continued to support the idea of
Ukraine for the Ukrainians, and some were openly anti-Semitic… There
were few violent anti-Semitic incidents in 1997. No legal steps were
taken against racist and anti-Semitic organizations.
EXTREME NATIONALIST ORGANIZATIONS AND GROUPS
The Ukrainian nationalist camp is made up of nine relatively small,
but active, parties and movements, grouped into five main political
blocs:
The Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA) now has about 16,000 members in
19 cities. The Ukrainian Ministry of Justice, which canceled UNA's
registration as a legal body in September 1995, re-registered it on
September 29, 1997, in some measure due to the influence of the head
of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. This bloc maintains Ukrainian Self-
Defense (UNSO), "self-defense" units, mainly active in Kiev and Lvov.
UNA-UNSO publishes a number of newspapers, including Zamkova Gora
(Mountain Fortress), Ukrainski Obrii (Ukrainian Vista), Natsionalist
and Za Vilnu Ukrainu (For a Free Ukraine) which comes out in Lvov
(western Ukraine) and is consistently and vehemently anti-Semitic. UNA-
UNSO ran in the parliamentary election, on 29 March, 1998, but failed
to pass the minimum threshold of 4 percent, garnering only 0.4 percent
of the vote. UNA-UNSO has close connections with the German NPD and
its youth movement.
State Independence of Ukraine (DSU) has about 3,000 members in 17
cities. It publishes the newspaper Nezborima Natsia (The Invincible
Nation). In 1993 a faction, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists
(OUN), broke away. OUN publishes Neskorena Natsia (The Unconquered
Nation). Both newspapers print anti-Semitic material reminiscent of
the Nazis on a massive scale.
The Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (KUN) has about 12,000 members
throughout the Ukraine and publishes Klich (The Call), while the
Ukrainian Conservative Republican Ukraine (UKRP) has about 3,000
members organized in branches in most of the cities of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian Social National Party (USNP) is an extremist, right-
wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification
with the ideology of German National Socialism. It has about 2,000
members, mostly youth and young adults, in the areas of western
Ukraine. Its registration by the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice in
November 1995 was not rescinded even after party members caused riots
in 1996 and 1997 (on May 9, Victory Day over the Germans, and November
7, Communist Revolution Day) in Lvov and other cities. Hundreds,
mostly communists, were injured in these riots.
All these parties support the idea of Ukraine for the Ukrainians, are
hostile to foreigners (mainly Russians and Poles), some are openly
anti-Semitic, and all use the mass media which they control to
broadcast their ideas.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Another neo-Nazi party is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_National_Assembly_–_Ukrainian_National_Self_Defence
The UNA-UNSO (Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian Nationalistic
Self Defence) (Ukrainian: УНА УНСО, Українська Національна Асамблея –
Українська Народна Самооборона), is the most prominent (with 8,000
members[3]) nationalist political organization in Ukraine[4].
Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA) was created on June 30, 1990 in Lviv
under the name of Ukrainian Inter-party Assembly (UMA).
Between 1994 and 1997 UNA-UNSO members gained prominence in Ukraine
through a number of anti-Russian actions. UNA-UNSO deputies destroyed
a Russian flag in Ukrainian parliament, UNA-UNSO fighters joined the
Chechen rebels in First Chechen War and fought against the Russian
army, its activists organized street protests against Russian pop-
stars visiting Ukraine. UNA-UNSO took sides in Ukrainian church
affairs and in July 1995 clashed with police during the funeral of
Patriarch Volodomyr (Romaniuk), head of Ukrainian Orthodox Church -
Kiev Patriarchate. UNA-UNSO supported Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo
Denysenko) excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church, and
participated in violent attempts to capture church property for the
new church, notably in Rivne and Volyn oblasts. Membership of the
organization peaked at around 10 000 members, who were mostly young
Ukrainians. About 90 % of its members were between 18 and 35 years
old. Ideology of the organization combine radical Ukrainian
nationalism, anti-Semitism, support for an authoritarian form of
government and "nationality-oriented" economy.
During the 2002 parliamentary elections Andriy Shkil won a single-
mandate constituency in the Lviv Oblast (province) and thus a seat in
the Verkhovna Rada[6][7], the party itself won 0,04% of the votes[5].
In 2003 Shkil left the party[8], he has become a close aide to
influential politician Yuliya Tymoshenko[9][10].
During Orange Revolution UNA-UNSO members supported Viktor Yushchenko
against his pro-Russian opponents. UNA-UNSO members provided security
for the supporters of Viktor Yushchenko, and prominent leaders of the
Orange camp such as Yulia Tymoshenko on Independence Square in
Kiev[11].
Ideology and image
The party has maintained a close relationship with the National
Democratic Party of Germany which is considered to be a promoter of a
neo-Nazi ideology by some. UNA-UNSO has been widely considered to have
employed neo-Fascist and neo-Nazi methods and ideologies[4][14][15].
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90-%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%A1%D0%9E
Leader: Yuri Shukhevych
Here is their web site:
//////////////////////////
Here are a few articles about KUN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists
At the parliamentary elections on 30 March 2002, the party was part of
the Viktor Yushchenko Bloc Our Ukraine[1]. Currently, the party's
leader is Oleksiy Ivchenko, who was the head of Naftogas of Ukraine
under the Yekhanurov government. He was elected as the party leader on
the seventh convention of the party on April 13, 2003. At the
parliamentary elections on 26 March 2006, the party was part of the
Our Ukraine alliance[1].
Goals
• Strengthening of Ukrainian national values among the masses of
Ukrainian society
• Strengthening political, social and cultural rights of the Ukrainian
Nation
• Bringing to power highly educated professionals - Patriots
• Overcoming the consequences of the colonial past: cosmopolitanism
(derogatory epithet for Jews coined by Stalin during his anti-Semitic
campaign of 1949 – 1953), mass-russification, complex of less-worth
culture, and others
• Insuring politically free comprehensive development and full self-
expression of creative and spiritual forces of the Ukrainian Nation,
and its establishment in the circle of freedom-loving nations of the
world as the fully valued subject of history
In their fight against "cosmopolitanism", many KUN leaders espouse
anti-Semitic views. In 2005 the official organ of KUN, newspaper "The
Nation and Power" published an article which said: The titular nation
in Ukraine [ethnic Ukrainians] will disappear in 2006 [after the
elections] ... After the 2006 election, Ukrainians will dance around
the Jews. [3]. In his speech at the the opening of the Holodomor
Memorial in November 2007, the Head of the Congress of Ukrainian
Nationalists [KUN] in the Zaporozhye region B. Tymchina declared: Our
time has come, and the Dnieper will soon be red with the blood of
Kikes [Jews] and Moskals [Russians]. [4] The Kommersant newspaper on
26.01.2010 quoted the head of the Kyiv city organization of KUN Yuri
Shepetyuk saying: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The Jews
themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
Kommersant notes: However, he [Yuri Shepetyuk] did not specify what
provocations were staged in Ukraine by representatives of the Jewish
community. [5]
http://jn.com.ua/Antisemitism/ukrantisem_104.html
Jewish News
Anti-Semitism in Ukraine: Facts and Figures
Sites of Ukrainian Nationalist organizations KUN, UNA, UNSO regularly
published materials of xenophobic and anti-Semitic content.
http://newspaper.unitedcommunityvoice.com/index.php?newsid=168
In the past two weeks, the problems of anti-Semitism and glorification
of the Nazi accomplices took center stage in Israel's relations with
some CIS countries and Baltic states. November 6th Congress of
Ukrainian Nationalists declared all those who accuse the heroes of the
national liberation movement, in collaboration with the Nazis' anti-
Ukrainian force "(among them are the head of the memorial center of
Yad Vashem Avner Shalev and the late Israeli Justice Minister Yossi
Lapid). November 13 parliamentary deputies, Alexander Feldman said
that "Israel must respond to manifestations of heroes of the Nazis and
support communities in the Diaspora in such activities."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The site of Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists is this:
Unfortunately, it may be too late to read their web site to get their
view on non-Ukrainian ethnicities. For example, last year, I saw
hundreds of articles of open anti-semitic nature there, full of
antisemitic slurs. Today, my search for anti-semitic words (like
“zhid’) there came up almost empty. Should we again blame Yanukovych's
government for making the Ukrainian nationalists restrict their
freedom of hate speech?
http://vsekommentarii.com/news/2010/12/07/2979998.htm
December 7th, 2010
Ukrainian sites will be checked for anti-Semitism and violence
//////////////////////
Those damn Jews and that damn Yanukovych!
> > > The reality is that they were loosely together for about 150 years
> > > 1,000 years ago (the last ruler of a unified Kieven Rus was Mstslav,
> > > Monomakh's son, who died in 1132), then spent 500 hundred years apart
>
> > How about Austria and Germany? When exactly was the last time (prior
> > to the Anschluss in 1938) that they were part of one united country?
>
> Until 1806.
More than 200 years ago, right?
>You never heard of the Holy Roman Empire?
What gave you this idiotic idea?
Or do you think that whenever I ask you a question, I don’t know the
answer to it?
If so – aren’t you mistaken?
> Moreover they
> were all part of the German Confederation until Bismarck's time.
You consider the German Confederation to be a “united country”?
Wasn’t that a super-governmental organization, along the lines of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that both Russia and Ukraine
are currently the biggest members of?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation
The German Confederation or Germanic Confederation (German: Deutscher
Bund) was the association of Central European states created by the
Congress of Vienna in 1815 to serve as the successor to the Holy Roman
Empire of the German Nation, which had been abolished in 1806.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (Russian: Содружество
Независимых Государств, СНГ, tr. Sodruzhestvo Nezavisimykh Gosudarstv,
SNG) is a regional organization whose participating countries are
former Soviet Republics, formed during the breakup of the Soviet
Union.
/////////////////////
If we use your logic, Russia and Ukraine are still part of the same
country.
> I
> think your anti-Ukrainian hatred is really having a deletrious effect
> on your brain.
Same looking back at you, kid.
> > And yet, I hope you will not deny that until 1945, they considered
> > themselves part of the same nation.
>
> Which would be logical, them speaking the same language and being part
> of the same state for over 1000 years.
>
> > > - the critical 500 years when they developed into nations
>
> > I am happy to see that you have now convinced yourself that Ukraine
> > was a separate nation and not under Polish rule.
>
> Your logic is slipping again, Ostap.
LOL
> > > - followed
> > > by gradual absorbtion into Russia. The links between Denmark, Norway
> > > and Sweden are more substantial than those beteeen Ukraine and Russia.
>
> > Let's see... Ukraine and Russia have been part of the same nation in
> > the last 300 years.
>
> Nope. Just half it.
Actually, the exact number is 324 or so.
> The other 40% was for 200 years,
Didn’t it, along with much of Poland, become a protectorate of Russia
in 1768? But OK, let’s say 200 years.
> and the other 10% for 50 years.
So, to take the weighted average, Ukraine (except for West Ukraine,
which is a whole different ball of wax, to me) and Russia have been
part of the same nation in the last 270-275 years or so? Even if we do
count West Ukraine, on average, Ukraine and Russia have been part of
the same nation in the last 250 years or so (if my mental math is
correct).
> And this is all out of 1000 years of history.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is year 2010, isn’t it?
Further correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t 2010 – 1000 = 1010?
And even further correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you yourself
tell me that the Kievan Rus remained as a united entity until 1132
(see below)?
Is 1132 – 1010 < 0? Reallty?
> > How many years in the last 300 years have Sweden
> > and Denmark been part of the same nation? In fact, please remind me
> > when and how they were part of the same nation. Have they ever been
> > part of the same united nation, say, in the last millenium?
>
> Denmark and Norway were together from 1536-1816.
I didn’t ask that, did I?
> Sweden and Norway
> were united from 1814-1905.
Aha. For a total of 90 years, as opposed to 235.
> Sweden and Denmark were united from 1397 to 1523.
So, for 0 years in the last 300 years, and only for 13 years even in
the last 500?
And for a total of 136 years since when? Since the Creation of the
Universe?
How does that compare with the total number of years that most of
Ukraine has been in the same nation as Russia, counting Kievan Rus?
> There was some combination of 2 of these three countries
> being united to each other for 500 years, until the 20th century. I
> never claimed that Denmark and Sweden were specficially united in
> recent times.
>
> For someone who apparently never heard of the Holy Roman Empire
Why do you say that?
While I did spend some of my time learning something that you didn’t –
arithmetic – I did spend enough time learning history to know about
the Holy Roman Empire and that it has been dead for more than 200
years. That’s why I asked you about it.
> you
> shouldn't try to pick apart such details.
Yes, judging from our respective grasp of pre-kindergarten math, I am
no match for your gigantic intellect. :-)
> > > I already posted some of this stuff this before, but I suppose in your
> > > hysteria you've forgotten it:
> > > c. 880 - Rus lands loosely unified.
> > > 1132, "the last ruler of united Rus," as wikipedia puts it dies.
> > > Different principalities, often at war with each other, emerge.
So what? Different principalities also emerged in Germany. Yet, you
consider them part of the same nation. Certainly the same ethnicity.
Do you REALLY think that in 1132 the Eastern Slavs in what is modern
Ukraine ceased to be of the same ethnicity as the Eastern Slavs in
what is modern Russia?
Just because in the olden times there was no concept of modern state
and various principalities in the same ethnic group were “at war with
each other”, doesn’t mean they weren’t part of the exactly same
ethnicity/people.
> > > c. 1240 Mongols take over.
> > > c. 1340 Poles and Lithuanians take over what will become Ukraine,
> > > Mongols stay in what will become Russia for another 150 years.
> > > c. 1650 Kiev and central parts of Ukraine join Russia. However they
> > > also rebel, split of for a decade here or there (under Doroshenko the
> > > lands were under the Ottoman Empire). Russian rule becomes real only
> > > afteer 1709. This is true only of Kiev city and lands east of the
> > > Dnipro River. Everything west of the Dnipro - half of modern Kiev
> > > oblast, Cherkassy, Vynytsia, Zhytomir, remain Polish for another 200
> > > YEARS
> > > c.1770 - areas west of the Dnipro, other than Galicia, Bukovina and
> > > Transcarpathia become Russian.
> > > c. 1940 - the latter areas join the USSR.
> > > 1990 - Ukraine and Russia separate.
>
> > > So, let's summarize by region:
>
> > > Kiev and parts of Ukraine to the East of it: together 430 years
> > > (880-1130 + 1700-1990), apart about 550 years.
What is so special about 1700? I am obviously no match for you in
terms of my general knowledge and you even think that I have never
heard of the Holy Roman Empire. :-) And, sarcasm apart, you Do know
Ukrainian history 10000 times better than I do I (I am serious on this
point). So, I had to read up on the history of Ukraine. And I
discovered the exact year when eastern half of Ukraine officially
became part of the Russian Empire: in 1667?
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/История_Украины
Русские войска поддержали восставших казаков, что привело к русско-
польской войне (1654—1667 годов). Война завершилась Андрусовским
перемирием(1667 года), по условиям которого территории, лежащие
восточнее Днепра (Левобережная Украина) отошли к России, а лежащие
западнее (Правобережная Украина) — остались за Речью Посполитой.
Russian troops backed revolt of the Cossacks, which led to the Russian-
Polish War (1654-1667 period). The war ended with an armistice of
Andrusovo (1667), under which the territory lying east of the Dnieper
(Left-bank Ukraine) were ceded to Russia, and lying west (right-bank
Ukraine) - left for Rzeczpospolita.
> > > Kiev and parts of Ukraine to the East of it: together 430 years
> > > (880-1130 + 1700-1990), apart about 550 years.
> > > The "Right bank" (central Ukraine west of the Dnipro river) together
> > > with Russia for 360 years,
Really? From what date to what date? Didn’t you yourself talk about
the 250 years of Kievan Rus (“880-1130”) and about 200+ years in the
Russian Empire? 250 + 200 = 360? Or are you telling me that no land
west of the Dnieper river was part of Kievan Rus? How does this square
with the following map of Kievan Rus circa 1000 AD:
http://trenc.com.ua/Neyrosoc/Article.asp?code=20090422120741048336
This map clearly shows that Kievan Rus was comprised almost in equal
part of what are now Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, and a huge chunk of
it was west of Dnieper.
> apart 620 years.
I give up on trying to understand your math.
> > > Galicia, Bukovyna and Transcarpathia: togethr for 150 years (c.
> > > 980-1130, 1940-1990 - only 50 years in the last 1000),
Really? Year 1130AD was NOT in the last 1000 years? Really?
Oh god, I should give up discussing arithmetic with you.
> apart for 900
> > > years.
>
> > > Galicia and the half of Ukraine west of the Dnipro River spent more
> > > time together as part of Poland or Lithuania (1340-1770) then they
> > > spent apart as parrt of Austria and Russia/USSR.
>
> > > Not a single part of Ukraine, historically, spent more time together
> > > with Russia than apart from Russia.
>
> > > In fact, not counting events from 1,000 years ago, villages just to
> > > the west or south of Kiev spent less time together with Russia than
> > > did Latvia or Estonia.
>
> > Which villages?
>
> Everything west of Kiev. Here was the border. Everything in yellow was
> Polish until the1780s:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rzeczpospolita.png
So, that’s that 210 years as opposed to 240 years or so for Estonia?
Big difference! And add to that several centuries of Kievan Rus and
the fact that Ukrainians (of Slavic origins) and Russians belong to
the same tribe - Eastern Slavs – which means they have been the same
nation/tribe for about 9600 of the last 10000 years.
Yes, I am aware that in the 8th and 9th centuries, until the Rus
warriors from what is now Novgorod, Northern Russia conquered Kiev in
882, the little village of Kiev was part of my own ancestors’ (at
least that’s how one theory goes) Khazar Empire, and that many
villagers were at that time Khazar not Slavic. But:
1. That’s only 2 centuries
2. Many other Ukrainian cities were never part of Kahzaria but instead
were always part of the Eastern Slavic lands.
3. When Kiev was returned to Slavic rule, this village was settled by
people from Novgorod and other Slavic parts of modern Russia, Belarus
and Ukraine and became a large capital city, pretty much the same way
that Brasilia was built to be the capital of Brazil, or the way small
Siberian settlements became large Russian cities after Yermak
conquests.
In other words, after 882, Kiev experienced an overwhelming Rus
(Eastern Slav) migration from Novgorod and various lesser Rus cities
in what are now modern Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, thus it became of
EXACTLY the same ethnicity that populated Novogorod, Vladimir, Suzdal,
Pskov and other cities in what is now Russia.
So, you can say of post-882 Kiev that it has been composed of the same
ethnicity as people in what is now Russia (although many centuries
later Jews, Poles and various other non-Eastern Slav people settled
there as minorities).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Slavs
The East Slavs are Slavic peoples speaking East Slavic languages.
Formerly the main population of the medieval state of Kievan Rus, by
the seventeenth century they evolved into the Russian, Ukrainian, and
Belarusian[1] peoples.
Relatively little is known about the Eastern Slavs prior to
approximately 859 AD, the date from which the account in the Primary
Chronicle starts. The reasons are the apparent absence of a written
language (Cyrillic script, created about 863 was specifically for
Slavic adoption) and the remoteness of East Slavic lands.
By 600 AD, the Slavs had split linguistically into southern, western,
and eastern branches.
////////////////////////
In other words, from the Creation of the Universe to 600 AD, all Slavs
had been the same tpeople, at which time the Rus people (Eastern
Slavs) became a separate people. And the differentiation of them into
the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian peoples evolved only in the
17th century. And 100 years later, Kiev and 50% of modern Ukraine once
again reunited with the Russians. And 100 years after that, the other
40% did so.
So, one can argue that since the Creation of the Universe, 90% of
Ukrainians had been part of the same people/tribe/ethnicity as
Russians, except for about 100 to 200 years.
> > And if not with Russia, then with whom? Were these
> > villages independent republics? Or were they Turkish? Or under Polish
> > rule? Or maybe they belonged to the separate Globe of Ukraine?
>
> Polish rule, of course. As I said, Galicia and those villages west of
> Kiev spent more time together with Poland/Lithuania than separate.
>
> > > Russians like to forget this stuff.
>
> > > > As far as "Homo Sovieticus" goes, indeed the eastern half of Ukraine
> > > > is more "Homo Sovieticus" and the western (ex-Austrian) eighth of
> > > > Ukraine is more ""Homo Fascistus". Take your pick which is worse.
>
> > > In all the last elections the fascists have gotten no more than 5% of
> > > the vote in Galicia.
Do you mean Tyagnibok? The reason he didn’t get much more votes in
West Ukraine, is because everybody knew that due to the hatred of
fascist and Nazi ideas in the rest of Ukraine, he had no chance of
getting anywhere close to being elected President. Thus, a vote for
him was a wasted vote. Thus, most of his supporters voted for people
like Yuschenko and even Tymoshenko (although the false rumors that she
was of partial Jewish origin greatly diminished the vote for her in
the antisemitic West Ukraine). I shudder to think what percentage this
Nazi would have gotten if he had had a chance of winning.
> > What percentage did they get in Eastern Ukraine?
>
> Eastern Ukrainian were far more likely to vote for the COmmunists and
> the neo-soviet Party of egions than Galicians were, to vote for
> fascists.
How is that different from what I had written originally:
> > > > As far as "Homo Sovieticus" goes, indeed the eastern half of Ukraine
> > > > is more "Homo Sovieticus" and the western (ex-Austrian) eighth of
> > > > Ukraine is more ""Homo Fascistus". Take your pick which is worse.
??
> > > This may change now, thanks to Yanukovich.
>
> > So, you finally admit that hate for Yanukovich and the fascist/neo-
> > nazi ideology are highly positively correlated?
>
> Discimination leads to radicalization amongt otherwise decent people
> in Galicia, sure.
Which discrimination are you talking about? The discrimination against
(West) Ukrainians in the USSR? But USSR has been dead for the last 20
years, and there had been no discrimination against Ukrainians in it
anyway ever since Stalin died in 1953 and Khruschev came to power.
In any case, no discrimination justifies a group of people adopting
Nazi ideology.
I have heard this idea from you before. When you said that because
Yanukovych opposes Bandera, this horrible fascist war criminal is
gaining popularity in Kiev. Or when you told me that if Jews do indeed
vociferously support anti-OUN sentiment, they provoke anti-semitism.
Or when KUN says: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The Jews
themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
And why does “discrimination” justify anti-semitism? When was the last
time the Jews as a group discriminated against West Ukrainians?
> On the other hand support for Sovok exists in
> eastern Ukraine independently of discimination. It's a reflection of
> what the people are, over there.
No. A lot of nostalgia for Sovok times in Eastern Ukraine is due to
the fact that in Soviet times, their language – Russian – was not
discriminated against, like it has been in modern Ukraine (at least
prior to Yanukovych’s coming to power).
In any case, there is a big difference between Communists and Nazis.
If I meet an American Communist at the next cocktail party in here in
California, I will not be upset at all and will be even willing to
talk to him nicely. If I meet an American Nazi at that party, I will
be horrified.
> Hope you've learned something today.
Yes, I have learnt that you are a superior intellect to mine,
especially in arithmetic. This sheds an entirely new light on your
recent “loving” question:
> > > > > Your
> > > > > latest posts in the last couple of months are riddled with stupidity
> > > > > and mistakes. Are you busy, and thus sloppy? Is so, that's
> > > > > understandable and excusable. If not, are you okay? If not for your
> > > > > intact grammar and spelling I'd be afraid that you suffered froma
> > > > > stroke.
Well, at least I can still do basic arithmetic in my mind and can
count to 1000. :-)
But seriously, I did learn something today. First of all, your
questions made me do further reading on Yuschenko’s various Nazi
allies. I also received a confirmation that Ukrainians and Russians
have been together much more than Swedes and Danes.
PS: oops, it did take me much longer to reply than I expected....
The Black Monk
He lived in an industrial part of the Russian Empire immediately on
the Ukrainians side of the current border. An industrial town that,
like all industrial towns in Ukraine, was mostly populated by migrants
from Russia or their descendents.
How difficult is that for you to understand?
> > > > > in reality they are historically Ukraine.
>
> > > > Which is why just handing them over to the Sovoks occupying them is
> > > > not a palatable option.
>
> > > Your idea that Ukrainian citizens, living in Eastern Ukraine, are
> > > "occupyers" is fascist
>
> > Point out which aspect of fascist ideology this can be categorized
> > under:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
I'm still waiting for your response..
> > > and your hate for the majority of Ukrainians who voted for Yanukovych, is Ukrainophobic.
>
> > Except the majority of Ukrainians didn't vote for him - he got 49% of
> > the vote.
>
> OK, sorry for my trying to write short sentences. I meant to say: ‘the
> majority of Ukrainians who voted for a candidate in the second stage
> run-off between Yanukovich and Timoshenko, voted for Yanukovych.”
He got less than half the votes.
> Did you REALLY not understand that? Do I REALLY have to waste my time
> explaining to you the simplest thoughts in excruciatingly minute
> details?
You really hate the truth, don't you. It's a real pain for you, isn't
it.
Yanukovich won the presidential election with less than half the
votes. Given the demographics and the closeness of the election, he
lost the ethnic Ukrainian vote. So less than half of Ukraine's
citizens (of any ethnicity) voted for him and the majority of Ukraine'
ethnic Ukrainians voted for Tymoshenko.
Moeover his asurpation of power in the parliament was done totally
nondemocratically.
> > Moreover, even if they did, hating his presidency and
> > considering his voters to be idiots is no more anti-Ukrainian than
> > thinking the same of Bush and his supports makes one anti-American.
>
> And yet, my outrage with and hate for the WWII slaughter of 100 000
> innocent Polish civilians and tens of thousands of innocent Jewish
> civilians committed by a tiny fraction of the Ukrainian population
> called OUN, makes me in your eyes “anti-Ukrainian”.
Nice demogoguic twisting of my words.
I have consitently objected not to the condemnation of the OUN whom I
also condemn but to you using those crimes as a part of your anti-
Ukrainian campaign.
> Do you want me to search for your quotes to that effect?
Go for it. It will be interesting to see how you twist it.
> > > > > The
> > > > > real difference here is that the Latvian culture, language, history,
> > > > > religion etc are quite different for Russia's, Ukrainians and Russians
> > > > > have belonged to the same nation/people for the entire course of human
> > > > > history, with a brief forced separation between the 13th and 17th
> > > > > centuries.
>
> > > > That's what Sovoks and Russian say, although they take different roads
> > > > to get to this myth.
>
> > > And Ukrainian nationalists like yourself and Ukrainian Nazis disagree
> > > with this, although you take different roads to get to your myth.
>
> > Do Ukrainian Nazis disagree with this? Any links, please, to what
> > Ukrainian Nazis think about this?
>
> Links to what? To materials that show that Ukrainian Nazis hate both
> Russians and Jews, that they are against links between Ukraine and
> Russia, and that they hate Russia and its policies? You mean, this is
> news to you?
Well, the UNA/UNSO AFAIK subscribe to your myth about togetherness of
Russians and Ukrainians. They just want the capital to be returned to
Kiev.
> Well, the Nazi sites themselves are in Ukrainian, which makes it very
> hard for me to search for specific keywords, but there are many sites
> that belong to various popular Western Ukraine-based neo-Nazi parties,
> two of which have been part of Yuschenko’s block “Our Ukraine”: Social-
> Nationalist Party and KUN. (OK, Social-Nationalist Party is truly
> Nazi, while KUN may not be Nazi but has been simply an anti-Semitic,
> anti-Russian, anti-Polish, anti-non-Ukrainians party.
>
> Here is the first Nazi ally of Yuschenko’s that comes to mind:
>
> http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%...
>
> All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" - Ukrainian nationalist political party.
> Professes an ideology of Social-Nationalism. The party was in favor of
> protecting the rights of Ukrainians, as an indigenous nation and "the
> presence in Ukraine exclusively Ukrainian culture, the state
> development of Ukrainian language and full Ukrainisation, the return
> of the column " nationality "in the passport, lustration,
> rehabilitation of OUN-UPA [3].
So those policies above are "Nazi" policies? Where is the stuff about
concentration camps and total war against the East?
Or are you demogoguically making another comparison to Nazis.
> In spring 2008, Oleg Tyagnybok announced his candidacy for the mayoral
> election in Kiev. He received 1.37% of the vote. (Eighth place among
> 70 candidates). The early elections in Kyiv City Council, "Freedom"
> was 2.08% of the vote. (10th place), improving his score in comparison
> with the parliamentary elections in 2007 to 0.83%. (Then in Kiev party
> got 1,25% of votes). Party surpassed even Yushchenko's party Our
> Ukraine - People's Self-Defense, which received 2.01%.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ukrainian_Union_%22Svoboda%22
>
> All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" (Ukrainian: Всеукраїнське об'єднання
> "Свобода") is a nationalist right-wing political party in Ukraine led
> by Oleh Tyahnybok. Svoboda's ideology is centered around the concept
> of "natiocracy", which centers around the right of each nation to have
> complete control over its own ethnic territory. During recent local
> elections in Eastern Galicia the party won significantly and became a
> main forces in local government.
So what is Nazi about it? It's seems to be an integral nationalist
party like others in modern Eastern Europe. You like to throw the word
Nazi around too easily, demogogue.
> http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%9E%D0%BA%D1%...
Did you know tht UNA-UNSO's founder and longtime leader Dmytro
Korchynsky has restyled himself as a sort of Black Hundeds Orthodox
nationalist and was supporting Yanukovuch?
> State Independence of Ukraine (DSU) has about 3,000 members in 17
> cities. It publishes the newspaper Nezborima Natsia (The Invincible
> Nation). In 1993 a faction, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists
> (OUN), broke away. OUN publishes Neskorena Natsia (The Unconquered
> Nation). Both newspapers print anti-Semitic material reminiscent of
> the Nazis on a massive scale.
Any specifics? If it is printed on a massive scale" perhaps you can
supply at least a couple of examples of such antisemtism?
Looks like much ado about nothing: all these radical parties got less
than 1% of the vote. Compare to Zhirinovsky's support in Russia.
> During Orange Revolution UNA-UNSO members supported Viktor Yushchenko
> against his pro-Russian opponents. UNA-UNSO members provided security
> for the supporters of Viktor Yushchenko, and prominent leaders of the
> Orange camp such as Yulia Tymoshenko on Independence Square in
> Kiev[11].
> Ideology and image
> The party has maintained a close relationship with the National
> Democratic Party of Germany which is considered to be a promoter of a
> neo-Nazi ideology by some.
Yes, "by some."
> UNA-UNSO has been widely considered to have
> employed neo-Fascist and neo-Nazi methods and ideologies[4][14][15].http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90-%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%A1%D0%9E
Full quote of this controversial statement?
> [4] The Kommersant newspaper on
> 26.01.2010 quoted the head of the Kyiv city organization of KUN Yuri
> Shepetyuk saying: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The Jews
> themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
> persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
> Kommersant notes: However, he [Yuri Shepetyuk] did not specify what
> provocations were staged in Ukraine by representatives of the Jewish
> community. [5]http://jn.com.ua/Antisemitism/ukrantisem_104.html
Well, your posts seem to be such provocations, no?
> Jewish News
>
> Anti-Semitism in Ukraine: Facts and Figures
>
> Sites of Ukrainian Nationalist organizations KUN, UNA, UNSO regularly
> published materials of xenophobic and anti-Semitic content.
>
> http://newspaper.unitedcommunityvoice.com/index.php?newsid=168
>
> In the past two weeks, the problems of anti-Semitism and glorification
> of the Nazi accomplices took center stage in Israel's relations with
> some CIS countries and Baltic states. November 6th Congress of
> Ukrainian Nationalists declared all those who accuse the heroes of the
> national liberation movement, in collaboration with the Nazis' anti-
> Ukrainian force "(among them are the head of the memorial center of
> Yad Vashem Avner Shalev and the late Israeli Justice Minister Yossi
> Lapid). November 13 parliamentary deputies, Alexander Feldman said
> that "Israel must respond to manifestations of heroes of the Nazis and
> support communities in the Diaspora in such activities."
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> The site of Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists is this:
>
> http://www.cun.org.ua/ukr/
>
> Unfortunately, it may be too late to read their web site to get their
> view on non-Ukrainian ethnicities. For example, last year, I saw
> hundreds of articles of open anti-semitic nature there,
> full of antisemitic slurs. Today, my search for anti-semitic words (like
> “zhid’) there came up almost empty.
Zhid is not an antisemitic word but the Ukrainian word for Jew. It is
also the Polish word for Jew. Googletranslate says that zydas is the
Lithuanian word for Jew, zid is the Czech and Slovak word for Jew.
Zhid is literally translated as "Jew." By your logic, you will easily
find thousands of antisemitic articles using antisemitic slurs in the
Polish, Czech, Slovak and Lithuanian newspapers.
Russians are so virulently antisemtic that they transformed the normal
word "zhid" - "Jew" - into a slur word and now use the word
"Hebrew" (Yevrey) to refer to Jews. Thinkl about that. The very word
Jew has become an insult in the Russian language. Then the Russian
imperialists who controlled Ukraine tried to force their language into
Ukrainians by trying to force Ukrainians to give up their word and
adopt the Russian one.
So let me get this straight: by using the proper Ukrainian language an
article is using a slur, according to you, and is thus antisemitic.
It speaks to your Russian cultural imperialism that you dismiss the
Ukrainian word for Jew as an antisemtic one.
> Should we again blame Yanukovych's
> government for making the Ukrainian nationalists restrict their
> freedom of hate speech?
>
> http://vsekommentarii.com/news/2010/12/07/2979998.htm
>
> December 7th, 2010
>
> Ukrainian sites will be checked for anti-Semitism and violence
> //////////////////////
>
> Those damn Jews and that damn Yanukovych!
So they will enforce Russification of the Ukrainian language?
> > > > The reality is that they were loosely together for about 150 years
> > > > 1,000 years ago (the last ruler of a unified Kieven Rus was Mstslav,
> > > > Monomakh's son, who died in 1132), then spent 500 hundred years apart
>
> > > How about Austria and Germany? When exactly was the last time (prior
> > > to the Anschluss in 1938) that they were part of one united country?
>
> > Until 1806.
>
> More than 200 years ago, right?
And less than 150 years prior to the Anschluss. So?
> >You never heard of the Holy Roman Empire?
>
> What gave you this idiotic idea?
The idea that Germany and Austria were together for a smaller amount
of time than Ukraine and Russia was your idiocy. Remember? They were
together in one state for all their history until 1806.
> Or do you think that whenever I ask you a question, I don’t know the
> answer to it?
>
> If so – aren’t you mistaken?
>
> > Moreover they
> > were all part of the German Confederation until Bismarck's time.
>
> You consider the German Confederation to be a “united country”?
> Wasn’t that a super-governmental organization, along the lines of the
> Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that both Russia and Ukraine
> are currently the biggest members of?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation
>
> The German Confederation or Germanic Confederation (German: Deutscher
> Bund) was the association of Central European states created by the
> Congress of Vienna in 1815 to serve as the successor to the Holy Roman
> Empire of the German Nation, which had been abolished in 1806.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States
>
> The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (Russian: Содружество
> Независимых Государств, СНГ, tr. Sodruzhestvo Nezavisimykh Gosudarstv,
> SNG) is a regional organization whose participating countries are
> former Soviet Republics, formed during the breakup of the Soviet
> Union.
You forgot to read further in the article:
"The CIS is comparable to a very loose association of states and in no
way comparable to a federation, confederation or supra-national
organisation such as the old European Community."
Care to explain your lapse into stupidity, Ostap?
>
> /////////////////////
>
> If we use your logic, Russia and Ukraine are still part of the same
> country.
You failed to read more abiout the German Confederation:
The members pledged themselves to mutual defense, and jointly
maintained the fortresses at Mainz, the city of Luxembourg, Rastatt,
Ulm, and Landau.
A Federal Assembly under Austrian presidency met in Frankfurt (the
Habsburg Emperor and the King of the United Kingdom and Hanover were
represented by 'envoy').
> > I
> > think your anti-Ukrainian hatred is really having a deletrious effect
> > on your brain.
>
> Same looking back at you, kid.
The claims of someone too stupid to know about the Holy Roman Empire,
who claims that Ukraine and Russia were united longer than were
Austria and Germany.
> > > And yet, I hope you will not deny that until 1945, they considered
> > > themselves part of the same nation.
>
> > Which would be logical, them speaking the same language and being part
> > of the same state for over 1000 years.
>
> > > > - the critical 500 years when they developed into nations
>
> > > I am happy to see that you have now convinced yourself that Ukraine
> > > was a separate nation and not under Polish rule.
>
> > Your logic is slipping again, Ostap.
>
> LOL
>
> > > > - followed
> > > > by gradual absorbtion into Russia. The links between Denmark, Norway
> > > > and Sweden are more substantial than those beteeen Ukraine and Russia.
>
> > > Let's see... Ukraine and Russia have been part of the same nation in
> > > the last 300 years.
>
> > Nope. Just half it.
>
> Actually, the exact number is 324 or so.
I was obviously referring to geography.
Care to explian the reason for your lapse into stupidity?
> > The other 40% was for 200 years,
>
> Didn’t it, along with much of Poland, become a protectorate of Russia
> in 1768? But OK, let’s say 200 years.
>
> > and the other 10% for 50 years.
>
> So, to take the weighted average, Ukraine (except for West Ukraine,
> which is a whole different ball of wax, to me) and Russia have been
> part of the same nation in the last 270-275 years or so? Even if we do
> count West Ukraine, on average, Ukraine and Russia have been part of
> the same nation in the last 250 years or so (if my mental math is
> correct).
Why average? Why not reality? About 300 years for half the country,
200 years for 40% of the country and 50 years for 10% of the country.
> > And this is all out of 1000 years of history.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but this is year 2010, isn’t it?
>
> Further correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t 2010 – 1000 = 1010?
>
> And even further correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you yourself
> tell me that the Kievan Rus remained as a united entity until 1132
> (see below)?
>
> Is 1132 – 1010 < 0? Reallty?
>
> > > How many years in the last 300 years have Sweden
> > > and Denmark been part of the same nation? In fact, please remind me
> > > when and how they were part of the same nation. Have they ever been
> > > part of the same united nation, say, in the last millenium?
>
> > Denmark and Norway were together from 1536-1816.
>
> I didn’t ask that, did I?
You responded to my statement that "The links between Denmark, Norway
and Sweden are more substantial than those between Ukraine and
Russia." I was obviously speaking of the three Scandanavian countries
collectively. To quote you: "Did you REALLY not understand that? Do I
REALLY have to waste my time explaining to you the simplest thoughts
in excruciatingly minute details?"
> > Sweden and Norway
> > were united from 1814-1905.
>
> Aha. For a total of 90 years, as opposed to 235.
>
> > Sweden and Denmark were united from 1397 to 1523.
>
> So, for 0 years in the last 300 years, and only for 13 years even in
> the last 500?
>
> And for a total of 136 years since when? Since the Creation of the
> Universe?
Why did you "forget" to post the numbers of Norway and Denmark? I
wrote:
"Denmark and Norway were together from 1536-1816."
Is it because you are a demogogue?
It's kind of hard to get away with your lies by omission when it's al
on google.
> How does that compare with the total number of years that most of
> Ukraine has been in the same nation as Russia, counting Kievan Rus?
>
> > There was some combination of 2 of these three countries
> > being united to each other for 500 years, until the 20th century. I
> > never claimed that Denmark and Sweden were specficially united in
> > recent times.
>
> > For someone who apparently never heard of the Holy Roman Empire
>
> Why do you say that?
Well, you implied that Ukraine and Russia were united longer than were
Austria and Germany.
> While I did spend some of my time learning something that you didn’t –
> arithmetic – I did spend enough time learning history to know about
> the Holy Roman Empire and that it has been dead for more than 200
> years. That’s why I asked you about it.
>
> > you
> > shouldn't try to pick apart such details.
>
> Yes, judging from our respective grasp of pre-kindergarten math, I am
> no match for your gigantic intellect. :-)
Well, you seem to think that 800 (time Austria and Germany spent
together) < 300 (time eastern Ukraine and Russia spent together) or
200 (time central Ukraine and Russia spent together).
Similarly, you seem to think that 500 (time that collectively some
combination of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway spent together) < 300 or
200.
Is that how you learned math?
> > > > I already posted some of this stuff this before, but I suppose in your
> > > > hysteria you've forgotten it:
> > > > c. 880 - Rus lands loosely unified.
> > > > 1132, "the last ruler of united Rus," as wikipedia puts it dies.
> > > > Different principalities, often at war with each other, emerge.
>
> So what? Different principalities also emerged in Germany. Yet, you
> consider them part of the same nation. Certainly the same ethnicity.
> Do you REALLY think that in 1132 the Eastern Slavs in what is modern
> Ukraine ceased to be of the same ethnicity as the Eastern Slavs in
> what is modern Russia?
No, just as in 400 (or something similar) AD the Germans who settled
the British Isles did not cease being the of the same ethnicity of
those on the mainland.
> Just because in the olden times there was no concept of modern state
> and various principalities in the same ethnic group were “at war with
> each other”, doesn’t mean they weren’t part of the exactly same
> ethnicity/people.
Sure. And?
That was the agreement between Russia and Poland. The situation
wasn't consolidated until after the battle of Poltava (1709). I
rounded down to 1700.
> > > > Kiev and parts of Ukraine to the East of it: together 430 years
> > > > (880-1130 + 1700-1990), apart about 550 years.
> > > > The "Right bank" (central Ukraine west of the Dnipro river) together
> > > > with Russia for 360 years,
>
> Really? From what date to what date? Didn’t you yourself talk about
> the 250 years of Kievan Rus (“880-1130”) and about 200+ years in the
> Russian Empire? 250 + 200 = 360? Or are you telling me that no land
> west of the Dnieper river was part of Kievan Rus? How does this square
> with the following map of Kievan Rus circa 1000 AD:
>
> http://trenc.com.ua/Neyrosoc/Article.asp?code=20090422120741048336
>
> This map clearly shows that Kievan Rus was comprised almost in equal
> part of what are now Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, and a huge chunk of
> it was west of Dnieper.
>
> > apart 620 years.
>
> I give up on trying to understand your math.
I take repsonsibility for my lack of clarity here: it was my fault. I
was speaking of the last 1000 years. Eastern Ukraine (together with
Russia in the last 1000 years from 1000-1130 +1700-1990) etc.
> > > > Galicia, Bukovyna and Transcarpathia: togethr for 150 years (c.
> > > > 980-1130, 1940-1990 - only 50 years in the last 1000),
>
> Really? Year 1130AD was NOT in the last 1000 years? Really?
Okay, only 50 years since the year 1130 - or almost the last 900
years. Sorry for the minor exaggeration.
Any evidence of mass migration of settlers from Novgorod to Kiev in
the 9th century? Other than Scandanavian traders?
(btw, I did the familytree DNA test - most of my links are in northern
Russia, Finland and Norway)
> In other words, after 882, Kiev experienced an overwhelming Rus
> (Eastern Slav) migration from Novgorod and various lesser Rus cities
> in what are now modern Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, thus it became of
> EXACTLY the same ethnicity that populated Novogorod, Vladimir, Suzdal,
> Pskov and other cities in what is now Russia.
No, because genetically Ukraine Kiev is different from northern Russia
generally. OTOH is is very close to Poland and southern Russia.
> So, you can say of post-882 Kiev that it has been composed of the same
> ethnicity as people in what is now Russia (although many centuries
> later Jews, Poles and various other non-Eastern Slav people settled
> there as minorities).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Slavs
>
> The East Slavs are Slavic peoples speaking East Slavic languages.
> Formerly the main population of the medieval state of Kievan Rus, by
> the seventeenth century they evolved into the Russian, Ukrainian, and
> Belarusian[1] peoples.
>
> Relatively little is known about the Eastern Slavs prior to
> approximately 859 AD, the date from which the account in the Primary
> Chronicle starts. The reasons are the apparent absence of a written
> language (Cyrillic script, created about 863 was specifically for
> Slavic adoption) and the remoteness of East Slavic lands.
>
> By 600 AD, the Slavs had split linguistically into southern, western,
> and eastern branches.
>
> ////////////////////////
>
> In other words, from the Creation of the Universe to 600 AD, all Slavs
> had been the same tpeople, at which time the Rus people (Eastern
> Slavs) became a separate people. And the differentiation of them into
> the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian peoples evolved only in the
> 17th century.
Have you read that? "by the seventeenth century they evolved into the
Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian[1] peoples"
It says "by" not "in." Do you know the difference between the words
"by" and "in?"
> And 100 years later, Kiev and 50% of modern Ukraine once
> again reunited with the Russians. And 100 years after that, the other
> 40% did so.
>
> So, one can argue that since the Creation of the Universe, 90% of
> Ukrainians had been part of the same people/tribe/ethnicity as
> Russians, except for about 100 to 200 years.
And depending on far back you want to go, Poles are also close, then
Indo-Europeans, and then homo sapiens, then hominids etc. Indeed for
99% of the history of the life on Earth Russians and chimps belonged
to the same family.
> > > And if not with Russia, then with whom? Were these
> > > villages independent republics? Or were they Turkish? Or under Polish
> > > rule? Or maybe they belonged to the separate Globe of Ukraine?
>
> > Polish rule, of course. As I said, Galicia and those villages west of
> > Kiev spent more time together with Poland/Lithuania than separate.
>
> > > > Russians like to forget this stuff.
>
> > > > > As far as "Homo Sovieticus" goes, indeed the eastern half of Ukraine
> > > > > is more "Homo Sovieticus" and the western (ex-Austrian) eighth of
> > > > > Ukraine is more ""Homo Fascistus". Take your pick which is worse.
>
> > > > In all the last elections the fascists have gotten no more than 5% of
> > > > the vote in Galicia.
>
> Do you mean Tyagnibok? The reason he didn’t get much more votes in
> West Ukraine, is because everybody knew that due to the hatred of
> fascist and Nazi ideas in the rest of Ukraine, he had no chance of
> getting anywhere close to being elected President.
They didn't do well in the parliamnentary elections, either.
> Thus, a vote for
> him was a wasted vote. Thus, most of his supporters voted for people
> like Yuschenko and even Tymoshenko (although the false rumors that she
> was of partial Jewish origin greatly diminished the vote for her in
> the antisemitic West Ukraine). I shudder to think what percentage this
> Nazi would have gotten if he had had a chance of winning.
You sure like to throw around the word Nazi, don't you.
> > > What percentage did they get in Eastern Ukraine?
>
> > Eastern Ukrainian were far more likely to vote for the COmmunists and
> > the neo-soviet Party of egions than Galicians were, to vote for
> > fascists.
>
> How is that different from what I had written originally:
>
> > > > > As far as "Homo Sovieticus" goes, indeed the eastern half of Ukraine
> > > > > is more "Homo Sovieticus" and the western (ex-Austrian) eighth of
> > > > > Ukraine is more ""Homo Fascistus". Take your pick which is worse.
>
> ??
Well, there is a difference betwen 90% support for Sovoks and (in the
last local elections) in Eastern Ukraine and 40% support for neo-
fascists in western Ukraine (sorry, not sure about exact figures and
don't feel like looking them up).
> > > > This may change now, thanks to Yanukovich.
>
> > > So, you finally admit that hate for Yanukovich and the fascist/neo-
> > > nazi ideology are highly positively correlated?
>
> > Discimination leads to radicalization amongt otherwise decent people
> > in Galicia, sure.
>
> Which discrimination are you talking about? The discrimination against
> (West) Ukrainians in the USSR? But USSR has been dead for the last 20
> years, and there had been no discrimination against Ukrainians in it
> anyway ever since Stalin died in 1953 and Khruschev came to power.
Thanks for your Soviet interpretation of history.
> In any case, no discrimination justifies a group of people adopting
> Nazi ideology.
I never claimed it was Nazi ideology. I claimed it was fascist or neo-
fascist.
> I have heard this idea from you before. When you said that because
> Yanukovych opposes Bandera, this horrible fascist war criminal is
> gaining popularity in Kiev. Or when you told me that if Jews do indeed
> vociferously support anti-OUN sentiment, they provoke anti-semitism.
No, when they support anti-Ukrainian policies such as no longer
recognizing the genocide of Ukrainians, de-Ukrainianizing schools etc.
Stop twisting what I wrote, demogogue.
> Or when KUN says: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The Jews
> themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
> persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
>
> And why does “discrimination” justify anti-semitism? When was the last
> time the Jews as a group discriminated against West Ukrainians?
As a group - never. But individuals such as you openly take on anti-
Ukrainian causes.
>
> > On the other hand support for Sovok exists in
> > eastern Ukraine independently of discimination. It's a reflection of
> > what the people are, over there.
>
> No. A lot of nostalgia for Sovok times in Eastern Ukraine is due to
> the fact that in Soviet times, their language – Russian – was not
> discriminated against, like it has been in modern Ukraine (at least
> prior to Yanukovych’s coming to power).
They consistently voted for Sovok parties and still do. Yanukovich is
in power and nothing changes for them.
>
> In any case, there is a big difference between Communists and Nazis.
Except western Ukrainian nationalists are not Nazis.
This is your demogogue's trick.
> If I meet an American Communist at the next cocktail party in here in
> California, I will not be upset at all and will be even willing to
> talk to him nicely. If I meet an American Nazi at that party, I will
> be horrified.
As you should be.
> > Hope you've learned something today.
>
> Yes, I have learnt that you are a superior intellect to mine,
> especially in arithmetic. This sheds an entirely new light on your
> recent “loving” question:
>
> > > > > > Your
> > > > > > latest posts in the last couple of months are riddled with stupidity
> > > > > > and mistakes. Are you busy, and thus sloppy? Is so, that's
> > > > > > understandable and excusable. If not, are you okay? If not for your
> > > > > > intact grammar and spelling I'd be afraid that you suffered froma
> > > > > > stroke.
>
> Well, at least I can still do basic arithmetic in my mind and can
> count to 1000. :-)
Except, as we have seen, you can't get your mind around the idea that
800 or 500 are greater than 300 or 200. Don't worry, interact with me
enough and we will work together on rehabilitating your IQ.
> But seriously, I did learn something today. First of all, your
> questions made me do further reading on Yuschenko’s various Nazi
> allies. I also received a confirmation that Ukrainians and Russians
> have been together much more than Swedes and Danes.
But not Scandanavians collectively.
BM
Tadas Blinda
Zhid is not an antisemitic word but the Ukrainian word for Jew. It is
also the Polish word for Jew. Googletranslate says that žydas is the
Lithuanian word for Jew, zid is the Czech and Slovak word for Jew.
Zhid is literally translated as "Jew." By your logic, you will easily
find thousands of antisemitic articles using antisemitic slurs in the
Polish, Czech, Slovak and Lithuanian newspapers.
Russians are so virulently antisemtic that they transformed the normal
word "zhid" - "Jew" - into a slur word and now use the word
"Hebrew" (Yevrey) to refer to Jews. Thinkl about that. The very word
Jew has become an insult in the Russian language.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's a fact. The etymolgy is Jud(aeus). English "Jew" comes from
that too. Only in Russia did the normal word for Jew (zhid) become a
swearword so much so that it had to be replaced by the euphemism
"ivei". Rather like with "Gypsy" being replaced by Roma in English.
This reminds me of the Americans with their African slaves. I don't
know what they called them in the 18th century, but at about that time
they imported 'negro' (the Spanish word for 'black') as a euphemism.
In no time at all the euphemism itself became a swearword and had to
be replaced again, this time by 'black'. What annoys me is that
because of this purely internal U.S. problem, Lithuanian journalists
have jumped on the trendy bandwagon and dropped the perfectly harmless
word 'negras' and have started referring to them as 'juodaodžiai',
which in my opinion is a condescending word because it means literally
'black-skinned' (juoda = black, oda = skin), reminiscent in structure
of 'slant-eyed'.
John or other Nordics, what's the usage in Scandinavia? I remember
learning way back that Australian Aboriginals were called
"australneger". Is that still the case?
The Black Monk
Thanks for the info.
In Brooklyn-Russian the Russians have gone from calling blacks
"negry" (blacks) to shakhtyory (miners/coalminers) so that blacks
don't get thte wrong idea.
regards,
BM
Ostap Bender
> I'll go ahead and reply to this despite earlier demanding that you
> reply to one of my other posts. Doing so brings up some interesting
> information I ound from a legal scholar, and it serves to yet again
> demonstrate your ignorance/dishonesty and demogoguery, which is fun to
> do sometimes.
You are a very little, petty man, BM. And I mean it in full sincerity.
> On Dec 18, 11:47 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 7:08 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 9:45 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > Would Assange's role be more " closely linked" than Bergman's? How
> > much pressure did Assange, to your knowledge, apply on his source? How
> > close, to your knowledge, was the relationship between Assange and his
> > source? How many meetings, to your knowledge, did Assange initiate
> > with him?
>
> Obviously, as you may be aware, there is a difference between
> revealing confidential information about a government and doing so
> about a private company. Do espionage laws cover revealing corporate
> secrets?
Since we are talking about England and/or Australia, I am not familiar
with their laws.
Are you saying that it is, for example, a crime for The Times of
London to publish confidential memos of some foreign government, like
the Russian or Chinese Foreign Ministry or the US State Department?
> There is a difference between revealing the locations of
> facilites around the world that the US is afraid could be a target for
> terrorsts (as Assange did),
I am not familiar with that. Could you please give me the precise text
of what Wikileaks says?
> and revealing corporate misbehavior. Vello
> was essentuially correct when he compared Assange'as actions to that
> of publishing leaked D-day invasion plans during World War II (and
> that is assuming that he was not more closely linked to the leaker,
One can also liken Assange to Bin Laden. Many do. .
> say by offering the leaker technical support for his crime). The
> comparison of Assange to Lowell Bergman is therefore false. But it
> fits well into your pattern of bad-faith argumentation.
LOL
> > > He can be grought up on charges of conspiracy. More like Ellsberg than like the
> > > NY Times.
>
> > How's that? Are you saying that Assange had been given a secret
> > clearance from the US government and used it to steal secrets? or that
> > somebody else stole these secrets, and Assange published them, just as
> > NYT published the Pentagon papers?
>
> You do realize that Assange is not a journalist?
Why not? Is it that he forgot to pay his latest dues to the journalist
labour union?
Let me restore my definition from your beloved Wikipedia that you
conveniently deleted:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
>
>>> Julian Paul Assange is an Australian journalist,[4][5][6] publisher,[7]
>>> [8] and Internet activist. He is the spokesperson and editor in chief
>>> for WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website and conduit for news leaks.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////
Which part of “Australian journalist,[4][5][6]” do you not understand?
> In this case, the NY
> Times now as then is the NY Times, Assange is likely (but a trial is
> IMO necessary to confirm/disconfirm this) an Ellsberg.
Why not worse than Ellsberg? Maybe Rosenbergs? Or Bin Laden?
> Moreover the same justices who stated that the NY Times was allowed to
> publish the info also satetd that the government was allowed to
> prosecute the Times for doing so after the fact, if it wanted to do so
> (it did not in that case). In other words, the first amendment
> prevents the censorship of information (it can be published) but does
> not shield someone from prosecution (even though the infromation
> cannot be prevented from publication the person pubslihsin it can be
> sent to jail). This implies that Assange, even if he is a journalist,
> is free to be a martyr.
>
> > > The best way to sort this out is through a trial.
>
> > Yes, there is going to be a trial of Assange's source.
>
> And, hopefully, of Assange.
Where? In England? In Sweden?
Look, BM, as I have told you before, 99% of my concern here is why it
is illegal for Australians to publish secrets of USA, China or
Russia. Unfortunately, you deleted all my questions on this topic and
thus didn’t answer them. Because this is the VERY CRUX of my views on
Assange, before reading the rest of your wonderful post, I would like
to get your answer to these questions. Once we resolve this issue,
this will clarify and ease the rest of our discussion. So, let me re-
post the relevant parts of my earlier post:
////////////////////////////
From: Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 8:20 pm
Subject: Freedom of speech = Terrorism?
To: soc.culture.baltics
Let me instead try to go to the heart of our argument.
Imagine the following situation:
Some Chinese government clerk, call him X, writes to Assange that he
is thinking about giving him 100 000 confidential memos from the
Chinese Foreign Ministry. Assange treats him the way he treated
Manning. Finally, X passes these memos to Assange, and he publishes
them on Wikileaks.
1. Would you call Assange “bad” for doing this?
2. Would you say that this act of Assange's positively correlates with
rape?
3. If the Chinese government asked England to extradite him to China
on the charges of espionage, would you want England to oblige them?
Would your answers change if I told you that X also happens to be a
dissident?
Would your answers change if I replaced “Assange” with “Bergman”,
“England” with “USA”, and “Wikileaks” with “60 minutes”?
Please answer honestly.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks
> > > > Besides, if it is theft for someone to steal your wallet and give
> > its
>
> > > > > contents to someone else it doesn't become okay if the guy
> > > > > distributing its contents to others isn't the actual thief.
>
> > > > So, how criminal, in your mind, were NY Times, Washington Post and 17
> > > > other major US newspapers in publishing Pentagon Papers?
>
> > > I've said many times, not at all. But Assange may not be the NY Times
> > > here - he may be the Ellsberg. And Ellsberg was put on trial.
>
> > Why isn't Assange like NYT? And why is he like Ellsberg?
>
> Wikileaks offered technical support to Manning, and it actively
> encouraged leaking of information. It did not just passively accept
> his information.
>
> Actually, come to think of it, Assange is not even like Ellsberg, he
> is worse.
Exactly. Go for the touchdown: Bin Laden.
Ostap Bender
> I'll go ahead and reply to this despite earlier demanding that you
> reply to one of my other posts. Doing so brings up some interesting
> information I ound from a legal scholar, and it serves to yet again
> demonstrate your ignorance/dishonesty and demogoguery, which is fun to
> do sometimes.
>
> On Dec 18, 11:47 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 7:08 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 9:45 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > Would Assange's role be more " closely linked" than Bergman's? How
> > much pressure did Assange, to your knowledge, apply on his source? How
> > close, to your knowledge, was the relationship between Assange and his
> > source? How many meetings, to your knowledge, did Assange initiate
> > with him?
>
> Obviously, as you may be aware, there is a difference between
> revealing confidential information about a government and doing so
> about a private company. Do espionage laws cover revealing corporate
> secrets?
Since we are talking about England and/or Australia, I am not familiar
with their laws.
Are you saying that it is, for example, a crime for The Times of
London to publish confidential memos of some foreign government, like
the Russian or Chinese Foreign Ministry or the US State Department?
> There is a difference between revealing the locations of
> facilites around the world that the US is afraid could be a target for
> terrorsts (as Assange did),
I am not familiar with that. Could you please give me the precise text
of what Wikileaks says?
> and revealing corporate misbehavior. Vello
> was essentuially correct when he compared Assange'as actions to that
> of publishing leaked D-day invasion plans during World War II (and
> that is assuming that he was not more closely linked to the leaker,
One can also liken Assange to Bin Laden. Many do. .
> say by offering the leaker technical support for his crime). The
> comparison of Assange to Lowell Bergman is therefore false. But it
> fits well into your pattern of bad-faith argumentation.
LOL
> > > He can be grought up on charges of conspiracy. More like Ellsberg than like the
> > > NY Times.
>
> > How's that? Are you saying that Assange had been given a secret
> > clearance from the US government and used it to steal secrets? or that
> > somebody else stole these secrets, and Assange published them, just as
> > NYT published the Pentagon papers?
>
> You do realize that Assange is not a journalist?
Why not? Is it that he forgot to pay his latest dues to the journalist
labour union?
Let me restore my definition from your beloved Wikipedia that you
conveniently deleted:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
>
>>> Julian Paul Assange is an Australian journalist,[4][5][6] publisher,[7]
>>> [8] and Internet activist. He is the spokesperson and editor in chief
>>> for WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website and conduit for news leaks.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////
Which part of “Australian journalist,[4][5][6]” do you not understand?
> In this case, the NY
> Times now as then is the NY Times, Assange is likely (but a trial is
> IMO necessary to confirm/disconfirm this) an Ellsberg.
Why not worse than Ellsberg? Maybe Rosenbergs? Or Bin Laden?
> Moreover the same justices who stated that the NY Times was allowed to
> publish the info also satetd that the government was allowed to
> prosecute the Times for doing so after the fact, if it wanted to do so
> (it did not in that case). In other words, the first amendment
> prevents the censorship of information (it can be published) but does
> not shield someone from prosecution (even though the infromation
> cannot be prevented from publication the person pubslihsin it can be
> sent to jail). This implies that Assange, even if he is a journalist,
> is free to be a martyr.
>
> > > The best way to sort this out is through a trial.
>
> > Yes, there is going to be a trial of Assange's source.
>
> And, hopefully, of Assange.
Where? In England? In Sweden?
////////////////////////////
Imagine the following situation:
Please answer honestly.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks
> > > > Besides, if it is theft for someone to steal your wallet and give
> > its
>
> > > > > contents to someone else it doesn't become okay if the guy
> > > > > distributing its contents to others isn't the actual thief.
>
> > > > So, how criminal, in your mind, were NY Times, Washington Post and 17
> > > > other major US newspapers in publishing Pentagon Papers?
>
> > > I've said many times, not at all. But Assange may not be the NY Times
> > > here - he may be the Ellsberg. And Ellsberg was put on trial.
>
> > Why isn't Assange like NYT? And why is he like Ellsberg?
>
> Wikileaks offered technical support to Manning, and it actively
> encouraged leaking of information. It did not just passively accept
> his information.
>
> Actually, come to think of it, Assange is not even like Ellsberg, he
> is worse.
Exactly. Go for the touchdown: Bin Laden.
> Ellsberg revealed fro the most part US government lies and
The Black Monk
Did I mention Bin Laden? Or are you being a demogogue as usual.
No I didn't, liar. I answered them here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/7e9aa43ffd81d804?hl=en&
But it's a nice excuse for you to ignore the rest of my post.
BM
Valtsu
Still some years ago the word "neekeri" didn't have any negative
feelings attached to it, but gradually the word has become politically
not correct. The present term is "musta" (black), which resembles the
word "mustalainen" used of the romani people. "Mustalainen" as well is
not correct any more, so they are romaani´s in Finnish.
When I was in school in the 60-ies neger was proper Swedish, but some
ten years later when my niece was studying swedish from the same reader
as I had studied, the story of "neger" boys plaing with a ball had vanished.
valtsu
Ostap Bender
> On Dec 23, 6:51 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>
> > > Do Ukrainian Nazis disagree with this? Any links, please, to what
> > > Ukrainian Nazis think about this?
>
> Russians and Ukrainians. They just want the capital to be returned to
> Kiev.
Well, since their site is primarily in Ukrainian, it is very difficult
for me to read up on their plans regarding re-unification with Russia.
However, given that they are pretty much the only significant anti-
Semitic group that has never been part of Yuschenko’s Our Ukraine
block and that none of the UNA/UNSO leaders has been declared a Hero
of Ukraine by Yuschenko, you might be right.
On the other hand, I have always thought that UNA/UNSO fully shares
your burning hatred for “Ukrainophobes” and Russophiles. For example,
how did they react to the appointment of your biggest enemy –
Tabachnik?
So please give me the links where the UNA/UNSO leaders/officials talk
about a reunification with Russia with the capital in Kiev.
http://cripo.com.ua/?sect_id=10&aid=45477
Как известно, в Запорожье был установлен памятник жертвам Голодомора
1932-1933, который охраняется согласно законам Украины. Однако без
эксцесса не обошлось. В частности, глава Конгресса украинских
националистов в Запорожской области Василий Тымчина сделал следующее
заявление (дословно): «Пришло наше время, и Днепр станет красным от
крови жидов и москалей». При этом он потребовал выкорчевать перед
памятником жертвам Голодомора все березы и елки, мотивировав тем, что
это «москальские деревья»
> > [4] The Kommersant newspaper on
> > 26.01.2010 quoted the head of the Kyiv city organization of KUN Yuri
> > Shepetyuk saying: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The Jews
> > themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
> > persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
> > Kommersant notes: However, he [Yuri Shepetyuk] did not specify what
> > provocations were staged in Ukraine by representatives of the Jewish
> > community. [5]http://jn.com.ua/Antisemitism/ukrantisem_104.html
>
> Well, your posts seem to be such provocations, no?
Really? So you agree that: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The
Jews themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
So, what "provocations" have I organized and what funding do I get
from “abroad”?
> > The site of Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists is this:
>
> >http://www.cun.org.ua/ukr/
>
> > Unfortunately, it may be too late to read their web site to get their
> > view on non-Ukrainian ethnicities. For example, last year, I saw
> > hundreds of articles of open anti-semitic nature there,
> > full of antisemitic slurs. Today, my search for anti-semitic words (like
> > “zhid’) there came up almost empty.
>
> Zhid is not an antisemitic word but the Ukrainian word for Jew.
Zhid became a criminally offensive word in Soviet Ukraine in the 1930s
and in West Ukraine in the 1950s.
Regardless, last year I wanted to verify that KUN web site is indeed
full of antisemitism. So to find antisemitic articles, I searched the
http://www.cun.org.ua/ukr/ site for the keyword "zhid". It worked
great: I got dozens and dozens of articles, all of which were
virulently antisemitic. Last night, I repeated the same experiment and
got only one article containing the word "zhid". So, they must have
cleaned up recently.
> >http://vsekommentarii.com/news/2010/12/07/2979998.htm
>
> > December 7th, 2010
>
> > Ukrainian sites will be checked for anti-Semitism and violence
> > //////////////////////
>
> > Those damn Jews and that damn Yanukovych!
>
> So they will enforce Russification of the Ukrainian language?
How does the phrase "Ukrainian sites will be checked for anti-Semitism
and violence" turn into "enforce Russification of the Ukrainian
language"?
> > > > > The reality is that they were loosely together for about 150 years
> > > > > 1,000 years ago (the last ruler of a unified Kieven Rus was Mstslav,
> > > > > Monomakh's son, who died in 1132), then spent 500 hundred years apart
>
> > > > How about Austria and Germany? When exactly was the last time (prior
> > > > to the Anschluss in 1938) that they were part of one united country?
>
> > > Until 1806.
>
> > More than 200 years ago, right?
>
> And less than 150 years prior to the Anschluss. So?
So? After the the Anschluss, Germany and Austria lasted together for a
total of 7 years, and then were forced to separate again.
> > >You never heard of the Holy Roman Empire?
>
> > What gave you this idiotic idea?
>
> The idea that Germany and Austria were together for a smaller amount
> of time than Ukraine and Russia was your idiocy.
Where did I say that?
However, it remains my belief that (at least in the last 1100 years)
the heart of Germany – Prussia/Brandenburg – and Austria were together
part of the same country for a smaller amount of time than Ukraine and
Russia. To be even more precise, Berlin and Vienna were together part
of the same country for a smaller amount of time than, say, Kiev and
Vladimir or Novogorod or Suzdal.
> Remember? They were
> together in one state for all their history until 1806.
“All the history?” Really? All of Germany? How long exactly were
Prussia/Brandenburg and Austria part of the same state?
> > > > > Kiev and parts of Ukraine to the East of it: together 430 years
> > > > > (880-1130 + 1700-1990), apart about 550 years. >
> > What is so special about 1700? I am obviously no match for you in
> > terms of my general knowledge and you even think that I have never
> > heard of the Holy Roman Empire. :-) And, sarcasm apart, you Do know
> > Ukrainian history 10000 times better than I do I (I am serious on this
> > point). So, I had to read up on the history of Ukraine. And I
> > discovered the exact year when eastern half of Ukraine officially
> > became part of the Russian Empire: in 1667?
>
> >http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/История_Украины
>
> > Russian troops backed revolt of the Cossacks, which led to the Russian-
> > Polish War (1654-1667 period). The war ended with an armistice of
> > Andrusovo (1667), under which the territory lying east of the Dnieper
> > (Left-bank Ukraine) were ceded to Russia, and lying west (right-bank
> > Ukraine) - left for Rzeczpospolita.
>
> That was the agreement between Russia and Poland.
Exactly. In 1667, Russia and Poland officially agreed that Poland gave
Russia part of its territory. As of that time, this territory became
part of the Russian Empire. Officially. In 1667.
What else should they have waited for? The official approval form the
UN? The recognition of this transaction by the United States and its
NATO partners?
Moreover, the Ukrainian Cossacks voluntarily (!) assumed Russian
citizenship even further back: in 1653:
In 1653 Khmelnytsky appealed to Russia to take the Zaporozhye
Cossacks in its composition. In autumn 1653 the Zemsky Sobor, held in
Moscow, decided to award Russian citizenship to the Zaporizhia
Cossacks, and on October 23 (November 2), in 1653 the Russian
government declared war against the Polish Commonwealth.
////////////////////////////////
So, the Cossacks have been Russian citizens since 1653, and their land
has officially been part of the Russian Empire since 1667. What else
do you want?
> The situation
> wasn't consolidated until after the battle of Poltava (1709). I
> rounded down to 1700.
Do you mean that from 1667 to 1709, the Russian Tsars/Emperors weren’t
the rulers of the Russian citizens in this part of their Empire?
> > > > Let's see... Ukraine and Russia have been part of the same nation in
> > > > the last 300 years.
>
> > > Nope. Just half it.
>
> > Actually, the exact number is 324 or so.
>
> I was obviously referring to geography.
>
> Care to explian the reason for your lapse into stupidity?
Gladly. As soon as you explain to me what the mysterious phrase “I was
obviously referring to geography” means. Are you saying that
“geographically” speaking, the Left Bank of Ukraine didn’t become part
of the Russian Empire in 1667?
> > > The other 40% was for 200 years,
>
> > Didn’t it, along with much of Poland, become a protectorate of Russia
> > in 1768? But OK, let’s say 200 years.
>
> > > and the other 10% for 50 years.
>
> > So, to take the weighted average, Ukraine (except for West Ukraine,
> > which is a whole different ball of wax, to me) and Russia have been
> > part of the same nation in the last 270-275 years or so? Even if we do
> > count West Ukraine, on average, Ukraine and Russia have been part of
> > the same nation in the last 250 years or so (if my mental math is
> > correct).
>
> Why average? Why not reality?
Because “average” is a concrete mathematical formula, while “reality”
means that you demagogue the number to be anything you want.
> About 300 years for half the country,
> 200 years for 40% of the country and 50 years for 10% of the country.
>
> > > And this is all out of 1000 years of history.
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but this is year 2010, isn’t it?
>
> > Further correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t 2010 – 1000 = 1010?
>
> > And even further correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you
yourself
> > tell me that the Kievan Rus remained as a united entity until 1132
> > (see below)?
>
> > Is 1132 – 1010 < 0? Really?
Care to explain?
> > > > How many years in the last 300 years have Sweden
> > > > and Denmark been part of the same nation? In fact, please remind me
> > > > when and how they were part of the same nation. Have they ever been
> > > > part of the same united nation, say, in the last millenium?
>
> > > Denmark and Norway were together from 1536-1816.
>
> > I didn’t ask that, did I?
>
> You responded to my statement that "The links between Denmark, Norway
> and Sweden are more substantial than those between Ukraine and
> Russia." I was obviously speaking of the three Scandanavian countries
> collectively. To quote you: "Did you REALLY not understand that? Do I
> REALLY have to waste my time explaining to you the simplest thoughts
> in excruciatingly minute details?"
>
> > > Sweden and Norway
> > > were united from 1814-1905.
>
> > Aha. For a total of 90 years, as opposed to 235.
>
> > > Sweden and Denmark were united from 1397 to 1523.
>
> > So, for 0 years in the last 300 years, and only for 13 years even in
> > the last 500?
>
> > And for a total of 136 years since when? Since the Creation of the
> > Universe?
>
> Why did you "forget" to post the numbers of Norway and Denmark? I
> wrote:
>
> "Denmark and Norway were together from 1536-1816."
You totally baffle me once again. What do you mean when you claim that
I "forgot"? What exactly did I “forget” to do?
> Is it because you are a demogogue?
Let’s put it this way: this is as “demogogical” as I ever get.
Now please explain what I “demogogically” forgot.
> It's kind of hard to get away with your lies by omission when it's all
> on google.
WHAT is on Google? It always baffles when you accuse me of “lies”. For
example, what “lie” are you referring to this time?
> > How does that compare with the total number of years that most of
> > Ukraine has been in the same nation as Russia, counting Kievan Rus?
>
> > > There was some combination of 2 of these three countries
> > > being united to each other for 500 years, until the 20th century. I
> > > never claimed that Denmark and Sweden were specficially united in
> > > recent times.
>
> > > For someone who apparently never heard of the Holy Roman Empire
>
> > Why do you say that?
>
> Well, you implied that Ukraine and Russia were united longer than were
> Austria and Germany.
Actually, I still think that Ukraine and Russia were united longer
than were Austria and Prussia/Brandenburg.
> > While I did spend some of my time learning something that you didn’t –
> > arithmetic – I did spend enough time learning history to know about
> > the Holy Roman Empire and that it has been dead for more than 200
> > years. That’s why I asked you about it.
>
> > > you
> > > shouldn't try to pick apart such details.
>
> > Yes, judging from our respective grasp of pre-kindergarten math, I am
> > no match for your gigantic intellect. :-)
>
> Well, you seem to think that 800 (time Austria and Germany spent
> together)
Sorry for not being more concrete about Prussia before, but did
Prussia and Austria REALLY spend 800 years together?
> Well, you seem to think that 800 (time Austria and Germany spent
> together) < 300 (time eastern Ukraine and Russia spent together) or
> 200 (time central Ukraine and Russia spent together).
What I think and what it seems to you that I think are totally
different things. You have no idea what I think. And what I say is not
everything that I think. So, stick to what I actually say, and not
what you think that I think.
I am very familiar with the “you too!” tactics employed by some
children before the age of six, but could you please point out any of
the arithmetic mistakes that I actually made, rather than telling me
what seems to you that I think….
> Similarly, you seem to think that 500 (time that collectively some
> combination of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway spent together) < 300 or
> 200.
>
> Is that how you learned math?
As a mater of fact, yes. That’s EXACTLY how most intelligent people
learn math.
Look, the reason why I didn’t choose to become as professor is because
I am bad at explaining mathematics to people of low logical and
mathematical abilities. I get frustrated too easily. I can explain
math only to people capable of logical thinking.
Thus, I cannot explain to why your attempts at trying to prove that,
for example, Sweden and Denmark have lived together a lot by refusing
to consider Sweden and Denmark alone and instead insisting that we
view “some combination of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway” together.
So, instead of trying to explain logic to you, let me give you an
example that may shed some light for you:
If we take 3 modern Slavic countries – Poland, Russia and Ukraine –
then collectively some combination of Poland, Russia and Ukraine spent
together pretty much the entire history of Humankind.
And yet, Poland and Russia are not even close, and have spent together
relatively little time, and it would be insane to suggest that the
three of them (with Ukraine) should belong in the same commonwealth,
although the arguments that Poland and Ukraine should belong in the
same commonwealth and that Russia and Ukraine should belong in the
same commonwealth, are quite common. And some very intelligent and
honest people share exactly one of these two views.
But not Poland and Russia. Same for Denmark and Sweden.
Does this example help?
> Don't worry, interact with me
> enough and we will work together on rehabilitating your IQ.
Sometimes you say the funniest things without even realizing.
> > But seriously, I did learn something today. First of all, your
> > questions made me do further reading on Yuschenko’s various Nazi
> > allies. I also received a confirmation that Ukrainians and Russians
> > have been together much more than Swedes and Danes.
>
> But not Scandanavians collectively.
And not Europeans collectively. Collectively, “some combination” of
Europeans spent together pretty much the entire history of Humankind.
So, have ALL Europeans spent together pretty much the entire history
of Humankind?
You don’t understand the difference between “some” and “all”.
Nor do you understand that if set A intersects set B and set B
intersects set C, it does NOT imply that set A intersects set C.
Similarly, if set A has a large intersection with set B and set B has
a large intersection with set C, it does NOT imply that set A has a
large intersection with set C.
There is no transitivity in such cases. Trust me on this one.
Look, BM, you have always shown total inability to understand logic.
Because of your verbal and history prowess, I assumed that you were
pretending and engaging in demagoguery. So, I argued, trying to expose
your demagoguery. But I have finally reached the point where I came to
realize that you have been sincere and that you actually have no
ability to think straight.
Some more comments:
> > > apart 620 years.
>
> > I give up on trying to understand your math.
>
> I take repsonsibility for my lack of clarity here: it was my fault. I
> was speaking of the last 1000 years. Eastern Ukraine (together with
> Russia in the last 1000 years from 1000-1130 +1700-1990) etc.
>
> > > > > Galicia, Bukovyna and Transcarpathia: togethr for 150 years (c.
> > > > > 980-1130, 1940-1990 - only 50 years in the last 1000),
>
> > Really? Year 1130AD was NOT in the last 1000 years? Really?
>
> Okay, only 50 years since the year 1130 - or almost the last 900
> years. Sorry for the minor exaggeration.
A “minor exaggeration”? My god, you are hilarious.
I suspect that your problem is that you confuse “21st century” with
“2100s”, which makes you 100 years off.
> Don't worry, interact with me
> enough and we will work together on rehabilitating your IQ.
Bull’s eye! The thought of my IQ moving in the direction of your IQ as
the result of our conversations, is a very scary prospect indeed.
Look, you “mildly exaggerate” and misunderstand virtually EVERYTHING.
However, until now, we weren’t dealing with concrete math, so you
refused to admit to being either a liar or a total moron. Now that we
have gotten to concrete math and arithmetic, it is becoming harder for
you to justify all the idiocies that you perpetrate on me.
> > I have heard this idea from you before. When you said that because
> > Yanukovych opposes Bandera, this horrible fascist war criminal is
> > gaining popularity in Kiev. Or when you told me that if Jews do indeed
> > vociferously support anti-OUN sentiment, they provoke anti-semitism.
>
> No, when they support anti-Ukrainian policies such as no longer
> recognizing the genocide of Ukrainians, de-Ukrainianizing schools etc.
>
> Stop twisting what I wrote, demogogue.
>
> > Or when KUN says: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The Jews
> > themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
> > persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
>
> > And why does “discrimination” justify anti-semitism? When was the last
> > time the Jews as a group discriminated against West Ukrainians?
>
> As a group - never. But individuals such as you openly take on anti-
> Ukrainian causes.
I assure you that I am 100 times less anti-Ukrainian than you are anti-
semitic. BTW, what you wrote was:
////////////////////////
On Apr 15, 3:14 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:14 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://izrus.co.il/diasporaIL/article/2010-03-28/9146.html
>
> > The government of Yanukovych is being attacked for "Tabachnik-the-
> > Kike(Zhyd)"
>
> > 28.03.2010 18:30 Shimon Briman
>
> > The new Minister of Education of Ukraine Dmitriy Tabachnik is the
> > object of widespread anti-Semitic campaign.
>
> > In the new Yanukovych government, the post of Minister of Education
> > and Science was given to the longtime associate of President Viktor
> > Yanukovych in the Party of Regions, former Deputy Prime Minister
> > Dmitry Tabachnik. Immediately, a campaign of hounding against him
> > began, initiated in the Western regions of the country. Nationalists
> > accuse Tabachnik of "ukrainophobia", "russification" and "insulting
> > the Ukrainian nation." The campaign has acquired a clear anti-Semitic.
>
> > On March 17, in the center of Lviv about 2,000 (two thousand) students
> > afrom the National University and five other universities came to the
> > rally against the Minister of Education. The initiators of the
> > demonstration chanted: "Tabachnik out!" and "Tabachnik-the-Kike should
> > not be allowed to sit in the Ministry!". Member of the Lviv Regional
> > Council Ostap Fedoryshyn, at an extraordinary session convened
> > specifically for the condemnation of the new education minister,
> > demanded deportation of Tabachnik: "Let Tabachnik wander like the lost
> > soul of the eternal Jew." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbgpSguyn6k)
>
> > The paradox of the situation lies in the fact that Dmitry Tabachnik is
> > not a Jew. A Jew in his family was only his grandfather Iser
> > Tabachnik. Tabachnik's mother is from the Russian nobleman family of
> > Glebov. Dmitry Tabachnik was baptized.
>
> > President of the All-Ukrainian Jewish Congress (WJC), Vadim
> > Rabinovich, said that attempts to turn up "Jewish, Hungarian, or
> > Chinese roots come from feelings of inferiority." Rabinovitch says
> > that the new Minister," is one of the most experienced and serious
> > people who will improve the currently ruined Ukrainian education.
> > Rabinovich stressed that Dmitry Tabachnik is "a greater Ukrainian
> > patriot than those who wear Ukrainian folk shirts and drink a glass of
> > samohon moonshine in the morning."
>
> >http://www.galinfo.com.ua/news/65075.htmlhttp://www.una-unso.info/art...
>
> > Lviv students took to the streets in protest against the appointment
> > of Dmitry Tabachnik Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine. The
> > action took place today, March 17, in the central streets, and the
> > rally ended at the walls of the Lviv regional council.
>
> > Shouting slogans against Tabachnik, about two thousand men and women
> > walked from the city center column of the main building of Lviv
> > National University to the Lviv Regional Council. It was at this time
> > that began an extraordinary session of the Regional Council on the
> > agenda of which was the only issue - an appeal to the Cabinet of
> > Ministers of Ukraine and Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for dismissal of
> > Dmitriy Tabachnik from the post of Minister of Education and Science
> > of Ukraine.
>
> > "Tabachnik out!", "Education is rotting from the head", "Tabachnik-the-
> > Kike should not be allowed to sit in the Ministry!" - the rally
> > shouted.
>
> By defending the repulsive Ukrainophobe Tabachnik, the Jewish
> community is seriously discrediting itself in Ukraine and feeding
> antisemitism by building on its reputation as an anti-Ukrainian "fifth
> column" in Ukraine.
/////////////////////////////
If your phrase “… the Jewish community is seriously discrediting
itself in Ukraine and feeding antisemitism by building on its
reputation as an anti-Ukrainian "fifth column" in Ukraine” is not
about the Jews “as a group”, what is?
The Black Monk
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 8:13 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 6:51 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > > On Dec 21, 6:31 am, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Do Ukrainian Nazis disagree with this? Any links, please, to what
> > > > Ukrainian Nazis think about this?
>
> > Well, the UNA/UNSO AFAIK subscribe to your myth about togetherness of
> > Russians and Ukrainians. They just want the capital to be returned to
> > Kiev.
>
> Well, since their site is primarily in Ukrainian, it is very difficult
> for me to read up on their plans regarding re-unification with Russia.
> However, given that they are pretty much the only significant anti-
> Semitic group that has never been part of Yuschenko’s Our Ukraine
> block and that none of the UNA/UNSO leaders has been declared a Hero
> of Ukraine by Yuschenko, you might be right.
>
> On the other hand, I have always thought that UNA/UNSO fully shares
> your burning hatred for “Ukrainophobes” and Russophiles. For example,
> how did they react to the appointment of your biggest enemy –
> Tabachnik?
>
> So please give me the links where the UNA/UNSO leaders/officials talk
> about a reunification with Russia with the capital in Kiev.
http://www.una-unso.org/av/mainview.asp?TT_id=17&TX_id=402
Clearly the UNA-UNSO has proclaimed its goal of a national
dictatorship in a “Ukraine for the Ukrainians,” as well as the
establishment of other ethnocratic European states. From 1993,
however, UNA began to call for the establishment of a Eurasian
Ukrainian empire with borders from the Adriatic to the Pacific, with
its capital in Kiev. In May of that year, at a scientific conference
on “Ukraine’s new geo-politics” held in Lviv, Andriy Shkil’ called for
the state to adopt the Aryan myth and use it to unite “Ukrainians of
the West and Far East.”
Ukrainian imperial ambitions are not restricted to Slavic peoples or
to unifying peoples under Ukrainian domination: “Ukrainian pan-Slavism
aspires to a confederation that might not only include Slavic states,”
asserted one of UNA chairman. “The only salvation for the Ukraine is
the establishment of a new super-ethnos...with a continent of its own,
a culture of its own. It is even possible that there will be a new
civilization....”91
The same website includes an alleged quote by Zhukov: "We will drown
Khokhly in the Dnieper."
Such a credible source.
> > > [4] The Kommersant newspaper on
> > > 26.01.2010 quoted the head of the Kyiv city organization of KUN Yuri
> > > Shepetyuk saying: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The Jews
> > > themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
> > > persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
> > > Kommersant notes: However, he [Yuri Shepetyuk] did not specify what
> > > provocations were staged in Ukraine by representatives of the Jewish
> > > community. [5]http://jn.com.ua/Antisemitism/ukrantisem_104.html
>
> > Well, your posts seem to be such provocations, no?
>
> Really? So you agree that: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The
> Jews themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
> persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
Which part of that statment is directly involved in "provocations?"
> So, what "provocations" have I organized and what funding do I get
> from “abroad”?
Did I mention funding?
Or are you being a dishonest demogogue again.
> > > The site of Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists is this:
>
> > >http://www.cun.org.ua/ukr/
>
> > > Unfortunately, it may be too late to read their web site to get their
> > > view on non-Ukrainian ethnicities. For example, last year, I saw
> > > hundreds of articles of open anti-semitic nature there,
> > > full of antisemitic slurs. Today, my search for anti-semitic words (like
> > > “zhid’) there came up almost empty.
>
> > Zhid is not an antisemitic word but the Ukrainian word for Jew.
>
> Zhid became a criminally offensive word in Soviet Ukraine in the 1930s
> and in West Ukraine in the 1950s.
Criminally offesnive because enforced by the Sovok killers of
Ukrainians.
Thanks for standing up for the work of those who killed Ukrainians.
> Regardless, last year I wanted to verify that KUN web site is indeed
> full of antisemitism. So to find antisemitic articles, I searched thehttp://www.cun.org.ua/ukr/site for the keyword "zhid". It worked
> great: I got dozens and dozens of articles, all of which were
> virulently antisemitic. Last night, I repeated the same experiment and
> got only one article containing the word "zhid". So, they must have
> cleaned up recently.
> > >http://vsekommentarii.com/news/2010/12/07/2979998.htm
>
> > > December 7th, 2010
>
> > > Ukrainian sites will be checked for anti-Semitism and violence
> > > //////////////////////
>
> > > Those damn Jews and that damn Yanukovych!
>
> > So they will enforce Russification of the Ukrainian language?
>
> How does the phrase "Ukrainian sites will be checked for anti-Semitism
> and violence" turn into "enforce Russification of the Ukrainian
> language"?
Because "anti-semitism and violence: is the Ostapian codeword for the
Ukrainian word "zhyd."
> > > > > > The reality is that they were loosely together for about 150 years
> > > > > > 1,000 years ago (the last ruler of a unified Kieven Rus was Mstslav,
> > > > > > Monomakh's son, who died in 1132), then spent 500 hundred years apart
>
> > > > > How about Austria and Germany? When exactly was the last time (prior
> > > > > to the Anschluss in 1938) that they were part of one united country?
>
> > > > Until 1806.
>
> > > More than 200 years ago, right?
>
> > And less than 150 years prior to the Anschluss. So?
>
> So? After the the Anschluss, Germany and Austria lasted together for a
> total of 7 years, and then were forced to separate again.
>
> > > >You never heard of the Holy Roman Empire?
>
> > > What gave you this idiotic idea?
>
> > The idea that Germany and Austria were together for a smaller amount
> > of time than Ukraine and Russia was your idiocy.
>
> Where did I say that?
>
> However, it remains my belief that (at least in the last 1100 years)
> the heart of Germany – Prussia/Brandenburg – and Austria were together
> part of the same country for a smaller amount of time than Ukraine and
> Russia. To be even more precise, Berlin and Vienna were together part
> of the same country for a smaller amount of time than, say, Kiev and
> Vladimir or Novogorod or Suzdal.
Only if you conveniently believe that Prussia is the "heart of
Germany." I guess according to you Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, etc.
etc. were not from the heart of Germany? Prussia was on the fringe of
Germany, although its militant state unified it in the late 19th
century.
> > Remember? They were
> > together in one state for all their history until 1806.
>
> “All the history?” Really? All of Germany? How long exactly were
> Prussia/Brandenburg and Austria part of the same state?
Does this map help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HRR_14Jh.jpg
How about this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Roman_Empire_1648.svg
And this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HRR_1789_EN.png
You had no idea that Brandenburg-Prussia was part of the Holy Roman
Empire?
Or were you confusing the Duchy of Prussia with Brandeburg-Prussia.
> > > > > > Kiev and parts of Ukraine to the East of it: together 430 years
> > > > > > (880-1130 + 1700-1990), apart about 550 years. >
> > > What is so special about 1700? I am obviously no match for you in
> > > terms of my general knowledge and you even think that I have never
> > > heard of the Holy Roman Empire. :-) And, sarcasm apart, you Do know
> > > Ukrainian history 10000 times better than I do I (I am serious on this
> > > point). So, I had to read up on the history of Ukraine. And I
> > > discovered the exact year when eastern half of Ukraine officially
> > > became part of the Russian Empire: in 1667?
>
> > >http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/История_Украины
>
> > > Russian troops backed revolt of the Cossacks, which led to the Russian-
> > > Polish War (1654-1667 period). The war ended with an armistice of
> > > Andrusovo (1667), under which the territory lying east of the Dnieper
> > > (Left-bank Ukraine) were ceded to Russia, and lying west (right-bank
> > > Ukraine) - left for Rzeczpospolita.
>
> > That was the agreement between Russia and Poland.
>
> Exactly. In 1667, Russia and Poland officially agreed that Poland gave
> Russia part of its territory. As of that time, this territory became
> part of the Russian Empire. Officially. In 1667.
And, supposedly, the Germans and Japanese agreed to split the USA. So?
Eastern Ukraine wasn't subdued by Russia until 1709.
> What else should they have waited for? The official approval form the
> UN? The recognition of this transaction by the United States and its
> NATO partners?
>
> Moreover, the Ukrainian Cossacks voluntarily (!) assumed Russian
> citizenship even further back: in 1653:
>
> http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%...
>
> In 1653 Khmelnytsky appealed to Russia to take the Zaporozhye
> Cossacks in its composition. In autumn 1653 the Zemsky Sobor, held in
> Moscow, decided to award Russian citizenship to the Zaporizhia
> Cossacks, and on October 23 (November 2), in 1653 the Russian
> government declared war against the Polish Commonwealth.
>
> ////////////////////////////////
Russian wikipedia?
> So, the Cossacks have been Russian citizens since 1653, and their land
> has officially been part of the Russian Empire since 1667. What else
> do you want?
>
> > The situation
> > wasn't consolidated until after the battle of Poltava (1709). I
> > rounded down to 1700.
>
> Do you mean that from 1667 to 1709, the Russian Tsars/Emperors weren’t
> the rulers of the Russian citizens in this part of their Empire?
Not in the sense you mean.
> > > > > Let's see... Ukraine and Russia have been part of the same nation in
> > > > > the last 300 years.
>
> > > > Nope. Just half it.
>
> > > Actually, the exact number is 324 or so.
>
> > I was obviously referring to geography.
>
> > Care to explian the reason for your lapse into stupidity?
>
> Gladly. As soon as you explain to me what the mysterious phrase “I was
> obviously referring to geography” means.
Half of Ukraine. Are you that dense?
> Are you saying that
> “geographically” speaking, the Left Bank of Ukraine didn’t become part
> of the Russian Empire in 1667?
>
> > > > The other 40% was for 200 years,
>
> > > Didn’t it, along with much of Poland, become a protectorate of Russia
> > > in 1768? But OK, let’s say 200 years.
>
> > > > and the other 10% for 50 years.
>
> > > So, to take the weighted average, Ukraine (except for West Ukraine,
> > > which is a whole different ball of wax, to me) and Russia have been
> > > part of the same nation in the last 270-275 years or so? Even if we do
> > > count West Ukraine, on average, Ukraine and Russia have been part of
> > > the same nation in the last 250 years or so (if my mental math is
> > > correct).
>
> > Why average? Why not reality?
>
> Because “average” is a concrete mathematical formula, while “reality”
> means that you demagogue the number to be anything you want.
There is nothing demagoguing about differenetiating the regions by
time spent as part of Russia.
> > About 300 years for half the country,
> > 200 years for 40% of the country and 50 years for 10% of the country.
>
> > > > And this is all out of 1000 years of history.
>
> > > Correct me if I am wrong, but this is year 2010, isn’t it?
>
> > > Further correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t 2010 – 1000 = 1010?
>
> > > And even further correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you
> yourself
>
> > > tell me that the Kievan Rus remained as a united entity until 1132
> > > (see below)?
>
> > > Is 1132 – 1010 < 0? Really?
>
> Care to explain?
You have a problem with me rounding from 900 years to 1000?
Okay. You lyingly omitted that fact. Is that better?
>
> > Is it because you are a demogogue?
>
> Let’s put it this way: this is as “demogogical” as I ever get.
>
> Now please explain what I “demogogically” forgot.
>
> > It's kind of hard to get away with your lies by omission when it's all
> > on google.
>
> WHAT is on Google? It always baffles when you accuse me of “lies”. For
> example, what “lie” are you referring to this time?
>
> > > How does that compare with the total number of years that most of
> > > Ukraine has been in the same nation as Russia, counting Kievan Rus?
>
> > > > There was some combination of 2 of these three countries
> > > > being united to each other for 500 years, until the 20th century. I
> > > > never claimed that Denmark and Sweden were specficially united in
> > > > recent times.
>
> > > > For someone who apparently never heard of the Holy Roman Empire
>
> > > Why do you say that?
>
> > Well, you implied that Ukraine and Russia were united longer than were
> > Austria and Germany.
>
> Actually, I still think that Ukraine and Russia were united longer
> than were Austria and Prussia/Brandenburg.
Try not to "think" and instead focus on learning. I provided pictures
for you earleir, if reading is too much of a problem. Good luck.
> > > While I did spend some of my time learning something that you didn’t –
> > > arithmetic – I did spend enough time learning history to know about
> > > the Holy Roman Empire and that it has been dead for more than 200
> > > years. That’s why I asked you about it.
>
> > > > you
> > > > shouldn't try to pick apart such details.
>
> > > Yes, judging from our respective grasp of pre-kindergarten math, I am
> > > no match for your gigantic intellect. :-)
>
> > Well, you seem to think that 800 (time Austria and Germany spent
> > together)
>
> Sorry for not being more concrete about Prussia before, but did
> Prussia and Austria REALLY spend 800 years together?
Interesting how you go from Germany to Prussia. East Prussia was a
fringe territory. The rest of Prussia, including Berlin, was indeed
part of the Holy Roman Empire.
Because you only just learned of the Holy Roman Empire' existence, I
suppose I can't blame you for the stupidity about Brandeburg/Prussia
not being part of the Holy Roman Empire.
> > Well, you seem to think that 800 (time Austria and Germany spent
> > together) < 300 (time eastern Ukraine and Russia spent together) or
> > 200 (time central Ukraine and Russia spent together).
>
> What I think and what it seems to you that I think are totally
> different things.
Empty claim.
> You have no idea what I think.
Better than you do, apparently.
> And what I say is not everything that I think. So, stick to what I actually say, and not
> what you think that I think.
>
> I am very familiar with the “you too!” tactics employed by some
> children before the age of six,
And by grown-up Ostap Bender especially.
> but could you please point out any of
> the arithmetic mistakes that I actually made, rather than telling me
> what seems to you that I think….
See above.
> > Similarly, you seem to think that 500 (time that collectively some
> > combination of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway spent together) < 300 or
> > 200.
>
> > Is that how you learned math?
>
> As a mater of fact, yes. That’s EXACTLY how most intelligent people
> learn math.
>
> Look, the reason why I didn’t choose to become as professor is because
> I am bad at explaining mathematics to people of low logical and
> mathematical abilities.
No, it's because you don't understand that 800 is greater than 300.
> I get frustrated too easily. I can explain math only to people capable of logical thinking.
Inability to understand that 800 > 300 is probably more of a
dealbreaker than lack of teaching ability.
> Thus, I cannot explain to why your attempts at trying to prove that,
> for example, Sweden and Denmark have lived together a lot by refusing
> to consider Sweden and Denmark alone and instead insisting that we
> view “some combination of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway” together.
>
> So, instead of trying to explain logic to you, let me give you an
> example that may shed some light for you:
>
> If we take 3 modern Slavic countries – Poland, Russia and Ukraine –
> then collectively some combination of Poland, Russia and Ukraine spent
> together pretty much the entire history of Humankind.
Sure.
> And yet, Poland and Russia are not even close, and have spent together
> relatively little time, and it would be insane to suggest that the
> three of them (with Ukraine) should belong in the same commonwealth,
Exactly. That's what I've been trying to teach you. Good job, you
finally got it.
> although the arguments that Poland and Ukraine should belong in the
> same commonwealth and that Russia and Ukraine should belong in the
> same commonwealth, are quite common. And some very intelligent and
> honest people share exactly one of these two views.
>
> But not Poland and Russia. Same for Denmark and Sweden.
>
> Does this example help?
So you are saying that Ukraine joining Russia is like Norway joining
Denmark because the specific time spent together is quite similar, but
not Sweden and Denmark. So?
> > Don't worry, interact with me
> > enough and we will work together on rehabilitating your IQ.
>
> Sometimes you say the funniest things without even realizing.
>
> > > But seriously, I did learn something today. First of all, your
> > > questions made me do further reading on Yuschenko’s various Nazi
> > > allies. I also received a confirmation that Ukrainians and Russians
> > > have been together much more than Swedes and Danes.
>
> > But not Scandanavians collectively.
>
> And not Europeans collectively. Collectively, “some combination” of
> Europeans spent together pretty much the entire history of Humankind.
> So, have ALL Europeans spent together pretty much the entire history
> of Humankind?
Except we were comparing the Scandanavians collectively and not
specifically Swedes and Danes. Like your silly attempt, based on
ignorance, to deflect from your failed Austria/ Germany analogy to
Prussia/Brandenburg specifically with respect to German-Austrian
unity.
So instead of me saying Scanadanavians collectively if I had said
Nowegians and Danes, would that have changed the point of our
argument?
> You don’t understand the difference between “some” and “all”.
>
> Nor do you understand that if set A intersects set B and set B
> intersects set C, it does NOT imply that set A intersects set C.
>
> Similarly, if set A has a large intersection with set B and set B has
> a large intersection with set C, it does NOT imply that set A has a
> large intersection with set C.
>
> There is no transitivity in such cases. Trust me on this one.
In Ukraine's case, its intersection with Russia is comparable with
Norway's to Denmark's, and much smaller than Austria's to Germany. Yet
noone is seriously considering uniting those other countries based
onthose intersection, as you seem to do wth Russia/Ukraine.
>
> Look, BM, you have always shown total inability to understand logic.
> Because of your verbal and history prowess, I assumed that you were
> pretending and engaging in demagoguery. So, I argued, trying to expose
> your demagoguery. But I have finally reached the point where I came to
> realize that you have been sincere and that you actually have no
> ability to think straight.
>
> Some more comments:
>
> > > > apart 620 years.
>
> > > I give up on trying to understand your math.
>
> > I take repsonsibility for my lack of clarity here: it was my fault. I
> > was speaking of the last 1000 years. Eastern Ukraine (together with
> > Russia in the last 1000 years from 1000-1130 +1700-1990) etc.
>
> > > > > > Galicia, Bukovyna and Transcarpathia: togethr for 150 years (c.
> > > > > > 980-1130, 1940-1990 - only 50 years in the last 1000),
>
> > > Really? Year 1130AD was NOT in the last 1000 years? Really?
>
> > Okay, only 50 years since the year 1130 - or almost the last 900
> > years. Sorry for the minor exaggeration.
>
> A “minor exaggeration”? My god, you are hilarious.
Rounding from 900 to 1000 is less egregious than thinking, as you do,
that 800 is greater than 300.
> I suspect that your problem is that you confuse “21st century” with
> “2100s”, which makes you 100 years off.
No, just rounding up.
>
> > Don't worry, interact with me
> > enough and we will work together on rehabilitating your IQ.
>
> Bull’s eye! The thought of my IQ moving in the direction of your IQ as
> the result of our conversations, is a very scary prospect indeed.
Well, hopefully you've already learned that Brandenburg-Prussia was
part of the Holy Roman Empire. It's a start.
> Look, you “mildly exaggerate” and misunderstand virtually EVERYTHING.
Like the fact that Ukraine and Russia were together far less than
Austria and Germany?
> However, until now, we weren’t dealing with concrete math, so you
> refused to admit to being either a liar or a total moron. Now that we
> have gotten to concrete math and arithmetic, it is becoming harder for
> you to justify all the idiocies that you perpetrate on me.
What a lot of triumphalism based on me rounding up from 900 to 1000.
> > > I have heard this idea from you before. When you said that because
> > > Yanukovych opposes Bandera, this horrible fascist war criminal is
> > > gaining popularity in Kiev. Or when you told me that if Jews do indeed
> > > vociferously support anti-OUN sentiment, they provoke anti-semitism.
>
> > No, when they support anti-Ukrainian policies such as no longer
> > recognizing the genocide of Ukrainians, de-Ukrainianizing schools etc.
>
> > Stop twisting what I wrote, demogogue.
>
> > > Or when KUN says: "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The Jews
> > > themselves organize various provocations, and then talk about the
> > > persecution in their address, to get even more funding from abroad".
>
> > > And why does “discrimination” justify anti-semitism? When was the last
> > > time the Jews as a group discriminated against West Ukrainians?
>
> > As a group - never. But individuals such as you openly take on anti-
> > Ukrainian causes.
>
> I assure you that I am 100 times less anti-Ukrainian than you are anti-
> semitic.
Impossible given that I have zero antisemitism. Another example of
your math ability.
Where is the claim that they were as a group discriminating. Can't you
read:
> > > And why does “discrimination” justify anti-semitism? When was the last
> > > time the Jews as a group discriminated against West Ukrainians?
>
> > As a group - never. But individuals such as you openly take on anti-
> > Ukrainian causes.
BM
Markku Grönroos
>
> Still some years ago the word "neekeri" didn't have any negative
> feelings attached to it, but gradually the word has become politically
> not correct. The present term is "musta" (black), which resembles the
> word "mustalainen" used of the romani people. "Mustalainen" as well is
> not correct any more, so they are romaani´s in Finnish.
>
> When I was in school in the 60-ies neger was proper Swedish, but some
> ten years later when my niece was studying swedish from the same reader
> as I had studied, the story of "neger" boys plaing with a ball had
> vanished.
>
>
or so they started to call themselves as ebonies.
When the honkies adopted the practice they were accused of being racist
(it never goes right). Whenever you speak about
"valkolaiset" in Finland, you can be pretty sure "mustalaiset" have been
involved somehow as well (Asian folks are probably referred as
"keltuaiset").
vello
It's even more troublesome in Estonian. "Neeger" is neutral word -
like "asian" or "american". But word "black" have two meanings in
Estonian: both black and dirty. So charcoal is "must", but also;
"thist shirt is "must", I must wash it". So using black/must for an
human is offencive for sure. Journalists try to introduce
"tumedanahaline" - "dark-skinned" or "Of African heritage" instead.