Post: #26

^.....

What was this thread about?

Post: #27

(10-17-2016 07:16 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  ^.....

What was this thread about?

Julian Assange.

Some bastards are always derailing threads.

I'm so sick of it.

Post: #28

(10-17-2016 07:58 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 07:16 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  ^.....

What was this thread about?

Julian Assange.

Some bastards are always derailing threads.

I'm so sick of it.

More like this thread got derailed by focusing too much on Pamela Anderson's body instead of talking about Julian Assange's situation.

Post: #29

I hope they are able to #FreeJulian...


If Hillary rigs the White House, WB Pam and lie about the year. Dishonesty is fine in the new America.

If Donald earns the White House, WNB and work on MAGA instead with a newer model with less mileage.

Post: #30

What's worrying is that he must have prepared for the internet line in the embassy being blocked.

No doubt he has spare 4G SIM cards and mobile phones to provide him access as needed. Maybe even a satellite internet connection.

So either:
A) The UK have used some sort of scrambling device to disable all telecommunications (which would effect the entire embassy, and that would be akin to waging war on Ecuador unless they were actually allowing this to happen and in on it themselves. And if they're in on it, it wouldn't be much longer until they give him up for arrest).

Or

B) Julian has been arrested or is dead. Remember a few weeks ago someone tried to scale the embassy wall so the latter is highly possible also.

I hope I'm wrong and there's a third option I'm not seeing but more than likely his personal safety and liberty has reached the end of the line. He's pushed the globalists too far and was in a vulnerable position.

If that's the case though then he has lived as he has chosen to live - one of the world's most selfless individuals, proponent of justice and free speech. Becoming a target for so many years by so many powerful people must have been hell but he fought it all just to give us a peek behind the curtain and see the illegitimacy of the globalists. We are truly blessed to have had such a man in our time who is willing to make that sacrifice.

He could have continued life at a mild pace in the Ecuadorean embassy but he pushed it to the limit by controlling the news cycle and dropping leak after leak to help destroy Hillary.

Now it's up to us to finish the job.

Post: #31

Remember guys, if we can trick Russia into signing a no fly zone-kill Qaddafi scenario, I am pretty sure the traitorous British government will have no qualms in turning a blind eye to this embassy getting special treatment.

If we can create, arm and support terrorists so brazenly, cite Russia as the aggressor of war in the ME, call Trump a rapist for some words and downplay the mass rape and murder of Europeans by foreign nationals, I'm pretty sure they can deal with one annoying person in an embassy.

Post: #32

Latest from James O'Keefe

'Rigging the election'

Post: #33

(10-17-2016 11:06 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Latest from James O'Keefe

'Rigging the election'

Shared on all my social media. I suggest you guys do the same!

Post: #34

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo telling his viewers that it illegal to look at Wikileaks.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-an...QY.twitter

Meanwhile NatWest/RBoS took out RT today.





So much for 'freedom of speech'.

Post: #35

Interestingly, RT's UK bank accounts are being closed down and refused further service by the bank's group with "no question nor discussion'

Quote:The RT press office pointed out that NatWest is part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which counts the UK government as a significant shareholder.

Am on my phone so copy pasting all the article I kinda tricky so here s a link:
https://www.rt.com/news/363013-rt-uk-accounts-blocked/

Are these two news somehow related?

Post: #36

(10-17-2016 12:07 PM)Traktor Wrote:  CNN anchor Chris Cuomo telling his viewers that it illegal to look at Wikileaks.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-an...QY.twitter

Meanwhile NatWest/RBoS took out RT today.





So much for 'freedom of speech'.

Holy shit that's brazen as fuck from the UK! Which other news org ever gets their bank accounts closed by a country all of the sudden?

Post: #37

(10-17-2016 12:07 PM)Traktor Wrote:  CNN anchor Chris Cuomo telling his viewers that it illegal to look at Wikileaks.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-an...QY.twitter

Meanwhile NatWest/RBoS took out RT today.





So much for 'freedom of speech'.

Why the fuck was RT doing its banking in such a globalist, Western-establishment bank, in the first place? Good riddance for RT: RT can now do banking with a good, Conservative, Hungarian or Cyprian or heck, even Uruguayan or Singaporean bank.

That's the trouble with RT... RT is 80% a good (sometimes even great) media, but is corrupted by 20% of its staff. I'll do a thread about it some day. But, without waiting, a teaser: the 20% corrupt RT staff are almost all females, having spent time in the West. I happen to have met a couple of such.

Post: #38

(10-17-2016 12:26 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 12:07 PM)Traktor Wrote:  CNN anchor Chris Cuomo telling his viewers that it illegal to look at Wikileaks.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-an...QY.twitter

Meanwhile NatWest/RBoS took out RT today.





So much for 'freedom of speech'.

Why the fuck was RT doing its banking in such a globalist, Western-establishment bank, in the first place? Good riddance for RT: RT can now do banking with a good, Conservative, Hungarian or Cyprian or heck, even Uruguayan or Singaporean bank.

That's the trouble with RT... RT is 80% a good (sometimes even great) media, but is corrupted by 20% of its staff. I'll do a thread about it some day. But, without waiting, a teaser: the 20% corrupt RT staff are almost all females, having spent time in the West. I happen to have met a couple of such.

RT is the televised news I watch above all else.I have a good opinion of it, reporting on events that other broadcast or print media don't or from a different angle. I would be very interested to read the thread that you create regarding the apparent corrupt 20%.

Edit: The state owns 71.5% of voting rights within RBS which owns Natwest. The government definitely had something to do with this.

Edit2: Also we shouldn't be to surprised about this when you consider that Britain ranks 38th in the works in regards to press freedom according to Reporters Without borders, behind Ghana and Cape Verdi
https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Edit 3: Roosh, sorry for posting in this this forum, it completely slipped my mind

Post: #39

(10-17-2016 12:36 PM)Poker Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 12:26 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 12:07 PM)Traktor Wrote:  CNN anchor Chris Cuomo telling his viewers that it illegal to look at Wikileaks.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-an...QY.twitter

Meanwhile NatWest/RBoS took out RT today.





So much for 'freedom of speech'.

Why the fuck was RT doing its banking in such a globalist, Western-establishment bank, in the first place? Good riddance for RT: RT can now do banking with a good, Conservative, Hungarian or Cyprian or heck, even Uruguayan or Singaporean bank.

That's the trouble with RT... RT is 80% a good (sometimes even great) media, but is corrupted by 20% of its staff. I'll do a thread about it some day. But, without waiting, a teaser: the 20% corrupt RT staff are almost all females, having spent time in the West. I happen to have met a couple of such.

RT is the televised news I watch above all else.I have a good opinion of it, reporting on events that other broadcast or print media don't or from a different angle. I would be very interested to read the thread that you create regarding the apparent corrupt 20%.

Ok, I'll write the thread by the end of the week. It'll mix politics and, say, toxic feminism. With true, first-hand experience on the ground.

Post: #40

Btw, NatWest did the same to Iran's Press TV back in 2011.

http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/162301.html

Quote:When Press TV Ltd’s reporter again asked the Royal Bank of Scotland as to whether Natwest had been advised by the UK authorities to end business with Press TV Ltd, the RBS contact replied,
“We have no further comment.”

Post: #41

CIA pulled the plug on Assange's internet: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...2741499904

Post: #42

Post: #43

double

Post: #44

(10-17-2016 01:40 PM)Roosh Wrote:  CIA pulled the plug on Assange's internet: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...2741499904

He said that he was expecting it and has back up plans in place.

Anyway, there is a campaign going on twitter for people to boycott NatWest.

Post: #45

(10-17-2016 01:44 PM)Traktor Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 01:40 PM)Roosh Wrote:  CIA pulled the plug on Assange's internet: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...2741499904

He said that he was expecting it and has back up plans in place.

Anyway, there is a campaign going on twitter for people to boycott NatWest.

Backup plans for what? If he had anything of value, he would have put it up a while ago. The emails that Seth Rich gave him were pretty good. Some of the latest in the past few days are petty good, and might even be enough to swing an election in a normal year. But if he had anything worth publishing, he would probably not be saving it.

Post: #46

Someone had a great post a while back, talking about how WikiLeaks typically does their thing...

First, they do a info dump. Then, they wait and see what the fallout is from that. Typically, the politicians involved will deny whatever is in the dump or make excuses about how "This isn't what it looks like." That's when WikiLeaks does another info dump that shows how whatever excuse the politician gave is bullshit since the latest dump contradicts whatever excuse they gave.

I think it's very possible Assange has been holding something back 'til the eleventh hour. The final presidential debate hasn't even happened yet. Even though we're only a few weeks from the election, a few weeks is a long time in the political world. We all know Assange has a "dead man's switch" in place so even if they silence him, his info is still likely to get out through other means.

Post: #47

(10-17-2016 02:27 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 01:44 PM)Traktor Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 01:40 PM)Roosh Wrote:  CIA pulled the plug on Assange's internet: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...2741499904

He said that he was expecting it and has back up plans in place.

Anyway, there is a campaign going on twitter for people to boycott NatWest.

Backup plans for what? If he had anything of value, he would have put it up a while ago. The emails that Seth Rich gave him were pretty good. Some of the latest in the past few days are petty good, and might even be enough to swing an election in a normal year. But if he had anything worth publishing, he would probably not be saving it.

Backup plans so the releases will go ahead as scheduled. He's designed his systems so that he's not the bottleneck and releases are automated. If anything, more damaging stuff will come out now that his dead man's switches are being activated (though they may not be info related to the election).

Whilst on one hand it's dangerous to do this piecemeal release schedule, it also dominates the news cycle. Already they're trying to push Mosul news to cover up WikiLeaks drops, so in this way not only is this the main thing people talk about every week until the election, also whilst voting people will still think that there is even MORE corrupt stuff happening that hasn't even be released yet.

Post: #48

How do they cut off Assange's Internet without cutting it off to the entire Ecuadoran embassy?

Post: #49

WikiLeaks just posted this a few minutes ago:

Quote:WikiLeaks @wikileaks
We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs.
12:27 PM - 17 Oct 2016

Post: #50

I can't see Julian staying there much longer if Ecuador themselves are putting a squeeze on him. Obviously they could have expelled him if they really want him gone, this step is probably to get him to decide to leave on his own.