Author Topic: Susanne Meier is on a mission; the best of @gerge42  (Read 2555 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wollerton

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Susanne Meier is on a mission; the best of @gerge42
« on: May 16, 2014, 01:05:13 AM »
Susanne Meier is on a mission; the best of @gerge42 




*****


susi2
December 25, 2012 at 1:22 pm


There cannot be a public dissociation if there never was a public association in the first place. And now try to solve the problem where u can and help outlaw the NPD party.
.


reply by wn030: sorry: the people here are at least trying to get the verbot done. alright? and the people here are at least fighting against them. what we see from wikileaks is PUBLIC ASSOCIATING WITH NAZI ACCPETING, NAZI LINKING AND NAZI DEFENDING PEOPLE – rixstep – and this association was as public as it possibly can. – f.o.l.l.o.w.i.n.g a person defending nazi mindset? a mindset he tinks it is not relevant as long as it is usable for WL? a mindset being irrelevant, as long as it is critisizing a person who is critical re assange?INTERESTING.
so – sorry. the rixstep issue is there. the fria-tider-tweets are there. it is not addressed. as if a public dissociation was that a complicated rocket science, this is simply ri-di-cu-lous. unacceptable comment.
what. missed the news? “working on the Verbot” is totally new to you? never heard of it?
- http://kampagne2007.npd-verbot-jetzt.de/ – kampagne 2007 – I would call that working. for quite some time. as opposed to people calling tweeting nazilinks “no issue”.
news 2012:
- http://www.publikative.org/2012/12/07/alles-was-sie-uber-das-geplante-npd-verbot-wissen-mussen/ – “All You Need To Know About The NPD-Ban” (this page is really good and very reliable, recommended read. be careful with google Translate, machine cause a lot of confusions, so feel free to ask questions –
- http://www.publikative.org/2012/12/05/friedrich-gibt-ein-trauriges-bild-ab/ – “NPD-Verbot: Friedrich gibt ein trauriges Bild ab”
- http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesrat-zieht-wegen-npd-verbot-vor-bundesverfassungsgericht-a-872920.html – Bundesrat beschließt NPD-Verbotsantrag (14.12.2012)
- http://www.taz.de/!107435/ etc etc etc -
and re the “they are at least fighting against it” – see the video above. how a person can be so incredibly empty in the brain, full of straw as they call it here in Germany, to post a comment like yours, Suzi, is simply… hard, quite hard to understand. come to grips.



Reply

  • I doubt any1 at WL or rixstep cares about Neo-Na-zis. I think rixstep just saw a message that supported WL and thats why both rixstep+WL retweeted it. Not every1 is as obsessed with that topic as u are. Most people have never ever been to a neo Na.zi forum nor would they know how one looks like. And now relax its Christmas and the Second World War is long over. U are however free to donate half of every cent u earn to Holoicaust trusts if u feal any collective guilt.
    reply by wn030 – susi – right. exactly. sure.
    susi, you have no idea how clearly you are showing us that our reasons to whistle and shout as loudly as we can are there and visible. you are showing us why comments like yours are e.x.a.c.t.l.y. the problem and issue here. they -do- not care. not caring about them is exactly the brainwash we Europeans get from US propaganda. not caring about them meaning tolerating them, accepting them. remember again the odesk/facebook issue – the manual – the topic that arrived here via gawker. check that out, we have a page about that. on the bottom of the page you find links to media reporting about the case. the odesk/facebook manual said – following US “law” – to the moderators: nazi stuff is ok, briestfeeding mothers not. weapons are fine allright, kissing not. WAKE UP SUSI. check the text above again and realise why the sentence about the farce hits the point quite exactly. all we can say to JA is “what do you want to tell the people about voluntary STASI on facebook if you do not even get this point?” and more over: “what do you want to tell the next person – somebody who MIGHT click on a page on our site. the link to the publishers. in their tweet, embedded on our site – somebody who might take some time, think and klick there again, later, and who then MIGHT buy this book finally – what do you want to tell t.h.i.s reader who found the book via our page about voluntary STASI on facebook – if you do not even get this hint and that fact straight?”
    re the sentence “Not every1 is as obsessed with that topic as u are.” – no, wrong, suzi. not everyone is as blind on that eye as you are.
    where you are from, maybe but come to grips with that. ask yourself why, if you are somebody from the US you keep thinking that we are talking about an “obsession”. this is US brainwash – typical US propaganda. (in russia not much different, they also try to claim they have no problem with nazis there, in poland same etc) – however, installing that in people’s minds is US way to hold that shit up and push it and here is a page replying from berlin saying kein fußbreit, please do come to grips with that and try to understand why.
    .
    they “do not care” about them. and at the same time they use them. pro assange texts meaning in this case text critical re a person critical about assange – “no problem man, let this text where ever it comes from, we take all and everyone, keep them coming!” – susi. will you ever wake up?
    and remember, all this is about is a missing public dissociation from nazis by someone who starts for a political candidacy. which is a veeeery, a very complicated thing to do. sorry, susi, this is – at this point – at the point of a candidacy start – unfortunately – necessary. I personally would be ashamed as hell if I would find myself some day defending someone who behaves as this guy currently. after that history of the wl network trying to start a candidacy without this crucial information – you must be thinking the rest of the world is as crazy as you to accept that? NO, SUSI, not everyone is as blind on that eye as you are. kein fußbreit without that public dissociation from nazis publicly officially written and posted or tweetlonger-tweeted by wikileaks. what ever channel – all we want is that it reaches the public.
    the right wing extremist paper was linked via tweets 10th times in total (including Jan 5th). the nazi repost is used by the official support page justice4 – the issue is self-fabricated by WL, solving it is up to them.
    susi2
    December 25, 2012 at 3:23 pm


 


http://wikinews030.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/what-does-the-link-to-a-neonazi-page-do-in-the-wikileaks-tweetfeed-just-another-not-that-easy-topic/






*****


By susi2
Strange that Davies acts surprised by the detailed statement on the subject which reflects that very outrage he HIMSELF had confirmed to be Assange`s first reaction on hearing about the unauthorised publication!
PS: He said: "It's hard to start or even to bother with what is wrong with it." It shouldn`t be difficult at ALL to point out wrong facts-if there are any! Its only get tricky when the claims are accurate and you have nothing to reply!
Thu, 22/09/2011 - 13:45




http://www.thebookseller.com/news/canongate-defends-fantastic-assange-memoir.html






*****
 
By susi2
Strange that Davies acts surprised by the detailed statement on the subject which reflects that very outrage he HIMSELF had confirmed to be Assange`s first reaction on hearing about the unauthorised publication!
PS: He said: "It's hard to start or even to bother with what is wrong with it." It shouldn`t be difficult at ALL to point out wrong facts-if there are any! Its only get tricky when the claims are accurate and you have nothing to reply!
Thu, 22/09/2011 - 13:45




*****




susi2 says:
December 30, 2012 at 1:32 pm
JA`s lawyer said in court that he could not contact his client. Contrary to his claim that the prosecutor did not attempt to arrange a second interview this could NOT be proven wrong. So I guess until we see proof of the contrary we have to take that as fact.
BTW if he wanted to avoid a second interview why has he offered one in the UK for the last 18 months? Had the Swedish prosecutor accepted the offer-which is perfectly legal under MLA-clearly he WOULD have had to do an interview or else loose face. And contrary to Sweden where he is entitled to remain silent+refuse answers the prosecutor could have used contradictive answers against him. She could also have made it public like the first intervew and increase public pressure to surrender. And her claim that only in Sweden could she confront him with gathered evidence is nonsense. Whats so hard about taking a DNA report to the UK and conducting further phone interviews with witnesses+accusers from the UK? Nothing.
PS: U claim it doesn`t matter that u think that AA is a liar and it might not to the court. But if thats your viewpoint why do u think people should pay more attention to your criticism of JA and his legal team than to your initial criticism of the accusers and the way the investigation was handled?
BTW to the average reader it does INDEED appear that u changed your position from being crtiical of AA to critical of JA and his lawyers. Maybe thats because there is some truth in that.
PPS: The only good that your public criticism of JA brings is that the judge will not be able to accuse u of trying to support JA when+if u are asked to talk about the deleted tweets u discovered.




http://thing2thing.com/?p=2820









*****




susi2 3 years ago
It is time that Domscheit-Berg remembers that it was the SOURCES that send their material to Wikileaks because they wanted it published THERE and gives back what he was never supposed to have in the first place!
As far as we know no source has ever been disclosed because of a security problem within WL. WL has further proved that it has acted responsibly by working with respected media organisations which carefully redacted the names of informants and reviewed the material. Even the Pentagon and the State Department had to admit that no person was harmed because of the WL revelations. And who should know better?
While it may have been Domscheit`s collegue the infamous “architect” who sabotaged WL`s system Domscheit-Berg clearly boasts about it and obviously had an influence in the events that led to the destruction of the “submission channel”.
It is time that Domscheit-Berg stops trying to ruin and discredit both WL and his former collegue/boss simply for the purpose of elevating the status of his own project. For somone who calls Assange arrogant and media obsessed HE has proven to be a hypocrite by acting just like that by giving dozens of interviews and appearances almost NEVER failing to trash and badmouth both WL and A. who are now a rival project. That is backstabbing in its worst form!







*****




susi2
 18/01/2013 at 14:53
Wait is there seriously a suggestion in that article that inviting JA (future event) did contribute to the low reporting rate of r.apes in the UK?
 
http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/01/17/protests-at-assange-platform/25/



*****






  •  susi2 • 18 hours ago

    1) Why don`t I see u mentioning the fact that DDB and the architect ripped WL`s submission system apart and destroyed all remaining leaks after JA refused to remodel WL the way DDB saw fit?
    2) Why did u not mention the fact that while James Ball critisized JA for endangering sources he disclosed WL`s NDA which is now in the hands of the US prosecutors and will likely be used against BM and possibly JA?
    3) U claim that Nick Davies and David Leigh fell out with JA over “broken deals” of exclusivity yet WL has NEVER made a secret about the fact that they put the importance of impact of their sources`leaks first which was the reason why JA included TV stations into the media partnership. Now guess whats more important? Wounded pride or the impact of the leaked material for which BM risked his life?
    4) U claim that the Gibney documentary represents “the truth” without featering anyone from the current WL team who stood behind JA for the last 2,5 years and who haven`t yet stabbed him in the back even though it seemed to be “en vogue” to do that? Seems more then a bit one-sided if u ask me.
    BTW K.Hraffnsson is still part of WL and he was also part of WL`s initial Icelandic team. But why bother with details that contradict the whole picture right?
    5) U mentioned David Allen Green as an expert without mentioning the fact that he is a media lawyer who is NEITHER an expert on Swedish and/or UK extradition and/or criminal law. A deliberate “oversight”?
    6) And last but not least-even though you critisized Mark Stephans in your article- u forgot to mention that it was HIM and NOT JA who got the advance of 460.000 pounds that JA had negotiated for his bio. Yet Stephans claimed that JA still owed him several hundred thousands beyond what he already received! Imagine a million dollar bill for 6 months of failed leal representation.
    Thats more then a bit outragious and justifies a fallout as does the sabotage of WL`s submission system or the disclosure of evidence that can and most likely will be used against both BM and JA. 

    I therefore agree that the article, despite appearing balanced, is in fact biased. I do not hold Jemima Khan to blame for this bias, as she, like everyone else, is attempting to make sense of arguments that exceed the spare capacity of a single human brain, while also stimulating much emotion that makes it difficult to think clearly.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/01/amelia-hill-is-a-dirty-liar/comment-page-4/




*****


susi2
Apr 16 2011 at 04:58 AM
Funny how DDB is critisizing Wikileaks for concentrating power in the hands of one man when he himself is the ONLY person who speaks for Openleaks in public! For someone who calls Assange publicly hungry DDB spent an amazing amount of time in the spotlight hopping from one conference and interview to the next talking about OL and trashing Assange at every possible opportunity! I don`t know how you would call that but I call that beng a hypocrite!

BTW how about the transperany with Openleaks? There is no membership list published on their website, no donation update and no info about the media partners with whom they will start their collaboration! 

But getting back to my first point there were ALWAYS several people who publicly spoke for WL while with OL there is only DDB who refuses to share the spotlight with his coworkers. I`d say if you critisize someone you should deliver what you preach and DDB sure does NOT!

http://ca.ibtimes.com/articles_comments/111489/20110211/julain-assange-four-love-children-world-wide-wikileaks-deflector-daniel-domscheit-berg-excerpts-leak.htm


*****