because man-child has no stones.

We're in Bizarro World.

I keep hearing that the Pentagon/White House/Defense Secretary are "concerned" about the leaks. Concerned. Concerned. Concerned.

At the very least, this Assange guy should be in prison already, awaiting trial.

Australia has a military, don't they? Why would any soldier allow this guy to continue breathing?

Another flitting ffairy doing anything to be noticed, like the flight attendant, like all your spokspeople for pembina institute, greenpeace, friend of the earth, on and on the bulk of these bastards are poofters and for them there is no long term thinking, they don't have children or grandchildren to worry about. But lets give them more rights, when will MEN start to take back this world, Ronald Reagan would have had this little pixie cornered so fast he would have soiled himself involuntarily.

Sorry to break the news, folks. The progs have won.

They changed the definition of language, law, economics, science, morality to the point where acts like this are no longer considered wrong and treasonous.

Instead, treason is assembling a tea party and questioning the nanny state programs.

As Glenn Beck says, "study the Weimar Republic" and you'll see a not so distant mirror.

Get your wheel barrows ready, and not just for loading ammo and food.

bartinsky and Doug say it well. The scary part is Doug's comment "The progs have won". This will not change until the west is on its last legs trying to fend of radical Muslim takeover. It will take a repeat of the Reconquista and the battle at Vienna in 1529.

I am old enough to remember, I think, that we would routinely jail traitors, if not summarily shoot them.

I heartily agree with Kate...why is this ba#$$$tard still alive??

why isnt the pixie soldat who first leaked the files dead?

Ive forgotten his name already.

Phrases that MUST disappear before anything GOOD is going to happen:

A) "We're concerned" > replace with: "We're currently in the process of putting his body thorugh a wood chipper and dispersing the pink mist over 10,000 sqaure miles of ocean."

B) "That's unacceptable" > replace with: "If you do that EVER again we're going to rip out your throat, sh!t down your neck, then slowly boil you in trans fats until you are rendered down to a gelatinous blob representative of what we think of you and your attitudes and behaviours."

C) "We're having discussions to build a concensus" > replace with: "We just dropped a hydrogen bomb on them, so that issue has gone away; next question?"

D) "It's a very complex issue with many subtle nuances, and must be handled with great care." > replace with: "That's simple; we're right, they're wrong. If they are still doing that tomorrow at this time ...well, they WON'T be doing that tomorrow at this time; see C above."

I agree with Doug...that this will end badly....

One of the problems with leftism/feminism/socialism (which are 3 heads from the same beast) is that it castrates men.

Men don't fight back anymore, they simply give in.

Traitors should receive physical punishement on top of jail time.

Castrated Leniency is only one more sword in the back of the slow dying Western Civilization.

If the US Administration had any ... cojones ...,
there would be a price on Assange's head, which would most likely be on its way to
Washington in a large pickle jar.

Interesting perspective: We have the right to kill people in possession of documents that would embarrass or endanger us if widely published.

Does that shoe fit on every foot? E.g. would the Sask NDP or federal Liberals or MSM journalists be justified in assassinating the proprietor of this worthy establishment?

If nothing else, these guys still walking around proves that all the rhetoric about the evil USA/CIA is just stupid. Anyone have the misfortune of seeing the new Polanski (spit) film, Ghost Writer? I know. But my wife brought it home and it actually does not inform you that he had anything to do with it until the second it was over. Almost like he's afraid people would walk out if they realized it earlier.

Gosh yes, Kate, if our friend Julian had released a ton of secret Chinese files I daresay his server would have become mysteriously "corrupted" and he'd have had an "unfortunate car accident" by now.

This sort of thing always buggers up the arguments of the tinfoil-hat brigades.

Just curious, what would he be charged with?

I love that picture.

A small media whore.

Standing behind his Apple laptop.

Being protected by a Combat Marine with a
'Thousand Yard Stare.'

And everyone in that audience knowing,
Assange is not worthy to carry ANY Combat Veterans jock strap.

Yes... A picture is worth thousands of words.

As to why he is not dead yet, I cannot comment. However, why he hasn't been summarily rounded up and charged with treason is beyond me. Last I checked, the U.S. still has treason statutes on the books, and this matter would certainly appear to fit the bill. By all means, he has a full right to due process, a trial, and he may even be found not guilty. But the fact he is still trotting around without any fear in the world. Amazing.

Good grief, the Pentagon is "pleading" with him. How in the hell does this guy have a power position over the freaking Pentagon?

It's all BS but makes good copy.
The information contained in the documents are said to be not that sensitive nor up-to-date.
They aren't going to waste a perfectly good bullet on that asshole because he's just not worth it.
A private citizen, on the other hand, may want to teach him a lesson.

Answering allan's question, the charge should be sedition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#United_States

He is encouraging members of the US military to divulge information harmful to the USA.

I really doubt a non-american would be charged with that.

I seriously don't think he can be charged with anything that would result in an extradition. Right in the wiki:

"Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. "

So since sedition and treason do not apply, what does?

All those black helicopters were busy taking Michelle to Spain.

Every time I see Assange, I fantasize about jackbooted thugs dragging him out in chains and waterboarding him until he confesses the secret recipe for Bush's baked beans.

Of course we can charge him with compromising classifed information and try him in absentia. We do the same thing for drug dealers operating outside the US.

In order for Julian Assange to be charged under the US Alien Registration Act (i.e. their law of sedition) there would have to be evidence that he had intent to overthrow the United States government as a whole. That's a big stretch.

Only people who have some official allegiance to the US can commit treason against the US. Because Assange is an Australian citizen he by definition cannot be guilty of treason against the US.

As for his being summarily killed, how on earth do any of you think that would happen? Assassination? By whom? The US? If so, would it happen with or without the complicity of his resident state? And how would this assassination happen? If he just 'happened' to die of an accident or sickness - the stuff of film fantasy - how would that necessarily discourage others from also leaking & posting documents to wikileaks? And if it was public knowledge that the United States committed a politically-motivated assassination of a non-US citizen on non-US soil, the international condemnation would never stop. It would cost the US a lot of cooperation from allies, cooperation it needs. If it was done publically AND without the consent of the host state, how could the United States justify the invasion of a sovereign country on a mission to assassinate someone?

The United States could pressure Australia to extradite him on some charge having to do with the PATRIOT Act or the Espionage Act. That's all they could do. To think otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

2,500 volts or so, Allan.

To put my point a little more clearly: Julian Assange is a human being with rights. You're all fantasizing about major violations of a human's basic rights - torture, assassination, summary execution - and some of you have mixed it with some casual homophobia. Furthermore, I would argue that the way you're expressing these fantasies indicates a lot of you have a fundamentally flawed idea of how international relations works. I'd conclude this means you have a very sanguine view of what a state is and what it does. So I guess my question is: can you people think of a reason why it might be a bad idea for the state to have the power to summarily torture & execute anyone it wants anywhere at any time? Just one would do.

And I guess in conclusion I'll add some scolding: you people realize others read what you're writing here, yes? You realize words aren't cheap, or just for fun, right? What you people say here has real consequences. These insane fantasies of state-sponored murder are undesirable to everyone. There is no way you'd actually want to live in the world you're fantasizing about right now. No way whatsoever.

Me, I like the basic rule of law. Others, not so much I guess. I'm out.

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' whilst one reaches for a stone."

He's not the one who leaked the documents, someone on the inside did that. Going after him would accomplish nothing.

Even if wikileaks is totally crushed someone can make another. If the US military wants my advice on preventing leaks (and I'm sure they don't) I would not block wikileaks from internet-connected military computers. I would setup a silent alarm thats triggered when someone accesses it, with a service block if they try to upload anything.

Army computers with sensitive info should also not be able to write to removable media like USB sticks and mini/micro/SD cards. A microSD card can hold 2 GB+ and is smaller than a postage stamp.

I'm sorry, why should Julian Assange be persecuted? Why should he be dead? Why does revealing the truth deserve death? Why does giving information to the public that should be available to them but is hidden by the government bad? Why is it ok to bash the government for doing what they do, but then protecting them from any real assault? Why does a site that champions Ayn Rand take on the characteristics of her antagonists? Me thinks you all feel more comfortable being left in the dark, that way you can keep believing what you believe without any real information to prove you right or wrong.

What? He's not dead already? He kinda looks it...

Anyway, Iwonder that about a lot of people.

If America really was the insane, gun crazed nation of weirdos the Left thinks it is, everybody from OJ Simpson to Michael Moore would have been gunned down years ago.

BTJ: Because our allies and informants in Afghanistan, who are named by the scores in the leaks, can now be hunted down and murdered by our enemies. Because, the wikileak is causing these murders.

Because, our enemy in Afghanistan can now identify villages which routinely turn over IEDs, and now know which ones to target for terror ops.

Because the enemy can now ground proof his past operations and make adjustments accordingly, making it easier to kill our guys.

The wiki leaks have provided no hidden truth about ISAF misdeeds ... but have, and will, cause the murders of Afghan civilians who are our allies. The leaks are an aggressive act of espionage against ISAF ... and in a not too distant past, that kind of act would have been punishable by death either via guilty verdict, or via covert operation.

Let's hope the Afghans track the scum down and do the deed themselves.

The Taliban are biding their time until they can establish their own "killing fields" without concern of NATO or anyone else interfering in the slaughter.

Julian Assange is the modern day Vidkun Quisling.

"Because our allies and informants in Afghanistan, who are named by the scores in the leaks, can now be hunted down and murdered by our enemies. Because, the wikileak is causing these murders."

Perhaps, have you read any information in the wikileaks that would make it any easier for those people to be found?

Causing what murders? Who's been killed due to the wikileaks?

"Because, our enemy in Afghanistan can now identify villages which routinely turn over IEDs, and now know which ones to target for terror ops."

So they can keep doing what they've been doing the whole time. Wow, what a disaster :S You don't think they have a pretty good idea already? You don't think that people IN Afghanistan have a better idea of what's going on than one could get from some military documents?

"Because the enemy can now ground proof his past operations and make adjustments accordingly, making it easier to kill our guys."

How? These guys are THERE...they don't need some military documents to tell them how it is.

"The wiki leaks have provided no hidden truth about ISAF misdeeds"

Sounds like you selectively read.

"The leaks are an aggressive act of espionage against ISAF ... and in a not too distant past, that kind of act would have been punishable by death either via guilty verdict, or via covert operation."

Really? Or would you just rather make it easy and keep your eyes closed so you can continue to think in terms of 'us' (good) against 'them' (bad), and accept that anything 'we' do is ok.

"Julian Assange is the modern day Vidkun Quisling"

Please, elaborate. How is Assange ANYTHING like Quisling? Your metaphor is lacking logic.

BTJ: My son worked in the HQ in Kandahar in a very sensitive position. I've been shown by him very specific and damaging material from the leaks on the CBC wikileak archive, which prove beyond a doubt what I claim. Other than that, I won't entertain you anymore as your knowledge of modern military tactics and realities on the ground in Afghanistan are obviously grossly wanting. I base my opinion on your insipient questions which would be asked only by one who is ignorant of the facts as they pertain to warfare in Afghanistan; or anywhere for that matter, and how important, counter-measures, civilian allies/informants, subterfuge, and black ops are.

I suggest you spend some time educating yourself on COIN and modern military strategy and methods as they pertain to Afghanistan. There isn't the space here to educate you, nor do I have the patience to debate with one so ignorant that’d they’d state... “These guys are THERE...they don't need some military documents to tell them how it is.” ...

Words fail.

Julian Assange is an enemy of the US, other members of ISAF and Afghanistan. This is not a great entry to have on his resume. I hope he has good health care. He may become short of breath.

allan at 12:35 PM: Just curious, what would he be charged with?

Since he's not an American citizen, the charge would be espionage, which carries the death penalty.

If the Aussie's get him, they could do the treason thing. Either way, he should end up hanging by a rope.

At the moment, I suspect only the Aussies have the balls to do it, though.

I'm thinking The One should be charged with treason and be hanged at dawn.

And until and unless Iceland arrests the perp and sends him to either Australia or the US, they should be kicked out of every international organization to which they are a partner and heavy sanctions imposed.

Louise: I prefer the Afghans take of him themselves ... less diplomatic niceties to worry about.

"I've been shown by him very specific and damaging material from the leaks on the CBC wikileak archive, which prove beyond a doubt what I claim. Other than that, I won't entertain you anymore as your knowledge of modern military tactics and realities on the ground in Afghanistan are obviously grossly wanting"

Ah, so more hearsay...great..thanks.

"your insipient questions which would be asked only by one who is ignorant of the facts as they pertain to warfare in Afghanistan"

So my asking you to provide more than just empty statements is somehow stupid? If you say so...oh wait, that's my point...all you do is 'say so' without providing a shred of explanation...keep up the good work.

If you're such an expert then please, why don't you share some real information to enlighten us?

"There isn't the space here to educate you, nor do I have the patience to debate "

Right, of course not, funny that eh? Time and space to provide baseless statements but none to provide real information. Seems to be the norm.

" “These guys are THERE...they don't need some military documents to tell them how it is.”"

Please then, tell me what they could possibly learn and apply from the leaks?

You're just a tool of the state and you like it that way...so long as the state is fighting 'them'.

"Julian Assange is an enemy of the US"

No, the US is an enemy of itself and it's citizens...nobody can compare to the threat the US government posses upon itself. How a nation that makes up 60%+ of global military expenditures can be threatened by anything but itself fails logical explanation. Unless of course someone wants to explain away.

Again, I find it hypocritical and contradictory beyond belief that a group of people can be so up in arms over state power yet so opposed to someone fighting against that same state power. What I get from it is it's a matter of 'us' vs. 'them'...if the state is imposing upon 'us' then it's bad...if the state is imposing upon 'them' then it's good. Please point out where I'm wrong.

Good point, Cjunk, but the problem remains of how to snatch him out of Iceland. Maybe it's time for that other volcano to blow and take him with it.

"wiki" is simply the Information Age prefix equivalent to "The People's Democratic "

Yeah this guy is such a hero. His self-serving desire to show off as a crusader for objective truth apparently took precedent over the fact that the information he's plastering for the world to see is going to put a gigantic bullseye on the backs of Afghan civilians who were cooperating with the Afghan government and NATO forces. It's also going to do wonders for promoting further cooperation from Afghan citizens. In other words, the only party aside from Assange himself that stands to gain is the Taliban.

And these notions of journalistic objectivity? Please. He picked a side alright: himself. His desire to be the next Deep Throat is liable to make him Mr. Slit Throat.

The guy knows he has blood on his hands, but doesn't care.

Wikileaks must be stopped

"Julian Assange, proudly claims to have exposed more classified information than all the rest of the world press combined. He recently told the New Yorker he understands that innocent people may be hurt by his disclosures ("collateral damage" he called them) and that WikiLeaks might get "blood on our hands."

...the documents exposed at least one U.S. intelligence operative and identified about 100 Afghan informants -- often including the names of their villages and family members. A Taliban spokesman said the group is scouring the WikiLeaks Web site for information to find and "punish" these informers.

Beyond getting people killed, WikiLeaks' actions make it less likely that Afghans and foreign intelligence services (whose reports WikiLeaks also exposed) will cooperate with the United States in the future.

[---]

"Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice and put his criminal syndicate out of business.

The first step is for the Justice Department to indict Assange. Such an indictment could be sealed to prevent him from knowing that the United States is seeking his arrest. The United States should then work with its international law enforcement partners to apprehend and extradite him.

Assange seems to believe, incorrectly, that he is immune to arrest so long as he stays outside the United States. He leads a nomadic existence, operating in countries such as Sweden, Belgium and Iceland, where he believes he enjoys the protection of "beneficial laws." (He recently worked with the Icelandic parliament to pass legislation effectively making the country a haven for WikiLeaks). The United States should make clear that it will not tolerate any country -- and particularly NATO allies such as Belgium and Iceland -- providing safe haven for criminals who put the lives of NATO forces at risk."

Go get him, guys.

"No, the US is an enemy of itself and it's citizens...nobody can compare to the threat the US government posses upon itself. How a nation that makes up 60%+ of global military expenditures can be threatened by anything but itself fails logical explanation. Unless of course someone wants to explain away."

I'll be happy to explain it. It does not fail logical explanation, because there exist valid counterexamples to your assertion. Here is but one. A viable nuclear weapon does not require a superpower budget. You can ask North Korea or Pakistan about that. In the next few years Iran will be able to explain it as well. The growing roster of the nuclear club represents a threat to the USA, despite its overwhelming conventional capacity. The large American military budget, which you incorrectly cite as prima facie evidence that its threats can thus only be self-made, is an artifact of its stare down with a roughly equal state power in the post-WW2 era. None of this obviates the very real threat that asymmetric powers can nevertheless pose. If a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city it doesn't really matter if it came from a peer like the Soviet Union, or a backwater country that starves its populace in deference to military development, such as North Korea. The threat is very real, even more so with regimes and organizations who are less deterred by the suicidality of initiating such a conflict. At least the Soviets feared Armageddon as much as the Americans did. The new "egalitarian" nature of nuclear weaponry changes the paradigm dramatically. So yes, America does face very real threats, even with such a powerful military of its own.

"His self-serving"

Should he not do things for self?

"the information he's plastering for the world to see is going to put a gigantic bullseye on the backs of Afghan civilians who were cooperating with the Afghan government and NATO forces."

So now the responsibility for the safety of Afghan civilian is in his hands? Not the occupying forces or the local terror groups?
Since when is the truth wrong?

"A viable nuclear weapon does not require a superpower budget. You can ask North Korea or Pakistan about that."

Who supplies Pakistan with financial and military support? North Korea is not threat whatsoever to the US...to South Korea, yes.

"In the next few years Iran will be able to explain it as well."

Who has historically supported Iran with finances and arms, and supported it's dictators over any national aims?

The US is responsible for arming the ME to the tits, along with other parts of the world.

"The threat is very real, even more so with regimes and organizations who are less deterred by the suicidality of initiating such a conflict. "

Who's suicidal? Any examples?

"So yes, America does face very real threats, even with such a powerful military of its own."

Ya, threats they create themselves!

This is probably all I am going to have to say on this discussion. One-liner bumper sticker logic is flippancy bordering on juvenile.

Self-serving does not mean "doing things for himself", it means promoting his own intellectual vanity even in the face of tangible harm to other people. Ditto for your second point. I think you actually know this, but if you seriously can't discern that there is a moral imperative to be more judicious with such information then you're in a pretty bad state indeed. Or do you take the classic leftie position that there is no such thing as morality anyway?

North Korea is not a threat whatsoever to the US? Whatsoever? That's some certitude. Any hostile nation with a nuclear arsenal is by definition a potential threat. They can deliver a weapon themselves, or provide it to some nebulous group with an axe to grind. It will probably be proven a mistake for America to have ever aided Pakistan. Yes, America has made mistakes and will no doubt make other mistakes. The difference is that I do not insist upon a ridiculous dichotomy wherein America is either pure and blameless, or responsible for everything negative that happens to it. America's involvement with Iran, as you know, ceased in 1979. They've managed to be some pretty world class bastards in the years since, and you are really suggesting that they be absolved of all wrong doing on the basis that once upon a time they had an unpopular government that worked with the Americans?

So the USA all by itself is responsible for arming the Middle East and the world? Have you never heard of the Soviet Union? Or its successor, this country known as "Russia"? Who do you think is right now providing Iran with the material and technical expertise to become a nuclear power? You probably also believe them when they say it's solely for civilian purposes don't you? That much you will blithely take at face value. Anything America asserts, however, must be an elaborate cover for sinister ulterior motives. I know how this game goes. It's laughably superficial, to the point that it sometimes appears to be a conversation with a scripted bot.

It doesn't really matter. It's a pretty facile argument to say that because the USA did such and such decades ago, the successor regimes in those parts of the world bear no responsibility for their own policies and behaviors. It must have been an amazing planet prior to America's existence, when the world was pure and free from malice and belligerence.

Who's suicidal you ask? So you do not believe the Islamic terrorist organizations, or for that matter the Iranian state, when they boast of desire to immolate the Great Satan? They've more or less promised to do it to Israel for sure. Now I actually hesitated to bring up the most likely recipient of Iran's forthcoming nukes, I guess mentioning Israel that's like opening up a whole new can of worms in itself, but I do know how the Left loves them some dead Jews. To now they've lacked the means, but who knows for how long. I have little reason to doubt the will. And I say suicidal because I am assuming they are aware of the probability of a retaliation.

Really though, what ever would you do without the American bogeyman? The Western liberal's entire worldview would collapse. Fortunately for you, you're going to get the opportunity to find someone else to pin all the blame on. The Americans are about to go back to isolationism in a big way. There's a whole constellation of reasons to encourage them in that direction. Well, I guess you can put the blame on that then. America's role vis-a-vis the Western Left oscillates between "stop meddling with other countries!" and "the richest most powerful country in the world yet they're doing nothing to help!" Talk about collective schizophrenia.

Well-said, KevinS at August 15, 2010 12:44 AM

Knocked it out of the park, KevinS at August 15, 2010 2:41 AM

Braveau!

"Self-serving does not mean "doing things for himself""

Really? It doesn't? That's not what the dictionary says.

self-serv·ing   [self-sur-ving] –adjective
serving to further one's own selfish interests.

" Ditto for your second point."

Your response doesn't apply to my second point.

"a moral imperative to be more judicious with such information"

And by that do you mean keep it a secret from the public? Who is to be the judge of such issues? Who is to decide what we can and can't know? Are we supposed to wait till 'after the war is over'?..whenever that is and by who ever you've put in charge of determining when it's over.

"North Korea is not a threat whatsoever to the US? Whatsoever? "

That's right...no threat whatsoever. What could they potentially do? It's a country smaller than the state of Georgia and sits on the other side of the globe. It has 3/1000th the GDP of the US.

"Any hostile nation with a nuclear arsenal is by definition a potential threat."

Is Israel then by definition a potential threat?

"They can deliver a weapon themselves"

How? They're about 8,000 miles away.

" It will probably be proven a mistake for America to have ever aided Pakistan."

Sorry, it WILL be? Or it IS a proven mistake? Doesn't sound like you're too familiar with the wikileaks.

"responsible for everything negative that happens to it."

I didn't say that.

"America's involvement with Iran, as you know, ceased in 1979."

Riiiight, what's your definition of 'involvement'? You mean their official close alliance ended.

"They've managed to be some pretty world class bastards in the years since, and you are really suggesting that they be absolved of all wrong doing on the basis that once upon a time they had an unpopular government that worked with the Americans?"

Huh? where are you reading this?

"So the USA all by itself is responsible for arming the Middle East and the world? "

No, but they are the overwhelming leader in it. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel to name some major examples.

"Have you never heard of the Soviet Union? Or its successor, this country known as "Russia"? "

Ah, the always available and last ditch fallback Cold War argument.

"So you do not believe the Islamic terrorist organizations"

Don't be so naive...who funded Osama? Who funded and armed Afghanistan?

The rest of your post has nothing to do with our discussion

"johnston" is right on the money. As Assange is neither an American citizen nor a resident, there's not much the US can do in purely legal terms.

I suppose the Australians - as coalition members in Afghanistan - might be able to proceed against Assange if some link between the documents and the endangerment of Australian personnel were established.

Were all the documents American or were there Australian/other coalition documents involved? Again though, not much they could do unless they got their hands on him.

Sure, the US could simply bump the guy off. But, unless you're North Korea or some other such regime, that sort of thing (state-sponsored assassinations of foreigners overseas) is a political and diplomatic minefield. Look at the trouble it causes the US when they use remotely-piloted vehicles to target terrorists in places like Yemen and Pakistan.

what would he be charged with????

how about making us waste a GBU-24 on him? i think they're about $54k plus the MK-84 it's installed on for $3k; but hey, i'm feeling generous, we'll throw in the MK-84...deal?

"That's right...no threat whatsoever. What could they potentially do? It's a country smaller than the state of Georgia and sits on the other side of the globe. It has 3/1000th the GDP of the US"

Oh, absolutely. And North Korea is completely above the notion of supplying the islamists with a nuke, dirty or otherwise, because kim jong-il is such a super guy, eh?

Are you equally sanguine about iran getting the bomb, especially when they've gone on record saying that when they do, the question of israel's existence will soon be moot?

I wish I could be like a liberal, when the only thing in life to worry about was the USA. After all, it's just like the soviet union of old, right? You know... being a hyper-imperial superpower, taking over nearby countries as satellite states and such...

Oh, wait. That's right, I live in Canada, once-proud of laying claim to the "world's longest undefended border". Nevermind

mhb23re at gmail d0t calm

"Oh, absolutely. And North Korea is completely above the notion of supplying the islamists with a nuke, dirty or otherwise, because kim jong-il is such a super guy, eh?"

Ok, now how do the 'islamists' get that nuke the the US?

"the question of israel's existence will soon be moot"

It's been moot for sometime now, Israel is it's own worst enemy.

The people he really betrayed and condemend to being rounded up and brutaaly slaughtered with their families are the named translators, drivers, guides etc in Afghnistan. Reported to be about 500 families so far.
But i guess brown people getting hurt does not matter to such a progressive as this bumba clart!
This bati boy is RACIST!!!

The people he really betrayed and condemend to being rounded up and brutally slaughtered with their families are the named translators, drivers, guides etc in Afgahnistan. Reported to be about 500 families so far.
But i guess brown people getting hurt does not matter to such a progressive as this bumba clart!
This bati boy is RACIST!!!