Hello blixa

[raynor]

This is the easily the best look he's had.

[blixa]

i dislike that hairstyle!

i'm more of a fan of him with long hair.




ALTHOUGH


OH GOD I'M HAVIN' AN ORGASM, MAMA.

[blixa]

wait wait


OH MY GOD PART II

and i'm not indie, glenn. i don't know any other women that want to fuck him beside my friend zoe and i. i'm sure they're out there though. that is total fuckable material right there.

[Variable]

everyone takes bad photos, but don't go by photos. look at his interviews.

this is my personal favourite:
hawt bitch.

my friend's favourite:
hawt bitch II.

I only watched the 2nd video just because I started with that one, and that was plenty enough for me.  I mean I started watching the first too but I just think I had enough to say about the 2nd video already.

First off his self righteous ass says "This covers the ENTIRE war since 2004".  Well genius the war started late 2001.  But he wanted to sound like he was documenting the entire war.  So his inflection emphasized the word entire and then he throws in the 2004 part quieter and faster hoping either people wouldn't notice or that they are dumb and don't know when the war in Afghanistan actually started.  Then towards the end he continues to try to justify his actions and states that "everyone has the book, the whole war at once".  Well its not the whole war, hes missing a couple years.  And I can say with 100% certainty that there are all kinds of events that went down that didn't make it into his little book.  I know I was involved in some situations that never got reported.  I know this for a fact.  I operated in this nasty little valley called the Tegab valley.  It was a horrible place and the people there were bad people.  Even other Afghans thought they were bad people and asked us to just bomb the entire valley so that they could be rid of these people (which of course we didn't do)  But when I got home, I had to watch a 60 minutes report on the Tegab valley and how U.S. troops were killing and bombing these poor innocent Afghans. He left out so much information about events that happened.  Also the Afghans from Tegab that he was speaking to were obviously lying to pull on his heart strings, and he took them at their every word.  But my point is that we were in a shit load of fire fights down there, and most of them didn't get reported.  And this happens a lot.  So no Mr.  Assange, you do not have the entire book in any way shape or form.  For a guy who walks around talking about reveling the truth, he sure does spread a lot of misinformation.

Second, he obviously has no idea what he is talking about.  This is the problem with people who try to document war or form opinions about how a war is being fought on the ground, when they have never participated in war.  And it's not enough to just show up to Iraq or Afghanistan and visit a few FOBs (forward operating base) then maybe go on a couple convoys.  That doesn't expose you enough to what is really going on, and you can't possibly understand the way things actually work from that little experience.  So these people get a hold of some information or hear a story and are appalled because of what it sounds like or because of how they are misinterpreting it.  Some of them even have the best intentions to stand up for human rights.  But that doesn't mean they are right or know what they are talking about.

For example, right after his 2004 comment, he brings up task force 373 and calls them "A U.S. based assassination squad" which is a highly inaccurate statement.  I can say this because I worked with them personally.  They are ODA or special forces.  Their job is to capture HVTs (high value targets).  So these guys are highly trained.  When we gather intelligence that gives us the location of an important Taliban leader or an IED maker or whatever, they send those guys in to capture the HVTs.  He even said the word capture very subtle after calling them an assassination squad and saying their job was to "go around Afghanistan Killing people".  Obviously, some high ranking leaders in the Taliban might have body guards, and they might not want to get captured or go easy.  So gun fights break out (this is a war, don't forget that) and unfortunately people die.  But their objective is to get these guys and bring them back alive.  Because we want to try to get them to talk and gather intelligence from them.  It would be pointless to just kill them.  If all we wanted to do was assassinate them, we would just drop a bomb on the house instead of risking the lives of the ODA team, the lives of the helicopter crews who have to drop them off, guys like me who have to go and support them, and all the millions of dollars worth of equipments (EG Helicopters and MRAPs) that goes into conducting and operation like this.  Which makes more sense to you?  And a lot of the time they do bring them back alive.  More times than not in my own personal experiences.  
The reason that they have a specific unit for this, instead of just using regular Army or Marine infantrymen is because like I said, they are highly trained individuals.  We don't want to risk the mission getting messed up because we send in guys of lesser ability.  It's a big deal to capture these guys, and we want them alive, so they have specially trained teams to do this.  I guess in his mind that makes them special U.S. assassination squads, but that is not reality.  

I could go on, but it's pointless and I doubt anyone would actually read it.  The point is just that he is a self righteous prick who got his hands on some material and prematurely released it before understanding what he really had or what it really meant.  He put my life at risk, as well as my friends and my GF.  Plus just all the other U.S. troops over there.  And thats obviously not cool with me at all.  So I don't really care how attractive he is.  The guy pisses me off with his ignorance.  

[blixa]

i've read a bit of the documents on wikileaks and they didn't really say anything that we didn't already know or suspect was going on. pakistani intelligence might be aiding the afghan insurgents? really? total news to me. if the american government is so insistent on telling its people and the rest of the world that wikileaks puts people in danger, then tell us who is in danger, why, and who has been harmed so far. we don't need top secret information, just a few details would be nice. i'm seeing julia gillard saying how assange has broken "australian law" yet she is unable to explain just exactly how he has done that. we're entitled to have the information in the public domain in the first place. wikileaks isn't the enemy. you're anti-wikileaks and i understand where you're coming from (i know you're in the thick of it all) but i can't help but feel that you are arguing against mine and everyone elses rights to know these things. that's my objective opinion.

in the begining i thought this whole business was a bit risky considering how badly everything is going in afghanistan and now, not so much. i don't think assange nor wikileaks should be vicitimised for releasing the documents, which all come from sources that the military deems reliable. the documents confirm what we already know about the war. it's going badly, pakistan is not the world's greatest ally and is probably playing a double game, coalition forces have been responsible for far too many civilian casualties, and the united states doesn't have very reliable intelligence in afghanistan. i will admit that there are some things that it told us that i didn't really know.

nevertheless it's a good time to push for more information from the government. the media, politicians, and the government have turned this all into a big soap opera about assange. whatever happens with his private life and these molestation charges, these things are altogether separate from what he has done at wikileaks. we should recognise that institutions should always be bigger than the individuals that comprise them.

watch the first video. it's very good. and this has completely turned into something i didn't want it to. this was to strictly be about what a babe assange is and nothing else.

[Variable]

He put everyone who is deployed to Afghanistan in danger. 

For example.  Every time one of our vehicles gets blown up by an IED we do a post blast analysis.  It will state how many casualties we suffered due to the blast, how many lbs of HME (home made explosives) that was used in the IED, what kind of vehicle got hit, if it had a mine roller or not, if it had electric counter measures or not and where the blast hit the vehicle.
So, the Taliban can definitely use this information to their advantage.  Their IEDs will run anywhere from 40lbs-200lbs of HME.  Because they have to guess as to how many lbs they need to actually hurt us.  Some vehicles can handle the whole 200, tho where some vehicles might not be able to handle anything over 80lbs. 
So if they hear that an IED of 80lbs of HME caused fatalities when it hit belowa  the rear passenger side tire of a specific kind of vehicle. Then they know that all they have to do is make an 80 pound IED and wait for that vehicle to roll by and blow it up in the perfect spot.  They wont wast their bomb on the vehicles that can handle it.  They also wont waste their explosive material by either not putting enough in the ground, or putting WAY too much in the ground.
If a mine roller was being used, information about if it actually worked or not would be very useful to the Taliban.  Especially if they can see how far the charge was offset from the pressure plate.
Any specs about weak points in the vehicles or the distance from the mine roller to the truck would be very useful.  And if they got any information about the frequencies that we use on our ECMs (electronic counter measures) that would most definitely mean death for a lot more service members.

Information about base attacks that were successful, how many guard towers and gates that each base has, what kind of weapons are at what post, how far our cameras can see, how many cameras are on the base.  All this information puts the service members at a much higher risk. 

How far our artillery guns and missiles can shoot.  How accurate they are. How we gather our intel as to whether or not civilians are in a house.  What deception tactics (performed by the Taliban to make us think now innocent people were in a building that we later blew up) actually worked.  Because they WANT us to blow up women and children in order to turn the people against us.

I could go on, but you get the point.  There is a reason that information was considered top secret.  And as much as I don't trust the U.S. government and i think they lie and do sleazy things regularly; the reason for this information being top secret was not because they were trying to hide their actions. 

I am against this war and think we should pull out asap.  But thats what we should focus on, not every little detail of how the war is being fought.  That's really not necessary at all.  We know that we shouldn't be there, therefore as long as we are there, everything else that we are doing is irrelevant because we shouldn't be there in the first place.  So releasing top secret information that puts innocent people like me in danger is NOT OK.  It's not like Bush or Obama got put in danger because of these leaks.  It was the little guys who he endangered.  He really could have been more selective about what he released.
And also, I don't necessarily believe that it's the right of the world to have this information.  I really don't see how it's the right of non U.S. citizens to know our secret information at all.  Also, once you go to war, you just have to accept that it's best for some things to stay secret for the safety of the troops and the assurance of victory.  It would be more prudent to just make sure you elect officials who will not support nation building and preemptive wars in the first place.  But once that hammer gets dropped, you don't get to know every little detail anymore.  Thats just the way it is. 

Also you have to keep in mind that we DON'T drop bombs on targets multiple times every single day.  But this never gets reported because there is nothing to report.  No casualties or ammo expenditure.  So even though we do the right thing 90% of the time, it's only the mistakes that you hear about.  but he does't know about this, and neither do most people.  So it sounds like all we ever do is the wrong thing, because you never hear about us doing the right thing the majority of the time. If we did a report or held a news conference for every time the U.S. didn't drop bombs because we couldn't determine if any innocent Afghans would be hurt or not, it would be ridiculous.  Literally upwards of 20+ occurrences a day.  But its only the small minority of mistakes that you hear about, altering your perception of what's really going on over there. 

I can tell you honestly and truly that the guys over there are really trying their hardest to fight this war right.  None of us want to shoot or blow up innocent Afghans.  And we take a lot of steps and try really hard to make sure that doesn't happen.  But unfortunately it does happen every now and then by mistake.  Thats just the reality of a foreign military occupying another country.  But leaking this information and talking about how wrong it is isn't going to fix it, pulling out of the country is the only way to make sure those mistakes don't keep happening.  Because they are not malicious attacks, they are just mistakes.  Oh and of course there are always exceptions.  There could always be one or two ass holes that actually do maliciously do something to the Afghan people.  But they are by far the minority and they usually get dealt with pretty quick. 

This guy just seems to be spreading misinformation to me.  And he seems to be pretty fucking self righteous about it.  For someone who has never been to war, he sure is confident that he knows what he is doing and that he isn't putting anyone in danger.  And I don't doubt that he probably believes that is true.  It's just that he doesn't know, what he doesn't know. 

[E-Money]

Bixla i think your SOL, pretty sure he's gay. 


Anyways... I'd still love the beat the fuck out of him  

[Variable]

He looks gay to me too.  But I didn't want to say anything. 

I agree with his spirit and what I think his intent was.  I truly believe in the free press and free speech.  I also believe that governments do a lot of dirty shit and try to cover it up (especially the U.S.) and I would be very appreciative if someone was able to blow the whistle on them.  For example, if he could leak proof that Bush did have something to do with 911.  Or that Bush knew 100% for a fact that Iraq had no WMDs and he just made that up so that he and his goons...I mean cabinet members, could make a shit load of money off this war.  Maybe Obama is plotting to have someone assassinated.  Maybe leak something about the Federal Reserves suspicious behavior.  All of this would be great.  It points to real evil and the people who are responsible for it.
But its not cool to just leak literally every piece of top secret information that you can  get your hands on, regardless of who it hurts.  Yeah, there is such thing as free press, but you also have to be responsible with that.

Like I think most of us can agree that it's reasonable for the police not to release information about crimes to the public right away because it could interferer with their investigation.  This is information that we deserve to hear eventually, but not at the cost of tipping off the criminal or creating a cold case.......see the similarities?  All of this info could have been released eventually, after it no longer endangered people.

[blixa]

HE'S NOT GAY. YOU GUYS STFU. HE FATHERED A SON AND HAD A LIVE IN PARTNER WHEN HE WAS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA. HE'S NOT GAY! HE'S A HOT BABE EVEN IF HE IS FROM QUEENSLAND.

that said.

trey, i totally understand what you're saying and i don't know what to say to you, but there are other things that were leaked that we had a right to know such as the documents showing that civilian casualties in the iraq invasion have been under-quoted by the u.s. government, that abu ghraib was an ongoing torture house, that the iraqis who'd teamed up with the americans killed their own citizens while we all looked the other way, etc etc etbloodycetra. i get that you believe that the documents puts troops at risk and you've given the reasons you believe why that is. the officials were quoted as saying in nearly every initial article that the troops were at risk. aren't we intelligent enough to be told HOW this will endanger the troops (even without going into grand detail)? i suspect this argument is just a ruse. clearly there is a lot of information that we, as citizens, should know and aren't told. if we were told, the population would see that the troops really do need to be made safe by bringing them home. but the government/corporations don't want that: it would be bad for business.

should wikileaks be stealing government documents. well, by the law of the land, no. but should the american government be breaking international laws? should it be keeping secrets about illegal activities? in short, should it be doing all the things that the documents reveal?

no!

not all rules are good rules. not all laws are good laws. wikileaks broke a law to reveal a much bigger evil. we as a people in a purported democracy have a right to know a lot more than our government tells us. and being treated like children who just aren't sophisticated enough to deal with it all is getting old. and it is elitism at its worst! the american government needs to operate more openly. that doesn't include divulging tactics in legitimate, defensive wars. but just about everything else. your government's culpability justifies what wikileaks has done.

it is the shame of its political and economic system that we have to steal the truth to get it. moving back on track to the cost of the revealed documents, like i said, was there really anything we did not already know? we have details and we can't simply ignore it. does the release of those details endanger lives? maybe, but what put those lives in a position where this information is even relevant, and potentially dangerous for them? i assure you it wasn't wikileaks. in a way, it might have been better if wikileaks had started with revealing documents about big business and got some public support and drive behind them. irregardless, i hope wikileaks continues and i hope the media and the american government stop with the smear campaign against assange. if assange is a rapist, lock him up. but that has nothing to do with the documents. he didn't forge them. they are real.

AND HE IS A BABE!

[E-Money]

Bixla, I hope your not near this awful flooding I'm seeing on TV!  

[Frequency_Chemist]

Bixla, I hope your not near this awful flooding I'm seeing on TV! 

Dude I saw that today and was wondering if she was myself.

[blixa]

the flooding is in queensland. i live further south in new south wales although it has started creeping into northern nsw and a few areas had to be evacuated also. i have a lot of friends in brisbane though. most of them had to evacuate. it's beyond horrible. brisbane is a very happening place. i'm still shocked. i turn the telly on and it's like, that CANNOT be queensland. one thing about queensland though, it is the toughest state in australia. the people there are unbelievably strong in spirit. it sounds like a cliche thing to say but it's the truth. they're very community based. they stick together. ipswich looked to be the hardest hit although toowoomba looked devastating as well, and toowoomba sort of sits on a mountain. i cannot believe it went under.

thanks for being worried though.

[bright lights, big city]

yeah yesterday, nbc was saying the brisbane situation is worse than new orleans during katrina. what would make things worse for me is all the shit in the water that's everywhere. mainly those huge australian snakes. ewwwwww.

[E-Money]

the flooding is in queensland. i live further south in new south wales although it has started creeping into northern nsw and a few areas had to be evacuated also. i have a lot of friends in brisbane though. most of them had to evacuate. it's beyond horrible. brisbane is a very happening place. i'm still shocked. i turn the telly on and it's like, that CANNOT be queensland. one thing about queensland though, it is the toughest state in australia. the people there are unbelievably strong in spirit. it sounds like a cliche thing to say but it's the truth. they're very community based. they stick together. ipswich looked to be the hardest hit although toowoomba looked devastating as well, and toowoomba sort of sits on a mountain. i cannot believe it went under.

thanks for being worried though.

Glad ur ok.  I saw it all over the news and it looks devastating. 

[blixa]

i missed the first oprah in australia episode. my friend sent me an email to sum it up for me:


I was expecting to be horrified and offended but I was mainly just bored. Anyway, here are some thoughts:

* I wonder if the American version had a warning that it may contain images and voices of Aboriginal people who have died?

* Why do all visitors to Australia wear Akubra hats? What a stupid cliché. At least she didn't wear thongs and ugg boots and Speedos. YET.

* Speaking of clichés, why does every Australian journalist have to ask visitors if they like Australia when they have literally just stepped off the plane. STFU Australians.

* I am confused as to why an American would find Australians friendly. Have you never been to Sydney? Make eye contact with someone and they will suck your soul out with a straw to teach you a lesson about impertinence.

* KOALA. NOT KOALA BEAR. NOT A BEAR. ALRIGHT? NOT. A. BEAR.

* Ewww I wouldn't touch a koala. They look kinda dirty. I was amused by them having sex on screen though. Awkward.

* Curtis Stone is the most boring and least sexually attractive man on Earth.

* One of the guests has never been in the ocean. WEIRD. Maybe it's because Americans don't live on the coast as much as we do? All our capital cities have sea ports. EVEN THE INLAND ONE.

* Ewwww people singing Waltzing Matilda? I hate that song. Cliché central. Why do all the Americans know the words to I Still Call Australia Home?

* How come they let the people who can't swim into the Barrier Reef? They'll die and we'll be blamed.

* "You may call it Melbourrrrrrrrne but the Aussies call it Melbourne" Uh, yeah I think we decide how it's pronounced TYVM.

* At least they didn't refer to Uluru as Ayers Rock. Oprah was actually really good at not objectifying the Aboriginal community there. I guess when you're from a racially subjugated group you're less likely to act like a privileged dickhead. Also, good on them for not climbing the rock.

* Oprah's remark about only God being able to create Uluru was BIZARRE. Also, why say that and then follow it up with a geological explanation for the rock formation? Doesn't that negate what she said about 'only God'?

* A minute of silence for Uluru? Give me a break.

* Dear Oprah, please don't randomly say "eh, mate?" No one does that.

* OH YOU DID NOT JUST CALL MELBOURNE THE CULTURAL CENTRE. Don't get into that argument, Oprah. What did I just tell you about the desire vitriolic retribution that lurks within the bosom of each Sydneysider? I can hear the knives sharpening.

* LEARN TO PRONOUNCE THINGS PLEASE. Having an American accent isn't an excuse for saying things totally and utterly the wrong way. Yarrr-rarrr River? Julia Gir-lard? Could you not have at least learned the Prime Minister's name? I should start saying President Oh-bay-mer. Ruuuuude, really.

* Hahah she just used 'mate' to mean ~sex partner~. LOL LOL LOL.

* No one says G-day.

* I found it interesting how they made everything look really green as pastoral, even Melbourne. It's like they digitally removed the CBD skyscrapers. Seriously!

[chick de la lynch]

I would believe it if someone never went into an ocean before. In the states the only places that have beaches are the ones near a huge body of water (California, Florida, New York, etc.) Many people who visit California just come for the beaches. When I was in Austin a couple of weeks ago my cousin was going on about how she wanted to come back to Cali just to go into the water. I grew up regularly going to beaches, so I really don't understand what makes the beach so damn special but I guess if I wasn't raised in Southern California I'd want to go to a beach, too.

[blixa]

i can't stand the beach! i only like it when it's night time and it's winter or autumn otherwise i won't be caught dead near one. i prefer swimming in dams or a river.

[bright lights, big city]

don't make me bring back the steve-o pic.



lakes and oceans are where it's at. thank god i have lake michigan. the first 2 things that come to mind when i think of rivers is lots of mud and lots of pollution. gross.

[wheresmysnare]

i can't stand the beach! i only like it when it's night time and it's winter or autumn otherwise i won't be caught dead near one. i prefer swimming in dams or a river.

Is your icon photo ironic?! I don't mind beaches, but I bet the beaches in australia are a 24/7 sweat fest where you basically sit there frying

[chick de la lynch]

i can't stand the beach! i only like it when it's night time and it's winter or autumn otherwise i won't be caught dead near one. i prefer swimming in dams or a river.

I love the beach at night, and that's pretty much the only time I'll ever go near one. Word of advice: fooling around on the beach isn't as fun and sexy as you think it might be. You get all sandy and uncomfortable. It's not good, sexy fun.