Amazon caves to pressure from federal govt - shuts down wikileaks site

[CanOWorms]

Wow you are more intellectually dishonest than just about anyone I've seen on this board. Big Ben is a civilian target idiot.

Sorry, I disagree.

And it's interesting that you're making a fuss over a clock tower attached to Parliament yet you are ok with the British covering up for BP's destruction of the entire Gulf Coast. Is the Gulf Coast not a civilian target?

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry, I disagree.

And it's interesting that you're making a fuss over a clock tower attached to Parliament yet you are ok with the British covering up for BP's destruction of the entire Gulf Coast. Is the Gulf Coast not a civilian target?

The Gulf spill was a result of negligence by a multinational corporation. Your hypothetical attack on a historic building in a densely populated and militarily insignificant area would be intentional. Can you spot the difference?

 

[CanOWorms]

The Gulf spill was a result of negligence by a multinational corporation. Your hypothetical attack on a historic building in a densely populated and militarily insignificant area would be intentional. Can you spot the difference?

The British government's acts during the crisis were intentional. And how can it be called a result of negligence when it hasn't even gone through the legal system? Has any final report even come out yet? Are you just skipping all of that because of White Pride and BP is British and you need to protect your concept of White Homeland over Americans?

Fishermen vs. Parliament. Can you spot the difference?

 

[Infohawk]

The British government's acts during the crisis were intentional. And how can it be called a result of negligence when it hasn't even gone through the legal system? Has any final report even come out yet? Are you just skipping all of that because of White Pride and BP is British and you need to protect your concept of White Homeland over Americans?

Fishermen vs. Parliament. Can you spot the difference?

What are you suggesting? That the British government caused the spill? Or that BP intentionally caused the spill? Why would either one do that when it's in the opposite of their interests? You're really far out on a limb.

 

[CanOWorms]

What are you suggesting? That the British government caused the spill? Or that BP intentionally caused the spill? Why would either one do that when it's in the opposite of their interests? You're really far out on a limb.

I'm not sure if BP intentionally caused the spill (or even if British agents motivated BP to cause the spill), but I'm suggesting that the British government certainly tried to interfere with the situation.

It certainly seems to be in the interests of the UK. President Obama has no feelings for Europe or the British. He and his advisors look down upon them. This has been known for quite some time, constantly reinforced, most recently through the Wikileaks scandal.

A dog without its master is hopeless. It seems to me that it's certainly in the UK's interest to have Obama weakened politically and voted out of office for a pro-European politician.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Are you forgetting the American companies that were involved with the Deep Sea Horizon rig?

Leased from Transocean. The joint venture that leased the rig comprises of BP (65&#37, Anadarko (25%), and Mitsui (10%).

Halliburton provided installation services on the well.

 

[CanOWorms]

Are you forgetting the American companies that were involved with the Deep Sea Horizon rig?

Leased from Transocean. The joint venture that leased the rig comprises of BP (65%), Anadarko (25%), and Mitsui (10%).

Halliburton provided installation services on the well.

Yes, and the American government didn't seem to be trying to cover for them unlike the British government with BP.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not sure if BP intentionally caused the spill (or even if British agents motivated BP to cause the spill), but I'm suggesting that the British government certainly tried to interfere with the situation.

It certainly seems to be in the interests of the UK. President Obama has no feelings for Europe or the British. He and his advisors look down upon them. This has been known for quite some time, constantly reinforced, most recently through the Wikileaks scandal.

A dog without its master is hopeless. It seems to me that it's certainly in the UK's interest to have Obama weakened politically and voted out of office for a pro-European politician.

That is quite a conspiracy theory...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's certainly an element. They're more likely dropped for business reasons. Why keep a customer that barely pays you anything when you can be subjected to millions in litigation? Why keep someone that gives you a bunch of bad press?

No, bitch, EasyDNS dropped them after the US government pressured them to do so.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That is quite a conspiracy theory...

You do realise that you are having a discussion with a deranged psych ward patient?

He wants the US to start a war against the EU because he doesn't like what imperialists did to his precious Pakistan 300 years ago.

He's clearly insane.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yes, and the American government didn't seem to be trying to cover for them unlike the British government with BP.

All guarantees were issued by Halliburton, the inspections were made by Halliburton but obviously it's not their fault nor is it BP's fault or the US's who gave them clearance fault, it's the UK's fault.

Insanity on the internet, thy name is CanOWorms.

 

[CanOWorms]

No, bitch, EasyDNS dropped them after the US government pressured them to do so.

Please provide a link. Everything I've read says that EasyDNS is a free service provider and it wasn't getting bogged down. That's what they said themselves.

The US government taking them down would actually make the situation worse and be unhelpful.

 

[CanOWorms]

All guarantees were issued by Halliburton, the inspections were made by Halliburton but obviously it's not their fault nor is it BP's fault or the US's who gave them clearance fault, it's the UK's fault.

Insanity on the internet, thy name is CanOWorms.

Why would anyone else be responsible for the British government's actions? Of course it's the UK's fault. They are responsible for what they do.

The BP fiasco only worsened the view of the UK within the Obama administration. The UK is a dog without a master, it's sitting out there scared of being put in an animal shelter and euthanized.

The Obama administration is a foreign relations nightmare for the UK. Every month or so is a new disaster for them with Obama and his administration unraveling the so-called special relationship. This month? Wikileaks shows American diplomats view the UK with contempt: calling it a Dickensian society, mock its inbred royals, express shock at the UK's openness about its intent on restarting colonialism, and express displeasure at the ineffective performance of its pathetic military.

 

[RightIsWrong]

It's certainly an element. They're more likely dropped for business reasons. Why keep a customer that barely pays you anything when you can be subjected to millions in litigation? Why keep someone that gives you a bunch of bad press?

Here's a simple question for you....What percentage of the population would know or be able to find out who the hosting service is for a particular website?

 

[CanOWorms]

Here's a simple question for you....What percentage of the population would know or be able to find out who the hosting service is for a particular website?

23.21%. Amazon's connection was published all over the news. It seems like a nightmare in terms of business and potential legal liability.

I don't agree with the government pulling the plug on them if they're trying to do that (it would make the situation a lot worse), but forcing people to do something like hosting Wikileaks is itself wrong, too.

 

[HeXen]

how does it matter? all the data has been copied so many times, all over the world, taking it off their servers is so far too late its pointless...we all know the secrets now anway, good job gov't officials.