MtGox chief Karpelès refuses to come to US for g-men's grilling Mark Karpelès, the founder of imploded Bitcoin exchange MtGox, says he won't come to the US to answer officials' questions after his trading website mislaid 850,000 BTC. Lawyers for MtGox said Karpelès had received a subpoena from the US Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to come to a …
".....The Supreme Court upheld that American law can be enforced globally." Yeah, like Universal Jurisdiction is sooooo Yanks only, right? I suppose it escaped your bigoted view to note that European countries such as Spain and Belgium have taken upon themselves the right to charge anyone in any country with war crimes, even in cases where neither party involved has nothing at all to do with Europe. It is the basis for the International Court of Justice, a body very popular with professional handwringers like Amnesty International.
"you unimaginative sheeple"
Unimaginative sheeple eh? You really have no sense of irony at all, do you Matt?
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=site:theregister.co.uk+matt+bryant+sheeple
I didn't have time to see what kind of returns I'd get from your other stock phrases.
"......I didn't have time to see what kind of returns I'd get from your other stock phrases." I resist the urge to use too many descriptives for you sheeple as it only serves to confuse you. I take it from your dribbling response that you are one of those misty-eyed, wannabe rebel types that thinks Amnesty International are some sort of untaintable font of moral wisdom? I bet you clapped with righteous fervour when they moronically tried to compare the suffering of the Gulags with Gitmo, unable to comprehend the simple silliness of comparing Gitmo with Stalin's 'final solution' and the 39,000,000 people that died in such camps. What am I saying - you sheeple never do any research into the causes and organistaions you zealously and blindly support, let alone have the slightest grasp of history, so why would you have even have the foggiest notion of the daft depths AI has plummeted to?
> that thinks Amnesty International are some sort of untaintable font of moral wisdom?
An udder Plump and Bleaty tactic; ascribe to those who disagree some absurdly extreme position then attack them for it.
So, in contrast to Amnesty, as your counsel such perfection in others, I wonder what good you've done in this world. Let us know. (NB, token production of meat and wool don't count). Seriously, show us the goods. Something verifiable as I know you can be a bit 'careless' with facts.
Show us.
"....I wonder what good you've done in this world. Let us know...." You seriously think I'm going to share any personal history with 'us' (presumably you and the voices in your head)? Nice try at your usual - avoiding the argument and attempting to divert into a personal attack. Still your usual un imaginative, boring self, I see. Please do try harder. I notice you are desperate to avoid any discussion of AI, could that be because you know SFA about them?
> You seriously think I'm going to share any personal history
In short, you've done nothing of value.
> and attempting to divert into a personal attack
You're so good at bitching at the ineptitude of others I thought I allow you the chance to show how much better you were. That does not constitute a personal attack. Describing you as tedious would, but I'm not going to do that.
> I notice you are desperate to avoid any discussion of AI, could that be because...
... because you raised the issue of Amnesty International, not me? Correct. My post did not refer to them except by copying from yours.
More wool from plumpy.
".....In short, you've done nothing of value...." LOL, still trying with the personal attacks because you can't think of an argument (and when I write 'think' I mean that you can't find a canned counter from your usual spoonfeeding, right-think sources)? Well, I suppose you could say I have done nothing of 'value' seeing as value is itself intrinsic dependent on the beholder's own values. I may have done plenty that most responsible, educated, intelligent and law-abiding citizens - who don't follow envy politics or are mindlessly enslaved to the latest fashionable 'thought' - would consider of value, but then I can see why that would equate to zero for you.
"....You're so good at bitching at the ineptitude of others I thought I allow you the chance to show how much better you were...." Why do the lefties always think everyone is just dying to shriek 'me, me, me', just because their icons are so egotistical? Seriously, you need to realise there is more than just a difference in political views here, there are many of us that you obvisouly have not encountered (no doubt due to your sheltered life in the flock) that are better mannered and don't seek to promote self at every opportunity. I can only encourage you to get out more, meet a few people outside your tiny circle of the hip'n'trendy, and try immersing yourself in the many different points of view and lifestyles you so obviously have not had a chance to meet before. Do remember to tell your Mommie where you're going out to play, she'll probably want you back before teatime.
"... because you raised the issue of Amnesty International...." And you're still avoiding it. Just add it to your reading list and try and come prepared next time. TTFN!
(Dear Plump & Blleaty, kindly refrain from stripping the title of your monicker as this makes the thread hard to follow. I had to add it back again, sorry)
> LOL, still trying with the personal attacks
Defintely not a personal attack, plumpness! Just pointing out your repeated error.
> right-think sources
I thought you were right wing so I fail to see how you present this as criticism.
> Well, I suppose you could say I have done nothing of 'value' seeing as value is itself intrinsic dependent on the beholder's own values.
So even in your own eyes you haven't done anything worthy. Honest, I guess.
> I may have done plenty that most responsible, educated, intelligent and law-abiding citizens
Implying that you also may not have done? Peculiarly honest of you, lambchop
> but then I can see why that would equate to zero for you.
I honestly don't think that of you. Not at all.
> Why do the lefties always think everyone is just dying to shriek 'me, me, me', just because their icons are so egotistical?
I was asking about *you* but you seemed to have missed that (again, D- for plump, must try harder), like pretty well every point people make to you that you don't like. I kind of admire that in ewe.
> Seriously, you need to realise there is more than just a difference in political views here
I don't think you're cut out to understand that someone can hold a different political view to you.
> that are better mannered and don't seek to promote self at every opportunity
This, coming from mr. reticent, plumpo hisself! Wooooh hoooo!
Hiya plumpness, it is odd that you see this as personal. The lack of response to my pointing out of your errors suggests I'm in the right area, even more so now that you've backed down. Backed down twice in fact.
And twice I have acknowledged your honesty in your response, don't you think that's worthy of an upvote? Maybe it's because you didn't read my response properly. Try again, and address my points, thanx.
I've upvoted your post BTW. I upvote you, you upvote me, everyone wins, right plumpness? That's the power of socialism, lambchop.
"....it is odd that you see this as personal....." Your whole strategy is not to engage in debate you will lose but to drown out dissenting views with personal attacks and waffle. Your strategy is that of denial and is based on the realization that you cannot defend the indefensible, so instead you seek to mitigate the dissent. I'd like to try and be impressed that you can even come up with a strategy but it's hardly new, being a typical response by the sheeple when they are losing. And you're not even good at it.
"....don't you think that's worthy of an upvote?....I upvote you, you upvote me, everyone wins...." But that would be simply dishonest, something you obviously do not have a problem with. If you were to post an original and good argument in any post then I would upvote it even if I disagreed. I even upvote asdf every now and again. But for you, the voting system is not a tool for recognition of the intrinsic value of a post's argument, it is a popularity rating system, a means of re-inforcing group-thought. You and your ilk are so desperate to be popular, to be 'in with the crowd', that you just can't think independently. TBH, I just find that sad.
> drown out dissenting views with personal attacks and waffle
But why then do you repeatedly not address what I say? you just back out when it gets inconvenient. You did it twice before, you've made the hat-trick now. Kind of getting a habit with you.
> But that would be simply dishonest, something you obviously do not have a problem with
But plumpness, that is hardly something you can accuse of others of, is it. Shall I make a list? No? That's because you'd have to back out yet again.
> you cannot defend the indefensible
Tautologically not, so why do you say such a silly thing?
> If you were to post an original and good argument in any post then I would ...
... ignore it if it's inconvenient then make personal attacks. Q.V. much of this thread.
> the voting system is not a tool for recognition of the intrinsic value of a post's argument
Yes it is you silly sheep
> you just can't think independently
I envy your individuality, plumpness. You're special.
Again, just more waffle, diversion and moaning. It really is beyond you to even attempt an original thought. I shall have to take your continued and vacuous diversions as just evidence of your surrender. Enjoy!
Latest twist is that a group of investors actually want to buy the MtGox site (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mtgox-suitors-seek-creditors-support-save-defunct-bitcoin-exchange-1445292). But don't expect Boring Green to manage a comment on it until he's been spoonfed one.
"I resist the urge to use too many descriptives for you shee-"<monotonous troll speech snipped>
Actually, I wasn't commenting on Amnesty, or offering an opinion. I was just commenting on the amusement value derived from you calling anyone unimaginative, when you are constitutionally incapable of writing a post without resorting to the use of the non-word 'sheeple'. But thanks for playing.
"....I was just commenting on the amusement value derived from you calling anyone unimaginative....." As I said, it helps to not confuse you sheeple with too many long words, and you do all so enjoy the sense of 'belonging to something bigger', even if you don't have a clue as to what you're protesting.
".....But thanks for playing." Well, I suppose it was too much to expect you to actually formulate a defence of AI, hasn't one been spoonfed to you?
"As I said, it helps to not confuse you sheeple with too many long words"
Not to worry Matt, in your case there's no danger of that, of long words, or even particularly varied ones.
"Well, I suppose it was too much to expect you to actually formulate a defence of AI, hasn't one been spoonfed to you?"
I'm not all that interested to be honest.
"....in your case there's no danger of that, of long words, or even particularly varied ones...." Like I said, I really wouldn't want to overwhelm the limited mental capabilities of you sheeple. Now, to keep it simple, do you want to try and debate AI or the US's 'improper' use of legal tools with regard to Karpeles? The former I suspect is far beyond your capabilities or knowledge, and I suspect the latter should really wait until you have had the assistance of an adult to read the article and realised that Mr Kapeles has started this course of action by applying for bankruptcy protection in the US. Please do take your time as I see Brid-Aine has used a few words that might challenge your limited vocabulary.
"....I'm not all that interested to be honest." Yeah, we all know that really translates to 'crap, I don't have a clue, best act cool and back out'.
"Now, to keep it simple, do you want to try and debate AI or the US's 'improper' use of legal tools with regard to Karpeles?"
With you? Honestly? No. You see Matt, you're not even slightly interested in the 'debate' (because apparently you think that debate is what you do) you're simply waiting for the next confrontation in which you will triumphantly reaffirm how right you are and how everyone else is simply a cardboard cutout for you to hit with your verbal baseball bat of inanities (sheeple, cluetard, libtard, blahblah), once you've pinned the characteristics.of the things you hate to them by ascribing motives and ideologies that none of them actually have.
""....I'm not all that interested to be honest." Yeah, we all know that really translates to 'crap, I don't have a clue, best act cool and back out'."
Yep, you've got my number. I've been wandering round all day with a little speech bubble: "I sure wish I had as much of a clue as that Matt Bryant fellow, he knows what's what now he's painted every object, person, and concept on earth in vibrant shades of black and white."
"...With you? Honestly? No..." Hey, no need to get all weepie, just admit you're out of your depths and leave the discussion to the adults, mmmkay?
".....you're not even slightly interested in the 'debate'...." So why did I ask you to try and post an actual opinion (which you have - AGAIN - failed to do!)? Holy batcrap, I never realised I was so devious! Asking someone to formulate an opinion as a means of ensuring they DON'T say their piece - how could that possibly be construed as anything other than oppression of the most Machiavellian levels? I do apolgise for untinkingly offering you the opportunity to prove you're not just a cardboard cutout mindlessly rebleating spoonfed ideals.
"....Yep, you've got my number. I've been wandering round all day...." It amazes me you manage to get out the door with that level of egocentricity. Or is that just another desperate evasion of the arguments? It wouldn't be your first by a long shot.
"So why did I ask you to try and post an actual opinion (which you have - AGAIN - failed to do!)? Holy batcrap, I never realised I was so devious! Asking someone to formulate an opinion as a means of ensuring they DON'T say their piece - how could that possibly be construed as anything other than oppression of the most Machiavellian levels? I do apolgise for untinkingly offering you the opportunity to prove you're not just a cardboard cutout mindlessly rebleating spoonfed ideals.It amazes me you manage to get out the door with that level of egocentricity. Or is that just another desperate evasion of the arguments? It wouldn't be your first by a long shot.""
ICD-10 F60.3
That is all.
"....ICD-10 F60.3 That is all." Root cause analysis leads to the undeniable conclusion that your problems are the result of an ID10T issue. That and being just an unoriginal, cardboard cutout, still avoiding any debate. Especially as it was you that jumped into this thread shrieking about 'unoriginality'. You complained about posters being labeled unimaginative sheeple yet have done nothing except provide proof that you are a member of their flock.
> 39,000,000 people that died in such camps. What am I saying - you sheeple never do any research into the causes and organistaions you zealously and blindly support, let alone have the slightest grasp of history
Will the history professor point to the source that establishes the number of 39 million people having died in gulags and explain how other much lower estimates are proven wrong, permitting you to pass this male bovine manure off as fact?
"Will the history professor point to the source that establishes the number of 39 million people having died in gulags...." Interesting that the argument you choose is not to try and justify AI's hilarious comparison, but to instead attack the figure. Bit unsure of your ground? Of course, it is impossible to give an accurate figure for the number of Russians and non-Russians that Stalin killed in his purges and the Gulags, the GRU and NKVD were far too good at covering their tracks. The figure of 39 million is the high-end estimate, but even if you want to only use the small number of files that the KGB and GRU could not destroy after the fall of the USSR, you still get a verifiable figure of 1.6 million people for the Gulags. Please do take time to try and argue that 1.6m people verifiably worked to death somehow compares to Gitmo, if only for the comedy value your desperate blathering will inevitably provide.
"....What I was doing is taking issue with you quoting 39 million Gulag deaths as fact...." LOL, I posted it because I knew the response it instantly provokes from lefties. They really don't like the fact that Stalin's Workers' Paradise actually killed more of his own people than died in WW2, it really puts the whole 'Patriotic War' thing in focus, right?
"....Delighted to see you've read up on it since." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (some of the reading I did beforehand), the famous writer and critic of Stalin's rule and victim of the Gulag system, actually claimed the true number of Stalin’s victims might have been as high as 60 million. We'll never know for sure unless we invent time travel, and I'm sure there are plenty of lefties just keen not to find out at all. So hard to rail on about the Right and insist on the 'delights' of Socialism when a few facts get around! I'm not surprised you took issue with the figure, your lot always do. So delighted to see you take the bait.
Oh, and I see you're still steering well-clear of the rediculous comparison of AI's - cat got your anonymous tongue?
> LOL, I posted it because I knew the response it instantly provokes from lefties.
Yeah, sure, factual inaccuracies to evoke reactions from the great many Stalinists here on the Reg forums. It's plain to see you've been talking out of your arse - again - and caught doing it.
>>> The figure of 39 million is the high-end estimate
>> Delighted to see you've read up on it since.
> Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (some of the reading I did beforehand), [...] claimed the true number of Stalin’s victims might have been as high as 60 million.
You're still desperately catching up, seeing you were passing off 39m as the high-end estimate a moment ago and have now in your frantic search come across 60m.
> Oh, and I see you're still steering well-clear of the rediculous comparison of AI's
I don't think the Gulag/Gitmo comparison makes sense. It's just in your head that everyone who doesn't agree with what you're saying is a Stalinist unconditionally loving AI.
Aw, you still having a hard time accepting you got so easily caught out? I find it hard to accept it's the first time your ignorance has been so quickly exposed.
"....factual inaccuracies...." LOL, the fact you're desperate to portray the figure as 'inaccurate' exposes much more than you'd probably like to admit. Do you prefer Solzhenitsyn's figure of 60m, or would you like to deny that someone that directly suffered the Gulags might have some insight? What's next, are you going to deny the Gulags existed?
"....seeing you were passing off 39m as the high-end estimate a moment ago and have now in your frantic search come across 60m....." 39m is actually the figure to gain most consensus amongst modern historians with access to what remains of the records, those Gulag victims still alive, and the testimonies of those that were part of Stalin's brutal machine of repression. The 60m figure is a lot harder to justify seeing as there is a lot less evidence for it, therefore I would suggest the 39m figure is probably a safer bet. I see you are not even willing to submit your own figure, let alone actually justify your denial.
".....I don't think the Gulag/Gitmo comparison makes sense....." Finally, some sense! Oh, hold on, is that because you want to deny the Gulags existed? That all the 'victims' were criminals and 'traitors to the Revolution', and deserved what they got?
"....It's just in your head that everyone who doesn't agree with what you're saying is a Stalinist unconditionally loving AI." Well, seeing as you have avoided comment on AI, but mounted a rabid denial of the horrors of the Gulags, one would have to suggest your sympathies are towards the Stalinist revisioning of history.
You've talked out of your arse, Matt, and you've been caught doing it. Suggesting I'm a Stalinist, revisionist and/or Gulag denier is not a surprising last resort, I have indeed noticed that's just the sort of thing you do when you fuck up and cannot bear to man up.
I'll continue to point out incidents of your rabid thoughtless writing where I feel like it, though. I just know it'll make you a better man eventually.
"You've talked out of your arse, Matt, and you've been caught doing it...." What, posting facts and backing up my points, whilst you post nothing but blather and avoid the issues raised?
"....Suggesting I'm a Stalinist, revisionist and/or Gulag denier is not a surprising last resort...." It was the first resort when you took the bait. I also note you are studiously avoiding the points raised, especially the one relating to the actual extent of Stalin's horrific abuses. Gee, I wonder why?
"....I have indeed noticed that's just the sort of thing you do when you fuck up and cannot bear to man up....." What as opposed to your 'manning up' where you post no facts, no arguments or counters, and instead avoid the discussion? Your version of 'manning up' would seem rather weak and evasive, TBH, and based mainly on denial. Not eactly a winning strategy. Your grudging admittance of the stupidity of AI's comparisson didn't help you much either, especially not when it was couched in such sulky bitterness.
"....I'll continue to point out incidents of your rabid thoughtless writing where I feel like it...." Do please try and include an actual original argument next time, it will help others not think of you as just a bleating time-waster, shrieking because he cannot stand the idea of dissent yet clearly unable to formulate a counter with actual intelligent thought. Enjoy!
> I also note you are studiously avoiding the points raised, especially the one relating to the actual extent of Stalin's horrific abuses. Gee, I wonder why?
You've since figured out as well it's pretty much impossible to ascertain what the number is. Somewhere between 1.6 million and an upper bound that you are apparently still eagerly googling to establish. I fail to see what you desire out of that conversation.
The point is you can't know and yet you were passing one of the many wildly differing guesstimates off as fact, then you phrased it as a high-end estimate and when you found a higher one you've come to the conclusion that your initial claim really was the most reasonable. Pathetic.
> Do please try and include an actual original argument next time
I've come here to point out once again where you've been talking out of your arse and that's what I've done. Andrew's put rather succinctly how you piss over any kind of reasonable debate. Engaging with you meaningfully is not even an option available to us.
".....Somewhere between 1.6 million and an upper bound that you are apparently still eagerly googling to establish....." I think it's about time you realized some of us don't just rely on Google, we actually read these things called books. They're probably a bit before your time but I suggest you check them out, you'll learn a lot. One might even give you a clue to help you actually post something both relevant and intelligent. Until then, TBH, you're just wasting bandwidth.
".....yet you were passing one of the many wildly differing guesstimates off as fact...." Wow, you must be a hairdresser to spend so much time splitting hairs! I posted the 39m figure as it is the one most commonly accepted amongst historians, as I explained, and as you obviously ignored in your sulky desire to post something - anything! - rather than admit your socio-political outlook got you hooked.
"....I've come here to point out once again where you've been talking out of your arse and that's what I've done...." So please do point to any single, original argument you have posted. Oh, you haven't posted any. This is my surprised face, honest. Maybe you and Andrew can see if you can come up with one between you? It doesn't even have to be about MtGox or Karpeles or even the legal wrangles he landed himself in, just try for something small to start with and we'll try and work you up to the level of adult debate, mmmkay?
In the meantime, a more ironic part of the Karpeles request for US bankruptcy protection is that it gives the US financial authorities visibility of the sites records, potentially giving law enforcement agencies the ability to track potentially illegal purchases made with Bitcoins via the site. Given that MtGox is supposed to have handled up to 70% of all Bitcoin transfers I'm sure the FBI and other such agencies are positively drooling at the idea of getting their hands on that info. So, not only has Karpeles lost his customers' coins, he's potentially also blown away their anonymity! Truly a genius.
> have taken upon themselves the right to charge anyone in any country with war crimes, even in cases where neither party involved has nothing at all to do with Europe
Mismanagement of a novel currency is not the same as trying to enforce justice regarding events of genocide, torture, rape as a weapon of war, ditto mutilation, the use of child soldiers, that kind of thing.
> with professional handwringers like Amnesty International.
Are you for or against genocide, torture, rape, child soldiers, mutilations etc? Please be clear in your answer, thanks.
"Mismanagement of a novel currency is not the same as trying to enforce justice regarding events of genocide, torture, rape as a weapon of war, ditto mutilation, the use of child soldiers, that kind of thing...." Hey, it was your shrieking fellow sheeple that made out it was completely unreasonable for the US to use it's laws abroad, I simply pointed out a very obvious example of other countries doing the same. You might also want to know that the EU applies EU banking laws to foreign banks too. Oh, then again probably not, as it might actually cause you to stop and think.
"....Are you for or against genocide, torture, rape, child soldiers, mutilations etc?...." I am against. I'm also against leftie organisations with anti-Semitic trackrecords and downright selective application of their 'principles'. Especially ones that employ a Nazi collabarator and terrorist like Sean Macbride, the most ironic choice for Nobel Peace Prize right up to Obambi's farcial award.
"with anti-Semitic trackrecords"
I can find no history whatsoever of Amnesty International attacking jews. Only Israel - which is a very different thing. Which seeing as Israel is a widely acknowledged terrorist state and notorious human rights abuser is hardly surprising bearing in mind the purpose of Amnesty International.
A bit rich complaining about Sean Macbride when a number of Israel's prime ministers have previously been well known terrorists. At least MacBride has renounced violence unlike Israel. He is extremely well qualified for the job of assessing Israel's numerous human rights abuses - MacBride's work was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (1974) as a man who "mobilised the conscience of the world in the fight against injustice". He later received the Lenin Peace Prize (1975–76) and the UNESCO Silver Medal for Service (1980).
".....I can find no history whatsoever of Amnesty International attacking jews....." Ah, another one that wants to pretend that AI's disproportionate focus on Israel is nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
"....At least MacBride has renounced violence....." Macbride 'renounced violence' when it was politically convenient for him to do so. He was still silent on his part in and knowledge of the many murders the IRA committed, both in Northern Ireland and Eire itself, whilst he was the IRA's Director of Intelligence. Macbride made a point, right up to his death and long after any possibility of charging any IRA members, of not helping the families of the victims of the IRA find the bodies of their loved ones. He couldn't be quite as quiet about his collaborating with the Nazis, but all the lefties seem happier to ignore that. Right up until his death, including the Macbride Principles of 1984, he was still pushing the IRA and pro-Catholic agenda.
".....unlike Israel....." Israel has made it clear that they will accept peace if the Arabs stop trying to kill them. Right back to 1948 the Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel, please do explain (in what you obviously think is an 'non-anti-Semitic' way) why the Israelis should not be allowed to defend their sovereign state in exactly the same way as every other sovereign state (oh, and please note that the 'Palestinian state' is not legally a sovereign state)?
"....He is extremely well qualified for the job...." Really, from beyond the grave? He died in 1988. I suggest you do a lot more research before your next bout of bleating. But of course, your idea of 'qualified' was probably reached when you saw he was a leftie, anti-NATO, anti-nuke, and Europhile, and probably by his being one-time UN High Commissioner for Refugees (the body which grants the 'Palestinians' the perpetual and completely unique status of 'refugees') and High Commissioner for Human Rights (yes, the old UN CHR, so criticized for its poor record on allowing countries with serious human rights violations onto the Council that the UN had to scrap it and replace it with the just as bad UN HRC, which is so anti-Semitic that it voted Iran onto its board and has been described as having lost all credibility by the US). Yeah, no possible issues for concern there - not!
".....the Nobel Peace Prize (1974)...." As I said, probably the most ludicrous example of the Award right up until Obambi got his.
"pretend that AI's disproportionate focus on Israel is nothing to do with anti-Semitism"
It's quite obviously because of Israel's disproportionate focus and extensively documented lack of observance of human rights. There is zero evidence of any focus on jews.
"Macbride 'renounced violence' when it was politically convenient for him to do so"
He renounced violence and has been a tireless campaigner against it since.
"He was still silent on his part in and knowledge of the many murders the IRA committed"
It is well documented that he actively opposed the IRAs attack plans and tried to find peaceful solutions - even before he renouced violence.
"Right back to 1948 the Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel"
Hardly surprising when the zionists ignored the agreements that had been made under the madate for Palestine and took military control of towns that were supposed to remain arab. The first agression was from the zionists - and that was after a long terrorist campaign against the British and others, which then switched to attacking arabs and expelling the indigenous population.
The ancient egyptians document Palestine as a region before the original state of Israel even existed. And the indiginous Palestinian arabs are mostly more genetically 'semitic' than the Israeli jews - who are largely European in origin!
"Israel has made it clear that they will accept peace if the Arabs stop trying to kill them"
Whilst never offering the required things to achieve peace - a right of return for those forcibly expelled from their homelands and a return to the 1948 borders including East Jerusalem as part of a contiguous Palestinian territory. Israel could have achieved peace at little cost decades ago if it wanted. It has instead taken the deliberate decision to try and eliminate the Palestinians and grab as much prime territory as possible instead.
"He is extremely well qualified for the job...." Really, from beyond the grave"
His qualifications are no less valid now then when he exposed Israel as the aggressor in his now famous and widely respected report.
"which is so anti-Semitic that it voted Iran onto its board and has been described as having lost all credibility by the US"
Iran has a somewhat better track record on human rights than either the US or Israel. A much better record of not invading / attacking other countries too...
"....because of Israel's disproportionate focus and extensively documented lack of observance of human rights...." Israel, unlike its neighbours, is a proper democracy with rights for citizens that extend - just for example - to homosexuals and women. Please do try and claim that Israel's neighbouring Arab states extend the same level of rights to homosexuals (in Saudi, a crime with the death penalty) or women. Then explain AI's complete lack of interest in those flagrant breaches of human rights on the part of those Arab states, unless you want to contend that laws against homosexuality are just OK with you (careful, Hampton Caitlin might be reading and find out where you work....)?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the large donations to AI and links with wealthy parties in said Arab states, such as Abd al-Rahman al Nuaimi (and nothing at all to do with AI's subsequent support for friends of al Nuaimi's that were members of an al Quaeda-linked Islamist group involved in a coup attempt in the UAE). Nor, I'm sure, why AI has protested shipments of defensive weaponary to Israel whilst ignoring arms smuggled into the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and West Bank that are only used for aggressive attacks on Israeli civilians. And who could possibly infer any form of bias might be why AI was so happy to publish a one-sided report into the 'war crimes' of the Israeli attack on Hezbollah in 2006, completely ignoring the many actual war crimes perpetrated by Hezbollah both before, during and after Israel's response? No, you're right, AI is completely whiter-than-white. Do I need sarc tags? I suggest a little reading - http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international
"....He [Macbride] renounced violence and has been a tireless campaigner against it since....." Really? So please do provide a link to some of these vehement denials you want to claim he made. Please do give special prominence to any where he condemned the IRA's Border Campaign (1956-1962). Please don't lose heart when you discover that Macbride not only fully-supported the bombing campaign, but he withdrew the support of his Clann na Poblachta party from the Irish government when they arrested the IRA leadership in 1957. He also NEVER made a single statemnent that I can find condemning any murder commited by the IRA, be that murder of an English soldier or an Irish civilian. If he renounced violence as you claim, it was a very silent and selective renouncing. He was also notably silent on his collaboration with the Nazis, but then he was in good company with the Arabs at the UN on that front. Which probably explains your blind faith in him, seeing as the IRA and PLO have long been bossom buddies and have cross-trained and swapped arms and resources over the decades.
"....Hardly surprising when the zionists ignored the agreements that had been made under the madate for Palestine...." Again, you really need to go read some actual history books rather than be spoonfed propaganda. The Jews agreed the UN plan for the partitioning of the Mandate territories, even though 76% of the Mandate territories were given unquestioningly to the Arabs in the form of Transjordan, even though the area assigned to the Jews was much smaller than that promised, and even though many Jewish villages fell outside the designated Jewish area. This acceptance allowed them to proclaim the state of Israel with the UN's blessing. It was the Arabs that decided to reject the UN's partition plan because they could not accept any Jewish state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine).
"....The ancient egyptians document Palestine as a region before the original state of Israel even existed...." Male bovine manure. The Greeks originally refered to Falastin, the Romans later to the area of Syria Palestina. The Romans coined the term in an attempt to break up and diminish the Jewish Judaean Kingdom they had conquered in the area, which means the Jews predated any Arab claim to 'Palestine' by several thousand years. They Romans and Greeks both refered to larger general areas that covered most of southern Syria, the Lebanon, chunks of Iraq and Jordan. Even then, the modern day 'Palestinian' Arabs are descendents of Arabs that migrated out of the Saudi peninsular in 634AD, and there has NEVER been an historic people known as the 'Palestinians' as you claim. This is most amusingly demonstarted as a myth by the fact that the Arabs can't even say the word, having no hard 'p' in their vocabulary, instead having to say 'Falastin', a corruption of the ancient Greek term. Once again, you really need to go learn some facts.
"....Whilst never offering the required things to achieve peace...." Again, this is easy to demonstrate as a complete lie. At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak opened with an offer that surprised even Bill Clinton with its genorosity - 98% of all the PLO's demands met without even Arafat having to negotiate. Some cynics say it was a clever ploy by Barak to demonstrate that Arafat had no intention of negotiating, that the continuous and ever-changing demands of the PLO were intended to never be agreed so the PLO could claim that Israel did not want peace. Either way, instead of taking the best deal the PLO had ever since then or since (and far better than anyone expected the Israelis to offer), or even negotiating on it, Arafat instead walked out and called on his people to mount a second and suicidal Intifada. More recently, when the Abbas administration demanded a freeze on construction before peace negotiations could start, the Israelis called his bluff and froze construction for nine months, during which even the US admitted the 'Palestinians' did nothing more than constantly change their demands and agree nothing more than more aid money. The peace treaty with Egypt in 1976, when Israel gave up the oil-rich Sinai, is just one example of how Israel has a track record of wanting peace. The Palestinian Arabs demonstratably have none.
"....Iran has a somewhat better track record on human rights than either the US or Israel...." Nothing exposes your wilfull blindness more than that statement. I pity you. Human Rights Watch have a hard time ignoring Iran's horrific record on human rights violations:
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-iran
> ".....I can find no history whatsoever of Amnesty International attacking jews....." Ah, another one that wants to pretend that AI's disproportionate focus on Israel is nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
Matt, even your spoonfeeder Mark doesn't go beyond a claim of AI being anti-Israel. You make yourself look like an overzealous apprentice.
Yes, we forget that our own country always feels safer than another - presumably because we are OK with what is familiar. People in China feel safe there. People in Russia feel comfortable. I think that Americans sometimes forget that when someone in a foreign country reads all the stories in the news about the US violence, particularly by police and government, then they can feel apprehensive about going there.
I'm sure that the rule of law if frequently upheld in the US, but don't forget that the high profile and controversial rulings are the ones that people see around the world. The recent news stories about the release of torture reports doesn't look friendly either. I think a foreigner can be forgiven for not feeling that the US is a safe place to visit - especially if the government is already pointing a finger at you.
@Michael touche. Don't get me wrong I hate many of the things my government (US) does but it is easy to see some hypocrisy and smugness coming out of the UK readership that perhaps doesn't know or have forgotten their own colonial history. Even today their government commits some of the same transgressions as the evil empire.
"You mean like Assange is in yours?! If you lot love freedom that much than allow him to go on about his business then." A$$nut was given full recourse to both Swedish and English law and instead chose to put himself where he is. He is free to leave his hid eyehole any time he likes, just as long as he is willing to face his accusers in Sweden.
A$$nut was given full recourse to both Swedish and English law and instead chose to put himself where he is. He is free to leave his hid eyehole any time he likes, just as long as he is willing to face his accusers in Sweden...
Who'd just as soon place him on a West-bound Plane to the States when, and if they were done with him.... To face trumped up charges related to Wikileaks... Something the UK would also like to see happen to him....
".....Who'd just as soon place him on a West-bound Plane to the States when, and if they were done with him.... To face trumped up charges related to Wikileaks... Something the UK would also like to see happen to him...." Seriously? I am astounded that there is still a member of The Faithful willing to rebleat that complete load of debunked gumph. The UK has never made any move other than to ship A$$nut back to Sweden under the European arrest Warrant issued by Sweden, and only after the months that A$$nut wasted working through the English legal system. His 'trumped up charges' will have to wait until the Swedes have finished prosecuting him for sexual assault. Please fuck off and do a LOT more reading on the matter. You can start with the dumbed-down MSN version here - http://news.uk.msn.com/comment-and-analysis/julian-assange-extradition-myths-debunked - which should be simple enough for even a cluetarded member of The Faithful to follow.
Tibanne Co. Ltd is a limited liability company, with very limited assets, so I'm not sure why he even wants bankruptcy protection. His personal liability is less than $500k and even if it's proven, without a doubt, that extraterrestrials took the Bitcoins he'll never be allowed to work with anything of value in the US or Japan. Ineptitude isn't a crime, but both the US and Japan can limit interstate, interprovincial and international trades of anything if it can be shown that anyone involved in gross ineptitude attempts to become involved in another situation where third party value can be lost (again). So he can't salvage his reputation.
He can't salvage his company. Ever. If he had $1B in the bank, that could be shown to be completely unrelated to and existed in his possession before his involvement with MtGOX, he couldn't borrow the money to cover the taxes on any property he owns, even against that $1B. So he can't salvage any real property he owns in the IS. Ever.
But since he's filed for bankruptcy protection the case must be heard because his US creditors have tied up their creditors funds until the judgement is made. Legally, you can't back out once the motion has be filed because of the 3rd party issue. But he can't even pay the reorg fees because his assets are frozen and, as previously mentioned, he can't borrow one penny.
Why even bother? Why file a motion that requires his appearance in court if he's going to refuse to go? If he doesn't show, in person, no bankruptcy judge on Earth is going to grant his reorganization request, so he's still going to lose everything he already lost, and is going to guarantee an active criminal investigation instead of an inquiry that cannot result in his detainment.
US law enforcement cannot request your presence at an inquiry if they have evidence that warrants arrest. They have to arrest you or wait for you to do more so they can throw more books at you. That's why they don't and big time drug dealers and mob guys to come in for inquiries. That's actually entrapment, where 98% of what people think is entrapment isn't.
A $2,000 a day hobo lawyer knows all this. There's no way a legal team that filed for bankruptcy protection wouldn't have told him. Something is really bad wrong.
Honestly, I thought the guy was either just stupid, of he had been robbed by a State actor to take the wind out of BitCoin's sails. I've always thought that's what I would do if I wanted BitCoin to go away (I'm neutral on the whole idea. I like my regular money). It's just smart. A few assholes had already damaged the BitCoin reputation almost irreparably and the 'common man' always thought it was a scam. Even if the US or Russia or China had gotten caught they could have walked away without much controversy.
But now I'm not sure this guy hasn't ripped everyone off. It's like a guy who has caught a tiger, but didn't think through what happens next. It's just sketchy as shit. He looks more suspicious because everybody that's ever been through corporate bankruptcy or private bankruptcy tied to LLC failures knows this isn't how it is done. He's lost his mind if he doesn't think Japan will export him if he doesn't show for his bankruptcy hearing and a criminal investigation is opened. This is just wrong. If he did it, then sure, that sucks if you bought in, but that's thems the risks. I'm going to be much more irritated if he did do this and didn't think it through any better than this he deserves to go to prison.
"Ineptitude isn't a crime, but both the US and Japan can limit interstate, interprovincial and international trades of anything if it can be shown that anyone involved in gross ineptitude attempts to become involved in another situation where third party value can be lost (again)."
Ahh . . . If only it worked that way for politicians too.
"I like my regular money."
Me too; may I have some?
The thing about Bitcoin that gets me is that I wonder what people were/are thinking buying such quantities of BTC that they have been hit big by the loss.
Anyone who has/had enough BTC to be worried about losing them is using them as an investment device, rather than as currency. Given that's the case, surely they should understand the extreme volatility of this particular investment?
Of course, no one would expect more traditional investments (e.g. in plain old shares) to simply be lost but in this case, what they are effectively doing is this:
* Holding an extraordinarily volatile and utterly unregulated investment.
* Entrusting custody of that investment to a company that is not (and cannot be) certified by any meaningful authority and without any safeguards or guarantees for the investors.
Huh?
Bitcoin's status as an investment (however bad or good!) undermines its status as a currency.
If the currency itself is increasing in value, that means more wealth is tied up in 'cash' and people are more reluctant to invest that money in something that actually helps the economy, like a company developing a new product or building some stuff - whatever. The point is that people hoarding their money in banks doesn't really help create jobs!
That was a digression - apologies.
You've identified one if the biggest problems with this sort of thing. It's no different than commodities trading in a totally unregulated environment. People whine about regulation but they're always quick to come running for help when they've been ripped off.
As you say, what were people thinking? I want to trade in this highly unstable 'virtual currency', flaunt all the rules there to help prevent stuff like this from happening but when everything goes bad you what to use resources you didn't pay for to pursue somebody you had no business interacting with anyway.
People talk about arrogant and Apple customers, I think BitCoin users have them beaten by a long shot.
@Don Jefe
I think there may well be arrogance but I am not sure that it is the defining characteristic. (Not that you claimed it was . . .)
I think there are three main types of Bitcoin advocates:
The first group is easy to understand. The second group I find myself sympathising with, even as I know - deep down - that that particular ship has long since sailed. They at least are in it for more-or-less good, or at least benign reasons.
The last group is the most interesting to me.
This group comprises the same people who argue for a return to the gold standard for currency and it's important to understand where they're coming from. While their arguments might be heavy on the fiscal justification for a commodity-backed currency, their position cannot be understood without connecting it to their Libertarian, "small government" ideals.
The reason they support such a currency is not, ultimately, about fiscal merits but about making currency independant of the government. Their arguments hold sway with those who believe that "tax is theft" and that the government providing a public healthcare option somehow means that the government will force you to stop seeing your local doctor and make you see a doctor of their choosing instead.
The most important part is that the currency portion of their plan can't just occur in isolation - it must be matched with a much-reduced government and the abolition of the vast majority of public services.
Thanks for the explanation of US laws.
There is still one thing that would gave me pause though if I was in his "shoes" (not saying he is guilty or not guilty no opinion here).
Since the Patriot Act no one who is not a US Citizen can have any real protection or guarantee of having even its basics human right respected, you CAN disappear forever (indefinite) without reason, appeal or lawyer.
You can be on a "list" without cause, reason and secretly and you can't even fight that inscription on the list, or even talk about it.
For any foreigner, the US is akin to any authoritarian regime in the world, with no protection at all, and that is a big problem for the "first democracy".
PS: I don't care if the lists are well or not well "curated", mistakes happen, angry people avenging with impunity happen, political bend happen, the reasons advanced societies have law, due process, defendant rights and contradictory processes of law with some transparency should be clear to anyone by now. Obviously they aren't (even to US lawmakers).
"And thus they gathered all the bitcoin online... then just like magic t'was gone"
That rather cuts to the heart of it for those who shovelled cash into Mt Gox. Trusting a trading card exchange with millions of dollars is about as safe as trusting a...well.. a bank, but at least with a bank there's some regulation, good or bad.
What they did was not exceptional - they entrusted their investments to a custodian 'bank'.
Millions of people do this with places like Deutsche Bank, BNP, Goldman Sachs, etc . . .
The difference is that, as there is no regulation of BTC, there is no mandated protection for the clients.
If you use a custodian bank, you choose one based on the services they provide, including the security and guarantees of your funds. Those who chose MtGox chose a custodian with no securities or guarantees.
It is like storing your stuff in a dedicated storage facilities, which generally do not accept liability for any losses. Many of these places actually tell you that you have to have insurance as part of the agreement (which can be taken out privately or with the facility).
The unfortunate fact is that, until recently, there were no facilities that provided insurance for stored bitcoins.
I suppose the summary of my posts is that the BTC market is a bit 'Wild West'.
There are great profits to be won but the flip side is great risk - not just in the volatility but in the lack of regulation and protection.
That's not inherently bad or good, just important to note when deciding to sell up and move to the frontier.
Mark Karpeles was the CEO of Mt.Gox. Not it's founder. He bought it from someone after it already was a more or less established exchange.
Also @ Commentards: It's Bitcoin (the protocol) and bitcoin (a unit of currency).
BitCoin doesn't exist, it's not the correct word. This is very clearly defined as such.
the alphabet soup agencies are all around overseas.
In Phnom Penh, Cambodia, there are the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, NSA and other characters driving around in darkened SUV's with satellite antennae sprouting forth (actually they look like air intakes on the old military Austin Champ). The IRS is even here, checking on wayward Americans who might have forgotten to declare their non-US income.
Should a Mark Karpeles be reluctant to check in with the embassy, then the US can send out JSOC troops to show them the way.
And Japan, Karpeles present home from home, has even more US 'assets'.
Little wonder the US is bankrupt.
You have to be present, in person, at bankruptcy protection hearings if a company you own or represent is seeking to reorganize more than $125,000 (may be higher now) of credit liabilities or personal bankruptcy protection of more than $75k of non-real estate, non-healthcare, non-credit card or debt related to other court ordered actions (child support, alimony, etc...) of debt liabilities. Otherwise you have to be present if court ordered to do so.
He would have to be present anyway, because his debt liabilities exceed the minimums of discretionary creditor protection. Which means the judge is no longer required to take your proposed financial changes into account, at all. They can decide, along with your creditors, who gets paid, how much and in what order and what you get to keep, or don't get to keep. If you don't show and aren't hospitalized or deployed overseas as a government employee you get zero say in your financial future. Regardless, it's common for those living overseas to be ordered to be present to help prevent fraud, and to assess your present state of mind and lifestyle. You fly in from overseas wearing $10k worth of accessories you aren't going to look very good. But people do it... Idiots.
It's also a viable concern if you've filed for bankruptcy, specifically requested your discretionary proposal to be hears, and refuse to show. You're now more in debt and, as in this case, if criminal inquiries are taking place you've just provided 100% of the justification to open a criminal investigation instead of an inquiry.
For the inquiry he could answer questions and provide requested documentation at any US embassy, consulate or military base there by treaty. Anywhere that's recognized by the host country where he can make statements under oath. He can also provide evidence to US officials in any UK, Japanese or Swiss embassy as we have provisions for that via treaty as well. Do you know why we have those provisions? It's specifically for situations like this! A person can have a variety of reasons not to go to a given country, but since they chose to do business here, do not have a right to avoid investigation. Which they can do by cooperating with the inquiry, at a number of places where they won't be arrested or detained. A person can leave an inquiry at any point and still retains 100% of the rights afforded them by law. But if you don't show an actual investigation can be started and the very same embassy that a few hours earlier would have offered you good food and beverages, even fucking cigarettes in a nice room with comfy furniture will now stick you in a cell and give you shitty food, water and no smokes. It's a really stupid fucking thing to walk away from. As I posted earlier, it's illegal to arrest you if you honor a request for an inquiry.
As for the other, I haven't been to Phnom Phen since 2012, but I can't imagine it has changed much. So I can see how you might be overwhelmed by what you see as extravagant expense, especially if you've never been anywhere outside of Southeast Asia. But I can assure you, those guys aren't that expensive. We only send the shitty staff overseas, since it's nearly impossible to fire them. We send them somewhere far from home and pay them pocket change $70k salaries to fuck around and , hopefully, quit.
In US criminal court everybody has the same rights, regardless of where they live. That's why it sucks that 'terrorists' go before a military tribunal, not an actual court. They're already guilty, no marrer what they did, or didn't, actually do. It's the same with everything 'terror related', the entire system gets bypassed.
This guy may, or may not, be a criminal, and it's irrelevant if he doesn't even stand up for himself. He'll have lost that battle if he doesn't show in court and it's 100% certain the Japanese will send him over here. He'll have lost 100% of the protections afforded him by aiding in an inquiry and following through with legal process he set in motion.
See, nobody likes it when a person wants their rights under the law (bankruptcy hearings) but doesn't want the same set of laws applied to themselves. That doesn't stand anywhere outside of Congress or Parliament. He's already getting a major favor because it's an inquiry, not an investigation.
Any statement or evidence he provides in that arrest free setting will be weighed, as he positions it, to make determinations about an investigation. Information provided during that inquiry must also be shared in court, should an investigation result in an arrest. If he doesn't provide it during the inquiry he'll have to defend any accusation made against him regardless of how it is positioned. He'll be defending attacks, not preventing them. He'll have to fight to have every single scrap of evidence for his defense accepted by the court and he simply doesn't have the resources to do that.
It's best for people to understand what's actually going on, instead of yammering on about things they don't know anything about. Armchair lawyers are always insanely deluded about how things work. It's even worse if the subject is something they've never actually been involved with. Go get yourself an inquiry invitation and give your statements in Christchurch, New Zealand. That's what I did when some of our stuff left the UAE and ended up in Iraq. I even got a letter thanking me for my cooperation. It's far less intimidating than court or a grilling by the police.
@Arachnoid
Unless I have misread the issue (or your post), they are seeking the protection (yes, protection) of bankruptcy in the US to deal with their US creditors.
If you are seeking legal protections of a jurisdiction it makes sense that you should have to comply with the laws of that jurisdiction.
While I am not possessed of great legal knowledge, international business has been a well-established fact of life for a long time now and one can reasonably expect the legal frameworks surrounding that to be equally well-established.
The US knows what it's doing here - it seems that Karpeles is the one that is acting a bit bizarrely.
Again, I'm not well-versed in international law or business law but I really can't see that Karpeles has anything to gain by this behaviour and, on the contrary, it seems he has much to lose.
He has a chance to tell his side of the story and get it on the record. He is being afforded the full protections of the law - should he avail himself of them. If he doesn't, I just can't see how his situation improves.
I am no fan of heavy-handed tactics or US arrogance and overreach but in this instance he is trying to "avail himself of [the US courts]" (Jernigan J) so should be co-operating with them and the government.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
