Thread: Wikileaks...

Originally Posted by Mushroom

You are expecting consistancy? Come on, this is not Fantasyland.

Nothing irritates me more (and being a redhead, a lot of things irritate me LOL) than "my team, your team."

"OMG they leaked Valerie Plame's CIA connection ... prosecute, impeach, etc."

"Oh, 75,000 documents leaked, no biggie."

Why do posters do nothing more than list questions, and then act as if they expect someone to respond to their cross-examination?

Originally Posted by Slon

How does that endanger US marines? Are US marines informants?

Not Marines, but it shows that information leaked is more then likely killing people.

And I do not care if it is US Marines, Coalition partners, or Afghans that are trying to liberate their nation from a terrifying theocracy. Any death from the leaks rests fully upon their shoulders.

Originally Posted by leighredf

Why do posters do nothing more than list questions, and then act as if they expect someone to respond to their cross-examination?

Because they are trolls, and find anything that disagrees with their outlook of reality to be an affront to them personally. And they can't actually respond with anything factual, so they try to muddy the waters.

This is why I often react the way I do when people will make wild accusations without any kind of verification. Research is to hard for them to do, so they respond with inuendo and no facts.

Originally Posted by leighredf

Why do posters do nothing more than list questions, and then act as if they expect someone to respond to their cross-examination?

Mushroom made a claim, but his explanation does not lead to his conclusion. So I wanted him to clarify. Is that a problem for you?

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Not Marines, but it shows that information leaked is more then likely killing people.

And I do not care if it is US Marines, Coalition partners, or Afghans that are trying to liberate their nation from a terrifying theocracy. Any death from the leaks rests fully upon their shoulders.

Liberate?

So that the US can better support their puppet there? Looks like they're just working with the invaders while the other guys are working with the defenders. Who is the good guy? I don't know. Maybe there is no good guy. Much truth that is leaked can arguably influence someone to kill someone else, but does that always justify censoring it?

Originally Posted by Slon

Liberate?

So that the US can better support their puppet there? Looks like they're just working with the invaders while the other guys are working with the defenders. Who is the good guy?

OK, then prove the reverse is happening why don't you.

Show me cases where US forces or the Afghan Government have threatened to "hunt down and slaughter" informers for the Taliban.

When somebody makes an announcement that they are going to "hunt down and slaughter" people, I generally do not consider them to be the good guys. Maybe you do, but I don't.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

OK, then prove the reverse is happening why don't you.

False premise. I didn't say the US was saying that. They don't have to. They just invade and then kill those who stand against them. Making some sort of public threat to kill informants is not the only way to be a bad guy.

Show me cases where US forces or the Afghan Government have threatened to "hunt down and slaughter" informers for the Taliban.

When somebody makes an announcement that they are going to "hunt down and slaughter" people, I generally do not consider them to be the good guys. Maybe you do, but I don't.

False premise/false dilemma. First of all, I specifically said that maybe there is no good guy in that conflict. Hence, assuming that I did and asking me to identify him is silly. It's a false dilemma because you seem to assume that there once again must be a good guy, this time since side A is not good, thus side B must be good. There is no such dilemma. Both sides can be evil.

Someone needs to kill this bastard. And his source. Pull a 007 on his ass.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Someone needs to kill this bastard. And his source. Pull a 007 on his ass.

Why do you hate truth so much?

I ask, not for the first time: Why is Julian Assange still alive?

Why is the building housing the servers still standing? (Yes, in Iceland, yes, likely multiple copies... but still)

Why is this piece of crap still open for business?

And the last question is more poignant given what the government is choosing to do with these people

Defend copyrights? Okay... Defend state secrets? Nope...

Originally Posted by Slon

Why do you hate truth so much?

I don't hate the truth. I just don't want the truth to be known to our enemies. What a stupid statement. Go pull on that joint some more.
Get your head clear.

Originally Posted by tsquare

I ask, not for the first time: Why is Julian Assange still alive?

Why is the building housing the servers still standing? (Yes, in Iceland, yes, likely multiple copies... but still)

Why is this piece of crap still open for business?

And the last question is more poignant given what the government is choosing to do with these people

Defend copyrights? Okay... Defend state secrets? Nope...

He is still alive because current leadership doesn't have the balls to kill this bastard, and blame it on someone else. What in the hell constitutes an enemy these days? This PC shit has gone on long enough. Hell, give me the assets and his location and I will volunteer, even at my old age. I can still shoot like dead eye dick. Hey NSA, or CIA, give me a call. Patriotism still flows through these veins.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I don't hate the truth. I just don't want the truth to be known to our enemies. What a stupid statement. Go pull on that joint some more.
Get your head clear.

Well, knowing the truth as a regular citizen kinda means that the "enemies" can find out about it, too. If the US government wants to be safe, it needs to stop hiring informants and pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan altogether. Then there would be no reason to hide the truth.