Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo


View Poll Results: Assange is responsible for a number of Innocent Deaths
Yes 11 50.00%
No 5 22.73%
He was right to release the files 7 31.82%
He was wrong to release the files 6 27.27%
Do not give a hoot about repercussions. We had to know. 1 4.55%
The US Govt will eventually catch him 4 18.18%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

petros
#211
NY Times? National Post?

Hang 'em high and stop them from publishing.
 
CDNBear
#212
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Who PUBLISHED them?

Not that I'm sure what this diversion from supporting your assertion that I'm pissing on your's and my rights, is all about.

You seem fixated on the NY Times, so I guess that would be a good place to start. Which as I said, published carefully chosen and redacted dispatches.

Perhaps you can explain how that is relevant to my position.
 
petros
#213
So they carefully released alleged illegal information? How does that happen?
 
CDNBear
#214
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

They probably did that to cover their legal butts, whereas Assange and Manning were willing to go to trial and get thrown in jail for whatever their greater cause seems to be.

You think so? Seems to me that neither is doing much to be a martyr for the cause. Maybe you see things differently. But where I come from, hiding and running isn't considered standing up for anything, except cowardice.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

NY Times? National Post?

Hang 'em high and stop them from publishing.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So they carefully released alleged illegal information? How does that happen?

You seem to be unable to follow along.

Maybe you should reread the thread. At the very least, it might prevent you from making all manner of foolish claims about my position.

It would certainly go a long way to prevent you from making a bigger fool of yourself.
 
petros
#215
Re-read your you bile on selective rights?
 
CDNBear
#216
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Re-read your you bile on selective rights?

That would be one of the foolish assertions I was talking about.

I'll ask, but I highly doubt you'll rise to the challenge though. Can you back up your foolish assertion?

I mean, I can simply provide one quote that puts my position into complete context. Because it is after all, that simple to do.
 
JLM
#217
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That would be one of the foolish assertions I was talking about.

I'll ask, but I highly doubt you'll rise to the challenge though. Can you back up your foolish assertion?

I mean, I can simply provide one quote that puts my position into complete context. Because it is after all, that simple to do.

Hey Bear- Petros is really a nice guy who likes to tell jokes.
 
CDNBear
+1
#218
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Hey Bear- Petros is really a nice guy who likes to tell jokes.

I know, I read his posts.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#219
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

What I find "amusing" are those screaming about the posts possibly causing the death of innocents and scoffing at the "collateral damage" tag that he used, yet these same people will defend the "collateral damage" deaths caused by the "good guys" as unfortunate but a fact of war.

The conventional term "Collateral Damage" is a nice tag which takes the sting off the reality of innocents killed during an act of war. When fighting a war, unfortunatly, innocents do die. Best way to avoid it is to avoid war if possible. Unfortunatly, that is not always possible.

To me, Assange is different. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that releasing the information he did will likely cause death or worse to those involved. I would be hard pressed to believe that a general ordering a air strike on a military target knowingly believes that that action will cause the death of innocent bystanders. Assange knew this when he released that information. He can moralize it all he wants but he did.

So for me, the difference is intent.
 
captain morgan
#220
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

They probably did that to cover their legal butts, whereas Assange and Manning were willing to go to trial and get thrown in jail for whatever their greater cause seems to be.


You have a pretty lofty opinion of Manning and Assange. I doubt that the families of the individuals whose names, addresses and coordinates that were published share the same poetic view as yourself.
 
petros
#221
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That would be one of the foolish assertions I was talking about.

I'll ask, but I highly doubt you'll rise to the challenge though. Can you back up your foolish assertion?

I mean, I can simply provide one quote that puts my position into complete context. Because it is after all, that simple to do.

What obligations are written into law that says there is requirment to protect rats?
 
mentalfloss
#222
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

To me, Assange is different. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that releasing the information he did will likely cause death or worse to those involved.

Likely death to whom?

From who?

And what would be worse?


There is evidence from one of the most fervent right-wing publications which admits there is no threat to national security, but when the onus of proof is requested to show a serious threat there tends to be generalizations and metaphors with no real specifics.
 
captain morgan
+2
#223
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Likely death to whom?

Abdulla, Kenneth, Marion and Akbar, just to name a few.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

From who?

From above, as in 'Death From'

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

And what would be worse?

Let's see, maybe exposing someone's daughter to getting an acid face wash, a wife or mother being raped and then being stoned to death for her horrible transgression.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

There is evidence from one of the most fervent right-wing publications which admits there is no threat to national security, but when the onus of proof is brought to the other end of the table there tends to be generalizations and metaphors with no real specifics.

Maybe consider researching someone or a group that has something valuable to lose, like their life for instance instead of seeking the opinion of someone with nothing on the line.
 
CDNBear
+1
#224
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I'll ask, but I highly doubt you'll rise to the challenge though. Can you back up your foolish assertion?

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What obligations are written into law that says there is requirment to protect rats?

I wish I could predict the lotto numbers as easy.

I'd ask if you wanted Canadian or American case law, if I thought there was any hope of seeing a reasoned response from you.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Likely death to whom?

We've been over this. Even Assange recognizes who they are.

Quote:

There is evidence from one of the most fervent right-wing publications which admits there is no threat to national security...

You have to love people who use publications they dismiss out of hand in one thread, and think an Op/Ed piece from, is worth something in another.

Like I said before, pick a principle and stick to it.

Quote:

...but when the onus of proof is requested to show a serious threat there tends to be generalizations and metaphors with no real specifics.

Assange provided the proof. Just because your ideology prevents you from acknowledging that, doesn't mean it isn't proof.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+3
#225
Do you really not get this or are you just playing dense to make a point?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Likely death to whom?

The informants listed.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

From who?

Those who were informed on.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

And what would be worse?

Tourture.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

There is evidence from one of the most fervent right-wing publications which admits there is no threat to national security, but when the onus of proof is requested to show a serious threat there tends to be generalizations and metaphors with no real specifics.

I don't have as big a deal with general military docs and was only refering to the names he made public. For military docs, I view it as the military's fault for making them available to Assange.
 
CDNBear
+1
#226
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Do you really not get this or are you just playing dense to make a point?

I thought he was playing. I don't anymore.
 
petros
#227
Quote:

I'd ask if you wanted Canadian or American case law,

Fill your boots. Show me the rat protection obligations that apply to a combat zone.
 
CDNBear
#228
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Fill your boots. Show me the rat protection obligations that apply to a combat zone.

I see you missed the bulk of the context of that post.

Again, no surprise. Since you can't provide a quote that establishes some supposed pissing on of your and my rights. It's become apparent that you don't understand what's been said.

Reciprocation will only happen, when you start.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#229
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Do you really not get this or are you just playing dense to make a point?

The informants listed.

Those who were informed on.

Tourture.

I don't have as big a deal with general military docs and was only refering to the names he made public. For military docs, I view it as the military's fault for making them available to Assange.

AP review finds no threatened WikiLeaks sources
By BRADLEY KLAPPER - Associated Press,CASSANDRA VINOGRAD
Associated Press | AP – Sat, Sep 10, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federica Ferrari Bravo's story of meeting American diplomats in Rome seven years ago hardly reads like a James Bond spy novel or a Cold War tale of a brave informant sharing secrets to help the United States.

So it came as a something of a surprise to her to hear that in one of the 250,000-odd State Department cables released by WikiLeaks, she was deemed a source so sensitive U.S. officials were advised not to repeat her name.

"I don't think I said anything that would put me at risk," Ferrari Bravo said.

The Italian diplomat's episode, along with similar stories from several other foreign lawmakers, diplomats and activists cited in the U.S. cables as sources to "strictly protect," raises doubts about the scope of the danger posed by WikiLeaks' disclosures and the Obama administration's angry claims going back more than a year that the anti-secrecy website's revelations are threatening lives around the world. U.S. examples have been strictly theoretical.

The question of whether the dire warnings are warranted or overblown became more acute with the recent release all of the 251,287 diplomatic memos WikiLeaks held. Tens of thousands of confidential exchanges were dumped, emptying a trove of documents that had been released piecemeal since last year and initially with the cooperation of a select group of newspapers and magazines that blacked out some names and information before publishing the documents.

The latest cables were published in full, without the redaction of any names. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland branded the action "irresponsible, reckless and frankly dangerous," and the U.S. says the release exposes the names of hundreds of sensitive sources.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has blamed Britain's Guardian newspaper for publishing a secret encryption code, allowing intelligence agencies worldwide to access the cables and forcing WikiLeaks to provide the people affected the same information.

But an Associated Press review of the sources found several of them comfortable with their names in the open and no one fearing death. Others are already dead, their names cited as sensitive in the context of long-resolved conflicts or situations. Some have publicly written or testified at hearings about the supposedly confidential information they provided the U.S. government.

The Associated Press survey is selective and incomplete, as it focused on those sources the State Department seemed to categorize as most risky. The AP did not attempt to contact every named source in the new trove. It's generally up to the embassies themselves to decide which identities require heightened vigilance, officials say.

Hadzira Hamzic, a 73-year-old Bosnian refugee, wasn't bothered about being identified as one of thousands of victims from the Balkan wars of the 1990s. "I never hid that," she told the AP. "It is always hard when I have to tell about how I had been raped, but that is part of what happened and I have to talk about it."

In Asia, former Malaysian diplomat Shazryl Eskay Abdullah was shocked an "unofficial lunch meeting" he had several years ago with a U.S. official meant his name ended up on a formal report. But he said his role in southern Thailand peace talks was well known. "I don't see why anyone would come after me," Shazryl told the AP.

Ferrari Bravo's subject matter was also by no means mundane. A veteran of her nation's embassy in Tehran, Ferrari Bravo worked at the time on the Italian Foreign Ministry's Iran desk and discussed with the U.S. her government's view of the Iranian nuclear standoff. She urged continued dialogue.

"There is nothing that we said that was not known to our bosses, to our ministers, to our heads of state," she said. On having her identity protected, she said: "We didn't ask. There is nothing to protect."

U.S. officials say they have two criteria for sensitive sources. The first deals with people in totalitarian societies or failed states who could be imprisoned or killed, or perhaps denied housing, schooling, food or other services if exposed as having helped the United States. The State Department has also sought to censor names of people who might lose their jobs or suffer major embarrassment even in friendly countries, if they were seen offering the U.S. candid insights or restricted information.

One such case involved the dismissal in December of a top aide to German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle after he provided details on coalition talks and debates over issues such as U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.

Still, the total damage appears limited and the State Department has steadfastly refused to describe any situation in which they've felt a source's life was in danger. They say a handful of people had to be relocated away from danger but won't provide any details on those few cases.

Units throughout the department have been scouring the documents since last year to find examples where sources are exposed and inform them that they may be "outed." Some, such as Hamzic, Sharzyl and Ferrari Bravo, say they were never contacted. Presumably, endangered individuals would have been prioritized.

Clearly, sensitivities depend on context. Revelations that may cause personal or political discomfort for a U.S. embassy contact in Western Europe may be life-threatening for an informant in an undemocratic nation. In the cables, they may both be "strictly protected" sources, highlighting relative danger levels in different places.

In Vietnam, the U.S. seemed to be dealing with sources whose names demanded vigilance: the wife of a dissident sentenced to five years in prison; a Buddhist leader condemning the arrest of a fellow priest; a dissident who says people "held his family hostage" until he renounced his activism; a Christian preacher complaining of police pressure on him to renounce his faith; another who speaks of a colleague forcibly sent to a mental institute.

A Syrian human rights activist warned the U.S. of a looming crackdown on anti-regime activists as far back as 2009. If the activist wasn't threatened by the disclosure last year, he may be now that the country is in the throes of a brutal five-month security crackdown.

And in Mexico, the term "strictly protect" appeared to be attached to interlocutors indiscriminately, even when officials offered only flattering assessments of their government or said little that wasn't common knowledge. It perhaps makes more sense in the context of a country where organized crime networks have essentially fought an insurgency against the government, where allowing a valued source's name to get out could affect that person's safety.

Assange, an Australian, has defended his actions by saying no one has died as a result of WikiLeaks.

Current and former American officials say that argument misses the point.

Making people think twice before providing the U.S. with information — or simply refuse ever again to help — hurts the good causes of human rights and democracy that American officials are promoting, they argue.

Take Arnold Sundquist, a Swede whose life isn't in danger. He provided the U.S. Embassy with sensitive details on an Iranian attempt to buy helicopters and said he was unhappy that his actions were now public. Last year, Swedish media with access to the WikiLeaks trove reported on the incident but didn't mention him by name.

"It is what it is," he said. "I can't do anything about it."

But will he, or others in a similar situation, be as ready to help American authorities again?

Venezuelan journalist Nelson Bocaranda thinks not. His identity was exposed in a document describing how he told the U.S. ambassador in 2009 that according to one of his sources, Colombian rebel leaders had visited Caracas for secret meetings with senior Venezuelan government officials. Bocaranda published the account in one of his newspaper columns.

"I feel betrayed by WikiLeaks," Bocaranda told the AP on Friday. But he said that as a journalist it's natural for him to talk with diplomats from various countries. "I think the ones who have been betrayed basically are the American diplomats," he said.

"It's going to be more difficult for them because I think no one is going to want to talk for fear of coming out in print with their name," he said, adding that would apply those who might otherwise supply sensitive information.

He said he doesn't feel his work or personal security face additional threats as a result of his name being exposed but said he suspects President Hugo Chavez's government could try to "cast doubts on me, to say that I am a member of the CIA."

Bocaranda said that he has nothing to hide and that the information he publishes in his newspaper columns and on the Internet is public. "I don't think my sources are going to shut me out," he said.

Other governments have echoed the U.S. criticism of WikiLeaks, saying it jeopardizes invaluable diplomacy — the exchanges that aim to promote understanding, avoid war and improve global security.

The anger from Assange's home nation, Australia, was prompted not by the release of sources, but of 23 Australians who had been in contact with a Yemen-based al-Qaida offshoot and were being monitored. Still, a government statement couldn't point to a direct threat from the disclosure, only a potential danger.

"The large-scale distribution of hundreds of thousands of classified United States government documents is reckless, irresponsible and potentially dangerous," Australian Attorney-General Robert McClelland said.

AP review finds no threatened WikiLeaks sources
Last edited by mentalfloss; Dec 28th, 2011 at 11:11 AM..
 
petros
+1
#230
If you can't come up with laws that says we are obligated to protect rats from freedom of speech then WTF is your argument? Just opinion?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

AP review finds no threatened WikiLeaks sources

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federica Ferrari Bravo's story of meeting American diplomats in Rome seven years ago hardly reads like a James Bond spy novel or a Cold War tale of a brave informant sharing secrets to help the United States.

So it came as a something of a surprise to her to hear that in one of the 250,000-odd State Department cables released by WikiLeaks, she was deemed a source so sensitive U.S. officials were advised not to repeat her name.

"I don't think I said anything that would put me at risk," Ferrari Bravo said.

The Italian diplomat's episode, along with similar stories from several other foreign lawmakers, diplomats and activists cited in the U.S. cables as sources to "strictly protect," raises doubts about the scope of the danger posed by WikiLeaks' disclosures and the Obama administration's angry claims going back more than a year that the anti-secrecy website's revelations are threatening lives around the world. U.S. examples have been strictly theoretical.

The question of whether the dire warnings are warranted or overblown became more acute with the recent release all of the 251,287 diplomatic memos WikiLeaks held. Tens of thousands of confidential exchanges were dumped, emptying a trove of documents that had been released piecemeal since last year and initially with the cooperation of a select group of newspapers and magazines that blacked out some names and information before publishing the documents.

The latest cables were published in full, without the redaction of any names. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland branded the action "irresponsible, reckless and frankly dangerous," and the U.S. says the release exposes the names of hundreds of sensitive sources.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has blamed Britain's Guardian newspaper for publishing a secret encryption code, allowing intelligence agencies worldwide to access the cables and forcing WikiLeaks to provide the people affected the same information.

But an Associated Press review of the sources found several of them comfortable with their names in the open and no one fearing death. Others are already dead, their names cited as sensitive in the context of long-resolved conflicts or situations. Some have publicly written or testified at hearings about the supposedly confidential information they provided the U.S. government.

The Associated Press survey is selective and incomplete, as it focused on those sources the State Department seemed to categorize as most risky. The AP did not attempt to contact every named source in the new trove. It's generally up to the embassies themselves to decide which identities require heightened vigilance, officials say.

Hadzira Hamzic, a 73-year-old Bosnian refugee, wasn't bothered about being identified as one of thousands of victims from the Balkan wars of the 1990s. "I never hid that," she told the AP. "It is always hard when I have to tell about how I had been raped, but that is part of what happened and I have to talk about it."

In Asia, former Malaysian diplomat Shazryl Eskay Abdullah was shocked an "unofficial lunch meeting" he had several years ago with a U.S. official meant his name ended up on a formal report. But he said his role in southern Thailand peace talks was well known. "I don't see why anyone would come after me," Shazryl told the AP.

Ferrari Bravo's subject matter was also by no means mundane. A veteran of her nation's embassy in Tehran, Ferrari Bravo worked at the time on the Italian Foreign Ministry's Iran desk and discussed with the U.S. her government's view of the Iranian nuclear standoff. She urged continued dialogue.

"There is nothing that we said that was not known to our bosses, to our ministers, to our heads of state," she said. On having her identity protected, she said: "We didn't ask. There is nothing to protect."

U.S. officials say they have two criteria for sensitive sources. The first deals with people in totalitarian societies or failed states who could be imprisoned or killed, or perhaps denied housing, schooling, food or other services if exposed as having helped the United States. The State Department has also sought to censor names of people who might lose their jobs or suffer major embarrassment even in friendly countries, if they were seen offering the U.S. candid insights or restricted information.

One such case involved the dismissal in December of a top aide to German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle after he provided details on coalition talks and debates over issues such as U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.

Still, the total damage appears limited and the State Department has steadfastly refused to describe any situation in which they've felt a source's life was in danger. They say a handful of people had to be relocated away from danger but won't provide any details on those few cases.

Units throughout the department have been scouring the documents since last year to find examples where sources are exposed and inform them that they may be "outed." Some, such as Hamzic, Sharzyl and Ferrari Bravo, say they were never contacted. Presumably, endangered individuals would have been prioritized.

Clearly, sensitivities depend on context. Revelations that may cause personal or political discomfort for a U.S. embassy contact in Western Europe may be life-threatening for an informant in an undemocratic nation. In the cables, they may both be "strictly protected" sources, highlighting relative danger levels in different places.

In Vietnam, the U.S. seemed to be dealing with sources whose names demanded vigilance: the wife of a dissident sentenced to five years in prison; a Buddhist leader condemning the arrest of a fellow priest; a dissident who says people "held his family hostage" until he renounced his activism; a Christian preacher complaining of police pressure on him to renounce his faith; another who speaks of a colleague forcibly sent to a mental institute.

A Syrian human rights activist warned the U.S. of a looming crackdown on anti-regime activists as far back as 2009. If the activist wasn't threatened by the disclosure last year, he may be now that the country is in the throes of a brutal five-month security crackdown.

And in Mexico, the term "strictly protect" appeared to be attached to interlocutors indiscriminately, even when officials offered only flattering assessments of their government or said little that wasn't common knowledge. It perhaps makes more sense in the context of a country where organized crime networks have essentially fought an insurgency against the government, where allowing a valued source's name to get out could affect that person's safety.

Assange, an Australian, has defended his actions by saying no one has died as a result of WikiLeaks.

Current and former American officials say that argument misses the point.

Making people think twice before providing the U.S. with information — or simply refuse ever again to help — hurts the good causes of human rights and democracy that American officials are promoting, they argue.

Take Arnold Sundquist, a Swede whose life isn't in danger. He provided the U.S. Embassy with sensitive details on an Iranian attempt to buy helicopters and said he was unhappy that his actions were now public. Last year, Swedish media with access to the WikiLeaks trove reported on the incident but didn't mention him by name.

"It is what it is," he said. "I can't do anything about it."

But will he, or others in a similar situation, be as ready to help American authorities again?

Venezuelan journalist Nelson Bocaranda thinks not. His identity was exposed in a document describing how he told the U.S. ambassador in 2009 that according to one of his sources, Colombian rebel leaders had visited Caracas for secret meetings with senior Venezuelan government officials. Bocaranda published the account in one of his newspaper columns.

"I feel betrayed by WikiLeaks," Bocaranda told the AP on Friday. But he said that as a journalist it's natural for him to talk with diplomats from various countries. "I think the ones who have been betrayed basically are the American diplomats," he said.

"It's going to be more difficult for them because I think no one is going to want to talk for fear of coming out in print with their name," he said, adding that would apply those who might otherwise supply sensitive information.

He said he doesn't feel his work or personal security face additional threats as a result of his name being exposed but said he suspects President Hugo Chavez's government could try to "cast doubts on me, to say that I am a member of the CIA."

Bocaranda said that he has nothing to hide and that the information he publishes in his newspaper columns and on the Internet is public. "I don't think my sources are going to shut me out," he said.

Other governments have echoed the U.S. criticism of WikiLeaks, saying it jeopardizes invaluable diplomacy — the exchanges that aim to promote understanding, avoid war and improve global security.

The anger from Assange's home nation, Australia, was prompted not by the release of sources, but of 23 Australians who had been in contact with a Yemen-based al-Qaida offshoot and were being monitored. Still, a government statement couldn't point to a direct threat from the disclosure, only a potential danger.

"The large-scale distribution of hundreds of thousands of classified United States government documents is reckless, irresponsible and potentially dangerous," Australian Attorney-General Robert McClelland said.

AP review finds no threatened WikiLeaks sources - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)

Hey hey hey. Don't cloud this up with facts.
 
darkbeaver
#231
^ (external - login to view) Dec 28 08:08

WEBSTER TARPLEY: WIKILEAKS A “COGNITIVE INFILTRATION” OPERATION (external - login to view)



Awareness is growing around the world that the Wikileaks-Julian Assange theater of the absurd is radically inauthentic – a psyop. Wikileaks and its impaired boss represent a classic form of limited hangout or self-exposure, a kind of lurid striptease in which the front organization releases doctored and pre-selected materials provided by the intelligence agency with the intent of harming, not the CIA, nor the UK, nor the Israelis, but rather such classic CIA enemies’ list figures as Putin, Berlusconi, Karzai, Qaddafi, Rodriguez de Kirchner, etc. In Tunisia, derogatory material about ex-President Ben Ali leaked by Wikileaks has already brought a windfall for Langley in the form of the rare ouster of an entrenched Arab governmen
 
DaSleeper
#232
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I thought he was playing. I don't anymore.

It's also called selective reasoning....
 
CDNBear
#233
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

AP review finds no threatened WikiLeaks sources
(external - login to view)

Thanks for proving me right, yet again.

You really should fully read what you post.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

If you can't come up with laws that says we are obligated to protect rats from freedom of speech then WTF is your argument? Just opinion?

Nope, I even know the US AR #.

My point, which you keep ignoring is, as soon as you start backing up your silliness, I'll back up my fact.

Quote:

Hey hey hey. Don't cloud this up with facts.

Now that's funny. Maybe you should read the whole thing, that includes all the words, not just the ones that support your position.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

It's also called selective reasoning....

True.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#234
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Hey hey hey. Don't cloud this up with facts.

I just did a google search for lives threatened by wikileaks and it was the first link that came up.

It's not a smoking gun by any means, but I can't settle for the "well duh" argument.

In any case, I'm sure Bear will have made some sort of derogatory statement by time I post this, but I do acknowledge that there is no completely objective assessment of security.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Thanks for proving me right, yet again.

Edit: lol.. yup.. not surprised. Shoot first, think later. Bear ethics.
 
petros
#235
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's not a smoking gun by any means, but I can't settle for the "well duh" argument.

But rats have special rights and print media can selectively publish allegedly illegal material.
Quote:

Now that's funny. Maybe you should read the whole thing, that includes all the
words, not just the ones that support your position.

So where are the charges?
 
darkbeaver
+1
#236
Rex Morphy is an organ grinding monkey for the treasonous corrupted Canadian mass media.
 
CDNBear
#237
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Shoot first, think later.

The story of your posts.

You really should read the whole thing.

I did, thanks again for proving me right.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

But rats have special rights and print media can selectively publish allegedly illegal material.

Again, reading the whole thread, would prevent you from making such silly assertions.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#238
Report: Afghan leaks dangerously expose informants' identities (external - login to view)
 
petros
#239
I enjoyed the Vietnam references. but you still haven't provided anything that says we have obligations or that charges are to be laid.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Report: Afghan leaks dangerously expose informants' identities (external - login to view)

GASP!!! So what are our obligations to the rats? Can you post those please?
 
CDNBear
#240
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I enjoyed the Vietnam references. but you still haven't provided anything that says we have obligations or that charges are to be laid.

You still haven't provided anything to back up your assertions.

If you don't like being left in the dark. Try reciprocation. It's illuminating.

Just a question, how do you think informants who give evidence against illegal activity committed by US Soldiers are protected?

Do think there's a law in the AR/UCMJ, that protects them? Do you think it applies to all informants? Or just the ones with a problem with US Soldiers?

I only ask to see if you have any concept of deductive reasoning at all.
 

Similar Threads

8
Gun registry usless: rex murphy
by Nuggler | Sep 17th, 2011
3
brittany murphy rip
by spaminator | Dec 24th, 2009
no new posts