Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
I do? That sounds awfully fallacious to me. Maybe you should explain how.
Why would you copyright them, then promote them being available on The Pirate Bay?
Rights aren't selective they apply to all equally. You didn't know that? It's why the NY Times is still alive and kicking after publishing the digital information in print.
They even made money off of doing it. Did anyone else?
They even made money off of doing it. Did anyone else?
You continued fallacious assertions aside. You still haven't explained how I'm pissing on your rights and mine.
Oh, my bad, I forgot, this is the stage of the conversation, where you start making stuffup.
My bad, carry on. I look forward to the **** stage next.
Liquor & *****s - YouTube
If you want him busted you have to sacrifice your own freedom of speech rights.
I was already aware that you could support your assertion.
No I don't. I don't publish the names of CI's. I'm not morally bankrupt. I haven't allegedly participated in espionage. Nor would I. I might as a part time journalist publish materials that I received...
By the way, the NY Times published carefully chosen and redacted dispatches.
Maybe if you paid greater attention to what is actually said, you wouldn't look so foolish.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.