User Controls
ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 12:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra it's dangerous to normalise undermining military operations for political goals - it would severely damage morale and enlistment rates, and would make the military an unreliable tool in general.
it might make sense if these 'anti war' groups sought complete disarmament and disbandment of the military, but for the most part they still want the military to be a useful tool/institution when they eventually take power.
Strawman argument, the problem is with the US military committing war crimes and doing illegal/shady shit that they shouldn't have been doing to win a war they shouldn't have been fighting in the first place. You are intelligent enough to know this.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-10 at 12:37 PM UTCwut
The people who are capable of changing public opinion to make it acceptable to undermine the military will not do that because they know they're likely to be in power again someday and don't want to not have that tool at their disposal. -
2019-04-10 at 12:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by inert_observer That’s what they signed up for, that’s why they’re getting combat pay. Half of them just sign up because they want an excuse to kill brown people legally anyways. If I go outside and start a fight with someone I’m accepting that there’s a possibility I’ll lose or maybe even die, which is why I don’t do it. People who enlist know what to expect and accept the risks (or don’t, but that’s they’re personal problem)
What a retarded answer. "You signed a waiver accepting the occupational hazard of falling into a vat of boiling chocolate, therefore it's not wrong for me to push you into a vat of boiling chocolate". -
2019-04-10 at 12:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra wut
You said that it's dangerous to undermine military operations for political goals. But the point is not that people should be able to do that. Even if Assange was doing it for personal or political motivations, he still exposed a bunch of illegal shit that shouldn't have been happening in the first place, which (should have been) embarrassing for them and (should) cause them to not do it anymore. The world wanted war to have rules, that's why we have the geneva conventions etc. People support Assange and wikileaks because they don't think someone should go to jail for being a whistleblower on something that the entire world (yes i know not literally, doesn't change my point) decided should be illegal.
You ignored all that and just assumed the goal was to normalize undermining the military and attacked that. That's called a strawman argument.
Originally posted by aldra The people who are capable of changing public opinion to make it acceptable to undermine the military will not do that because they know they're likely to be in power again someday and don't want to not have that tool at their disposal.
This is obvious to anyone. That's why people are supporting him and other whistleblowers. -
2019-04-10 at 12:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What a retarded answer. "You signed a waiver accepting the occupational hazard of falling into a vat of boiling chocolate, therefore it's not wrong for me to push you into a vat of boiling chocolate".
That's not a comparable analogy at all and once again, you are intelligent enough for me to know that it's a waste of my time explaining why.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-10 at 1:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by inert_observer You ignored all that and just assumed the goal was to normalize undermining the military and attacked that. That's called a strawman argument.
no. I literally quoted what I was responding to:
Originally posted by Lanny Why? I don't understand ostensibly anti-war dems that act like disclosing military secrets is somehow inexcusable.
you nigger. -
2019-04-10 at 1:04 PM UTC
-
2019-04-10 at 1:05 PM UTCmight want to look up just a little bit further
-
2019-04-10 at 1:10 PM UTC
-
2019-04-10 at 1:13 PM UTCare you actually intellectually disabled or something?
I responded to lanny's post.
you came in spouting logical fallacies like a reddit-tier fedora enthusiast.
I clarified what I meant.
you're still apparently having a hard time understanding. -
2019-04-10 at 1:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra are you actually intellectually disabled or something?
I responded to lanny's post.
you came in spouting logical fallacies like a reddit-tier fedora enthusiast.
I clarified what I meant.
you're still apparently having a hard time understanding.
just saying something is reality doesn't make it so. -
2019-04-10 at 1:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by inert_observer That's not a comparable analogy at all and once again, you are intelligent enough for me to know that it's a waste of my time explaining why.
It's a perfectly good analogy. They signed up for risk but that doesn't justify putting them at risk where they wouldn't otherwise be. This is not complex logic here. -
2019-04-10 at 1:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator It's a perfectly good analogy. They signed up for risk but that doesn't justify putting them at risk where they wouldn't otherwise be. This is not complex logic here.
It's not a good analogy. I was going to reply with every reason why but like I said it's a waste of time because you already know why it's a shitty analogy. -
2019-04-10 at 1:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What if it could lead to soldiers who are currently active and on the field being exposed, hurt or killed?
Serves them right for serving the elite. When they truly sign up to serve the people I'll change my stance on that.
'Only doing my job' didn't fly for Nazi soldiers so no double standards.
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-10 at 1:33 PM UTCI mean you agree that the Iraq war was bullshit, right? Doesn't that logically make the entire war an undue risk to all those who participate (and are in the general vicinity)? And you could make a pretty strong argument that by exposing the details of an unjust war that's being fought with shady/illegal tactics and bringing attention to it, you could help prevent similar situations from happening in the future, which would save a hell of a lot of people from undue risk.
-
2019-04-10 at 1:43 PM UTCLet's have it right. Sending other peoples kids off to kill more other peoples kids just so you can pocket more millions to add to the billions you already got is fucking evil. About as evil as man gets.
. -
2019-04-10 at 1:45 PM UTCI mean at least the Muslims go fight for an ideology. Causing it for money is just disgusting.
. -
2019-04-10 at 2:01 PM UTC
-
2019-04-10 at 2:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by inert_observer I mean you agree that the Iraq war was bullshit, right? Doesn't that logically make the entire war an undue risk to all those who participate (and are in the general vicinity)? And you could make a pretty strong argument that by exposing the details of an unjust war that's being fought with shady/illegal tactics and bringing attention to it, you could help prevent similar situations from happening in the future, which would save a hell of a lot of people from undue risk.
Wikileaks is already committed to releasing documents in a way that minimises harm, including risk to active military personnel. In fact that is the understanding with which whistleblowers provide them leaks in the first place: you don't need to expose people to active risk in order to expose the shady goings-on of governments. -
2019-04-10 at 3:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What if it could lead to soldiers who are currently active and on the field being exposed, hurt or killed?
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Wikileaks is already committed to releasing documents in a way that minimises harm, including risk to active military personnel. In fact that is the understanding with which whistleblowers provide them leaks in the first place: you don't need to expose people to active risk in order to expose the shady goings-on of governments.
I would do the facepalm emoji here but I know that's what you want so you can just say you're trolling.
