User Controls
ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 3:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator I.e. you don't have a response.
I've already pointed out the fact that soldiers go into war knowing they will engage in direct combat and violence, while a chocolate maker doesn't. That alone is enough to kill the analogy. Exposing details about military operations is not even close to taking a deliberate action to kill someone who is just trying to make some candy. It's not the same, at all, not analogous, nothing. They are two totally different scenarios. -
2019-04-10 at 3:56 PM UTCAlso this, which you never responded to except to claim that I "don't have a response."
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.
-
2019-04-10 at 4 PM UTCwhen the fuck is this supposed to happen? i've been awake on meth for 5 days with my eyes glued to the screen just waiting and i think psychosis is starting to set in
-
2019-04-10 at 4:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by inert_observer Exposing details about military operations is not even close to taking a deliberate action to kill someone who is just trying to make some candy. It's not the same, at all, not analogous, nothing.
Pretty sure treason is just as illegal as murder.
And "but you agreed to it when you signed up, goy" isn't a very persuasive argument. -
2019-04-10 at 4:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Pretty sure treason is just as illegal as murder.
And "but you agreed to it when you signed up, goy" isn't a very persuasive argument.
It is to me. When it comes down to it, they voluntarily agreed to do something they knew or should have known was immoral/illegal. Also you said treason LOL. -
2019-04-10 at 4:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I mean, as opposed to what? for all the constant hype, I've found RT to be the most accurate (verifiable, doesn't rely on anonymous political sources or think tanks) major news site I've come across. I've asked you before if you've ever seen them publish something inaccurate, and the only thing you claimed was the scale of the ZAPAD drills - they simply reported the numbers given by the Russian government, while every other news outlet claimed those numbers were inaccurate without providing any evidence.
how about the salisbury-novichock episode ? were they reporting factually ?
of course they are telling you the truths that your western media wouldnt tell you, but only to the extent it serves their purpose. do you expect RT to tell you truths that dont serve the the greater good of russia ? -
2019-04-10 at 4:32 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)
dont forget the same extend to their family members as well.
they are the sources of supports and motivations for the service members, fuel to the fire. -
2019-04-10 at 4:34 PM UTCI'm pretty sure you could find the locations of most of the innocent children and babies that are routinely killed and horribly maimed by western forces all the time using either a quick google search or looking through their local phone book. But its OK that their locations are so readily available, just so long as the evil fucks that fire the bombs, shells and rockets don't have their locations exposed. We must protect the evil bastards at all cost.
. -
2019-04-10 at 4:36 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.
no, they signed up to do something that gives them a high probability to get killed if and when the enemy have superior intelligence gathering capabilities.
the enemy got free and accurate intels from whistle blowers, they dies. its a fair game. -
2019-04-10 at 4:42 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".
its illegal to make people work in dangerous condition under OSHA.
a better analogy would be firefighters. by being firefighters they had signed up for a job that could possibly get them killed by fire, be it accidental or intentional fire. -
2019-04-10 at 4:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny no, they signed up to do something that gives them a high probability to get killed if and when the enemy have superior intelligence gathering capabilities.
the enemy got free and accurate intels from whistle blowers, they dies. its a fair game.
This is the point. US/UK intelligence will happily bargain enemy troop movements from local snitches and all manner of other sources. Its OK for them but not when the shoes on the other foot. I wouldn't mind if these were wars where foreign troops were potentially landing on our shores, but thats definitely not the case in any of these wars. They are nothing g more than wars dreamed up against near defenceless countries so that rich men can sell arms and military supplies to the armed forces using our tax dollars. Afaic anybody who signs up to fight in one of these fraudulent wars has no right to complain about anything. They can't even man up enough to demand their own fair share of the pie from their masters that they are risking leaving their families behind for. Fucking mugs the lot of them.
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-10 at 4:46 PM UTC
-
2019-04-10 at 4:52 PM UTCI mean, to clarify it's never a good idea to fully trust any source; I'll often read news sites I don't like or trust to try and get a more balanced perspective of an event.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-04-10 at 4:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by inert_observer I've already pointed out the fact that soldiers go into war knowing they will engage in direct combat and violence, while a chocolate maker doesn't.
That is literally irrelevant to the validity of the analogy, unless you want to classify Wikileaks as enemy combatants, spies or saboteurs.Exposing details about military operations is not even close to taking a deliberate action to kill someone who is just trying to make some candy. It's not the same, at all, not analogous, nothing. They are two totally different scenarios.
It is directly analogous.
If you are aware that releasing certain information WILL endanger certain lives and you choose to do it anyway, you are causally responsible for the subsequent risk and resultant damage.
Wikileaks is already aware of this and admits this by trying to exercise discretion while releasing leaks.
The opposite would be an idiotically naive opinion, which is why no one seriously adopts or defends it, including wikileaks: they can't. Which is why you won't, and would rather dodge it... Or maybe you are just that stupid, I don't know. -
2019-04-10 at 4:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I mean, to clarify it's never a good idea to fully trust any source; I'll often read news sites I don't like or trust to try and get a more balanced perspective of an event.
I completely gave up on pretty much all mainstreamedia a decade ago. It gets to a point after so long where you just realize what is the point in watching/reading the opinions and twisted spun agenda of people who are clearly just in the business of brainwashing you. I really cannot recommend rejecting mainstream media enough. It is toxic, pure fucking poison of the mind.
. -
2019-04-10 at 5:04 PM UTC
-
2019-04-10 at 5:04 PM UTCYou aren't supposed to read it you are supposed to deconstruct the news to find the true meanings behind what people say and do.
Taking mainstream media seriously like caring about Jussie smollet is just as bad as ignoring it because you never get to the truth behind issues that affect society.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-10 at 5:05 PM UTC
-
2019-04-10 at 5:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Ghost You aren't supposed to read it you are supposed to deconstruct the news to find the true meanings behind what people say and do.
Taking mainstream media seriously like caring about Jussie smollet is just as bad as ignoring it because you never get to the truth behind issues that affect society.
who cares.
the point is receiving new informations cause our brains to release seratonins. -
2019-04-10 at 5:06 PM UTC
