User Controls
ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-13 at 12:31 AM UTCWithout Assange, we wouldn't have known that Hillary and her thugs left the people at Benghazi to die, after repeated requests for help, if Wikileaks hadn't published the proof. Clinton and her goons had intended to bury the whole thing, under the pretense of a blowback from a cartoon, which ended up to be a total lie by Hillary, as exposed by WikiLeaks.
-
2019-04-13 at 12:45 AM UTCI honestly don't care. Have you read 1984? The protagonist meets some high level government type and thinks he's part of the resistance, the he finds out he's just being played and gets fucked over.
That's me. He knows the machine he is apart of is evil but there's fuck all he can do to help the rebels. Just accept what is, and know what you can nothing about. -
2019-04-13 at 1:12 AM UTCHope he gets jail raped
-
2019-04-13 at 1:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Octavian I honestly don't care. Have you read 1984? The protagonist meets some high level government type and thinks he's part of the resistance, the he finds out he's just being played and gets fucked over.
That's me. He knows the machine he is apart of is evil but there's fuck all he can do to help the rebels. Just accept what is, and know what you can nothing about.
The protagonist in the book was trapped, but Orwell understood the power of memes (virally propagated thoughts) and the book was an attempt to fight back using that.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-13 at 1:29 AM UTC
-
2019-04-13 at 1:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Without Assange's publications, we wouldn't even have know about any of Crooked Hillary's felonies and high crimes, and we wouldn't know about the deep state's high crimes either. We wouldn't know about the torture, or the illegal uranium deal to the Russians or any of a number of other high-level crimes by the US government.
I agree. Who's the real one colluding with Russia?
maybe trump and clintons are. who fucking knows -
2019-04-13 at 2:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Krow I agree. Who's the real one colluding with Russia?
maybe trump and clintons are. who fucking knows
Well, when you say "Russia", they have their deep state, too. Putin has to deal with his own deep state, just like Trump does, and they go ahead and do major shit without telling anyone. Can't blame Putin for what his deep state goons do any more than you could blame Trump for what his deep state goons do. -
2019-04-13 at 2:50 AM UTC
-
2019-04-13 at 3:01 AM UTCTrump having NATO troops, ABMs, cruise and ballistic missiles moved right up to the Russian border is all part of Putin's master plan
-
2019-04-13 at 3:53 AM UTCLook up Uranium One. Then you'll know who's been colluding with the Russians.
-
2019-04-13 at 3:56 AM UTC
-
2019-04-13 at 4:11 AM UTC
-
2019-04-13 at 4:14 AM UTC
-
2019-04-13 at 4:19 AM UTCIn the End Time, the King of the South shall rise up against the King of the North, to antagonize, but with fire and fury and a great mass of ships, planes and men, He shall be fiercely beaten back to His homelands. Armageddon soon follows. This is a prophecy for the last days of this wicked system of things.
-
2019-04-13 at 7:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator How is leaking operational details "self defense"?
I didn't say it's self defense, I said we generally accept that in a lethal conflict we generally accept lethal force against the aggressor to be justified. In the case of the US troop positions revealed by assange (not really, but let's grant it for spectacle) it's pretty clear the US troops were the aggressors. If we're confronted with the question "should we disclose information that risks the lives of agressing US troops or do nothing and risk the lives of defending troops" I think it's pretty reasonable to prefer the lives of people who are, ostensibly, defending their territory over the lives of foreign invaders.
I don't know that this is a fair account of the wikileaks leaks, I don't fully understand the politics and motives in the relevant conflict, but I have to say I don't see any justification for the US's murdering of people in Afghanistan and I see a pretty reasonable justification for "insurgents" who might utilize the leaks to fight back.
Counter example: would you fault a German soldier during WWII who leaked intel to the French resistance?
Originally posted by Krow I stated if you feel it's best not to disclose the location of Axis as well. that is fair.
Besides it was the Governments documents he got hold of so not disclosing the Axis wouldn't matter. It has to do with you being apart of the country you live in as not being a treasonous. and he's from the UK so the UK soldiers were also there. That could be seen as a treasonous act. Not intentional probably but they still didn't like the fact he stole the Governments property. we can argue this all day long. don't disclose any troops location publicly. Axis or Allied.
I have no idea what you're talking about lol -
2019-04-13 at 11:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I didn't say it's self defense, I said we generally accept that in a lethal conflict we generally accept lethal force against the aggressor to be justified. In the case of the US troop positions revealed by assange (not really, but let's grant it for spectacle) it's pretty clear the US troops were the aggressors.
Oh really? Why would you say that's the case? -
2019-04-13 at 2:20 PM UTCStill the simple fact of the matter is that to commit treason against america you have to be an american.
. -
2019-04-13 at 2:22 PM UTCI mean would you say Osama bin laden committed treason against the US? He might have done a lot of things against them but none of them were treason because he's not a fucking american.
. -
2019-04-13 at 2:24 PM UTCpretty sure he hasn't actually been charged with treason
oh wait you're talking about t2k1, nevermind -
2019-04-13 at 5:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I didn't say it's self defense, I said we generally accept that in a lethal conflict we generally accept lethal force against the aggressor to be justified. In the case of the US troop positions revealed by assange (not really, but let's grant it for spectacle) it's pretty clear the US troops were the aggressors. If we're confronted with the question "should we disclose information that risks the lives of agressing US troops or do nothing and risk the lives of defending troops" I think it's pretty reasonable to prefer the lives of people who are, ostensibly, defending their territory over the lives of foreign invaders.
I don't know that this is a fair account of the wikileaks leaks, I don't fully understand the politics and motives in the relevant conflict, but I have to say I don't see any justification for the US's murdering of people in Afghanistan and I see a pretty reasonable justification for "insurgents" who might utilize the leaks to fight back.
Counter example: would you fault a German soldier during WWII who leaked intel to the French resistance?
I have no idea what you're talking about lol
I figured so. you sound like you're not supportive of the troops safety.
I don't agree with this war. but these are your fellow countrymen. I have compassion for the Iraqi civilians as well. it's sad they got caught up in this shit.
we havn't figured out the "perfect bullet" to find it's intended target.
Less leathal weapons are designed these days, but they're rendered useless because some of these guys care nothing about dying, just winning. while American soldiers have to fight with the opinion in mind, this war is bullshit (most, not all) and end up dying from the axis older bullets that car nothing of who it kills.. not even if it accidentally kills one of their own.
Point being, it seems like you're more concerned about people in Afghanistan than someone from your own country.
this reminds me of the conversation I had with Zoklett (two t's) who AKA was lostcause. on reddit she told me that all the civilians and military people on 9/11 were Collateral Damage and that those scum at WTC deserved to die.
I hear it all the time now. "Civilians are collateral damage" not sure who first coined this phrase or made it a household word in the 2k (1990s?) but now it's used against people at the Pentagon and NYC who died that day. including Port Authroity, Firefighters, Medic Workers and Anyone who happened to not run fast enough from the toxic cloud which the death told has surpassed the original 3000 to about 13000 now. another 10,000 ground zero staff have contracted some sort of medical problem. mostly lung related with cancers and severe emphysema and other cancers around the body.
