User Controls
Posts by Common De-mominator
-
2019-04-10 at 11:01 PM UTC in Jail in about 48 hoursProtect your cornhole
-
2019-04-10 at 10:55 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by Lanny That explains why pretty much every American politician will line up to shit on whistleblowers, sure. We have a long proud history of bipartisan cooperation in defense of the MIC. But it doesn't explain why t2k1 and generally voters who support isolationist policy, who will never have the US military at their disposal, still condemn actions that could compromise US military efficacy. As far as I can tell it's just sentimentalism for troops.
It's not just about their efficacy lmao, actual people could die. It must be real easy to be typing this from your Fagbook in San Francisco slurping on a hot cum inferno latte from Stalinbucks. There's a responsible way to handle these leaks. That's why people send them to Wikileaks in the first place, there is an assumption that the information will be handled responsibly. -
2019-04-10 at 10:22 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 10:06 PM UTC in What have you eaten today?
-
2019-04-10 at 9:57 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by -SpectraL It's not a crime to publish anything, even classified information. If it was, the Washington Post and the Hill and CNN would already be behind bars. If you get classified information, it's perfectly legal to publish it. The crime lies in the hacking of said classified information, not in the disseminating of it.
Nobody is arguing from legality you fuck wit. -
2019-04-10 at 8:43 PM UTC in What have you eaten today?
-
2019-04-10 at 8:36 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny if wikileaks didnt leak it, someone else would.
Then they would be responsible for the same damage. Similarly when some dumb shit "doxxed" Zimmerman incorrectly on Twitter and some asshole arsonized the house, the person who platformed that doxxing was responsible. -
2019-04-10 at 8:12 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAMKrow = Totse2K1 = mentally ill
-
2019-04-10 at 8:11 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny they are not directly responsible. they released information. bad people used this information and as a result these volunteer solders die.
totse hosted informations like anarchists cookbook. say someone used that information to cause damage or death do you hold totse and jeff hunter responsible ?
true totseans would give a resounding no.
faggots like you are the reason the internet has gotten as shitty and as restrictive as it is today.
Sure it's directly responsible, it's classified information that was released by Wikileaks. No wikileak, no deaths. They could have released the same information minus operationally sensitive details. That's what they already try to do but they have fucked up in the past. No wikileaks leak, no info, no damage.
By contrast, no totse hosting doesn't necessarily mean no one will find the anarchist's cookbook. -
2019-04-10 at 5:39 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro EditionBe adviced
-
2019-04-10 at 5:39 PM UTC in What have you eaten today?There's no such thing as bad pizza.
-
2019-04-10 at 5:38 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny which is analog to your analogy because your analogy had nothing analog to the thing you tried to analogize.
Sure the anal loggy fit perfectly.
They (through incompetence) leaked information that endangers troops who are currently active. They are causally responsible for the risk and damage incurred, much the same as pushing someone into a vat of chocolate. They have already taken responsibility of that. What's left? -
2019-04-10 at 5:35 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny wikileaks is a source of information just like every other sources of information, like tv news and tabloids.
intels come a variety of sources. wikileaks is just one of them. at worst its just a mere facilitator.
Other sources of news also practice discretion for the same reason. For example they do not broadcast live troop movements. -
2019-04-10 at 5:34 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 5:10 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 5:09 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
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.
It's fair game for the enemy. But I doubt Wikileaks would like to be considered and treated as enemy intelligence agents. -
2019-04-10 at 5:06 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-10 at 4:55 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
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 2:12 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
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 2:01 PM UTC in ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
