| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
uSnAmplified
United States1029 Posts
On December 09 2010 12:41 AttackZerg wrote: Still posting one line response because you have no argument for someone who has a grip on reality? Hes in jail for breaking a law, i cant see why people don't understand it. The information released is messed up but it doesn't change what he did.Please ignore this guy, he is just trolling for arguments. | ||
|
Gecko
United States519 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
Informants and whistle-blowers have some informal protection when it comes to courts, even in the United States. I can only hope that Wikileaks ruffles enough feathers to get Manning a lighter sentence. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
Maul
Australia130 Posts
On December 09 2010 12:50 Gecko wrote: He's technically right, he swore an oath to the USA when he joined the military and he broke it. It does not matter how "right" what he did was, he broke the law. Of course Brad will get punished, releasing classified documents to harm the US is treason. As for assange, the US does not have anything on him and the rape case is BS. I think he is gonna walk away unscathed. He swore an oath to the same country that's been exposed killing innocent civilians and journalists, not to mention denying over 15,000 more civilian casualties, amongst many other travesties? Somehow the scales of justice don't seem balanced. The law is only enforced by the law-maker, and right now it's credibility and image is going steadily down the drain. I would personally be ashamed to be an American in a time like this. I'm certainly ashamed of my government's response. | ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
On December 09 2010 14:14 Maul wrote: He swore an oath to the same country that's been exposed killing innocent civilians and journalists, not to mention denying over 15,000 more civilian casualties, amongst many other travesties? Somehow the scales of justice don't seem balanced. The law is only enforced by the law-maker, and right now it's credibility and image is going steadily down the drain. I would personally be ashamed to be an American in a time like this. I'm certainly ashamed of my government's response. I agree, except with the last part. I'm no where near being ashamed about being a U.S. citizen. "America" doesn't do these despicable acts that are in question, "America" is only made of the citizens who inhabit it. What much of the cables refer to in terms of America are done by a minority, corrupt, and participants of a somewhat broken system. America is still the best country, and I'll stand by that statement any day. That said, I hope Julian Assange gets out of this unharmed ( I think he will) but you can definitely tell he's in for a long legal/political scramble. Go wikileaks! | ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
On December 09 2010 14:37 MadVillain wrote: America is still the best country, and I'll stand by that statement any day. I don't understand such ethonocentric statements. The United States might be the "most powerful" country, but much like the corrupt, that's mostly due to a few powerful corporations and politicians. I think any reasonable person can see that the United States has pretty severe flaws. The population is torn in half politically and religiously, the economy is struggling, and the standards of living have deteriorated in the past years (to name a few things). There's nothing wrong with being proud of your country, but to stubbornly maintain that your country is inarguably superior to all others (when nearly every measurable and logical basis for such a claim suggests otherwise) is shortsighted, egotistical, and a large barrier for Americans in being succesfully critical of their government. | ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
On December 09 2010 14:56 Zerokaiser wrote: I don't understand such ethonocentric statements. The United States might be the "most powerful" country, but much like the corrupt, that's mostly due to a few powerful corporations and politicians. I think any reasonable person can see that the United States has pretty severe flaws. The population is torn in half politically and religiously, the economy is struggling, and the standards of living have deteriorated in the past years (to name a few things). There's nothing wrong with being proud of your country, but to stubbornly maintain that your country is inarguably superior to all others (when nearly every measurable and logical basis for such a claim suggests otherwise) is shortsighted, egotistical, and a large barrier for Americans in being succesfully critical of their government. I don't understand such ethonocentric statements. The [Insert any country] might be the "most powerful" country, but much like the corrupt, that's mostly due to a few powerful corporations and politicians. I think any reasonable person can see that the [Insert any country] has pretty severe flaws. The population is torn in half politically and religiously, the economy is struggling, and the standards of living have deteriorated in the past years (to name a few things). There's nothing wrong with being proud of your country, but to stubbornly maintain that your country is inarguably superior to all others (when nearly every measurable and logical basis for such a claim suggests otherwise) is shortsighted, egotistical, and a large barrier for [Insert any countrians] in being succesfully critical of their government. See what I did there? I think you're misinterpreting my statement as fact. I'm simply voicing my thoughts that I think the U.S. is the best country in the world and currently I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I don't see how your using my modest patriotism to say that I'm "shortsighted, egotistical." In fact the statement "I think the U.S. is the best country in the world" doesn't have any bearing on how aware I am of our flaws. Which I clearly said I was in my previous post. Simply said, the U.S. is a wonderful place to live, and a lot, and I mean A LOT would have to change for that to become false. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On December 08 2010 13:31 Shakes wrote: He should face his day in court over this, to do otherwise potentially denies justice to victims of sexual assault. The whole point is that given the context, you can tell the sexual assault accusations are blatantly false and just an excuse to detain him. | ||
|
anycolourfloyd
Australia524 Posts
On December 09 2010 14:14 Maul wrote: He swore an oath to the same country that's been exposed killing innocent civilians and journalists, not to mention denying over 15,000 more civilian casualties, amongst many other travesties? Somehow the scales of justice don't seem balanced. The law is only enforced by the law-maker, and right now it's credibility and image is going steadily down the drain. I would personally be ashamed to be an American in a time like this. I'm certainly ashamed of my government's response. i'm not ashamed, just angry. we already knew how pathetic the government was going to be before the election was one. it's a pity that we're seemingly passed the days of inspirational leaders, everything is purely driven by (deliberately misguided) public opinion (and imbued fear) and every speech is written by somebody else. makes me fucking angry. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On December 09 2010 10:11 Bosu wrote: For whatever reason people think this guys life is actually being threatened by the united states. The evidence is right here for you to read, but you can't be bothered reading it. | ||
|
oZii
United States1198 Posts
On December 09 2010 18:52 Nizaris wrote: The evidence is right here for you to read, but you can't be bothered reading it. They won't kill him. They may put him away forever through some loophole. They won't flat out assassinate him. Could they? Sure they could have along time ago. Doing so makes makes the issue worse. Everyone will assume the US was behind it. They would rather slander his name than to flat out kill him. Just easily as they could have planted fake WMD in Iraq but didn't so that it wouldn't look like we went in for nothing. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On December 09 2010 19:09 oZii wrote: They won't kill him. They may put him away forever through some loophole. They won't flat out assassinate him. Could they? Sure they could have along time ago. Doing so makes makes the issue worse. Everyone will assume the US was behind it. They would rather slander his name than to flat out kill him. Just easily as they could have planted fake WMD in Iraq but didn't so that it wouldn't look like we went in for nothing. They will put him on trial for terrorism. they will probably waterboard him in guantanamo first then execute him. Every1 already know they are behind it. Except blind American sheeps who can be bothered reading the evidence in this thread. | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On December 09 2010 19:09 oZii wrote: They won't kill him. They may put him away forever through some loophole. They won't flat out assassinate him. Could they? Sure they could have along time ago. Doing so makes makes the issue worse. Everyone will assume the US was behind it. They would rather slander his name than to flat out kill him. Just easily as they could have planted fake WMD in Iraq but didn't so that it wouldn't look like we went in for nothing. It's highly unlikely they would try to kill him, and it would be stupid to do so, but you do have to factor in the possibility of incompetence and screwups, and in a scary political climate where newspapers in the US are running editorials and TV pundits are openly calling for the assassination of Assange, it wouldn't be THAT much of a stretch for someone in power receiving a garbled message to take things the wrong way (remember those guys are partly chosen for their suscepibility to pro-government propaganda, and so they'll be just as likely to have their views formed by the media than any random citizen, and probably moreso). The US has killed journalists 'accidentally' in bizarre circumstances in Iraq, and has deliberately killed journalistic staff in Serbia, so there would certainly be no moral qualms. There was a very close call at the height of the Watergate scandal, where a journalist was nearly assassinated because of a communications mixup. What happened was that the guy who was in charge of the burglars, G Gordon Liddy, was speaking to his immediate superior, Jeb Magruder, and Magruder casually mentioned that he sure could be doing without that Jack Anderson (a very famous investigative reporter at the time) being around. That was enough to send Liddy on a quest to kill this guy, and it was only because he mentioned the job to a colleague in conversation that they managed to clarify that Magruder was just bitching, rather than giving an order for assasssination. Liddy did reprimand his boss with the words "Never send me on a hit-job you don't mean!" | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
Is this tool really "An adviser to the Prime Minister of Canada" ? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8172920/Julian-Assange-should-be-assassinated-former-Canada-adviser-claims.html Julian Assange should be assassinated, former Canada adviser claims An adviser to the Prime Minister of Canada has called for the "assassination" of the WikiLeaks founder. 9:29AM GMT 01 Dec 2010 Speaking in live television interview on the CBC News Network, Tom Flanagan flippantly said he thought Julian Assange "should be assassinated" and suggested Barack Obama "should put out a contract and maybe use a drone". He added he "would not be unhappy if Assange disappeared". | ||
|
WeSt
Portugal918 Posts
On December 09 2010 20:59 Nizaris wrote: Random canadian douche bag calling for his assassination on TV. look at the video, he thinks it's funny. What a disgrace. Is this tool really "An adviser to the Prime Minister of Canada" ? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8172920/Julian-Assange-should-be-assassinated-former-Canada-adviser-claims.html What a huge douche bag that guy is. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
Also the US will never assassinate him. If they did, it would eventually come out in a future version of the Church Committee. It might take a second Watergate for that to happen, but our dirty laundry always comes out. If it isn't done by a Manning/Assange, we do it to ourselves sooner or later. Everyone knows about soldiers exposed to nuclear radiation in testing or any number of things. When a Woodward and Bernstein expose something, they are co-opted as part of what makes America work (the fourth estate!). The same will eventually happen with Assange. We will come to grips with the embarrassing stuff for which he facilitates the leak, and we will recognize him as part of the same tradition of Woodward and Bernstein, and we'll learn another lesson about trying to do bad shit in secret. We don't test radiation on soldiers anymore. We have policy against assassinating foreign leaders. We'll stop doing the truly embarrassing stuff wikileaks exposes, as we learn, bit by bit, that secrets don't stay that way. It's a process that has been going on for a long time. It is always resisted, but in hindsight is seen as a good thing and I don't see that this will be any different. That's an optimistic viewpoint, but I think it will be born out. Time will tell of course. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
On December 09 2010 20:59 Nizaris wrote: Random canadian douche bag calling for his assassination on TV. look at the video, he thinks it's funny. What a disgrace. Is this tool really "An adviser to the Prime Minister of Canada" ? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8172920/Julian-Assange-should-be-assassinated-former-Canada-adviser-claims.html wtf?? I hope this guy is forced to resign asap... | ||
|
BeWat3r
Germany182 Posts
For me it is pretty simple. You can combine the freedom of speech with a very simple phrase: Your freedom is always as big as it harms the freedom of someone else. And with someone else im talking about a real person, not a goverment run by some "superior" politicians. When Wikileaks spreads informations arround the world, while guaranteing that they dont harm any "real" person like a soldier or a spy, then it is ok. Because with those informations, which arent that hard, that they can tear a goverment appart, they are helping us, the interested people to understand some terrible missbehaviors done by the political "elite". And im serious with saying interested people, because democracy is based on the people who want to participate in it. If you dont want to know anything about politics at all, this is ok but let the people who want to get the informations they need to know how to decide. Again sorry for my english, but it is very hard to translate my thoughts into a language I am not that familiar with | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Clem vs SHIN
herO vs SHIN
Serral vs Solar
Clem vs SHIN
Reynor vs TBD
PiGStarcraft451
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
