Ecuador confirms that Julian Assange has become a citizen of the country and a DIPLOMAT

[Anung Un Rama]

I remember when a lot of you were for him, before you were against him.

No offense, but better to be consistent whoever he is shitting on.

In my opinion Mr. Assange did a lot of things to put good American spies at risk through Wikileaks as well as other sources.

So? Charge him with that if you can.

The whole "rape" fiasco is utter jack-boot nonsense, and that said, I hope he walks.

So did the administration; see Valerie Plame

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is creating false equivalencies here, and it's simply not being honest. And like I've now said a bunch of times, these fuckers are most likely working on behalf of foreign intelligence services. That's why they won't stand trial. They know they are guilty of crimes, as per the Espionage Act.

How is it a false equivalency? I'm talking about two cases of collateral damage where one dwarfs the other. They're not perfectly comparable but isn't it rather convenient when one case is treated radically differently because the actor causing the collateral damage is a state actor?

As far as them helping foreign intelligence, that's fair but part of the reason that is is because the US hunts whistleblowers like them to the ends of the earth so they're only safe getting on their knees before America's geopolitical enemies. They won't stand trial because they have little faith the US would treat them fairly and everyone else sees that as well. You have a dog in this fight so I doubt you'll change your mind but notice I'm not the only one taken aback by your extreme position here. I'm not going to pretend these guys are saints or there weren't drawbacks to their actions but they did also inform us of some very important information.

 

[Rod1]

Don't do that

Do what?

 

[irish_thug]

Yeah i didn't have enough fucks left to Google his name

What you meant to say is "I'm getting too old for this shit"

 

[sub_thug]

How is it a false equivalency? I'm talking about two cases of collateral damage where one dwarfs the other. They're not perfectly comparable but isn't it rather convenient when one case is treated radically differently because the actor causing the collateral damage is a state actor?

As far as them helping foreign intelligence, that's fair but part of the reason that is is because the US hunts whistleblowers like them to the ends of the earth so they're only safe getting on their knees before America's geopolitical enemies. They won't stand trial because they have little faith the US would treat them fairly and everyone else sees that as well. You have a dog in this fight so I doubt you'll change your mind but notice I'm not the only one taken aback by your extreme position here. I'm not going to pretend these guys are saints or there weren't drawbacks to their actions but they did also inform us of some very important information.

Do you not see the difference between the prescribed powers of state actors and individuals? That said, I think Snowden and Assange were working on behalf of Russian intelligence services. See previous posts for evidence. The certainly acted like it throughout their collection and movements.

They will get treated fairly, but they know that they broke the law. Snowden especially knows that he broke the law and will the rest of his life in American prison if sent to trial. As for what the other members of this forum think, I don't really give a shit. Most of them don't know much about the topics they talk about, don't read the information that doesn't make it into the papers, and I mean hell, there are huge chunks of this forum that are Soviet sympathizers. If that's not an extreme position, I don't know what is.

If this were only about the mass collection programs, this would be a different conversation. But that was less than 1/4 of what they revealed, and for that, I condemn those SOBs. I hope Edward Snowden's path and mine cross one day so that I can personally give him what I think he deserves. Fuck that son of a bitch, and I hope he's miserable every day for the rest of his life.

 

[Greoric]

Did you see this story:

How the NY Times & U.S. Government Worked Together to Suppress James Risen’s Post-9/11 Reporting


edit: weird that it posted the video from the transcript link...

Have not! Thanks!

 

[Black Helicopters]

Do what?

Read the bolded word

 

[Rod1]

Do you not see the difference between the prescribed powers of state actors and individuals? That said, I think Snowden and Assange were working on behalf of Russian intelligence services. See previous posts for evidence. The certainly acted like it throughout their collection and movements.

They will get treated fairly, but they know that they broke the law. Snowden especially knows that he broke the law and will the rest of his life in American prison if sent to trial. As for what the other members of this forum think, I don't really give a shit. Most of them don't know much about the topics they talk about, don't read the information that doesn't make it into the papers, and I mean hell, there are huge chunks of this forum that are Soviet sympathizers. If that's not an extreme position, I don't know what is.

If this were only about the mass collection programs, this would be a different conversation. But that was less than 1/4 of what they revealed, and for that, I condemn those SOBs. I hope Edward Snowden's path and mine cross one day so that I can personally give him what I think he deserves. Fuck that son of a bitch, and I hope he's miserable every day for the rest of his life.

Says the guy who thinks that as long as it gets Congress approval a US president can murder as many people as he wants.

Your opinion from a moral point of view is meaningless, we are arguing morality, you are arguing legality.

 

[Rod1]

Read the bolded word

Gotcha

 

[sub_thug]

Says the guy who thinks that as long as it gets Congress approval a US president can murder as many people as he wants.

Your opinion from a moral point of view is meaningless, we are arguing morality, you are arguing legality.

You don't speak for me, so do not put words in my mouth. You regularly misrepresent my beliefs in your paraphrasing, so you do not get points for being wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

Don't use terms like "illegal" if you are arguing from a moral perspective. Morality is an individual opinion, while legality is determined by bodies that govern interactions. Since there is no world government, and thus no real world law, it is impossible for one state to commit a crime against another.

 

[Rod1]

You don't speak for me, so do not put words in my mouth. You regularly misrepresent my beliefs in your paraphrasing, so you do not get points for being wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

Don't use terms like "illegal" if you are arguing from a moral perspective. Morality is an individual opinion, while legality is determined by bodies that govern interactions. Since there is no world government, and thus no real world law, it is impossible for one state to commit a crime against another.

Except we are not talking about states, we are talking about opeople.

And how am i putting words in your mouth? You just repeated the same argument that since there is no world government then whatever the US does to foreigners is not a crime.

But im not asking for Americans to revolt for what their country did to others, im asking America to hold your leaders accountable for what it did to Americans.

 

[sub_thug]

Except we are not talking about states, we are talking about opeople.

And how am i putting words in your mouth? You just repeated the same argument that since there is no world government then whatever the US does to foreigners is not a crime.

But im not asking for Americans to revolt for what their country did to others, im asking America to hold your leaders accountable for what it did to Americans.

You are saying that a nation-state is the same as a person. They are not the same thing.

It isn't a crime. You said it was, and that is wrong. Then, you dodged and said you wanted to have a moral argument, not a legal one.

Are we not? The Republicans were crushed in the midterm elections in 2006, and in 2004, he won by the narrowest of margins. I think that John Kerry could have easily won that election if he ran with a better strategy, but he tried to run as the head of the party of opposition. If he had anything meaningful to say to lead the country in a time of war, he would have won. The Republicans also lost the next two Presidential elections, due in part to America's frustrations with the Bush Administration. In 2003, there were petitions, anti-war protests, and the war started unpopular and lost popularity ever since. I bet that if you took a poll now on whether people think going into Iraq was a good idea, support would be under 10%. What would be sufficient for holding our leaders accountable?

 

[Rod1]

You are saying that a nation-state is the same as a person. They are not the same thing.

It isn't a crime. You said it was, and that is wrong. Then, you dodged and said you wanted to have a moral argument, not a legal one.

Are we not? The Republicans were crushed in the midterm elections in 2006, and in 2004, he won by the narrowest of margins. I think that John Kerry could have easily won that election if he ran with a better strategy, but he tried to run as the head of the party of opposition. If he had anything meaningful to say to lead the country in a time of war, he would have won. The Republicans also lost the next two Presidential elections, due in part to America's frustrations with the Bush Administration. In 2003, there were petitions, anti-war protests, and the war started unpopular and lost popularity ever since. I bet that if you took a poll now on whether people think going into Iraq was a good idea, support would be under 10%. What would be sufficient for holding our leaders accountable?

Im not talking about nation-states, im talking about the thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans who died in Iraq, im also not talking about the US to be punished by Bush Jr who is a person.

And lol at thinking that losing the midterms is punishment enough, Americans like you are truly fucking sick individuals to think so less of the loss of human lives due to a blatant warcrime.

No, its not even close, held accountable would be those who were involved in the deception and the invasion to get the noose or life in prison.

Thats what was done to the Nazis, thats what was done to Saddam, that shouldnt be the punishment for starting unilateral wars of aggression.

In your moral view, whatever the US deems legal its moral, and thats it. Murdering people isnt murdering if it has US Congress approval.

 

[sub_thug]

Im not, im talking about the thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans who died in Iraq, im also not talking about the US to be punished by Bush Jr who is a person.

And lol at thinking that losing the midterms is punishment enough, Americans like you are truly fucking sick individuals to think so less of the loss of human lives due to a blatant warcrime.

No, its not even close, held accountable would be those who were involved in the deception and the invasion to get the noose or life in prison.

Thats what was done to the Nazis, thats what was done to Saddam, that shouldnt be the punishment for starting unilateral wars of aggression.

I love how you talk a bunch of shit from Sonora, Mexico. The cartels, unelected officials, own everything around you. The police, the government, everything. So go talk about how I'm sick while you are complicit via inaction in the deaths of thousands of your own people every year. As a matter of fact, more have died from the cartels than in Iraq and Afghanistan in that same period of time! And not for geopolitical reasons, for money, plain and simple. Millionaires killing people to add more millions into their own pockets, not respecting any laws or respecting human life in any way. By your own logic, you are either a sociopath or a coward, so take your pick. But hey, keep talking about our war while yours rages on in your backyard.

 

[HomerThompson]

You are saying that a nation-state is the same as a person. They are not the same thing.

It isn't a crime. You said it was, and that is wrong. Then, you dodged and said you wanted to have a moral argument, not a legal one.

Are we not? The Republicans were crushed in the midterm elections in 2006, and in 2004, he won by the narrowest of margins. I think that John Kerry could have easily won that election if he ran with a better strategy, but he tried to run as the head of the party of opposition. If he had anything meaningful to say to lead the country in a time of war, he would have won. The Republicans also lost the next two Presidential elections, due in part to America's frustrations with the Bush Administration. In 2003, there were petitions, anti-war protests, and the war started unpopular and lost popularity ever since. I bet that if you took a poll now on whether people think going into Iraq was a good idea, support would be under 10%. What would be sufficient for holding our leaders accountable?

Do you believe in the concept of international law, or does might make right to you? I don't want to know how the world really works, either. I want to know what you actually believe.

 

[sub_thug]

Do you believe in the concept of international law, or does might make right to you? I don't want to know how the world really works, either. I want to know what you actually believe.

I believe that international law is basically a gentleman's agreement based on the concept of reciprocity. I think it's a good idea to generally treat other countries the way that we want to be treated to create and foster healthy norms, but I think we shouldn't necessarily handcuff ourselves to those norms. And if the example we set isn't reciprocated by other countries like Russia and China, then fuck it, we shouldn't try to hold the moral high ground while they undercut us and keep hitting us in the balls. If they generally keep in line with them, we should generally keep to them as well. We should all understand that nation-states will occasionally deviate from those norms, and that's part of the game. Does that answer your question?

 

[Rod1]

I love how you talk a bunch of shit from Sonora, Mexico. The cartels, unelected officials, own everything around you. The police, the government, everything. So go talk about how I'm sick while you are complicit via inaction in the deaths of thousands of your own people every year.

See the different between you and me is that i cheer when a corrupt politician gets put in prison, you on the other hand think that losing elections is punishment enough.

As a matter of fact, more have died from the cartels than in Iraq and Afghanistan in that same period of time! And not for geopolitical reasons, for money, plain and simple. Millionaires killing people to add more millions into their own pockets, not respecting any laws or respecting human life in any way.

Im not one of them if thats the extent of your whataboutism, and if it was up to me i would drag all politicians who are on cartel payroll through the streets with a noose on their heads.

By your own logic, you are either a sociopath or a coward, so take your pick. But hey, keep talking about our war while yours rages on in your backyard.

No, because unlike you, i dont think that losing elections is punishment enough. Mexican society doesnt wants people to start paying for their crimes.

In fact the last surveys showed that corruption and impunoty and not the economy is the Mexican voter biggest concern.

 

[Rod1]

I believe that international law is basically a gentleman's agreement based on the concept of reciprocity. I think it's a good idea to generally treat other countries the way that we want to be treated to create and foster healthy norms, but I think we shouldn't necessarily handcuff ourselves to those norms. And if the example we set isn't reciprocated by other countries like Russia and China, then fuck it, we shouldn't try to hold the moral high ground while they undercut us and keep hitting us in the balls. If they generally keep in line with them, we should generally keep to them as well. We should all understand that nation-states will occasionally deviate from those norms, and that's part of the game. Does that answer your question?

What exactly did the people of Iraq did to America that it required unilateral intervention? and if that action was so egregious why did Bush needed to lie about it?

Iraq did nothing against the USA.

 

[sub_thug]

See the different between you and me is that i cheer when a corrupt politician gets put in prison, you on the other hand think that losing elections is punishment enough.

Im not one of them if thats the extent of your whataboutism, and if it was up to me i would drag all politicians who are on cartel payroll through the streets with a noose on their heads.

No, because unlike you, i dont think that losing elections is punishment enough. Mexican society doesnt wants people to start paying for their crimes.

In fact the last surveys showed that corruption and impunoty and not the economy is the Mexican voter biggest concern.

Again, you attempt to speak for me. This is a mistake because it makes sure that you are invariably wrong.

Then do it. You sit idly by while your politicians take advantage of you, and you say that you wish them gone and executed. I do not yet speak boldly as you do because I do not intend on putting those words into actions. It's called honesty. If I say something must be done, then I put forth a plan to do it. Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut. I do not say that Bush deserves to killed for his actions because I would not attempt to do this.

Then put your words into actions if you feel so strongly. If you don't, you are being a liar or a coward, and I leave that up to you. And again, do not speak for me. I am more than capable of speaking for myself.

 

[sub_thug]

What exactly did the people of Iraq did to America that it required unilateral intervention? and if that action was so egregious why did Bush needed to lie about it?

Iraq did nothing against the USA.

Jesus, how many times do I have to explain this to you? I think that Bush was looking for a fight from the beginning because of a personal vendetta against Saddam. Bush wanted Saddam out of power, so George Tenet, being the yes man that he was, famously said, "This is a slam dunk" in relation to their alleged nuclear program. Bush saw the opportunity he was looking for, so he foolishly went charging ahead, thinking that he was justified in doing so. He was wrong. And going into Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake by the US in the last 100 years. Iraq wasn't doing anything wrong. The intel that Bush used was wrong, and he bet on something that was about 60% likely to be true (that's about the number that I've heard from the intelligence anyways), which is not strong enough to commit the US military like that. Obviously, it all blew up in his face, and his personal feelings about Saddam and the piss-poor judgment he showed had terrible consequences for everyone involved. So no, Iraq wasn't doing anything wrong. But that's the situation. Trying to make it into anything more is just superimposing your own feelings about it, and that's exactly the same kind of foolishness that Bush was guilty of.