Law Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free

Ukraine isn't a war that America has troops deployed in and we are supporting the side that is defending itself from invasion. Lmfao at trying to equate the American support of decades long ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians to the US funding the *defense* of Ukraine. Your agenda is so naked. Russian bot identified fr fr
- Usa is still doing that. by being Israel bitch!
 
Two wrongs don't make a right. And a wrong doesn't erase a right. You keep talking about everything other than his exposure of US War crimes including murdering a crew of journalists in broad daylight. It is wrong when Israel massacres civilians and journalists. It is wrong when the US does it. It is wrong when Russia does it. You're focused on his cultural and political influence - yes he's a massive shithead. That has nothing to with, and doesn't erase, his expose of US War crimes. When innocent people are massacred by state actors it deserves to be brought to light. Especially when it's the most bloodthirsty, largest most militarily advanced country on the planet and most importantly- when it's the country I live in.

Now please resume talking about anything else other than why he was a political prisoner holed up in an embassy for years
- He exposed USA military for things that only comic-book ct writers thought its was possible.
Thats when USA global influence started falling apart?
 
Julian Assange, on his leaking of the names of hundreds of Afghan civilian informants into the hands of the Taliban:
"Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
What a piece of shit. He’s an informant too, so I guess if one of those Afghans he ratted out kills him, he has it coming
 
What a piece of shit. He’s an informant too, so I guess if one of those Afghans he ratted out kills him, he has it coming
Assange denies making that statement, and so did other people that where there at the table when it was claimed to have been made.

More bullshit propaganda. Of course you'd eat it up.
 
The LOLleftists in this thread truly are an embarrassment. I really.... really want to believe most of them are trolling, but sadly they are not.
 
What a piece of shit. He’s an informant too, so I guess if one of those Afghans he ratted out kills him, he has it coming
The hypocrisy of it all really is astounding.
 
Assange denies making that statement, and so did other people that where there at the table when it was claimed to have been made.

More bullshit propaganda. Of course you'd eat it up.
Whether he said it or not he did which is what actually matters. Not surprised at all to see you missing the point and siding with whatever the “hot take” on any given issue is.
 
What a piece of shit. He’s an informant too, so I guess if one of those Afghans he ratted out kills him, he has it coming

That's just what a Guardian journalist claimed he said in a book. That ain't proof of anything.

Guardian journalist, David Leigh, claimed that Julian Assange initially refused to redact the names of informants. In his book, co-authored with Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Leigh claimed Assange to have said in relation to whether the names should be redacted, "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
 
It is a conflict that has lasted over 2 decades you war loving chickenhawk. You know damn well you were one of the frothing fascist masses that cheered George Bush and senator Palpatine's "fall of the republic" style rise to authoritarian and police state rule

the parties switched in the last 10-15 years. the current left is now early 2000s george bush party that pushes war, big business, the police state, and anti-science. funny how it turned out like that.
 
the parties switched in the last 10-15 years. the current left is now early 2000s george bush party that pushes war, big business, the police state, and anti-science. funny how it turned out like that.
This is actually pretty accurate. The modern democrats are essentially the establishment republicans of 2003-2012.
 
So you think he should get a pass for endangering the lives of thousands of servicemen and informants?
We don’t agree on much but this is factual information . I remember having a conversation with someone from a 3 letter agency he told me how bad it became, because of the leaks.
 
Assange lost all respect from me when Wikileaks became his own political platform (and the other cofounders left), I watched one of his segments on Russia Today and then the "October Surprise" book launch bullshit.

Still disgusted at my own government's lack of action on getting him back. They really only started commenting on the ridiculousness of it this year.
 
That's just what a Guardian journalist claimed he said in a book. That ain't proof of anything.

Guardian journalist, David Leigh, claimed that Julian Assange initially refused to redact the names of informants. In his book, co-authored with Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Leigh claimed Assange to have said in relation to whether the names should be redacted, "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
Luke Harding is a reputable journalist, but regardless, we know he carelessly exposed them from what Wikileaks themselves released. I posted earlier in this thread:

It's not tribalism or culture war shit to point out he's a very shady individual who caused a lot of harm:

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Click here to see The Times article, but note, it's behind a subscription firewall.

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

Special Section: Afghanistan

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.


.....

Exposing possible war crimes committed by the U.S. was not an act of benevolence. Anybody who commits war crimes deserves to be exposed, but Assange clearly disagrees, since he actively worked to whitewash Putin's own nefarious behavior in Syria. If he was simply concerned about corruption, or atrocities, regardless of its source, he would not be behaving like this.
 
Whether he said it or not he did which is what actually matters. Not surprised at all to see you missing the point and siding with whatever the “hot take” on any given issue is.
"hot take"....? This shit is over a decade old, LOL. I just happen to be on the correct side of this.

Imagine thinking Assange is the one putting people in Afghanistan at risk, and not the deranged officials that put them in that quagmire KNOWING it was a fail the whole entire time. Go read the Afghanistan Papers. They all admit to this...

You sound like a Bush Era NeoCon...
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,243,078
Messages
55,880,276
Members
174,973
Latest member
stinkyidiot1
Back
Top