Wikileaks owner arrested

[byteware]

What reason do you have to believe that they are executing collaborators revealed in Wikileaks? They've been executing collaborators since the war started. That's not news.

Seriously?

You make the statement that they've been executing collaborators dince the war started.

And in the same post, ask why I believe they are executing collaborators revealed in Wikileaks...

So, you agree that they will execute collaborators, and ask why I believe they would execute a list of collaborators published on the web?

With that I've got to bow out. The ridiculousness of those two sentences being in the same paragraph truly makes it clear that you don't care what the truth is.

 

[hakr100]

I just wanted to make sure you couldn't actually provide any factual information to support your claim. It's typical and expected, but I wanted to make sure that anyone who read the thread knew that as well.

There's no need to supply URLs for information generally known and accepted by most cognizant adults, that the Bush Administration lied over and over in order to build up support for its war against Iraq.

I'm aware there is a small minority of adults who believe otherwise. You are more than entitled to do so.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Seriously?

You make the statement that they've been executing collaborators dince the war started.

And in the same post, ask why I believe they are executing collaborators revealed in Wikileaks...

So, you agree that they will execute collaborators, and ask why I believe they would execute a list of collaborators published on the web?

With that I've got to bow out. The ridiculousness of those two sentences being in the same paragraph truly makes it clear that you don't care what the truth is.

You are saying the Wikileaks cables being leaked led to the executing of collaborators. You have no proof for this. You just say that it sounds like it's right. Your argument would not hold up in a single court of law.

Again, you're saying that the taxpaying public has no right to know that the US is using diplomats in the UN to spy on other countries in violation of international law? We have no right to know that our tax payer dollars are going to fund child trafficking? We have no right to know that our government is using strong arm tactics to get other countries to sign climate agreements? You'd rather journalists not report this information?

 

[byteware]

There's no need to supply URLs for information generally known and accepted by most cognizant adults, that the Bush Administration lied over and over in order to build up support for its war against Iraq.

I'm aware there is a small minority of adults who believe otherwise. You are more than entitled to do so.

As long as you can't actually prove what you say... that's fine. I just didn't want anyone reading this thread to actually think you were telling the truth.

 

[byteware]

You are saying the Wikileaks cables being leaked led to the executing of collaborators. You have no proof for this. You just say that it sounds like it's right. Your argument would not hold up in a single court of law.

Lol... what a ridiculous statement. As you've already proven, you aren't interested in the truth.

Again, you're saying that the taxpaying public has no right to know that the US is using diplomats in the UN to spy on other countries in violation of international law? We have no right to know that our tax payer dollars are going to fund child trafficking? We have no right to know that our government is using strong arm tactics to get other countries to sign climate agreements? You'd rather journalists not report this information?

No, you don't have a right to know. It's sad, but true. Does the government keep things secret to protect itself? Absolutely. Do I wish they didn't? Absolutely. Do they keep things secret to keep me and you safe? Absolutely. Are there secrets that revealing them would get people killed? Absolutely.

Granted, I'd feel a lot better about them keeping secrets, if they let me determine which secrets should be kept, and which should not... but they decided that wasn't a good idea... oh well.

Assange doesn't get to decide what information needs to be secret and what doesn't. Sorry.

as I've stated before... The taliban kill collaborators. They announced that they would use Wikileaks to kill collaborators. And you don't think Wikileaks has blood on their hands? Seriously?

We may not be able to call the Taliban as witnesses to prove it, but yes... Wikileaks has blood on their hands.

If you were interested in the truth, or even just wanted anyone reading this thread to THINK you were interested in the truth, you would be able to admit that.

As it stands you have made it painfully obvious that you aren't interested in the truth... so... I'm out of the conversation. You can't reason with someone who refuses to see the truth.

 

[EarlyMon]

Let's take it down a notch, gang - attacking facts, arguments and positions is ok. Past that, it's just blood pressure, and I'll bet we all have enough blood pressure.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I guess you and I disagree then. Personally, the fact that my tax dollars are funding child trafficking is something I very, very much want to know about.

 

[hakr100]

As long as you can't actually prove what you say... that's fine. I just didn't want anyone reading this thread to actually think you were telling the truth.

Of course I can prove that there are thousands of articles and analyses showing how the Bush Admin lied us into attacking Iraq. The issue here is not the lack of such documentation. I see no reason to indulge your fantasies, if that is what they are, regarding the Bush Admin honestly dragging us into a war with Iraq.

 

[EarlyMon]

You've all seen my warnings here and in other threads.

This is turning once again into a war wanting to get the last word with hyperbole and it's way past personal - again.

Here's my last word:

/thread locked.