• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyers cry foul over leak of Julian Assange sex-case papers

Kal'Stang said:
Actually, nope, I won't. For the simple fact that even if they do get killed it will not have been Assaunges fault. It will be the terrorists fault. They're the ones that pulled the trigger, they're the ones that should be held responsible. Blaming Assaunge for thier murder would be like blaming America for the drug cartel being in business considering how much business individuals in the US give them.

As for my reservations of putting people in danger...of course I have reservations. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and won't happen again. Hell there's over a trillion miles worth of driving being done in the US yearly. Don't you think that puts peoples lives in danger also?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your honesty. That tells me all I need to know about your character and morals.

Luckily, not many people are like you.
 
Gill said:
Thanks for your honesty. That tells me all I need to know about your character and morals.

Luckily, not many people are like you.
Click to expand...

A lot more people face reality than you think. Tell me though...can you refute anything that I just said in that post?
 
Kal'Stang said:
A lot more people face reality than you think. Tell me though...can you refute anything that I just said in that post?
Click to expand...

I disagree with everything in your post, but I doubt you would understand or care. Disregard for innocent lives is a sad state of mind. 99.9 % of the information in these stolen documents hurt innocent people far more than the U.S.
 
Gill said:
I disagree with everything in your post, but I doubt you would understand or care. Disregard for innocent lives is a sad state of mind. 99.9 % of the information in these stolen documents hurt innocent people far more than the U.S.
Click to expand...

Since you obviously cannot disprove any of what I said how about these questions. How do you know that the terrorists didn't already know about that family when the cables were released? How do you know if that family wasn't already killed? How do you know that the family is even in that town anymore? Maybe the CIA already got them out of there and some place safe?

There are so many unknown variables in this that all that you are doing is assuming the worst.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Since you obviously cannot disprove any of what I said how about these questions. How do you know that the terrorists didn't already know about that family when the cables were released? How do you know if that family wasn't already killed? How do you know that the family is even in that town anymore? Maybe the CIA already got them out of there and some place safe?

There are so many unknown variables in this that all that you are doing is assuming the worst.
Click to expand...

How do you know that Assange doesn't have an agenda against the Afghans he exposed to danger ??

How do you know Assange isn't a member of Al Queda ??

How do you know Assange isn't a martian ???

See how silly your game is ??
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually, nope, I won't. For the simple fact that even if they do get killed it will not have been Assaunges fault. It will be the terrorists fault. They're the ones that pulled the trigger, they're the ones that should be held responsible. Blaming Assaunge for thier murder would be like blaming America for the drug cartel being in business considering how much business individuals in the US give them.

As for my reservations of putting people in danger...of course I have reservations. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and won't happen again. Hell there's over a trillion miles worth of driving being done in the US yearly. Don't you think that puts peoples lives in danger also?
Click to expand...

So what if he was releasing the nuclear launch codes?
 
American said:
So what if he was releasing the nuclear launch codes?
Click to expand...

wouldn't that information be useless unless you had access to the particular nuclear device which could be launched?
 
justabubba said:
wouldn't that information be useless unless you had access to the particular nuclear device which could be launched?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I guess it would be okay, wouldn't it? :roll:
 
American said:
I don't know, but I guess it would be okay, wouldn't it? :roll:
Click to expand...

that access to the nuclear devices is required to make the information useful causes your example to be pointless

and yes, that is okay, because i find that typical
 
Last edited:
American said:
I don't know, but I guess it would be okay, wouldn't it? :roll:
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time with these characters. Common sense would help them see your point, but is lacking when examples are taken too literally.
 
Gill said:
You're wasting your time with these characters. Common sense would help them see your point, but is lacking when examples are taken too literally.
Click to expand...

but the example was absurd
how is the disclosure of launch code information harmful if the recipient of that information does not have access to the nuclear device to put the information to use
 
Kal'Stang said:
Since you obviously cannot disprove any of what I said how about these questions. How do you know that the terrorists didn't already know about that family when the cables were released? How do you know if that family wasn't already killed? How do you know that the family is even in that town anymore? Maybe the CIA already got them out of there and some place safe?

There are so many unknown variables in this that all that you are doing is assuming the worst.
Click to expand...

Not assuming the worst, assuming the most likely. Most likely, people are at risk due to the leaks. People have their lives, and their families lives at heightened risk so that Assange can get his little blog noticed.
 
justabubba said:
but the example was absurd
how is the disclosure of launch code information harmful if the recipient of that information does not have access to the nuclear device to put the information to use
Click to expand...

Who the hell cares if it was absurd ???? He was trying to make a point that everyone but you understood perfectly.
 
Gill said:
Who the hell cares if it was absurd ???? He was trying to make a point that everyone but you understood perfectly.
Click to expand...

no, he failed
he tried to paint release of launch codes as something which would be damaging
i pointed out that the released information could only be found harmful if the reader also had access to the nuclear device requiring those codes
 
Gill said:
How do you know that Assange doesn't have an agenda against the Afghans he exposed to danger ??

How do you know Assange isn't a member of Al Queda ??

How do you know Assange isn't a martian ???

See how silly your game is ??
Click to expand...

So would you agree that it is bad to assume anything?
 
American said:
So what if he was releasing the nuclear launch codes?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't care. For the simple fact that one has to have access to the computer that launches them. Also the moment that such information is released such codes would be changed faster than you can blink. (sorry but you really did give a bad example there)
 
Redress said:
Not assuming the worst, assuming the most likely. Most likely, people are at risk due to the leaks. People have their lives, and their families lives at heightened risk so that Assange can get his little blog noticed.
Click to expand...

Most likely those people were already at risk anyways. And no you are not assuming the most likely. You are just assuming what fits your particular view point.
 
Gill said:
Who the hell cares if it was absurd ???? He was trying to make a point that everyone but you understood perfectly.
Click to expand...

When debating someone it is best to not use absurd analogies. They just get you in trouble and does not prove anything.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So would you agree that it is bad to assume anything?
Click to expand...

I agree that its bad to assume that the leaks had any purpose except to satisfy Assange's ego.

I also agree that its bad to assume they have not and could not cause harm or death.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Most likely those people were already at risk anyways. And no you are not assuming the most likely. You are just assuming what fits your particular view point.
Click to expand...

No, I am assuming the most likely. If you look at the tactics used by the enemy in Afghanistan, it is pretty clear they can and will target those who are identified as working with us over there. The problem with Assange is he considers the lives of those he put at risk less important than his little blog and pointless crusade. The problem with those defending him is that they support some one who has proven to be an enemy of their country.
 
Gill said:
I agree that its bad to assume that the leaks had any purpose except to satisfy Assange's ego.
Click to expand...

I don't have to assume anything of the sort. He has stated his intentions in the wikileaks about page. To assume anything else would be going against something which you already agreed is bad.

Gill said:
I also agree that its bad to assume they have not and could not cause harm or death.
Click to expand...

I would agree to this, so long as you carried it to its natural conclusion of not assuming anything. IE that they even have caused harm or death.
 
Redress said:
No, I am assuming the most likely. If you look at the tactics used by the enemy in Afghanistan, it is pretty clear they can and will target those who are identified as working with us over there.
Click to expand...

If we want to assume the most likely then the most likely event would be that the US protected that family because of the information that they had given them. So the moment that the information was released then the odds are that that family was removed from that location and helped to live somewhere else.

Redress said:
The problem with Assange is he considers the lives of those he put at risk less important than his little blog and pointless crusade.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough most "crusades" as you call it often are more important than lives. Let me ask you...was the lives that were lost during the revolutionary war worth the freedom that was the basis of that war?

Redress said:
The problem with those defending him is that they support some one who has proven to be an enemy of their country.
Click to expand...

Or someone that is trying to help our country. It really depends on ones point of view. If one thinks that our government is keeping far too many secrets and is using that secrecy to do things that we are against then someone like Assaunge would not be considered an enemy.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If we want to assume the most likely then the most likely event would be that the US protected that family because of the information that they had given them. So the moment that the information was released then the odds are that that family was removed from that location and helped to live somewhere else.
Click to expand...

So all those are now no longer usable assets in country, which makes the war effort harder and probably more deaths as a result. So the uprooting of families, the increased risk to them, and the increased risk to US troops is all a direct responsibility of Assange. Tell me again why you defend his actions?

Interestingly enough most "crusades" as you call it often are more important than lives. Let me ask you...was the lives that were lost during the revolutionary war worth the freedom that was the basis of that war?
Click to expand...

There is no comparison between the Revolutionary War, and Assange and his blog.

Or someone that is trying to help our country. It really depends on ones point of view. If one thinks that our government is keeping far too many secrets and is using that secrecy to do things that we are against then someone like Assaunge would not be considered an enemy.
Click to expand...

He is doing nothing to stop the US from keeping too many secrets. He is putting US citizens at risk. He is, in no way, shape or form, trying to "help" our country.
 
Redress said:
So all those are now no longer usable assets in country, which makes the war effort harder and probably more deaths as a result. So the uprooting of families, the increased risk to them, and the increased risk to US troops is all a direct responsibility of Assange. Tell me again why you defend his actions?
Click to expand...

Because his idea is sound.

Redress said:
There is no comparison between the Revolutionary War, and Assange and his blog.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a comparison. Assaunge is fighting for transparency in governments so that the citizens can be informed of what thier government is doing so that they can stay free. The revolutionary war was about freedom.

Redress said:
He is doing nothing to stop the US from keeping too many secrets. He is putting US citizens at risk. He is, in no way, shape or form, trying to "help" our country.
Click to expand...

I could just as easily state that the US put the citizens at risk by going over there and fighting a war which was an unwinable war to begin with. Who is more implicit? The ones that started the war? Or the ones that might have put a few extra people at risk due to the war?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because his idea is sound.
Click to expand...

The concept that confidential documents should be released with no oversite is not sound.

Actually there is a comparison. Assaunge is fighting for transparency in governments so that the citizens can be informed of what thier government is doing so that they can stay free. The revolutionary war was about freedom.
Click to expand...

Two problems with this. First is that nothing Assange is doing has anything to do with changing how papers are classified. Second is that you are admitting they are different to say they are the same, which makes no sense.


I could just as easily state that the US put the citizens at risk by going over there and fighting a war which was an unwinable war to begin with. Who is more implicit? The ones that started the war? Or the ones that might have put a few extra people at risk due to the war?
Click to expand...

Whether the war is winnable or not is a matter of opinion at this point. Neither of us can see the future. However, one is a direct attempt to make the US more secure, and one is a direct attempt to make the US less secure. I wonder which is better....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom