wikileaks needs your help

Assange will be treated by US law as a SPY because he committed ESPIONAGE. Espionage is not covered under the First Amendment.

His ass will be grass.

 

Way to turn your back on your country, I am sure the Taliban are thankful for your efforts, in keeping those 2000 informants names online, until they can get a chance to find and kill them and their families... I'm sure the troops in Afghanistan are thankful for you helping to "out", their eyes and ears on the ground...Keep up the bad work... You should have just sent that money the Taliban, they could have used the money to buy RPG's to launch at U.S troops...

This just shows how ignorant people can be, thinking they are helping people by sending money to the enemy. I highly doubt you got tough with the FBI, this is not the movies, They probably had you handcuffed and shaking, They wouldn't have been in your house if they didn't have a warrant...so stop with the tough guy act...

 

But his killing his defenders in the name of truth . Isn't that wonderful ? Osama must love them .

 

Just another idiot American without a clue... He's to busy slapping dicks with his buddies to know that his supporting Wikileaks make him an accomplice to terrorism... I wonder how much money Osama and the Taliban sent to Wikileaks ...

 

Considering Assange made public the information he obtained without profit or clandestine purpose etc., one wonders how this could be referred to as Espionage in a court of law?

Interesting what is not covered by the Constitution when it is convenient for reactionaries to look the other way.

 

Keep up, Breeze. Assange profited big time $$$ from the information he obtained. That was the clandestine purpose.

Assange also released the names of Afgans who supported the USA. Are you fine with their families being killed?

 

This began with Manning releasing taped footage of innocent civilians being killed by American Military Personnel who's actions the pentagon does not defend.

Manning's reaction is no different than yours.

Assange's livelihood is as much at risk as anyone elses, they all know the consequences for the positions they are in.

 

O.K. Breeze, you quoted me and left it alone, so I'm going to hammer it home.

Why do you agree that it's O.K. for the Taliban to see the names of Afgans who supported the US? You're not so dense that you do understand that they and their families will be killed, right? Why do you consider their deaths acceptable?

 

I understand that you will be upset if an Afghan that is working for USA get killed but what is opinion about Afghan men, women and children that get killed by U.S. bombing of civilians in a war that they are non combatant? Do you consider their death acceptable and just a collateral damage?

 

Collateral damage is a cruel reality of war . Show me one true conflict that didn't had such a thing on both sides .

 

That would be the same as the one in Vietnam.

Areas sprayed with Agent Orange in South Viet Nam
46,000,000 litres of Agent Orange dropped
20,000 villages sprayed
5,000,000 people affected

 

So you really don´t care about Afghans life when is not serving USA´s interests and they are just collateral damages but so is spies getting killed in a war, you should have seen what French and Norwegian did to those who collaborated with Nazi forces.

 

I do care about and collateral damage and believe that weapons should be improved . Meanwhile you don't give a crap about the troops protecting your ass so you love the man who caused 2000 intel agents to be removed slowing the process of rooting out terrorists by an untold amount . My guess is that you'll cry like a girl the day Osama will die .

 

You seem afraid of my position.

"Why do you agree that it's O.K. for the Taliban to see the names of Afgans who supported the US? You're not so dense that you do understand that they and their families will be killed, right? Why do you consider their deaths acceptable?"

Answer mine, and I'll answer yours. That's fair, right?

 

You have already been answered Corwin.

What has the Insect to do with the Woodpecker that lands on his tree?

The Garden speaks for itself. Who started the war and what will they do is evolutionary and the more that is known the better it will be in the end.

 

Umm let's see. 2,000 active participants and probably traitors to their country against 100,000 innocent civilians - gee, that's a hard choice to help decide whose in the wrong.. How many actual enemies do they kill, like 40 soldiers per 1000 innocents. Plus Blackwater shooting at anyone in the street just for unknowingly following them taking the boss of some company from A to B. This war is so wrong on so many levels.

 

I think someone's not being honest here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/11/julian-assange-wikileaks-happy-extradition

 

At least you are honest that you don´t care about how many men, women or children get killed in Afghanistan since most likely in your opinion are sub-human and the only reason this so called 2000 are important is because it is argument that can be used against wikileak and the possibility that USA might lose an asset.

I am not surprised that you are coward and don´t want to answer my question since you are exactly like above poster, the only difference is that you are smart enough to understand your position is inhuman and not acceptable among real Americans and there comes your need to hide it.

 

gworld, I am not surprised that you are coward and don't want to answer my question. Again, you seem afraid of my question, aren't you?

"Why do you agree that it's O.K. for the Taliban to see the names of Afgans who supported the US? You're not so dense that you do understand that they and their families will be killed, right? Why do you consider their deaths acceptable?"

I asked my question first. So, answer mine, and I'll answer yours. That's fair, right?

But first, clear this up. Your question was regarding "Manning releasing taped footage of innocent civilians being killed by American Military Personnel", right? Were these American Military Personnel going off on a crazy binge that deliberately targeted innocent civilians and wanted to kill innocent civilians? Or was this a mistake, a friendly fire incident? Not that I'm accusing you of not knowing what you are talking about again

 

The best conclusion for you Corwin would be to first view the tape yourself than engaging in a speculative discussion.

Manning and Wikileaks are providing the evidence for their case from its source, evidence strong enough the Pentagon does not defend the Military Personnel's action during the engagement.