Assange to go!

Chris [BEANS];22596298 said:
My bad for taking the thread OT, feel free to start a new thread on this though.....
Click to expand...

OCUK is pro warmongering, i know the way the conversation will go.

I'll delete my post as i see you have too.
 
deanolfc said:
Afghanistan who is next to them IRAN is it ? Guess there next now that there are war ships just outside IRAN,
Click to expand...

cGMgo.png
 
LateX'Dog said:
You are asking me to provide you with evidence to how this information has better informed people.

But that is a matter of opinion, i feel better informed and the people i socialise with feel the same way.

But you on the other hand may feel differently, so how can i tell you my opinion is right and yours isn't? The only person who will be able to provide you with the information you require is your self.
Click to expand...

How about you try me. Provide something - anything? Not a transition from one corrupt government to another - something tangible measurable. If you can't do that you are just copping out like you won't admit that people have died as a subsequent result of leaks. Therefore, those deaths were preventable. Strangely enough human rights groups condemned the actions of Wikileaks (link 2 pages back) and yet you still feel the need to defend them.

You know when you change the rules and the goalposts, ignore the inconvenient truths, fail to accept that everyone even your messiah is tainted then you really are not better than the very people you are protesting about.

Let's compare:

Happy to cause collateral damage including death to achieve aims:

USA - Yes Assange - Yes

Willing to subvert international law for their own benefit:

USA - Yes Assange - Yes

Puts their own interests over those of their friends and allies even when it places them in severe jeopardy:

USA - Yes Assange - Yes

Willing to throw their strongest principles out of the window and side with immoral and repressive regimes if it suits their purpose:

USA - Yes Assange - Yes
 
[TW]Fox;22596396 said:
Wow, a whole 2 billion quid a year. Totally worth waging a war over.

I missed the bit where the US and UK government get all the income from a pipeline, too.
Click to expand...

Indeed it doesn't make economic sense.

Didn't USA cost the war up to 3 trillion dollars or something as absurd a value.
 
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

But who decides what is evil? If Evil powers are telling us what us good or bad couldn't good men be doing evil deeds even when they think they are doing good?

So who is good, Assange or the establishment?

Honestly I don't know but I find anyone professing such certainty to be undeserving of my trust.
 
Telescopi said:
So who is good, Assange or the establishment?
Click to expand...

Neither and both. I think you will find many who say Assange is good and most will say the establishment is bad. And yet here I sit typing on an expensive piece of electronics using the knowledge gained from a public education, with a roof over my head, food in my belly, my health protected free at charge at the point of delivery, with little fear of real crime ...

OcUK does like its absolutes though.
 
Xordium said:
Neither and both. I think you will find many who say Assange is good and most will say the establishment is bad. ..
OcUK does like its absolutes though.
Click to expand...

It's all to do with fear, if assange / wikileaks sides without fear of the establishment then he's good but if we fear destruction of the status quo he's bad.

Scared monkeys, it's all we are, all we ever have been and all we ever will be.
 
Telescopi said:
It's all to do with fear, if assange / wikileaks sides without fear of the establishment then he's good but if we fear destruction of the status quo he's bad.

Scared monkeys, it's all we are, all we ever have been and all we ever will be.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's as black and white as that. There is no status quo as such for him to destroy, indeed you could argue that as an anti establishment figure (which he is being made out to be when that is not black and white either) he relies on being part of the status quo and trying to make everything very simple. Assange says something is bad, eg the US in Iraq, so it is bad. Assange says something is good eg Ecuador for giving him asylum and so it is good. But neither position can be an absolute.

It would be nice if things were as one way or the other as that in a way but they so rarely are and they are not in this case.

Whatever he did that had merit in the past however I think Assange would have far, far more credibility for being the great anti establishment figure everyone should respect as he is pushing boundaries, if he hadn't sided with the very sort of regime that not only did he criticise when he was directing Wikileaks, but he has so called campaigned against. He didn't need an allegation of a sex crime to smear his name, he's doing a pretty good job by himself.

The only people who don't seem to think that are people who are devoted to him but I think its a bad idea not to question authority figures, whether they be in the establishment or 'fighting' against it. He has set himself up as an example of everything that is right..but to do that he has to try a bit harder to stay in the right, at least in my view. He is trying to be an alternative to the establishment, so is subject to as much question as the establishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom