Assange: leaks disgusting

Is this your way of admitting that you need to shut the fuck up? :good4u:


OK, I'll play along.

This is "ironic" only if Assange has selectively leaked embarrassing information about the criminal prosecutions of private individuals. I have yet to see any evidence supporting the contention that he has done so and thus do not find this ironic at all, but rather find this to be an abuse of government power. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
 
This had nothing to do with his supposed innocence or guilt.
This was about the irony of him complaining about the "leak" of information, after everything he "leaked".

I don't understand what Assange is upset about. If anything, the leak supports his assertion of mudslinging.

One women he supposedly "sexually surprised" (As Jon Stewart said isn't all sex a surprise?!!) kept sleeping with him for an additional 5 days/week.

Something doesn't add up here.
 
DynCorp is an agent of the government.


Edit: And the underlying fact that DynCorp hired a "dancing boy" for a party was already public information. The leak was of a government communication to quash the story in advance of the Frontline piece on "dancing boys" and other press reports about it.

right, it had nothing to do with a private individual and criminal acts

:rolleyes:

and its funny how you completely ignored the bank...he mentioned the information a year ago and their stock fell 3% because of it....

he released classified information, yes, yes indeed there is great irony here
 
right, it had nothing to do with a private individual and criminal acts

:rolleyes:

and its funny how you completely ignored the bank...he mentioned the information a year ago and their stock fell 3% because of it....

he released classified information, yes, yes indeed there is great irony here


He said he had the information. He hasn't released it.


Edit: On the DynCorp stuff, who was it about? Name the private individual(s).
 
Last edited:


Actually, no. I could certainly see the legitimacy of another private individual hacking into Assange's email accounts and releasing embarrassing information but I still don't see how this is legitimate behavior by the government.
 
OK, I'll play along.

This is "ironic" only if Assange has selectively leaked embarrassing information about the criminal prosecutions of private individuals. I have yet to see any evidence supporting the contention that he has done so and thus do not find this ironic at all, but rather find this to be an abuse of government power. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Nice attempt at a wordsmith ploy; but you didn't answer the question, nor have you shown that he hasn't released any information like you asserted.
 
Actually, no. I could certainly see the legitimacy of another private individual hacking into Assange's email accounts and releasing embarrassing information but I still don't see how this is legitimate behavior by the government.

awe...poor nigel

the guy loves to leak private information about private individuals, yet he complains when someone leaks HIS information...

it was just some person in the government leaking government information, you know, just like he does...

yep...no irony there

:rolleyes:
 
awe...poor nigel

the guy loves to leak private information about private individuals, yet he complains when someone leaks HIS information...

it was just some person in the government leaking government information, you know, just like he does...

yep...no irony there

:rolleyes:


Assange doesn't leak anything. He merely publishes information leaked to him. So the equivocation doesn't quite work. He likes to publish leaked information.

I guess you'd be cool with the government leaking embarrassing private information about newspaper reporters that write articles about leaked classified information. I don't see any principled distinction between Assange and such a reporter.

I think that's a pretty bad precedent.
 
Your trolling is weak, but good job drawing everyone else into pretend "serious" debate.


Not really trolling. Just responding to idiocy in kind.

What's the principled distinction between Assange and a reporter that publishes classified information? I don't see it.
 
Assange doesn't leak anything. He merely publishes information leaked to him. So the equivocation doesn't quite work. He likes to publish leaked information.

I guess you'd be cool with the government leaking embarrassing private information about newspaper reporters that write articles about leaked classified information. I don't see any principled distinction between Assange and such a reporter.

I think that's a pretty bad precedent.

lmao...he doesn't leak anything

wikiLEAKS

yep, just a randomly chosen site name, further, he leaks the information out to news organizations who actually do the publishing

its hilarious to watch you try and spin this, though its weird why you would go to such lengths to defend his whiny hypocrisy

you're as delusional as he is:

It may seem ironic that the WikiLeaks founder would criticize The Guardian for publishing leaked information, but in an interview with the BBC, Assange made a distinction between what he does and what's been leaked about him.

"We are an organization that does not promote leaking," Assange said. "We're an organization that promotes justice … that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism."
 
Back
Top