The Arrogance of Brilliance

Pages: 1 2

If published reports describing the alleged source of tens of thousands of Afghan war logs to WikiLeads are true, then WikiLeaks founder and convicted computer hacker Julian Assange appears to have found a truly kindred spirit. The Wall Street Journal describes the suspected leaker, Pfc. Bradley Manning, in terms that suggest the twenty-one year old soldier is not just short in stature, but small-minded as well. Manning seems like just the kind of self-absorbed, inflated individual that would appeal to guy like Assange, who has spent the better part of his adult life redefining self-aggrandizement and self-righteous arrogance. Were not the consequences of the leaks so serious, the most fitting punishment for both would be to take them out to the woodshed. Since that’s not possible, we can only hope that Assange and Manning – or whomever Assange’s source is ultimately determined to be – are at least forced to take a time-out for several years in a federal prison.

Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held Assange’s feet to the fire and we should demand that the administration continue to turn up the heat on the Australian rabble-rouser. “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his sources are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier, or that of an Afghan family,” Mullen said.

Assange is a prime example of that peculiarly unique product of Western, democratic institutions: a genius so blinded by his own brilliance that he sees nothing wrong with tearing down the society that grants him the freedom to exercise his arrogance, while remaining blissfully oblivious to the fact that his actions lend aid and comfort to an enemy who would not long tolerate his very existence. We’ve seen Assange’s sort throughout history. General Benedict Arnold was arguably the most gifted field commander of the American Revolution, but his wounded pride and monumental ego led him to betray the cause to which he was supposedly devoted. Bobby Fisher was perhaps the most original mind ever to sit astride a chess board, but he was consumed by self-loathing of his Jewish heritage. Intellectuals, or perhaps “pseudo intellectuals” is the better term, like Tom Hayden couldn’t see the forest for the trees during the Vietnam era. Both America and the Vietnamese people paid the price. Assange is of the same breed and it should come as no surprise that he is pals with Daniel Ellsberg, the infamous “Pentagon Papers” whistle-blower.

Pages: 1 2

  • So Cal Mike

    This piece of narcissistic semi-human dirt should be targeted for assassination.
    That's what he and the public of the free world deserve.
    A trial at taxpayers expense is far too good for him.
    Save us the cost and headache with a cheap piece of lead in the side of his head.
    Or through the back or the front of his head or between the eyes.
    I don't care. I'm for freedom of choice.

    • Sonne

      "This piece of narcissistic semi-human dirt should be targeted for assassination.
      That's what he and the public of the free world deserve."

      Why don't you do it yourself? You seem so eager to decide who should live or die. You want blood on someone else's hands?

      Let me guess, you also want to bomb Iran, but you want others to do it for you (mostly young men and women) while you sit at home comfortably watching Fox News and trolling the internet.

    • osopolitico

      You are sick.

  • thedirkster

    Julian Assange is a silly little computer nerd right up until he puts
    our sons and daughters in jeopardy on the battlefield; then he becomes
    an enemy of freedom and as personally responsible for the deaths of
    our men and women in uniform as the terrorist that pull the trigger.
    This last act of posting secret military data makes him lower and more
    evil than the terrorist we fight. They kill our children and he stokes
    their blood thirst. Julian will reap what he has sown. His love for
    the limelight at the cost of our soldier's lives makes him a traitor
    to all that fight for freedom.

    • Sonne

      you do know that the leaks, and most of the leaks so far have been provided by U.S. servicemen and women right?

      • thedirkster

        I am not sure I follow your logic. We recently had one of our servicemen go nuts on one of our bases and kill a bunch of fellow servicemen. (Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan) From your logic, that now makes it OK for others to do the same. If one of our own servicemen leaked the data, then the punishment used for treason will only suffice. I have never understood the theory that "if other people do it that makes it okay". Moral laws don't operate that way. There are absolutes in this Moral universe. Those absolutes don't change just because others break those moral laws. Julian Assange doesn't get some kind of get out of jail free card because a few of our servicemen are traitors.

        • osopolitico

          Just what are your moral absolutes that permit the wanton slaughter of innocent people? The Afghanis had nothing to do with 9/11. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are immoral and unConstitutional. Bush and Obama could be tried as war criminals.

          • Dirk Lemmons

            I assume you think it is absolutely wrong to slaughter innocent people, war or no war. Are you absolutely sure of that? If you are, then you and I agree that there are absolutes in this moral universe. Now that we have the maxim "there are absolutes" established we must ask how do we determine what is absolutely wrong. Is it wrong to have collateral damage or killings in a war against terrorist who kill in the name of their religion Islam? I submit that it may be sad and not the desired effect but it is not wrong morally. It is the sad consequences of war. Islam and its followers determine that all unbelievers must die. They then carry out those plans with an attack on the non believers that take thousands of innocent lives in one day. They continue to plan the deaths of all non believers after this attack. The country they attacked defends itself against these Islamic extremist and declares war on them. In this war our soldiers hunt them down and kill them. In the process, some innocent people are killed. Take your pick on any one of these facts I mention, and tell me which one is absolutely wrong morally.

          • Dirk Lemmons

            Is it wrong to defend your Country against Islamic terrorist that have as the premise of their religion to kill all non believers. I submit to you that if our soldiers don't carry out war on these Islamic terrorist we are morally wrong. Not all those killed in our two wars are innocent. In fact far few innocents are killed than Islam Jihadist. Declaring war on all Islam Jihadist that is hell bent on killing all non believers is absolutely morally right and good. To not declare war on the Islam Jihadist, would be morally wrong and cowardice. In our moral universe it doesn't take a theologian to figure out who is absolutely morally wrong these two wars. The Islam Jihadist are absolutely morally wrong and their islam god is nothing but a murderer.

      • polipath

        So that justifies publishing them? For what purpose? Explain your answer.

      • Rifleman

        And how does their treason excuse him?

        • Sonne

          that he runs a website that provides information, he merely publishes what is passed on to him. Isn't that what conservative hero Andew Breitbart does?

          • Rifleman

            No, when has Breitbart ever disclosed information that endangered US troops or our allies? When has he disclosed confidential, much less classified information that endangered anyone's life?

      • Jack Samwell

        The leaks were provided by the CIA. There is nothing in these documents that the establishment media hasn't already made known. The neocons are just looking for a way to justify another war with Iran.

      • glpage

        And when they are discovered they should be tried for treason.

  • weRscrewed

    I think you are faulting Julian Assange just a little too quickly by failing to mention that Mr. Assange, through the NEW YORK TIMES, notified the Obama Administration and asked for their input, assessment of the documents. True to form, our Muslim Golfer-in-chief was either too busy or too unconcerned to reply to his request.
    Now the Obama Admin. is attempting to minimize the importance of the documents to alleviate his People of culpability in allowing them to be published without responding to Mr. Assange's request.
    Perhaps this Wikileak serves some unknown goal of Mr Obama. Or. Obama is truely and completely Incompetent.

    • Rifleman

      That doesn't change what he did, though you're right about hussein.

      • weRscrewed

        No it does not excue what either of them did, however, it comes down to who had the MOST Responsibility and who TRIED to do it right. I would like to have seen wikiLeaks perhaps expend a little mor patience and energy getting Obama to respond. But in the end Asange is not Commander-in-Chief of anyone's Military.

        • Rifleman

          Why one or the other, when it's both? To be fair, it looks like Hussein followed protocol. There was little he could do, other than kill everyone involved before the documents were released and hope they got them all. I, who despise him more than most, would fully support him if he did (even if the attempt to stop the release ultimately failed). I wouldn't trade one of the people this ends up getting killed for the lives of everyone involved in the release of these documents.

          • weRscrewed

            You have me somewhat confused. What protocol is it that O followed. His Administration was Contacted by Assange before the release of the documents and chose NOT to Reply. How is that any Useful Protocol?
            Are you saying that you think Asange has equal responsibility to Obama in this?
            They are both at fault but in much different ways. There was much Obama could have done had he responded. but as History will show he did not so we will never know what the outcome would have been if he HAD. Assange is guilty of releasing the Documents, but Obama is guilty of, once again, not responding to a crisis in a reasonable manner when it is his Job as Commander-In-Chief to do all he can to protect our Soldiers anywhere in the World to the best of his ability.

          • Rifleman

            Neither confirm nor deny is the long established protocol when asked about classified info. I'm saying asange has more responsibility, he released the documents, and agreeing that hussein is untrustworthy and incompetent.

  • weRscrewed

    You describe Mr. Assange thusly,
    Assange is a prime example of that peculiarly unique product of Western, democratic institutions: a genius so blinded by his own brilliance that he sees nothing wrong with tearing down the society that grants him the freedom to exercise his arrogance, while remaining blissfully oblivious to the fact that his actions lend aid and comfort to an enemy who would not long tolerate his very existence. We’ve seen Assange’s sort throughout history
    If you simply substitute Barrak Hussein Obama for Julian Assange in the above description, it seems to fit Mr. Obama just as well, if not better.

    • Sonne

      well… really? I mean Obama has continued the Bush policy and even expanded the drone attacks, increased troop levels, continued gov spying on u.s. citizens, doubled black ops in foreign nations along with targeted assasinations of "terrorists". He seems pretty eagerto play the "war monger" role and blast the middle east into oblivion, what the hell are you talking about?

      • Rifleman

        Yea, he's doing all those things while simultaniously setting a cut and run date (and cutting the troops requested) which makes his current efforts of no strategic value (though killing terrorists in the interim is helpful).

        I bet you were fooled by his small business initiative, after he hiked their taxes and expenses. No doubt you also fall for his deporting more illegals, while many times more come across the border illegally and he does nothing to interdict them and not only refuses to enforce federal laws that actually work and cause them to self deport, but prohibits state or local governments from doing so.

        • Sonne

          I don't really fall for much these days, except maybe beautiful women in summer clothes.

          • Rifleman

            Nice to know we've something in common (Atlanta is a great place for that), but by naming a bugout date hussein is defeating his stated objectives.

      • weRscrewed

        I guess you did not follow that OBAMA was asked to review the WikiLeaks material prior to it being published but took no action, His administration did not reply when presented the opportunity His only response after the fact is to downplay the significance of the material. You'd have to ask HIM why? Go back and read it again. I do not agree withthe Publication of any of this material by anyone, yet I have to believe that HE WHO COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT TOOK NO ACTION even when the opportunity was offered by the Man who's getting all the Well Deserved heat for the Publication of it. My statement only indicates that the two men share some disturbing Character Traits. You could just switch the names and the Traits still fit. Just my opinion.

  • Sonne

    He might achieve what most of Americans would like to see happen: help convince the public and governments involved to end the 2 endless and un-winnable wars that we are spending billions of dollars in. People keep blaming the "deficit" on programs like social security and medicaid, when military spending is what is sucking up most of our tax dollars.

    • Jeff

      Iraq is unwinnable…huh? What the heck are you even talking about. As far as Afghanistan go's if Chairman Obama wasnt so incompetant, if we didnt have traitors in the midst & if the ROE wernt so stringint this war would be perfectly winnable even though thats not what someone of your Ilk would like to see.

    • polipath

      "… the 2 endless and un-winnable wars…".
      Wake up. These are not "wars" they're politically correct "nation-building" exercises. Social work in bad neighborhoods. If we prosecuted a real war over there it would be over in about five minutes.

      • Sonne

        sure they would… that was the policy used in Vietnam, "bomb the hell out of em" is what Nixon did, still… who won that war?

        We are the "redcoats" in Iraq and Afghanistan, people don't like being occupied by foreigners, they will never stop fighting and after all it is their right to do so, it's their country, their land, their culture. Whether we agree or not, whether we like it or not. We are occupiers.

        • Sprinklerman

          On the battlefield, the US won the Vietnam war.

          Unfortunately we lost the political battle because of whiny liberal/progressives who thought like this narsassitic little #%$@!$%. People like Walter Cronkite and Hanoi Jane.

          After Nixon bombed the crap out of North Vietnam, the South Vietnamese armed forces were doing just fine when they had air support from the US. Nixon and the administration promised South Vietnam that we would not leave them completely until they were able to stand on their own against the North Vietnamese. After Nixon left office in disgrace and dishonor, the Democrat controlled Congress then passed legislation that required the complete and total pull out of what was left of our forces including all the air cover that was so helpful to the South Vietnamese.

          • Sonne

            yeah, nice try.

            Maybe you'll get lucky and elect another president in 2012 that will go on with these two wars and then also add the burden of invading Iran and N.Korea… and it will go on and on until we all kill each other with nuclear weapons.

        • Rifleman

          You're way off there, maybe you should look into what the Vietnamese on both sides said about that. We won the war as long as we fought it, and the South Vietnamese won it until we broke our word and treaty, by cutting off all aid, including their ammo and spare parts, then failing to honor our treaty obligations (like we did with saddam for 12 years) when the North broke the treaty and invaded. Brilliant example, thanks

          People that don't like being occupied by foreigners shouldn't attack the USA or our friends, and live up to their cease fire agreements with us. We occupied Japan and Germany after they made that mistake as well, but we didn't subjugate them as the Redcoats tried us. They're not even similar.

        • polipath

          "…. people don't like being occupied by foreigners, they will never stop fighting…"
          People don't like having buildings destroyed killing thousands of innocent civilians either- remember 9/11? bin Laden declared war on us – not vice-versa. So how would you deal with the situation? Try to keep it real – skip the lefty abstractions OK?

          • ChickenhawkRepubs

            what exactly did the civilian population of afghanistan and iraq have to do with 9/11? Bin Laden is a Saudi and is/was hiding in Pakistan.

          • Louie723

            The US in not waging war on the population. Sure Bin Laden is now hiding in Pakistan, after the US kicked him and Al Qaeda out of Afghansitan.

            Who are you calling chickenhawk dolt?

          • polipath

            I don't usually respond to pimply-faced trolls from DU but I asked how YOU zit-pickers would handle the Afghan/Pakistan situation. No answer of course – all you twits do is whine.
            And knock-off the chicken hawk crap. I spent four years in the miltary as have many others who post here.

    • Rifleman

      How are you going to convince the jihadis to quit? It takes two to make peace.

      US Budget:
      37% Social Security/Medicare/Other retirement
      20% Social Programs (That makes 57% social spending, or "most")
      24% Defense/State Dept/Foreign Aid (including civilian aid)
      We're spending less by GDP on a hot war than we did during the Cold War. That's reality, not your fantasy.

      Oh, and can't never can.

      • Sonne

        SURE, IF YOU ADD THEM ALL UP it makes it sound like we spend less on military, the spending for fiscal year 2009 was:

        Defense – 24%
        Social Security – 20%
        Medicare & Medicaid – 19%
        Other Mandatory – 17%
        Other Discretionary – 12%
        Interest – 12%
        TARP – 4%

        For 2008, Defense and SS were equal. This means Obama is spending even more on Defense than the Bush administration. Military and Defense are still our biggest expense.

        More proof:

        For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.

        When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested. An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate. Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

        Emergency and supplemental spending

        The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below. In addition, the Pentagon has access to black budget military spending for special programs which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Starting in the fiscal year 2010 budget however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are categorized as "Overseas Contingency Operations" and included in the budget.

        By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.

        WHO IS BENEFITING FROM THESE WARS? Lower and middle class Americans sure aren't, they're the one's whose family members are going off to fight them.

        • Rifleman

          Of course social spending has to be added up (like defense), anything else is misleading. Whether you go by budget or spending (my preference, and soon to be your necessity because the dp isn't passing them anymore), the government spends the majority (67%) of the money it spends on social spending, which didn't even exist 80 years ago. Total defense spending (22%) doesn't even make a quarter of it, and national defense is the primary reason for having a federal government. Defense has been declining as a percentage of total spending, and social spending has been steadily increasing, at least since 2006, the last year the GOP controlled congress.

          Everyone in the USA, and anyone threatened by al quada or saddam is benefiting from this war (two major campaigns) in many ways. Al quada is seven years late for their next mass casualty attack on US civilians, we exposed the khan network(along with Libya's NBC program, and saddam will never threaten or kill us or our allies again, not to mention mass murder his own people. Then there's the solid rejection and defeat of aq in Iraq, access to the mad mullah's western border, the denial of Afghanistan as a safe haven, and the steady attrition of aq leadership. I could go on, but those are the big ones for me. Nobody benefits from US security and prosperity more than the poor and middle class, because lack of either tends to hit us worse.

          P*ss on your pity or self pity, I was happy to enlist on my 18th birthday, I have family and friends in every branch, and most likely always will. I'll always support going after our mortal enemies, giving Service Members the best equipment we can develop, and oppose wasting their sacrifice by leaving the field to our enemies.

          Anything on '10 is a WAG, they didn't even bother to pass a budget, and they're still spending.

        • Rifleman

          Oh, and you didn't answer my question, how are you going to convince the jihadis to quit?


    One can call Assange a snake,traitor,guttersnipe,or whatever epithet best vents one's spleen. The important questions left unaddressed would be are the released documents true or not? Hanging the mailman by his heels doesn't address thr problem-if there is one? Is Pakistan sabotaging our efforts at pacification in Afghanistan? Is the Taliban even stronger than 2002? Do they have stinger missles-& if so,from where? If even some of the above is true is merits a reexamination of our tactics & overall strategy in Afghanistan.

    • AntiOnan

      Are you joking?
      Pakistan's help versus the Taliban is minimal and uncooperative at best.
      The Pakistani military intelligence are in league with the Taliban and so nothing , other than the odd show demonstration, will they do. A truly cooperative and effective army would have cleaned out bin Laden a& the Taliban years ago.

      The west deludes itself that by giving Pakistan billion sof dollars that the Pakistanis will help the west. Who are they kidding? Pakistan is a Sharia Law country: an Islamic country. Why should they help the west? To pretend to, yes!! For the money. But in reality, who actually knows anything about Islam who makes these decisions?
      How can we have any respect for any goverment who fail to see that it is ISlam, and ONLY ISLAM, that is the enemy & that you can pour ALL of the western wealth down into the corrupt sewers of Muslim states and it will help NO ONE, except those in power.
      Muslim states are not worth ONE western life not one western dollar and I do NOT care just how politically incorrect this is. But I guess the western oil rich feel differently
      about this, so long as it is not their children dying from IEDs.

    • Rifleman

      The ‘messenger’ released names and personal info of our personnel and Muslims helping us, exposing them and their entire families (the whole family is responsible for individual members in their culture) to torture and death from our enemies. He surely and severely hurt cooperation from foreign intel organizations and our ability to collect intel. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions have been endangered by this, including us, because it will be much harder to detect and stop pending attacks.

      Some in Pakistan (and in their government) certainly are sabotaging our efforts, and have been all along. Some aren't, and most of those out of fear of the islamists, rather than any consideration for us. They are infinitely preferable to the jihadis

      That the Taliban is the spawn of the ISI has been known all along, so is the fact that parts of the ISI work counter to the Paki government and the ISI itself. The Khan network, which we found out about when we toppled saddam, was also an ISI op. Basically, islamists and crooks have been fighting for control of Pakistan and for their own ends since its' founding, and each side (actually there’s more than two sides competing, and tribal politics complicates that) has partial control of almost every institution. Some of any help we give Pakistan will end up in our enemies hands, but if we don’t help them, then the utterly ruthless jihadis will prevail over the crooks, a nuclear country will fall in their hands, and we’ll shortly wish we had done everything we could to stop them before it was too late.

      You’ll notice that gatorbait hasn’t exposed anything damaging to the chicoms or Russians. That’s not just because he hates us and loves them, but because they can, and unlike us, will hunt him down and kill him.


        Rifleman & AntiOnan: Points very well taken,& I don't disagree. I am,however,a realist. 1) with regard to Islamists (our sworn enemies-their religious/political dogma,not ours),we can't kill 'em all. We have to make some kind of cynical alliance with some-if for no other reason than to play them off their co religionists. This really isn't terribly difficult. The Brits did it successfully for years. It would be very nice if we could eliminate the mind cancer of Islam completely.,but we all know that isn't going to happen. I'd say a proper spin on Assande & his ilk is that he's presented us with a wakeup call. We need to reexamine our goals & tactics in Afghanistan. Are we going to establish a stable western style democracy there? That's laughable. , It would seem to me far more realistic to neutralize a threat than to engage in nation building. For example,wouldn't more containment of Waziristan on Pakistan's northeastern border by US Special Ops forces make more sense than ever increasing numbers of conventional American troops in Afghanistan? There are far more of the Islamic enemy than us.

        • Rifleman

          Sorry, I've never seen you post here (welcome to FPM, BTW), so I didn't realize you already had knowledge of the area. I had just tried to explain the basic situation to someone (who just didn't know much about the area and asked about it) elsewhere on Friday.

          I think you're right on many counts. The most of the region is ill-suited and problematic for heavy forces, and the enemy rarely masses in numbers great enough for them to be used effectively. Special forces with aerial and indirect fire support are the best tool for the job of killing aq/taliban there while minimizing losses.

          However, on the scale necessary, even a strictly special forces operation will require airfields, fire bases, outposts, control of the roads between them, and local help (which assande not only just mostly killed off, but strongly discouraged in the future). That means local and national government, which we must protect. Afghanistan is almost as large a Texas, and we have to physically harden the locals against the ones that get through our interdiction. COIN still applies for the special forces (though it was actually pioneered by the SAS) to succeed.

        • Rifleman

          To neutralize the terror threat, we have to eliminate the lawless regions where they take refuge and train. That also includes Somalia, Yemen, a lot of other places we don’t hear much about, and wherever they run from there. In the Hindu Kush we have to keep pressure on them from the West, and the Pakis have to keep pressure on them from the East until they can control their western provinces at least well enough to keep out training camps and depots. Since aq was dumb enough to assassinate Bhutto in public with that baby bomb the Pakis have been doing a much better job of that, but it's a tall order, and they take heavy losses (they’ve already lost many more killed and wounded than we have in the GWOT). It’ll be slow going, and it won’t be all progress, but I’m yet to see a better alternative.

        • Rifleman

          Limiting the mission to interdiction also doesn't address the problem of what happens if we leave before a government is built that's strong and developed enough to hold it against the taliban, aq, hostiles within the ISI, and the mad mullahs. Then we're further back than square one, 9/11, because nobody will trust us if we have to come back after abandoning them. What we leave doesn’t have to be perfect, but it does have to be good enough.

  • USMCSniper

    I put the Arb curse upin him. May the fleas of a thousand camels find a home in your crotch Julian Assange.

  • AntiOnan

    Most of you miss the most valid point about the "efforts" of this little arrogant w*nker whose nationality embarrasses me and my fellow Australians. WHEN & IF he places similar documents online about the nefarious actions of the new KGB, the various Mafias, including Russian & Japanese kinds, the People's Republic of China, North Korea Libya, Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, Kuwait, Yemen, Iran, Al Qaeda, Chechen terrorists or even Turkey then I might call him a man.

    But instead he goes the easy way of the "Cambridge five": minimal risk, easy access from a whole host of "brave" left wingers resident within western military & foreign offices who all know damn well that they wont be shot for their crimes.

    So until he starts to operate on a parity basis, he is just a little leftist slimebag deluding himself that he is doing some good and yet picking only upon he easy targets: those who do the most good for the world, whatever their mistakes.

    we all know damn well that he wont operate against any non western country BECAUSE they would have him disposed off within days and very painfully. A Gutless little sc*mbag IMHO

  • AntiOnan

    I meant to add as well:

    Who SUBSIDISES this little man?

    That should give a clue as to his raison d'etre. ?The KGB ? bin Laden? Iranian ratbags?

  • Jeter

    How is Assange substantially different from the New York Times, which routinely prints classified information detrimental to US interests on its front page?

  • AntiOnan

    There is no real difference between them as my comment could apply to them as well.
    Only brave versus those who wont kill them. for what they say despite the:"never sleeps in thee same place twice" rubbish. from one of them.

  • Reader

    He's a genius?

  • Henry Thoreau

    Sorry to be duped but I sit from down southern hemisphere, and I have not seen any evidence that there are any benefits to the american military in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    I don't really care if they are there or not. It just appears to be to be one of the most expensive exercises in doing pretty much nothing!

    Anyway, if you want to stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes for the Afghans to finally send you packing like htey did the Soviets that is entirely your choice.

    Has anyone stoped to ask whether it may have been a McCrystal/Hackworth minded colonel or general with foresight, who knew the only way to get out, was to put your gellyfish gutless politicians between a rock and a hard place?

    Just a thought…

  • AntiOnan

    Mr Thoreau: as far as i am concerned, there are absolutely NO benefits from having any western troops in Afghanistan or any Muslim country. They are hated and they are killed wantonly.Even medical & engineering teams sent solely for the purpose of helping Muslims are targeted and often. But unlike you, while the troops are there I will support them simply because they are there.

    But my reasons are probably very different to yours: I see NOT one western life worth that of any number of 1000s of Muslims that the west has tried to help over the last 50 yrs. You can pour money or men into these cesspools of corruption with no effect upon the life of the average man or woman but a large effect upon the Swiss bank accounts of their leaders..

    You see: we are no different to medieval times: the rich now of our countries have more in common with the rich of other countries than with their fellow common man, so they send the common man off to die so that both they and the rich of the country at war will benefit. But, alas, our rich are far to greedy & stupid to realise that what they are doing is simply aiding and abetting the one force which could destroy the west and has tried for 1400 years :Islam. As despite the iniquity of money distribution in Islamic states the lash of Islam binds the poor to the rich for eternity without ever a chance of change.

  • Reason_For_Life

    If Assange had revealed the names of covert operatives then perhaps he should be held to account if the operatives are killed as a result. But that's not what he did. He showed that the level of civilian casualties is higher than the military is publicly admitting to.

    He further shows that much of the intelligence that we receive is from terrible sources that finger people as terrorists in order to settle personal scores.

    This kind of information is important for Americans to have in order to evaluate the success of the military action in Afghanistan. We draw our conclusions based on facts. If certain policies result in needless deaths that don't contribute to our security then we certainly should know about it. If the Pakistan military is giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda then we absolutely have to know about it and ask why are we sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan.

    I watched Assange being interviewed by Andrew Napolitano. He doesn't seem to be the kind of vicious leftist whose only goals are to discredit America and spread the usual vile anti-capitalist propaganda that we have come to expect.

    I want to see more before I draw conclusions about the effects of the "leaks".

  • trocks

    most of the information leaked seems to be non classified and non secret – and therefore simply information that is politically unhelpful to obama and company. the far left press prints only what their mates in the obamacracy want them to, and we need more information on what's really taking place. at the same time i do not want to see another pentagon papers type release which got many us servicemen and vietnamese killed, all in the name of 'justice'.

  • crypticguise

    I believe the photograph of Julian Assange and the address and identity of WikiLeaks should be publicized in Afghanistan. The purpose would be to allow the family member/s of anyone murdered by al Queda or the Taliban as a result of Mr. Assange's hubris will know WHO IS RESPONSIBLE.

    There is a neccesity for REVENGE in Islam. It's a life for a life. Perhaps Mr. Assange's ultimate "bloody" demise will give other "leakers" of American National Intelligence second thoughts.

  • Nina

    Yes, Assange is not a savory person and his leaked information could get some Afghans killed. But he is not an American citizen, and therefore has no allegance to this cuntry. Also, the internet is vast and we can't close every website that does something we don't like.
    The main responsibility rests on the shoulders of the person/s that gave him this information. They should be severely punished. We can't afford every man who works in security to decide what to publish.

  • AntiOnan

    As I wrote above: when Mr Assange makes similar "revelations" about less honorable and less squeamish countries & groups then I will have respect for him. Bu twhile it remains only the west that his "leaks" source from then IMHO he is a leftist coward.