The Taliban is 'hunting down informants' named on Wikileaks

Well the Civilian casualties ARE the issue, but was that an action involving the Task Force 373?
And just how are "Taliban" Identified ? do they have a uniform? dog tags?
How can you tell them from say, a local militia? or other private citizens protecting their interests?

That was one of the issues of interest that Julian spoke of in a recent interview.

Ahhh, yes, the reports don't actually outline taliban but enemy. And that is an interesting and very valid point, not everyone with a gun is part of the taliban. That issue however was really more my own short falling than the actual reports. I suspect they count everyone but themselves who is dead with a weapon apart of the enemy category.
 
Pete,

While you're speaking in what might happen (without "wishing" a darned thing), the thread really has gone downhill.

Consider:

I want our troops in harms way. A nice bullet to the brain might teach someone not to go running around in another man's country like he owns the place.

As for many of the other posts, reading them carefully shows that the very vast majority of people aren't wishing the troops would die, or even cheering those deaths that have happened. There is an acknowledging, though, of the fact that troops are in harm's way already merely by being there, and that if the unfortunate inevitability of MORE deaths continues... that there might be more backlash. Other than getting out today, right now, there is no real way to prevent these deaths; it is inevitable that someone is going to be killed in Iraq/Afghanistan very shortly, if not during the time it took me to type this.
 
Pete,

While you're speaking in what might happen (without "wishing" a darned thing), the thread really has gone downhill.

Consider:

Yeah, I know.
What is frustrating is that the point (lies/incompetence) is being missed, and the Propaganda is being promoted. Official Lies are being repeated here as if they were true.
Afghanistan was screwed up before the Russians were there, and we should have observed and learned from their mistakes. But here we are doing the same STUPID thing. And causing more harm to both the Afghans and Ourselves.
 
This whole conversation has turned into something rather perverse. Personally, I don't want any of our soldiers killed; nor do I want children killed. But, I do realize that both will happen in a war.

If someone pulled a Jane Fonda and put our soldiers in harm's way, well, I'm not too fond of them. Regardless of whether I agree with this war or not and of course, I do not. Wishing harm upon our soldiers is rather repulsive, not to mention it's not the way to stop this war. It also reflects very badly upon Ron Paul and the principles upon which I thought most of us stood.

+1

I want our troops in harms way. A nice bullet to the brain might teach someone not to go running around in another man's country like he owns the place.

Yeah see this is what I'm talking about. I have friends and family over there. You wishing Americans to get a bullet to the side of the head maybe sounds cool here but not only does this make you a douche but it reflects very poorly on the "Ron Paul movement" and will make you look like a kook to 90% of Americans.
 
+1



Yeah see this is what I'm talking about. I have friends and family over there. You wishing Americans to get a bullet to the side of the head maybe sounds cool here but not only does this make you a douche but it reflects very poorly on the "Ron Paul movement" and will make you look like a kook to 90% of Americans.

I take great pride in the fact that I look like a kook to 90% of Americans. That's because 90% of Americans are zombified, brain-dead SHEEP who, when they "think" at all, parrot the party line... when they're not too busy watching American Idol or some steroid-infused New Jersey boneheads.
 
Thank you for proving the point I made in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254164

Q: Soccer still isn't going anywhere in America for this reason: People like me, who only watch soccer whenever the World Cup is on, are hated by actual soccer fans. They would rather have us not watch soccer at all rather than start watching soccer and rooting for the U.S. during the World Cup. It kills them to see people watching who don't normally. I have heard people say things to other people along the lines of "you don't even know the rules" and "if you don't know what's going on then don't watch." Ironically, diehard soccer fans here are actually hurting soccer's progress here in the U.S..
-- Brandon P, Zanesville, Ohio

A: You just introduced a premise called "The Cult of Status Quo." Sometimes when people become die-hard fans of something that isn't mainstream -- a writer, a band, a player, a TV show, a sport or whatever -- they want to keep that thing the way it is over seeing that thing take off. Why? Because it's cooler to like something that isn't mainstream popular. Because mainstream popularity begets bandwagon fans and people who aren't as sophisticated about that product. Because it's more fun to love something before it takes off than after it takes off.

Hence, it's easier for original fans to dump on newer fans over tolerating them and hoping they advance the cause of whatever they like. I notice this every time I mention the UFC or poker -- there's this bizarre (and totally dismissive backlash), as if I'm not allowed to watch those sports or even mention them because I'm not a real fan. Well, how do you become a real fan? By liking a sport without disliking the core people who like it. So it's a self-perpetuating cycle, and as weird as this sounds, the original fans like it that way. It maintains their ownership of the product. When the product outgrows them (specifically in the case of a creative entity), that's when the core fans start throwing around phrases like "jumped the shark" and "sold out," mostly because they're bitter it's not just them and the product any more.

You want to be on the outside looking in. You want to remain fringe so that you can keep this thing on the sidelines and continue to bitch on the internet without actually having to do anything. And you take an attitude that will ensure you will remain on the fringe and never assume any real power.

Why else would you "take great pride in the fact that you look like a kook to 90% of Americans"? That is a terrible terrible attitude that will never effect any positive change. You would rather bitch on the internet than take steps to help Ron Paul and politicians like him to effect real change. Fantastic :rolleyes:
 
Thank you for proving the point I made in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254164



You want to be on the outside looking in. You want to remain fringe so that you can keep this thing on the sidelines and continue to bitch on the internet without actually having to do anything. And you take an attitude that will ensure you will remain on the fringe and never assume any real power.

Why else would you "take great pride in the fact that you look like a kook to 90% of Americans"? That is a terrible terrible attitude that will never effect any positive change. You would rather bitch on the internet than take steps to help Ron Paul and politicians like him to effect real change. Fantastic :rolleyes:

That last part's not even close to the truth, but feel free to believe whatever you like.

Also, RON PAUL is (or rather was, until recently) considered a kook by at least 90% of Americans... if they had even heard of him at all. In case you never noticed, these forums bear his name.
 
If any of you are studying logical fallacies in school, consider clipping this thread to keep for a term paper. It's a goldmine.

Go ahead and emulate someone who is popularly considered a kook merely based on that fact. You're proving BT's point. You think it's cool to be in the minority, but do you apply that everywhere?

Let's see...

A minority of people enjoy sexual activity with people of their same gender.
A minority of people have no electricity or running water in their home by choice.
A minority of people have bomb shelters in their backyard.
A minority of people speak Esperanto.
A minority of people can name a dozen Smurfs.
A minority of people think Charles Manson ISN'T a kook (so he must be one of your heroes).
A minority of people hear divine (or demonic) voices.
A minority of people eat dirt.
A minority of people live in homes made of aluminum cans.

Those minorities I described above are considered kooky by the majority, to varying degrees. Will you run out and make yourself a member on the basis of the fact that being in the minority makes you awesome?
 
Now that's silly. Sorry. In NO WAY do I "label myself a kook" for any reason. (Other than being a big fan of Star Trek, perhaps.)

My point was that SOCIETY by and large labels Ron Paul a kook. That doesn't make him wrong, nor does it make him kooky.

If none of us wanted to be labeled as such, we should all just shut up about ALL of our issues (being kooky) and throw our support behind such stalwarts as John McCain and Barack Obama.

It's not what I'm gonna do, though.
 
It's very easy to make grossly inflammatory comments about people 'deserving to die' on an internet forum, with there being no repercussions. I'd wager the willingness to do so when those people are in the same room with you and everyone's armed will make you decidedly less eager to be an asshole.
 
This country was founded by people committing treason. I take it you would be one of the people rooting for the british.

No, the founders fully accepted the consequences of their treason, they knew the penalty for treason was death and they were risking their lives. They themselves made the punishment for treason the death penalty in 1790 with an act of Congress.

and I can't believe you are comparing this person with severe mental issues to the founding fathers, that is an insult to our founders, and it is absurd to suggest they would take actions which threaten the lives of our armed forces.
 
Last edited:
Then allow me humbly to be the first to propose amending the Constitution as follows:

1.) There shall be NO federal death penalty, and

2.) There shall be NO federal crime and punishment statutes whatsoever.
 
Now that's silly. Sorry. In NO WAY do I "label myself a kook" for any reason. (Other than being a big fan of Star Trek, perhaps.)

My point was that SOCIETY by and large labels Ron Paul a kook. That doesn't make him wrong, nor does it make him kooky.

If none of us wanted to be labeled as such, we should all just shut up about ALL of our issues (being kooky) and throw our support behind such stalwarts as John McCain and Barack Obama.

It's not what I'm gonna do, though.

This is a logical fallacy. There are many legitimate arguments you can use to be anti-war. Even the vast majority of the group that disagrees with you will disagree with you rationally (excluding the kooks on the pro-war side). You can argue that it:

1. Does not promote US interests

2. Leads to the loss of US life and wealth

3. Leads to death and destruction on the other side - and in turn creates more enemies.

etc...

That is the most effective way to make the argument and the most effective way to actually make a solid anti-war case and bring the troops home (if that's what you really want). The worst case to make is that you want American troops to die - that's idiotic and sabotaging your own side. Of course some people (consciously or subconsciously) want to sabotage their own side.
 
No, the founders fully accepted the consequences of their treason, they knew the penalty for treason was death and they were risking their lives. They themselves made the punishment for treason the death penalty in 1790 with an act of Congress.

and I can't believe you are comparing this person with severe mental issues to the founding fathers, that is an insult to our founders, and it is absurd to suggest they would take actions which threaten the lives of our armed forces.[/QUOTE]

Are you aware that the guy responsible for "turning in" Manning, Adrian Lamo, has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses and is a "rehabilitated" criminal?

Also, the founders waged a war against their own "armed forces" - the Red Coats - who were the acting military of the Crown at the time.
 
No, the founders fully accepted the consequences of their treason, they knew the penalty for treason was death and they were risking their lives. They themselves made the punishment for treason the death penalty in 1790 with an act of Congress.

and I can't believe you are comparing this person with severe mental issues to the founding fathers, that is an insult to our founders, and it is absurd to suggest they would take actions which threaten the lives of our armed forces.

Are you aware that the guy responsible for "turning in" Manning, Adrian Lamo, has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses and is a "rehabilitated" criminal?

Also, the founders waged a war against their own "armed forces" - the Red Coats - who were the acting military of the Crown at the time.
 
Are you aware that the guy responsible for "turning in" Manning, Adrian Lamo, has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses and is a "rehabilitated" criminal?


i thought something was wrong with the guy. on 3 different videos he sounds like he's totally drugged: he's definitely not normal.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T1

"However, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure."

The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban.

But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.

....
Despite this, the military warned that the naming of Afghans was a huge concern. Wikileaks has "the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family" on their hands, Mullen said.




Some of the worst writing/'journalism' can be found on CNN.com. The comments on this article aren't as dreadful as usual, though still leaving much to be desired
 
USG has now admitted their representation of impact was bullshit used to bolster legal campaign against Assange.

"US Government Officials Admit That They Lied About Actual Impact Of Wikileaks To Bolster Legal Effort

You may recall that when Wikileaks released those thousands of documents on the Afghan war, the official US government position was that it should be shamed for putting lives in danger and "compromising intelligence sources and methods." It was only months later that Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted no such thing was true. We're now seeing the same thing with the State Department cable leak. A number of grandstanding officials such as Rep. Peter King and Senator Joe Lieberman have argued that these leaks have seriously harmed US diplomacy. In fact, we heard how Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization for all the "harm" it's done to US interests. This was also a common refrain in our comments -- especially when it came to stories about the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning. Over and over we were told he deserves no mercy for harming American interests.

So... it seems rather interesting to see that US officials are now admitting that no serious "harm" has been caused by the leaks. In fact, the White House has admitted privately that it purposely lied about the supposed impact " in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.""

Full story @ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...mpact-wikileaks-to-bolster-legal-effort.shtml
 
USG has now admitted their representation of impact was bullshit used to bolster legal campaign against Assange.

"US Government Officials Admit That They Lied About Actual Impact Of Wikileaks To Bolster Legal Effort

You may recall that when Wikileaks released those thousands of documents on the Afghan war, the official US government position was that it should be shamed for putting lives in danger and "compromising intelligence sources and methods." It was only months later that Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted no such thing was true. We're now seeing the same thing with the State Department cable leak. A number of grandstanding officials such as Rep. Peter King and Senator Joe Lieberman have argued that these leaks have seriously harmed US diplomacy. In fact, we heard how Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization for all the "harm" it's done to US interests. This was also a common refrain in our comments -- especially when it came to stories about the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning. Over and over we were told he deserves no mercy for harming American interests.

So... it seems rather interesting to see that US officials are now admitting that no serious "harm" has been caused by the leaks. In fact, the White House has admitted privately that it purposely lied about the supposed impact " in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.""

Full story @ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...mpact-wikileaks-to-bolster-legal-effort.shtml

This comes as a surprise?


Well, it does surprise me that they would admit it.
 
Back
Top