Assange looks for asylum in Ecuador

I'm definitely the one who's saying that stupid statements turn you into an American patriot and claiming that American politics are "like a car crash that you can't look away from".

Whats that got to do with hipsterism?

Hipsters are people that treat anyone with a different opinion as inferior. Both of those things are examples of hipsterism.

Hipsters are people who want to be diffrent for the sole purpose of being diffrent, but in the same way as everyone else, whilst denouncing all others as mainstream etc.

Or do i have the wrong idea, seems like you're talking of egocentric self righteous humans.

Don't you do the same thing to the reds?

The difference is that my criticism of them as people is nothing more than flavor text. My arguments are not reliant on the fact that most communists happen to be awkward teens.

Just because you choose to believe the opposition doesnt make any sense and then call them hipsters doesnt mean it doesnt work the other way around, you hipster!

Spartacus, do you know anything of the types of documents Assange leaked? I've used wikileaks a lot, and I've downloaded documents from there. I don't think anything could really be classified as 'Putting soldiers at risk'. The vast majority of the stuff there were diplomatic, and intelligence cables, and the only stuff might possibly be justified as 'Putting soldiers at risk' would be cables/videos/documents with clear evidence of warcrimes, or crimes against humanity on behalf of those soldiers. If a guy goes around raping people at gunpoint, or shooting at children for fun, then I see no reason why his safety need be protected. If it were an Iranian/Syrian/Chinese soldier doing these things, you'd agree too.

Yea most of that stuff was perfectly harmless, except for the numerous names of operatives and informants the wiki leaks released, but how how could that ever harm anyone?

What you have to think about is what kind of example not charging Assange would set.

I don't care what the classified documents were he released, or who they put in danger, but to allow someone to publish classified documents and then not punish them seems to me to be setting a precedant. Anyone capable of this type of crime would be far more confident, and I can only see that incedents like this will become more widespread if nothing is done about him, perhaps hacked from govenrnments around the world, which I can see as only a bad thing.

Having said that, I don't think the American justice system should be allowed to get their hands on him.
I'm sure a few years in jail in the UK, in Sweden or in Australia should suffice for him to be punished.

Did it?

That's not my point(although I doubt Al Qaeda just ignored the names of all the informants within their organization). My point was that he just released this info to everyone on earth, ignoring the potential harm it could cause to people. Which is why he is an asshole.

America isn't an asshole for ruining the middle east more than it already was though, huh?

I'm going to have to step in here and say, for the sake of fairness, that Britain and France both did their fair share of ruining the Middle East in the past.

Yea cause overthrowing a dictator and a theocratic regime has really caused the place to go down the shitter.

Actually it did, just like in jugoslavia, the place was better when there was strong government, sure it wasn't too pleasant, but atleast people weren't blowing themselves up daily.

And as for Afghanistan, that kinda was the Russians fault, but the Americans made it worse...

So yeah, actually the place has kinda gone badly since America, same goes for Iran, before the Americans intervened with the shahs it was a pretty good place.

This is basically Karma. I am not for the endangering of people, but if you are fighting a (secret) war, you're kinda childish for shouting foul play, i mean sure assange wronged the gov, and it is logical that the gov wants to do something about it, but this doesn't make it morally right.

Sure this is true, but same goes for them, they/we shouldn't be surprised that people want us gone either

Who is 'them'?
And who is 'we'?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a small temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

-Benjamin Franklin

Well we deposed the Taliban(who were not even providing a stable regime) and helped set up a democracy. But you know what you're right, they were fine beforehand, I mean how could anyone not be happy under the nice steady hand of a theocracy, because women not having any rights and being mutilated is fine, so is the government slaughtering any who oppose them, as long as it's nice and stable.

The cold war is over, we no longer have to install strongmen(in fact is seems today all we are doing is getting rid of them) to stave off Russian influence.

So Assange was actually fighting a war against America?

Benajmin Franklin was a hypocrite, as he knowingly based America more on a militaristic society than a democracy (wich might have been needed at the time but it goes against his exact quote there) furthermore quotes are never arguments

You deposed of the taliban, after funding them against the russians.... So your point here, 'is we are trying to make up for our past wrongs with more wrongs'...?

Also you didnt need those strongmen for your own safety, it was just a retarded paranoid control freak thing you guys seem to have.

And assange is Easiest to describe as some-one who is trying to fight neo-colonialism & hypocrisy

Also them/us is what it should have been (for it was us britain, and them france ).

What information is that? Can you quote some of this information?