Pentagon ‘Hunting’ WikiLeaks Founder

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Pentagon ‘Hunting’ WikiLeaks Founder
Julian Assange's Voyage From Thorn in Pentagon's Side to 'Threat to National Security'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

well he can always chill at my spot.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So you, and the website put 'Hunting' in quotes, yet that word is nowhere in the article... so, where did the word come from?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

So you, and the website put 'Hunting' in quotes, yet that word is nowhere in the article... so, where did the word come from?

Um, that wording is being used is used by numerous sources; not that it matters since it accurately describes what the Pentagram is doing.

Pentagon 'hunting Wikileaks founder over Iraq video'

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So you, and the website put 'Hunting' in quotes, yet that word is nowhere in the article... so, where did the word come from?

Um, that wording is being used is used by numerous sources; not that it matters since it accurately describes what the Pentagram is doing.

Pentagon 'hunting Wikileaks founder over Iraq video'

You're right - let's just put things in quotes and attribute them to people and not care if they actually said them.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

So you, and the website put 'Hunting' in quotes, yet that word is nowhere in the article... so, where did the word come from?

Um, that wording is being used is used by numerous sources; not that it matters since it accurately describes what the Pentagram is doing.

Pentagon 'hunting Wikileaks founder over Iraq video'

You're right - let's just put things in quotes and attribute them to people and not care if they actually said them.

So bring it up with the Telegraph. This is a non-issue.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And actually, it doesn't describe what they're doing.  They want to "find" him is all I've seen in the articles; whereas "hunting" implies they want to do him harm after they find him.

It isn't a non-issue, because you're posting it here acting like it's a fact.

"Hunting" has certain implications, since "The Pentagon wants to find WikiLeaks Founder" isn't really an interesting news story.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

And actually, it doesn't describe what they're doing.  They want to "find" him is all I've seen in the articles; whereas "hunting" implies they want to do him harm after they find him.

It isn't a non-issue, because you're posting it here acting like it's a fact.

"Hunting" has certain implications, since "The Pentagon wants to find WikiLeaks Founder" isn't really an interesting news story.

Uh yeah, the Pentagram wants to "find" him just for fun and once they find him they're just going to let him go...this is what you believe?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And actually, it doesn't describe what they're doing.  They want to "find" him is all I've seen in the articles; whereas "hunting" implies they want to do him harm after they find him.

It isn't a non-issue, because you're posting it here acting like it's a fact.

"Hunting" has certain implications, since "The Pentagon wants to find WikiLeaks Founder" isn't really an interesting news story.

Uh yeah, the Pentagram wants to "find" him just for fun and once they find him they're just going to let him go...this is what you believe?

I'm sure they want to find him and interrogate and talk to him about what all information he's received - some of which I'm sure is classified.

But you have no more knowledge of what the Pentagon will do than any other normal American, and neither do the people who wrote the articles you've cited.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

And actually, it doesn't describe what they're doing.  They want to "find" him is all I've seen in the articles; whereas "hunting" implies they want to do him harm after they find him.

It isn't a non-issue, because you're posting it here acting like it's a fact.

"Hunting" has certain implications, since "The Pentagon wants to find WikiLeaks Founder" isn't really an interesting news story.

Uh yeah, the Pentagram wants to "find" him just for fun and once they find him they're just going to let him go...this is what you believe?

I'm sure they want to find him and interrogate and talk to him about what all information he's received - some of which I'm sure is classified.

But you have no more knowledge of what the Pentagon will do than any other normal American, and neither do the people who wrote the articles you've cited.

We know, based on past experience, that government bureaucracies, especially the Pentagram, will do whatever it can to silence and punish whistleblowers who expose its vile deeds.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But you have no proof that any of that is happening here.  In fact, if the Pentagon wanted to silence him, why would they make it known that they want to find him?  Why wouldn't they simply get rid of him quietly?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

But you have no proof that any of that is happening here.  In fact, if the Pentagon wanted to silence him, why would they make it known that they want to find him?  Why wouldn't they simply get rid of him quietly?

It was first reported here.

People far more experienced than you or I on these issues have stated clearly that Assange is in real danger now.

Daniel Ellsberg: Wikileaks' Julian Assange "in Danger"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, I'm glad to see that we're using a publication who has shown it's commitment to high standards in the past.

This entire discussion is pure speculation from a source who has proven to be less than reliable in the past.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Well, I'm glad to see that we're using a publication who has shown it's commitment to high standards in the past.

This entire discussion is pure speculation from a source who has proven to be less than reliable in the past.

Daniel Ellsberg is a veteran whistleblower who released the Pentagon Papers that exposed embarrassing truths about the lying regimes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Having made enemies like those, I think Ellsberg is quite aware firsthand of the dangers Assange might be in for embarrassing the current regime.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, I'm glad to see that we're using a publication who has shown it's commitment to high standards in the past.

This entire discussion is pure speculation from a source who has proven to be less than reliable in the past.

Daniel Ellsberg is a veteran whistleblower who released the Pentagon Papers that exposed embarrassing truths about the lying regimes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Having made enemies like those, I think Ellsberg is quite aware firsthand of the dangers Assange might be in for embarrassing the current regime.

But there is no proof of any truth behind what Ellsberg has said in this instance.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Well, I'm glad to see that we're using a publication who has shown it's commitment to high standards in the past.

This entire discussion is pure speculation from a source who has proven to be less than reliable in the past.

Daniel Ellsberg is a veteran whistleblower who released the Pentagon Papers that exposed embarrassing truths about the lying regimes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Having made enemies like those, I think Ellsberg is quite aware firsthand of the dangers Assange might be in for embarrassing the current regime.

But there is no proof of any truth behind what Ellsberg has said in this instance.

So you are saying Ellsberg is a liar?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, I'm glad to see that we're using a publication who has shown it's commitment to high standards in the past.

This entire discussion is pure speculation from a source who has proven to be less than reliable in the past.

Daniel Ellsberg is a veteran whistleblower who released the Pentagon Papers that exposed embarrassing truths about the lying regimes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Having made enemies like those, I think Ellsberg is quite aware firsthand of the dangers Assange might be in for embarrassing the current regime.

But there is no proof of any truth behind what Ellsberg has said in this instance.

So you are saying Ellsberg is a liar?

No.  I'm saying that we have no second source to confirm whether or not he is telling the truth.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Well, I'm glad to see that we're using a publication who has shown it's commitment to high standards in the past.

This entire discussion is pure speculation from a source who has proven to be less than reliable in the past.

Daniel Ellsberg is a veteran whistleblower who released the Pentagon Papers that exposed embarrassing truths about the lying regimes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Having made enemies like those, I think Ellsberg is quite aware firsthand of the dangers Assange might be in for embarrassing the current regime.

But there is no proof of any truth behind what Ellsberg has said in this instance.

So you are saying Ellsberg is a liar?

No.  I'm saying that we have no second source to confirm whether or not he is telling the truth.

So why do we assume that what he is saying must be wrong? You know in many cases, there is no "second source" to verify when one courageous whistle-blower stands up.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why do we assume that what he is saying must be wrong? You know in many cases, there is no "second source" to verify when one courageous whistle-blower stands up.

I'm not assuming that.  I'm merely pointing out that we shouldn't be stating these things as facts when we don't know.  We shouldn't be putting quotes around words without attributing those quotes to anybody.

Just because I'm questioning the validity of a claim doesn't mean I'm assuming it's wrong.

You're right that in many cases there are only single sources for whistle-blower cases, but often, those whistle-blowers have some form of evidence to back up there claims.  So far, all I've seen is talk, no memos, no e-mails, no evidence.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm not assuming that.  I'm merely pointing out that we shouldn't be stating these things as facts when we don't know.  We shouldn't be putting quotes around words without attributing those quotes to anybody.

The quoted word on Anti-War.com was attributed to the Telegraph. As I said, you should contact them if you take issue with their headline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They've been after Assange before. For example, when they held him on dubious charges at the airport a month or so ago.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm not assuming that.  I'm merely pointing out that we shouldn't be stating these things as facts when we don't know.  We shouldn't be putting quotes around words without attributing those quotes to anybody.

The quoted word on Anti-War.com was attributed to the Telegraph. As I said, you should contact them if you take issue with their headline.

But you quoted it and used it too.  Are you telling me that you normally just accept everything the media says as fact without questioning it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They've been after Assange before. For example, when they held him on dubious charges at the airport a month or so ago.
[/quote]

That has no relevance to the accuracy of what he's saying now.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm not assuming that.  I'm merely pointing out that we shouldn't be stating these things as facts when we don't know.  We shouldn't be putting quotes around words without attributing those quotes to anybody.

The quoted word on Anti-War.com was attributed to the Telegraph. As I said, you should contact them if you take issue with their headline.

But you quoted it and used it too.  Are you telling me that you normally just accept everything the media says as fact without questioning it?

No, I was merely posting a headline of an article from a mainstream media outlet without editorializing in the title...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But you were posting the article as if you yourself believed the article (and thus also the tile, which is part of the article).  Or are you saying that you're now questioning the validity of the article?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

But you were posting the article as if you yourself believed the article (and thus also the tile, which is part of the article).  Or are you saying that you're now questioning the validity of the article?

No, I believe the article and the title. Not because the media told me, but because I have weighed the points on both sides and concluded that it is likely the truth.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But you were posting the article as if you yourself believed the article (and thus also the tile, which is part of the article).  Or are you saying that you're now questioning the validity of the article?

No, I believe the article and the title. Not because the media told me, but because I have weighed the points on both sides and concluded that it is likely the truth.

So if it's truth that you believe, who do you believe used the word "Hunting"?