You are responding to textbook whataboutism, aka “tu quoque logical fallacy.”
No...they are not protecting themselves. Their crimes have already been exposed. They are prosecuting someone for something that was criminal.
> who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.
Ok, and how does that bear on the issue of Assange's extradition? Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes.
Where did I say that?
If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me.
Please review carefully the chain of comments, because it seems there could be some misunderstanding there: consumer451 was answering to darawk, not to you. Maybe instead of "to textbook whataboutism" was meant to be "with textbook whataboutism"?
Otherwise this thread is total nonsense to me. No surprise either...
"If A then B. B therefore A"
Btw, personal opinion: I am completely biased against Assange given his lack of openess against everyone but the Democratic Party. I used to think he was one of my heroes, now I think that he is just someone trying to save his own skin. His actions and reading his AMA’s on Reddit really changed my opinion regarding the idea that he might be an unbiased arbiter of truth. Assange is no Snowden.
I believe the hero-worship of such persons is not useful. But they have changed the landscape and raised the bar for transparency from governments worldwide, which is undeniably a good thing.