Anonymous Declares "Infowar" on Wikileaks Opponents

[KiKiweaky]

Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

Please that list is a bit weak at the best. The shipping lanes? What the hell are they going to do to shipping lanes?

And cabling, wikipedia give that information away too, what are they going to do hire a JCB and dig it up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-Optic_Link_Around_the_Globe

These are all pretty general, I would have thought by serious security risk you meant stuff like water treatment plants or pumping stations for millions that have lax security or power pylons in the middle of nowhere with no security at all that could be taken down and disrupt the distribution of power to millions.

The pharmacutical approach is an interesting one I will admit I didnt think they would be a target. But it does make sense to 'want' to attack them, though I havent heard of any yet have you? I'd imagine they'd have security wouldnt they? Pfizer have a plant near where I live, my friends dad works there and he had some pretty neat security equipment on him. Something like a little (dont have a clue what its called) black pager that cycled a number of digits every sixty seconds so he always had the right security code for whatever he does. Security here in Ireland may not be armed, they could be elsewhere though.

And computer security??? I'd seriously doubt your government is foolish enough to place highly classified documents on a server that can be broken into. Even if they did I dont think they'd connect it to the internet.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I'm sorry but to hell with this rapist. His alleged sexual-assault crime aside, the man has exposed HIGHLY classified material on the damn internet. No, I don't mean historical documents concerning the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Those documents are history are fully protected by the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press, look up the Pentagon Papers for a similar case involving the Vietnam War and government leaks. I know the man is Australian, but I'm going to judge him by the American legal system.

However, what is NOT PROTECTED is divulging secrets that pose a national security threat. Like say the locations of HIGHLY IMPORTANT sites according to Homeland Security. If I was a terrorist (be it for Al-Qaeda, Neo-Nazi, IRA, etc.) then a list like that is essentially a travel log of where to commit the most horrific result. That's not freedom of the press, that's putting people's lives in danger. So please do not act all surprised when you see politicians in my country calling for his head, he's not some righteous savior...he's a fucking asshole

First off, the rape charges are trumped up. Second off, the Pentagon Papers are still classified. Even if he were to leak those, he'd still fall under the category of an information terrorist.

Also, the Sergent in the US army that gave him the documents in the first place committed high treason (punishable by death, the lowest possible sentence is 40 years hard labor at a work camp.). And will most likely get the death penalty.

I think he deserves it. He put thousands of people's lives in danger by releasing top secret documents about the war, and the US foreign policy. And he deserves to be punished for it.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

But on the topic of what was released, I have nothing against - and am fully for Gov't transparency - but names of people need to be censored. But on the flip side, Amnesty international did turn down helping so...

Before the leaks were made public Amnesty International (which has a good relationship with Wikileaks) asked to make sure names that could face reprisals such as civilian informants were redacted.

They had done so before, and once again complied.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Two points
First, A journalist does NOT have an obligation to publish everything he gets his hands on. He can withhold information that might endanger people, like his source. Ever read a news article where they cite a source that request anonymity due to the ongoing investigation or sensitive nature of the topic? They often don't reveal some details of a story for one reason or another. Like for public safety or nation security.

Second, Assange apparently got the information from Bradley Manning. Manning illegally downloaded the information and gave it to Assange. In other words, they all broke laws. Manning is likely to face charges from what I've heard. Not sure if there is more information about it now.

And, yes, they will all likely face trial for this all soon enough. My bet is that the rape allegations will keep Assange in custody long enough for the U.S. to ask to extradite him on espionage grounds. At which point, the rape charges will be dropped because espionage is a far more serious crime in a legal sense. Only a fool actually thinks the rape allegations are real. But I doubt there are many governments that will come to his defense. After all, what happens when he wants to reveal their information?

A few points
1. Wikileaks aren't journalists. They're whistleblowers. They release documents that overly powerful organizations don't want you to see because the public has a right to know. It's called disclosure and it's a GOOD THING.

2. Which documents threaten national security, exactly? The documents that expose the crimes of the government, which might make the people who hate the US hate the US for reasons they can point to (ie they legitimize the causes of those who oppose the US)? I tend the think the US is it's own worst enemy there (see night raids in Afghanistan and the effect they're having on the non-combatant population). The documents that show the world what our politicians think about the politicians of other nations? It might make diplomatic relationships testy, but I don't think anyone's going to start wars over this stuff.

It's interesting that you try to make this point because it's the same point the State Department is trying to push. On the one hand, they say the documents are worthless and not anything of value... but they turn around and say that their release is a threat to national security. You can't have it both ways! Either they're nothing of value or they're dangerous.

Here's some truth: the government doesn't want these documents getting out. We can all agree on that. Why, though? Because it threatens US hegemony and they don't want transparent government. The documents speak for themselves on this point. Just look at the crimes and transgressions covered up by the term "classified". You can get away with a lot when you don't let people know the truth...

3. If there is going to be any legal justice from this situation, Manning should get charged with theft only. Assange, if anything, charged with accepting stolen property. Espionage? Seriously? Was Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage? He released top secret documents that got egg on the government's face over Vietnam. Swallow that spin, boy!

4. Wikileaks is not in the business of blackmail. Any government not wanting to come to Assange's defense would not be hesitant because of what Wikileaks does but because of US influence. People fear the world's biggest bully. This nonsense is proof of that. A Canadian pundit called for Assange's assassination? Our elected government officials are calling for Assange's full prosecution for espionage and, if the law doesn't fit, they want to change the law! Are you supporting this? Do you really want the world to get to the point that no government crimes can be opposed, where the citizens have no rights (because the government will just change the laws as they see fit, regardless of what they say), and people can be killed for speaking the truth? We're already half-way there, mind you! Did you know the government has a policy in place where any US citizen (abroad) they deem a terrorist, they've authorized themselves to assassinate that person! AND THERE'S NO OVERSIGHT for these decisions, no ground rules for what qualifies as a terrorist, and NO APPEAL PROCESS for anyone who happens to find out they're on the list!

ARE YOU PEOPLE PAYING ATTENTION?

I just wanted to give you props for everything you said, because it is all that needs to be said.

1. I'm all for whistle blowing, as long as it doesn't involve committing high treason. (Which is punishable by death.) The US Army Sergent who gave him the documents will most likely be executed.

2. You're right, for the most part they weren't threatening to national security. But if he didn't get caught, imagine what kind of stuff he would have released as time progressed. Who knows what kind of stuff he would have released. But it still doesn't matter what was in the papers because the fact that they were released is still a federal crime.

3. Espionage:
"Espionage involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information."
Thats exactly what he did, so he should be convicted of espionage. (But you are right about Ellsberg)

4. Nothing to say about your points there, really. Nothing there is wrong.

 

[Actual]

1. I'm all for whistle blowing, as long as it doesn't involve committing high treason. (Which is punishable by death.) The US Army Sergent who gave him the documents will most likely be executed.

So we should bring injustice and criminal acts to light. Unless it's by our government, in which case we should just see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?

It's infinitely more important to expose the evils of those in power because they can do more damage then the people you are comfortable exposing.

 

[Mimssy]

I'm sorry but to hell with this rapist. His alleged sexual-assault crime aside, the man has exposed HIGHLY classified material on the damn internet. No, I don't mean historical documents concerning the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Those documents are history are fully protected by the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press, look up the Pentagon Papers for a similar case involving the Vietnam War and government leaks. I know the man is Australian, but I'm going to judge him by the American legal system.

However, what is NOT PROTECTED is divulging secrets that pose a national security threat. Like say the locations of HIGHLY IMPORTANT sites according to Homeland Security. If I was a terrorist (be it for Al-Qaeda, Neo-Nazi, IRA, etc.) then a list like that is essentially a travel log of where to commit the most horrific result. That's not freedom of the press, that's putting people's lives in danger. So please do not act all surprised when you see politicians in my country calling for his head, he's not some righteous savior...he's a fucking asshole

Thank you thank you thank you! He's committed treason and deserves a traitor's punishment. And to attack the people pursuing his sexual assault charges? That's a low I cannot squash my rage enough to express in words. Anonymous is a pathetic smattering of people.

 

[CaptainKoala]

1. I'm all for whistle blowing, as long as it doesn't involve committing high treason. (Which is punishable by death.) The US Army Sergent who gave him the documents will most likely be executed.

So we should bring injustice and criminal acts to light. Unless it's by our government, in which case we should just see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?

It's infinitely more important to expose the evils of those in power because they can do more damage then the people you are comfortable exposing.

I agree, evils committed by the government are among the most important evils out there that the public should know about. But it is possible to whistle blow without breaking international and federal law. As long as you do it without breaking any of those laws its ok.

 

[Actual]

Thank you thank you thank you! He's committed treason and deserves a traitor's punishment. And to attack the people pursuing his sexual assault charges? That's a low I cannot squash my rage enough to express in words. Anonymous is a pathetic smattering of people.

Don't you think you should find out the facts before you start calling for a man's death?

He has not committed treason. A journalist who publishes sensitive information that is given to them is not committing treason. You could argue that he committed espionage but only if you cold prove that he caused the files to be stolen and I don't believe that was the case.

Also, treason is betrayal of your own government, as he's not American it can't possibly be treason.

Now we have the government pressuring companies like PayPal and MasterCard not to do business with people that the government doesn't like, that's also illegal.

I've copied an earlier post I made on the matter below:

He first contacted the US department of defense and asked them to cooperate in ensuring that none of the information he released could harm any lives but their response was understandably: release nothing.

He now has a team of journalists checking the information to ensure it's not dangerous before releasing it. Assisting with this are a number of international, reputable news providers, most notably, the UK Guardian. Look up what's been released so far, nothing dangerous except to the careers of some politicians, particularly Hilary Clinton who broke international law by instructing diplomats to spy at the UN.

Now the "rape" charge is not a rape charge at all. It's a charge of sexual misconduct, apparently in Sweden this is a very loose definition, in this case he's being charged for sex without a condom, apparently, this is so bizarre I'm not sure of my facts.

Oh ;he was already cleared of this crime but they decided to re-open the case after the wikileaks controversy heated up.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/25/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-cleared-of-sex-charge-in-sweden/

This paragraph is particularly interesting:

If any of these bozos did twenty minutes of research, they might have found Ardin?s blog? "my feminist reflections and comments on animal rights, swedish politics and cuba from a political scientist, christian left and long distance runner" - and read her post, with the help of a Scandinavian comrade or Google Translate, "Våldtäkt en del av mäns makt" ? rape [is] a part of men?s power. Or they would have seen this article from Ardin?s days at Uppsala University, where she, in her role as some sort of equality watchdog, denounced the tradition of singing ribald student songs, which included "references to genitalia and serious sexual content," as "offensive and stereotypical." She is, in other words, rather sensitive on gender issues. Or this blog post on how one can exact "legal revenge" on men who have been ?unfaithful.? According to The Guardian, sources close to the investigation claim that she filed a complaint because Assange didn?t wear a condom during sex. So the boring truth is that Assange didn?t come up against a CIA conspiracy, but the rather broad Swedish conception of what constitutes a sexual crime.

From this article:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/25/the-boring-truth-about-those-j

If that's true, one of the women accusing him is clearly nuts.

1. I'm all for whistle blowing, as long as it doesn't involve committing high treason. (Which is punishable by death.) The US Army Sergent who gave him the documents will most likely be executed.

So we should bring injustice and criminal acts to light. Unless it's by our government, in which case we should just see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?

It's infinitely more important to expose the evils of those in power because they can do more damage then the people you are comfortable exposing.

I agree, evils committed by the government are among the most important evils out there that the public should know about. But it is possible to whistle blow without breaking international and federal law. As long as you do it without breaking any of those laws its ok.

That's an admirable viewpoint but I don't see how it is possible.

The government decides to classify everything they do that is immoral as secret, how is it possible to whistleblow without breaking that classification? Wait however many years until they decide it's no longer classified? Until the truth coming out can no longer damage their career? Then politicians are never forced to a higher standard and continue to abuse the system.

 

[xdiesp]

The U.S. government is a far cry from an evil autocracy. The people who lived in 1930's Germany, or even Modern-day Russia would scoff at you for even suggesting it.

Actually, the world has accused your butchery of entire countries for stealing natural resources and markets for 50 years. The "after all we are America, daym! Best place ever" argument is pure jingoism that I suggest you avoid in serious political discussions.

Massive information leak? Please, these cables are nothing more than a fart at the dinner table. Embarrassing? Yes. Inconvenient? Yes. To the level of the Pentagon Papers? Not a chance in hell. The media is just blowing it up for ratings, like they do with everything.

Attempts at minimize the case are so last week. Thing's huge and new releases keep adding to the fire - and we're still at 2% of the total cables. Now you're well in the hysteria phase, where politicians and the public loudly ask for murdering people they don't like FYI.

And where was Australia, and Europe during all this?

And... you lose. As usual when one US boaster is faced with the lenght of his bloody rensponsibilities, he will turn internationalist to share the blame.

Those sites are vital to the way the United States, and the rest of the western world operates. Of course the U.S. has an interest in keeping those sites protected. And keeping the host countries in the dark? Why the hell would they even care that their mine is a strategic U.S. resource.

"Iraq oil is mine by right and locals have no saying on it". I'm keeping this sh*t for future reference because totally brainwashed ones like this are hard to come by (overseas).

 

[Therumancer]

The problem with your logic is that being a "dick" is totally subjective. If your directly opposed to the US, or we're trying to get something out of you that we want, then by definition our envoy might be a "dick" as far as your concerned.

I was refering to how diplomats tend to say very undiplomatic things behind each others back. As Wikileak proved this in itself is a liability.
There's different ways to get something you want, among them are the polite request and the compromise. Now if you can't get what you want by honest means, am I a dick for trying to uncover what you are trying to do ?

If our diplomats were a bunch of bimbos/himbos who liked everyone they wouldn't be effective.

You're taking what I said too far. Cynically trying to turn things your way is not good on the long term, we won't get out of this never ending cycle of war and poverty this way. I'm trying not to verse on idealism, but it's plain defaitism to think that it can never ever happen so it's not worth trying to make the world a little better somehow. Wikileaks may not be the right way, you can argue, but it's at least a try.

All that outing this kind of thing does is make certain nations look idiotic, remove plausible deniability by confirming who did what, and ultimatly put a lot of lives in danger.

That is exactly why I think that wikileak may be a good thing. People that make stupid mistakes should not be in charge then, what use is plausible deniability for people like that, if not to cover up their own inanity ? Nations already look idiotic to each other, most secrets are actually not that surprising, and cover ups are mostly used to hide the useless deaths of innocent civilians instead of saving lives.

Not to mention the issue that part of the problem with something like Wikileaks is that it has an agenda of it's own (despite what it's members might say). It's targeting very specific nations, people, and organizations.

It's simply the nature of the site to seek dirty secrets were they are in greater numbers, dictatorships and countries with irresponsible foreign policies for instance.

On top of that, there is no excuse for releasing information on classified goverment/military operations and outposts.

This is a point where we agree, though that might depend on the nature and outcome of some military operations.

I could be wrong about that, but it's hard to support a free information agenda on the Internet, when your actions are empowering people who generally seem to by definition want to end free information entirely.

That is only one aspect of what wikileaks did, also while I tend to agree with your take on anonymous what you really fear here is anarchism not lies behind a smile.

I think that the principle behind wikileak is something humanity needs, though it still have to be done more responsibly.

ps: and have a look at the post below mine ^^

Like most internet discussions, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Saying undiplomatic things behind the backs of other diplomats is part of the job these guys do. They are there to analyze and give those kinds of opinions, along with deciding how to proceed with the best interests of their nation.

Negotiation and Compromise are not the solution to every problem. Indeed, a lot of our problems today come from too much compromise and it preventing anything from getting done as it is.

Not to mention that there are finite resources on the planet, simply put things like Oil do not exist in unlimited quantities. The more people who use it, that faster it depletes. What's more production (how much is obtained at one time) is limited and who gets what is being produced at any given time is a big issue, especially with so many nations having increased demand along with their populations.

Oil is one of the big issues in the media, but it also applies to everything else from minerals to wood. Oftentimes with more dramatic repercussions in those cases because a lot of those rain forests that third world countries want to cut down to sell to other nations for money are responsible for creating a lot of the world's oxygen. We can literally wipe out every living thing on the planet by allowing too many trees to be cut down.

What this means is that nations have a vested interest in making sure that they get the things that they need, but also blockade other nations from doing the same, above and beyond general international competition. Simply put there isn't enough resources for our exploding populations to all have a decent standard of living, especially at the rate of increase. A lot of it comes down to being unfair, but pragmatic. Interestingly, one of the big reasons why I think a war with China is inevitable is that it represents right around 1/3rd of the human population, one of the things that allowed the rest of the world to develop is that so many of the people there live in abject poverty. Their standard of living increases overall, and that puts a strain on everyone else on the planet. The Western world "keeping China down" has a lot of truth to it for those reasons.

This is incidently one of the big reasons why I mention that the population needs to be reduced (probably though war) and then stabilized, followed by a world unity and space travel to obtain more resources and living space. Without that, we're done as a species.

As things stand now though, what a lot of left wingers don't get is there is no room for comproimise. It's literally down to "Us or Them" in most issues. It's kind of ironic when you see disagreements with this statement coming from people on the internet in a decent home, with plenty to eat, when they don't realize that those things come as a result of being the bigger bastard. It's not like by being generous everyone can have those things, there simply isn't enough stuff for the whole world to develop.

Diplomacy exists mostly to keep allied nations with similar vested interests together, and keep an eye on differant groups to prevent them from selling each other out. Not to mention to act competitively with third parties to get them to give us what we want as opposed to the other guy, which of course resorts in a lot of very frank comments, and underhanded dealing.

As "bad" as it sounds, humanity actully benefits from that because the sooner we see a major power unify everyone (I won't go into the potential details) the sooner we can see resources invested in obtaining more resources. Of course the guys being kept down and exploited aren't going to EVER see things that way at the time it's going on.

 

[RDubayoo]

Also, the Sergent in the US army that gave him the documents in the first place committed high treason (punishable by death, the lowest possible sentence is 40 years hard labor at a work camp.). And will most likely get the death penalty.

Nope, we won't even execute John Walker Lindh for fighting alongside the Taliban. And just imagine the boohoo'ing that would occur on the left if the Sergeant (I thought he was a Specialist?) was executed! Well, actually, that might make it worth it, but it still won't happen because the United States has gotten too soft and weak.

Oh, and something I wanted to ask Anonymous supporters... why is Anonymous targeting Sarah Palin as part of its "Operation: Payback" hissy-fit? Sarah Palin has never done anything to Julian Assange except criticize him. Actually, I can answer that for you--Anonymous is NOT fighting for anyone's rights. If they were, they would respect Mrs. Palin's right of free speech, which they clearly don't. What Anonymous is really doing is enforcing a hard left political agenda as embodied by Julian Assange. Anyone who dares to oppose Assange, even with mere words, is targeted, all in the name of enabling more leaks of sensitive US documents. That will undermine the United States in a number of ways, and if there's one thing the rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth left wants more than anything else, it's to harm the United States, the most evil country evar. But really, these are the kinds of guys who would shut down an independent video game developer for not releasing free updates quickly enough for their spoiled, whiny tastes, so it's not like we can expect high standards from them, now, is it?

Actually, the world has accused your butchery of entire countries for stealing natural resources and markets for 50 years. The "after all we are America, daym! Best place ever" argument is pure jingoism that I suggest you avoid in serious political discussions.

Case in point of the rabid liberal who thinks the US is the most evil country evar. Seriously, dude, perspective.

 

[WiMoTj]

I dare anyone to watch this video, provided by wikileaks, and NOT be absolutely convinced that wikileaks is a force for good in a corrupt world.

<youtube=kelmEZe8whI>

that's all.

Wow... I... I almost cried.

 

[-BloodRush-]

Two points
First, A journalist does NOT have an obligation to publish everything he gets his hands on. He can withhold information that might endanger people, like his source. Ever read a news article where they cite a source that request anonymity due to the ongoing investigation or sensitive nature of the topic? They often don't reveal some details of a story for one reason or another. Like for public safety or nation security.

Second, Assange apparently got the information from Bradley Manning. Manning illegally downloaded the information and gave it to Assange. In other words, they all broke laws. Manning is likely to face charges from what I've heard. Not sure if there is more information about it now.

And, yes, they will all likely face trial for this all soon enough. My bet is that the rape allegations will keep Assange in custody long enough for the U.S. to ask to extradite him on espionage grounds. At which point, the rape charges will be dropped because espionage is a far more serious crime in a legal sense. Only a fool actually thinks the rape allegations are real. But I doubt there are many governments that will come to his defense. After all, what happens when he wants to reveal their information?

A few points
1. Wikileaks aren't journalists. They're whistleblowers. They release documents that overly powerful organizations don't want you to see because the public has a right to know. It's called disclosure and it's a GOOD THING.

2. Which documents threaten national security, exactly? The documents that expose the crimes of the government, which might make the people who hate the US hate the US for reasons they can point to (ie they legitimize the causes of those who oppose the US)? I tend the think the US is it's own worst enemy there (see night raids in Afghanistan and the effect they're having on the non-combatant population). The documents that show the world what our politicians think about the politicians of other nations? It might make diplomatic relationships testy, but I don't think anyone's going to start wars over this stuff.

It's interesting that you try to make this point because it's the same point the State Department is trying to push. On the one hand, they say the documents are worthless and not anything of value... but they turn around and say that their release is a threat to national security. You can't have it both ways! Either they're nothing of value or they're dangerous.

Here's some truth: the government doesn't want these documents getting out. We can all agree on that. Why, though? Because it threatens US hegemony and they don't want transparent government. The documents speak for themselves on this point. Just look at the crimes and transgressions covered up by the term "classified". You can get away with a lot when you don't let people know the truth...

3. If there is going to be any legal justice from this situation, Manning should get charged with theft only. Assange, if anything, charged with accepting stolen property. Espionage? Seriously? Was Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage? He released top secret documents that got egg on the government's face over Vietnam. Swallow that spin, boy!

4. Wikileaks is not in the business of blackmail. Any government not wanting to come to Assange's defense would not be hesitant because of what Wikileaks does but because of US influence. People fear the world's biggest bully. This nonsense is proof of that. A Canadian pundit called for Assange's assassination? Our elected government officials are calling for Assange's full prosecution for espionage and, if the law doesn't fit, they want to change the law! Are you supporting this? Do you really want the world to get to the point that no government crimes can be opposed, where the citizens have no rights (because the government will just change the laws as they see fit, regardless of what they say), and people can be killed for speaking the truth? We're already half-way there, mind you! Did you know the government has a policy in place where any US citizen (abroad) they deem a terrorist, they've authorized themselves to assassinate that person! AND THERE'S NO OVERSIGHT for these decisions, no ground rules for what qualifies as a terrorist, and NO APPEAL PROCESS for anyone who happens to find out they're on the list!

ARE YOU PEOPLE PAYING ATTENTION?

I just wanted to give you props for everything you said, because it is all that needs to be said.

I agree. Nobody is taking accountability for many of these things. The government doesn't need to be a shadowy all seeing, all knowing organization if they can just change laws around and kill whoever they want.

 

[lostzombies.com]

I'm sorry but to hell with this rapist. His alleged sexual-assault crime aside, the man has exposed HIGHLY classified material on the damn internet. No, I don't mean historical documents concerning the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Those documents are history are fully protected by the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press, look up the Pentagon Papers for a similar case involving the Vietnam War and government leaks. I know the man is Australian, but I'm going to judge him by the American legal system.

However, what is NOT PROTECTED is divulging secrets that pose a national security threat. Like say the locations of HIGHLY IMPORTANT sites according to Homeland Security. If I was a terrorist (be it for Al-Qaeda, Neo-Nazi, IRA, etc.) then a list like that is essentially a travel log of where to commit the most horrific result. That's not freedom of the press, that's putting people's lives in danger. So please do not act all surprised when you see politicians in my country calling for his head, he's not some righteous savior...he's a fucking asshole

They have never released anything like that, they purposely have NOT released that type of info. All of that is kept secret. Apparently it is being kept back for 'insurance', regardless of if it is true or not, wikileaks has never released 'true secrets' such as location of nukes or spy's real identities etc.

Way to be fox news biggest fan 2010

 

[SilentHunter7]

The U.S. government is a far cry from an evil autocracy. The people who lived in 1930's Germany, or even Modern-day Russia would scoff at you for even suggesting it.

Actually, the world has accused your butchery of entire countries for stealing natural resources and markets for 50 years. The "after all we are America, daym! Best place ever" argument is pure jingoism that I suggest you avoid in serious political discussions.

Now you're just fabricating things. Name one part of my argument that suggested we are the best place ever. Name one.

Attempts at minimize the case are so last week. Thing's huge and new releases keep adding to the fire - and we're still at 2% of the total cables. Now you're well in the hysteria phase, where politicians and the public loudly ask for murdering people they don't like FYI.

Wrong. Nixon fought the release of the Pentagon Papers all the way to the supreme court. Obama said "shame on you." The sheer difference in the responses is telling as to how much this pales in comparison.

A year from now noone will even be talking about this. Hell, even Abu Ghraib feels like it was in another lifetime. And this is no Abu Ghraib scandal.

And... you lose. As usual when one US boaster is faced with the lenght of his bloody rensponsibilities, he will turn internationalist to share the blame.

No. You lose. I can one-sentence argue, too.

And I find it interesting that you talk about us ignoring our responsibility while simultaneously ignoring yours. As usual when one US basher is faced with the prospect that his country was an accessory to all the proxy wars and communist containment of the cold war, he tries to scapegoat the United States so he won't have to face the fact that his country isn't as innocent as he thinks it is.

I'll freely admit my country is guilty of conducting illegal wars. But no way in hell did they act alone.

"Iraq oil is mine by right and locals have no saying on it". I'm keeping this sh*t for future reference because totally brainwashed ones like this are hard to come by (overseas).

Back to making shit up are we? For someone who accuses Americans of a holier-than-thou attitude, you sure do know how to show off your fanboyism. Where the hell did I say that we deserve all rights to the oil? Where?

You know what, I'm done. Go back to stroking your self-righteous ego and superiority complex, and leave the debating to people more rooted in reality. Because you're starting to sound like the guy who screams "LOLOL RED RING OF DEATH!!!!!11one" whenever someone says they own an Xbox.



I think I'll share a story. Not to you specifically, because I don't think you'll even read this far before you fire up the reply form. But to anyone in general. Last night someone sent me an article with a headline that said something to the extent of "State Department threatening College Students discussing WikiLeaks." My heart stopped. I had a realization. I couldn't believe I couldn't see it earlier. The realization was that the Activists are actually better at spinning the truth than the government is.

Because when you first read that, and you don't know the actual story, or are otherwise incapable of critically thinking about the news you read, you're thinking, 'holy shit, this is out of control.' But then you read the article, and you realize that all that happened was the State Department released a memo to colleges alerting them that putting the leaks on your facebook or other Social Networking sites in your name might cause trouble getting hired if you decide to apply for a job with the State Department.

Now that's not bad, but people were freaking out. I mean seriously, the comments section was busting at the seams with people screaming that Hillary Clinton is trying to control us. Please. My friend got fired from Chuck E. Cheese because his boss found out his status was saying the pizzas he makes were heart attacks in a box.

They're not trying to take away your right to talk about it. You can still post the leaks. But they have a right not to hire someone stupid enough to leave classified documents on their facebook when they apply for government jobs.

The truth is, both sides of the spectrum are drinking the same Kool-Aid! And if they'd realize it, this world would be a lot better of a place to live in.

I stand by what I said earlier. I applaud WikiLeaks for releasing the figures on civilian casualties, the truth about Mercenary groups, war crimes, and otherwise shady dealings.

But releasing names of informants, lists of sensitive targets, and completely legal diplomatic cables A DAY before certain countries involved are to have peace talks to avoid a full scale war is both dangerous, and just plain wrong.

Assange should've combed those cables better, and shown more tact.

 

[DVS Storm]

I'm not sure if the charges against Assange are right. It probably is just a smear campaign. Still even a man in Assanges position shouldn't do things like that(if the charges are right). No one is above the law. I support Wikileaks. They have an admirable goal but when they reveal secrets about governments... I mean there are some things that are meant to be secret. It will only do someone harm to know them. I mean at this rate Wikileaks is gonna reveal something that is going to help for exmple terrorists. Are we happy if that happens? I fully support freedom of speech but there are limits to everything. And then there is anonymous... I mean seriously do they have to mess around everything. It looks to me that they are just people that think they are above the law and like to ruin and mess peoples lifes.

 

[incal11]

Like most internet discussions, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm not looking for a fight, but I like looking for high minded discussions to force me to analyse my arguments and motivations in depth. That implies being open about the possibility of being wrong, I understand that's not everybody's cup of tea
This is issue is a bit new to me, so my opinions on the details is not set in stone.

Negotiation and Compromise are not the solution to every problem. Indeed, a lot of our problems today come from too much compromise and it preventing anything from getting done as it is.

That and polite discussions would be enough if only everyone were mature and responsible, I can only regret that it's not the case.

Oil is one of the big issues in the media, but it also applies to everything else from minerals to wood. (...) there isn't enough resources for our exploding populations to all have a decent standard of living, especially at the rate of increase. A lot of it comes down to being unfair, but pragmatic. (...)
This is incidently one of the big reasons why I mention that the population needs to be reduced (probably though war) and then stabilized, followed by a world unity and space travel to obtain more resources and living space. Without that, we're done as a species.

Yes, really, our world is now like a big Easter island, about to have every trees cut down, warring tribes too preoccupied by getting the wood for hauling down those big inward looking statues. Funny that each tribe used to think they would be the ones to prevail in the end...
Following your vision, extinction is more likely than space travel.

Diplomacy exists mostly to keep allied nations with similar vested interests together, and keep an eye on differant groups to prevent them from selling each other out. Not to mention to act competitively with third parties to get them to give us what we want as opposed to the other guy, which of course resorts in a lot of very frank comments, and underhanded dealing.

This is how it's been working since the dawn of times. I know I'm a hopeless dreamer, but wouldn't it be nice to evolve from this ?

As "bad" as it sounds, humanity actully benefits from that because the sooner we see a major power unify everyone (I won't go into the potential details) the sooner we can see resources invested in obtaining more resources. Of course the guys being kept down and exploited aren't going to EVER see things that way at the time it's going on.

The ones not holding the big guns are not about to share your opinion if they are wiped out in the process. This is a dangerous view you have, because basically you are calling for a repeat of past mistakes, maybe you can guess which ones I'm thinking about.

A form of world union could come about someday, there will be hitches in the road of course, but force and cynism are not what will make it happen.

 

[The Hive Mind]

I'm sorry but to hell with this rapist. His alleged sexual-assault crime aside, the man has exposed HIGHLY classified material on the damn internet. No, I don't mean historical documents concerning the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Those documents are history are fully protected by the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press, look up the Pentagon Papers for a similar case involving the Vietnam War and government leaks. I know the man is Australian, but I'm going to judge him by the American legal system.

However, what is NOT PROTECTED is divulging secrets that pose a national security threat. Like say the locations of HIGHLY IMPORTANT sites according to Homeland Security. If I was a terrorist (be it for Al-Qaeda, Neo-Nazi, IRA, etc.) then a list like that is essentially a travel log of where to commit the most horrific result. That's not freedom of the press, that's putting people's lives in danger. So please do not act all surprised when you see politicians in my country calling for his head, he's not some righteous savior...he's a fucking asshole

The war logs were released in the summer and nobody gave a shit. Now they are releasing documents that have fuck all to do with Al-Qaeda and very little to do with Afghanistan and everyone has decided that personal remarks about the hairlines of random South American politicians. The only remotely dangerous and important thing released so far has fuck all to do with America -- that Lockerbie bomber shit that turns out to be some conspiracy between the UK and some angry Libyans with some delicious oil supplies.