It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)WikiLeaks Cablegate(395 posts)(395 posts)
(395 posts)
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
15
20
27
This is my favourite topic
Posted December 06, 2010
Ok. It might happen, yes. It didn't or at least hasn't been proven so far, but it might.
To quote you from a bit earlier:
avatar
Crassmaster: I have no doubt that people WILL die in a lot of foreign lands for sharing things with other countries that they weren't supposed to.
... and adding: regardless if they share it with foreign governments, media, Wikileaks or just the neighbor next door.

However, it's not governments (ALL governments - I'm not talking only about the US here) who are criticized here for their involvements (being proven or assumed) in atrocities, killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocents (either directly or as result of collateral damage), torturing, imprisoning people for years without any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
No, it's Wikileaks to stand in the pillory because someday it might happen that someone suffers because of their work.

Now.... what's wrong here?

To be clear: this isn't pointed at anyone here and their believes, nor do I want to link it with someone's mind.
But frankly said, it's like we're pointing at the cat's unwanted remains in the living room saying "there's where the ugly smell's coming from", while ignoring the giant muckheap leaning on our front door.
Posted December 06, 2010
I'm having Shadow Brokerish opinion on all this. Openess is good as long as it's complete and equal. Everything balances each other out. So far it seems Wikileaks is mostly going against USA and other western nations which can be dangerous

Where is the list of Al-Qaida camps? Or the list of all China's shady actions?

Oh right and mostly this stuff is just confirmation for the common beliefs like some say
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
stonebro: So when and where will Assange be found dead.
Hopefully never. That pompous ass being martyred would be horrible and serve no purpose beyond more undeserved aggrandizement of him.

However, if someone wanted to leak every detail of his past and existence online...THAT would be pretty damn awesome. :)
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
Siannah: However, it's not governments (ALL governments - I'm not talking only about the US here) who are criticized here for their involvements (being proven or assumed) in atrocities, killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocents (either directly or as result of collateral damage), torturing, imprisoning people for years without any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
No, it's Wikileaks to stand in the pillory because someday it might happen that someone suffers because of their work.

Now.... what's wrong here?
And it's exactly this that those who hate Wikileaks fail to acknowledge. It boggles my mind. Wikileaks could be responsible for what scale of death and suffering? 100 people? 1000? 10,000? A week's worth of small arms sales from the US to dirtbags accounts for more atrocities than that. The US has killed more civilian Iraqis than that. Yet it's Wikileaks that's evil because they dare to challenge the status quo. I don't doubt that they make a lot of good people's jobs harder, I can't say for sure in each individual case, but surely some of the good will be worth the price.
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
Dascryborg: Everyone wants the Truth but I spent a year over there and came back with PTSD. I can tell you even the "blood thirsty" are mostly blowing smoke out of their ass ... The Truth is perception is off I worked at the least 12-16 hours a day sometimes I forgot how to do my job even though I was extremely proficient at that job. Ever been out on a convoy in the middle of an area where anyone could be the one gunning for your life? I have, its something that can make you quite paranoid let alone seeing someone with a RPG or something that is strikingly familiar that can take out your vehicle. They may not have been aiming it at them but the dumbass hiding around a corner aiming a tube like object at you, keep in mind they just saw an iraqi with an RPG ...

@Billt so at the 50 second mark to this film there aren't armed men, and one doesn't look like he has a long tube like object quite similarly remarkable to an RPG? Then you see someone look around around a corner with a black tube like thing sticking out then aims it at you yes that is a justified shooting to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llf-GvaH3iw
there watch it again and this time pay attention or put your glasses on.
avatar
billt568: Did as you requested. Did not see this:
http://www.thebolg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/rpg.jpg

Its just not there. 00:50

Also, your opinions and attacks are making Americans look stupid to this very international forum. Most Americans realize that the war in Iraq is over oil and that the war in Afghanistan is A. To draw militants into a huge kill box and B. to secure mineral rights. The "Freedom, Fuck Ya" argument is embarrassing to those who actually read and know whats going on in the world.
You're an idiot with bad eye sight, nothing more to say than that.
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
Siannah: However, it's not governments (ALL governments - I'm not talking only about the US here) who are criticized here for their involvements (being proven or assumed) in atrocities, killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocents (either directly or as result of collateral damage), torturing, imprisoning people for years without any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
No, it's Wikileaks to stand in the pillory because someday it might happen that someone suffers because of their work.

Now.... what's wrong here?
avatar
orcishgamer: And it's exactly this that those who hate Wikileaks fail to acknowledge. It boggles my mind. Wikileaks could be responsible for what scale of death and suffering? 100 people? 1000? 10,000? A week's worth of small arms sales from the US to dirtbags accounts for more atrocities than that. The US has killed more civilian Iraqis than that. Yet it's Wikileaks that's evil because they dare to challenge the status quo. I don't doubt that they make a lot of good people's jobs harder, I can't say for sure in each individual case, but surely some of the good will be worth the price.
It's just that americans feel more secure when US soldiers are doing the killing, not some whistle blowing site.
Post edited December 06, 2010 by drmlessgames
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
orcishgamer: And it's exactly this that those who hate Wikileaks fail to acknowledge. It boggles my mind. Wikileaks could be responsible for what scale of death and suffering? 100 people? 1000? 10,000? A week's worth of small arms sales from the US to dirtbags accounts for more atrocities than that. The US has killed more civilian Iraqis than that. Yet it's Wikileaks that's evil because they dare to challenge the status quo. I don't doubt that they make a lot of good people's jobs harder, I can't say for sure in each individual case, but surely some of the good will be worth the price.
avatar
drmlessgames: It's just that americans feel more secure when US soldiers are doing the killing, not some whistle blowing site.
As much as I'd like to agree, I think it's more that most people don't take the time to think about it. It's uncomfortable. How many people have looked at truly horrid things that have happened due to war, Darfur? Aftereffects of Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I don't hate anyone for not doing it, I just find it disappointing.
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: A government that is supposed to be a servant of the people is not supposed to have any privacy. As I said, there may be some situations where things like opsec justify keeping some pieces of information secret for at least a little while, but there still needs to be a damn good reason whenever any piece of information regarding government actions is kept secret from the public.

I honestly have a hard time understanding the mindset of someone so warped that they think it's alright for the government to keep secrets just for the heck of it, especially when that person is at the same time saying what a wonderful thing freedom is. At least you're provided an excellent example of the current government attitude that unfortunately makes organizations such as Wikileaks invaluable at this point in time.
avatar
Gundato: Not to get into the other part of this discussion, but what constitutes a "damn good reason"?

The people who are arguing for full disclosure will just always argue that there IS no good reason. Whereas those who would actually be affected by it are likely to be a bit lenient with the application of "damn good".

As a perfect example, the "cablegate". Any of the diplomats and most of the governments involved will probably argue that there are "damn good reasons" to keep private correspondence private (sort of the same reason you don't tell a kid that his mother, a prostitute, is a whore). Whereas all of the amateur historians and "freedom fighters" will argue that all of this information should have been out in the open the entire time.

And both sides are right, to an extent.
Let's take the whole
Saudi Arabia: Yo, somebody go kill Iran for us
Israel: DIBS!

Affair.

On the one hand, keeping this private is in the best interests of pretty much everyone involved. Even being friendly with Israel is a big no-no for just about every country in the Middle East (and around the world, to a lesser extent). So this could cause a lot of problems and strained relations.
Plus, Iran could argue for this as a rationale to further escalate stuff.

But on the other hand, these guys were talking about using nukes. Stuff like that needs to be kept in check, and putting it out in the open greatly lessened the chance of Israel "going rogue" and glassing the region.

And THIS is why the policy of "The government should only have secrets if they have a good reason" is just fundamentally flawed. Who judges the reason?

Which means, we need to simplify: Is the government allowed to have secrets? Wikileaks (and many in this thread) feel "no". But as some people (who, admittedly, should stay the hell out of the thread until they calm down and can stop feeling the urge to punch every idiot who says something inflammatory) have mentioned, it is kind of hard to have any form of security with a completely open book.

But, so long as there are ANY secrets, organizations like Wikileaks are going to try and leak it so that they can get their 15 minutes of fame.
First and foremost Iran stated they wish to incinerate Israel to the ground on National Television, so finding out that Israel wants to destroy any nuclear capabilities that Iran is trying to develop shouldn't be news at all to anyone. Do you need to know about how Israel is planning to do this? No, you do not. Further more do note that we the US have stopped many situations that could of been the on coming of another World War. How did we do this you ask? Through classified information that's how. If you want to know then go get a clearance, they really aren't that hard to get.

Do you need to know troop movements? Do you need to know frequencies we scan? Do you need to know the statistical facts about our weapons and weapons platforms? Do you need to know information that could put many peoples lives in danger? No you do not, classified information is a good thing.
Posted December 06, 2010
PARIS, December 6, 2010 (AFP) - A French judge declined to force web provider OVH to shut down the WikiLeaks site, OVH said on Monday, after the government called for the whistleblower website to be kicked out of France.

The legal challenge came after French Industry Minister Eric Besson called for WikiLeaks to be banned from French servers after the site took refuge there on Thursday, having been expelled from the United States.

^^
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
drmlessgames: It's just that americans feel more secure when US soldiers are doing the killing, not some whistle blowing site.
avatar
orcishgamer: As much as I'd like to agree, I think it's more that most people don't take the time to think about it. It's uncomfortable. How many people have looked at truly horrid things that have happened due to war, Darfur? Aftereffects of Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I don't hate anyone for not doing it, I just find it disappointing.
Our bombers did more damage and longer lasting damage than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The nukes we dropped were pretty much for show of strength. The biggest problem was of course the Fallout afterwards.
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
Dascryborg: No you do not, classified information is a good thing.
And blanket statements are bad. Yes, there's reasons why some things are classified, but they should be - always - really pretty damn good ones; and sadly - and that's what history shows and the way authority / power misuse happen illustrates - just blindly trusting that only that which really is essential to be classified will be classified is foolish. In the worst case, and there are enough examples for both, things are classified to avoid grave mistakes from coming to light or the things classified detail highly illegal and immoral action.

We do need people to explore in the dark corners of governments and organisations. Simply outright protesting against any form of investigative journalism / forced de-classification is doing everyone a disservice.

Whether the course that Wikileaks runs is right or not is a different thing - but please do remember that they DO have a much longer track record than just these latest leaks.
Posted December 06, 2010
On Another note, war blows and its bad for business. To say we are over there for oil is a farce as war hurts us in many ways especially economically. With us over in the middle east we have thwarted thousands of terrorist attacks upon the world. Unfortunately us being over there is a double edged blade but I can guarantee you that if we do pull out you will see a huge increase in terrorist activity ... What do we do then? Let Countries that harbor them "deal" with the terrorist?

So please enlighten me on what we should do in this situation ... that way I can go get me a fat promotion with your outstanding ideas...
avatar
Dascryborg: No you do not, classified information is a good thing.
avatar
Mnemon: And blanket statements are bad. Yes, there's reasons why some things are classified, but they should be - always - really pretty damn good ones; and sadly - and that's what history shows and the way authority / power misuse happen illustrates - just blindly trusting that only that which really is essential to be classified will be classified is foolish. In the worst case, and there are enough examples for both, things are classified to avoid grave mistakes from coming to light or the things classified detail highly illegal and immoral action.

We do need people to explore in the dark corners of governments and organisations. Simply outright protesting against any form of investigative journalism / forced de-classification is doing everyone a disservice.

Whether the course that Wikileaks runs is right or not is a different thing - but please do remember that they DO have a much longer track record than just these latest leaks.
The only problems I have with wikileaks is they just put shit out without a full unbiased open minded explanation as to what it is. Its putting out bad knowledge, what would happen if teachers started making shit up or only teaching you half of the way to solve that calculus problem?
Post edited December 06, 2010 by Dascryborg
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
Gundato: Not to get into the other part of this discussion, but what constitutes a "damn good reason"?

The people who are arguing for full disclosure will just always argue that there IS no good reason. Whereas those who would actually be affected by it are likely to be a bit lenient with the application of "damn good".

As a perfect example, the "cablegate". Any of the diplomats and most of the governments involved will probably argue that there are "damn good reasons" to keep private correspondence private (sort of the same reason you don't tell a kid that his mother, a prostitute, is a whore). Whereas all of the amateur historians and "freedom fighters" will argue that all of this information should have been out in the open the entire time.

And both sides are right, to an extent.
Let's take the whole
Saudi Arabia: Yo, somebody go kill Iran for us
Israel: DIBS!

Affair.

On the one hand, keeping this private is in the best interests of pretty much everyone involved. Even being friendly with Israel is a big no-no for just about every country in the Middle East (and around the world, to a lesser extent). So this could cause a lot of problems and strained relations.
Plus, Iran could argue for this as a rationale to further escalate stuff.

But on the other hand, these guys were talking about using nukes. Stuff like that needs to be kept in check, and putting it out in the open greatly lessened the chance of Israel "going rogue" and glassing the region.

And THIS is why the policy of "The government should only have secrets if they have a good reason" is just fundamentally flawed. Who judges the reason?

Which means, we need to simplify: Is the government allowed to have secrets? Wikileaks (and many in this thread) feel "no". But as some people (who, admittedly, should stay the hell out of the thread until they calm down and can stop feeling the urge to punch every idiot who says something inflammatory) have mentioned, it is kind of hard to have any form of security with a completely open book.

But, so long as there are ANY secrets, organizations like Wikileaks are going to try and leak it so that they can get their 15 minutes of fame.
avatar
Dascryborg: First and foremost Iran stated they wish to incinerate Israel to the ground on National Television, so finding out that Israel wants to destroy any nuclear capabilities that Iran is trying to develop shouldn't be news at all to anyone. Do you need to know about how Israel is planning to do this? No, you do not. Further more do note that we the US have stopped many situations that could of been the on coming of another World War. How did we do this you ask? Through classified information that's how. If you want to know then go get a clearance, they really aren't that hard to get.

Do you need to know troop movements? Do you need to know frequencies we scan? Do you need to know the statistical facts about our weapons and weapons platforms? Do you need to know information that could put many peoples lives in danger? No you do not, classified information is a good thing.
Again, the world is secure and we all owe it to US of A, saviours of the world!
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
Dascryborg: The only problems I have with wikileaks is they just put shit out without a full unbiased open minded explanation as to what it is. Its putting out bad knowledge, what would happen if teachers started making shit up or only teaching you half of the way to solve that calculus problem?
Yes. But I do understand why Wikileaks do it that way. It's a non-profit organisation with few paid staff and a couple volunteers. They don't have the means to do much more than release material. Especially given the size of this particular release. [And personally, I think, there never are "unbiased" explanations, anyway - but, that, too is a different debate :) ]
Post edited December 06, 2010 by Mnemon
Posted December 06, 2010
avatar
drmlessgames: Again, the world is secure and we all owe it to US of A, saviours of the world!
Indeed it seems that way...









In "24".
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
15
20
27
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)WikiLeaks Cablegate(395 posts)(395 posts)
(395 posts)