|
On October 24 2010 07:22 Krigwin wrote:
Another day, more instances of Americans torturing people, Americans gunning down civilians, Americans bribing people to not blow the whistle on Americans torturing or killing people, etc.
One of these days Assange is going to get his cranium perforated.
Wow, way to go out there with biased uninformed hatemongering. Where does it say anywhere that America was torturing people, and they gunned down surrendering insurgents, and they were pressing legal action against wikileaks not bribing them. One day you will realize that war is made up of the actions of those involved. If civilians were gunned down it was the choices of the people involved not the government. Grow up child.
|
the evidence that gov. was hiding details from civs, and not "for their own good" regarding the war further justifies the eroding faith people have in government. The news in wikileaks is in the complete lack of surprise or outrage from the citizens.
It used to be people would flip a shit over 3% increase in income tax, much less the gov. deceiving them. Now everyone just bends over and pulls open their stinkholes and when anyone objects they get shushed by a crowd of "BUT THATS THE WAY IT IS OKAY?!"
Sure, you can accept the injustice because it costs A LOT more to do something than to just take the blow, but at least have the self pride enough to be angry about it and not shoot down others who try to do something.
|
On October 24 2010 07:33 Kakera wrote:
Wow, way to go out there with biased uninformed hatemongering. Where does it say anywhere that America was torturing people, and they gunned down surrendering insurgents, and they were pressing legal action against wikileaks not bribing them. One day you will realize that war is made up of the actions of those involved. If civilians were gunned down it was the choices of the people involved not the government. Grow up child.
Objective factual statements is "biased uninformed hatemongering"? Wow, I'd hate to see what you would call actual propaganda.
Also, where did I mention the government? All I stated was that it was Americans who committed these acts. Are you now claiming it was not Americans? Or that Americans were not responsible? I also find it particularly amusing you target my post when right above it are like five other posts specifically speaking of the US government.
One day you will realize it is possible to be critical of a nation while still being loyal and patriotic to that nation, and that those who would criticize and speak out against those who would use the image of a nation to commit evil acts are the greatest patriots of all. Grow up, child.
|
|
|
Sanya12364 Posts
American soldiers know what torture looks like in their reports when Iraqis were doing it, but if CIA does it, it's enhanced interrogation techniques. The US old media buys into the doublespeak especially thoroughly.
In this case, the Pentagon probably is asking US old media not to do any reporting on this topic. Classifying these reports is a way to sanitize the war and conflict for Americans who might otherwise object and to run a worldwide PR program for continued military presence. Clearly trying to win the hearts of minds involves both "trying not to kill civilians" and "covering up killing when they do happen."
|
(Reuters) - Classified U.S. diplomatic cables reporting corruption allegations against foreign governments and leaders are expected in official documents that WikiLeaks plans to release soon, sources said on Wednesday.
The whistle-blowing website said on its Twitter feed this week its next release would be seven times larger than the collection of roughly 400,000 Pentagon reports related to the Iraq war which it made public in October.
Three sources familiar with the State Department cables held by WikiLeaks say the corruption allegations in them are major enough to cause serious embarrassment for foreign governments and politicians named in them.
Source
|
I'm not sure how I feel about the latest Wikileaks which is supposed to be published. It sounds less focused on war crimes and more focused on revealing candid diplomatic assessments. I don't really see the point of doing that, I can see the point of revealing war crimes, I don't see the point of ruining foreign policy "just because."
That being said, I'm aware that they are provided with information by whistleblowers, so hopefully there is a moral and not a financial incentive for the latest release of classified documents. I guess we will all know soon enough whether there is a purpose to knowing these things aside from the fact that it will majorly screw with U.S. foreign policy.
|
On November 26 2010 03:03 SolidusR wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about the latest Wikileaks which is supposed to be published. It sounds less focused on war crimes and more focused on revealing candid diplomatic assessments. I don't really see the point of doing that, I can see the point of revealing war crimes, I don't see the point of ruining foreign policy "just because."
That being said, I'm aware that they are provided with information by whistleblowers, so hopefully there is a moral and not a financial incentive for the latest release of classified documents. I guess we will all know soon enough whether there is a purpose to knowing these things aside from the fact that it will majorly screw with U.S. foreign policy. They are revealing things like these to do proper journalism. Showing the world things like they really are, when obviously other news agency or governments don't.
This is the general overview of topics they cover from their site: (copy pasted ofc  )
War, killings, torture and detention
Government, trade and corporate transparency
Suppression of free speech and a free press
Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence
Ecology, climate, nature and sciences
Corruption, finance, taxes, trading
Censorship technology and internet filtering
Cults and other religious organizations
Abuse, violence, violation
So because it's not warcrimes this time around doesn't mean that they do it 'just because'. You could read a bit about their motives of why they do this on their site. linky
|
Yap, that's the way it is. Spread lies among the populace and you make a lot of money, speak the truth and you must run for your life. I'm glad the people over at wikileaks and their informants take the risk and fight for the truth.
|
This "serious embarassment" thing is a pretty ballsy claim, I mean given Wikileaks' track record it's pretty safe to say they can back it up, but whatever they've got must be serious.
|
The only problem I have with all of this is that people are too stupid and prone to sensationalism, so despite all the good things happening, people will focus on the few bad things and crucify a nation.
I swear most people in the world are ignorant when it comes to how much the US does for other countries. Arguments can be made that US help in Africa has sometimes hurt more than helped (free food destroying farmer profits, etcetc) or that our help in other areas has harmed more than helped. Sometimes I just WISH those in power would remove our aid for one year. I realize that just because the aid may be unpopular does not mean that it is wrong, though. I'm truly afraid that one day those within the US will become too disheartened by what our media shows when the rest of the world holds these demonstrations against us, and at that point we will withdraw leaving those in need of our aid screwed.
This view probably seems patronizing, and in some regards it is, but I think it's a pretty commonly held one. And maybe the US IS being a patronizing bastard and we should withdraw our aid, but it's worth the risk imo.
Probably strayed a little off-topic, I just saw the increasingly hateful trend towards the US and its policies.
Edit:
On November 26 2010 03:26 Dagobert wrote:
Yap, that's the way it is. Spread lies among the populace and you make a lot of money, speak the truth and you must run for your life. I'm glad the people over at wikileaks and their informants take the risk and fight for the truth.
And I find that people who speak like you do have watched/read way too many mystery/thriller movies/novels
|
On November 26 2010 03:41 Risen wrote:The only problem I have with all of this is that people are too stupid and prone to sensationalism, so despite all the good things happening, people will focus on the few bad things and crucify a nation. I swear most people in the world are ignorant when it comes to how much the US does for other countries. Arguments can be made that US help in Africa has sometimes hurt more than helped (free food destroying farmer profits, etcetc) or that our help in other areas has harmed more than helped. Sometimes I just WISH those in power would remove our aid for one year. I realize that just because the aid may be unpopular does not mean that it is wrong, though. I'm truly afraid that one day those within the US will become too disheartened by what our media shows when the rest of the world holds these demonstrations against us, and at that point we will withdraw leaving those in need of our aid screwed. This view probably seems patronizing, and in some regards it is, but I think it's a pretty commonly held one. And maybe the US IS being a patronizing bastard and we should withdraw our aid, but it's worth the risk imo. Probably strayed a little off-topic, I just saw the increasingly hateful trend towards the US and its policies. Edit: Show nested quote +On November 26 2010 03:26 Dagobert wrote:
Yap, that's the way it is. Spread lies among the populace and you make a lot of money, speak the truth and you must run for your life. I'm glad the people over at wikileaks and their informants take the risk and fight for the truth. And I find that people who speak like you do have watched/read way too many mystery/thriller movies/novels
Crucify a nation? Lawl. Facepalm. What!?
On the subject of the immense generosity of the US of A : Give me a break! Yes, another one. Of the 'developed' nations the US isn't exactly the front runner when it comes to international aid (as opposed to weapons sales/donations and gifts of military training) . I'm guessing that you're either a little young, or just a little too ignorant for my taste.
I'm all for nuance. I'm all for pragmatism. I'm all for love, but the stuff you refer to as "hate" isn't generally the result of blind antagonism; quite the contrary. I'm guessing you're not all that familiar with the US record (the government record) of inflicting terror and death in just about every region of the world in the past 60 years.
My suggestion: turn off that damned TV, and shut up those damned idiot pundits, and go read a book!
|
On November 26 2010 04:05 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2010 03:41 Risen wrote:The only problem I have with all of this is that people are too stupid and prone to sensationalism, so despite all the good things happening, people will focus on the few bad things and crucify a nation. I swear most people in the world are ignorant when it comes to how much the US does for other countries. Arguments can be made that US help in Africa has sometimes hurt more than helped (free food destroying farmer profits, etcetc) or that our help in other areas has harmed more than helped. Sometimes I just WISH those in power would remove our aid for one year. I realize that just because the aid may be unpopular does not mean that it is wrong, though. I'm truly afraid that one day those within the US will become too disheartened by what our media shows when the rest of the world holds these demonstrations against us, and at that point we will withdraw leaving those in need of our aid screwed. This view probably seems patronizing, and in some regards it is, but I think it's a pretty commonly held one. And maybe the US IS being a patronizing bastard and we should withdraw our aid, but it's worth the risk imo. Probably strayed a little off-topic, I just saw the increasingly hateful trend towards the US and its policies. Edit: On November 26 2010 03:26 Dagobert wrote:
Yap, that's the way it is. Spread lies among the populace and you make a lot of money, speak the truth and you must run for your life. I'm glad the people over at wikileaks and their informants take the risk and fight for the truth. And I find that people who speak like you do have watched/read way too many mystery/thriller movies/novels Crucify a nation? Lawl. Facepalm. What!? On the subject of the immense generosity of the US of A : Give me a break! Yes, another one. Of the 'developed' nations the US isn't exactly the front runner when it comes to international aid (as opposed to weapons sales/donations and gifts of military training) . I'm guessing that you're either a little young, or just a little too ignorant for my taste. I'm all for nuance. I'm all for pragmatism. I'm all for love, but the stuff you refer to as "hate" isn't generally the result of blind antagonism; quite the contrary. I'm guessing you're not all that familiar with the US record (the government record) of inflicting terror and death in just about every region of the world in the past 60 years. My suggestion: turn off that damned TV, and shut up those damned idiot pundits, and go read a book!
Normally, people who make arguments based on the character of the person they're arguing against instead of their points are ignorant themselves.
We actually are the frontrunner, so we are EXACTLY that. If you're referring to %GDP those numbers often neglect much of the private aid citizens give (Christian fundamentalists may be nutzo but I'll give them charity for the most part). Even if we aren't the highest %GDP giver, we certainly are the highest in terms of numbers. (I don't know the numbers on %GDP given, but you must since you so boldly claim the US isn't, I'd like to see your sources)
Here's mine...
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.html
Actually, the stuff I refer to as hate IS blind antagonism. Those in the Middle East have often held such blind demonstrations, along with peoples in other parts of the world with little other rhetoric than the US caused this whole situation, it wasn't that we were too weak and unable to help ourselves, it's the US' fault. I'm perfectly familiar with many of the atrocities committed by the US. Unfortunately you fall under the category of people I described earlier when I said, "people will focus on the few bad things and crucify a nation".
|
my name is ahmed yhh i aint dowloading shiit lol.
|
Great honest video dude, from a great and honest source. why, of course AL JAZEERA has no agenda at all
|
On July 26 2010 08:46 prochobo wrote:Holy fuck. The Taliban can't wait to get their hands on this  ((((( Been looking through a few and seen some interesting shit: Show nested quote +FF engaged the INS with 1 x JAVELIN, following which, no further INS movement were seen. Fuck yeah.
Someone has their priorities a little fucked up.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 26 2010 03:26 Dagobert wrote:
Yap, that's the way it is. Spread lies among the populace and you make a lot of money, speak the truth and you must run for your life. I'm glad the people over at wikileaks and their informants take the risk and fight for the truth.
Just so you're aware, hundreds and possibly thousands of low level informants are now having to run for their lives because of the Wikileaks reports.
Wikileaks and their informants take a "risk" of being publicly criticized and possibly encarcerated, meanwhile the names in their reports, who weren't voluntarily outted and won't receive benefits from the report, have their names and their family's names on an execution list.
Assange's response on the issue has been pretty weak, and makes him come off as a false moralist bastard. There was no reason for them not to scrub that data, but they didn't, and now they say it's for the good of the people.
|
|
|
Wikileaks and their informants take a "risk" of being publicly criticized and possibly encarcerated, meanwhile the names in their reports, who weren't voluntarily outted and won't receive benefits from the report, have their names and their family's names on an execution list.
I thought they blacked out all names etc, no? Where is this "execution list" your mentioning? Can
you show a incident where this caused civilian deaths or something or is it all theoretical?
has there been one death directly linked to this? (no rhetorical questions, genuinely curious since so many people still use it as the main argument)
|
On November 26 2010 17:03 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2010 03:26 Dagobert wrote:
Yap, that's the way it is. Spread lies among the populace and you make a lot of money, speak the truth and you must run for your life. I'm glad the people over at wikileaks and their informants take the risk and fight for the truth. Just so you're aware, hundreds and possibly thousands of low level informants are now having to run for their lives because of the Wikileaks reports. Wikileaks and their informants take a "risk" of being publicly criticized and possibly encarcerated, meanwhile the names in their reports, who weren't voluntarily outted and won't receive benefits from the report, have their names and their family's names on an execution list. Assange's response on the issue has been pretty weak, and makes him come off as a false moralist bastard. There was no reason for them not to scrub that data, but they didn't, and now they say it's for the good of the people.
They didn't scrub that data? What is your source? The US government has been on a media tour to spread this information so I don't believe a thing you say. However a proper source, like the most obvious, a link to the right document with position of the name in the text, on wikileaks, will make me believe you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
