On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote: Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed.
Why? It's war. It's funny that we'll have explaining to do because of some civilians dying when nothing is said about the jews killing Muslims every freaking day on purpose.
Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down.
Why? It's war. It's funny that we'll have explaining to do because of some civilians dying when nothing is said about the jews killing Muslims every freaking day on purpose.
Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down.
Well its your country supporting the jews that are killing the muslims so its hardly a good example.
On July 26 2010 09:11 Gliche wrote: saw this on the news a few days ago
i haven't kept up with it, but a friend of mine who keeps up with all these things says that it's kind of just an overblown media sensation. all the real important stuff hasn't been leaked. most of it is just standard military stuff you will find accessible in books/records a few years down the road.
that said, i expect wikileaks to be punished hardcore for this, and new laws enacted prevent this in the future, as well as extra regulation of the internet while they have the chance
By who? From what I know they are not based in the US and the rest of the world dont follow US laws. The people who made the leaks could be punished but not wikileaks. I think its an act of freedom that people actually can find out about what is going on in iraq and afghanistan and then make their own opinion about the war.
Activists behind a website dedicated to revealing secret documents have complained of harassment by police and intelligence services as they prepare to release a video showing an American attack in which 97 civilians were killed in Afghanistan.
Julian Assange, one of the founders of Wikileaks, has claimed that a restaurant where the group met in Reykjavic, the capital of Iceland, came under surveillance in March and one of the group’s volunteers was detained for 21 hours by police.
Assange, an Australian, says he was followed on a flight from Reykjavik to Copenhagen by two American agents. The group has riled governments by publishing documents leaked by whistleblowers.
In messages on Twitter, the internet social networking site, Assange complained of “covert following and hidden photography” by police and foreign intelligence services. There have been thinly veiled threats, he says, from “an apparent British intelligence agent” in a car park in Luxembourg.
“Computers were also seized,” another member of Wikileaks said on Twitter, raising alarm among supporters with a subsequent post: “If anything happens to us, you know why ... and you know who is responsible.”
Their apprehension is perhaps understandable. America’s defence establishment has made clear that it would like to silence the site. In 2008, the Pentagon produced a report on how to undermine and neutralise Wikileaks. This, too, emerged on the website.
This is neat and all but 95% of people won't care/forget about it in a week. There is so much information out there nowadays that even something as "big" as this will be shortly forgotten by most.
In what they present and how they present it they are always editorializing- the link is an example of how severe they can mislead.
Colbert is so upstanding. I have to imagine Assange learned something from this interview, since he does seem reasonable and honest. In all fairness, putting it into a context may not be a negative thing if that context is actually correct.
Though personally I would agree with colbert and say that they should set a high standard for theirselves and not do it, despite the fact that the media always does.
On July 26 2010 10:27 dybydx wrote: i wonder if the media will pick up on this and how they will spin the story.
so far their job at selling the public on both wars have been rather poor in term of properly informing the public.
Most 'quality' newspapers and all other corporate media sell readers to advertisers. That's how they make money. At the end of the day it's not about the quality of the reporting or critical analysis, it's about selling as much as possible to the right audience. The financial incentives are (not completely backwards, but at the very least) horribly scewed As far as I can tell this stuff is just what people should have known already + a lot of unreliable junk. The media will do what it always does : kinda, sorta talk about some of the issues and pretend to be critical. Maybe it'll be of some use.. one never knows.
Im really confused here. I have actually gotten to the site and downloaded each of the file types, csv, sql and kml. Which is the best format to read through it like a document or is there not. The csv is a cluster in excel, and i have no programs that open the other two. im just curious if anyone found a good way to view these documents. Thanks
Well its your country supporting the jews that are killing the muslims so its hardly a good example.
Our country has killed directly or indirectly 1000x the amount of Muslims lives lost in conflicts in the Gaza strip and the West bank.
Seriously I'd be anti-zionist if it weren't for the fact that 90% of anti-zionists are just looking for an excuse to hate jews. You have a couple intellectuals and humanists making very legitimate and understandable arguments, and then all the anti-Semites come bandwagoning in looking for another thing to blame on jews.
On July 26 2010 10:58 Half wrote: [Seriously I'd be anti-zionist if it weren't for the fact that 90% of anti-zionists are just looking for an excuse to hate jews.
So whether or not you are pro israel hinges on what other people's opinions are?
In what they present and how they present it they are always editorializing- the link is an example of how severe they can mislead.
So?
So wikileaks isnt some righteous media outlet for the underdog- they are a self serving liberal biased group trying to assert their view in way that makes them look righteous. They have had maybe 1 or 2 leaks that are worth a damn.
By all means, tell me if their is a single worthwhile leak in this set- but its more likely to be used as fodder for people to say "TAKE THAT AMERICA" without any real context. Again though, but all means, let me know if there is anything real in here...
In what they present and how they present it they are always editorializing- the link is an example of how severe they can mislead.
So?
So wikileaks isnt some righteous media outlet for the underdog- they are a self serving liberal biased group trying to assert their view in way that makes them look righteous.
Self serving? In what way are they self serving? Last I understood wikileaks provided a service that you can't get anywhere else, and did so for free.
On July 26 2010 10:58 Half wrote: [Seriously I'd be anti-zionist if it weren't for the fact that 90% of anti-zionists are just looking for an excuse to hate jews.
So whether or not you are pro israel hinges on what other people's opinions are?
Think of it this way. A person thinks x should be the desired reaction to any situation. y is the reaction being presently given. If the present reaction is less then the desired reaction, the person would be in favor of a heavier reaction. If the present reaction is greater then the desired reaction, then the person would be conservative and try to shift the spectrum in the other direction.
Applied to this, yeah, I certainly condemn all the human rights violations that are pretty rampant in Israels occupation of the Gaza strip and the west bank, and this is something that should certainly be condemned.
But you visit any outlet for public opinion and immediately you have retards comparing it to stuff like "The Holocaust", etc, when far worse abuses of human rights are happening across the world. For instance we subject many areas of Iraq and Afghanistan to the same kind of military brutality that is inflicted upon the areas Israel controls. The "racism" against muslims in Israel belies many underlying problems, but ultimately it is no more sever the racism that spans the globe. A lot of the hatred for Israel is highly disproportionate to their actual crimes (which are substantial), and simply serve as an outlet for antisemitism.
In what they present and how they present it they are always editorializing- the link is an example of how severe they can mislead.
So?
So wikileaks isnt some righteous media outlet for the underdog- they are a self serving liberal biased group trying to assert their view in way that makes them look righteous. They have had maybe 1 or 2 leaks that are worth a damn.
By all means, tell me if their is a single worthwhile leak in this set- but its more likely to be used as fodder for people to say "TAKE THAT AMERICA" without any real context. Again though, but all means, let me know if there is anything real in here...
They are not for profit, live on rice and water with poor living conditions because they believe in providing the service. How is that self serving exactly?
On July 26 2010 11:10 Half wrote: Sorry for the Stephen Colbert quote. Yeah, comedian, blahblabhlabha. Its kind of ajoke But their are hints of truth in it. Wikileaks never selectively releases information. The information they choose to make official write-ups about generally can be argued to have a liberal bias, but they do not selectively withhold information. How you can argue that they have a liberal bias is really beyond me.
EPT
