|
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...
"Reality has a Liberal Bias" Stephen Colbert.
Sorry for the Stephen Colbert quote. Yeah, comedian, blahblabhlabha. Its kind of a joke But their are hints of truth in it.
If you really want to be all stuck up about it
"Nature is left-wing"-Jean Paul Satre
Wikileaks never selectively releases information. The information they choose to make official write-ups about generally can be argued to be liberally oriented, but they do not selectively withhold information. How you can argue that they have a liberal bias is really beyond me.
That is a liberal bias.
That is all.
Lol. Obviously they're liberally oriented by the nature of what they actually do. What I mean to say is "Because they write articles primarily about subjects that are pertaining to human rights violations, corruption, and warcrimes" By the sheer virtue of being investigative journalists they're left wing.
In terms of actual writing they're unbiased. They'll be equally critical towards your regardless whether your right winger or a left winger.
|
This is amazing. I love the internet.
I personally think this is great, but I fear this is the type of shit that the elites will use as a pretext to controlling/censoring the internet. There have already been UN meetings and such that Obama attended with officials from other countries such as China and Russia, aiming at globally uniform internet controls.
|
On July 26 2010 11:10 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:02 travis wrote: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.
This doesn't explain your previous statement properly and crimes are not a game. Jews don't get credits for having been victims once. Strange thoughts you have. You do realize that your country makes all the Israeli crimes possible, don't you? You do realize that your tax dollars (future or present) are used to perpetuate the situation? You do realize that an end to the US vetos in the UN would stop these crimes, right? It's okay to be anti-zionist. We won't make fun of you. Seriously.
|
On July 26 2010 11:20 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:10 Half wrote:On July 26 2010 11:02 travis wrote: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. This doesn't explain your previous statement properly and crimes are not a game. Jews don't get credits for having been victims once. Strange thoughts you have. You do realize that your country makes all the Israeli crimes possible, don't you? You do realize that your tax dollars (future or present) are used to perpetuate the situation? You do realize that an end to the US vetos in the UN would stop these crimes, right? It's okay to be anti-zionist. We won't make fun of you. Seriously.
I'm not saying they are. You act like jews are the only people who kill innocent civilians with questionable motives. The Russian military operation in Chechnya. for example was equally as brutal as any Israeli warcrime, yet the amount of condemnation if received from the general public was far less. I would even argue that the entirety of the Iraq was was a far greater crime then anything Israels ever done.
I'm not "on the fence" in regards to Israel because I'm afraid to be associated with Anti-Zionists lols. I'm in that position because far too many Anti-Zionists use it to both vilify jews, blow the situation out of proportion, and just overall justify racist beliefs. You can just look at the site. I wish I had a dollar every time someone said the situation in Gaza was like the holocaust.
heres a hint: It isn't.
|
On July 26 2010 11:23 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:20 wadadde wrote:On July 26 2010 11:10 Half wrote:On July 26 2010 11:02 travis wrote: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. This doesn't explain your previous statement properly and crimes are not a game. Jews don't get credits for having been victims once. Strange thoughts you have. You do realize that your country makes all the Israeli crimes possible, don't you? You do realize that your tax dollars (future or present) are used to perpetuate the situation? You do realize that an end to the US vetos in the UN would stop these crimes, right? It's okay to be anti-zionist. We won't make fun of you. Seriously. I'm not saying they are. You act like jews are the only people who kill innocent civilians with questionable motives. The Russian military operation in Cheyenne for example was equally as brutal as any Israeli warcrime, yet the amount of condemnation if received from the general public was far less. I would even argue that the entirety of the Iraq was was a far greater crime then anything Israels ever done.
I think you mean Chechnya.
|
On July 26 2010 08:49 teamsolid wrote:
Wouldn't this give the enemy troops valuable intel and be potentially harmful to US troops in Afghanistan?
Wouldn't invading Afghanistan give enemy troops valuable intel and potentially harm US troops?
lol
|
On July 26 2010 11:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:23 Half wrote:On July 26 2010 11:20 wadadde wrote:On July 26 2010 11:10 Half wrote:On July 26 2010 11:02 travis wrote: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. This doesn't explain your previous statement properly and crimes are not a game. Jews don't get credits for having been victims once. Strange thoughts you have. You do realize that your country makes all the Israeli crimes possible, don't you? You do realize that your tax dollars (future or present) are used to perpetuate the situation? You do realize that an end to the US vetos in the UN would stop these crimes, right? It's okay to be anti-zionist. We won't make fun of you. Seriously. I'm not saying they are. You act like jews are the only people who kill innocent civilians with questionable motives. The Russian military operation in Cheyenne for example was equally as brutal as any Israeli warcrime, yet the amount of condemnation if received from the general public was far less. I would even argue that the entirety of the Iraq was was a far greater crime then anything Israels ever done. I think you mean Chechnya.
Yes I spellchecked wrong on me and I was typing fast :/ thx broski.
|
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html
Here is the NY Times hub for this thing. They've had access to the files for a few weeks and have written articles summarizing big points - for example the fact that Pakistan has been playing both sides in the Afghan war, sending intelligence agents to collaborate with the Taliban in planning attacks against the Americans.
|
On July 26 2010 11:15 Half wrote:
Wikileaks never selectively releases information. The information they choose to make official write-ups about generally can be argued to be liberally oriented, but they do not selectively withhold information. How you can argue that they have a liberal bias is really beyond me.
... Watch the Colbert interview- It is made perfectly clear that the story they "leaked" was presented with a CLEARLY false pretense that made it seem like US forces fired on innocents. Wikileaks ADMITS they had data to the contrary... so what did they do, they put the whole story up on a secondary page... which they admit less than 10% of the people who came to the first page saw...
That goes beyond the bias of deciding what story to run...
Again though- if this leak has anything decent, by all means, let me know...
|
On July 26 2010 11:15 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +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. That is a liberal bias. That is all.
I think the bias question is not particularly interesting.
I'm fairly certain that the nature of wikileaks demands that they make an effort to be non-partisan, which would mean they would not withhold a potentially damaging leak for any political reasons.
Their agenda seems to be towards that of a free press in pursuit of the goal of honest government, the end of corruption, and (ideally) the end of wars. The people involved probably do not want to be involved in messy or possibly corrupting political affiliations of any sort.
edit: they do state that they wish to create publicity for their leaks, so they may have a sensationalistic 'bias' or tendency in some of their releases. So maybe they seem to be liberal since a very few liberals seem to still be committed to the ideals of freedom of speech and dissent, or for some other reason. But I think my above paragraph holds.
Or maybe the whole thing is an elaborate internet prank?
|
On July 26 2010 11:36 michaelthe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:15 Half wrote:
Wikileaks never selectively releases information. The information they choose to make official write-ups about generally can be argued to be liberally oriented, but they do not selectively withhold information. How you can argue that they have a liberal bias is really beyond me.
... Watch the Colbert interview- It is made perfectly clear that the story they "leaked" was presented with a CLEARLY false pretense that made it seem like US forces fired on innocents. Wikileaks ADMITS they had data to the contrary... so what did they do, they put the whole story up on a secondary page... which they admit less than 10% of the people who came to the first page saw... That goes beyond the bias of deciding what story to run... Again though- if this leak has anything decent, by all means, let me know...
Ummm... Collateral implies it wasn't direct murder, it was secondary. I don't know how that is biased, it sounds like a lack of vocabulary. Yes, it IS clear that some of them didn't have weapons but they were still killed along with the rest. That fits perfectly well with the term collateral murder.
Also, it isn't illegal to have AK-47's in Iraq
|
On July 26 2010 11:36 michaelthe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:15 Half wrote:
Wikileaks never selectively releases information. The information they choose to make official write-ups about generally can be argued to be liberally oriented, but they do not selectively withhold information. How you can argue that they have a liberal bias is really beyond me.
... Watch the Colbert interview- It is made perfectly clear that the story they "leaked" was presented with a CLEARLY false pretense that made it seem like US forces fired on innocents. Wikileaks ADMITS they had data to the contrary... so what did they do, they put the whole story up on a secondary page... which they admit less than 10% of the people who came to the first page saw... That goes beyond the bias of deciding what story to run... Again though- if this leak has anything decent, by all means, let me know...
I'm well aware of this. Thats exactly what I said. They put emphasis on information that points towards misdoing on any government or corporate entities behalf. Its pretty clear that those civilians were acceptable and intended casualties. How you choose to interpret that is of course, up to you.
What exactly are you suggesting? That they headline documents that show perfectly acceptable and mundane reporting that don't point towards any wrongdoing?
My point is any bias you see is only the result of their actual jobs. Highlighting questionable conduct by government and corporations. It isn't like they falsify information or withhold it.
|
On July 26 2010 11:44 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:36 michaelthe wrote:On July 26 2010 11:15 Half wrote:
Wikileaks never selectively releases information. The information they choose to make official write-ups about generally can be argued to be liberally oriented, but they do not selectively withhold information. How you can argue that they have a liberal bias is really beyond me.
... Watch the Colbert interview- It is made perfectly clear that the story they "leaked" was presented with a CLEARLY false pretense that made it seem like US forces fired on innocents. Wikileaks ADMITS they had data to the contrary... so what did they do, they put the whole story up on a secondary page... which they admit less than 10% of the people who came to the first page saw... That goes beyond the bias of deciding what story to run... Again though- if this leak has anything decent, by all means, let me know... Ummm... Collateral implies it wasn't direct murder, it was secondary. I don't know how that is biased, it sounds like a lack of vocabulary. Yes, it IS clear that some of them didn't have weapons but they were still killed along with the rest. That fits perfectly well with the term collateral murder. Also, it isn't illegal to have AK-47's in Iraq
Just a side note to this, collateral damage isn't collateral damage when you knowingly kill innocent people to achieve the objective. Then it's murder, bar none.
|
On July 26 2010 10:06 lakrismamma wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Oh for some reason I thought only a US based site would want something like that.... hmmm... well then maybe it won't go anywhere. Even then, I still can't see how the US and many other visible people can condone the huge slap Wikileaks gave to US privacy. The action itself is pretty bad.
|
I'm surprised by the number of friendly fire incidents involving rockets targeted at unknown allies. Stray bullets in a nasty gunfight is one thing. But it seems to me that if you're watching a group of people from a distance and you can't confirm whether they are friend or foe, there should be some presumption of innocence before giving the OK to launch a rocket at them.
|
On July 26 2010 11:44 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:36 michaelthe wrote:On July 26 2010 11:15 Half wrote:
Wikileaks never selectively releases information. The information they choose to make official write-ups about generally can be argued to be liberally oriented, but they do not selectively withhold information. How you can argue that they have a liberal bias is really beyond me.
... Watch the Colbert interview- It is made perfectly clear that the story they "leaked" was presented with a CLEARLY false pretense that made it seem like US forces fired on innocents. Wikileaks ADMITS they had data to the contrary... so what did they do, they put the whole story up on a secondary page... which they admit less than 10% of the people who came to the first page saw... That goes beyond the bias of deciding what story to run... Again though- if this leak has anything decent, by all means, let me know... Ummm... Collateral implies it wasn't direct murder, it was secondary. I don't know how that is biased, it sounds like a lack of vocabulary. Yes, it IS clear that some of them didn't have weapons but they were still killed along with the rest. That fits perfectly well with the term collateral murder. Also, it isn't illegal to have AK-47's in Iraq
Murder:
Key point:
"is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought),"
Collateral Damage:
"Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome"
Collateral Murder is a paradox.
[edit]
Just a side note to this, collateral damage isn't collateral damage when you knowingly kill innocent people to achieve the objective. Then it's murder, bar none.
And this is false as well.
|
I sincerely hope we do get a count for how many more civilians we kill than the "terrorists".
Of course, the ones WE kill are justified. Still, the more raw data there is the better. The US likes to keep a lot this hidden. The actual counts will show us many, many fold ahead in being at fault for Civilian Deaths.
|
wiki leaks is awesome, if the general news media did half of what they do maybe then i would watch it.
|
On July 26 2010 11:49 CheezDip wrote:
I'm surprised by the number of friendly fire incidents involving rockets targeted at unknown allies. Stray bullets in a nasty gunfight is one thing. But it seems to me that if you're watching a group of people from a distance and you can't confirm whether they are friend or foe, there should be some presumption of innocence before giving the OK to launch a rocket at them.
Avoiding situations like this is nearly impossible. That is the conclusion I have come to, at least.
Only way to avoid it is, as military tribune at Nuremburg put it, not waging wars of aggression.
|
edit: addressed to kzn
about collateral damage...
To quote from another thread:
Let's use an example. Let's say we've got a woman, Jane, and she was wronged by her husband, Mark. And she's going to kill him. Mark is a bad guy, Mark cheated on her, Mark killed her daughter, and Mark just...well, he's dangerous and needs to be stopped. Jane finds out that Mark is going to see a movie on Friday night. Jane says, "I'm going to kill Mark before he hurts someone else in my family. I'm going to run him over with my SUV whilst he stands in line".
And Jane does it! Jane kills Mark, and many other people as well. So Jane killed the man she needed to, but in the process killed many innocent bystanders. She did performed this action KNOWING full well that in the achievement of her objectives, innocent people would die. She regrets it, but does that really matter? They're dead.
So the question becomes, "Is there a discernible moral difference between purposefully killing an innocent civilian to achieve a particular objective (in other words, killing the "Jew") and performing an action that you KNOW will INEVITABLY result in the deaths of innocent people to achieve your objective (killing the "terrorist")?
Certainly there is! And now that we've established that, we must ask ourselves...does it really matter? It doesn't matter to the innocent people killed in the street outside the movie theater, it doesn't matter to Jane, who will be brought up on charges regardless, and it doesn't matter to Mark, who lies face down in a heap of broken bodies. So while the moral difference is there, it is, in the end result, completely and utterly irrelevant to the outcome.
Let's take another example.
In wartime, an American warship spots an enemy destroyer, heading to the warzone. The American warship opens fire and sinks the ship (it was clearly carrying weapons and ammunition and would have sunk the American ship if it could). But upon inspection, the enemy warship had a thousand innocent civilians in the cargo bay, seeking refuge. THAT is collateral damage. Those deaths were accidental.
When Jane killed all of those people in the cinema to get Mark, that wasn't collateral damage. That was Jane acting to kill those people, knowing full well that her actions would result in the deaths of those innocents going to the movie. She knowingly, deliberately, and purposefully killed those people to get Mark. It wasn't an accident.
You are correct at one thing, though. Israel doesn't want to kill civilians, only a fool or a bigot would believe that they do. But they know full well what they are going to do when they send an airplane over a marketplace to destroy that team hiding in a fruit stand.
Don't confuse collateral damage with deliberate collateral damage.
In other words, the term "collateral damage" only applies when you accidentally and unknowingly kill civilians/unwanted people due to the execution of a particular action (the warship example). Knowing that you will inevitably kill X number of civilians along with whoever else isn't accidental or unintended (as per your own definition in the post above). It was deliberate and completely intended
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
