EPTTwo days ago everyone was griping about how wikileaks isn't releasing everything. That Assange is a dickhead, that his ego's controlling him, that he's slowly letting the juicy bits drip, so that he stays on the front cover. That he was collaborating with the media on how to squeeze this so he and they get the most stories out of it. Does that mean the same thing to you as it does to me, or are you talking about a different thing altogether?
WikiLeaks founder arrested in U.K. - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Two days ago everyone was griping about how wikileaks isn't releasing everything. That Assange is a dickhead, that his ego's controlling him, that he's slowly letting the juicy bits drip, so that he stays on the front cover. That he was collaborating with the media on how to squeeze this so he and they get the most stories out of it. Does that mean the same thing to you as it does to me, or are you talking about a different thing altogether? | ||
|
Slix36
United Kingdom145 Posts
In the instance he is silenced all 250,000 ish cables of information would be released, and only around 1000-2000 have been published so far. Depending on the severity of this more damaging information it's quite possible that if he were silenced, either by imprisonment or assasination, that he could become a sort of martyr for open government and truth. personally i dont know what to make of all this other than it's extremely interesting. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7683 Posts
Let us all hope that these European nations are not as weak and corrupt as my own country. Please don't let me down Europe this is a huge opportunity for you to prove yourselves as just and noble lands. My country will never be called the land of the free again. ... how dare we judge china or russia. Jullian on his way into court | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
On December 08 2010 06:26 xDaunt wrote: This is a very dangerous way of thinking. The "evil" of fascism is the centralization of absolute power into the hands of the few (or the one). How often have experiments down the road on awry? Better yet, how disastrous have some of those experiments been? Let's turn your question around: when has fascism ever worked out well? Totalitarianism is not the same as fascism, just as Sovietism is not the same as communism. In fact, all those governments suffer from being totalitarian. But that is way off topic. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On December 08 2010 06:51 BottleAbuser wrote: What makes you think they are not sorting it? Are you aware they are only releasing it slowly? Up to now they're only released 1057 out of 251,287 documents. They're searching for what puts people's life in danger. And releasing it as they can review it. That already takes an enourmous time. So they are not spending more time trying to dig what exactly would the media label as "worthless gossip". Not onlyBlindly publishing documents sent to wikileaks would not be very smart of wikileaks. I'm sure that's not what they're doing. Why is it stupid to not sort through the stuff first? 1. You might end up hurting (e.g. killing) a lot of people. 2. Your enemies can make you look stupid, and your output so noisy that it's worthless. 1) It would be logistically impossible to separate every little thing that some randoms might not think is important. Because it's ridiculously subjective and would generate some absurd overhead to the already slow release. But also 2) What is "worthless gossip" for you might be important for someone else. Who's to judge? You or some random idiots from american media might think it's just some worthless diplomatic gossip that Saudi Arabia asked the US to invade Lebanon. But I'm sure the people from Lebanon will disagree with that. edit: nevermind, I read one line of your post wrong and misunderstood everything you said because of it. I'm an idiot. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
I'm justifying wikileak's policies of slowly releasing censored documents. You are arguing that wikileak's policies are unfounded? As for your first point: it's impossible to know that deciding to eat a pepperoni pizza will cause me to sneeze two days later, which as we all know can start hurricanes. Therefore, it doesn't matter if I pull a trigger or not, because there is uncertainty as to whether or not a bullet will happen to kill someone later (about .01 seconds later, to be precise). See the logical error? Publishing things that you can recognize to be dangerous, such as names (or identifying features) of undercover agents is a stupid, irresponsible thing to do. Wikileaks is wisely choosing not to do this. The beautiful thing about Wikileaks choosing what's important enough to be released is that what I think and what you think, or what anyone else thinks, really, doesn't matter. Wikileaks' opinion matters. Tough luck if you don't like it. Go make your own whistleblowing platform. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7683 Posts
On December 08 2010 07:34 BottleAbuser wrote: Publishing things that you can recognize to be dangerous, such as names (or identifying features) of undercover agents is a stupid, irresponsible thing to do. Wikileaks is wisely choosing not to do this. . But it is ok for bush-era politicians to publish the names of undercover operatives to satisfy political ends right? (I'm not saying you said this I'm just making a point off of yours, Not against!) | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7683 Posts
4chan has a use! Thank god for nerds! | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On December 08 2010 07:34 BottleAbuser wrote: nevermind, I read one line of your post wrong and misunderstood everything you said because of it. Ignore me, I'm an idiot.VIB, I'm not sure I understand your post. I'm justifying wikileak's policies of slowly releasing censored documents. You are arguing that wikileak's policies are unfounded? As for your first point: it's impossible to know that deciding to eat a pepperoni pizza will cause me to sneeze two days later, which as we all know can start hurricanes. Therefore, it doesn't matter if I pull a trigger or not, because there is uncertainty as to whether or not a bullet will happen to kill someone later (about .01 seconds later, to be precise). See the logical error? Publishing things that you can recognize to be dangerous, such as names (or identifying features) of undercover agents is a stupid, irresponsible thing to do. Wikileaks is wisely choosing not to do this. The beautiful thing about Wikileaks choosing what's important enough to be released is that what I think and what you think, or what anyone else thinks, really, doesn't matter. Wikileaks' opinion matters. Tough luck if you don't like it. Go make your own whistleblowing platform. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On December 08 2010 06:31 KlaCkoN wrote: I don't understand this post. If wikileaks took it upon themselves to censor the stuff people sent them and only released what they deemed 'interesting' the point would dissapear. WikiLeaks should take it upon themselves to, like a true whistleblower, only release stuff that implicates another nation, rather than release it amongst a huge amount of noise. Contrast the news media's/public's current response to the response it had when WL released the helicopter footage or even the Iraq/Afghanistan information (a lot of which actually did highlight abuses). What is the biggest story? It's the metastory about WikiLeaks proper role in the world and about Julian Assange. It is most assuredly not about any governmental abuses. How can those of you who claim to support WikiLeaks because it discloses governmental abuses be happy with this state of affairs? | ||
|
FindingPride
United States1001 Posts
| ||
|
Starfox
Austria699 Posts
Time magazine have removed Julian Assange from their person of the year poll. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720 the cable http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php a bit of background info So the USA covered up a party for the afghan police, where they facilitated this crime of "purchasing a service from a child." For those that can't or won't click the link, bacha bazi is a pre-Islamic Afghan tradition that was banned by the Taliban. Bacha boys are eight- to15-years-old. They put on make-up, tie bells to their feet and slip into scanty women's clothing, and then, to the whine of a harmonium and wailing vocals, they dance seductively to smoky roomfuls of leering older men. After the show is over, their services are auctioned off to the highest bidder, who will sometimes purchase a boy outright. And by services, we mean anal sex: The State Department has called bacha bazi a "widespread, culturally accepted form of male rape." (While it may be culturally accepted, it violates both Sharia law and Afghan civil code.) The USA covering rape of children in afghanistan, Obama so transparent | ||
|
BROotogy
Eritrea149 Posts
| ||
|
schimmetje
Netherlands1104 Posts
I wonder if they've fully thought this through, or are just counting on the rabid form public debate has been taking over the last few years to drown out actual thought about the situation. If the latter, here's to hoping they're wrong, though they may in fact not be. Which'd be quite sad, hope we don't regret it further down the line. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7683 Posts
On December 08 2010 09:00 Starfox wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720 the cable http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php a bit of background info So the USA covered up a party for the afghan police, where they The USA covering rape of children in afghanistan, Obama so transparent Ok. These people are animals. Even the taliban outlawed this ..... crap. People that operate on this low of a level can't ever rise as a nation. Stop wasting my money america! These people aren't worth it | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On December 08 2010 08:18 domovoi wrote: What is important and what is noise? It's up to you to decide. You might find it "not abuse" that Saudi Arabia asked the US to invade Lebanon. But the Lebanese will disagree.WikiLeaks should take it upon themselves to, like a true whistleblower, only release stuff that implicates another nation, rather than release it amongst a huge amount of noise. Contrast the news media's/public's current response to the response it had when WL released the helicopter footage or even the Iraq/Afghanistan information (a lot of which actually did highlight abuses). What is the biggest story? It's the metastory about WikiLeaks proper role in the world and about Julian Assange. It is most assuredly not about any governmental abuses. How can those of you who claim to support WikiLeaks because it discloses governmental abuses be happy with this state of affairs? This story about noise being more important than the leaks is just invention by the media to distract the attention of what's important. What do you think that would be happening, if wikileaks had censored parts of the documents because they were unimportant? How would the media react to that. Can you be certain that wikileaks is censoring it because they're just oh so concerned about not wasting journalists time with reading reading through nonsense? Or do they have a secret agenda and hide what they don't want you to know and show what fits their master scheme? Do you really think the media who is blaming them for the noise would be treating them any better if they were censoring specific parts of specific pages? Honestly? I'm 100% sure that would cause much more harm than good to their image. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
It has been battered by Web attacks, cut off by Internet service providers and is the subject of a criminal investigation in the United States, where officials say the release jeopardized national security and diplomatic efforts around the world. I find this funny. The truth is out there, so the US is pissed because now we seem like jack asses when we've been jack asses this entire time. Oh wait, they didn't realize it? Because the media was hiding it? LOL. This is a joke really? Obviously not, this country was founded on blaming others and making them pay dearly for it. People will sue you just because your dog nipped them because the dog didn't like him then you have to put the dog aslepee because just going to court would cost you hundreds of dollars. That is a true story and happened to my friend recently. | ||
|
Aegeis
United States1619 Posts
On December 08 2010 06:59 BottleAbuser wrote: Wait, what? Two days ago everyone was griping about how wikileaks isn't releasing everything. That Assange is a dickhead, that his ego's controlling him, that he's slowly letting the juicy bits drip, so that he stays on the front cover. That he was collaborating with the media on how to squeeze this so he and they get the most stories out of it. Does that mean the same thing to you as it does to me, or are you talking about a different thing altogether? By slowly releasing information it gives each story limelight instead of releasing all of them at once, that way it will hurt curropt governments the most. If anything this man is putting his life on the line but doing this for his ego is most likely wrong. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
On December 08 2010 09:18 emc wrote: [...] People will sue you just because your dog nipped them because the dog didn't like him then you have to put the dog aslepee because just going to court would cost you hundreds of dollars. That is a true story and happened to my friend recently. That's not half as bad as robbers suing people because they got hurt while robbing their house. True story. + Show Spoiler + It's really true OMG, I had to google that! Brilliant! | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
| ||
| ||
