|
On December 09 2010 03:55 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:52 BeJe77 wrote:On December 09 2010 03:46 semantics wrote:On December 09 2010 03:35 exeexe wrote:
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
If the people with power would start to treat the normal people as fucking human beings and not as pigs then the people with power would have nothing to fear in regards of wikileaks.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA. anonymity leads to distrust which besides a few individuals is the majority of wikileaks. Not only does wikileaks pertains to illegally obtaining information they just pour it out for anyone to see not just trusted news outlets, which can lead to accusations of severally aiming to hurt countries as quite of bit of what they leaked was low end classified documents. Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. Excellent point my friend, I have yet to see any leaks on other countries. So far it's just one nation being singled out in the fire. ya not many other nation act like the US so it wouldn't happen. by act i mean "wage war on economic interests" It's not an attack its a defense for democracy. The US is attacking democracy and ethics here.
Oh so wait, the U.S. is the only baddy in the entire world? So we need to single it out?
I mean why are you worried about your country's cables being leaked? You just said not "many" other nations behave like the U.S. so nothing to hide, please do show to the rest of the world that there is nothing to hide...
|
good, fuck 'em all. especially those who buckle under pressure from govt of "land of the free"
|
This thread is beautiful.
|
On December 09 2010 03:58 Bartuc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:46 semantics wrote:On December 09 2010 03:35 exeexe wrote:
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
If the people with power would start to treat the normal people as fucking human beings and not as pigs then the people with power would have nothing to fear in regards of wikileaks.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA. anonymity leads to distrust which besides a few individuals is the majority of wikileaks. Not only does wikileaks pertains to illegally obtaining information they just pour it out for anyone to see not just trusted news outlets, which can lead to accusations of severally aiming to hurt countries as quite of bit of what they leaked was low end classified documents. Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. Well it's noteworthy that Wikileaks did not illegally pertain information, they got it from thirds. And I'd say that it's likely heavily sided to leaking US government documents because there's obviously a lot of people within the system who are not happy what is going on around them and become whistle blowers and leak documents to media and press (in this case wikileaks) in this fashion. It's actually not a matter of a lot of people being unhappy. It only takes one with access.
They also did illegal obtain classified documents by simply not having the clearance in US law it would be illegal upon acquisition as they are not cleared or read in. Not everything they take is illegal but they have committed in such acts.
On December 09 2010 03:55 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:52 BeJe77 wrote:On December 09 2010 03:46 semantics wrote:On December 09 2010 03:35 exeexe wrote:
This is so awesome. Wikileaks didnt hurt anyone. They just said what others have said. They are just repeating statements made by other people!
If the people with power would start to treat the normal people as fucking human beings and not as pigs then the people with power would have nothing to fear in regards of wikileaks.
Also please keep in mind that people who has power is so all over the place with more surveillance, but what happens when they find themselves under surveillance?
They act like little kids who just got their birthday cake ruined by a stranger while they everyday are ruining several strangers cakes but hey - when they do it then thats ok because it isnt their cake that gets destroyed.
Wikileaks never hurt anyone.
Wikileaks never lied
Wikileaks never threatens anyone
USA makes war with innocent countries like Iraq
USA lied tons of times
USA threatens those who wont fall in line by taking away their freedom and put them under surveillance.
Yet the corporate bullshit business is all about supporting terrorist USA. anonymity leads to distrust which besides a few individuals is the majority of wikileaks. Not only does wikileaks pertains to illegally obtaining information they just pour it out for anyone to see not just trusted news outlets, which can lead to accusations of severally aiming to hurt countries as quite of bit of what they leaked was low end classified documents. Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. Excellent point my friend, I have yet to see any leaks on other countries. So far it's just one nation being singled out in the fire. ya not many other nation act like the US so it wouldn't happen. by act i mean "wage war on economic interests" It's not an attack its a defense for democracy. The US is attacking democracy and ethics here. The US is not alone in their actions... They are meerly the face of most of it because the US still has citizens who support such actions. War is highly unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons but the US was not alone in the decisions.
There were many reasons for entering into Afghanistan and Iraq to simply put it up to economic interests is well wrong.
|
What people fail to understand is protests always cost the company that they protest against money. People are comparing this to bombing and other destruction, but the largest difference is nobody will get hurt by this.
MC, Visa, PayPal, exc have all done something that people consider wrong, and these companies are pretty much untouchable legally due to the support that they get from the government and their immense teams of lawyers which they spend millions of dollars on. This is like going to block the entrance of a bank, but instead of 100 people blocking the entrance of one bank there are 1800+ people blocking the entire chain.
Protests during the civil rights movement were never 100% legal. One of the prominent figures, Malcolm X (who is generally regarded as the bad guy in schools but actually was one of the main reasons for the success of the movement) as well as the woman's suffrage movement in England both used illegal protests and bordered on violent. These were much worse than what Anon is doing now yet both are regarded as good movements. I like that the internet is finally getting involved in the fight for freedom of speech.
|
On December 09 2010 03:30 BeJe77 wrote:
This is why wiki-leaks supporters are hated. Instead of actually going for a government website, they went for a public company that actually hurts lot of people/customers. IT is in MC's legal RIGHT to REFUSE service TO ANYONE they deem to WANT. There is nothing ILLEGAL about them refusing service. ANY business has the RIGHT to refuse YOU SERVICE, it's not ILLEGAL despite what you think.
As for people justifying the DDOS attacks as not doing any harm, they ARE doing harm. They are blocking a SERVICE that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands use EVERY day to perform transactions. If you block people from doing transactions, it means company loses money. Same way if they were to DDOS Amazon, the company would be losing money as it's business is a ONLINE service.
The only thing this attack has managed to do is give less support to wiki-leaks and more hate to wiki-leaks supporters. Congratulations gentlemen/ladies you just did more harm to your cause than you can ever do as good.
Why do people pretend they are international lawyers when the only thing they know about law is the 2-3 american movies they watched.
''This is why wiki-leaks supporters are hated. Instead of actually going for a government website, they went for a public company that actually hurts lot of people/customers. IT is in MC's legal RIGHT to REFUSE service TO ANYONE they deem to WANT. There is nothing ILLEGAL about them refusing service. ANY business has the RIGHT to refuse YOU SERVICE, it's not ILLEGAL despite what you think.''
This is utterly wrong, and the use of caps lock just make you look even more clueless then you are.
On December 09 2010 03:43 BeJe77 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:33 FindingPride wrote:On December 09 2010 03:30 BeJe77 wrote:
This is why wiki-leaks supporters are hated. Instead of actually going for a government website, they went for a public company that actually hurts lot of people/customers. IT is in MC's legal RIGHT to REFUSE service TO ANYONE they deem to WANT. There is nothing ILLEGAL about them refusing service. ANY business has the RIGHT to refuse YOU SERVICE, it's not ILLEGAL despite what you think.
As for people justifying the DDOS attacks as not doing any harm, they ARE doing harm. They are blocking a SERVICE that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands use EVERY day to perform transactions. If you block people from doing transactions, it means company loses money. Same way if they were to DDOS Amazon, the company would be losing money as it's business is a ONLINE service.
The only thing this attack has managed to do is give less support to wiki-leaks and more hate to wiki-leaks supporters. Congratulations gentlemen/ladies you just did more harm to your cause than you can ever do as good. I already said they have done something. Why must i repeat my self. Its not about whats in the law its about whats happening. Is it illegal for the government to kill thousands of civilians in iraq and afghanistan? apparently not. So nothing to see there. The isuse is they are caving in to political pressure..................... Hello there MR. Righteous, What about 9/11, Spain, U.K. and many other countries that have been terrorist bombed by groups who could give a SHIT about innocent civilians? It's a war, in a war bombing military targets produces civilian casualties, especially when militant groups hide in residential locations. THIS is nothing NEW, it's part of a war. The military can't do anything about it, not any nations. There is a difference between "war" casualties caused to civilians and those few that are done by a humans excuse for a soldier who does it on purpose to kill innocent civilians..... Where is also all this proof that these companies are caving in to the pressure by the government? Like JWD has pointed out it could be BECAUSE of the damage wiki-leaks is doing, companies figured it might actually do A LOT OF HARM to their business. Same way for instance companies dropped TIGER WOODS once they found out he was cheating on his wife, or when Michael Phelps smoked weed and companies dropped him. THEY did it because it can harm their business reputation if they support people like them. I have no idea why you bring up the WAR when this discussion is about DDOS attack on a public company which is causing it to lose business because IT was within their right to refuse service.
Oh god stop, please stop, you are either in the Bush family or something is really wrong with you. What kind of argumentation is that. Saying that killing is justified because your president said ''were at war'' but that hacking a website is extremely wrong because your president said ''its wrong'' makes you really look like a person who weighs his thought a lot.
|
Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency.
I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they leaked that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they leaked that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they leaked that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they leaked that too.
And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown.
gg u.s. hegemony.
|
On December 09 2010 03:48 Krigwin wrote:
Let's make a deal: you don't accuse Wikileaks supporters of supporting "vandalism" or "terrorism" or whatever, and I won't accuse defenders of MasterCard's actions of supporting corporatism and fascism.
I dont understand why i should accept this deal? I wanna say what i wanna say and i would not gain anything from this deal. I dont know where you come from but i come from a place that fought stubborned for the right of freedom of speech.
So no to your offer.
|
On December 09 2010 04:04 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that. And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown. gg u.s. hegemony.
Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. And their submissions of data is taken by their word as unless they sellout another person you don't know by which means they obtained the data, as far as governments are concerned when classified material is taken it's always done illegally. It also doesn't help that Assange open said his goal is to hurt the US.
|
On December 09 2010 04:09 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:04 Half wrote:Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that. And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown. gg u.s. hegemony. Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. And their submissions of data is taken by their word as unless they sellout another person you don't know by which means they obtained the data, as far as governments are concerned when classified material is taken it's always done illegally. It also doesn't help that Assange open said his goal is to hurt the US.
They gave out raw data in the previous cases too.
Fine I redact to "leaked".
Did that post have a point somewhere in there?
|
On December 09 2010 04:00 semantics wrote:
e US is not alone in their actions... They are meerly the face of most of it because the US still has citizens who support such actions. War is highly unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons but the US was not alone in the decisions.
There were many reasons for entering into Afghanistan and Iraq to simply put it up to economic interests is well wrong.
There were many reasons for entering Iraq, and by that you mean there was a lot of oil right ?
Just listening to your speech I have the impression to be watching a US politician on TV.
''Lets invade Iraq for the good of our people and clear out the WMD''
''Wikileaks has obtained the information illegaly, lets bring them to justice'' (its actually a us military that obtained it illegaly, wikileaks just published it)
''All the leaks are aimed at the US, its a plot to bring us down''
(Or maybe the US is the country that does by far the highest amount of illegal actions on the international level (but yeah, i guess i shouldnt call these actions illegal, because the US said they were justified... oh wait))
On December 09 2010 04:09 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:04 Half wrote:Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that. And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown. gg u.s. hegemony. Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. And their submissions of data is taken by their word as unless they sellout another person you don't know by which means they obtained the data, as far as governments are concerned when classified material is taken it's always done illegally. It also doesn't help that Assange open said his goal is to hurt the US.
Perfect example of American politician speech
''WIKILEAKS ILLEGALLY STOLE THE DOCUMENTS''
''You don't know by which means they obtained the data''
In order to counter the argument that someone stole the data for wikileaks, you replied there is no way to know for sure, but a couple of posts before you accused wikileaks of doing so illegally, gotta plug yourself on something.
|
On December 09 2010 04:10 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:09 semantics wrote:On December 09 2010 04:04 Half wrote:Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that. And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown. gg u.s. hegemony. Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. They gave out raw data in the previous cases too. Fine I redact to "leaked". I don't get your point.
The point is that journalism is about reporting on the data not handing out the data to everyone in a raw format. Esp when it was classified documents, it doesn't matter how little they matted to national security to just put them out there in a raw format is closer to espionage then to journalism. As you are not allowing a small group see the data. You allowing anyone and with that information if they are looking for a means to cause harm they now have been given a tool to do so. It's to me like leaving a loaded gun out on the street for anyone to use how they will, sure 98% of the people will just gander though it but it's the 2% that goes around shooting people. Journalism is leaving that gun open to the public in a locked clear case. So the public knows what it is and why it's where but cannot use it to their own means in such extreme matters.
I'm always poor with metaphors lol so ionno how this is going to go over.
On December 09 2010 04:15 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:00 semantics wrote:
e US is not alone in their actions... They are meerly the face of most of it because the US still has citizens who support such actions. War is highly unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons but the US was not alone in the decisions.
There were many reasons for entering into Afghanistan and Iraq to simply put it up to economic interests is well wrong.
There were many reasons for entering Iraq, and by that you mean there was a lot of oil right ? Just listening to your speech I have the impression to be watching a US politician on TV. ''Lets invade Iraq for the good of our people and clear out the WMD'' ''Wikileaks has obtained the information illegaly, lets bring them to justice'' (its actually a us military that obtained it illegaly, wikileaks just published it) ''All the leaks are aimed at the US, its a plot to bring us down'' (Or maybe the US is the country that does by far the highest amount of illegal actions on the international level (but yeah, i guess i shouldnt call these actions illegal, because the US said they were justified... oh wait))
Actually the person who gave the data away committed one crime, and wikileaks committed a different one by accepting it. People like to simplify things so it seems like they have the key to everything. I never said anything about WMD you just put words into my mouth. I never said i wanted wikileaks shut down you see me not in support of wikileaks actions and you brand me a color that you do not like. I simply do not like how wikileaks allows raw data to been seen by anyone i much rather have them be a distributor to trusted groups.
|
On December 09 2010 04:16 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:10 Half wrote:On December 09 2010 04:09 semantics wrote:On December 09 2010 04:04 Half wrote:Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that. And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown. gg u.s. hegemony. Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. They gave out raw data in the previous cases too. Fine I redact to "leaked". I don't get your point. The point is that journalism is about reporting on the data not handing out the data to everyone in a raw format. Esp when it was classified documents, it doesn't matter how little they matted to national security to just put them out there in a raw format is closer to espionage then to journalism. As you are not allowing a small group see the data. You allowing anyone and with that information if they are looking for a means to cause harm they now have been given a tool to do so. It's to me like leaving a loaded gun out on the street for anyone to use how they will, sure 98% of the people will just gander though it but it's the 2% that goes around shooting people. Journalism is leaving that gun open to the public in a locked clear case. So the public knows what it is and why it's where but cannot use it to their own means in such extreme matters. I'm always poor with metaphors lol so ionno how this is going to go over.
But doing just the same has won them awards every single time it didn't have to do with the U.S.
|
Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently.
|
On December 09 2010 04:16 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:10 Half wrote:On December 09 2010 04:09 semantics wrote:On December 09 2010 04:04 Half wrote:Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that. And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown. gg u.s. hegemony. Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. They gave out raw data in the previous cases too. Fine I redact to "leaked". I don't get your point. The point is that journalism is about reporting on the data not handing out the data to everyone in a raw format. Esp when it was classified documents, it doesn't matter how little they matted to national security to just put them out there in a raw format is closer to espionage then to journalism. As you are not allowing a small group see the data. You allowing anyone and with that information if they are looking for a means to cause harm they now have been given a tool to do so. It's to me like leaving a loaded gun out on the street for anyone to use how they will, sure 98% of the people will just gander though it but it's the 2% that goes around shooting people. Journalism is leaving that gun open to the public in a locked clear case. So the public knows what it is and why it's where but cannot use it to their own means in such extreme matters. I'm always poor with metaphors lol so ionno how this is going to go over.
Or, countries could be transparent, which would eliminate any risk of harm to other people.
Why should information be hidden because it can cause harm, shouldnt this kind of actions just not be done in the first place ?On December 09 2010 04:16 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:10 Half wrote:On December 09 2010 04:09 semantics wrote:On December 09 2010 04:04 Half wrote:Not only that but wikileaks is heavily sided to leaking US government documents which makes it closer to an attack rather then a policy of transparency. I'm not sure you understand that wikileaks is not a hacker website, they leak what they receive via submissions. So when they got leaks about the Russians involvement in child trafficking, they reported that. So when they got leaks about a european bank illegally withdrawing funds, they reported that. Sow when they got leaks about an African nations war crimes, they reported that, and got an amnesty international award. So when they got leaks about the U.S., the U.S. trafficking child prostitutes in Afghanistan, of illegal activity by a U.S. bank, they reported that. And got an arrest warrant and a government takedown. gg u.s. hegemony. Except they just aren't reporting, again there is a line between giving out raw data and reporting on something. They gave out raw data in the previous cases too. Fine I redact to "leaked". I don't get your point. The point is that journalism is about reporting on the data not handing out the data to everyone in a raw format. Esp when it was classified documents, it doesn't matter how little they matted to national security to just put them out there in a raw format is closer to espionage then to journalism. As you are not allowing a small group see the data. You allowing anyone and with that information if they are looking for a means to cause harm they now have been given a tool to do so. It's to me like leaving a loaded gun out on the street for anyone to use how they will, sure 98% of the people will just gander though it but it's the 2% that goes around shooting people. Journalism is leaving that gun open to the public in a locked clear case. So the public knows what it is and why it's where but cannot use it to their own means in such extreme matters. I'm always poor with metaphors lol so ionno how this is going to go over. Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:15 TurpinOS wrote:On December 09 2010 04:00 semantics wrote:
e US is not alone in their actions... They are meerly the face of most of it because the US still has citizens who support such actions. War is highly unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons but the US was not alone in the decisions.
There were many reasons for entering into Afghanistan and Iraq to simply put it up to economic interests is well wrong.
There were many reasons for entering Iraq, and by that you mean there was a lot of oil right ? Just listening to your speech I have the impression to be watching a US politician on TV. ''Lets invade Iraq for the good of our people and clear out the WMD'' ''Wikileaks has obtained the information illegaly, lets bring them to justice'' (its actually a us military that obtained it illegaly, wikileaks just published it) ''All the leaks are aimed at the US, its a plot to bring us down'' (Or maybe the US is the country that does by far the highest amount of illegal actions on the international level (but yeah, i guess i shouldnt call these actions illegal, because the US said they were justified... oh wait)) Actually the person who gave the data away committed one crime, and wikileaks committed a different one by accepting it. People like to simplify things so it seems like they have the key to everything. I never said anything about WMD you just put words into my mouth. I never said i wanted wikileaks shut down you see me not in support of wikileaks actions and you brand me a color that you do not like.
They committed a crime by accepting confidential information ? Under which legal system I would like to ask. ( I would also gladly hear the relationship between said legal system and Wikileaks (oh and btw, the US laws do not apply to the world))
You never said anything about WMD, I said that it was the justification to the war in Iraq (which you backed up).
I also never said that you said you wanted wikileaks shut down, my point wasnt even based around that.
|
On December 08 2010 23:29 funkie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On December 08 2010 22:54 Pika Chu wrote:
Stepping over a line why?
Yeah it's bad that random internet users will have to "suffer" (wtf suffer, it's not that bad if you can't buy something off amazon) but knowing that Amazon fell into political pressures into breaking over the freedom of speech, they deserve this. They deserve not being able to make money (any downtime for amazon is a big lose of money for them). just fyi, you're posting this on a website that routinely bans people for their speech. You think it's okay for those banned users to hack TL for payback because TL censored their free speech? Let's get something clear here. When someone gets banned, it's not because of their "free speech" if because of their language, their misbehavior and they "abuse" of free speech. Get it, pumpkin? Well, if you can be banned for abuse of free speech then you never really had free speech to begin with. Preempting any "fire in a crowded room" arguments, shouting fire in a crowded room is not an abuse of free speech; "free speech" protects the freedom to express ones opinions, not the freedom to incite panic in a crowd under false pretense of mortal danger.
Not that there's anything wrong with being banned for what you say here; this is a private website with terms of use and people are free to voice their opinions elsewhere. Expecting freedom of speech here is like being told you can draw on someone's house under the condition that the drawing is not offensive to the home owner, and then expecting the right to draw whatever you want on it.
|
On December 09 2010 04:18 Slaughter wrote:
Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently.
Why is he an asshole again?
|
|
|
Sorry to post such a short reply here, but:
Gogo home of the brave and land of the free. I really, really hope that MC and VISA blocked WikiLeaks without pressure from the US government, because that would mean they are not afraid of using extremely underhand strikes when someone crosses them.
jk, I personally think WikiLeaks is a brilliant site, giving us the highest degree of transparency in media in a long time. I don't, however, agree on attacking websites just because they don't support a certain case. This is about as childish as when anon found out how to use scripts on YouTube and abused it on Justin Bieber videos until the loophole was closed.
|
On December 09 2010 04:20 ZeroCartin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 04:18 Slaughter wrote:
Assange is an asshole and so are his followers apparently. Why is he an asshole again?
Have you ever seen the guy speak? Hes not some Jesus figure doing this because its good like everyone likes to spew. He does this because it fucking gets him off. Hes just a jackass looking to get off on causing chaos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
