55
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:16 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
By doing so, we gave people like you a tool to cry war crimes and international laws violations at the drop of a hat.


Actually, by the very act of committing those myriad war crimes, the USA gave any reasoned person the opportunity to point them out.

Thanks again for the further admission of US war crimes, Bill, and pointing up the fact that the US will continue to commit the same at its digression.

You seem to have a problem with honest people. I wonder why that would be.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Nope. I think that the truth deserves to be known in every single case, all the time. Always. It is a fundamental part of my philosophy. If releasing the truth is damaging to an individual, group or nation, the real problem isn't the release but the actions behind it.


You know, I believe you, Cy. Your record shows that, except for, well, you know. Therein lies the conundrum.
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:24 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Nope. I think that the truth deserves to be known in every single case, all the time. Always. It is a fundamental part of my philosophy. If releasing the truth is damaging to an individual, group or nation, the real problem isn't the release but the actions behind it.


You know, I believe you, Cy. Your record shows that, except for, well, you know. Therein lies the conundrum.


JTT, I've never been against anyone knowing the truth. I am against your attempts to turn every single conversation - every single one - into an indictment of America as a terrorist state. I agreed with you long ago that we've done and are still doing bad things, but I'm not interested in your opinion that the US is the worst country on Earth, or any of that junk.

Not only is it clearly false, it's perfectly and completely boring. You are boring. So get off your high horse on this issue; you can make all the snide comments you want, but you will never get satisfaction, at least from me, because I simply don't give a **** about what you think or say.

Feel free to respond with your usual blend of pissyness and idiocy, I assure you that neither I nor anyone here could care less.

Cycloptichorn
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I am against your attempts to turn every single conversation - every single one - into an indictment of America as a terrorist state. I agreed with you long ago that we've done and are still doing bad things, but I'm not interested in your opinion that the US is the worst country on Earth, or any of that junk.


Every country act in extra "legals" ways all the time as it is a given they will do so.

JTT just love however to used known cases of the US doing so as a means of attacking the US and it is silly.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 02:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The conundrum of which I spoke, Cy, is that you deny that the USA is a terrorist state. How you can do that when the facts are so voluminous in nature, so clear, is beyond belief.

Your attempts at distortion just in this post leave me wondering how you can suggest that "I think that the truth deserves to be known in every single case, all the time. Always".

You haven't made it clear what you think is "clearly false". In fact, you've employed a lot of the same kind of double talk that you suggest you'd like to see gone.

Quote:
but I'm not interested in your opinion that the US is the worst country on Earth, or any of that junk.


I've never expressed that opinion that you've tried to erroneously ascribe to me. Is that a sign of telling the truth, wanting the truth to be expressed, ALWAYS?

Is a phrase like "any of that other junk" a signal that the person who said it is interested in the truth? Seems odd to me.

Is it truth seeking, ALWAYS, that the truth seeker's greatest concerns is, "but you will never get satisfaction, at least from me"?

I'm done with my "pissyness".

But in the interests of honesty, not to mention truth, I think that you have to withdraw your spurious notion, to wit,

"I think that the truth deserves to be known in every single case, all the time. Always. It is a fundamental part of my philosophy. If releasing the truth is damaging to an individual, group or nation, the real problem isn't the release but the actions behind it."

It simply isn't supported by the facts.


0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 03:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I assure you that neither I nor anyone here could care less.


I hope that doesn't include me Cyclo.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 03:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well, I've seen photos of the two of you. Of course, that could be a well developed clever ruse.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 03:30 pm
@BillRM,
Bill keeps telling y'all that the USA is a terrorist nation, a country that commits war crimes but ya just won't listen to him. Smile
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 03:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

BillW wrote:

Do you really think they will go viral?


Why not?

Assange has repeatedly stated that his efforts are not to encourage governmental transparency but to disrupt and shut down government operations.

I don't doubt that he believes his efforts are targeted only at operations which work against the best interests of the governed, but then he has acknowledged that, for him, "collateral damage" to innocents is unfortunate but acceptable in the advancement of his mission. This acknowledgment was made for "collateral damage" that encompassed physical injury and death, do you think he would shrink from invasion of privacy?

It is a goal of anarchists to bring the machinary of government to a grinding halt. To convince the governed that not only can they not trust their governments, they cannot rely upon them.

Can anyone be confident that Assange won't decide that the release of massive amounts of information relative to personal health records or financials, despite the possibility for "collateral damage," is a good way to achieve his goal?

Even if we accept that his mission is foundationally legitimate, why should we trust him to decide upon the appropriate targets?

He charges governments with control and mainpulation of information to serve their interests and intentions. Isn't he guilty of the same crime?

Having obainted the hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents, he didn't simply provide the whole world with total access to his entire database. He developed and is executing a plan for periodic and select releases based on timing and subject matter and employing chosen publishing sources.

What precisely his plan is, I certainly can't say, but there is a plan and there are motives and manipulation. I don't know why we should feel more secure with him having the information to dispense as he sees fit, as opposed to our governments. Those of us who are citizens of democratic nations have had far more of a say in the appointment of governmental keepers of this information than in the selection of Julian Assange as the private keeper.


Follow Up to my post of 12/8/10 - 10:48am

Teen Arrested in the Netherlands in Hacking Attacks

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704720804576009723632691988.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Operation Payback has been launched by a group of hackers who profess to be acting in support of Assange; targeting companies and individuals they believe have spoken out or acted improperly in regards to their hero.

Whether or not one can directly link Assange to the damage caused by some hacker releasing the names and account numbers of hundreds of thousands of MasterCard customers, he certainly bears some responsibility for setting a wave of information anarchy in motion.

Hawkeye has already suggested that the internet may be the greatest victim of the WikiLeak's efforts and, as ironic as this would be, he is correct.

For years now, government's and corporations have not devoted the time and resources required by the threat of the cyber crooks, thugs and vandals that fall under the general heading of "hackers."

It would not be surprising at all to see the WikiLeaks affair result in an increase in governmental control of the internet. Assange is not opening the door to a brave new world of information freedom, he is helping to increase and improve the methods for restricting the flow of information.



JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 03:39 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Whether or not one can directly link Assange to the damage caused by some hacker releasing the names and account numbers of hundreds of thousands of MasterCard customers, he certainly bears some responsibility for setting a wave of information anarchy in motion.


"information anarchy". What will you think of next, Finn dPropagandist? And do you bear some responsibility for those who read your tripe and go and find "the names and account numbers of hundreds of thousands of MasterCard customers"?

You are a doofus extraordinaire.

Quote:

Hawkeye has already suggested that the internet may be the greatest victim of the WikiLeak's efforts and, as ironic as this would be, he is correct.

For years now, government's and corporations have not devoted the time and resources required by the threat of the cyber crooks, thugs and vandals that fall under the general heading of "hackers."

It would not be surprising at all to see the WikiLeaks affair result in an increase in governmental control of the internet. Assange is not opening the door to a brave new world of information freedom, he is helping to increase and improve the methods for restricting the flow of information.


Finn: ****, I think I broke my nose when I jumped on that bandwagon. Hey, anybody got a hankie? Now my nose is bleeding.




0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 03:52 pm
The World Powers are the Empire, and Julian Assange is Princess Leia who is transmitting the plans for the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. I guess that means Wikileaks is R2D2.
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 03:59 pm
@Eorl,
And we're all a bunch of ewoks? Cute but largely useless? Sweden is Boba Fett or Jabba the Hutt? Robinson and Pilger fight it out for the roles of Luke and Obi-Wan?

What a fun game you've invented Eorl!
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 04:07 pm
@hingehead,
Perhaps a certain Prime Minister is Lando Calrissian?
(and yes, we are indeed cute.)
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 04:09 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Bill keeps telling y'all that the USA is a terrorist nation, a country that commits war crimes but ya just won't listen to him.


As I think, the whole concept of war crimes is bullshit I do not think that I had stated the US is guilty of thems or a terrorist nation or whatever your silliness of the day is.

Israel once attacked a clearly mark US naval ship in international waters and kill US sailors in so doing.

They did this in the view that it was needed to serve their best interests during wartime and to me it was not a war crime as it the situation had been reverse I would had expected the US or any other nation state to do the same.

The sinking of the French fleet in harbor by the British during WW2 was a similar happening.

The whole concept of war crimes is silly and counter produced and should have been end stop after WW2.

JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 04:13 pm
@BillRM,
Bill, I must admit that you are every bit as sensible as Finn and OmSig. And with each passing day, FailuresArt and even Cycloptichorn are starting to sound more like you.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 04:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The releases damage nothing. The original actions are the damaging part. It's really important to keep this clear.

Not all the releases are about actions. Certainly the "warning shot" is a clear example of information that was sensitive and protected, but in now way dirty.

As you've stated, and I will agree, this is in its infancy. So for the time I'm observing skeptically. I've defined what I'd need to see for me to believe this was the right thing and a true catalyst of transparency. Feel free to help me look for signs of real civic participation.

In the mean time, I think If people have the time and passion to truly devote to transparency and open society, they should be making sure to keep net neutrality. Myself included, there is a responsibility to make sure this doesn't lead to the gov censorship. Make no mistake, powerful people want that, and Assange is a gift with a bow on top.

A
R
The identity.docx file is up for torrent now for those who were interested
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 04:36 pm
@Cyclo

Can you further expand on your idea of a "culture of secrecy?" I'd like to know if you think a state has any interest ever keeping secrets. Would you declassify...

1) Locations of facilities for the purpose of continuity of government
2) Nuclear technology

If other states requested you to keep their secrets in negotiations, would you deny them?

Can you have an open society without total world cooperation in doing the same?

Just a few examples. I'm curious how open an open society is as you in vision it.

A
R
T
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 04:40 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

And we're all a bunch of ewoks? Cute but largely useless? Sweden is Boba Fett or Jabba the Hutt? Robinson and Pilger fight it out for the roles of Luke and Obi-Wan?

What a fun game you've invented Eorl!


Would Bradley Manning be Jar Jar Binks?

(sorry, i got carried away with the star wars analogy)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 04:52 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:


As I think, the whole concept of war crimes is bullshit I do not think that I had stated the US is guilty of thems or a terrorist nation or whatever your silliness of the day is.

Israel once attacked a clearly mark US naval ship in international waters and kill US sailors in so doing.

They did this in the view that it was needed to serve their best interests during wartime and to me it was not a war crime as it the situation had been reverse I would had expected the US or any other nation state to do the same.

The sinking of the French fleet in harbor by the British during WW2 was a similar happening.

The whole concept of war crimes is silly and counter produced and should have been end stop after WW2.


This should send JTT spinning like a top, but the concept of "war crimes" is not just silly, it's obscene.

The concept of War Crimes requires there to be laws or rules of War. Laws of War are intended to enable wars

The concept of "war crimes" is also a means by which the victor gets to take revenge on the foe that he has just defeated.

Even when tin soldier armies were marching toward one another and firing away on a field outside some forest, "innocent" non-combatants were injured or killed as a result of the war.

With the advent of mechanized war the chances of "collateral damage" only increased, and today's "smart" weaponry has reduced those chances only modestly.

In fact, in today's, asymmetrical confrontations one side often incorporates in their war strategy the likelihood that engagement will result in civilian deaths as a political weapon to use against their opponent. The charge of War Crimes has become a potent weapon in the public relations front of ongoing hostilities. The Palestinians have become masters in this Art of War.

If civilian deaths are inevitable in war and civilian deaths are evidence of war crimes, then all wars, inevitably, lead to war crimes, and yet, with the exception of folks like JTT, few contend that this is the case.

Frankly, there seems to be too much evidence that war is with us to stay and even when its full horror and tragedy is made clear, we still resort to it, but sugar coating it with laws and rules can only take a slight edge off of it. The maiming and deaths of thousands of young men and women who do the actual fighting is no less horrid because there weren't associated maiming and deaths of civilians.

Maybe a fully barbaric and bloody Armageddon will cure humans of their craving for war, and maybe not, but keeping them legal and civilized sure as hell will not.

In any case plaintive cries from anguished souls about the horror of war crimes and their perpetrators might be taken more seriously if they weren't always directed at only one nation or alliance of nations and skipped all the attending ideological rants as well.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 05:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You guys, Finn and BillRM, are absolutely revisionist retards. The concept of War Crimes is 'obscene'? You guys are obscene.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 04:20:55