Wikileaks Vs The World

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:

Bohemian Waltz:

Damn your nations reputation and diplomatic credibility, you forfeit that when you make the mistake of killing innocent people accident or not. If innocents died then people have the right to know who was involved in the fuck up that got em killed at the very least if not an apology for you know for the murder and what not.

You don't get a free pass to accidentally kill civilians in foreign countries and not have to come to terms with on some level because of your war on terror.

Show me a nation that hasn't killed an innocent civilian in a war. Also it is not murder soldiers of the United States or any free world nation for that matter don't go in with the intention of killing civilians.

It'd be nice if they told us when they killed civilians though, so, you know, we could make informed decisions about wars ourselves.

Instead we have to rely on Wikileaks to do the job for us. You know the Pentagon Papers? Yeah, pretty sure they're still officially classified.

If the government's not going to be honest with its citizens, how can we trust them?

The civilian population ( which includes me) can and will never be able to make an informed decision on a war. To do that we would need to know much more than how many civilians were killed. We would need to know everything that is going on and that is not feasible.

spectrenihlus:

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:
Show me a nation that hasn't killed an innocent civilian in a war. Also it is not murder soldiers of the United States or any free world nation for that matter don't go in with the intention of killing civilians.

It'd be nice if they told us when they killed civilians though, so, you know, we could make informed decisions about wars ourselves.

Instead we have to rely on Wikileaks to do the job for us. You know the Pentagon Papers? Yeah, pretty sure they're still officially classified.

If the government's not going to be honest with its citizens, how can we trust them?

The civilian population ( which includes me) can and will never be able to make an informed decision on a war. To do that we would need to know much more than how many civilians were killed. We would need to know everything that is going on and that is not feasible.

So we shouldn't bother trying to inform them, accept that everything's being kept secret 'for our own good' and let the government have free reign to do whatever it likes halfway round the globe?

Fuck that noise. Even if I'll never be 100% informed, 50% is better than 0%.

spectrenihlus:

Bohemian Waltz:

spectrenihlus:
Innocent civilians are always killed there is no way around it, it simply is a reality of war. It sucks true but in those strikes we are getting al qaeda who kill more civilians than any one else.

Damn your nations reputation and diplomatic credibility, you forfeit that when you make the mistake of killing innocent people accident or not. If innocents died then people have the right to know who was involved in the fuck up that got em killed at the very least if not an apology for you know for the murder and what not.

You don't get a free pass to accidentally kill civilians in foreign countries and not have to come to terms with on some level because of your war on terror.

Show me a nation that hasn't killed an innocent civilian in a war. Also it is not murder soldiers of the United States or any free world nation for that matter don't go in with the intention of killing civilians.

If everybody is killing civilians I guess that makes it alright.

That settles that and I'm now strangely comfortable with the wholesale slaughter of civilians as collateral damage simply as long as the government covers it up well enough and makes sure that they or anyone else is never really held accountable for it.

I bow to your exceptional skills of debate, good sir.

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:

Amnestic:

It'd be nice if they told us when they killed civilians though, so, you know, we could make informed decisions about wars ourselves.

Instead we have to rely on Wikileaks to do the job for us. You know the Pentagon Papers? Yeah, pretty sure they're still officially classified.

If the government's not going to be honest with its citizens, how can we trust them?

The civilian population ( which includes me) can and will never be able to make an informed decision on a war. To do that we would need to know much more than how many civilians were killed. We would need to know everything that is going on and that is not feasible.

So we shouldn't bother trying to inform them, accept that everything's being kept secret 'for our own good' and let the government have free reign to do whatever it likes halfway round the globe?

Fuck that noise. Even if I'll never be 100% informed, 50% is better than 0%.

And that 50% that you are not getting could be the whole reason we are in that region fighting that war but if we were told why then it becomes moot.

spectrenihlus:

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:
The civilian population ( which includes me) can and will never be able to make an informed decision on a war. To do that we would need to know much more than how many civilians were killed. We would need to know everything that is going on and that is not feasible.

So we shouldn't bother trying to inform them, accept that everything's being kept secret 'for our own good' and let the government have free reign to do whatever it likes halfway round the globe?

Fuck that noise. Even if I'll never be 100% informed, 50% is better than 0%.

And that 50% that you are not getting could be the whole reason we are in that region fighting that war but if we were told why then it becomes moot.

The idea that anyone would be okay with their government going to war and covering up the reason why is deplorable.

How're we meant to decide if we should vote them out when their term is up if we're not informed?

Bohemian Waltz:

spectrenihlus:

Bohemian Waltz:

Damn your nations reputation and diplomatic credibility, you forfeit that when you make the mistake of killing innocent people accident or not. If innocents died then people have the right to know who was involved in the fuck up that got em killed at the very least if not an apology for you know for the murder and what not.

You don't get a free pass to accidentally kill civilians in foreign countries and not have to come to terms with on some level because of your war on terror.

Show me a nation that hasn't killed an innocent civilian in a war. Also it is not murder soldiers of the United States or any free world nation for that matter don't go in with the intention of killing civilians.

If everybody is killing civilians I guess that makes it alright.

That settles that and I'm now strangely comfortable with the wholesale slaughter of civilians as collateral damage simply as long as the government covers it up well enough and makes sure that they or anyone else is never really held accountable for it.

I bow to your exceptional skills of debate, good sir.

The terrorists are doing the slaughtering of civilians not the coalition forces. It sucks that anyone is killed but there is no going about it any other way. The best we can do is minimize the amount of collateral damage done and I trust that our military is doing that.

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:

Amnestic:

So we shouldn't bother trying to inform them, accept that everything's being kept secret 'for our own good' and let the government have free reign to do whatever it likes halfway round the globe?

Fuck that noise. Even if I'll never be 100% informed, 50% is better than 0%.

And that 50% that you are not getting could be the whole reason we are in that region fighting that war but if we were told why then it becomes moot.

The idea that anyone would be okay with their government going to war and covering up the reason why is deplorable.

How're we meant to decide if we should vote them out when their term is up if we're not informed?

Listen I agree with you on getting more informed, howver I do not agree with how Wikileaks is doing it. It goes too far with what it releases and needs to be stopped. Although I would not stop them by trying to get rid of Julian Assange, that will not stop future leaks and besides if Assange is gone someone else will just replace him. You have to stop this at the source.

spectrenihlus:
howver I do not agree with how Wikileaks is doing it.

spectrenihlus:
Wikileaks imo can do whatever they want.

You stand by these two statements?

spectrenihlus:
It goes too far with what it releases and needs to be stopped.

Were you objecting just the same when they earned the Amnesty International UK Media Award in 2009 for their piece on Kenyan police killings? Or is it just the recent stuff which affects your country?

spectrenihlus:
You have to stop this at the source.

You're not going to make that happen. Ever. Not without doing something crazy like destroying the internet or establishing a North Korean-esque regime in your country.

They're on the internet and they are very well known now. People are gonna pick up where Wikileaks left off if they ever do disappear.

spectrenihlus:

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:
The civilian population ( which includes me) can and will never be able to make an informed decision on a war. To do that we would need to know much more than how many civilians were killed. We would need to know everything that is going on and that is not feasible.

So we shouldn't bother trying to inform them, accept that everything's being kept secret 'for our own good' and let the government have free reign to do whatever it likes halfway round the globe?

Fuck that noise. Even if I'll never be 100% informed, 50% is better than 0%.

And that 50% that you are not getting could be the whole reason we are in that region fighting that war but if we were told why then it becomes moot.

The disinfectant effect of transparency outweighs the hypothetical and situational concerns that you raise. Democratic choice depends on knowledge. Without that, what are we even voting about?

spectrenihlus:
Doing it this way would make sure nothing gets done ever. Sometimes a leader has to make an executive decision and do it and if it turned out to be the wrong decision than we the people have the power to not have him in for another term.

Do you think that way about finance, that the government should take executive decisions about tax rates and spending and only inform us afterwards? What about immigration, drugs policy, changes to abortion legality? Should we the public all just sit there in an informational void about everything until the rules change and we're seeing the effects, just so it doesn't cramp the style of the government sorting stuff out?

There's no need to utterly understand all of war. No-one does, even the government, just like no-one fully understands economics. If the executive wants to go to war against public popular opposition, they still can. But sure as hell they can not dress the whole thing up in sugar coating, crepe paper and fairy lights as if we're too pathetic to comprehend bad things are going to happen.

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:
howver I do not agree with how Wikileaks is doing it.

spectrenihlus:
Wikileaks imo can do whatever they want.

You stand by these two statements?

spectrenihlus:
It goes too far with what it releases and needs to be stopped.

Were you objecting just the same when they earned the Amnesty International UK Media Award in 2009 for their piece on Kenyan police killings? Or is it just the recent stuff which affects your country?

spectrenihlus:
You have to stop this at the source.

You're not going to make that happen. Ever. Not without doing something crazy like destroying the internet or establishing a North Korean-esque regime in your country.

They're on the internet and they are very well known now. People are gonna pick up where Wikileaks left off if they ever do disappear.

They can do whatever they want because they only work with what they are given. The source I am talking about is not the internet but people like Pvt Manning.

Agema:

spectrenihlus:
Doing it this way would make sure nothing gets done ever. Sometimes a leader has to make an executive decision and do it and if it turned out to be the wrong decision than we the people have the power to not have him in for another term.

Do you think that way about finance, that the government should take executive decisions about tax rates and spending and only inform us afterwards? What about immigration, drugs policy, changes to abortion legality? Should we the public all just sit there in an informational void about everything until the rules change and we're seeing the effects, just so it doesn't cramp the style of the government sorting stuff out?

There's no need to utterly understand all of war. No-one does, even the government, just like no-one fully understands economics. If the executive wants to go to war against public popular opposition, they still can. But sure as hell they can not dress the whole thing up in sugar coating, crepe paper and fairy lights as if we're too pathetic to comprehend bad things are going to happen.

No only in matters of war do I think the government has this right. Because unlike those things that you listed war doesn't directly affect me. Matters of finance, tax rates and the like affect their voters directly and thus should know everything.

spectrenihlus:
They can do whatever they want because they only work with what they are given. The source I am talking about is not the internet but people like Pvt Manning.

Well you're even less likely to stop people leaking stuff, especially if this shit's important.

They're not just leaking stuff for shits and giggles. I'm pretty sure Manning understood what would happen if he got caught and did so anyway.

spectrenihlus:
war doesn't directly affect me.

Yes it does, and you're foolish for thinking otherwise.

Edit: Also, you're a guy. Abortion doesn't directly affect you either by your logic. Are you fine with them switching up the laws on that without telling you?

spectrenihlus:
No only in matters of war do I think the government has this right. Because unlike those things that you listed war doesn't directly affect me.

So you admit that all that nonsense about american soldiers fighting for the liberties of the people back home is bullshit?

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:
They can do whatever they want because they only work with what they are given. The source I am talking about is not the internet but people like Pvt Manning.

Well you're even less likely to stop people leaking stuff, especially if this shit's important.

They're not just leaking stuff for shits and giggles. I'm pretty sure Manning understood what would happen if he got caught and did so anyway.

spectrenihlus:
war doesn't directly affect me.

Yes it does, and you're foolish for thinking otherwise.

Edit: Also, you're a guy. Abortion doesn't directly affect you either by your logic. Are you fine with them switching up the laws on that without telling you?

You mean that he might get tried for treason and executed. Maybe but it sure is going to make others think about what they are doing. And yes abortion does affect me, if I get my girlfriend or wife pregnant and she goes ahead and gets an abortion without telling me then that would affect me.

Elcarsh:

spectrenihlus:
No only in matters of war do I think the government has this right. Because unlike those things that you listed war doesn't directly affect me.

So you admit that all that nonsense about american soldiers fighting for the liberties of the people back home is bullshit?

Yup that is total bullshit my guess is we are in afghanistan to make sure pakistan doesn't fall and terrorists get nuclear weapons. That would not be a good thing.

spectrenihlus:
Because unlike those things that you listed war doesn't directly affect me.

Huh? What about the billions of dollars spent on wars? Those come from you and other taxpayers.
And what about your fellow citizens who actually go to war or have friends and family who go to war to be mangled or killed? Of course it's a matter that the public should be allowed insight in.

spectrenihlus:

Amnestic:

spectrenihlus:
They can do whatever they want because they only work with what they are given. The source I am talking about is not the internet but people like Pvt Manning.

Well you're even less likely to stop people leaking stuff, especially if this shit's important.

They're not just leaking stuff for shits and giggles. I'm pretty sure Manning understood what would happen if he got caught and did so anyway.

spectrenihlus:
war doesn't directly affect me.

Yes it does, and you're foolish for thinking otherwise.

Edit: Also, you're a guy. Abortion doesn't directly affect you either by your logic. Are you fine with them switching up the laws on that without telling you?

You mean that he might get tried for treason and executed. Maybe but it sure is going to make others think about what they are doing. And yes abortion does affect me, if I get my girlfriend or wife pregnant and she goes ahead and gets an abortion without telling me then that would affect me.

The wives and husbands of military personnel, and military personnel themselves, are often citizens who can vote. Should they not be able to know everything of relevance to a war situation, that they may have information to vote on things which do, by your own stated standards, affect them?


I liked how they put a soma ad in there as a metaphor for inane feel-good distractions form important things. "Why see shades of grey, why be a loner? Try another soma. Life's good, shut up. (now with extra aspartame)"

There was a thread about this in the off-topic discussion forum in which I already stated my opinion. I believe wikileaks is a force for good in the world.

spectrenihlus:
No only in matters of war do I think the government has this right. Because unlike those things that you listed war doesn't directly affect me. Matters of finance, tax rates and the like affect their voters directly and thus should know everything.

It does affect all voters. Their taxes pay for the war, for a start. Never mind the rights of servicemen, their families, friends who at risk of death and bereavement; increased risk for all if some religious loonies fancy blowing up trains, planes and town centres in revenge, and so on.

Wikileaks obtains its information illegally. These documents are classified for a reason. What they are doing is wrong.

Well so far it's been debatable if they're only revealing dirty government secrets or if they really don't care that they're actually undermining the U.S.

This new article confirms the latter.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T1

So they just basically published a list to the world of "Foreign resources America would really appreciate if no terrorists attacked." Just arrest him already.

Awexsome:
Well so far it's been debatable if they're only revealing dirty government secrets or if they really don't care that they're actually undermining the U.S.

This new article confirms the latter.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T1

So they just basically published a list to the world of "Foreign resources America would really appreciate if no terrorists attacked." Just arrest him already.

Wait a minute, why were they compiling a list of things that they don't want to compile lists of?

Am I the only one who finds that iffy?

Awexsome:
Well so far it's been debatable if they're only revealing dirty government secrets or if they really don't care that they're actually undermining the U.S.

This new article confirms the latter.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T1

So they just basically published a list to the world of "Foreign resources America would really appreciate if no terrorists attacked." Just arrest him already.

So which people said theres "NO HARM" that could come from these leaks?

This is worth pointing out.

Showing civilian deaths in war documents isn't surprising. This happens in war.

This is why we shouldn't support worthless wars of greed.

I wholly disagree with WikiLeaks attempting to show the American government for the egotistical, lunch money stealing, cat-murdering schoolyard bullies they really are. [/sarcasm]

Yeah, I know they leak other stuff, but they've only recently become notorious for showing stuff the American government wants to keep hidden so it can keep on doing what it wants without fear of internal retirbution. America didn't get as powerful as it is without carefully selecting exactly what its populations sees. Think The Patriots, only minus an insane Englishman and five AIs.

I hope the American people can finally get a good whiff of what they're supporting (though the die-hard jingoists will still claim its God's will or some shit) so that maybe they'll have a power shake up instead of a barely differing two-party system.

Personally I'm waiting til they leak Area 51 info :P

Oh and inb4 tinfoil hat, ye can fuck off xD

Surely a little more truth in the world can only be a good thing, at a fundamental level, that is...

If Assange is arrested, I am sooooo protesting. I bet every student worth his/her salt will join me. Thats what students are for -- going out into the street and complaining about things.

This whole wikileaks thing has taught me something interesting -- how expertly the propaganda in American news stations is done -- its so subtle how they bend a viewers mind to their way of thinking.

PS, saying Assange has blood on his hands is just a kop out way of justifying hiding everything it is possible to hide from the public.

Awexsome:
Well so far it's been debatable if they're only revealing dirty government secrets or if they really don't care that they're actually undermining the U.S.

This new article confirms the latter.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T1

So they just basically published a list to the world of "Foreign resources America would really appreciate if no terrorists attacked."

"CNN is not publishing specific details from the list, which refers to pipelines and undersea telecommunications cables"

God.. I hope Namor and the Atlanteans don't find out about this list.

Awexsome:
Just arrest him already.

Right. So.. lack of a charge or any jurisdiction isn't important in that?

Skeleon:
Well, journalism used to uncover awful truths about politics all the time. They mostly stopped.
WikiLeaks sort of fills that gap in a less organized yet more effective manner. I'm on WikiLeaks' side on this, the public has a right to know what their governments do, especially when it comes at a delay like this. There's no indication that any of this stuff endangers running operations, which is the only situation where I could find such secrecy understandable and acceptable. That's not what this is about, though, these people just don't like their dirty laundry displayed in public.

Even if said knowledge cost lives (yet, the bastard is saving the big stuff), US jobs, or the ability to negotiate for fair trade treaties?

bl4ckh4wk64:
Looking back on History, we see a prime example of this type of thing happening in WWII. The Chicago Tribune published America's battleplan for the Pacific, which was centered around our battleships with carrier support. The Japanese got their hands on this, so they knew most of America's plans before they even thought of Pearl Harbor. It was only last minute contingency plans of relying on our carriers after our battleships got destroyed that saved the American fleet overwhelming defeat.
How can this be applied to the topic? Wikileaks is publishing sensitive material, much like the Tribune did. They might continue publishing sensitive material until they accidentally publish something current and extremely secrete, like where America's nuclear silos are. The enemies of America can now get their hands on sensitive materials and use this knowledge against the free world.
I don't fear wikileaks for what they've done, I fear them for what they might unknowingly do. However, at the moment I'm not for or against their cause, I'm just wary of what might happen. In fact, I had myself quite a laugh when I read that the Saudi princes are telling America to bomb Iran and in doing so, siding with Israel, their enemy.

Well the first two posts after OP have summed everything up nicely I am going to supper. Thank you, you took the words out of my mouth.

Gilhelmi:
Well the first two posts after OP have summed everything up nicely I am going to supper. Thank you, you took the words out of my mouth.

Supper, it's in the middle of the night!

Elcarsh:

Gilhelmi:
Well the first two posts after OP have summed everything up nicely I am going to supper. Thank you, you took the words out of my mouth.

Supper, it's in the middle of the night!

It is 6PM CST (central standard time), we are -6 hours to GMT so it is midnight in London.

I fully support wikileaks. The citizens who fund the government should have the right to know what the government is doing. I want the people to have access to literally everything.

I know that there are a lot of things that could result in chaos. Maybe we made a secret deal with "country X" that would really piss off "country Z" if they found out, and if our people have access to the info, country Z will have access to it as well. My response? They shouldn't have made the deal in the first place.

Hell, if our government even tries to assassinate a foreign leader, we have the right to know. Erase the name of the shooter, but tell us. If you have troops stationed somewhere, tell us as soon as possible (no more than a week after they move). Complete government transparency is something that is vital for a well-informed populace, which is vital for a democracy.

Joshing:

So which people said theres "NO HARM" that could come from these leaks?

I had a huge post written about how you're grossly overestimating terrorist attacks in the United States with your statement and illustrations, but I'm going to cut my rant off and simply write:

Did you know you are eight times more likely to be killed by your own police force than a terrorist?

Awexsome:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T1

So they just basically published a list to the world of "Foreign resources America would really appreciate if no terrorists attacked." Just arrest him already.

Ooh, the Suez Canal. He Ahmed! Did you know the Suez Canal was important? Let's go blow it up! Great idea and thank you, Mr. Assange.

Rrrrright.

we have the right to know the are governments are slowly fucking us over

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked