What about Morgan Tsvangirai?

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, Feb 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Anonymous Member

    How about googling it yourself you useless fucking faggot. Multiple websites from The Guardian to have covered these cables, so stop pretending this is secret information because you were too lazy to follow this shit.
    Question is based on the premise of not attributing blame to the Guardian where it belongs.

    But let me tackle that question in another way. If 100 people died as a result of Wikileaks then it may still have been worth it – such is the depravity of the US machine that Wikileaks has uncovered. The cable that uncovered Israeli plans to keep Gaza on the brink of economic collapse alone is worth so much.
  2. Anonymous Member

    I'm not sure he was, but regardless, the face value of what he says is still valid. There are many people in this world who have sympathy for people that I (and others) consider detestable. So, this could be a case of you say innocent, I say terrorist.
  3. Anonymous Member

  4. Anonymous Member

    I know it was hypothetical, but we're talking about the future not the past. Of course you can't imagine that about the past. I just think that when you suddenly obtain 300,000 secret documents, you should consider all the potential pros and cons of releasing them.
  5. Anonymous Member

    "Since his release, al Masri had stated that he was suffering from the effects of his abduction. In May 2007, al Masri set a supermarket on fire following a trivial argument with a sales assistant. He was admitted to a psychiatric hospital."

    Yeah for the US!
  6. Anonymous Member

    You wrongly assume that information is only of public interest and should only be released if there is an "abuse" that can be exposed by it, but that's not always the case.
    The true value of the information often cannot be estimated in before, because every such estimation is subjective, since it must be made from a certain perspective. So while it might for example not be in your personal interest to know what US diplomats think about the corruption of tunisian president Ben Ali and while it might even hurt diplomatic relations between the US and Ben Ali, when such information is made public, we have seen that the Tunisian people found this information helpful and that it played a small role in fueling the tunisian revolution.
    Information that can appear useless or damaging to you, can on the other side be helpful for someone else.
  7. Anonymous Member

    They did. Hence why they worked with internationally respected media organisations to redact the cables they have released. The Guardian fucked up and released the cable in question.

    Seriously, how often does this need to be reiterated before you stop talking shit about Wikileaks intentions when, given this thread, it seems painfully clear you are completely ignorant on this point?
  8. Anonymous Member

    Okay, but the CIA must have thought they had legitimate information proving he was a bad dude. Would you really want to prosecute people for it? Torture is awful (although people like you and me probably have different definitions of torture), but I personally cannot say that it's NOT worth hurting one person to save a thousand.
  9. Anonymous Member


  10. Anonymous Member

    I care more than my own fucking life about people like the Tunisians. I wake up every day angry that there are so many fucking dictators in this world. Which is why it pisses the shit out of me that everyone focuses on the US always and all the time, when even if what they say is true, isn't close to being the worst thing being done in the world today.

    The Tunisian protests were a result of long-time terrible economic conditions and a man SETTING HIMSELF ON FIRE. Not wikileaks.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Okay, forget about the Guardian. I GET that Wikileaks had good intentions. (Although the road to hell.....). But Wikileaks purposely sought out and/or accepted thousands of random documents, no?

    And saying it doesn't matter that the initial crime was illegal because some good has come of it (i.e. the reports on kidnappings) is poor logic. That's like me hitting and injuring a pedestrian in my car, only to have it turn out that my hitting the pedestrian actually loosened a blood clot and thus saved his life, and then saying it's therefore good to hit pedestrians. Hindsight is 20/20, I'm worried about the future.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Yes, but many Tunisians have said that the wikileaks cables also helped them, because it confirmed from an outsider perspective the full extend of the corruption. They even made a tunisian wikileaks clone for the cables:
  13. Anonymous Member

    Interesting. Well that is useful, because I have only heard outsider speculation about that up until this point. If I know actual Tunisians will confirm it, then it's different.

    I would like to recharacterize this debate, if possible. I understand that WikiLeaks, in sharing the information, was trying to be responsible. The Guardian fucked up. I did not know that originally, thought not because I was being purposefully ignorant. So in one sense, we agree--but there's still an issue to discuss, we've just gotten closer to the heart of it. The question I wish to propose now is: if you were Wikileaks/Manning, would you fish with a speargun or a net? (I sort of made this analogy in another post). For example, I could have told you to look for information on Tunisia. Any dictator is bound to be hiding corruption. But what WikiLeaks/Manning did was cast a net, and along with the tuna, they caught some dolphins. And while they didn't mean to kill the dolphins, some dolphins were killed (this is a metaphorical reference to WikiLeaks' collateral damage). So I guess my question is, should we catch tuna with spearguns or nets? If we use spearguns, maybe we won't catch them all (i.e. the kidnapping of the German) but at least we won't catch any dolphins (i.e. Tsvangirai). And dolphins will be caught if the net method is used, because as the Guardian has proved, newspapers can't always be trusted to be 100% responsible. I'm a speargun type of guy. What say you?
  14. Anonymous Member

    I say "go vegan".
  15. Herro Member

    ITT: Zealots acting like the thing they hate most.
  16. hushpuppy Member

    I pray for Morgan Tsvangirai's well being.
  17. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Nice trolling.
  18. Ann O'Nymous Member

    My two cents:
    - Who decides who is a good or bad guy ? Based on which information ?
    - Who decides what is good or bad information ? Based on which information ?
    - Shouldn't one try to apply the same principles to everybody, even if specificity of the local situation should be taken into account ?
    - Being accused of the same type of consequences the last time (Afghanistan), Wikileaks decided to leave it to the five newpapers to select and publish those cables that they considered worth it.
    - In complex systems, blaming a specific component does not always makes sense.
    - Everybody makes decisions based on some assumptions. Who is to blame if the assumptions turn to be false ?
  19. Anonymous Member

    What do you hate the most?
  20. Anonymous Member

    I decide that:
    if Herro supports them, they must be a bad guy.
    If Ann supports them, they must be a good guy.
    If both Herro and Ann support, they must be trolling.

    Information that Herro provides is: bad information.
    Information that Ann provides is: good information.
    Whatever Ann and Herro agree on, is probably unimportant.
    If I blame Gregg, is that bad information? Or bad person?
  21. Anonymous Member

    We should merely produce a lot of high quality spears and then let the fishers themselves decide what kind of fish they want to hunt with these tools and to whom they want to give it.
    That's what OpenLeaks wants to do and i am a proponent of their model of leaking.
  22. Anonymous Member

    He was 100% innocent. The CIA simply fucked up.
    Absolutely. If you are really ok with complaining about Wikileaks because of a cable the Guardian released while happy to ignore acts of kidnapping and torture then you really are being incredibly disingenuous. You would have a very different view if you were one of the poor fuckers who got kidnapped.
    Because torturing people to point of complete mental breakdown produces reliable and accurate intelligence?
    Let’s not. Since you keep wanting to pin the Guardian’s fuck up on Wikileaks I think it needs to be reiterated loudly until you either get a clue or STFU.
    Is that why you are torturing logic to blame them for the Guardian’s fuck up?
    You really are the king of shitty analogy aren’t you? Comparing Wikileaks to mowing down a pedestrian is fucking asinine and indicative of the bankrupt nature of your argumentation.

    Here is the full story of the cables (since it seems obvious you haven’t a clue). An army private witnessed the kidnapping and torture of innocent Iraqi’s whose only crime was to distribute literature highlighting corruption and theft of aid money. He brought this shocking discovery to his superiors who pretty much ordered him to go get more people for kidnapping and torture. Horrified he did the only thing he felt his conscious would allow him – he blew the whistle. If you want to compare that with knocking down a pedestrian then you really don’t have a fucking clue.

    He chose Wikileaks because they had been publishing this type of shit for years. Wikileaks leaked the war logs and then collaborated with international media organisations to minimise harm in releasing the cables. Comparing that to mowing down a pedestrian doesn’t even qualify as an analogy since there is no analogous elements present.

    But hey, leaking information that proves US foreign policy is a cancerous joke on the world is just like mowing down a pedestrian apparently.
    Translation: I had read about this one cable and then, due to not having done any research because of my clueless ignorant nature, decided to start a threat winging at Wikileaks. Now that I have had my ass handed to me I will now try winging at Wikileaks using a different mode of attack.
    The net, obviously.
    Fixed that for you. If you have any examples you can directly pin on Wikileaks then feel free, and explain what harm said example did. The one example you have presented in this thread was due to the Guardian fucking up. I find it pathetic that when you got called on your example you then try to continue hoping people will buy into your unfounded assumption. That’s simple pathetic.
    Double standard alert. This may surprise you, but the US foreign policy machine sometimes makes mistakes. One such mistake led to an innocent German citizen getting kidnapped and tortured, and yet in this thread you have tried to argue that this was no big deal and was justified for the greater good.

    To put it bluntly, the commission of abuses (which kidnapping/torture are) are apparently defensible in your bizarre world. But daring to inform the world that such abuses happened is, apparently according to you, indefensible. This is the level of inconsistency you have been reduced to in this thread.
    Sounds noble, but you have missed the huge hole in the OL operation – they will not be making the primary document behind a given story available to the public. Without access to the primary document (even if suitably redacted) I do not trust the media to interpret the document properly. The real strength of Wikileaks is that people had access to the documents behind the story.
  23. Anonymous Member

    is it just me or do you think this guy who can't get his facts straight is a spy/ someone who is trying to destroy us from the inside
  24. Anonymous Member

    I doubt that. You have to realise that the US mainstream media has been feeding the same misconceptions, the same type of talking points and similar broken analogies to the public since cablegate first broke. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that people get fooled because of it.
  25. Anonymous Member


    We have taken every precaution. The Anonymous Borderland Treehouse is impenetrable!
    We would never allow a spy into our midst.
    Erase that very thought from your head, soldier
    and see the company Pharmacist for a refill.
  26. Herro Member

    You are a fucking idiot. That is all.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    OP here. 4 points to the Anonymous(es) who hates me; it’s long but if you’ve been following this post you should find it worthwhile reading:

    #1: I read a well-written editorial and asked, maybe a little bit harshly, about it here. The editorial claimed that WikiLeaks had caused collateral damage, and therefore seemed to make the valid point that WL is not 100% good as is. With that impression, I came here to bring up that point to people who might actually have an influence on WL, and thus could improve it in the future. Based on my understanding of how the leak process worked in this case, my initial desire was to have WikiLeaks screen the documents it released to newspapers to ensure their usefulness, BEFORE releasing them to the newspapers. If the scenario presented in the editorial was completely true, in which WikiLeaks straight up released all the documents, then WikiLeaks would indeed have been partially to blame (via releasing unscreened documents to newspapers whose job it is to publish stuff and who aren't always wise about what to publish).

    You proceeded to dump on me, but only in post #21 did anyone make the point that WikiLeaks only shared the documents because there were too many to screen on their own. (This motive may have been obvious to you, but it wasn’t to me). After learning that WikiLeaks didn’t release everything to the newspapers just so there could be a publishing free for all (as I originally understood), I began to see my error. I didn’t see it 100% (sorry I’m not perfect) because in post #26 I said, “Monsieur, WikiLeaks provided the Guardian with the information. Even if it was for purposes of redaction, they are still equally (or 40%) RESPONSIBLE for its release.”

    But I also made a new point that “people shouldn’t just go digging around trying to grab information just because it’s classified. That’s how you end up with so many documents that you need to share them just for redaction. If an abuse is occurring, look for information about that topic. Use a fishing rod, not a thousand foot net.” However, in post #31 I said, “Who gave Guardian the cables?”, so I still did not see my error completely. At this point it was entirely my fault, but I would still like to add that maybe if you weren’t so downright nasty, I would have come around sooner.

    In post #47, it was said “Hence why they worked with internationally respected media organisations to redact the cables they have released. The Guardian fucked up and released the cable in question. Seriously, how often does this need to be reiterated before you stop talking shit about Wikileaks intentions when, given this thread, it seems painfully clear you are completely ignorant on this point?”

    To answer, the point was reiterated exactly once (in that post #47), and at that point I got it. (Sorry it took two statements to correct my misinformation. I should probably be executed). That’s why I said in post #51, “Okay, forget about the Guardian. I GET that Wikileaks had good intentions” and in post #53, “I understand that WikiLeaks, in sharing the information, was trying to be responsible. The Guardian fucked up. I did not know that originally, thought not because I was being purposefully ignorant.”

    I clearly admitted defeat on my original point, but in #62 you are still accusing me of “wanting to pin the Guardian’s fuck up on Wikileaks” and “torturing logic to blame them for the Guardian’s fuck up”. I guess you missed my concession because I didn’t quit the thread. But the reason I didn’t leave was because of the new point I had made in #26. That point focused on the method Manning/Wikileaks used to gather information. Even though the Zimbabwe cable release was not WikiLeaks fault, it does point to a way WL should improve. So in post #51, I said, “But Wikileaks purposely sought out and/or accepted thousands of random documents, no?” and then in post #53 (the spear/net post) I explicitly tried to move the discussion to this new point, which I still take issue with. You say Manning had a good reason to leak docs to WikiLeaks. And from what you say, he did (I am pretty attentive to the news but I had not come across that fact). But why did he take 300k documents? Why didn’t he just take the ones relevant to his issue? And why did WikiLeaks accept all those documents, instead of saying he had to pinpoint the ones relating to his accusations? Because, in him taking and WikiLeaks accepting so many documents, WikiLeaks had to share them with others in order to screen everything. As a result, the Guardian published the Zimbabwe cables, and Tsvangirai could very well get hurt. So while this is not WL’s fault, they could decide in the future not to accept a massive document dump such as this, eliminating the need to share the information before screening it. That way the Tsvangirai’s of the world won’t get hurt.
    Since you still believe in the net method, we still do not agree, but it’s over a different issue now.

    #2 As to my pedestrian analogy (post #51), I made that because someone said at one point that, in essence, “we couldn’t know all the useful information until it was shared.” I made my pedestrian analogy because I believe that reasoning is a poor justification for using massive document dumps (MDDs). To say that using Manning’s MDD was all good (because we found stuff for which we didn’t even know to look) is an incomplete analysis, because it does not account for the harm that was done in the process (i.e. to Tsvangirai), even if that harm was not WL’s fault per se. It IS rather like my hitting-a-pedestrian-accidentally-but-saving-his-life-accidentally-in-the-process analogy BECAUSE, as in the case of Manning’s MDD, harm was accidentally done, but there was also good that resulted; but that DOESN’T mean you can say the pedestrian accident was completely good, just like you can’t say using the MDD was completely good.

    #3 I am not happy to ignore kidnapping and torture. I do not want to ignore it at all. I was merely saying that, of the two cases of good cable-leak results cited to me vs. the harm to Tsvangirai, you have to account for the context of those cases. In the case of the German at least, the CIA thought he was a bad guy, although it turned out they were wrong. So they made a MISTAKE (you said so yourself), terrible though it was. And because I think torture is necessary in some cases, I am not willing to paint their actions completely black. If you really thought you had someone with knowledge that could save thousands of lives, but he wasn’t talking, would you completely rule out torture? It’s like when you watch one of those crime shows and the cops circumvent the law in one case by unduly pressuring a suspect, because they just KNOW he is the criminal and if he doesn’t talk soon, his victim will suffocate in a box. This sort of thing also happens on 24. I know, I know, it’s TV--but it’s not unrealistic. We tolerate the prison system even though we sometimes wrongly (accidentally) imprison innocent people. But that doesn’t mean the prison system is pure evil, just like the case of the German says to me not that America is pure evil, but that the CIA has to be much more careful about using torture, like only when they are sure there is an immediate threat to human life. But if someone would just invent a freaking truth serum, we would never have to consider torture ever, which is the ideal situation.

    #4: FINALLY, how do you expect the world to get any better if you take honest inquirers and trash them? Sure, I could have researched every little tidbit about the whole affair, but why would that have been necessary when I had information that I thought was accurate because it came from a reputable paper? You kept shitting on me for not knowing everything already (my “clueless ignorant nature”), but with all the information overload in this world, how am I supposed to know everything? The Internet can be great for research, but when you don’t know what you don’t know, it’s a hell of a lot easier to ask someone who does. That’s why discussions on message boards are important. The people involved can talk about ways to improve the world, and those with less knowledge on a topic can be educated by those with more. But it’s not very helpful when you go around calling people a “fucking faggot.”
  28. Anonymous Member

    Not really. You are still the same clueless faggot you were when you made the OP, and are stubbornly refusing to rectify that.
    How was it well-written given that it was based upon a false premise and flagrant disregard of relevant facts??? That you even now, despite everything posted in this thread, would characterise it as ‘well-written’ is a fucking joke.
    Given that you are completely clueless regarding how Wikileaks operates, how the fuck do you believe you could help ‘improve’ it? Doesn’t your motivation to improve it require you have done a basic level of research first?
    And very deserved it was.
    Little facts like that tend not to be obvious to clueless faggots who didn’t bother to do their research. Assange has given numerous interviews on the redaction process, while multiple media sources from the Guardian to the AP have reported on this process. Stop fucking pretending you were not a clueless faggot who never bothered to do their research already.
    What percentage are the diplomats responsible? It is your shitty logic – at least try to be consistent in applying it.
    How is this a new point given that Wikileaks have, in fucking multiple media articles and interviews, reiterated this point again and again and again??? Do your fucking research already.
    Let me express this for you mathematically so there is no ambiguity:

    Your cluelessness ≈ My ‘nastiness’

    Until you remedy the former you should not expect any changes in the latter. And given how widespread this information had you bothered to do even a little research, you fully deserve all the contempt you have received.

    In post #47, it was said “Hence why they worked with internationally respected media organisations to redact the cables they have released. The Guardian fucked up and released the cable in question. Seriously, how often does this need to be reiterated before you stop talking shit about Wikileaks intentions when, given this thread, it seems painfully clear you are completely ignorant on this point?”
    The reason you said the above was so you could keep peddling your now-debunked premise without having to have an example. A pathetic piece of debating on your part imo.
    That wasn’t a new point. That was simply a pathetic attempt on your part to try espousing the same premise as your OP, just this time by trying not to refer to a debunked example.
    Fixed that for. Seriously, how fucking retarded are you to keep trying to peddle this shit? How fucking many times does this point need to be reiterated for you? Wise the fuck up already.
    Claiming to be attentive to the news, while simultaneously displaying the most monumental gross ignorance of relevant facts concerning a story that has dominated headlines for months now, is a fucking joke. Are you trying to convince yourself here by any chance?
    I’m pretty sure if you bothered to think about this for more than sixty seconds you could answer this yourself. If you spent your time thinking rather than asking pointless questions everyone in this thread would be better served.

    Hint as to the answer since you appear to be a little slow: Consider he may not have been aware of the extent of the abuses detailed.
    This question is probably the stupidest thing you have said so far in this thread (and that takes some doing). Do you even know how the Wikileaks submission system works? Go look it up and then fucking stupid over how pointless your question is given that system.
    The notion that you expect whistleblowers to be able to pour over thousands of documents in order to pick out only the ones detailing abuses, all the while avoiding getting caught, would be funny if you weren’t being serious. The only reason you even tried peddling this moron juice is because you are still trying to rationalise your misconceptions about Wikileaks. It is proving to be entertaining, pathetic and sad in equal measures.
    Where was this MDD? Please show me where an MDD made all the cables the available to the public.
    On the one hand you want to claim that you have recanted over Wikileaks being at fault here, and yet you keep tarring Wikileaks with it. I’ll put in nice big letters for so you don’t miss it this time:

    [size=+5] Tsvangirai was put at risk by the Guardian.
    It was the Guardian who fucked up over Tsvanglirai.[/size]

    And yeah, I do intend to keep spelling that out until it penetrates that concrete block of yours.
    Not really. But you keep up the shitty analogising, even though there are really no analogous elements there.
    And yet you have apparently, despite you self-claimed attentiveness to the news, managed to ignore just that. Despite it being in the news. Repeatedly. For over a fucking month now.
    Have you ever researched torture? In particular how unreliable it is and how it produces incredibly unreliable intelligence? Torturing doesn’t make people tell the truth, it makes them say whatever shit will get you to stop torturing their ass. I think your credentials in the clueless faggot who doesn’t do their research department are being well verified at this stage.
    You really think 24 is realistic? You really think there are scenarios with bombs about to go off and torture is urgently needed like in 24? Moron much?

    The 24 comment actually explains a lot. If you spent your time watching that rather than following the news it would explain the crap-heap you think is true.
    Trying to draw an analogy with imprisonment and the kidnapping/torturing the CIA does is another triumph of your shitty analogising.
    Simple solution – they should stop torturing people and from denying them due process.
    Can you provide a single solitary example of when such a case warranted torture? Because, since it is almost certain that you don’t know this, Dick Cheney already tried and failed to produce such an example. If fact he failed to find a single example of where torture was even useful.
    Those who repeat and regurgitate falsehoods that five fucking minutes on the google machine would have disproved is not an ‘honest inquirer’. A clueless faggot who never bothered to do adequate research maybe, but not an honest inquirer.
    If you going to try suggesting ways for Wikileaks to improve itself I think you have to do the research first. If, as it appears you are suggesting, you are too clueless/lazy/incompetent to do the required research then you should STFU rather than make such suggestions. My $0.02.
    To be honest, simply typing “Tsvangirai wikileaks” into google brings up results on the front page that debunk this claim. Had you even done just that….
    This isn’t a discussion. You getting corrected on your misconceptions and shitty logic doesn’t really qualify as a discussion. You offerin
    Until you realise that you are indeed a clueless fucking faggot who hasn’t bothered to do their research I feel it my obligation to keep impressing this important information on you.
  29. Anonymous Member

    Obviously you and I don't read the same news. For example, I try to pay attention to everything going on in the world, not just WikiLeaks and everything that trashes America. So sometimes I miss stuff. Sue me.

    It's called CTRL+F. If he was able to download all of them on a hard drive, he could have spent a week looking through them. Also, I don't particularly care how the WikiLeaks submission system works. Somebody gives them materials. They can read what the materials are, and notice that there are 300k random documents. What else is there to know?
  30. Anonymous Member

    Why care about relevant facts? Why let that get in the way of your ignorant bullshitting?
  31. Anonymous Member

    On your suggestion then, I did go and read about the submission process: But, like I assumed, it's irrelevant. Even though WikiLeaks doesn't screen documents before someone SUBMITS them, they can surely see that there are 300,000 pages of docs AFTER it's been submitted, and that, based on Manning's specific accusations, there would mostly be irrelevant information in those docs. So, in a future similar scenario, they can bury that submission and tell him he needs to narrow his leak. Or they can screen it themselves. But when you have to share it around, as the Guardian example proved, people can get hurt. And now that we know this unintentional hurt is possible, although WL wasn't responsible for it the first time, they would be in the future. (Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...). I am merely saying that in light of the Zimbabwe incident (and possibly others for all I know), WL should decline to share any documents before it has looked at them. If there are 300k docs and it doesn't want to do this, and the leaker won't do it, then the docs ought not be shared, because it is possible that more harm could come than good (although I'm not saying that that is the case in this SPECIFIC situation, because we don't even have all the facts yet, i.e. whether Tsvangirai is executed. Even then you have to weigh the benefit of the exposure of two or more cases of torture vs. the execution of an innocent man. Meaning, even if he's executed, maybe the benefits will have outweighed the costs. But for the future, it's irrelevant, because when dealing with chance, as is the nature of sharing unscreened documents, I believe in taking the side of "first, do no harm").
  32. Ann O'Nymous Member

    OP mentions one person at risk. How many people died in Irak alone ?

    TL;DR Learn to perspective.
  33. Anonymous Member

    How about just admitting you were wrong on this point? This thread appears to be repeating the same theme. You display some ignorance, get corrected and then try to bullshit your ignorance away rather than simply confronting it.
    Yet again, do your fucking research. The submission system is designed so that sources are kept anonymous – even from Wikileaks. Wikileaks didn’t even know who Manning was until the US announced him as the leaker. Given this relevant background your question is yet another example you spouting ignorance that has not fucking connection to real events. I’ve seen some clueless faggots in my time, but you are taking the concept to an entire new low of self-imposed ignorance.
    If you cannot be bothered to spend a bit of time researching to find out the details of what happened on this occasion, you should STFU before you speculate on future occasions.
    Still plugging the Guardian’s fuck up in an attempt to push your ignorance regarding Wikileaks. This is getting utterly pathetic at this stage imo.
    You commenting on the ‘Zimbabwe incident’ while simultaneously appearing unaware of the myriad of relevant facts concerning the case is just silly. Let’s be clear here. An honest inquirer would not have continued to plug the same debunked talking point after they got confronted with their ignorance. At this point you are wilfully remaining ignorant in order to push misconceptions. That is what this thread has become – a vehicle for clueless faggot, apparently incapable of doing sufficient research, to spout ignorant and easily-disproven bullshit.

    I’ll repeat that again since I think it is worth given extra emphasis - That is what this thread has become – a vehicle for clueless faggot, apparently incapable of doing sufficient research, to spout ignorant and easily-disproven bullshit.
    The necessity to pool resources for redaction has already been pointed out to you. Please stop ignoring relevant information that has already been presented to you.
    Doesn’t add up. You tried using the Tsvangirai cable as a basis for launching a misinformed ignorant-ridden talking point concerning Wikileaks. That example got debunked, yet you are still trying to push the same misinformed ignorant-ridden talking point. The reason I think you deserve nothing but contempt for pushing this is because at no stage have you ever attempted to perform the balance you indicate is necessary – as evidenced by your complete cluelessness of the abuses contained in the cables.

    To be blunt – you are trying to push a talking point that you yourself are, apparently, refusing to do due diligence on. That failure of due diligence certainly owes a lot to your clueless nature and inability/unwillingness to do sufficient research, but it also indicates that this thread is less about honest inquiry and more about trying to torture logic as you try foisting your pathetic fucking talking points.
    Please do not project your ignorance onto others. You are the one lacking the facts, and are seemingly unwilling to remedy that.
    The Guardian was responsible for that fuck up. How many times are you going to ignore this???
    Comments like this one fully justify my labelling of you ITT. You are trying so desperately to project an air of reasonableness and objectivity, but it is fucking blatantly clear you don’t adhere to your own rhetoric. Harm was done long before Wikileaks ever got their cache of cables. It was on the basis of some of those harms that those cables got sent to Wikileaks.

    Your comments in this thread do not qualify you for the ‘first do no harm’ category. They put you in the ‘ignore the myriad the harms but rag on the audacity of those who dare to bring said harms to the public’.
    The OP is suffering much more than simply a lack of perspective. They swallowed some blatant horseshit and are now trying every trick in the rhetoric-book to keep themselves convinced they don’t fail hard in the analytic department.
  34. Anonymous Member

    Is the fact that people die in Iraq supposed to be a big secret that the cables first revealed? Unless you're talking specifically about Manning's accusations, which I do agree were news.

    Since we're really not getting anywhere with this, I'll reiterate my final points, which are quite different from my original point that I backed down on in light of information presented here (even though you're willfully ignoring the difference). Then other people who read this thread can decide for themselves:

    1. Manning should not have wantonly grabbed documents, but rather only those related to his accusations, even if that required extra work on his part.
    2. In the future, WikiLeaks, if it sees a grab-bag of thousands of unrelated documents, should either review them all itself or decline to share/publish them period. In this incident, probably more good will come than harm, but that's luck. The next time it happens, more harm might come than good. And I'm NOT talking about the harm revealed in the cables, which WikiLeaks doesn't control, I'm talking about the harm of sharing classified documents that aren't bad in themselves but would be if they came to light (i.e. the Tsvangirai cables). Our difference of opinion now is merely that you don't think it could ever be wrong to share unknown classified documents (if only to a limited group) because any good from them will always outweigh any harm, whereas I think, in light of this case, that that's not really true, and so WikiLeaks should change its strategy in light of that.

    WikiLeaks changed their policy after publicly releasing hundreds of documents with unredacted names of Iraqis/Afghanis who were collaborating with the US (in that case, it really WAS a boneheaded/ignorant move on their part). Then they found out that despite the valuable information that the leak provided, it had also put innocent people in harm's way. So they changed strategy. What's different about this situation? It's apparent now, after the fact, that collateral damage can be done by the new strategy of sharing information with other organizations in order to perform redaction. WikiLieak's policy should reflect this newfound wisdom that at the end of the day, you can only trust yourself. They were fooled by a newspaper once, shame on the Guardian, but as I said before, the second time you're fooled it's shame on you.
  35. Anonymous Member

    So you trust Wikileaks more than the Guardian?
  36. Anonymous Member

    I don't suppose the Government has ever tried to fool the people before.
    Or at least, they haven't tried that trick more than once.
  37. Anonymous Member

    Numerous previously-unknown facts have emerged thanks to Wikileaks. The number of civilian causalities, which has been strongly welcomed by human rights groups like Amnesty, being just one.

    I find it astounding that, despite how often ITT you have been called out for your ignorance, you are still using your ignorance as a basis for argument….
    You’re not getting anywhere. Facts are stubborn things and your rhetoric cannot be used to wish them away. The sad refusal on yourself to correct your obvious ignorance is further testament to how you are not getting anywhere this.
    A bullshit point that has already been debunked for you. Manning was unaware of the extent of the abuses, and expecting him to have searched out only cables featuring harms is silly given the vast number of cables and logs involved. It is even sillier when the impact of the leaks are taken in totality. The war logs, due to their completeness, are painting a picture that informs the public in a way that a few select logs cannot.

    Simply ignoring these obvious points is typical of your non-contributions.
    It has been well established that you have no fucking clue as to Wikileaks harm-minimisation practices. Pretending such practices do not exist in order to make an uninformed complaint is you simply talking bollocks.
    The Guardian. Why are you not criticising the Guardian? Seriously fucking cop on mate.
    Holy strawman batman!!
    I’m sure I am not the only person ITT this thread who thinks it is pathetic that the OP is arguing Wikileaks should change its strategy when the OP clearly doesn’t even know what Wikileaks’ strategy even is.
    Two points on this.

    1) Wikileaks asked for help in redacting those documents and the US refused. So blaming Wikileaks for this is you ignoring relevant facts once again.
    2) Wikileaks do take advice, just not from clueless ignorant faggots like you.
    And yet no one was harmed. When Ellsberg leaked the pentagon papers the US made exactly the same overblown claims. They were largely untrue then, and nothing has changed now. But you seem quite eager to repeat these accusations – and yet I doubt you could identify a single instance of a person coming to harm as a result of those leaks.
    The fact that, even now, you are still trying to lump the Guardian’s fuck up onto Wikileaks sums up the pathetic nature of your non-contribution to this thread. Sad really.
  38. Herro Member

    Nice trolling.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Not really. Arguing that Wikileaks may put people in danger, despite nobody being harmed by Wikileaks’ actions and the example being used ITT being a result of the Guardian fucking up, while ignoring the people that are currently being killed/tortured by the regimes Wikileaks expose is simple dumbfuckery that is lacking any sort of perspective. This is even more egregious when you realise that what is playing out now with Wikileaks has already occurred before with the Pentagon Papers. The same talking points were used then to try discrediting Ellsberg as are being used now to try discrediting Wikileaks. Those points were falsehoods then, and they are still falsehoods now. And I find it hard to take seriously, or respond in any manner not displaying my utter dripping contempt to, any muppet who simply regurgitates such talking points like a completely clueless faggot.

    And that is what it is – pure unthinking unanalytical uncritical regurgitation. This is clear to see in how the OP had great knowledge about the single cable underpinning their regurgitated talking point but absolutely no fucking clue about anything beyond that. So making reference to the necessity of Wikileaks, something the Iraq war helps to illustrate, is very much on topic and not trolling.
  40. Herro Member

    Your whole argument hinges upon the notion that criticizing something means that you are disregarding other wrongdoings.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins