Thanks for replying to my question for substantiation of your claim that Wikileaks accomplishes nothing but harming the public and innocent people. In the articles you quoted, I see a lot of opinions and speculation as to the harm done, a lot of maybe this and maybe that. I see not one innocent person harmed. I see no harm done to the general public. If a diplomatic negotiation and agreement is so fragile as to fall apart because some diplomats vented behind each other's backs, then that agreement probably did not amount to much anyway. I am unconvinced that any innocent person was harmed.
In reply to "Herro": I thank you for your input, it made me ponder the weight of your words. They're valid and have context and I have to admit there is a valid point to them. It is a discussion with such a profile that I find interest in and sought for. It is a means to converse in this way that holds wisdom, not (quoting) spouting "fuck you", or "fuck off" as others did here above and trying to pretend someone holds knowledge and intelligence beneficial to the content. It represents a bad form of freedom of speech and of course lends weight to opponents of this site and defeats its more valid original purpose.... I agree with others that there is a danger also from government control if freedom of the press is violated, but I cannot find it in myself to say that WikiLeaks is "responsibility free". Freedom of speech, the power of the people's voice, all these freedoms and blessings are hard won, fought for and kept. Unfortunately, the abuse of those freedoms comes with very little cost, and hardly any control when it comes to damaging others. I guess what I am trying to say without going to the far extreme as it might seem, is that I get equally pissed as some others do here when a news agency like FOX news (sense someone here derogatorily claimed I must be a Republican and watch Fox News) can abuse the freedom of the press and publish crap just for hype and ratings, misleading and swaying public opinion under the guise of reputable journalism. I feel Wikileaks has done the same thing, when allot of that information did NOT have to be publicized, and did so not for the benefit of the public knowledge, but merely for publicity...but then in counter point....who are they to judge what we should know or not? Isn't that the sin of the government. Its a difference I feel I can refer back to in the famous whistle blowing example on the tobacco companies in the US. That information was damaging to none other than the tobacco industry, yet the whistle blower didn't dump a bunch of documents on a publisher who then spouted it to the public that contained private home addresses of nationwide employees of the industry, or information that might endanger retailer's families such as what school their children went too. In like, there was content in those documents possessed by WikiLeaks that will do nothing but harm if used in that way...and anyone that denies it in order to promote freedom of the press or speech is possibly as guilty as the government, I have already given examples of information already that was damaging to negotiations with other countries. It is wrong to oppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of information. Yet in the same, it is equally wrong to abuse any of those, even if we demand it as a freedom. Those freedoms were never ever ever fought for, founded or furnished to abuse or to cause harm to the common good. Freedom of speech did not allow an ancient Roman to holler from his balcony, "Burn Rome!" and then claim "no foul!" then blame it on the innocent. That was a governemnt leader, and in like, Wikileaks I feel is guilty as much as the government in claiming foul, in their own responsibility to responsible journalism. In the 1968 Detroit riots in the US, news agencies agreed to not report the intensity of the actual situation in order to help the scenario and quell teh violence as much as possible. That was responsible journalism, not government oppression to free press. Without that wisdom of choice, those riots may have cost far more lives and financial cost to the public than they did. I will not deny that the government has devious people in there that are void of soul and conscience and that are blind to the definition of "righteous acts". I feel also that as much as we need to find a way to control our governments in the world, we should also propose the fact that we need to find a way to control our news agencies to the point that they are at least responsible for if not what they publicize, then how they publicize. I do not feel they had good intentions in their heart when they released this information, any more than any other news agency has the right to push openly blatantly neglectful news with no responsibility. and forgive my long-windedness. If I fail to perceive the matter in context and in agreement with some, then at least I can gain notoriety for a lengthy discourse....smiling. I can agree that there may be AS MUCH danger in allowing the US to oppress Wikileaks as there is in the releasing of the content of the documents, yet I have already posted some links to articles showing just a minute amount of danger zones in some of that information. Some here have asked for dox that prove harm was done, actual physical harm? I don't know what they are asking for exactly. Are they asking for reports where someone has been assassinated, or spies have been axed in the head, or? The potential is there undeniably. If countries have turned their ears away from the US and set our nation back 20 years in negotiations remains to be seen, but I am sure it has cost us dearly. Its not just the US either folks! We are not the only country out there that is peacefully fighting through diplomacy (whether slightly underhanded or not) to obtain nuclear arm treaties, and keep nuclear weapon's grade material in safer hands, even if our country was the first and so far only one to nuclear war heads to find peace. It is not just the US that has been attacked by the Taliban or Al Qaeda at home and lost innocent civilians to a self proclaimed holy war although no NATION has declared war. There are countries like Spain, Britan, former countries of the Soviet Union and others that have been harrowed by death and carnage from the Islamic based threat of terrorism, though I do not blame Islam as a whole. Negotiations to reduce or quell such threat is severely harmed when those secret negotiations are leaked to the press and then loosely printed for all to see without responsibility. For example, what Taliban leader would now be interested in sitting down at the private covert negotiating table with the difficulty we have previously had in having them to agree to do so in the past, when they see where the name of a fellow leader has been leaked openly for doing the same thing from documents obtained in such a manner, and his act is perceived by his constituents as traitorous? Now who is to say that such information "doesn't prove actual physical harm"? And if the US doesn't pursue criminal punishment on WikiLeaks, what court in what nation will ever validly pursue CIVIL charges for any damage done by WikiLeaks exposing this information to those private citizens who claim they should have shown responsibility in their actions. I don't have all the answers, but I do have the right to pose valid questions even if many don't agree with their point to ponder value. I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT to gain control over our freedom of information nor freedom of the press, but at the same time I am enraged at the loosely abused exercise of irresponsible journalism. The example of the Apache helicopter attack on the documentary crew I spoke of: One of the first YouTube videos I saw of it was edited to do nothing other than to promote the horrific murderous intent of the Apache helicopter crew. In the first place, an Apache helicopter to me has never been envisioned as a peaceful solution to a problem, it wasn't designed for that. Yet when I learned of the actual account, the documentary crew's placement in a hot fire zone and saw the camera man leaning around the corner of the building with camera in tow by his knee, I swore to god that it was an RPG too and other people WERE carrying AK's for self protection (IN A HOT ZONE). The pilot got permission to fire, and it was a tragedy. I do not know all things in life, but one thing I do know, the intention of the person who posted the leaked video was to no good of the common people in editing the video to merely make it look monstrously murderous and deviously promote a criminal fault of the crew. It was a bloody shame true, and yes...the people had the right to know that such horrific things happen and probably created a curtain of caution by the military to express more caution and secure target ID. The rightful leak of the "actual" video to promote good whether illegal or not, to lay more caution and responsibility on the military to hold their units at cautious bay rather than merely loose the hell-hounds hounds of war, is one of the reasons the purpose is valid and what whistle blowing is about, not to merely get ratings in hits and publicity.
Those negotiations are ALWAYS a fragile mixture, with one country agreeing to something only if another does too. However, that does not take away the common good result those talks attain. Why do people come up with excuses to promote their purpose, when more valid reasons are there to confront the issue with? Declaring the efforts of foreign dignitaries and ambassadors worthless and fragile has no point in the matter. Damaging hard worked for alliances and agreements to promote peace and control the further spread or use of nuclear arms as noted in the comments here above pertaining to agreements between China, Saudi Arabia and the US is NOT worthless and has ALWAYS been a fragile threat to the world. When an opinion is cast in such a nature, I doubt if such people as yourself would EVER be convinced if and when proof is given that these leaks DID cause actual physical harm. I guarantee that a scramble has occurred on the part of MANY governments and nations due to the information leaked, and what may become is yet to be seen. As I said, I doubt if advocates of such opposing points will ever see the light of that truth, even if proven with open leaked documents to that purpose in the near future.
Derrick, imagine the helicopter video hadn't been leaked to wikileaks but to CNN or Fox News instead. What do you think would CNN have done with the video? Most likely they wouldn't have released it at all, because they wouldn't want to damage their good relationship with the government, seeing that they dependend on government representatives to provide them with information for their stories. But even if they had released the video, they wouldn't have shown the full uncut version on TV, because for one the time slots between the commercials just aren't long enough to show the full 40 minute long version of the video and also the attention span of your average US citizen is not long enough to digest it and finally it's just not pro america and pro war enough to be shown on TV: So what they would have done is to show maybe a 30 seconds, highly edited excerpt of the video, censoring all the deaths away (only out of concern for the dignity of the involved families of course, haha) and putting a beep over all the dirty talk of the pilots and thereby also forwarding only a particular, very biased viewpoint of the story. Wikileaks released an edited version with annotations, but what's important is that they also released the full version on the same site and they provided context material like interviews with family members of the people who had been killed, eyewitnesses and the soldier who had been carrying the wounded child away from the van, who was there directly on the ground and witnessed the whole situation. Most likely you haven't seen any of these material on TV, so you only got one side of the story, the side that the mainstream media wanted you to see. So for you to say that wikileaks acted irresponsible, because they released also an edited version of the video is quite absurd, because that's basically what all other media organisations do all the time but with the important difference that they never or rarely publish the full raw material in addition. I would say that the more fact and evidence based journalism is, the more responsible it is and in that respect Wikileaks clearly trumps every other news organization.
My view is that people can differ about the utility and/or prudence of releasing the cables and/or if Julian Assange is a sinner or saint, ad infinitum, but the real question for me is.... Isn't it a good thing that whistleblowers have a safe, secure place to go?
Hi all, I pretty much just lurk here, but I wanted to add: WTF does that even mean??? Once again, WTF does that even mean??? Are you asserting that media outlets publishing stories from the leaks are irresponsible? And, what powers "give voice to the freedom of information"? In the US, it is the constitution that provides for freedom of information, ie, The First Amendment. You say that are, but you haven't convinced me. In fact, in your next sentence, it appears that you are being disingenuous. Because you assert something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. Condemn all you want. That is what freedom of speech is all about. I rant "moronically"? Like to resort to ad homs, do you? You are tilting at a straw man; that is a false analogy. Project much??? Citation needed Well, it also exposes the duplicity and lies... for example, the wanton murder of Iraqi civilians. Who claimed "freedom of press and information" and then acted "fraudulently"??? Once again, you are tilting at a straw man
Wait a minute now... you speak of absurdity here, but... although I agree that what we see on the local news is far more controlled journalism, and sometimes even misrepresentation of the facts for media hype sake... they edit the content more often than not for the comfort and grace of the audience and viewers (blood n guts stuff) likening this to the video that was edited merely to show the gore content and leave out the important viewpoint of the truth of the situation was for the intent of wrongfully blaming the crew for criminal actions... and likening that intent to the network station's limits for viewing time, content and violence rating is sort of absurd, don't yo think? I can agree with Wikileaks exposing the truth about a situation, but I feel that giving equal air time to an obvious fool who misrepresented the truth for the sake of falsely accusing that crew was irresponsible... an equally edited version showing the "facts" would have given that shortened air time version far more validity an equally edited version even issued through network stations showing a shortened "cockpit voice approval for fire on target" showing the AKs in hand showing the leaning camera man with the mistaken RPG camera "maybe" showing the military ground units in edited versions giving help to wounded and children alike to expose the need for better fire control on target to show the need for caution even in chaotic war scenarios would have been a far improvement over this idiot's version of misrepresenting the truth to merely rebelliously protest under a facade of wishing to advocate for better government or expose faulty or careless military exploits. The absurdity is there, depending where you "choose" to look. Advocating for better government is a virtue. Opposing restraints threatened towards our freedom of speech is understandable Exposing government cover-ups is also a commendable honor and duty to one's people But fighting for truth and righteousness with lies is frugal and false merely expressing one's "rights" does not alway make one "right".
In your first post, you called us morons for protesting. I quote "Anyone that would defend them in their recent irresponsible actions under the guise of protecting our freedom to information is acting foolishly rebellious just to stand behind their own personal podium and rant moronically. And now, we're simpletons too. Fuck you! No really, FUCK YOU!!! Once again, citation needed. Or your just making shit up. Citation, or your a liar. Once again with the ad homs, huh? And, who is childish? You continually call us names and expect anything other than what you are getting? Get a fucking clue, dude. You are the one making claims; it is your responsibility back those claims, not ours to refute your bullshit. For some reason, I doubt you at your word.
Your post and reply leaves a bit of a void there, in purpose or questions... and your use of WTF (what the fuck?) - freedom of speech here takes away from an intelligent conversation between two people... but simply put... Statement: Good works can no more take a hold over corruption and evil than through the very hearts and actions of the people who live upon the face of our planet. Question: WTF does that even mean??? Answer: It's just too simple...its the righteous work of the people that fights corruption change that by doing unrighteous deeds under the guise of righteous action and you take away from the virtuous works of the more righteous effort Statement: derrick drew said: ↑ then I must condemn their greed for notiriety and publicity scandals. Reply: Condemn all you want. That is what freedom of speech is all about. Answer: Friend...if may may call you that? Freedom of speech, freedom of ANY right has NEVER been about publicity seekers and wrongful actions to merely gain fame and notoriety derrick drew said: ↑ Yet when journalism takes an irresponsible view to freedom of the press, then the powers that give voice to the freedom of information, take away the virtuous aspect of the voice. "Once again, WTF does that even mean??? Are you asserting that media outlets publishing stories from the leaks are irresponsible? And, what powers "give voice to the freedom of information"? In the US, it is the constitution that provides for freedom of information, ie, The First Amendment." Reply: Once again my WTF friend...its just too too simple... when an entity takes the right of freedom of press and freedom of information to the extreme and callously exploits stolen information as they did, with no responsibility to the safety of others, then it is a callous act.. When they exploit that information in such a manner, under the guise of those rights. it takes away from the virtuosity sought for by others who would more properly report and print "real news and information" for the common good... Take the Reverend Jackson screaming that the National Guard and public officials were singling out the black people in refusing equal help and trying to make a racial issue out of it. As a "soap box crier" he took "virtuosity once again" away from news sources and genuineness away from others that were reporting the grand scale of the need of the people, all races, in that arena and scenario. "You are tilting at a straw man; that is a false analogy" "Project much???" "Once again, you are tilting at a straw man" I haven't read one word you typed in there that contributed to an intelligent reply, other than giving you credit for the statement ".derrick drew said: ↑ There is no purpose served in releasing information containing private memos .... serves nothing other than Wikileak's own personal gain. Well, it also exposes the duplicity and lies... for example, the wanton murder of Iraqi civilians. I've made it very clear here that there were issues and facts that "did" have weight and a need to be exposed. But I cannot excuse Wikileaks for not admitting their mistake and issuing unnecessary files that served no other purpose than to harm much needed compromises or foreign relations. I don't think I need go further in reply to this author as I really do feel it would be purposeless
"it has also threatened to put on its website leaks on US banking that could put under more pressure an already politically weakened President fighting to defend his administration on two important fronts simultaneously, namely domestic and foreign affairs." Oh no, please, not the banks! Keynsanism MUST fail, in-order for this country to get back on-track. Obama has been nothing short of Bush 2.0, with slight differences in a few areas (like Obama's love for predator drone strikes into Pakistan's sovereign territory). Yeah, he sure is working hard to repair our standing abroad. As for your "links" about endangering US Diplomatic ties. I'd like to point out one cable that was actually MILD compared to some that I've read: - http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html . If you're going to come in here trying to defend precious "president" Obama, you're sorely misguided. It truly is a time for the people of the United States to stand up and absolutely seize control of our government. Ours is the only nation in the world with standing legal framework for such a thing. We haven't followed our own true values since just before WWI, and it's a damn shame. If we were to successfully manage to turn this ship around, many countries in the world would quite easily follow.
TINFOIL Does anybody get the feeling that Derrick Drew, and all his other nicknames, is a team of people sitting down in a war room trying to disrupt/damage control the 15th January prostest.
Well we did bring this upon ourselves by opening up the scope of this forum just enough to allow such disruption.
It didn't make any sence the first time around, and it doens't now. You state this as if it was some sort of axiom, but "rightous" and "virtuous" being references to some moral code and thus relative terms, the above is neither self evident nor ncessarily true.
(12:15:11 PM) bradass87: hypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time… say, 8-9 months… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do? (12:16:38 PM) bradass87: or Guantanamo, Bagram, Bucca, Taji, VBC for that matter… (12:17:47 PM) bradass87: things that would have an impact on 6.7 billion people (12:21:24 PM) bradass87: say… a database of half a million events during the iraq war… from 2004 to 2009… with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures… ? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective? (12:59:41 PM) bradass87: uhm… crazy, almost criminal political backdealings… the non-PR-versions of world events and crises… uhm… all kinds of stuff like everything from the buildup to the Iraq War during Powell, to what the actual content of “aid packages” is: for instance, PR that the US is sending aid to pakistan includes funding for water/food/clothing… that much is true, it includes that, but the other 85% of it is for F-16 fighters and munitions to aid in the Afghanistan effort, so the US can call in Pakistanis to do aerial bombing instead of americans potentially killing civilians and creating a PR crisis (1:00:57 PM) bradass87: theres so much… it affects everybody on earth… everywhere there’s a US post… there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed… Iceland, the Vatican, Spain, Brazil, Madascar, if its a country, and its recognized by the US as a country, its got dirt on it (1:11:54 PM) bradass87: and... its important that it gets out... i feel, for some bizarre reason (1:12:02 PM) bradass87: it might actually change something (02:20:57 AM) Manning: well, it was forwarded to WL (02:21:18 AM) Manning: and god knows what happens now (02:22:27 AM) Manning: hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms (02:23:06 AM) Manning: if not… than we’re doomed (02:23:18 AM) Manning: as a species (02:24:13 AM) Manning: i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens (02:24:58 AM) Manning: the reaction to the video gave me immense hope… CNN’s iReport was overwhelmed… Twitter exploded… (02:25:18 AM) Manning: people who saw, knew there was something wrong (02:28:10 AM) Manning: i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public (02:28:10 AM) Lamo : I’m not here right now (02:28:50 AM) Manning: if i knew then, what i knew now… kind of thing… (02:29:31 AM) Manning: or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid… (02:30:09 AM) Lamo: which do you think it is? (02:30:29 AM) Manning: im hoping for the former (02:30:53 AM) Manning: it cant be the latter (02:31:06 AM) Manning: because if it is… were fucking screwed (02:31:12 AM) Manning: (as a society) (02:31:49 AM) Manning: and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed (02:29:04 PM) Manning: i guess im too idealistic (02:31:02 PM) Manning: i think the thing that got me the most… that made me rethink the world more than anything (02:35:46 PM) Manning: was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police… for printing “anti-Iraqi literature”… the iraqi federal police wouldn’t cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the “bad guys” were, and how significant this was for the FPs… it turned out, they had printed a scholarly critique against PM Maliki… i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled “Where did the money go?” and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees… (02:35:46 PM) Lamo : I’m not here right now (02:36:27 PM) Manning: everything started slipping after that… i saw things differently (02:37:37 PM) Manning: i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…
Classic example of circular reasoning You might want to peruse this site's tutorial on logic-- before your next post.
Do not conflate 'moral responsibility' (whatever the hell that means) with 'legal obligation.' And when you criticize someone for doing something that is CLEARLY legal but - in your view - ill-advised, frame the argument to state EXACTLY THAT. Do not try to pull the weight of law into it - doing so is impossible without twisting the law in a tyrannical way.
you claim my queries are without base, and name me as some government agent or agency? I wish more of the public could see the reasoning contained by "some" of the members here, yet not all, nor icluding wiser and more intellectual comments that present food for thought to prove their point. Here's food for thought http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/nov/30/news-view-trust-journalists-not-wikileaks/ and if it is proven that Assange provided a means for Manning to leak this information during the actual act as some claim it to be, then Assange is guilty of the theft by assisting, and remains to be seen. The soldier who Manning confided in, who turned Manning in, has already claimed this was the case and evidence is there provided in e-mail exchanges between him and Manning. (heresay I know) He stated the e-mail exchanges are on his hard drive but it is now in the possession of the FBI as they confiscated it promptly after his reporting the breach and leak of the information. (Again, remains to be seen) on another note: I'll not ignore intelligent counter points that merely differ from my opinion. However, certain "other" members who seem to be getting a n&* off by merely attacking my questions with mundane proposals such as: TINFOIL Does anybody get the feeling that Derrick Drew, and all his other nicknames, is a team of people sitting down in a war room trying to disrupt/damage control the 15th January protest. and MR. WTF merely make me laugh and as I might someday share laughs from these excerpts "in context" with acquaintances which will obviously cause a more widely publicized notoriety of rather more asinine attacks on the handling of the issue by a "small" part of the community here, unfortunately countering a maybe more noble effort by some to try to get me to understand certain aspects of elements that I haven't viewed yet. I might differ with some of those reasons and reasoning through the process, but have already contemplated some of the information in a different light than when I first started. I made a comment early on: "derrick drew said: ↑ Anyone that would defend them in their recent irresponsible actions under the guise of protecting our freedom to information is acting foolishly rebellious just to stand behind their own personal podium and rant moronically." and I am sorry if that inflamed the issue or insulted anyone... and maybe an idiotic move on my part in not being more courteous and cautious attempting to write my thoughts to keyboard, it was not my purpose, to call anyone any names. However it was a statement accusing some of unintelligent actions without total awareness, for their own self glorification or merely glorification of their personal purpose, and we all know that their are those out there that enjoy such scenarios for that purpose, on both sides of the block. My purpose was never in trying to make an all encompassing statement on any and all who voice their opinion on why they feel that the move to release ALL those documents was forever in the best interest of the public. So forgive me if that offended many. I will surely watch my "wording from here out" to prevent a case flow of ignorant rhetoric for the mere purpose and effect of retribution. So if we may continue and a mod doesn't ban me for merely disagreeing...then the more intelligent replies are far more welcome than some may from here on out think. .
derrick it comes down to this... you think irresponsible journalism is (insert multitude of shape changing examples backed by snaky logic that simply means the state is just and the world is yours), I think irresponsible journalism is (insert any brand of expected anti-statist dogma based on the fact that 50 years later I never got over having to clean up my room). The larger point is you've convinced no one, can't possibly actually talk like you write, nobody really cares what your purpose was and you've "self-glorified" yourself or your ideas just as well as anybody else. All you've really done is solidify opposing viewpoints because you seem to be such a pedantic shit. Just go away now. From your point of view you won't have to deal with us, and from our point of view we won't watch you clutter up the boards with your horseshit. And nothing of value will be lost.
Oh Derrick, could it be . . . your silly 'little boy' analogy of the candy bar in the grocery store is genuine ? And you don't know or even think about those two kids over in Iraq who are still healing from their gunshot wounds and struggling with the loss of their father ? I certainly hope they were unconscious when the tank came and rolled over their 'good samaritan' injured father, severing him in half. Am I being intelligent enough for you ? Or perhaps you would like to explain your 'reasoning' to his widow ? Do you know what I am referring to ? Information I received from where ? I believe the real threat to National Security lies with uninformed people who wish to play with themselves (hypothetically of course) and have no true empathy for the million + people that have been slaughtered in our name. You go on and on about irresponsible journalism. How about irresponsible governments that cover up killing innocent people ? Does that 'rile u up real bad' too ? Reuters tried for two years to get that video tape. Why don't you google Hitler and read up on him. Was he a whistle blower ? Did he demand total transparency ? Was he an empathic individual ? Would he have been pissed off at Wikilinks (misspelled on purpose) ? You have to ask yourself this Derrick, do you like Democracy ? Are you willing to stand on your 'own podium' and be counted ? For what you ask ? For all those who stand up against crimes against 'THE PEOPLE' If not ? Well, you could always run for office . . .
Now I have to take a stand...by example, most comments on here if they represent the main membership of Anonymous and represent the actions they've taken, then they are more of a threat to the people and the "security" than what they claim to fight against. If they are merely a few of the member's viewpoints and merely openly aired ramble of protagonists, then I would have to surmise and claim that Anonymous as a whole (if these aren't the embodied viewpoints of most) gives a very substantial power to the freedom of speech. Most comments on here merely seem to oppress and insult my freedom of speech although I sought intelligent replies and got few other than these for examples. Herro said: ↑ OP the problem with your take on this is that it's every bit as extreme as the few people out there that think Wikileaks can do no wrong and is going to save us all. Buried underneath your incendiary polemic are some very valid criticisms of Wikileaks as well as important questions that need to be asked. Is it worth the cost of impeding diplomacy in a touchy region of the world in order to let the public know that different nations in the Middle East talk shit about each other? Probably not. Is it worth it to let the public know that the CIA kidnapped some dude, in violation of not only international treaties but our own laws? Probably. We should be critical of sites like Wikileaks as we try to figure out how to best use these new technologies but to just say they're dangerous and only cause harm ignores reality and is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. In stead of wringing our hands and saying oh woe is us, I think we should say, look this stuff can be beneficial and it can be harmful, how can we maximize the benefit and minimize the harm? haklaf said: ↑ Derrick, imagine the helicopter video hadn't been leaked to wikileaks but to CNN or Fox News instead. What do you think would CNN have done with the video? Most likely they wouldn't have released it at all, because they wouldn't want to damage their good relationship with the government, seeing that they dependend on government representatives to provide them with information for their stories. But even if they had released the video, they wouldn't have shown the full uncut version on TV, because for one the time slots between the commercials just aren't long enough to show the full 40 minute long version of the video and also the attention span of your average US citizen is not long enough to digest it and finally it's just not pro america and pro war enough to be shown on TV: So what they would have done is to show maybe a 30 seconds, highly edited excerpt of the video, censoring all the deaths away (only out of concern for the dignity of the involved families of course, haha) and putting a beep over all the dirty talk of the pilots and thereby also forwarding only a particular, very biased viewpoint of the story. Wikileaks released an edited version with annotations, but what's important is that they also released the full version on the same site and they provided context material like interviews with family members of the people who had been killed, eyewitnesses and the soldier who had been carrying the wounded child away from the van, who was there directly on the ground and witnessed the whole situation. Most likely you haven't seen any of these material on TV, so you only got one side of the story, the side that the mainstream media wanted you to see. So for you to say that wikileaks acted irresponsible, because they released also an edited version of the video is quite absurd, because that's basically what all other media organisations do all the time but with the important difference that they never or rarely publish the full raw material in addition. I would say that the more fact and evidence based journalism is, the more responsible it is and in that respect Wikileaks clearly trumps every other news organization. or an equally intelligent reply as in: Freed Patriot: Oh Derrick, could it be . . . your silly 'little boy' analogy of the candy bar in the grocery store is genuine ? And you don't know or even think about those two kids over in Iraq who are still healing from their gunshot wounds and struggling with the loss of their father ? I certainly hope they were unconscious when the tank came and rolled over their 'good samaritan' injured father, severing him in half. Am I being intelligent enough for you ? Or perhaps you would like to explain your 'reasoning' to his widow ? Do you know what I am referring to ? Information I received from where ? I believe the real threat to National Security lies with uninformed people who wish to play with themselves (hypothetically of course) and have no true empathy for the million + people that have been slaughtered in our name. You go on and on about irresponsible journalism. How about irresponsible governments that cover up killing innocent people ? Does that 'rile u up real bad' too ? Reuters tried for two years to get that video tape. Why don't you google Hitler and read up on him. Was he a whistle blower ? Did he demand total transparency ? Was he an empathic individual ? Would he have been pissed off at Wikilinks (misspelled on purpose) ? You have to ask yourself this Derrick, do you like Democracy ? Are you willing to stand on your 'own podium' and be counted ? For what you ask ? For all those who stand up against crimes against 'THE PEOPLE' If not ? Well, you could always run for office . . . In all the replies to my common sense request, the mainstay of your arguments consist of battering the person who questions some of your views, except for a few. The Taliban have already been noted to have executed people in retaliation for their exposed conformity and compliance as they were exposed in the leaks. This last post is the systematic normal type of retort for someone who is as fixed in an illogical belief as would be a white supremest defending their's. Comments such as: A pedantic shit? With your horse shit? What's your educational level son, since you feel free to question in like: you've convinced no one, can't possibly actually talk like you write, nobody really cares what your purpose was and you've "self-glorified" yourself All I can say to this is that the closer someone might get to making valid and provable statements that may oppose your's, the more literally insulting you will simply get in guise of intelligent input. You've failed miserably there and fell far short of viable input...and yes I doubt you will be appeased.
You appear to be an obtuse, and... ... present poorly worded passive/aggressive, and specious, arguments. I am through with you. Back to lurking, I am.
OP, sorry that you feel we have fallen short of valuable input, however, realize where you have come. This is a forum (Freedom of Information) dedicated to the support of Wikileaks. Coming here trying to change the minds of the supporters, who have already decided to make a stand and support Wikileaks, is somewaht akin to joining a Republican forum and trying to convince them to be Democrats. Views here are strongly held. You have every right to be here and speak your mind but do not expect your views to be embraced by all, as most here do not share them.
Your "tilting at a straw man" is a mixed metaphor. Its not a false analogy, as it can't even be classified as true or false. I'm not sure if the Tutorial on Logic has a section on mastering lexical inventory, but if it doesn't I would recommend you attend to it. "Aiming at (or attacking) a straw man" is a metaphor that references constructing a weak argument, attributing it to your opponent, and demolishing it, as in the case of building a straw dummy for IRL target practice. "Tilting at (opponent)" is a metaphor that references attacking a target that is far beyond your ability, or is inherently absurd. Its borrowed from Cervantes, and the opponent is assumed to be inanimate or unassailable, e.g. a windmill. Mixing the two just makes you sound goofy.
Here's the interesting thing about that video. It falls into the categories of being one sided and a sound byte stripped of context in a way. And I'm not talking about the heavily edited version that most people watched. Even the unedited footage that was made available to the public is problematic. And the main reason is that we (the public) kind of fetishized that information as giving us a uniquely unbiased or unfiltered view into the "reality" of war. But let's think about where that video came from. Manning felt that the video needed to be seen to show the world that what was going on in Iraq was wrong. So from the get go, the decision to leak the video was already bound up with an intended message. And what we get is a tiny little glimpse at an extrordinarily complex situation from a very specific perspective. Now this in and of itself isn't the problem because any media footage from the war would have the same problems. The problem, as I mentioned, is that we all kind of forgot that and viewed this footage as being able to cut through everything and show us Truth with a capital T. And so we collapsed the complexity of the situation down to a very simple visceral reaction. We are outraged by what we see and we demand that something be done. But we forget in the process that we're acting on a tiny piece of emotionally loaded information. And in the rush to condemn we miss out on the opportunity to reflect upon the broader set of issues which converged to produce what we saw. Now, I do not say all of this to argue that Wikileaks is dangerous (although I would be extremely critical of a group that releases something like the "Collateral Murder" video and then wants to later argue that they are acting purely as journalists). But I do hope that we can remember that Wikileaks can't really give us the "Truth" any more or less than traditional media outlets. And the reason is that no matter how much information Wikileaks is able to publish, it all starts off with someone saying "this is important and people need to know about it." So the information will always be biased, will always be an imperfect and incomplete picture of reality (and of course then we have to assume that there is only one correct way of interpreting events). . And we need to bear that in mind and look at information from places like Wikileaks with a critical eye and always in the back of our heads be wondering, who provided this information and why- just as we should with the news reports we hear from traditional media outlets.
no derrick, you missed my point (see what I did there?) you're a statist and I'm not.Irresponsible journalism is a value you have whereas my value relative to that is different. It's defined by placing the state in danger. I define irresponsible journalism as the kind that doesn't expose the state for its fraud when it has the ammunition to do so. That's the difference. But, see, you're more intent on manufacturing these great internet discussion board spires of logic and good discussion and that's your virtue. Which is, if you check your dictionary, what a "pedant" actually is. So the last time you had sex was when Ford was President and so thankfully the internet is here to entertain you. This is not my problem. The point is you are a statist and I'm not. So let's just tell each other to fuck off and forget about it. Deal?
Thanks for the input...I have to agree with allot of the concept....we can't just take a single offense and condemn the whole perspective, nor can we take one video of the horror of war and condemn a helicopter crew. There are allot of perpetrated war crimes during battle and yes there are cover-ups. We aren't talking of a whole platoon going in to massacre a whole village such as in teh Viet Nam era, covering it up till it was exposed years later and then even at that, the upper echelon were never laid bare or exposed to be brought to justice. But exposing that criminal act was a righteous endeavor even if it was possibly considered an illegal act of espionage or whatever at the time it was exposed. "The problem, as I mentioned, is that we all kind of forgot that and viewed this footage as being able to cut through everything and show us Truth with a capital T. And so we collapsed the complexity of the situation down to a very simple visceral reaction. We are outraged by what we see and we demand that something be done. But we forget in the process that we're acting on a tiny piece of emotionally loaded information. And in the rush to condemn we miss out on the opportunity to reflect upon the broader set of issues which converged to produce what we saw." and with that in mind and although this site is dedicated to protect WikiLeaks, I chose to post my threads here, because it was the most viable of forums to seek the viewpoints from. What should I have done, gone to a forum that was based on opposing Anonymnous' purpose and look for truthful answers for their stand and opinion? What good would it do me as one asked, to go to a Democratic web site and forum to find the reasoning behind the Republican stand point? Even if "some" of my thoughts were contrary to their point of view, I would be better off unless run off, to find their logic in that logical source. To run me off for no better reason that I had opposing viewpoints and questions they "didn't want to answer" of course would merely show a weakness in their logic, would it not. Once I was "done" with the fact finding and opinion collecting, I would have a far better factually based viewpoint and folio. I might not have as high of a seemingly intellectual vocabulary or art for grammar as some do, for I seem to have been accused of being rather a dunce in that area, (laughs) but then fancy talk never has proven wisdom or intelligence although it is a graceful accompaniment to a person who does have a higher learning aura about them. Yet we have seen the "sweet lipped" reasoning out there in the world before and we have seen that in many scenarios. I have not been able to access any of the leaked documents nor been referred to any sites where someone quoted specific occurrences with pages from those documents to back them up, although I really don't contest that some of those claims are valid and true as to what has happened. I know some issues were already made public such as the diplomat that was held due to the large cash sum present with him at the time of his being detained, and other points were already common news. Without denying their legitimacy, I would like to view some of the articles concerning the murders in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever, or if they were in video format, I would like to view these leaked sources. I merely thought SOMEONE, even though emphatically devoted to their cause, would express some kind of enlightenment to why Assange who they chose to defend, was totally righteous in his act and never admitted a mistake in issuing all the documents wide openly without discretion. An unrighteous act may not be illegal, and the question may be just that, WAS it illegal and should he stand trial? He did so in retaliation to the threat by the US government as far as I understand. Maybe someone can clarify that more since it is a bit difficult to find objective reporting on it.
I try not to resort to vulgarities to prove a point...but please do feel free to find other threads that you feel are more worthy of your time while these other nice folks who still feel it a worthy cause to explain things to me continue on without interruption you came freely, leave freely...I don't need to tell you to "FO" or ask you WTF....just to politely go your own way and have fun elsewhere
If avoiding vulgarity causes a failure in either comprehension or expression of a point, then your squeamish modesty is hurting your aims - and hurting the well-being of any person that would benefit from the successful pursuit of your aims.
Yes, it is. But, it is an oft used idiom to describe someone presenting a straw man argument. But re-reading his original paragraph, he didn't present a straw man argument(I typed that extemporaneously) Yes, it was. Thanks, noted. Goofy? Perhaps, usually aloof, but usually not a pedant. I am well aware what comprises a straw man. Too, I read Don Quixote, probably, before you were born(1975) Now, back to lurking.
