# Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

This sounds quite damaging. I wonder what the US has been doing in our backyard and what they privately have to say about Canada.

Anybody following this?

I guess the info could be released at any time.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm looking forward to this.... there is little doubt that it will prove hugely embarrassing for the U.S.

US envoys forced to apologise in advance as Wikileaks release looms
- _*The Independent*_


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

> "Few friendships would survive if each one knew what his friend says of him behind his back."


 - Blaise Pascal


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> I'm looking forward to this.... there is little doubt that it will prove hugely embarrassing for the U.S.


Are you so damaged by prejudice you're looking forward to this? I've heard of ideologues before, but this is pathology.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Gotta agree... seems like a nasty case of _schadenfreude_ to me.


----------



## MickMac (Oct 11, 2005)

I'm often dismayed by the actions of our southern neighbours, but there is a very real problem for them here and I feel some sympathy for their leaders. A government needs to be confident they're getting accurate information from their diplomats. Naturally some of this will not be particularly nice stuff. I imagine it would be the same for any other country, including ours.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_*Schadenfreude?*_ Definitely. In the case of the U.S. government, "couldn't happen to a nice country".

Unlike (far too) many, I'm not blinded by the "Good Ole' USA" and the "bright beacon of democracy and freedom" it purports to represent.

The USA has perpetrated horrible, evil acts upon its neighbours. I don't care how many bags of leftover wheat they send to starving Africans, because I know that the foreign policy decisions, the US-dominated Interantional "Development" agencies like the World Bank and IMF have instituted trade policies that have contributed to, if not outright caused, that famine. 

I know - and so do you - that the USA has on many occasions invented reasons to wage war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the pursuit of its political and economic goals.

I have no sympathy for the USA, which has invaded, intimidated, murdered and subverted other nations. You can dress up a pig in fancy clothes and slap some lipstick on it, but it's still a pig.

*No sympathy.* A country like North Korea may be ruled by a homicidal nutbar and its population repressed, but NK hasn't overthrown democracies (e.g., Chile, Guatemala) as happily as the USA. 

Slapping a little election theatre on top of a military-industrial complex that has objectives which do not coincide with the will of the people (those who can pull themselves away from _Dancing with the Stars_ long enough to have a coherent thought about the world beyond their living room) is insufficient for any thinking person to conclude that the USA is a force of good in the world.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nice to see how blind revenge informs the left. Your post is a poster child for the kind of malice that drives them. We'll just make sure those shining lights on a hill, Cuba and Mexico are spared from any fall-out. 

I've quoted your post as a museum specimen representing this sort of thinking.



CubaMark said:


> _*Schadenfreude?*_ Definitely. In the case of the U.S. government, "couldn't happen to a nice country".
> 
> Unlike (far too) many, I'm not blinded by the "Good Ole' USA" and the "bright beacon of democracy and freedom" it purports to represent.
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Mexico is a disaster. No idea why you would think I have any other view. As for Cuba, my positions are well-known in this forum.

But as usual, you misdirect. Nothing that appears in my post is cause for embarrassment (to me... the USA has much for which to feel shame). I would love to see the citizens of the USA take control of their country and redirect its massive capabilities toward working for good. But I have this funny feeling that it's never gonna happen...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Mexico is a disaster. No idea why you would think I have any other view. As for Cuba, my positions are well-known in this forum.
> 
> But as usual, you misdirect. Nothing that appears in my post is cause for embarrassment (to me... the USA has much for which to feel shame). I would love to see the citizens of the USA take control of their country and redirect its massive capabilities toward working for good. But I have this funny feeling that it's never gonna happen...


No, I'm certain you're not embarrassed, which is why I wanted it preserved. In which country is the government doing "the will of the people?" 

Either way, if this leak is what you're hoping for, it will go hard on citizens around the world. Enjoy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> ...Unlike (far too) many, I'm not blinded by the "Good Ole' USA" and the "bright beacon of democracy and freedom" it purports to represent.


No you are just blinded to any good that they may represent... sure historically they have carried out many atrocities (what empire hasn't) but they have also done a lot of good as well and been the saviour of countless millions over their history as well.



CubaMark said:


> ...I have no sympathy for the USA, which has invaded, intimidated, *murdered* and subverted *other nations*...


How do you murder a nation... you can murder the people, not a nation.



CubaMark said:


> *No sympathy.* A country like North Korea may be ruled by a homicidal nutbar and its population repressed, but NK hasn't overthrown democracies (e.g., Chile, Guatemala) as happily as the USA.


Tell me where is the moral superiority of a nation that kills and represses it's own people as opposed to a nation doing it to others?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

the British, you remember those guys Cubamark, the country that would liberate other countries from themselves..... they used to call this the Price of Empire. I think you can go back to the days of cave drawings and find that some cave will always dominate over another and that some neo-something-or-other will either grunt out or draw out "secrets".

What is disturbing is the fact that governments cannot seem to stop "wikileaks". After all, anything "wiki" has to be held with suspicion and I'm sure what you call damage and embarrassment. although rarely, has the potential to "close the backdoor" which is a safety value all countries truly have to ensure that each really knows what is going on. Whether you like the U.S. or not, there is real danger in these sites which, for the most part might be accurate, provides a techno form of hegemony, this may cause a reaction we may not understand. And if we don't understand things we tend to make the wrong decisions .... why, because as a population we have been groomed to react and not reflect.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

screature said:


> Tell me where is the moral superiority of a nation that kills and represses it's own people as opposed to a nation doing it to others?


Screature, I would agree with you more if the U.S. didn't seem so selective in its choices, but you're right, all empires operate this way. What is interesting, also, is that all empires eventually fall..... like attached twins, this is our greatest fear I think.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> I'm looking forward to this.... there is little doubt that it will prove hugely embarrassing for the U.S.


I agree with other posters. This is not something to be excited about.

I am not happy to see these things transpire (assuming negative things come out), but I do believe in transparency, accountability and openness. 

I bet there will be some interesting stuff about Chretien not joining in the Iraq war.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

CM: Yep - _schadenfreude_ mixed with a kunga-sized dose of pride. Think it looks good on ya? Well, bully for you.

Like Screature, I'm waiting for you to justify how North Korea comes off looking better than America. I'm not a fan of war by proxy but it's an old game and America is hardly the first country to ever have had some shady dealings with satellite nations and those countries that, for reasons good or ill, fall under its "sphere of influence."

I'm not defending their record but I'm wondering how you think empires are created to begin with; a certain amount of muscle and verve is required. It's not a game for milquetoast nations merely wanting to hold hands and get along.

Seeing as you hope that Wikileaks does the maximum possible damage to America and its interests, which rising empire are you cheering for these days?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> ...which rising empire are you cheering for these days?


I'm sure he imagines a world composed of independent hamlets, but united in universal love, but that ain't reality. That vacuum will be filled by some "rough beast" or other. We will never get a better shake than the sphere of influence in which we find ourselves now.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> CM:... I'm not defending their record but I'm wondering how you think empires are created to begin with; a certain amount of muscle and verve is required. It's not a game for milquetoast nations merely wanting to hold hands and get along.
> 
> Seeing as you hope that Wikileaks does the maximum possible damage to America and its interests, which rising empire are you cheering for these days?


+1 on all points.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I'm sure he imagines a world composed of independent hamlets, but united in universal love, but that ain't reality. That vacuum will be filled by some "rough beast" or other. We will never get a better shake than the sphere of influence in which we find ourselves now.


+1 We could be a satellite of far worse "overseers". We have been lucky for a small nation (population wise)... first the Brits and now the American's are our "overlords" and remain our allies... it could be much, much worse.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

screature said:


> Tell me where is the moral superiority of a nation that kills and represses it's own people as opposed to a nation doing it to others?


Ugh....

As problematic as the principle is, I believe you are looking for sovereignty. You know, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and all that jazz.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I support Cuba Mark on all fronts here. 

You compare American and British empires falsely. The British Empire was a formal colonial rule. It had formal trading companies, provincial governments and imperial governors, and formal military presence. American imperialism is fundamentally informal. It is 'loose'. It works on ideas, although coercively enforced. Structural adjustment programmes, 'bail-outs', aid packages (Plan Colombia, Plan Merida) etc. Material conflicts are fought indirectly (Nicaragua is case in point; see ICJ report here). 

Thought I'd clarify that. Carry on.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The difference is a matter of technique... the magnitude and philosophies remain the same. The essentials remain: command and control through manipulation, espionage, sabotage, marketing, distribution, mercenary might, etc.

American involvement in South and Central America may often have been covert and furtive, but as always, the dictum of 'follow the money' remains. Shell companies cloak ownership and control. You don't have to be 'formal' about very much indeed in order to -influence? meddle with? - another nation.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max said:


> The difference is a matter of technique... the magnitude and philosophies remain the same. The essentials remain: command and control through manipulation, espionage, sabotage, marketing, distribution, mercenary might, etc.
> 
> American involvement in South and Central America may often have been covert and furtive, but as always, the dictum of 'follow the money' remains. Shell companies cloak ownership and control. You don't have to be 'formal' about very much indeed in order to -influence? meddle with? - another nation.


It's ontological, but the distinction remains important for those trying to deny its very existence.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Perhaps. But in the end empire is empire.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

If/when I'm being sold out, I think I'd like to know about it … if/when deals are being made that affect my life, the country I live in, the planet I live on, I think I'd like to know about it.

Being a believer in some form of democracy (there are so many forms it takes), I understand that for a population to participate in decision-making they need to be informed. They need to know what is going on; who is doing what; what the stakes are.

If wikileaks sheds some light, bravo!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

max said:


> perhaps. But in the end empire is empire.


+1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Would have been a hell of a way to run WWII. We all want to know what's going on. However for _everyone _to know what's going on could be a disaster.



duosonic said:


> If/when I'm being sold out, I think I'd like to know about it … if/when deals are being made that affect my life, the country I live in, the planet I live on, I think I'd like to know about it.
> 
> Being a believer in some form of democracy (there are so many forms it takes), I understand that for a population to participate in decision-making they need to be informed. They need to know what is going on; who is doing what; what the stakes are.
> 
> If wikileaks sheds some light, bravo!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

duosonic said:


> If/when I'm being sold out, I think I'd like to know about it … if/when deals are being made that affect my life, the country I live in, the planet I live on, I think I'd like to know about it.
> 
> Being a believer in some form of democracy (there are so many forms it takes), I understand that for a population to participate in decision-making they need to be informed. They need to know what is going on; who is doing what; what the stakes are.
> 
> If wikileaks sheds some light, bravo!!


You don't have the right to know everything your government is doing at the time those things are transpiring just because you are a citizen. There are reasons why certain things are confidential, classified, Secret and Top Secret. For many things the public is on a "need to know" basis.

There are things that even someone as close as my wife could be doing that I don't know about at the time that she is doing them that may or may not affect me, but for one reason or another she may feel it is in her or my or both our best interests that I not know about it at the time. If at some point in time in the future she decides to tell me about it the ramifications and potential fallout of a voluntary disclosure is completely different from what it would have been if she were"outed" by a third party. I don't think this is too difficult to comprehend and the principle is the same here.

To think that your government should tell you about everything they are doing or saying while it is occurring is just plain naive and sometimes for security and the maintenance of international relations there are certain things that should not be know for a very long time.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max said:


> Perhaps. But in the end empire is empire.


Max! You're hurting my brain. Got any advil?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Would have been a hell of a way to run WWII. We all want to know what's going on. However for _everyone _to know what's going on could be a disaster.


I have a question for you. No polemical interest here, I promise. 

Why can governments generate secret intelligence on people and distribute it within their body (government or government agencies), but people cannot generate information on governments and share it within their body (the public)?

Understand "generate" as observe and steal. Government intelligence does both of these.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Why can governments generate secret intelligence on people and distribute it within their body (government or government agencies), but people cannot generate information on governments and share it within their body (the public)?
> 
> Understand "generate" as observe and steal. Government intelligence does both of these.


Governments have been given so much power "to do good" by people promoting social justice that they now have the power to do most anything. Having given the government this much power to generate information, the government must also protect the public from its harmful release. You can't, however, give the government the power to protect the public from release of information that may prove dangerous to the public, without having the government use that same power to protect itself from release of information that may prove dangerous to the government.

I believe that national defense is a rightful duty of government, however. Once charged with our defense I accept that the government must make certain decisions--even those occasionally abrogating rights and freedoms--to temporarily place the dissemination of some information on hold. I weigh the right of one individual to disseminate information against the safety of many, Even when I might tolerate the dissemination of such information as legal, it is often still a selfish and thoughtless act designed to elevate the status of the "leaker" at the expense of the wellbeing of others.

There is also a wrong-headed notion that privacy is due only to individuals. Sometimes, even governments must be private.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The leak has begun.*

The Guardian (UK) has an interactive world map for searching the database. A few items available, more to be added....

US embassy cables: browse the database

And... if you can get through despite the Denial-of-Service attack that's been underway against their website today, visit WikiLeaks.org.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Some great stuff here! I encourage all inquiring minds to read! this is going to be a good week.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, the releases so far are rather pitiful. You've either got to be incredibly naive or be some sort of diplomacy "weenie" to have an orgasm over this stuff. Enjoy boys!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Well, the releases so far are rather pitiful. You've either got to be incredibly naive or be some sort of diplomacy "weenie" to have an orgasm over this stuff. Enjoy boys!


With the amount left to post I'm sure there will be the odd nugget that even you'll like.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> Max! You're hurting my brain. Got any advil?


Adrian, if your brain is hurting, I suggest an excellent antidote: leave academia. Soon the fog will clear up and you will feel much better.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

duosonic said:


> If/when I'm being sold out, I think I'd like to know about it … if/when deals are being made that affect my life, the country I live in, the planet I live on, I think I'd like to know about it.
> 
> Being a believer in some form of democracy (there are so many forms it takes), I understand that for a population to participate in decision-making they need to be informed. They need to know what is going on; who is doing what; what the stakes are.
> 
> If wikileaks sheds some light, bravo!!


i agree +1. not enough people have a grasp on what our leaders are doing (specifically the US government). wikileaks will hopefully act as a check and keep them responsible for their actions.

I doubt we'll see TOP SECRET nuclear plans or identities of spies or anything....just info that will prove embarrassing, and that could be a good thing.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Well, the releases so far are rather pitiful. You've either got to be incredibly naive or be some sort of diplomacy "weenie" to have an orgasm over this stuff. Enjoy boys!


"Weenie", "orgasm" ...

Hmmm. Steady as she goes there, Macfury, old chap. You'll go blind.
Actually, you've made an awful fuss over all of this business, and now you say it's pitiful. You're all over the place, man. Calm down. Have a cold bath.

Odds on most of the contents of these cables will either have been common knowledge or easily guessed at by the various governments concerned. It's good to see it out in the open. A bit more openness at the time might have prevented the squalid fiasco that has been Iraq-Afghanistan. It's interesting to see the predictable responses in this thread. You're all lit up like Christmas trees, boys! Very seasonal!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Here's a down to earth point of view.

Take deep breaths.

Calm down.

For the time being.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> "Weenie", "orgasm" ...
> 
> Hmmm. Steady as she goes there, Macfury, old chap. You'll go blind.
> 
> ...


Snapple, you crack me up...:lmao:

Ho, Ho, Ho and may yer kilt keep ya warm laddy.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Snapple, you crack me up...:lmao:
> 
> Ho, Ho, Ho and may yer kilt keep ya warm laddy.


Aye, and I'll hae a slice o' cald parritch in ma sporran fae tha emeergencies.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Actually, you've made an awful fuss over all of this business, and now you say it's pitiful. You're all over the place, man.


Based original comments on the promises. Response is based on the drivel that's been released.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Based original comments on the promises. Response is based on the drivel that's been released.


I agree. So far, the US is actually coming out of this looking pretty good.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Based original comments on the promises. Response is based on the drivel that's been released.


Of course! You've read all 250,000 documents. Je m'excuse.

Keep spinning Macfury. We'll read your drivel as it is released.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I agree. So far, the US is actually coming out of this looking pretty good.


I hope you get on the horn and let the State Department know of your findings.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Fat royal b**tard makes arse of himself, in true House of Windsor fashion.

Of course all right thinking people should join in condemning such disclosures ... national security ... lives put at risk ... wallets threatened ... jolly well not cricket ... Zzzzzzzzz ...

[ shouldn't that read 'world threatened'? _Ed_. ]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> ... Zzzzzzzzz ...


That's about what these "disclosures" are. I can't see many lives at risk here, except maybe the mealy-mouthed guy who released them against the express wishes of the powers that be.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I can't see many lives at risk here, except maybe the mealy-mouthed guy who released them against the express wishes of the powers that be.


If, as you have valiantly and repeatedly try to impress on us all, the "disclosures" are sleep-inducing/drivel/pitiful, why do you suppose the MMG's life is at risk? There seems to be a lack of balance displayed here.

If it's simply sneering, vindictive wishful thinking on your part, then I fully understand.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

*Next Target: major US Bank*



> No, not at the same scale as for the military.
> 
> Will we?
> 
> ...


From an interview with Forbes:
An Interview With WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange - Andy Greenberg - The Firewall - Forbes


Julian Assange isn't stupid. There is double insurance for him. The first, they have not released the most sensitive files. If Assange is arrested or killed, those files will be made public. The second, detaining Assange will not stop anything. Wikileaks is a fundamentally decentralised organisation. He is a leader for public relations only. He has no special functionary value to the organisation. 

This is so fascinating. I cannot wait to read the neoconservative idiots foaming at the mouth in Foriegn Affairs! The right wing media idiots are already claiming this guy a socialist-terrorist!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> This is so fascinating. I cannot wait to read the neoconservative idiots foaming at the mouth in Foriegn Affairs! The right wing media idiots are already claiming this guy a socialist-terrorist!


Why would neo-conservatives care in particular? Looks like this is more embarrassing to the Obama administration and many left-lib governments around the world.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Looks like this is more embarrassing to the Obama administration and many left-lib governments around the world.


Bingo!!! Well done, Macfury!!! it was only a matter of time before you graciously filtered out this new right-wing soundbite for your readers.

This is the new position on the whole affair. Read the right-wing blogs and get yourselves oriented. Learn your lines.

Will the next fun thing be the common usage of the word 'Euroweenie'? I came across it whilst perusing a most restrained blog courtesy of the Charleston Daily Mail. Some very fine, sensitive and cultured people replied with their opinions concerning this 'Euroweenie' and what should befall him.

I'm greatly entertained by all of this and especially by the image of the reptilian right, mouths foaming with rage on the one hand, yet trying to be cool and sneering on the other.

To quote the great man himself, "This is bully!"


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Why would neo-conservatives care in particular? Looks like this is more embarrassing to the Obama administration and many left-lib governments around the world.


It's attacking American exceptionalism. The Ivory Tower where the God-Blessed Americans distribute their development and democracy to the world!

Palin and O'Reilly are freaking out. Charles Krauthammer is already calling for their persecution for undermining American operations and security. They're already calling them terrorists for god's sake. 

Krauthammer is the neocon Jesus!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Bingo!!! Well done, Macfury!!! it was only a matter of time before you graciously filtered out this new right-wing soundbite for your readers.


Not at all. It's just that more governments are left lib than not. The "leaks" are just falling out at random and sticking to whoever is in power. They're hardly an effort to discredit wither the left, the right, the conservative or the liberal. 

I'm surprised you misapprehended this.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Not at all. It's just that more governments are left lib than not. The "leaks" are just falling out at random and sticking to whoever is in power. They're hardly an effort to discredit wither the left, the right, the conservative or the liberal.
> 
> I'm surprised you misapprehended this.


Your explanation is, I grant you, one interpretation of your Obama/left-lib jibe, and is one that occurred to me. It's a bit tenuous, especially since we are still in the initial stages of the Great Leak War.

I'm surprised that you thought you could get away with such a glib line.

Wait! No I'm not!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

As an aside: this, gentlemen, is an amusing skirmish. The clash of the invisible titans, as it were.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

It'll be over by Christmas, Max.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*If there is a leak?*



Snapple Quaffer said:


> It'll be over by Christmas, Max.



Time to call Joe The Plumber!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

How embarrassing for the CBC. 

John Ivison: U.S. wary of Canada’s ‘inferiority complex’ | Full Comment | National Post

Even the Americans think the CBC are a bunch of looney activists. 

Why do we put up with this crap? We need to stop funding a propaganda agency that attacks our best allie.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> How embarrassing for the CBC.
> 
> John Ivison: U.S. wary of Canada’s ‘inferiority complex’ | Full Comment | National Post
> 
> ...


 :clap:  Another station heard from. An opinion that reinforces a shared opinion is not a fact, it is just an opinion.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*And this is an accurate analysis of our PM?*



Vandave said:


> How embarrassing for the CBC.
> 
> John Ivison: U.S. wary of Canada’s ‘inferiority complex’ | Full Comment | National Post
> 
> ...



From our 'best' ally !!

"no Canadian politician of any stripe is nearly as popular, respected or inspiring as you are to Canadian voters,” the official wrote."


Ummmm ... some analysis eh?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

WikiLeaks boss Assange surrenders to U.K. police

'This will not change our operation,' WikiLeaks spokesman says.

(Read some of the comments at the bottom of the linked page)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Is that story still being reported on?


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Is that story still being reported on?


Didn't he say if he got caught he'd release info which he himself described as "thermonuclear" in nature? Don't know if turning oneself in counts as caught.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, let's see the thermonuclear release then, because this tepid release has all of the drama of a telephone book.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Well, let's see the thermonuclear release then, because this tepid release has all of the drama of a telephone book.


Maybe it's Iran's phone book.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

An article by Assange: Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths | The Australian



> But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:
> 
> ► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.
> 
> ...


I agree with what his website is doing. The nonsense about people being harmed by the leaks or painting him as a terrorist is baloney. The only harm is to politicians careers.

The theme I notice running through most of the leaks I've seen (the diplomatic cables and prior) is that it clearly shows that our governments and leaders truly despise democracy. Not surprising, just interesting to see it so clearly confirmed.

Governments should have to go to court if they want *any* of their communications kept secret and have to prove why it is absolutely necessary, everything else should by law be regularly posted on the web for all to see.

As the Patriot Act types like to say, "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". I don't think our rulers believe that applies to them though, just the rabble.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Guess the lap pups fear more Harper face plants revealed.....trying to downplay the import.......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The theme I notice running through most of the leaks I've seen (the diplomatic cables and prior) is that it clearly shows that our governments and leaders truly despise democracy.


Nice overstatement. Instead, the US government should have told the world that Saudi Arabia wants Iran taken out? The fact that they do not do so means they hate democracy?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

In a mediaverse given to hyperbole, everyone goes for the extreme statement.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Nice overstatement. Instead, the US government should have told the world that Saudi Arabia wants Iran taken out? The fact that they do not do so means they hate democracy?


Nice twisting of what I wrote. I wrote that the theme running through most of the leaks revealed our leaders hatred of democracy. That doesn't apply to every instance or statement but I see it as a vein running through much of it.

There are obviously many good reason for some things to be kept secret. That our leaders abuse their ability to keep things secret only because they are protecting dealings that they know full well their citizens won't like is a sign how little regard they have for our democratic institutions or any of the claptrap they like to spew about accountability and transparency.

It's interesting to me how a libertarian defender of freedom such as yourself would appear to be content with governments keeping information from us. I guess Number 6 should just STFU and accept his lot, eh?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm mixed about the WikiLeaks. I'm content with the government keeping SOME information from us, regarding government's essential functions--defense, treaty negotiations, international diplomacy. I'm not surprised, for example to see the (failed) backroom pressure used to try to deliver Obama a success at the Copenhagen summit, but I don't expect people to put everything on the table when they're negotiating for the sake of transparency. 

Curious, 'sauce--grab me five instances of WikiLeaks from the latest round that you think should never have been kept under wraps and we can talk about those.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> I'm mixed about the WikiLeaks. I'm content with the government keeping SOME information from us, regarding government's essential functions--defense, treaty negotiations, international diplomacy. I'm not surprised, for example to see the (failed) backroom pressure used to try to deliver Obama a success at the Copenhagen summit, but I don't expect people to put everything on the table when they're negotiating for the sake of transparency.
> 
> Curious, 'sauce--grab me five instances of WikiLeaks from the latest round that you think should never have been kept under wraps and we can talk about those.


I'm mixed too. I don't for example, like it that Canada's weakest spots that are most vulnerable to a terrorist attack are published. I've also read several accounts from real people on the ground in 3rd world countries (Not Canadians giving their opinion from the comfort of their home on the computer) that are dealing with corrupt governments and citizens who risk their lives to provide critical information on atrocities that these governments are committing but trying to cover up. Those people on the ground say that with some of the leaks, at best these people are not going to provide information. At worst, some people's live will be in real danger. 

It's important to keep governments feet to the fire and some robin hood of releasing data that exposes corruption sounds great. But publishing all accessed private and confidential documents without concern or discretion sounds like a terrible idea.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm mixed about the WikiLeaks. I'm content with the government keeping SOME information from us, regarding government's essential functions--defense, treaty negotiations, international diplomacy. I'm not surprised, for example to see the (failed) backroom pressure used to try to deliver Obama a success at the Copenhagen summit, but I don't expect people to put everything on the table when they're negotiating for the sake of transparency.
> 
> Curious, 'sauce--grab me five instances of WikiLeaks from the latest round that you think should never have been kept under wraps and we can talk about those.


I'm going to preface this with the admission that I shouldn't have got into this discussion. I have very little free time in the next several days. I made the mistake of putting my opinion on this thread knowing that it would result in further discussion in a momentary act of procrastination when taking a break. Now I'm afraid I can't deliver. It's just after 8 pm here now and I have at least 4 hours work ahead of me tonight, I shouldn't even be replying to this post. I humbly apologize for being a debate tease.

From what I've read, I see many examples of information that governments have kept private only because it reveals activities and policies that clearly display hypocrisy, lying and deceit. One of the obvious cases were the leaks of military information that Wikileaks made earlier this year in the case of US troops killing of Reuters reporters in Baghdad. The US military and government lied and covered up their role in the deaths until outed by Wikileaks.

And I agree there are many cases where information does need to be secret. Ongoing negotiations, as you mention may be a good reason, at least during the time of the negotiations. Business deals might be another. But simply avoiding political embarrassment shouldn't be a valid reason for information being kept secret. 

Assange claims that he attempts to filter the information so that obvious cases where someone may be in danger are kept secret. He stated that before the release of the cables, he contacted the US embassy in London for help on that, but was flatly turned down. I guess this shows that despite their protests, the latest releases aren't really putting anyone in danger. It's my understanding that when media outlets like the NY Times republish the information they attempt to vet the info with governments and also attempt to remove harmful info and do receive gov't co-operation.

Again, I think that our government should have to petition to have information kept secret, say to an impartial commission or judicial body, rather than private citizens having to petition government using very restricted FOI requests to get at the little crumbs that government will allow us to see. The default position should be that documents and communications that our government engages in, in our names, should be ours to review unless they can prove a real and compelling reason for it not to be public. I want the real accountability and transparency that all of these pols constantly promise us, but never deliver.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

This wikileaks is like a massive accident on the highway... all those flashing lights making you rubberneck in hopes of seeing some blood and gore except you have no clue as to who, why and how.

Anyway, regarding Vandave's post quoted below, I happaned to drive by those flashing lights and rubbernecked the actual cable...quite funny actually and quite accurate.



> How embarrassing for the CBC.
> 
> John Ivison: U.S. wary of Canada’s ‘inferiority complex’ | Full Comment | National Post
> 
> Even the Americans think the CBC are a bunch of looney activists.


The CBC cable from wikileaks:


```
VZCZCXRO1729
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHIK RUEHKW
RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHQU RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVC RUEHVK
RUEHYG
DE RUEHOT #0136/01 0252315
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 252315Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7209
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHWH/WESTERN HEMISPHERIC AFFAIRS DIPL POSTS
RHMCSUU/FBI WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUEABND/DEA HQS WASHDC
RUEAORC/US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION WASHINGTON DC
 UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 000136

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV KPAO CA
SUBJECT: PRIMETIME IMAGES OF US-CANADA BORDER PAINT U.S. IN
INCREASINGLY NEGATIVE LIGHT

OTTAWA 00000136  001.2 OF 003

¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
has long gone to great pains to highlight the distinction
between Americans and Canadians in its programming, generally
at our expense. However, the level of anti-American melodrama
has been given a huge boost in the current television season
as a number of programs offer Canadian viewers their fill of
nefarious American officials carrying out equally nefarious
deeds in Canada while Canadian officials either oppose them
or fall trying.  CIA rendition flights, schemes to steal
Canada's water, "the Guantanamo-Syria express," F-16's flying
in for bombing runs in Quebec to eliminate escaped
terrorists:  in response to the onslaught, one media
commentator concluded, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that
"apparently, our immigration department's real enemies aren't
terrorists or smugglers -- they're Americans."  While this
situation hardly constitutes a public diplomacy crisis per
se, the degree of comfort with which Canadian broadcast
entities, including those financed by Canadian tax dollars,
twist current events to feed long-standing negative images of
the U.S. -- and the extent to which the Canadian public seems
willing to indulge in the feast - is noteworthy as an
indication of the kind of insidious negative popular
stereotyping we are increasingly up against in Canada.  End
Summary.

"THE BORDER" -CANADA'S ANSWER TO 24, W/O THAT SUTHERLAND GUY
--------------------------------------------- ---------------

¶2. (SBU) When American TV and movie producers want action,
the formula involves Middle Eastern terrorists, a ticking
nuclear device, and a (somewhat ironically, Canadian) guy
named Sutherland.  Canadian producers don't need to look so
far -- they can find all the action they need right on the
U.S.-Canadian border.  This piece of real estate, which most
Americans associate with snow blowing back and forth across
an imaginary line, has for the past three weeks been for
Canadian viewers the site of downed rendition flights, F-16
bombing runs, and terrorist suspects being whisked away to
Middle Eastern torture facilities. "The Border," which
state-owned CBC premiered on January 7, attracted an
impressive 710,000 viewers on its first showing -- not
exactly Hockey Night in Canada, but equivalent to an American
program drawing about eight million U.S. viewers.  The show
depicts Canadian immigration and customs officers' efforts to
secure the U.S.-Canadian border and the litany of moral
dilemmas they face in doing so.  The CBC bills the
high-budget program as depicting the "new war" on the border
and "the few who fight it."  While the "war" is supposed to
be against criminals and terrorists trying to cross the
border, many of the immigration team's battles end up being
with U.S. government officials, often in tandem with the
CIA-colluding Canadian Security and Intelligence Service
(CSIS).

¶3. (SBU) The clash between the Americans and Canadians got
started early in the season and has continued unabated.  In
episode one a Syrian terrorist with a belt full of gel-based
explosives is removed from a plane in Canada while the
Canadian-Syrian man sitting next to him is rendered by the
CIA/CSIS team to Syria -- a fairly transparent reference to
QCIA/CSIS team to Syria -- a fairly transparent reference to
the Maher Arar case.  Fortunately for the incarcerated
individual, the sympathetic Canadian Immigration and Customs
Security official recognizes the mistake and shrewdly causes
the government to rescue him from a Syrian jail through
organized media pressure.  The episode ends with a preview of
things to come when one of the Canadian immigration officers
notes with disgust, "Homeland Security is sending in some hot
shot agent."

¶4. (SBU) Episode two expands on this theme, featuring the
arrival of an arrogant, albeit stunningly attractive female
DHS officer, sort of a cross between Salma Hayek and Cruella
De Vil.  The show portrays the DHS official bossing around
her stereotypically more compassionate Canadian colleagues
while uttering such classic lines as, "Who do you think
provides the muscle to protect your fine ideals?" and "You
would have killed him.  Let the American justice system do it
for you."  Her fallback line in most situations is "it's a
matter of national security."

¶5. (SBU) But the one-liners and cross-border stereotypes
really take off in episode three, in which an American

OTTAWA 00000136  002.2 OF 003

rendition aircraft with three terrorist suspects on the
"Guantanamo to Syria express" crashes in Quebec and the
terrorists escape -- however, not before killing a Quebec
police officer, whose sympathetic widow appears throughout
the show.  The DHS officer's answer to everything is American
firepower, but in this episode even CSIS gets a chance at
redemption as the CSIS officer in charge challenges her. Ms.
DHS barks back, "You really want to talk territorial
sovereignty, or should we talk about getting the terrorists
back?"  After being chased through the woods of Quebec by a
cross-culturally balanced CSIS-JTF2 team which kills a
15-year-old terrorist in a shootout, the bad guys are finally
cornered on the side of a pristine Canadian lake.  Then,
after a conversation with Washington in which she asks "can
you bypass NSA and State?", our DHS official calls in an
air-strike on the terrorists without Canadian concurrence.
Canadian planes, another official has explained, are "already
deployed to Afghanistan, helping our neighbors fight their
war on terror."  With only seconds to spare before the bombs
are dropped on the Quebec site, the planes are called off
when the CSIS-JTF team affirms positive control over the
terrorists.  Finally, in a last-minute allowance for
redemption, the CSIS officer informs his DHS colleague that
the captured terrorists will not be turned over to the U.S.
but will stand trial for the death of the Quebec police
officer.  She does get the final word, though, hissing the
classic phrase "you people are so nave," before the screen
goes blank.

DEA ALSO TAKES SOME HITS
------------------------

¶6. (SBU) If that isn't enough, "the Border" is only one of
the CBC programs featuring cross-border relations.
"Intelligence," which depicts a Canadian intelligence unit
collaborating with a local drug lord-turned government
informant, is just as stinging in its portrayal of
U.S.-Canada law enforcement cooperation.  Through its two
seasons, the program has followed plot lines including a DEA
attempt to frame the Canadian informant for murder, a CIA
plot to secretly divert Canadian water to the American
southwest, and a rogue DEA team that actually starts selling
drugs for a profit.  A columnist in conservative Canadian
daily newspaper "The National Post" commented, "There's no
question that the CSIS heroes on 'Intelligence' consider the
Americans our most dangerous enemies."

EVEN THE LITTLE MOSQUE GETS IN TO THE ACT
-----------------------------------------

¶7. (U) Even "Little Mosque on the Prairie," a popular
Canadian sitcom that depicts a Muslim community in a small
Saskatchewan town, has joined the trend of featuring
U.S.-Canada border relations.  This time, however, the State
Department is the fall guy.  A December 2007 episode
portrayed a Muslim economics professor trying to remove his
name from the No-Fly-List at a U.S. consulate.  The show
depicts a rude and eccentric U.S. consular officer
stereotypically attempting to find any excuse to avoid being
helpful.  Another episode depicted how an innocent trip
across the border became a jumble of frayed nerves as Grandpa
was scurried into secondary by U.S. border officials because
his name matched something on the watch list.
Qhis name matched something on the watch list.

GIVE US YOUR WATER; OH WHAT THE HECK WE'LL TAKE YOUR COUNTRY
TOO
--------------------------------------------- ----

¶8. (U) And it appears that the season is just warming up.
After CIA renditions, DEA murder plots, DHS missteps, and
unhelpful consular officers, a U.S. takeover of Canada may
have been the only theme left for the CBC "H20" mini-series.
The series was first broadcast in 2005, when it featured an
investigation into an American assassination of the Canadian
prime minister and a very broad-based (and wildly
implausible) U.S. scheme to steal Canadian water.  A two-part
sequel, set to be broadcast in March and April 2008, will
portray the United States as manipulating innocent, trusting
Canadians into voting in favor of Canada's becoming part of
the United States.  Then, after the United States completely
takes over Canada, one brave Canadian unites Canadians and
Europeans in an attempt to end America's hegemony.  Another

OTTAWA 00000136  003.2 OF 003

program could prove more benign but will certainly include
its share of digs against all things American:  Global TV
reportedly is gearing up for a March 2008 debut of its own
border security drama, set to feature Canadian
search-and-rescue officers patrolling the U.S.-Canada border.

COMMENT
-------

¶9. (SBU) EKOS pollster Frank Graves told Poloff he thought
that at this point such shows are reflective and not causal
in determining attitudes in Canada.  They play on the
deep-seated caution most Canadians feel toward their large
neighbor to the south, a sort of zeitgeist that has been in
the background for decades.  As one example, a December 2007
Strategic Counsel poll showed that nine percent of Canadians
thought U.S. foreign policy was the greatest threat to the
world -- twice as high as those who were concerned about
weapons of mass destruction.  What Graves does find
disturbing -- and here he believes that the causal or
reflective question is not important -- is that support for a
less porous border is increasing in both Canada and the U.S.:
in the U.S. because of generalized fear of terrorism and in
Canada because of concern over guns, sovereignty, and the
impact that a terrorist attack on the U.S. would have on
trade.  Graves has detected an increasingly wary attitude
over the border that he believes could lead to greater
distance between the two countries.

¶10. (SBU) While there is no single answer to this trend, it
does serve to demonstrate the importance of constant
creative, and adequately-funded public-diplomacy engagement
with Canadians, at all levels and in virtually all parts of
the country.  We need to do everything we can to make it more
difficult for Canadians to fall into the trap of seeing all
U.S. policies as the result of nefarious faceless U.S.
bureaucrats anxious to squeeze their northern neighbor.
While there are those who may rate the need for USG
public-diplomacy programs as less vital in Canada than in
other nations because our societies are so much alike, we
clearly have real challenges here that simply must be
adequately addressed.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS
```


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> gain, I think that our government should have to petition to have information kept secret, say to an impartial commission or judicial body...


Sounds like a reasonable approach.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Pretty good summation, kps.

What the hey... it was bound to happen. I'm surprised some of that negative stereotyping hasn't gone viral a long time ago. The recent Canadian series _Regenesis,_ which I quite liked in many respects, also featured lots of villians who worked for Uncle Sam. It became rather predictable and trite, so obvious was the bias of the writers. It was like some kind of homespun paranoia about the big bad USA meddling with Canadian and global affairs... sometimes it felt like a sticky sermon.

On the other hand, there are shows which are almost completely devoid of politics and deliberately downplay their Canadian roots in favour of appearing reassuringly American in spirit, if not in external appearance - vehicles like Flashpoint or The Bridge, which are intended chiefly for American consumption, funded by both American and Canadian money - but without all the nasty asides about evil Americans meddling with Canadian affairs, or polluting Canadian cultural proclivities.

So it goes both ways.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> ...sometimes it felt like a sticky sermon.


That's ironic. I think Julian Assange is being held for something to do with that.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yet considering all the anger he has generated, I have to wonder if there wasn't a degree of entrapment going on there.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Assange's "sticky sermon" is more like the Satanic Verses...off with his head! Poor_ basterd_ will be pulverized into pulp by the various courts seeking his presence...or... someone gets to him first.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

My thinking exactly.

However, it also seems to me that this fellow might well be merely the first in a long line of big-ticket whistle-blowers harnessing modern tech (and the natural tendency for secrets to find the light of day). Assange himself may have met his match or have been otherwise neutralized, but what's to prevent similar occurrences in the future?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Assange as messenger will be pilloried, but the person responsible for the leak better find some 3rd world country to disappear in...if that is possible anymore.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Assange as messenger will be pilloried, but the person responsible for the leak better find some 3rd world country to disappear in...if that is possible anymore.


Didn't he nail them all?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Didn't he nail them all?


You mean all the 3rd world countries?

Perhaps he can come to Canada and be safe...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Thanks for posting that leaked document KPS (BTW, you're now under suspicion of terrorism for having done so  )

I think it was an entirely reasonable and cool-headed analysis. Especially the final summation that concludes that these shows are not causative, but rather reflective of the increasingly suspicious relationship Canadians have with the US (and the US authorities especially). Given that the primary role of CBC's dramatic productions is explicitly to reflect Canadian culture to Canadians, this also serves to illustrate that they're actually doing their job.

The fact that some American diplomat had the smarts to recognize this, and that this issue is being passed along to the highest levels of the American government is even more gratifying, and all the more reason we should be happy and proud of the CBC for having elevated the attention this issue is receiving (while simultaneously providing entertainment).

Good job all round, I'd say.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Best comment I've come across...



> *WikiLeaks is what happens when the entire US government is forced to go through a full-body scanner*.


 :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Good job all round, I'd say.


If anything, most of the US diplomat leaks are fairly thoughtful I find.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

The leaks on Africa are interesting. Kenyan civil war in 2012, Ivorian Civil War in next election (yes!) etc. 

Assange said they have emails demonstrating huge fraud in a major us bank (probably Bank of America). I want those to come out!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Assange said they have emails demonstrating huge fraud in a major us bank (probably Bank of America). I want those to come out!


That could harm Obama's presidency. Better not wish for more than you really want.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> That could harm Obama's presidency. Better not wish for more than you really want.


Why do you assume that I support Obama. I am extremely critical of Obama. He continued some of the worst policies of the Bush regime ( no child left behind education policy, tax cuts for wealthiest, hasn't changed a thing with FP, bailed out the banks and Wall Street). The Banks should have fallen, there would have been a very bad couple of years, but the economy would recover much faster. He bailed them out, made some public noise of charging people and then brushed it under the carpet and let wall street keep on rolling the dice with asset backed commercial paper. 

The banks need to fall. Why is it that small regional banks like Laurentian bank are posting dividend payout increases while big banks are calling loans and commercialising debt? Stil!!!!!! They were supposed to stop doingthat! Canadian banks didn't play as dirty as American banks, but it shows that the smaller banks at were not involved in those risk areas are doing quit fine. No substantial bank reform was ever passed.

The financial sector was Obama's turn to do some serious reform like Roosevelt busted the trusts and monopolies. He failed. He should step down. That was the largest failure since purple ketchup. 

That said, I cannot see anyone better to take the presidency.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with you Adrian., although the only monopolies we have in the U.S. seem to be government-supported and backed. You don't need to bust them up--just withdraw regulatory and financial support.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Adrian. said:


> I cannot see anyone better to take the presidency.


From a population of 300 million of the best educated, wealthiest, healthiest, and most privileged people in human history, I find it consistently appalling that the US political system elevates such pathetic examples of our species to the pinnacles of power. I'll admit I was very optimistic about Obama, and still consider him an adequate president (given the constraints he's had to work within, and the unmitigated disaster left to him by what history will doubtless recognize as the worst president in American history), but he's been far less effective and far too compromising in my opinion.

There's an evil little part of me that secretly hopes the Tea Party get's Palin, or someone similarly atrocious elected, because, as Churchill said, "democracy is the only system in which the majority get what they deserve" and I'd like to see the US political system blow itself up.

But sadly, I have to agree with you, there's very little prospect of getting good leadership in the White house in the foreseeable future.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Removed to maintain continuity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> From a population of 300 million of the best educated, wealthiest, healthiest, and most privileged people in human history, I find it consistently appalling that the US political system elevates such pathetic examples of our species to the pinnacles of power. I'll admit I was very optimistic about Obama, and still consider him an adequate president (given the constraints he's had to work within, and the unmitigated disaster left to him by what history will doubtless recognize as the worst president in American history), but he's been far less effective and far to compromising in my opinion.


Obama has already fallen well below George Bush in the public's presidential ranking. He's personally saved Jimmy Carter from the stigma of being the worst president in 50 years.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Obama has already fallen well below George Bush in the public's presidential ranking.


As P.T. Barnum said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."

But I'd be interested in a link to support that; my recollection is that Bush's support was down into the low teens before he left office, and I don't think Obama's support is anywhere near that low (yet).

Nevertheless, the opinions of the American public are of limited relevance to this. My contention is that history will judge Bush Jr. to be the worst president in American History, and that it will do so on the basis of his social, economic and especially foreign policy decisions. We may never know if I'm right, and it will certainly be decades before there is any strong indication one way or another, but it strikes me as inconceivable that any president could have made decisions that could've more rapidly or devastatingly damaged the global solidarity surrounding the US that emerged after the attacks of 9/11, more egregiously heightened the social and economic divisions within American society, or more cynically wasted the lives of soldiers and civilians on creating a profit bonanza for scum like Dick Cheney.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Obama is a victim of very bad times that he did not create. Obama did not create the economic crisis, he is being scapegoated. He is trying to balance staying in power with fixing this problem. Letting the banks fail would have meant a huge economic disaster which would have seen him impeached or assassinated before he was elected out. 

Bush was a horrendous president. He was an ideologue. He brainwashed the US public into going after the "terrorists" to go on a personal crusade for oil and helped his buddies out along the way. Every national security analyst has said that the war was unnecessary and the wrong approach to the statede objectives. You don't attack a state when youre looking for terrorists.

Bush did nothing but pass laws that benefit the super wealthy and big corporations. His health care bill for example benefitted pharmaceutical and insurance companies. He was the corporate lobbyist wet dream. 

Sorry for the bad grammar, iPads are bad for good spelling and grammar.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll bet Obama sinks like a stone. He's perceived as an ineffectual weakling, and after his latest foreign policy debacles and tax cut deal with the Republicans, even his own party is turning on him.

Here's the poll of past Presidents. Granted, Obama may be "past it" but he is not competing as one who has completed his term of office:

Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

This is pretty much how I see Obama


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This is pretty much how I see Obama


He's not that harmless. His "health care reforms" alone are dragging the economy down to a remarkable degree.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I found this an interesting summary.



> Reaction across the globe to the leaked US embassy cables has ranged from anger and bitterness to extreme indifference


Nothing about Canada, however.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Most of it is just grumpiness over revelations that what everyone knows to be true has been written down and read. Again, the U.S. is looking pretty good here.

That the arrest of Julian has not unleashed the "nuclear" option makes me somewhat suspicious that there's anything in the final file of any importance,


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> He's not that harmless. His "health care reforms" alone are dragging the economy down to a remarkable degree.


I'd have to agree that Obama is starting to look like a weakling with his massive cave in to extend the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% of wealthiest Americans, but I'd like to see some evidence that it's the health care reforms that are hurting the economy. I highly doubt there's any truth to that in the least.

But back to the topic of this thread, American libertarian demigod Ron Paul spoke at length today in Congress defending Wikileaks. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what Paul says, but there are many areas where he hits the nail squarely on the head and I have to applaud him. I guess that now means Paul is a "terrorist" in the eyes of doctrinaire Republican supporters.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I think that's a bit of a generalisation MacFury. The economy tanked long before health care reforms.

Overseas production and a rampant misunderstanding of how capitalism and free trade works among its population (the infamous Tea Party commoner saying "we don't want government intervention, but we want all the jobs back in America!") are more to blame. That's probably a bigger factor in all of this. They don't equate free market to international competition and losing manufacturing jobs, but they associate health care reform with communism. Those people are really stupid.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Adrian, I was in agreement with your second last sentence. The your last sentence came along and torpedoed the post.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max said:


> Adrian, I was in agreement with your second last sentence. The your last sentence came along and torpedoed the post.


For the most part, the Tea Baggers are not intelligent people. I mean intelligent in a very neutral sense: being able to comprehend fairly simple concepts like "free trade" and making logical deductions. For example, if we pass a health care bill, the government will inevitably steal all our money and tell us what to eat. I understand that there is a difference between political rhetoric and what these people actually believe, but they really don't seem to understand this. 

As far as I can discern, most of these people are not very intelligent.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian: you've offered one of the more cogent analyses of the TP'ers....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> For the most part, the Tea Baggers are not intelligent people. I mean intelligent in a very neutral sense: being able to comprehend fairly simple concepts like "free trade" and making logical deductions. For example, if we pass a health care bill, the government will inevitably steal all our money and tell us what to eat. I understand that there is a difference between political rhetoric and what these people actually believe, but they really don't seem to understand this.
> 
> As far as I can discern, most of these people are not very intelligent.


This is simply a nonsense statement. The Democrats are already making noise about telling people what to eat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> I think that's a bit of a generalisation MacFury. The economy tanked long before health care reforms.
> 
> Overseas production and a rampant misunderstanding of how capitalism and free trade works among its population (the infamous Tea Party commoner saying "we don't want government intervention, but we want all the jobs back in America!") are more to blame. That's probably a bigger factor in all of this. They don't equate free market to international competition and losing manufacturing jobs, but they associate health care reform with communism. Those people are really stupid.


Again, a nonsense statement that may reflect the view of a few in that movement--perhaps the equivalent of the jubilant Democrat voters saying they were going to be rewarded from "Obama's stash" after his election victory in 2008.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Likewise the majority of Tea Party supporters are pro free trade--though they believe that the U.S. is too soft on countries like China who manipulate their currency to their own temporary advantage. On the other hand, Obama and the Fed are now devaluing the U.S. dollar themselves to do the same thing, so I suppose the U.S has no leverage there any longer.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> This is simply a nonsense statement. The Democrats are already making noise about telling people what to eat.


Right on, Macfury. I recall that back in the 80s, those Damn Democrats complained when Reagan's Sect. of Agriculture put ketchup and pickle relish as an acceptable substitute for a vegetable on subsidized meals for low-income students. 

What we need now is a return of the "New Federalism" under a Palin presidency. Then, we won't be told what to eat, what to hunt, and there won't be any of those "death panels" to tell us who is to live and who is to die. Solidarity in the Right, Brother Macfury.

Ketchup as a vegetable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Democrats are already making noise about telling people what to eat.


Unlike good 'ole Ronnie and his pals who tried, but failed, to get a squirt of tomato ketchup defined as a serving of vegetable.

Edit: You beat me to it, Dr. G. Well done.



Macfury said:


> The Democrats are already making noise about telling people what to eat.


Examples, please.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Unlike good 'ole Ronnie and his pals who tried, but failed, to get a squirt of tomato ketchup defined as a serving of vegetable.
> 
> Edit: You beat me to it, Dr. G. Well done.
> 
> ...


Great minds think alike, SQ ......... or, as Macfury would say about us "fools never differ".  Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Examples, please.


FDA Should Set Salt Limits for U.S. Food, Report Says (Update3) - BusinessWeek



> “The FDA should set national standards for sodium content in food,” Representative Rosa DeLauro said today on a conference call with reporters. DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, heads the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FDA and agriculture programs. Food producers can’t be counted on to reduce sodium on their own, she said. “Self- regulation doesn’t work,” DeLauro said.
> 
> Senate health committee chairman Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, said he was “delighted” by the possibility of having the FDA regulate sodium content in foods. Harkin’s Senate committee has jurisdiction over the FDA.
> 
> “This is something I’ve advocated a long, long time,” Harkin said today in an interview. He intends to hold hearings on possible FDA actions, he said in a telephone news conference later in the day. “I do want to look at why it would take so long. I know you can’t do it overnight,” Harkin said.


Hold the Brownies! Bill Could Limit Bake Sales | CNSnews.com



> A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama - and championed by the first lady - gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.


And, in a rare show of bipartisanship:



> ....proposing to make it illegal for a Mississippi restaurant to serve anyone with a body mass index of 30 or more – the clinical threshold of obesity.
> 
> Read more: Mississippi May Ban Restaurant Sales to the Obese


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Great minds think alike, SQ ......... or, as Macfury would say about us "fools never differ".  Paix, mon ami.


Yes, indeed.

I have wondered about modifying my diet to be more in line with what will be required of me when the New World Order arises out of the west. A smorgasbord of roots, berries, ketchup and pickles would surely provide a feast for all except the most gluttonous among us. I believe acclimatising oneself ahead of necessity would make the sharp transition all the more easy. I can only thank the late, and often cruelly unlamented, Ronald for the guidance he and his disciples offered on these matters.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> FDA Should Set Salt Limits for U.S. Food, Report Says (Update3) - BusinessWeek
> 
> Hold the Brownies! Bill Could Limit Bake Sales | CNSnews.com


Good for the FDA regarding the salt. Nothing to stop bubbas buying in their own salt stockpile like good consumers and lacing their own food themselves. Or are they too stupid to figure that out?

As for the raving about brownies, that'll put bubbas into a spin too. Gotta keep them bubbas spinning.

Two piddling storms in one teacup, MF, that hardly qualify as evidence for your hyperbolic assertion that "Democrats are already making noise about telling people what to eat".

Nowhere is there any indication that people will be told what to eat.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yes, indeed.
> 
> I have wondered about modifying my diet to be more in line with what will be required of me when the New World Order arises out of the west. A smorgasbord of roots, berries, ketchup and pickles would surely provide a feast for all except the most gluttonous among us. I believe acclimatising oneself ahead of necessity would make the sharp transition all the more easy. I can only thank the late, and often cruelly unlamented, Ronald for the guidance he and his disciples offered on these matters.


Yes, SQ, and when those pennies fall from heaven in the "trickle down economy" of Reaganomics, we shall all be rich. Paix, mon ami.

I have already cut back greatly on salt, but I should have listened to Macfury years ago. I could have saved time and money being concerned about the poor, the homeless, the hungry, et al. Now I am able to focus on what really matters in Life ......................... :greedy::greedy::greedy:


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Man, talk about spilled salt. 

Let's see something substantial here MF. Providing regulations to protect human health is not dictating what to eat. 

The Republicans started the whole "Nutrionalism" back in the 1950s when corporate food wanted to be able to sell 5 different boxes of cereal. One with extra calcium, one with extra iron, one with extra protein, one with extra...! 

If limiting salt levels in food is a dictatorship, then I'd hate to see what sort of autocracy it would be like if the government used Media to support its own policies! Oh wait! Yea... right. That already happened...George Bush.

I dunno MF, looks like spilled salt to me compared to scandals these guys find...Center for Media and Democracy | Publishers of PR Watch


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Good for the FDA regarding the salt. Nothing to stop bubbas buying in their own salt stockpile like good consumers and lacing their own food themselves. Or are they too stupid to figure that out?
> 
> As for the raving about brownies, that'll put bubbas into a spin too. Gotta keep them bubbas spinning.
> 
> ...


I suppose in Great Britain, such government interventions are piffling. Very well then!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I suppose in Great Britain, such government interventions are piffling.


Quelle bizarre.



Macfury said:


> Very well then!


Love it. How very Edwardian.

Your poorly crafted riposte apparently aimed at Democrats was well off. You'll need to get your sights adjusted. Ask Sarah Palin for some help?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That line of thinking might nicely apply to an old black and white Kubrick film but it reads just a tad simplistic and overly nefarious. You don't credit the general public with very much intelligence or willpower, do you? I suppose you exempt yourself from the "obedient" masses, though.

I'm all for examining the links between gubbmint, the military and multinationals, but as with most things in life, the connections are messy and the 'truths' are often unsettlingly inconclusive. There are very little real conspiracies out there, though trawling the net might have you believe otherwise.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> That line of thinking might nicely apply to an old black and white Kubrick film but it reads just a tad simplistic and overly nefarious. You don't credit the general public with very much intelligence or willpower, do you? I suppose you exempt yourself from the "obedient" masses, though.
> 
> I'm all for examining the links between gubbmint, the military and multinationals, but as with most things in life, the connections are messy and the 'truths' are often unsettlingly inconclusive. There are very little real conspiracies out there, though trawling the net might have you believe otherwise.


+ 1,000,000. Great post Max. :clap:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Interesting that we are starting to see a few individuals saying that the leaked documents have been altered from the documents they created and that the alterations changes the tone of the document. 

Probably be CYA stuff, but who knows. Still find the overall subtext of promoting wars against Pakistan and Iran very suspicious.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahh yes, Arnold - a beacon for us all.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

They seem to have left out the last line of that Arnie quote.

"I am ze vun to tells zem!"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent from Rolling Stone

:clap:


> *Why Shouldn’t Freedom of the Press Apply to WikiLeaks?*
> 
> *You may not like Julian Assange, but the campaign to silence WikiLeaks should appall you*
> 
> ...


Why Shouldnt Freedom of the Press Apply to WikiLeaks? | Rolling Stone Politics


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ouch! Watch the type size!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Assange's glass house



> Let's torture all the cliches up front, shall we? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; live by the sword, die by the sword; the shoe is on the other foot; hoist on his own petard. And so forth.
> 
> On Friday, Britain's Guardian newspaper released details from confidential Swedish police files about sexual-assault charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. And get this: Mr. Assange and his lawyers are outraged.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What a laugh!

I was also amused to hear Assange's claims that he released the ClimateGate files--when that material was clearly disseminated long before he even uttered public ruminations about releasing it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

A couple of *very important* differences between leaking details about Assange's legal case and the US cable leaks.

Assange is involved in a court case. That information going public could compromise his defense. 

Assange is an individual, and the specifics involve his private life. The cable leaks are from a government agency and they involve public affairs.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Also, kind of disturbed by this :

Apple Removes WikiLeaks App From App Store

I hope apple clears up exactly why they removed the app.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> +2
> 
> Big Brother doesn't like it when Little Brother speaks up.


-1 It seems like little brother ought not live in a glass house and doesn't live by the adage that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Explain the difference so that you may enlighten us all, thereby demonstrating to us your own attainment.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> You do not understand the difference.


Really... 

One man is involved in a the leak of information that affects him and his supposed victims, affecting a total of 3, possibly 4 people now...

The other an unlawful "leak" of confidential and classified documents that could destabilize or negatively affect international relations and potentially millions of people around the world... 

If you honestly think that the former trumps the later then yes, you are right I don't understand the difference. 

If any of these cables were targeted toward specific wrong doings then maybe the "freedom of the press" argument would hold water but they don't.. it is just a blanket release of information that was *stolen* and given to Assange and we have to trust that "his holiness" is performing "due diligence" before releasing the "information". He is nothing more than an "information" fence, throwing s**t at a fan and seeing if any of the resulting mess sticks. All the while he feeds his megalomaniacal ego and hatred of the US which borders on sociopathy... for he really doesn't care who he victimizes or hurts so long as someone "pays" and he is glorified by his followers.

So again... Really...? I think I understand the difference just fine thanks. Ultimately there is none in principle except that in fact and reality what he did is potentially much worse and he is a hypocrite... to call him the least offensive thing I can think of.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Max said:


> Explain the difference so that you may enlighten us all, thereby demonstrating to us your own attainment.





i-rui said:


> A couple of *very important* differences between leaking details about Assange's legal case and the US cable leaks.
> 
> Assange is involved in a court case. That information going public could compromise his defense.
> 
> Assange is an individual, and the specifics involve his private life. The cable leaks are from a government agency and they involve public affairs.


!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> !





> Really...
> 
> One man is involved in a the leak of information that affects him and his supposed victims, affecting a total of 3, possibly 4 people now...
> 
> ...


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> A couple of *very important* differences between leaking details about Assange's legal case and the US cable leaks.
> 
> Assange is involved in a court case. *That information going public could compromise his defense. *
> 
> Assange is an individual, and the specifics involve his private life. The cable leaks are from a government agency and they involve public affairs.


Not really if the screening of the jury is adequate... they always screen for knowledge of such information when selecting a jury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Assange just pisses into the wind to see what happens. He just got hit with a few drops. No big deal.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Here's a conspiracy theory for you...

Let's just imagine that the "leaker" of the "confidential Swedish police files about sexual-assault charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" is an Assange sympathizer and operative. Leaking the files (perhaps at Assange's instructions) with the hopes that the Swedish court will rule that due to the "leaks" a fair trial is impossible for Mr. Assange and then throws the case out of court.....

Uhhhh...? Uhhhh...? Oh what tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive....


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Really...
> 
> One man is involved in a the leak of information that affects him and his supposed victims, affecting a total of 3, possibly 4 people now...


you left out that it was a private matter that has *ZERO* bearing with any public matter.



screature said:


> The other an unlawful "leak" of confidential and classified documents that could destabilize or negatively affect international relations and potentially millions of people around the world...


You're actually stating an assumption. I can assume that these leaks will act as a check on governments and make them more accountable to the public and less duplicitous in their diplomatic dealings.



screature said:


> If any of these cables were targeted toward specific wrong doings then maybe the "freedom of the press" argument would hold water but they don't.. it is just a blanket release of information that was *stolen* and given to Assange and we have to trust that "his holiness" is performing "due diligence" before releasing the "information".


"wrongdoings" is subjective isn't it? I'm sure Iran hearing about Saudi Arabia endorsing & lobbying for a war against them would classify as a "wrongdoing".

And Wikileaks *DID* try and vet all the information through the US government to ensure that no one would be put in danger, but the US refused. Probably because they knew that the majority of the information wasn't top secret and do no real harm besides embarrass those involved.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> you left out that it was a private matter that has *ZERO* bearing with any public matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are wrong. An offence against an individual such as what Mr. Assange is accused of doing *is* considered an offence against the state, that is why it is a federal offence and not a matter for private claims court! 

You will do anything to deny the elephant in the room won't you.... it was STOLEN information without purpose other than to satisfy the disgruntled feelings of an enlisted man toward his superiors.

Assange fences it and is in receipt of stolen goods... he had no idea at the time of his receipt of them whether or not they were of any "value" and so just decided to hold the international community "hostage" by dribbling it out in dribs and drabs, probably with the hopes of being offered some clandestine million dollar payout to shut him up... a risky strategy to be sure... as he just may end up dead in the exchange instead of what he hoped for...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

So you would say that the public had no right to know about The Pentagon Papers? What about Watergate?

The former is pretty much the exact same scenario as these cable leaks. The later also depended on someone in the know leaking information to the public.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Assange fences it and is in receipt of stolen goods... he had no idea at the time of his receipt of them whether or not they were of any "value" and so just decided to hold the international community "hostage" by dribbling it out in dribs and drabs, probably with the hopes of being offered some clandestine million dollar payout to shut him up... a risky strategy to be sure... as he just may end up dead in the exchange instead of what he hoped for...


p.s. - wow. what a load of bull the above is. Wiki leaks has been around for years and is a non-profit organization, not some get rich quick scheme.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> p.s. - wow. what a load of bull the above is. Wiki leaks has been around for years and is a non-profit organization, not some get rich quick scheme.


Hey it is as valid as any other conspiracy theory out there.... do you have any proof to the contrary... ? see how it works....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> So you would say that the public had no right to know about The Pentagon Papers? What about Watergate?
> 
> The former is pretty much the exact same scenario as these cable leaks. The later also depended on someone in the know leaking information to the public.


Ah I thought somebody might bring this up and thus the reason why I posted...



screature said:


> If any of these cables were targeted toward specific wrong doings then maybe the "freedom of the press" argument would hold water but they don't..


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

and exactly what conspiracy theories have i been spouting?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Ah I thought somebody might bring this up and thus the reason why I posted...


and that is exactly why i said "wrongdoing" is subjective. I'm sure Iran has a different outlook on Saudi Arabia after the leaks.

These cable leaks may not be as sensational as The Pentagon Papers, but they still hold value for the public. If the wikileaks were worthless every major news agency wouldn't be covering them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> and exactly what conspiracy theories have i been spouting?


Not talking about you... 

But the multitude of them that Assange believes to exist....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> and that is exactly why i said "wrongdoing" is subjective. I'm sure Iran has a different outlook with Saudi Arabia after the leaks.


Wrong doings, i.e. an illegal action.... not just words.... and by implication are saying that Assange is the judge of such matters... who exactly appointed him as such...? Oh I know you don't need to answer... HIMSELF!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Wrong doings, i.e. an illegal action.... not just words.... and by implication are saying that Assange is the judge of such matters... who exactly appointed him as such...? Oh I know you don't need to answer... HIMSELF!


who appointed *you* the judge to discern if the information brought to light doesn't expose "wrong doings"?? So the US isn't breaking laws and treaties (it signed) by spying on the UN? That's not an illegal action?

Wikileaks has a history of exposing many things, many of them very serious. Many of them "wrong doings" by any reasonable definition.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> who appointed *you* the judge to discern if the information brought to light doesn't expose "wrong doings"?? So the US isn't breaking laws and treaties (it signed) by spying on the UN? That's not an illegal action?
> 
> Wikileaks has a history of exposing many things, many of them very serious. Many of them "wrong doings" by any reasonable definition.


The same authority that appointed you and Mr. Assange judge..... that is the point now isn't it... The difference being that neither you or I are releasing 500,000 *stolen* documents on line. 

But so far it has been merely a fishing expedition... not any real "journalism" going on at Wikileaks is there...?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The irony here is amusing. Assange merely placed hundreds of individuals at a disadvantage, but because he is just one poor guy his right to privacy is championed.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> The same authority that appointed you and Mr. Assange judge..... that is the point now isn't it... The difference being that neither you or I are releasing 500,000 *stolen* documents on line.
> 
> But so far it has been merely a fishing expedition... not any real "journalism" going on at Wikileaks is there...?


Journalism as we know it today isn't any more real than journalism from 10 years ago.

But I can't help but chuckle… you're essentially damning whistleblowers purely because they chose to bring information to WikiLeaks rather than, say for example, CNN? Who made them judge and jury dammit? :lmao:

Is it because it has to do with the US Government as opposed to tobacco companies or banks?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Journalism as we know it today isn't any more real than journalism from 10 years ago.
> 
> But I can't help but chuckle… you're essentially damning whistleblowers purely because they chose to bring information to WikiLeaks rather than, say for example, CNN? Who made them judge and jury dammit? :lmao:
> 
> Is it because it has to do with the US Government as opposed to tobacco companies or banks?


I believe screature's point is well taken. Journalism requires some context. WikiLeaks is merely a database.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Journalism as we know it today isn't any more real than journalism from 10 years ago.
> 
> But I can't help but chuckle… you're essentially damning whistleblowers purely because they chose to bring information to WikiLeaks rather than, say for example, CNN? Who made them judge and jury dammit? :lmao:
> 
> Is it because it has to do with the US Government as opposed to tobacco companies or banks?


This is not a case of whistle blowing. As I said twice now if it were a targeted investigation at any real specific wrong doing a la Watergate it would be a different matter. As it is it is just Julian Assange acting as an information fence obtaining *stolen* documents and then tossing them out there to see if any of it sticks. All to feed his ego and hatred of the US. This isn't about trying to bring anyone in particular to "justice" it is just about muck racking for its own sake and for the glorification of "his holiness" Assange. 

Based on the response of a number of posters here, they have taken the bait hook line and sinker.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Journalism as we know it today isn't any more real than journalism from 10 years ago.
> 
> But I can't help but chuckle… you're essentially damning whistleblowers purely because they chose to bring information to WikiLeaks rather than, say for example, CNN? Who made them judge and jury dammit? :lmao:
> 
> Is it because it has to do with the US Government as opposed to tobacco companies or banks?


Sure there is real journalism out there, it just doesn't hit the front pages any more, you have to dig for it. Real journalism actually investigates a story and checks and rechecks for the veracity of what is purported to be the "truth" and whether or not it is in fact news worthy. 

Based on what has been "leaked thus far" I stand by my statement that there is no journalism going on at WikiLeaks. The reason why I bring this up is because it is touted by supporters that it is the "freedom of the press" that justifies or legitimize the leaks, but I see no journalism here. Just an information fence with a huge megalomaniacal ego and a sociopathic hatred for the US with no conscience regarding who he harms or what the potential international fallout maybe from his actions.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Let me get this straight… you're decrying Wikileaks because you feel the head of the organization has a hatred for the U.S., who runs a new media organization that posts information WITHOUT any sort of editorial slant? Because they don't follow the typical model of a quote/unquote news outlet.

Wow. Colour me surprised. 

The idea of journalism has mutated and evolved a million different ways over the centuries and you're hung up on the vernacular. Beautiful.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Based on what has been "leaked thus far" I stand by my statement that there is no journalism going on at WikiLeaks. The reason why I bring this up is because it is touted by supporters that it is the "freedom of the press" that justifies or legitimize the leaks, but I see no journalism here. Just an information fence with a huge megalomaniacal ego and a sociopathic hatred for the US with no conscience regarding who he harms or what the potential international fallout maybe from his actions.


You're actually exposing your absolute ignorance about wikileaks. It's more than just the recent US cable leaks. It's been around for years and HAS exposed serious crimes and offenses, such as :

The corruption of Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi
The Kenyan Police Death Squads linking murders with the government
The cronyism exhibited by the Icelandic Government regulators during their banking collapse
Toxic Dumping in The Ivory Coast
Exposed the death of 2 Reuters journalists by the US army
Exposed the death of innocent civilians by the US army
etc...etc...etc....

So those aren't *wrongdoings*? Those incidents aren't newsworthy?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Let me get this straight… you're decrying Wikileaks because you feel the head of the organization has a hatred for the U.S., who runs a new media organization that posts information WITHOUT any sort of editorial slant? Because they don't follow the typical model of a quote/unquote news outlet.
> 
> Wow. Colour me surprised.
> 
> The idea of journalism has mutated and evolved a million different ways over the centuries and you're hung up on the vernacular. Beautiful.


It isn't journalism any more than a spy or a company whistleblower is a journalist. Bob Woodward was a journalist, while Deep Throat was an informer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> You're actually exposing your absolute ignorance about wikileaks. It's more than just the recent US cable leaks. It's been around for years and HAS exposed serious crimes and offenses, such as :
> 
> The corruption of Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi
> The Kenyan Police Death Squads linking murders with the government
> ...


Clearly I am talking about the recent dump... what's not to understand...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It isn't journalism any more than a spy or a company whistleblower is a journalist. Bob Woodward was a journalist, while Deep Throat was an informer.


it's a different model of journalism. wikileaks acts as an intermediary between the whistleblower and the media. They actually release the leaks FIRST to the major papers Like The NY Times and The Guardian so they can go through them, break it down for consumption and comment on it. Wikileaks itself as a website is more of a database that very few readers & the public will actually go to get that information.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Clearly I am talking about the recent dump... what's not to understand...


the "recent dump" isn't over yet, and there *already HAS* been many refferences to "illegal acts".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It is not a model of journalism. It is a site full of leaks. Newspaper writers who reprint this information with additional context are journalists.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It is not a model of journalism.


It's certainly an essential component of a model of journalism.

One of the things that's a problem with the internet age is that much of the profit necessary to support good investigative journalism has been removed from the publishing industry. On the other hand, innovations like Wikileaks dramatically reduce the cost/difficulty of doing the investigative grunt work. It remains to be seen wether these two forces will counterbalance each other.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> It's certainly an essential component of a model of journalism.


It is that component known as "the source."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> ...


While I take very little stock in anything Michael Moore has to say, as he has a vested interest in opposing any powers that be, Ron Paul's speech is of some considerable interest, especially being that he is a Republican and thus speaks in opposition to or at least in contrast to the views of many of those within his own party (and for that I give him kudo)s and is actually speaking to the issue in a non-partisan manner.

Thanks for sharing this particular video MCB.

Again I will say this... everyone is avoiding the elephant in the room in that while Assange did not steal the documents he was in receipt of them and so is culpable after the fact. It is incumbent on him and the organization that he heads (if it is journalistic in nature) to verify the veracity of the documents before he publishes them and should not be left to 3rd party journalists from the NY Times, Guardian etc. to do so.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It is that component known as "the source."


they're not really the source though, they are a system that allows whistleblowers to submit leaks 100% anonymously. 

(which is why they've released more documents then the entire fee press in the world combined)



screature said:


> It is incumbent on him and the organization that he heads (if it is journalistic in nature) to verify the veracity of the documents before he publishes them


wikileaks does vet & verify all information (with the help of hired & volunteer journalists) before it ever gets published.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> wikileaks does vet & verify all information (with the help of hired & volunteer journalists) before it ever gets published.





> Verification of submissions
> 
> WikiLeaks* states* that it has never released a misattributed document. Documents are assessed before release. In response to concerns about the possibility of misleading or fraudulent leaks,* WikiLeaks has stated that misleading leaks "are already well-placed in the mainstream media. WikiLeaks is of no additional assistance.[*107] The FAQ states that: "*The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinise and discuss leaked documents.*"[108]
> 
> *According to statements by Assange in 2010, submitted documents are vetted by a group of five reviewers, with expertise in different fields such as language or programming, who also investigate the background of the leaker if his or her identity is known.[109] In that group, Assange has the final decision about the assessment of a document.[109]*


WikiLeaks

Not too comforting as far as I am concerned.... It is all up to Assange in the end..... 

Too bad they didn't look a little more closely at the background of PFC Bradley Manning... But then again he was already well known to them and a good "source"/someone willing to steal for them. So why would they...?





> Investigators have found concrete evidence on computers used by Pfc. Bradley Manning that link him with the leak of classified Afghanistan war reports, a U.S. defense official said.
> 
> The disclosure came as Defense Secretary Robert Gates pledged Thursday to "aggressively investigate the leak" and find ways to prevent further breaches, and told reporters that he had invited the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist the probe.
> 
> ...


Computer Evidence Ties Leaks to Soldier


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Well, someone has to be the editor in chief...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Well, someone has to be the editor in chief...


And why he is singled out at the centre of the controversy in this particular case... just because he and his group may have been useful in the past in exposing wrong doing does not mean that their methods are correct or ethical.

All you supporters want to justify their means by past revelations which have no bearing on this particular case... the ends do not always justify the means and in this particular case, thus far, they do not.

I wonder if even for for one brief moment Julian Assange paused to think about the the real consequences for PFC Bradley Manning before taking the documents and publishing them? 

I suspect not, as Bradley Manning would only be so much "collateral damage" in Assange's own personal war against the US. and Assange could pacify himself and his culpability in the punishment of Bradley Manning by calling him a "great hero".


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

So have they released any false documents? Are any of the cable leaks fake?

didn't you just agree with Ron Paul?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> So have they released any false documents? Are any of the cable leaks fake?
> 
> didn't you just agree with Ron Paul?


I don't know and neither d you, however as I have indicated several times the veracity of the documents are only on aspect of the situation.

I agree in part with what Ron Paul says... I am still digesting the full thesis of his argument.... sometimes due diligence takes time, as does a thoughtful response.  However, you continue to ignore "the elephant in the room" that I have mentioned several times now....


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Too bad they didn't look a little more closely at the background of PFC Bradley Manning... But then again he was already well known to them and a good "source"/someone willing to steal for them. So why would they...?


and what exactly do you mean by this? What makes him an unreliable source exactly? Hasn't all of his info proven to be genuine?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> In part... I am still digesting the full thesis of his argument.... sometimes due diligence takes time, as does a thoughtful response.  However, you continue to ignore "the elephant in the room" that I have mentioned several times now....


the "elephant in the room" is part and parcel with ALL leaked info. Do you think the Pentagon Papers were freely handed to the NY times by the US Government?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> and what exactly do you mean by this? What makes him an unreliable source exactly? Hasn't all of his info proven to be genuine?


I don't know and neither do you... the point is motive.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> and what exactly do you mean by this? What makes him an unreliable source exactly? Hasn't all of his info proven to be genuine?


We don't know. Neither do you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> the "elephant in the room" is part and parcel with ALL leaked info. Do you think the Pentagon Papers were freely handed to the NY times by the US Government?


Daniel Ellsberg never spent a day in jail for his action... how long has Bradley Manning been in prison now...? different case, circumstance and situation... 

It seems the NY Times did a better job of protecting Daniel Ellsberg than Julian Assange is in protecting Bradley Manning doesn't it...  maybe because as I have said before Julian Assange and his megalomaniacal ego doesn't care who he hurts along the way.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

when information is submitted the source is supposed to be anonymous. That's the point. wikileaks doesn't care who submitted it, they still have to ascertain it's authenticity. 

They don't judge the info on any supposed motive. they judge it on the facts from the documents. They know they could potentially be used to leak false information which is why they check each document for authenticity.

So once again i ask, what proof do you have that the information is false? I think it's pretty clear by the US reaction that it isn't.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Daniel Ellsberg never spent a day in jail for his action... how long has Bradley Manning been in prison now...? different case, circumstance and situation...
> 
> It seems the NY Times did a better job of protecting Daniel Ellsberg than Julian Assange is in protecting Bradley Manning doesn't it...  maybe because as I have said before Julian Assange and his megalomaniacal ego doesn't care who he hurts along the way.


Ellsberg has already stated that IF Bradley leaked the information he should be considered a hero.

I'll take his viewpoint over yours.

And I think that Julian Assange is probably a pompous prick. That's how he comes off. That doesn't change the fact that what he's put together is very important and I admire him for it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> when information is submitted the source is supposed to be anonymous. That's the point. wikileaks doesn't care who submitted it, they still have to ascertain it's authenticity.
> 
> They don't judge the info on any supposed motive. they judge it on the facts from the documents. They know they could potentially be used to leak false information which is why they check each document for authenticity.
> 
> So once again i ask, what proof do you have that the information is false? I think it's pretty clear by the US reaction that it isn't.


See... I don't really care if the documents is false or not, you can argue that they vet it appropriately until the cows come home and you can't prove it... that is the hinge you choose to hang you door on, not mine... it was merely a point relative the "journalistic" integrity of Wikileaks. My principle argument is relative to the ethical/legal means by which they obtain their information and one you steadfastly refuse to address.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Ellsberg has already stated that IF Bradley leaked the information he should be considered a hero.
> 
> I'll take his viewpoint over yours.
> 
> And I think that Julian Assange is probably a pompous prick. That's how he comes off. That doesn't change the fact that what he's put together is very important and I admire him for it.


Nice dodge...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> I think that Julian Assange is probably a pompous prick. That's how he comes off. That doesn't change the fact that what he's put together is very important and I admire him for it.


Anyone that releases third party, possibly stolen, unsubstantiated documents, without verification of fact is no one to be admired. They spread rumour, innuendo and nothing documented to a gullible public.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> My principle argument is relative to the ethical/legal means by which they obtain their information and one you steadfastly refuse to address.


I've addressed it several times. The Pentagon Papers are a direct parallel to this leak. Yet for some reason you're ok with that?

Everyone who leaks classified information is breaking some law or contract. Either you can accept this or not.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> Anyone that releases third party, possibly stolen, *unsubstantiated documents, without verification of fact* is no one to be admired. They spread rumour, innuendo and nothing documented to a gullible public.


The documents have been verified to be genuine. If you have info or proof otherwise i'd love to see it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> The documents have been verified to be genuine. If you have info or proof otherwise i'd love to see it.


I guess you missed the word "possibly" in my observation?

The onus of proof lies with Wikileaks, not me, who to date have failed to divulge document sources thereby rendering them suspect and open to possible alteration after their theft from source.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> I've addressed it several times. The Pentagon Papers are a direct parallel to this leak. Yet for some reason you're ok with that?
> 
> Everyone who leaks classified information is breaking some law or contract. Either you can accept this or not.


I addressed this matter in post #173:



screature said:


> And why he is singled out at the centre of the controversy in this particular case... *just because he and his group may have been useful in the past in exposing wrong doing does not mean that their methods are correct or ethical.
> 
> All you supporters want to justify their means by past revelations which have no bearing on this particular case... the ends do not always justify the means and in this particular case, thus far, they do not.*
> 
> ...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> I guess you missed the word "possibly" in my observation?
> 
> The onus of proof lies with Wikileaks, not me, who to date have failed to divulge document sources thereby rendering them suspect and open to possible alteration after their theft from source.


They've verified that information by every reasonable measure. Short of the sky's opening up and and God decreeing them valid US cables I'm not sure what more you could expect.

I feel that if major papers like The Guardian & The NY Times are comfortable backing this info it's good enough for me.

I could also play the same game and ask for irrefutable proof that what The US government says is the truth, and ask for it to be 100% verifiable. The difference is that the US government has been proven to release false information and wikileaks (as of yet) hasn't.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is a thing called trust between a news outlet and their readers. Wikileaks does not have mine, nor many others I suspect. No reputable news source survives on sensationalizing stolen documents.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> I addressed this matter in post #173:


You actually didn't.



> just because he and his group may have been useful in the past in exposing wrong doing does not mean that their methods are correct or ethical.


the method is the same as the pentagon papers. The US government DID try Ellsberg. So i ask again why are you ok with the Pentagon papers?



> the ends do not always justify the means and in this particular case, thus far, they do not.


there has already been leaks showing that the US was spying on UN Leadership. This is against the UN charter which the US signed. The US has already been exposed of breaking a treaty which they signed. That is newsworthy and a "wrong doing". This (and many other) leaks already justify the cable dumps.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> No reputable news source survives on sensationalizing stolen documents.


I would consider Le Monde, El Pais, Der Spiegal, The Guardian & NY Times *the most reputable* of News sources.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> There is a thing called trust between a news outlet and their readers. Wikileaks does not have mine, nor many others I suspect. No reputable news source survives on sensationalizing stolen documents.


The history of leaked information did not start with WikiLeaks. Why are people pretending that this is somehow unique or any less honorable than the New York Times? Because they had someone _wrote_ an article that revealed stolen information?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> I would consider Le Monde, El Pais, Der Spiegal, The Guardian & NY Times *the most reputable* of News sources.


Bingo. :clap:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> There is a thing called trust between a news outlet and their readers. Wikileaks does not have mine, nor many others I suspect. No reputable news source survives on sensationalizing stolen documents.


Like the CBC? You've been quite vocal about your experiences in witnessing the abuse of said trust between the media and the audience.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> I would consider Le Monde, El Pais, Der Spiegal, The Guardian & NY Times *the most reputable* of News sources.


No question about that, but be clear here. They are reporting on the repercussions of Wikileaks releasing stolen documents and trying to substantiate the information. That is vastly different from what Wikileaks does.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Like the CBC? You've been quite vocal about your experiences in witnessing the abuse of said trust between the media and the audience.


Had you watched them re-stage a riot in co-operation with a union, wouldn't you be vocal about it? An event they missed the day before and then got the union to reconstruct for the cameras? I sat in an unmarked police car with an undercover cop and watched it unfold. And no, I do not trust the CBC.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> No question about that, but be clear here. They are reporting on the repercussions of Wikileaks releasing stolen documents and trying to substantiate the information. That is vastly different from what Wikileaks does.


They actually have been collaborating with Wikileaks on releasing the info. They get the documents prior to wikileaks posting them online. They've also helped wikileaks verify information and redact any information that could possibly endanger lives or projects.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Had you watched them re-stage a riot in co-operation with a union, wouldn't you be vocal about it? An event they missed the day before and then got the union to reconstruct for the cameras? I sat in an unmarked police car with an undercover cop and watched it unfold. And no, I do not trust the CBC.


Absolutely. I would be equally vocal about the abuses that I witness my government perpetrate as well.

Funny how Canada legislates protection for whistleblowers while the U.S. seeks to destroy them.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> You actually didn't.
> 
> the method is the same as the pentagon papers. The US government DID try Ellsberg. So i ask again why are you ok with the Pentagon papers?
> 
> there has already been leaks showing that the US was spying on UN Leadership. This is against the UN charter which the US signed. The US has already been exposed of breaking a treaty which they signed. That is newsworthy and a "wrong doing". This (and many other) leaks already justify the cable dumps.


More on this later.. I don't have anymore time for a while... Being the "holidays" and all... a reasoned response will take more time than I have.... It has been a slice, truly good fun, a good civil argument/debate is always worth the time...

In the mean time a very Merry Christmas, or Festivus, or what ever you choose to celebrate to you all....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Many news stories that I have been familiar with has always been presented by the media with the information twisted and corrupted. What we see on TV News, read in the newspapers, in my opinion is manufactured propaganda to promote a specific idea among the public.
> 
> When I see a news story, I know that something has happened, but the truth is usually much different from what the corporate or government owned profit driven media is telling us to believe.
> 
> Wikileaks is being aggressively attacked by the powers that be because they do not want the public to know the truth about their dirty deeds. Assange is being smeared, nothing more, this has been done many times in the past to many people. Wikileaks is probably the most honest source of information available to the public.


The flip side is that there's no guarantee the information hasn't been altered or tampered with in any way, nor authentic.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*As I suspected... the real meat is still to come. So far, small potatoes, mostly gossipy stuff. Soon it's going to get serious...*

*Unredacted WikiLeaks Cables Leaked to Internet*



> Several WikiLeaks cables giving details of high-level collaboration by Central Asian governments with organized crime and implying the identity of American assets have been leaked to the Internet by a left-wing website.


*...and there's more!*



> Although we are treated to daily accounts of how the net tightens around WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the contents of the US embassy cables have been doled out to us in spoonfuls. To add insult to injury, it is now clear that The Guardian edits and distorts the cables in order to protect their readers from unflattering remarks about how their corporations behave overseas. The Guardian has deliberately excised portions of published cables to hide evidence of corruption.


(FastCompany)


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

For anyone who thought the US cable leaks were "meaningless "

The First WikiLeaks Revolution? | WikiLeaked

they seem to have played an important cathartic part in the Tunisia uprising...which in turn has now spawned uprisings in Egypt & Yemen.

Obviously true democracies in the middle east are still far off, but i think it's great that it may actually start happening... and wiki leaks may have had a small part to play in getting the ball rolling.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> wiki leaks may have had a small part to play in getting the ball rolling.


Or a huge part in creating violence, unrest and casualties. YMMV.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

if only people would do what they're told....we'd never have any violence in the world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> if only people would do what they're told....we'd never have any violence in the world.


Stir the pot, suffer the consequences.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

yes, order is far more important than human rights.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> yes, order is far more important than human rights.




No, human rights can be achieved without violence.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Or a huge part in creating violence, unrest and casualties. YMMV.


Huge? I have a difficult time believing that Wikileaks has contributed to creating any violence at all, let alone huge. In fact, I doubt anybody could point to a single event that could be attributed directly to Wikileaks.

I would dare say that if anything could be a considered a huge contribution to violence, we need only look south of the border.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Manny, much as you may be making a cogent point, I'm asking you to step aside and let the true drama of this thread prevail - the battle of who can hurl the most identical emoticons at once, in a fierce battle to establish thread cred.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Or a huge part in creating violence, unrest and casualties. YMMV.


_Leaks_ don't have a huge part to play in creating violence, unrest and casualties, _people_ have a huge part to play in creating violence, unrest and casualties.

... to misappropriate the sublimely eloquent logic of that choir of angels, the NRA.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Manny, much as you may be making a cogent point, I'm asking you to step aside and let the true drama of this thread prevail - the battle of who can hurl the most identical emoticons at once, in a fierce battle to establish thread cred.


Thread cred - nice one, Max. :clap:

Edit:  OMG! I forgot . I'll try  and remember  in my next  post.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> _Leaks_ don't have a huge part to play in creating violence, unrest and casualties, _people_ have a huge part to play in creating violence, unrest and casualties.
> 
> ... to misappropriate the sublimely eloquent logic of that choir of angels, the NRA.


Let us not forget that SINC was only referencing i-rui's linked article that did indeed suggest the violence was in part sparked by Wikileaks. So if you want to shoot down someone who is positing this notion start with Elizabeth Dickinson at Foreign Policy then i-rui and then SINC... To be fair.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Let us not forget that SINC was only referencing i-rui's linked article that did indeed suggest the violence was in part sparked by Wikileaks. So if you want to shoot down someone who is positing this notion start with Elizabeth Dickinson at Foreign Policy then i-rui and then SINC... To be fair.


No, actually the link says the cable leaks had a part in sparking the *protests*.

SINC made the leap to suggest this :

"Or a huge part in creating violence, unrest and casualties"

(because apparently those people over there don't deserve freedom if a dictatorship tells them they don't).


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Max said:


> Manny, much as you may be making a cogent point, I'm asking you to step aside and let the true drama of this thread prevail - the battle of who can hurl the most identical emoticons at once, in a fierce battle to establish thread cred.


I feel like I violated the Prime Directive.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i stand by my use of the *rolleyes* emoticon.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> No, actually the link says the cable leaks had a part in sparking the *protests*.
> 
> SINC made the leap to suggest this :
> 
> ...


Hmmm... Really.... This doesn't exactly look "peaceful" to me...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

i-rui said:


> i stand by my use of the *rolleyes* emoticon.


Strikes me as a weak defence. How many of them do you need to make a point? You do realize that the more you make use of them, the less seriously you're taken, right? I mean, why not shout constantly and post pictures of peevish faces while you're at it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Strikes me as a weak defence. How many of them do you need to make a point? You do realize that the more you make use of them, the less seriously you're taken, right? I mean, why not shout constantly and post pictures of peevish faces while you're at it?


Here are a few to choose from. I think they dignify and enhance almost any angry post:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Hmmm... Really.... This doesn't exactly look "peaceful" to me...


Context helps a great deal. Simply showing a photograph of a person throwing a rock is meaningless.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

:yawn: (Non-angry, non-vitriolic emoticon.)



screature said:


> Hmmm... Really.... This doesn't exactly look "peaceful" to me...


No, to be fair, it looks like someone about to throw a rock. To be fair.

Any suggestion that Wikileaks is somehow responsible for that youth throwing a rock is hyperbolic and ill-informed, and simply underscores a sweaty need to gainsay Wikileaks.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Max said:


> How many of them do you need to make a point?


an awful lot when someone suggests people don't have a right to stand up to a decades old dictatorship.

It was *that* ludicrous of a statement. 

however, If there was a way to make that emoticon 5 times as big i would've only used one.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> an awful lot when someone suggests people don't have a right to stand up to a decades old dictatorship.
> 
> It was *that* ludicrous of a statement.
> 
> however, If there was a way to make that emoticon 5 times as big i would've only used one.


I repeated the post below for your benefit. Now please demonstrate anywhere in that post where I even remotely "suggested people don't have a right to stand up to a decades old dictatorship."

Go ahead, show me.



SINC said:


> Or a huge part in creating violence, unrest and casualties. YMMV.


And since you cannot, a retraction of that statement is in order.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> Stir the pot, suffer the consequences.


.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF: I vote for the angry red bean-shaped man with the sporty business man's hat. _C'est dramatique._

But back to the argument at hand: you know, the one no one will win because we're playing ping-pong with opinions.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Max said:


> But back to the argument at hand: you know, the one no one will win because we're playing ping-pong with opinions.


compared to the other threads on this board where people "win" their argument? even better ,where people don't state their opinion in a debate?

Hey i'm all for furthering the discussion. Let SINC (or anyone else) point out when in history a dictatorship has been overthrown without a drop of blood being spilt?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I was being facetious. No one wins any of these threads. It's the intertubez, yo. People yak, act out, play games. I don't know that hearts and minds are being won over any of this stuff, understand.

No, dictatorships tend to shed blood on a regular basis. Sometimes they collapse under their own rotten weight, mind you.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Max said:


> Sometimes they collapse under their own rotten weight, mind you.


not without a push.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Context helps a great deal. Simply showing a photograph of a person throwing a rock is meaningless.


Really...? It is the photo shown with the original story... Did you even read it? If my posting of it is meaningless then so is it within the context of the original author... Elizabeth Dickinson at Foreign Policy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> :yawn: (Non-angry, non-vitriolic emoticon.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And again.... 



> Really...? It is the photo shown with the original story... Did you even read it? If my posting of it is meaningless then so is it within the context of the original author... Elizabeth Dickinson at Foreign Policy.


This is the suggestion/implication made by Elizabeth Dickinson at Foreign Policy... do you guys even read the links before you comment? 

Sorry Snapple Quaffer, your poorly disguised disdain is misplaced. It wasn't I who first placed the photo in context with anything to do with Wikileaks it was Elizabeth Dickinson at Foreign Policy... Mmmm 'kay...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> .


This statement:



SINC said:


> Stir the pot, suffer the consequences.


Was aimed directly at Wikileaks. If they stir the pot by leaking material to the masses, the end result is suffering and loss of life and injuries to those who rebel because of the leaks.

Again now, please demonstrate anywhere in that post where I even remotely "suggested people don't have a right to stand up to a decades old dictatorship."

Go ahead, show me.

And like I posted earlier, since you cannot, a retraction of that statement is in order.

In fact all I said was this which contradicts your accusation:



SINC said:


> No, human rights can be achieved without violence.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> This statement:
> 
> Was aimed directly at Wikileaks. If they stir the pot by leaking material to the masses, the end result is suffering and loss of life and injuries to those who rebel because of the leaks.


no, actually the end result is that a decades old dictatorship is no longer in power.

You're suggesting that the unfortunate loss of life and injuries was not worth their freedom, and even worse you're suggesting they died because of *wikileaks* and not the regime they were trying to overthrow.



SINC said:


> Again now, please demonstrate anywhere in that post where I even remotely "suggested people don't have a right to stand up to a decades old dictatorship."
> 
> Go ahead, show me.


When you say this :



SINC said:


> Or a huge part in creating violence, unrest and casualties. YMMV.


You're suggesting that they should not have risen against their government in protest, because that bloodshed is not worth it.

When you say this :



SINC said:


> No, human rights can be achieved without violence.


Here you clothes yourself as a pacifist (which is hilarious to anyone who's read your posts), but i will play this game and ask once again, when in history has a dictatorship been overthrown without a drop of blood?



SINC said:


> And like I posted earlier, since you cannot, a retraction of that statement is in order.


How about you retract your statement that wikileaks was responsible for being "a huge part in creating violence, unrest and casualties." when there is no evidence to suggest it was?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Here you clothes yourself as a pacifist (which is hilarious to anyone who's read your posts), but i will play this game and ask once again, when in history has a dictatorship been overthrown without a drop of blood?


The communist dictatorships of Estonia and Czechoslovakia were both overthrown bloodlessly in 1989.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The communist dictatorships of Estonia and Czechoslovakia were both overthrown bloodlessly in 1989.


no, both of those happened after Perestroika had begun, so there was no "communist dictatorship".

nice try though.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> ....How about you retract your statement that *wikileaks was responsible for being "a huge part in creating violence, unrest and casualties*." when there is no evidence to suggest it was?


It isn't SINC's suggestion it was Elizabeth Dickinson at Foreign Policy.... and by your parroting Elizabeth Dickinson (linking to the story) it was your suggestion... thus SINC's original come back to you. 

You just didn't like the editorial perspective he was taking as it differed from yours... you viewed Elizabeth Dickinson's article at Foreign Policy positively as an affirmation of the release of the WickiLeaks cables, SINC viewed it negatively.... Thus his post. 

Is it really that difficult to figure out where our differences lie and why we post as we do without resorting to some of the tactics seen here and elsewhere...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> ...Sometimes they collapse under their own rotten weight, mind you.


+1 And that is the way they should collapse IMO... regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, including being "on the fence" if you see it as a valid position (as I do).


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Is it really that difficult to figure out where our differences lie and why we post as we do without resorting to some of the tactics seen here and elsewhere...


oh no, it's not difficult at all. You and SINC are silly hypocrites who cry foul when someone makes a supposition from *your* statements, but feel you have the right to do it to others.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> +1 And that is the way they should collapse IMO... regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, including being "on the fence" if you see it as a valid position (as I do).


and i ask again, when in history has a dictatorship fallen with out a drop of blood spilt?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

From the sounds of it, you're a little eager to get caught up in what you think properly defines "dictatorship;" I have a feeling no other definition save your own will suffice.

Fine; let's move on from there. You believe even rotten dictatorships require a push. I am not sure I agree - it's a slippery slope.

I do think it's cool when the internet is used to accelerate the end of a rotten government system, although I also believe the net can fairly easily be co-opted, particularly when the ownership of distribution (the pipes - the big telcos and cable cos) becomes in danger of becoming monolithic and not accountable to the public, whose greater interest I believe the net should serve.

The net is just tech. As such, it doesn't care if it's used for good or ill. It's as much a repository for lies and disinformation as it is for those hardy nuggets of truth we all cherish.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> and i ask again, when in history has a dictatorship fallen with out a drop of blood spilt?


Again deflection and misdirection... you want to have it both ways... 

SINC calls you out on a higher ideal.... You deflect and misdirect knowing the full implications of your post and then enter into a debate with SINC regarding who advocates violence, which this post clearly shows your support for it... even though you try and pretend you don't... 

I look through windows every day that are equally transparent as your posts even though your think you are cleverly concealing your real meaning.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> no, both of those happened after Perestroika had begun, so there was no "communist dictatorship".
> 
> nice try though.


Those communist dictatorships were still in power and were removed by bloodless revolt, . You can't duck this by simply putting in some sort of coda about Perestroika after offering up the challenge.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> oh no, it's not difficult at all. You and SINC are silly hypocrites who cry foul when someone makes a supposition from *your* statements, but feel you have the right to do it to others.


"Silly hypocrites".... Please explain oh wise one...

What was the intention of your post if not to try and defend the validity of the WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables and their "apparent" contribution to the "results" of the recent events in Tunisia? Which have been shown to include violence, by the original author of the article that you linked to, thus the photo reference.

Please do tell?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Those communist dictatorships were still in power and were removed by bloodless revolt, . You can't duck this by simply putting in some sort of coda about Perestroika after offering up the challenge.


oh for god sakes it wasn't a dictatorship. do you honestly think Gorbachev was a dictator? He won the bloody Peace Prize! he had already called for general elections in 1987. in 1988 he introduced Glasnost. There was NO dictatorship by 1989.



Max said:


> From the sounds of it, you're a little eager to get caught up in what you think properly defines "dictatorship;" I have a feeling no other definition save your own will suffice.


no, i'm open to discuss it. Please feel free to site any examples if you can.

But please read the above post to Mac Fury. there was no dictatorship in 1989 Russia. 



screature said:


> Again deflection and misdirection... you want to have it both ways...


not at all. The point is central to this :



screature said:


> SINC calls you out on a higher ideal.... You deflect and misdirect knowing the full implications of your post and then enter into a debate with SINC regarding who advocates violence, which this post clearly shows your support for it... even though you try and pretend you don't...


It's an ideal not based in *reality*. there hasn't been any dictatorships overthrown without blood spilt.

The idea that those impatient Tunisians should have just waited and waited and waited is actually cruel coming from anyone in the west who has the luxury of things we take for granted everyday.



screature said:


> I look through windows every day that are equally transparent as your posts even though your think you are cleverly concealing your real meaning.


(sorry Max....but this is warranted......)



go write a haiku.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> ...It's an ideal not based in *reality*. there hasn't been any dictatorships overthrown without blood spilt....


Like I said you want it both ways... Did you wear a black mask in TO over the summer by any chance... 

You want the truth, "you can't handle the truth"...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I can also add the Portuguese Revolution of 1974 in which no protesters spilled blood.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I can also add the Portuguese Revolution of 1974 in which no protesters spilled blood.


no protesters spilled blood because it was a military coup, not a civilian protest, and people DID die (although less than a dozen).

nice try again though.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Not sure how events in Poland in the '80's could be viewed as anything but a bloodless revolution. A totalitarian, socialist regime (ruling without the consent of the people) was replaced by a democracy through labour-stoppages (we are familiar with Solidarnosc) and long chats, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Round_Table_Agreement; also The Magdalenka talks, though I don't have concise summary to link (this one is lengthy: Triggering Communism's Collapse ... - Google Books). And at this point, keep in mind that the Warsaw Pact remained unquestioned and there were thousands of Soviet troops still stationed in and around the country.

There were some disappearances and political murders to be sure (Popieluszko being by far the most famous) , but no more so than what the populace had come to expect during four decades of socialist mis-rule. The non-revolutionary '70's were more noted for public uprisings and political violence than the truly revolutionary '80's.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> no, actually the end result is that a decades old dictatorship is no longer in power.
> 
> You're suggesting that the unfortunate loss of life and injuries was not worth their freedom, and even worse you're suggesting they died because of *wikileaks* and not the regime they were trying to overthrow.
> 
> ...


That is such a stretch and fantasy on your part it's not even worth a response. Talk about putting words in my mouth. I said nor insinuated none of the myths you seem to believe. Carry on living in your own little made-up world. I'm done with your fantasies.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

chasMac said:


> Not sure how events in Poland in the '80's could be viewed as anything but a bloodless revolution. A totalitarian, socialist regime (ruling without the consent of the people) was replaced by a democracy through labour-stoppages (we are familiar with Solidarnosc) and long chats, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Round_Table_Agreement; also The Magdalenka talks, though I don't have concise summary to link (this one is lengthy: Triggering Communism's Collapse ... - Google Books). And at this point, keep in mind that the Warsaw Pact remained unquestioned and there were thousands of Soviet troops still stationed in and around the country.
> 
> There were some disappearances and political murders to be sure (Popieluszko being by far the most famous) , but no more so than what the populace had come to expect during four decades of socialist mis-rule. The non-revolutionary '70's were more noted for public uprisings and political violence than the truly revolutionary '80's.


first off this "bloodless" revolution lasted almost a decade (so kind of slow....and truly it was built upon similar movements that stretched back to the 1950s, so even slower) and wasn't bloodless at all as about 100 people died while partaking in strikes throughout (not to mention the "disappearances" that you acknowledge). And was only able to succeed after Russia started it's reforms, loosening the communist grip on the eastern block.

Here's an example where 9 people died :

Pacification of Wujek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will give you credit for at least coming up with something that was close to filling the bill of a peaceful protest that ousted an authoritarian government.... but with 100 people dead it was far from bloodless.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

I would say 100 is on the low side - but, in a re-cast of the last paragraph of my last post, how 'bloodless' do you think socialist Poland was? By western standards: not very. By saying there were killings, you are correct. I would say, however, there was no _appreciable increase_ in spilt blood, when compared with the previous four decades. A more accurate condition of the notion of a non-violent overthrow.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

100 was the count of people killed under martial law at the strikes & protests (and that martial law only lasted a year and a half).

I'm sure there was more after. and i'm sure that people would have died outside of the strikes & protests. but you can not deny that people died AT these strikes & protests. So it was not bloodless. to qualify that by saying people were dying anyway misses the point. under every tyranny people die. that's why they revolt.

to compare this to Tunisia, at last count 74 people died in protests (that number may go up, but at this point the worst seems to be behind them) and their protests have lasted about a month (so arguably more effective then waiting decades). People were also dying by that regime prior to the protests. So relative to the Polish Solidarity Strikes the Tunisian has been less bloody.... but i wouldn't call it bloodless.

(not that i'm putting down the strikes... i think they were a great way for the population to be heard, and a great moment in modern history).


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Maybe a little of "agree to disagree" going on here, i-rui. Perhaps I'll recuse myself from this particular topic (perhaps not, though, you never know) - I feel that in some way that I am diminishing the hardships endured by my wife's family, and the accomplishments won (they are founding members of Solidarnosc), by taking the stance that I am. Doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> no protesters spilled blood because it was a military coup, not a civilian protest, and people DID die (although less than a dozen).
> 
> nice try again though.


To my understanding, only the ruling government killed some protesters. There were no deaths on the part of the elite who were overthrown.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

^^ well that still wouldn't make it bloodless. Plus it was still a military coup and not a civilian protest..... pretty easy to oust a government when the military is against them and not doing their bidding.



Anyways, i just saw this image on the internet and had to share because it's F'ing great.










lol


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> ...Anyways, i just saw this image on the internet and had to share because it's F'ing great.


I disagree. IMO it is F'n lame and it isn't funny, it is BS... only funny if you think Assange is some sort of demi-god who should be above the law. 

If you sign up for Facebook you know what you are getting into... except if you don't read or don't care... a whole different kettle of fish... The "joke" is lame and quiet frankly is simply wrong in fact and implication.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^ +1


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> .. only funny if you think Assange is some sort of demi-god who should be above the law.


I never said that. If I was SINC i'd demand a retraction....but i'm not so I guess we can carry on...



screature said:


> If you sign up for Facebook you know what you are getting into and except if you don't read or don't care... a whole different kettle of fish...


absolutely not true. millions of facebook users registered with a terms & conditions & privacy policy that are *COMPLETELY* different than what they agreed to. And these privacy settings continue to change to confuse it's users, and in it's latest incarnations, in fact *require* users to *manually* opt out of public sharing of their information.

couple that with Facebook's refusal to open their books along with their deal with Goldman Sachs to artificially inflate it's value before it's offered to the public and you have a company that is deliberately manipulating it's stock value with blatant disregard for any financial regulations.

but as long as he makes gob loads of money he can be man of the year.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> *I never said that. *If I was SINC i'd demand a retraction....but i'm not so I guess we can carry on...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did I say you did...? Where? Show me....? No retraction requested because no retraction required. 

Sigh... your arguments are only possibly valid if you site/link to your sources.. cripes I get tired of this...

Who cares if it is manual. THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT. I read EVERYTHING I agree to in Terms and Conditions agreements. (Most say something like, "these terms and conditions can change without notice".... maybe they forgot to read that part...) For those who don't... you have no one to blame but yourself... Like I said, either they don't read or they don't care....


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

I'm reminded of a similar juxtaposition of images with bubble-speech I saw years ago. In the one, Lt Calley of My Lai fame is shown being freed from military prison, while in the other, prisoner and mass murderer Charles Manson can be seen saying he should have joined the army. Funny? Not so much, more like satirical, and bitingly so in this case.

Same sort of thing with the two pics in question.

YMMV IMHO, and that's the way of it. Period. End of story.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> I'm reminded of a similar juxtaposition of images with bubble-speech I saw years ago. In the one, Lt Calley of My Lai fame is shown being freed from military prison, while in the other, prisoner and mass murderer Charles Manson can be seen saying he should have joined the army. Funny? Not so much, more like satirical, and bitingly so in this case.
> 
> Same sort of thing with the two pics in question.
> 
> YMMV IMHO, and that's the way of it. *Period. End of story.*


Aren't you proud of yourself... all puffed and proud... thinking you are so superior... 

Thank you.... our philosopher king.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Aren't you proud of yourself... all puffed and proud... thinking you are so superior...


Not really. I consider myself quite lean and modest. Furthermore, what can you adduce to support that peculiar 'superior' jibe? (You forgot the question mark in your eye-rolling haste, btw.  )



screature said:


> Thank you.... our philosopher king.


Does the 'king' bit mean that _you_ think I'm 'superior'? And which particular multitude considers itself my loyal subjects? I must tax them as soon as I can.

TBH, I detect a trace of vitriol in your bizarre post. Time to cool down and have a break maybe?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Not really. I consider myself quite lean and modest. Furthermore, what can you adduce to support that peculiar 'superior' jibe*? (You forgot the question mark in your eye-rolling haste,* btw.  )
> 
> Does the 'king' bit mean that _you_ think I'm 'superior'? And which particular multitude considers itself my loyal subjects? I must tax them as soon as I can.
> 
> TBH, I detect a trace of vitriol in your bizarre post. Time to cool down and have a break maybe?


Like I said...  You think yourself the "court jester" don't you? Are you and gt pen pals....??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Are these enough question marks for you or shall I stop now?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Did I say you did...? Where? Show me....? No retraction requested because no retraction required.


you said "only funny if you think Assange is some sort of demi-god who should be above the law." Under the picture i wrote "lol". Meaning I thought it was funny. Yet i don't think he's a demi-god or above the law (truth be told his website is only publishing information given to him)

You also suggested I was wearing a Black mask at the G20, when in fact i wasn't even at any protests during that weekend:



screature said:


> Like I said you want it both ways... Did you wear a black mask in TO over the summer by any chance...



Not that i care what you say, assume or insinuate. Just making light of what happened a few days ago.



screature said:


> Sigh... your arguments are only possibly valid if you site/link to your sources.. cripes I get tired of this...


sigh... do posters *have* to provide links to everything they post? especially things that are well documented? Since you seem to doubt it here's a couple of links :

No Opting Out Of Facebook Turning Your Check-Ins, Likes Into Ads | Epicenter*| Wired.com

CBC News - Money - Facebook raises $500M from Goldman Sachs



screature said:


> D
> Who cares if it is manual. THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT. I read EVERYTHING I agree to in Terms and Conditions agreements. (Most say something like, "these terms and conditions can change without notice".... maybe they forgot to read that part...) For those who don't... you have no one to blame but yourself... Like I said, either they don't read or they don't care....


If you look at that first link Facebook doesn't even *allow* people to opt out of this new functionality.

As for the Terms & Conditions, even if it says it CAN be subject to change that doesn't give it cart blanche on what it can do. In fact Facebook has already settled out of court when being sued over privacy issues in the past. Just because they have a T&C doesn't mean they have any kind of legal bullet-proof vest. It's just a layer of legal protection.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> you said "only funny if you think Assange is some sort of demi-god who should be above the law." Under the picture i wrote "lol". Meaning I thought it was funny. Yet i don't think he's a demi-god or above the law (truth be told his website is only publishing information given to him)
> 
> You also suggested I was wearing a Black mask at the G20, when in fact i wasn't even at ay protests during that weekend.
> 
> ...


... cause if you sign up for Facebook you are really concerned about privacy..... :lmao:

Really too funny...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> ... cause if you sign up for Facebook you are really concerned about privacy..... :lmao:
> 
> Really too funny...


maybe.

but it doesn't necessarily mean you want to be a corporate whore either.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Like I said...  You think yourself the "court jester" don't you?


No, but I do have a lot of fun here. Others (no names no pack drill) play the role of court jester very well, and utterly predictably. May they live long and prosper.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> maybe.
> 
> but it doesn't necessarily mean you want to be a corporate whore either.


So keep your private life... private. Simple.... Really.

I don't use Facebook for the very reasons you raise... But I am aware of them and like I said before... either you you don't read or you don't care. Either way the* end user* is responsible for their decision/action...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Hilarious. Funny how all the things we said about the damn missile shield, dismissed by the right-wingers as foolish talk, turns out to be pretty spot-on..._

*WikiLeaks cables: planned US missile shield blind to nuclear weapons*





> US plans for a missile defence system on Czech soil ran into trouble when defence chiefs realised the proposed radar was blind to nuclear missiles, leaked diplomatic cables show.


(TelegraphUK)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> We support a cause that is no more radical a proposition than that the citizenry has a right to scrutinise the state.
> 
> The state has asserted its authority by surveilling, monitoring and regimenting all of us, all the while hiding behind cloaks of security and opaqueness. Surely it was only a matter of time before citizens pushed back and we asserted our rights.


Julian Assange - guardian.co.uk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> _Hilarious. Funny how all the things we said about the damn missile shield, dismissed by the right-wingers as foolish talk, turns out to be pretty spot-on..._


_

It isn't spot on at all. Think about what the system is designed to do--not what Assange or the UK Telegraph thinks it was supposed to do. 

That Obama scuttled it is no surprise either._


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

could be reread as:

la la la la I dont want to hear that the missile defence shield is useless against nuclear weapons. 

And this is all Obummers fault.

What kind of missiles did you -think- we needed protection from?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> could be reread as:
> 
> la la la la I dont want to hear that the missile defence shield is useless against nuclear weapons.
> 
> ...


groove, nothing against you, but I can't waste my time doing the research for you. If this is a topic that you're already familiar with, then demonstrate that by the content of the post. If not, then move on.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It was. You just don't like it. You would have us believe all these billions are spent on protecting us from firecrackers. I'd say that's even more pathetic.

Move on indeed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> It was. You just don't like it. You would have us believe all these billions are spent on protecting us from firecrackers. I'd say that's even more pathetic.
> 
> Move on indeed.


Not even close. Thank you for your contribution.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I find it really amusing that someone who frequently rails about the overspending of the US government, to get incredibly excited and defensive about spending incredible amounts of money on something that does really, very little in the end.

And I'd say that's really close.

I don't think a dismissive wave of your hand will wipe that irony anytime soon.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Keep digging the hole.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Gotta say, this is some bracing discussion. Can we move on from this soups stalemate, gents? Ta.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Gotta say, this is some bracing discussion. Can we move on from this soups stalemate, gents? Ta.


What discussion? Your post alerted me to some activity in the thread.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes Max it's bracing. I've had my fun and snicker so it's fine.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, I'm so glad you two responded. What are the chances?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

*WikiLeaks founder threatens to sue 'The Guardian' for libel*

WikiLeaks founder threatens to sue 'The Guardian' for libel

Atta boy Julian... you can dish it out but you can't take it. :-( 
What a wanker.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> WikiLeaks founder threatens to sue 'The Guardian' for libel
> 
> Atta boy Julian... you can dish it out but you can't take it. :-(
> What a wanker.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Atta boy Julian... you can dish it out but you can't take it.
> What a wanker.


Who has Julian libelled?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Who has Julian libelled?


Who has the Guardian libelled? The point is he is perfectly willing to toss out hearsay as the truth and then when the shoe is on the other foot he cries foul like a little wanker.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

What 'hearsay'? Do you mean the diplomatic cables?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm guessing he was a wanker long before he started dropping diplomatic cables.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm guessing he was a wanker long before he started dropping diplomatic cables.


What can you adduce to support this contention?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> What 'hearsay'? Do you mean the diplomatic cables?


I'm reading this as a yes. One of the issues I have with all this wiki-crap is the "truthiness" of the stuff. Just because the media rant and rave on this doesn't make it true...and the more a government sez "no" the more that is translated into yes.

I really wonder just how much truth there is in all of this stuff ... or for that matter, how much really matters in the culture of diplomacy......


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> I'm reading this as a yes.


The release of the cables does not constitute hearsay, nor does it constitute libel. It might be jolly well naughty, but that's another matter.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> The release of the cables does not constitute hearsay, nor does it constitute libel. It might be jolly well naughty, but that's another matter.


What a person thinks they heard another say is hearsay, the cables are full of such statements.

And they could very well be "libellous"... just not everyone is the knee-jerk wanker that Assange is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*Libel*: 


> ...the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, *government, or nation* a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).


So in effect, that wanker Assange, if charged in court, would need to defend each of the documents he's transmitted to third parties as:

a) actual verified documents
b) true.

He's been lucky so far.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

the cables may contain hearsay from their original authors, but not from wikileaks. they're just publishing them.

as for the "truthiness" of the cables, they're "true" as far as it's an accurate snap shot of US diplomacy and it's perception of world events. i would agree that it's just their interpretation of said events, and not scientific data. But they have been vetted by the world's best journalists, and that should legitimize their authenticity as actual US cables.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> the cables may contain hearsay from their original authors, but not from wikileaks. they're just publishing them.


It's not been proven that the cables originated with those authors. Assange would need to do that in court. Likewise, as the person who published these cables, he would need to prove that the contents of them were true.

If I found some personally devastating letter in your trash and decided to publish it, I would need to show both that the letter was something you had actually written, and that the contents of it were true--or face libel charges.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's not been proven that the cables originated with those authors. Assange would need to do that in court.


why wouldn't the US government have to prove they were fake? The cables have already passed the litmus test of the best investigative journalists intense scrutiny.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> why wouldn't the US government have to prove they were fake? The cables have already passed the litmus test of the best investigative journalists intense scrutiny.


a lot of this stuff will prove very embarrassing and devastating to the beliefs of many i-rui, so any methods to discredit or place doubt as the authenticity available will be tossed with a great degree of haste.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> why wouldn't the US government have to prove they were fake? The cables have already passed the litmus test of the best investigative journalists intense scrutiny.


For the same reason that anyone who is impugned doesn't have to launch a legal campaign to prove the falsehood of each successive accusation by a libeler. It's up to the person who publishes the material to prove it is true, not the reverse. Truth is the strongest defense against libel charges. That journalistic "litmus test" is of no value in court.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> For the same reason that anyone who is impugned doesn't have to launch a legal campaign to prove the falsehood of each successive accusation by a libeler. It's up to the person who publishes the material to prove it is true, not the reverse. Truth is the strongest defense against libel charges. That journalistic "litmus test" is of no value in court.


from wiki :

"How to prove Libel
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. *First, the person must prove that the statement was false*. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. *And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement*. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm."

Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> from wiki :
> 
> "How to prove Libel
> There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. *First, the person must prove that the statement was false*. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. *And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement*. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm."
> ...


I followed the citation for that statement through to the originating web site and the link no longer contains the information. Look farther down the article list and you'll see that in most countries--Canada and the U.S. included--the defendant must prove the truth of the statement.

Think of what the legal system would be like if it were the reverse. Anyone could make up 10 stories about the person they've got in their sites, and the only recourse of the libeled person would be to have to prove that each of the statements are false in court. If I accused you of being a thief, you would have to prove that you never stole money, rather than the libeler proving that you did.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

So could you prove that Julian is a wanker, if he took you to court?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> So could you prove that Julian is a wanker, if he took you to court?


Under which system? Under the one proposed by i-rui, Julian would have to prove he _wasn't_ a wanker.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I followed the citation for that statement through to the originating web site and the link no longer contains the information. Look farther down the article list and you'll see that in most countries--Canada and the U.S. included--*the defendant must prove the truth of the statement*.


where exactly does it say that?



Macfury said:


> Think of what the legal system would be like if it were the reverse. Anyone could make up 10 stories about the person they've got in their sites, and the only recourse of the libeled person would be to have to prove that each of the statements are false in court.


Think of what you're proposing....a legal system that would be swamped with cases of anyone who felt they were publicly "dissed". By placing the burden on the plaintiff to prove the "wrong" it naturally curbs the amount of frivolous lawsuits.



Macfury said:


> If I accused you of being a thief, you would have to prove that you never stole money, rather than the libeler proving that you did.


I would just have to prove i haven't been charged and/or convicted of Theft and your statement could be proved False (unless you supplied more tangible evidence).


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

i-rui's is an apt description of the UK courts and the recent spate of "libel tourism":

Libel tourists flock to 'easy' UK courts - Times Online



> ...
> 
> Plaintiffs need only prove that they have a reputation to defend in Britain and that the defamatory material was circulated here, even if only over the internet, to sue.


Does sound awfully like a 'a legal system that would be swamped with cases of anyone who felt they were publicly "dissed"' Only a heckuva lot worse - you practically need only prove you've visited the UK to make use of their "easy courts".


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Under which system? Under the one proposed by i-rui, Julian would have to prove he _wasn't_ a wanker.


M'learned friends would know how to deal with you, Macfury. Oh yes.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

chasMac said:


> Libel tourists flock to 'easy' UK courts - Times Online
> 
> Does sound awfully like a 'a legal system that would be swamped with cases of anyone who felt they were publicly "dissed"' Only a heckuva lot worse - you practically need only prove you've visited the UK to make use of their "easy courts".


This is a matter not to the credit of the much vaunted English system of justice. Every half-arsed, unscrupulous scallywag or organisation can exploit the libel laws in England.
There have been notable victories for defendants, in particular that of Simon Singh who was sued for libel for writing a critical piece about claims made by chiropractors. He wrote, in The Guardian newspaper:



> You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.


Eventually he won, they lost. Chalk one up for freedom of expression. Nothing libellous was proved against him.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

*How to avoid more Julians*

It's all in the diet. Bring your kids up right.

Evidence of poor diet training comes from teacher Julian Cook, who said: 



> "I bloody love fat kids. All glassy eyed and docile. It's like teaching a cow."
> 
> "Whenever I see a hand in the air I know immediately that it belongs to some rosy-cheeked, twinkly-eyed little ****er who's just had a tangerine."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

*WikiLeaks founder denounced as an autocratic bully*

Now here's some shocking news....

WikiLeaks founder denounced as an autocratic bully 



> LONDON/BERLIN - Julian Assange’s former right-hand man on the Wikileaks website denounces Assange as an irresponsible, autocratic bully who once threatened to kill him in a book launched on Thursday.
> 
> In the book “Inside Wikileaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website”, Daniel Domscheit-Berg says he quit the site in September over disagreements about WikiLeaks management and after being falsely accused by Assange of leaking WikiLeaks own internal secrets....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What a wanker!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

OMG that totally negates the truth wikileaks has exposed!!

Breaking news : Steve Jobs is also an autocrat.

(but I still like my macs.)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

First rape allegations and now this. Convenient. What's next? Julian Assange kicked someone's dog?

Oops… spoke too soon.



> Often going into trivial detail about his time with Assange, Domscheit-Berg paints an ultimately unflattering portrait of the WikiLeaks mastermind. He even claims Assange tormented his pet cat.


Desperate times call for desperate measures. :lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> OMG that totally negates the truth wikileaks has exposed!!
> 
> Breaking news : Steve Jobs is also an autocrat.
> 
> (but I still like my macs.)


I haven't heard that Jobs threatened to kill anyone though. 

Hmm... Julian Assange, good autocrat. Steve Jobs, good autocrat. Stephen Harper, bad autocrat (although at least there are checks and balances in place to limit his autocracy i.e. he has to be elected.).. I guess the virtues of autocracy in your books is all about who you agree with and you prefer the undemocratic autocrats when they represent your viewpoint/interests.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> I haven't heard that Jobs threatened to kill anyone though.
> 
> Hmm... Julian Assange, good autocrat. Steve Jobs, good autocrat. Stephen Harper, bad autocrat (although at least there are checks and balances in place to limit his autocracy i.e. he has to be elected.).. I guess the virtues of autocracy in your books is all about who you agree with and you prefer the undemocratic autocrats when they represent your viewpoint/interests.


no it's more like :

Julian Assange - Head of Organization who acts like an autocrat.
Steve Job - Head of Computer company who acts like an autocrat.
Steven Harper - Head of a *Democracy* who acts like an autocrat.

spot the difference?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> no it's more like :
> 
> Julian Assange - Head of Organization who acts like an autocrat.
> Steve Job - Head of Computer company who acts like an autocrat.
> ...


One is democratically elected and accountable to the public and can be ousted by an election... the others not so much... spot the difference? 

The one with the least accountability you hold up as a demi-god... the only one with any democratic accountability you routinely chastise and portray as the devil incarnate.... Hmm... Yet who is the one wanted for questioning in relation to sex crimes and is accused of threatening to kill someone... yep you sure know how to pick those who are worthy of support and defence....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Don't forget the cat… he tormented the cat, too.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> First rape allegations and now this. Convenient. What's next? Julian Assange kicked someone's dog?
> 
> Oops… spoke too soon.
> 
> ...


Uhmmm what desperate times... in case you didn't notice these claims come from disparate sources... All hail Julian the innocent and infallible... what a joke.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> The one with the least accountability you hold up as a demi-god the only one with any democratic accountability you routinely chastise as the devil incarnate.... Hmm...


i don't hold him up as a demi-god at all (despite what what you constantly say), i simply defend and applaud the efforts of his organization (which you blindly attack).

however the irony of you attacking wikileaks with an article that is no more than hearsay, while also criticizing the diplomatic cables for being hearsay is yet another example of your steady deluge of hypocrisy.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Uhmmm what desperate times... in case you didn't notice these claims come from disparate sources... All hail Julian the innocent and infallible... what a joke.


this is what you don't get. it doesn't matter if those claims are true in relation to wikileaks.

it doesn't alter the legitimacy of what the organization does, and has done in the past.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> i don't hold him up as a demi-god at all (despite what what you constantly say), i simply defend and applaud the efforts of his organization (which you *blindly attack*).
> 
> however the irony of you attacking wikileaks with an article that is no more than hearsay, while also criticizing the diplomatic cables for being hearsay is yet another example of your steady deluge of hypocrisy.


Nope not blindly at all.. eyes wide open....

The irony is that you can't see that he does the very things that he "leaks" about others and then whines about it when it comes to light (uhhmmm I think that is where the hypocrisy resides) and that is the irony. No hypocrisy on my part, just pointing out the absurdity....


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> The irony is that you can't see that he does the very things that he "leaks" about others and then whines about it when it comes to light (uhhmmm I think that is where the hypocrisy resides) and that is the irony. No hypocrisy on my part, just pointing out the absurdity....


so wikileaks released documents on a powerful corporation or government having sex without a condom and/or tormenting a cat??

i must have missed those.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> so wikileaks released documents on a powerful corporation or government having sex without a condom and/or tormenting a cat??



What does it matter what the truth reveals? As Assange has made clear, the truth is its own justification and must be made available to the public regardless of the result. If that wanker tortured a cat, we need to know.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> What does it matter what the truth reveals? As Assange has made clear, the truth is its own justification and must be made available to the public regardless of the result. If that wanker tortured a cat, we need to know.


It is well known that animal abuse is often the early stages of psychotics and serial killers.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

More today in the Ottawa Citizen



> Inside WikiLeaks is billed as an account of Daniel Domscheit-Berg's time as programmer and media spokesman for what his book, due for release in 16 countries, including Canada, beginning today, calls "the world's most dangerous website."
> 
> It says the "chaotic" WikiLeaks cannot protect its sources, accuses the "power-obsessed" Assange of betraying the website's founding ideals and says that Assange was worryingly secretive about WikiLeaks' finances.
> 
> ...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> What does it matter what the truth reveals? As Assange has made clear, the truth is its own justification and must be made available to the public regardless of the result. If that wanker tortured a cat, we need to know.


wikileaks revealed *relevant* information about powerful governments & corporations. The claims made about assange simply aren't relevant to the work wikileaks does, or to the public interest.


P.S. i love how tormenting a cat becomes torturing it.

Why not just say he killed it and wore it's skin as a vest?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> wikileaks revealed *relevant* information about powerful governments & corporations. *The claims made about assange simply aren't relevant to the work wikileaks does, or to the public interest.*
> 
> 
> P.S. i love how tormenting a cat becomes torturing it.
> ...


Uhmm, again...



> It says the "chaotic" *WikiLeaks cannot protect its sources, accuses the "power-obsessed" Assange of betraying the website's founding ideals*


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Daniel Domscheit-Berg does raise a few relevant points about wikileaks. His claims that anonymity cannot be guaranteed to people who submit NEW leaks is concerning (but as of yet hasn't been proven to be correct, and I imagine certainly could be corrected.)

But i would agree on THAT point the information is relevant (if true).

All the other claims that are raised (you know, the ones to actually SELL the book) are absolutely lateral to any discussion of wikileaks.

It's also pretty hilarious that you're posting this as some late breaking news as Daniel Domscheit-Berg split from wiki in September, and his accusations of Assange being a disk started around that time.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Daniel Domscheit-Berg does raise a few relevant points about wikileaks. His claims that anonymity cannot be guaranteed to people who submit NEW leaks is concerning (but as of yet hasn't been proven to be correct, and I imagine certainly could be corrected.)
> 
> But i would agree on THAT point the information is relevant (if true).
> 
> ...


His *book* is the late breaking news... whats not to get?

To be honest I'm just messin' with the Wikileak fanboys here, because they tend to provocateurs... but it seems they don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.... just like Mr. Assange.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

screature said:


> To be honest I'm just messin' with the Wikileak fanboys here, because they tend to provocateurs... but it seems they don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.... just like Mr. Assange.


Honesty is always the best policy, s. I commend you for it.


----------

