• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My HUGE problem with Wikileaks

So you're the kind of guys that would bang your first about justice and law if a black guy broke the Jim Crow laws of the south back when they were relevant?

I understand "skepticism" is a very paternalistic and authoritarian ideology, but really??
 
Dr. Fascism said:
So you're the kind of guys that would bang your first about justice and law if a black guy broke the Jim Crow laws of the south back when they were relevant?

I understand "skepticism" is a very paternalistic and authoritarian ideology, but really??
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see what banging your first has to do with justice either.
 
Dr. Fascism said:
So you're the kind of guys that would bang your first about justice and law if a black guy broke the Jim Crow laws of the south back when they were relevant?
Click to expand...

1884048ca062020e8b.jpg


So OPSEC laws in a time of war which soldiers agreed to be bound to are comparable to Jim Crow?
 
My problem is mainly that it's repeatedly referred to as a whistleblower website. It seems to me that it's more like a clearinghouse for illicitly obtained materials, given the lack of genuinine whistleblowing we have seen so far.

ETA: Not to mention, isn't that insurance file they have posted kind of working against the principle of Wikileaks? That everything should be freely and openly available to everyone? So what are Wikileaks hiding from its users?
 
Last edited:
KDLarsen said:
My problem is mainly that it's repeatedly referred to as a whistleblower website. It seems to me that it's more like a clearinghouse for illicitly obtained materials, given the lack of genuinine whistleblowing we have seen so far.

ETA: Not to mention, isn't that insurance file they have posted kind of working against the principle of Wikileaks? That everything should be freely and openly available to everyone? So what are Wikileaks hiding from its users?
Click to expand...

Bingo. This is my problem as well. If they were truly exposing whistleblowers -- people exposing illicit/illegal activity, that would be understandable. But I have yet to see a shred of evidence that, for example, the Afghan War documents were given to them by someone exposing anything. Or that they have evently inadvertently exposed anything.

That (I posted this in another thread as well, but it's worth repeating), and Wikileaks itself is a secretive organization that is not accountable to anyone. If I don't like my government, I at least can vote them out. If an organization harms me, I can sue them and get redress. Wikileaks tries to make itself untouchable from anyone it might harm, and unaccountable to the "people" it is supposedly representing. I don't recall voting for them to release thousands of documents from my government. I don't recall even being asked.
 
Last edited:
KDLarsen said:
given the lack of genuinine whistleblowing we have seen so far.
Click to expand...
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
I have yet to see a shred of evidence that ...they have evently inadvertently exposed anything.
Click to expand...


You could always visit their website and go through the archive. From 2007-2009 they published about one document daily on average. Did you read any of them? Payed attention? No. And thats the problem. The documents were rotting on their server. That's why they've changed their strategy.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You could always visit their website and go through the archive. From 2007-2009 they published about one document daily on average. Did you read any of them? Payed attention? No. And thats the problem. The documents were rotting on their server. That's why they've changed their strategy.
Click to expand...
O..kay? :confused:

I don't see the relevancy to what I wrote, so please do fill me in on whatever details I may have missed.
 
KDLarsen said:
O..kay? :confused:

I don't see the relevancy to what I wrote, so please do fill me in on whatever details I may have missed.
Click to expand...

Uh, the bit where you said "lack of genuinine whistleblowing we have seen so far" (sic). Obviously, you are basing that on a single document out of thousands. Obviously the problem doesn't lie with the lack of genuine whistleblowing as much as your inability to see the said whistleblowing, hence the invitation for you to go to their site and actually read the thousands of documents they've released over the last few years
 
bit_pattern said:
Uh, the bit where you said "lack of genuinine whistleblowing we have seen so far" (sic). Obviously, you are basing that on a single document out of thousands. Obviously the problem doesn't lie with the lack of genuine whistleblowing as much as your inability to see the said whistleblowing, hence the invitation for you to go to their site and actually read the thousands of documents they've released over the last few years
Click to expand...
Okay then, I will be back in 3 years time once I have read every single thing they released.

I still don't see what 'They have released a document a day for two years, but that didn't get them any attention, so they decided to switch to illicitly obtained material' had to do with my assertation, that Wikileaks is not blowing whistles. If CE felt that I was in the wrong, she could have presented any of the 730+ documents, which she felt presented genuinine whistle-blowing, and I would have corrected myself.
 
Last edited:
Your assumption that all of the many hundred documents released by them are NOT genuine whistleblowing is uninformed and nonsensical. You simply didn't know that they are doing this for a couple of years with a mountain of documents relevant to acts all over the world, not just stuff "blaming the US", as you would like to believe and the media tells you. Now you know.

edit: Here's one quite recent example for your convenience.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
You could always visit their website and go through the archive. From 2007-2009 they published about one document daily on average. Did you read any of them? Payed attention? No. And thats the problem. The documents were rotting on their server. That's why they've changed their strategy.
Click to expand...

I had read some documents and was well aware of them prior to this latest incident. And I was and continue to be underwhelmed.

So what is their "new" strategy? Publish a bunch of crap and hope there is something there that is relevant? That's what it looks like. I'm not sure how that differs from their old strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom