Wikileaks. Any comments?

[ddt]

To think that Wikki Leaks is a good thing is to think that the destruction of the United States and eventually Western Civilization is a good thing. Why do you think that the destruction of the United States and eventually Western Civilization is a good thing?

Great argument. It reminds me of the referendum we had in Holland about the EU "Constitution" a couple of years ago. The best argument our PM had was "if we say no, the lights will go out in Europe". "we" did vote no, and the lights are still on.

Oh, and look here. Set up a mirror of wikileaks in 5 easy steps. Over 500 mirrors now.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yeah. Right. I forgot some people still think Irak invasion was justified, or that the Afghanistan revenge trip was justified.

"some" people?

And whether people still believe it was or not, at the time of the invasion it was overwhelmingly considered justified in the US and in many countries ... for reasons that even in hindsight were correct.

For example, Iraq was accused of violating an agreement not to research, develop, build or stockpile weapons of mass destruction and long range delivery systems ever again. The ISG found that Iraq was violating that agreement. It was continuing to research, develop and build such items. As to stockpiles, it is true that none were found, but the ISG said in their report that the possibility that Iraq moved WMD materials to Syria before the invasion could NOT be ruled out. The ISG admitted that they could not say for sure how much WMD had been produced by Iraq. The ISG said they had a "credible" source indicating a movement to Syria had occurred (and many other credible sources said they same thing). And most important of all, the ISG concluded that Saddam had not given up his ambitions of reconstituting his WMD arsenal, and that Iraq could have done so rapidly once the sanctions and oversight ended ... which was likely to have happened had we not invaded and the UN instead gave Iraq a *clean* bill of health.

Another reason for invading Iraq was to end its aid of terrorist organizations and terrorist movements. And post invasion it was found that Iraq had indeed engaged in many such activities and was on friendly terms with numerous known terrorists and terrorist organizations. It was allowing terrorists to operate freely inside it's country and even training them. Had we not invaded, that cooperation would surely have increased, and mixing terrorists with a friendly-to-terrorists, WMD armed nation, that considered itself at war with the US (and audio tapes discovered after the invasion prove that's exactly how Saddam and his top staff thought), would have been a potentially deadly mixture. Especially when those tapes prove Saddam and his top staff discussed the use of 3rd party surrogates to attack the US with WMD.

A third purpose for the invasion was to help the Iraqi people. Free them from a brutal tyranny. A tyranny that looks even more brutal now that Iraq is starting to become a model for the rest of the muslim world to hopefully follow.

As for Afghanistan, the US invasion was not revenge. It's purpose was to shut down the large training camps from which the 9/11 hijackers had come, that the Afghanistan government allowed to exist and that even cruise missile attacks had failed to close. And to end the intimate connection between Afghanistan's government and Al Qaeda. A connection that even extended to the marriage of the children of bin Laden and the Taliban's leader.

So once again, we find you are simply starting with false premises.

As for revealing secret, the "enemy" of my nation already know them almost certainly.

So you want a world without secrets. You are even more naive than I thought.

 

[BeAChooser]

He circulated insurance.aes256 like...a year ago.

Your point? Did he announce back then why he distributed the file? Can you provide a link to whatever he said back then? Seems to me all that all you've proven is that he had a plan to do this, even back then. That this was a well thought out, premeditated attack on the US and it's interests. All the more reason perhaps to silence him. But perhaps we won't have to. Perhaps now that he's openly made his threats, those who want no secrets ... the real extremists in all of this ... will take matters in their own hands. Afterall, they are definitely a group that believe the ends justify the means.

 

[Travis]

Yeah. Right. I forgot some people still think Irak invasion was justified, or that the Afghanistan revenge trip was justified. *shrug* think whatever you want.

As for revealing secret, the "enemy" of my nation already know them almost certainly.

Yeah, I'm one of those people.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic. You're saying that you DON'T want your country to be run like Tony Soprano's organization? Or that you DO?

I want it to do what is most effective. Like spying. I want my country spying on everyone else. Spying is inherently dirty.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Your point? Did he announce back then why he distributed the file? Can you provide a link to whatever he said back then? Seems to me all that all you've proven is that he had a plan to do this, even back then. That this was a well thought out, premeditated attack on the US and it's interests. All the more reason perhaps to silence him. But perhaps we won't have to. Perhaps now that he's openly made his threats, those who want no secrets ... the real extremists in all of this ... will take matters in their own hands. Afterall, they are definitely a group that believe the ends justify the means.

It was patently obvious what the whole point of releasing an encrypted file named "insurance" was, especially when it came right after releasing information regarding the most powerful military on the planet. My point is that you're constructing a narrative for seemingly no reason. The man knew he was getting into dangerous territory with the scope of the things Wikileaks was disseminating, and took measures to keep himself alive.

Then, a year after the fact, he mentions that he's done this in an interview where someone asks about the scenario he released the file for, and you assume that this file is something new that no one knew about. It's been readily available on dozens of sites for a year.

I'm not disagreeing that it is seemingly against the ideals of Wikileaks to do this, and that the file may not have anything of merit in it as a giant bluff (personally, I hope it's a jpeg of goatse the size of a wall). I'm just saying that there's no need to construct a narrative when there's a clearly compelling story already present in reality.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

By the way, feel free to keep deflecting and creating not just straw men, but straw crowds for your made up Julian Assange death fantasy. As far as I can tell, you're already creating the spin necessary to place the blame firmly on a group you dislike if he dies with no basis in facts or reality. But it's okay, as long as you end your paragraph with

 

[BeAChooser]

The man knew he was getting into dangerous territory with the scope of the things Wikileaks was disseminating, and took measures to keep himself alive.

But maybe he was worried about the wrong people doing him in?

Then, a year after the fact, he mentions that he's done this in an interview where someone asks about the scenario he released the file for, and you assume that this file is something new that no one knew about.

Where did I say that? I suggested no such thing. All I noted is that now the press is making a big deal about it, which might lead a wacko reading the press to think ... gee, I sure would like to see that info on nasty ol' USA released, and it looks like as long as Assange is alive it won't be, so ...

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Like I said in another thread, if someone were basing that decision purely on potential information received, keeping the existence of WL and Assange would ostensibly yield higher returns in the long run.

 

[qayak]

To think that Wikki Leaks is a good thing is to think that the destruction of the United States and eventually Western Civilization is a good thing. Why do you think that the destruction of the United States and eventually Western Civilization is a good thing?

If the truth destroys the United States then it should be destroyed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

By the way, feel free to keep deflecting and creating not just straw men, but straw crowds for your made up Julian Assange death fantasy. As far as I can tell, you're already creating the spin necessary to place the blame firmly on a group you dislike if he dies with no basis in facts or reality. But it's okay, as long as you end your paragraph with

A lot of idiots from the USA that I've seen in various places on the internet recently seem to be drooling over the idea that Assange might be murdered by Russia or China. Drooling over the idea that he might be murdered by a left-winger of some kind is new to me, but I think reflective of the same underlying pathological thinking.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

A lot of idiots from the USA that I've seen in various places on the internet recently seem to be drooling over the idea that Assange might be murdered by Russia or China. Drooling over the idea that he might be murdered by a left-winger of some kind is new to me, but I think reflective of the same underlying pathological thinking.

Basically since the Collateral Murder video was released, there has been a lot of clamoring for the assassination of Assange, which is troubling to me in many ways. What's new here is the speculation that it will be done by his supporters. It's strange, to say the least, but it's probably one that won't go away.

 

[BeAChooser]

if someone were basing that decision purely on potential information received, keeping the existence of WL and Assange would ostensibly yield higher returns in the long run.

That assumes that wackos think rationally and long term.

 

[qayak]

"some" people?

And whether people still believe it was or not, at the time of the invasion it was overwhelmingly considered justified in the US and in many countries ... for reasons that even in hindsight were correct.

For example, Iraq was accused of violating an agreement not to research, develop, build or stockpile weapons of mass destruction and long range delivery systems ever again. The ISG found that Iraq was violating that agreement. It was continuing to research, develop and build such items. As to stockpiles, it is true that none were found, but the ISG said in their report that the possibility that Iraq moved WMD materials to Syria before the invasion could NOT be ruled out. The ISG admitted that they could not say for sure how much WMD had been produced by Iraq. The ISG said they had a "credible" source indicating a movement to Syria had occurred (and many other credible sources said they same thing). And most important of all, the ISG concluded that Saddam had not given up his ambitions of reconstituting his WMD arsenal, and that Iraq could have done so rapidly once the sanctions and oversight ended ... which was likely to have happened had we not invaded and the UN instead gave Iraq a *clean* bill of health.

Another reason for invading Iraq was to end its aid of terrorist organizations and terrorist movements. And post invasion it was found that Iraq had indeed engaged in many such activities and was on friendly terms with numerous known terrorists and terrorist organizations. It was allowing terrorists to operate freely inside it's country and even training them. Had we not invaded, that cooperation would surely have increased, and mixing terrorists with a friendly-to-terrorists, WMD armed nation, that considered itself at war with the US (and audio tapes discovered after the invasion prove that's exactly how Saddam and his top staff thought), would have been a potentially deadly mixture. Especially when those tapes prove Saddam and his top staff discussed the use of 3rd party surrogates to attack the US with WMD.

A third purpose for the invasion was to help the Iraqi people. Free them from a brutal tyranny. A tyranny that looks even more brutal now that Iraq is starting to become a model for the rest of the muslim world to hopefully follow.

As for Afghanistan, the US invasion was not revenge. It's purpose was to shut down the large training camps from which the 9/11 hijackers had come, that the Afghanistan government allowed to exist and that even cruise missile attacks had failed to close. And to end the intimate connection between Afghanistan's government and Al Qaeda. A connection that even extended to the marriage of the children of bin Laden and the Taliban's leader.

So once again, we find you are simply starting with false premises.



So you want a world without secrets. You are even more naive than I thought.

All this rhetoric was debunked long ago. If you have some new evidence please cite it, if not, you are sorely misinformed.

 

[RobDegraves]

If the truth destroys the United States then it should be destroyed.

Succinct and well said.

 

[qayak]

A lot of idiots from the USA that I've seen in various places on the internet recently seem to be drooling over the idea that Assange might be murdered by Russia or China. Drooling over the idea that he might be murdered by a left-winger of some kind is new to me, but I think reflective of the same underlying pathological thinking.

Funny that they already know who will kill him and its a country with no stake in doing so.

I suspect it is just an early cover story for their dreams of the U.S. does it.

 

[BeAChooser]

All this rhetoric was debunked long ago.

LIAR. I invite you to try and dispute ANYTHING I wrote with specifics and sources. Not handwaving. And I'm prepared to back up everything I wrote ... using credible sources. For example, would you like to read specifically what the ISG said? But then I shouldn't have to supply that, should I, since you must have already read their report. Afterall, you claim to be *well*-informed.

 

[BeAChooser]

Succinct and well said.

Well, it's good to know where a newbie is coming from.

 

[applecorped]

No, patriots like Assange. Sheeple defend wrongdoing in the name of security, patriots reveal it in the name of morality.

Assange is as much a patriot as Alex Jones is.

 

[qayak]

LIAR. I invite you to try and dispute ANYTHING I wrote with specifics and sources. Not handwaving. And I'm prepared to back up everything I wrote ... using credible sources. For example, would you like to read specifically what the ISG said? But then I shouldn't have to supply that, should I, since you must have already read their report. Afterall, you claim to be *well*-informed.

Nice dodge, you were asked for sources.

I will refute one claim you made, that being that there were WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion.

At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq claimed to have about 14,000 WMD. The UN documented and oversaw the destruction of 13,550 WDM.

Iraq said that was all there were, the U.S. wanted the other 450 found. The UN continued looking but found absolutely nothing.

But, as Hans Blix (You know who he is don't you?) stated, "13,550 is 'about 14,000.'"

As well, the WMD were unusable because of their age and Iraq had no facilities to make new ones.

As for calling me a liar, I have been called worse by smarter people.

 

[qayak]

Assange is as much a patriot as Alex Jones is.

As much a patriot as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.