In before Julian Assange...

[Bridget]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/assange-interpol/

... mysteriously dying in a plane crash.

[Innoc]

I'm guessing Bridget's post claims to be in before Julian is assassinated. If so...I agree. It's one thing to screw with the US. Right now I think the response the US will offer up to such things is a joke. It's quite another to threaten Russia. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Russia will turn him into fertilizer.

[Iggy]

Hillary Clinton- "Hello, is this the President(or whatever) of Sweden?"
Swedish President- "Yes, it is. What may I do for you, Mrs. Clinton?"
Hillary- "The United States needs a favor, can you help us out?"
Swedish Pres- "Of course, Mrs. Clinton. Anything for one of our largest clients! What can we do for you?"
Hillary- "You know that guy who is leaking all of those sensative documents about the US on that website?"
Swede- "Oh, yes. I'm sure your government doesn't REALLY feel that way about me."
Hillary- "Of course not. Much of that was made up. But here's our problem: People are believing his lies. Could you possibly come up with some evidence of illegal activity of his, and help us get him wanted by the international community?"
Swede- "I'm sure we could find something. If not, we could always make something up. I mean, if he's willing to commit that act, what criminal activity would he NOT be a party to?"
Hillary- "Could you make it something sexual? Everyone hates a sexual deviant!"
Swede- "Absolutely! Any preference? Rape? Homosexuality? Incest? Kiddy Porn?"
Hillary- "Nothing gay, that'll backfire. Multiple Rape would be good. If need be, find some kiddy porn a week or two later if we don't get the desired result."
Swede- "What is the desired result?"
Hillary- "To discredit him, get him thrown in prison, and possibly killed by some random stranger. But this has to be hush-hush."
Swede- "Of course. We Swedish people are very discrete."
Hillary- "Thank you much. Usual payment?"
Swede- "Yes, ma'am. You have the account number."
Hillary- "You'll have it before the sun sets. Thank you again!"
Swede- "A pleasure."

*click*

[Iggy]

I'm guessing Bridget's post claims to be in before Julian is assassinated. If so...I agree. It's one thing to screw with the US. Right now I think the response the US will offer up to such things is a joke. It's quite another to threaten Russia. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Russia will turn him into fertilizer.

Wait... maybe you read a different article than I did.... but where did he threaten Russia?

[YomMamasHouse]

He indicated that some documents involving large Russian businesses will be coming.. possibly.

[Bridget]

The Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has called for whoever leaked the 250,000 US diplomatic cables to be executed.

Huckabee, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination at the last election but is one of the favourites for 2012, joined a growing number of people demanding the severest punishment possible for those behind the leak, which has prompted a global diplomatic crisis.

His fellow potential Republican nominee Sarah Palin had already called for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be "hunted down", and an adviser to the Canadian prime minister has echoed her comments.

Huckabee said: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty."

EVERYONE IS FUCKING INSANE.

[Innoc]

Wait... maybe you read a different article than I did.... but where did he threaten Russia?Google for "Julian Assange Russia" and the Time.com article from Nov 1 will be in the top 3 links. There's plenty of hits out there to get you up to date on this...

[Iggy]

I didn't see anything in that article, but by coincidence, there was just something about it on the news, literally a minute ago. Guy must have a death wish.

[Innoc]

I didn't see anything in that article, but by coincidence, there was just something about it on the news, literally a minute ago. Guy must have a death wish.
In the time between when I posted the keywords and you checked...it moved in ranking. Go figure...it's a hot topic. Here's the link (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00.html)

It's certainly talking the talk. In an interview published on Tuesday, Oct. 26, in Russia's leading daily newspaper, Kommersant, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said that "Russian readers will learn a lot about their country" after one of the site's upcoming document dumps. "We want to tell people the truth about the actions of their governments."

So far Russia has had no official response. But on Wednesday, an official at the Center for Information Security of the FSB, Russia's secret police, gave a warning to WikiLeaks that showed none of the tact of the U.S. reply to the Iraq revelations. "It's essential to remember that given the will and the relevant orders, [WikiLeaks] can be made inaccessible forever," the anonymous official told the independent Russian news website LifeNews.

When reached by TIME, the FSB, which is the main successor to the Soviet KGB, declined to elaborate on the comment or say whether it was the agency's official position. But history has shown that the FSB readily steps in to shut down Internet tattlers.


Deathwish? That was my thought as well.

[GenghisTron]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks/index.html

Wikileaks is the best thing around right now. You know when there's bipartisan demagoguery, the status quo is being directly threatened.

[Lost]

I think shit like this is good for everyone who doesn't have their hand in the coffers. Transparency is never going to happen if someone doesn't force it.

I also respect the fact that he offered our government the opportunity to go over the documents and inform him of sensitive material that should not have been divulged. I imagine they declined, instead simply saying its a matter of national security and that he shouldn't release any of it. They apparently took him up on the first batch of stuff because I remember he delayed its release so that there would be no info over active combat units in the leak.

[GenghisTron]

Yes, Assange has offered to collaborate with intelligence agencies in the US, and they have all declined.

[Bridget]

Sounds like they mad 'cause he's stylin' on them.

[Lost]

Ben Franklin be throwin sum luv to Assange, fo sho.

[Innoc]

Yes, Assange has offered to collaborate with intelligence agencies in the US, and they have all declined.
I don't believe that's true. I've not heard a single sound bite or direct quote from him to that effect and it would seem grossly inconsistent with his track record. It seems to me that he actively seeks to undermine any form of collaboration with regard to world governments. No, I don't believe that any bonafide offer of collaboration was ever offered by Julian Assange.

[GenghisTron]

I don't believe that's true. I've not heard a single sound bite or direct quote from him to that effect and it would seem grossly inconsistent with his track record. It seems to me that he actively seeks to undermine any form of collaboration with regard to world governments. No, I don't believe that any bonafide offer of collaboration was ever offered by Julian Assange.

If you wish to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative, not mine. It's already well-known that WikiLeaks has offered, publicly, multiple times, to collaborate with intelligence agencies to censor sensitive material. They've been turned down everytime. Your conjecture that they haven't offered a 'bonafide' offer is hilarious. How can you legitimately gauge whether or not they made a legit offer if they keep getting turned down? Oh right, you can't, and it just proves that Neo-Conservatives such as yourself are incapable of overcoming your intellectual bias towards people who challenge your 16th-century Machiavellian ideas of Nationalism.

You know something is wrong when people who will hover over any chance to cry wolf about Democrats doing bad things (Obvious reference to Hilary Clinton here) and instead opt to criticize someone for philosophical or moral reasons. That's some Twilight Zone shit right there. Assange has already stated that he's a libertarian, in the American sense of the word, and believes in markets. Any genuine (intellectually honest) market-minded libertarian should realize the great service Assange is providing to the American people.

What right does a Government have to keep secrets from the people who give them their power? What gives them the right to take our money, and not tell us what they're doing with it? What happens if they fuck up something diplomatically, and we go to war, meanwhile the entire country is clueless as to what happened. What happens if our foreign policy that is being dictated behind closed doors, is what is making radical Muslims hate us, and all of it is being covered up by our Government?

The answer is simple. If you truly support limited Government or if you simply believe in the philosophy of liberty, there's no way you can possibly support a secret police agency (Such as the DHS, and it's various branches ranging from the CIA to the FBI) that actively keeps secrets and manipulates the minds of the American people. Secret Police have been used by virtually every authoritarian dictator/oligarchy since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter what they're called, they're Secret Police in form and function, and to me, that is nothing short of the ultimate legitimization of illegitimate Government power. Ergo, small-government Conservatism is epistemologically incompatible with the continued support of 'State Secrets' and State privilege.


inb4victim

[Innoc]

If you wish to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative, not mine. It's already well-known that WikiLeaks has offered, publicly, multiple times, to collaborate with intelligence agencies to censor sensitive material. They've been turned down everytime. Your conjecture that they haven't offered a 'bonafide' offer is hilarious. How can you legitimately gauge whether or not they made a legit offer if they keep getting turned down? Oh right, you can't, and it just proves that Neo-Conservatives such as yourself are incapable of overcoming your intellectual bias towards people who challenge your 16th-century Machiavellian ideas of Nationalism.

You know something is wrong when people who will hover over any chance to cry wolf about Democrats doing bad things (Obvious reference to Hilary Clinton here) and instead opt to criticize someone for philosophical or moral reasons. That's some Twilight Zone shit right there. Assange has already stated that he's a libertarian, in the American sense of the word, and believes in markets. Any genuine (intellectually honest) market-minded libertarian should realize the great service Assange is providing to the American people.

What right does a Government have to keep secrets from the people who give them their power? What gives them the right to take our money, and not tell us what they're doing with it? What happens if they fuck up something diplomatically, and we go to war, meanwhile the entire country is clueless as to what happened. What happens if our foreign policy that is being dictated behind closed doors, is what is making radical Muslims hate us, and all of it is being covered up by our Government?

The answer is simple. If you truly support limited Government or if you simply believe in the philosophy of liberty, there's no way you can possibly support a secret police agency (Such as the DHS, and it's various branches ranging from the CIA to the FBI) that actively keeps secrets and manipulates the minds of the American people. Secret Police have been used by virtually every authoritarian dictator/oligarchy since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter what they're called, they're Secret Police in form and function, and to me, that is nothing short of the ultimate legitimization of illegitimate Government power. Ergo, small-government Conservatism is epistemologically incompatible with the continued support of 'State Secrets' and State privilege.


inb4victimWho the fuck are you talking to? I said nothing about Democrats or anything else you mentioned. The sole focus of my comment was on Assange, his established pattern of behavior and the claim that he offered to collaborate.

So not a single quote from Assange or a sound byte to support your assertion?

[Crazycarl]

Who the fuck are you talking to? I said nothing about Democrats or anything else you mentioned.

LOL I don't know what he's talking about, either.

[GenghisTron]

I said nothing about Democrats or anything else you mentioned. The sole focus of my comment was on Assange, his established pattern of behavior and the claim that he offered to collaborate.

Clearly, but then my post branched out as an affront to your views on the WikiLeaks situation. Is it really that hard to follow? Usually fellows such as yourself will take any opportunity to stand atop a soapbox and spout about how bad Democrats are, and in this case, the Clinton leak scandal is an opportune moment for populist Right-wingers such as yourself to exploit the moment, but the fact that you guys are completely skipping out on playing politics in favor of *actually* applying philosophical principals (A rarity when it comes to populist righties) is something straight out of the Twilight Zone.

So not a single quote from Assange or a sound byte to support your assertion?

You're the one who made the assertion that Assange hadn't offered a 'bonafide offer of collaboration', not me. As I stated, anyone who has been following the WikiLeaks story would know that they offered to collaborate with intelligence/defense agencies to censor sensitive material. In fact, a very simple, 10-second Google search will justify my position as factual (http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/70654.html?wlc=1291386747). On the other hand, your assertion that they didn't offer a true 'bonafide' offer, is something which has no factual basis, and moreover, is impossible to prove.

[Innoc]

Clearly, but then my post branched out as an affront to your views on the WikiLeaks situation. Is it really that hard to follow? Usually fellows such as yourself will take any opportunity to stand atop a soapbox and spout about how bad Democrats are, and in this case, the Clinton leak scandal is an opportune moment for populist Right-wingers such as yourself to exploit the moment, but the fact that you guys are completely skipping out on playing politics in favor of *actually* applying philosophical principals (A rarity when it comes to populist righties) is something straight out of the Twilight Zone.
Generalizing about "people" like me makes you look stupid. Focus on what I asked and said and keep it there. Frankly I don't spend any time reading your stump speeches.


You're the one who made the assertion that Assange hadn't offered a 'bonafide offer of collaboration', not me. As I stated, anyone who has been following the WikiLeaks story would know that they offered to collaborate with intelligence/defense agencies to censor sensitive material. In fact, a very simple, 10-second Google search will justify my position as factual (http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/70654.html?wlc=1291386747). On the other hand, your assertion that they didn't offer a true 'bonafide' offer, is something which has no factual basis, and moreover, is impossible to prove.
I did in fact make that assertion. If you scroll up you can see where I posted that earlier. I asked that as I was unable to find any legitimate news source with either a direct quote or sound byte from Wikileaks or even Assange himself. If it's good enough to show on some site in a dark corner of the net then it surely will make it onto some major source like bbc? msnbc? CNN? Drudge? Fox? None of them?

And then you can find the following quote from the article you linked:

WikiLeaks did not respond to a phone call and email message by TechNewsWorld seeking comment on the Pentagon's action. So is this your only source? And that source cannot quote anything from Wikileaks?

I made my comments on Assange based on what I'd observed from his publicly visible actions in the past. I speculated based on his track record. Barring anything new...I stand by that.

[GenghisTron]

Generalizing about "people" like me makes you look stupid. Focus on what I asked and said and keep it there. Frankly I don't spend any time reading your stump speeches.

I'm not generalizing. You've made your views about politics public. It's easy to deduce what kind of Conservative you are by your past and present posts, reading your signature, etc. I didn't need to 'generalize' or assume anything, all the evidence is right in front of me.

I did in fact make that assertion. If you scroll up you can see where I posted that earlier. I asked that as I was unable to find any legitimate news source with either a direct quote or sound byte from Wikileaks or even Assange himself. If it's good enough to show on some site in a dark corner of the net then it surely will make it onto some major source like bbc? msnbc? CNN? Drudge? Fox? None of them?

And then you can find the following quote from the article you linked:

So is this your only source? And that source cannot quote anything from Wikileaks?

If the source is REALLY that big of an issue (Are you really asking me to get an article from the MSM for you? Uh oh!) you could have easily just verified the claim by extracting the quotes that are referenced in the TechNewsWorld article from Pentagon/Defense Officials, and plugged them into Google to see if they were real.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%5BT%5Dhe+Department+of+Defense+will+not+negoti ate+some+%27minimized%27+or+%27sanitized%27+versio n+of+a+release+by+WikiLeaks+of+additional+U.S.+gov ernment+classified+documents%2C

There you go. Nearly 9,000 results, and the Pentagon's own press release is in the top results. Hopefully you'll excuse me for not spending an extra 30 seconds trying to confirm my previous 10-second Google search.

I made my comments on Assange based on what I'd observed from his publicly visible actions in the past. I speculated based on his track record. Barring anything new...I stand by that.

What are you referencing? Assange has never made any gaffes or said anything stupid in public.

[GenghisTron]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/02/afghanistan.wikileaks/?hpt=T2

[GenghisTron]

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11620256778821632

[Iggy]

Thank you! I am probably going to be placed to a terror watch list, but fuck it, I'm following them anyway. ;)

[moosh]

WikiLeaks now hosted at 507 locations, planet wide http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

:)

[BinaryLife]

Genghis, sometimes when you have a point you drown out your own thoughts with nonsense. It makes it difficult to follow, and causes a lot of confusion. You then get annoyed when other people find you difficult to converse with and you get even more confusing. You need to keep your responses as narrow as the conversation.

If I say, I think Assange is and idiot. And you want to argue that, then focus your responses on why he is intelligent, and why I'm wrong to think he's an idiot. You shouldn't go on tirades about my resulting, inferred political beliefs and further confuse the discussion because then people stop caring.

Now, the problem with Assange, is that much of what is leaked is irrelevant, but since he wants views and attention he hypes up things that would otherwise be overlooked. This is the same as any news organization in America, and isn't limited to him. However, since his product is direct quotes and leaks from governments he should be a little more tactful and create less of a hero mentality. I like that there is someone to show us what our government is doing. But I also don't care what a political official mumbles to his friends when he's walking through the walls of the white house. Unless it is a real live actual order, then I honestly am not interested it, and plastering it all over the internet as if you are a hero fighting the good fight makes you a douche bag. A rather large douche bag.

Just watch C-Span, you can find plenty of politicians saying things that will make you shocked and sick to know they have power. I assume you'll over exaggerate my view points though. Take my advice too personally, or do something to imply I believe something I don't. Just be nice.

[Iggy]

The thing is, this is bringing attention to the average person who won't watch c-span, or any of the political channels. Like it or not, he IS doing a service to the average American. Many sheeple would prefer to keep their heads in the sand over shit the government does. Either because they feel there is nothing they can do, or because they want to remain blind to anything they may not agree with.

[Bridget]

Genghis, sometimes when you have a point you drown out your own thoughts with nonsense. It makes it difficult to follow, and causes a lot of confusion. You then get annoyed when other people find you difficult to converse with and you get even more confusing. You need to keep your responses as narrow as the conversation.

More like, let's keep responses as narrow as everyone else's intellect.

If I say, I think Assange is and idiot. And you want to argue that, then focus your responses on why he is intelligent, and why I'm wrong to think he's an idiot. You shouldn't go on tirades about my resulting, inferred political beliefs and further confuse the discussion because then people stop caring.

If someone makes the claim that Julian Assange is an idiot, and I know that claim is baseless and unsupported by the person who made it because his political position inspires him to say dumb shit, then it is pointless to argue with any sincerity against the point itself. You would be wasting your time attacking a symptom of the problem, but not the problem itself. Want to fall a tree? Attack the root, stop wasting your time flailing around in the branches like a bitch.

Now, the problem with Assange, is that much of what is leaked is irrelevant, but since he wants views and attention he hypes up things that would otherwise be overlooked. This is the same as any news organization in America, and isn't limited to him. However, since his product is direct quotes and leaks from governments he should be a little more tactful and create less of a hero mentality. I like that there is someone to show us what our government is doing. But I also don't care what a political official mumbles to his friends when he's walking through the walls of the white house. Unless it is a real live actual order, then I honestly am not interested it, and plastering it all over the internet as if you are a hero fighting the good fight makes you a douche bag. A rather large douche bag.

Yes, because we all know irrelevant, over-hyped, normally overlooked information warrants a global arrest request, calls for execution by previous presidential candidates, consistent denial of service attacks, bank-freezes and service terminations, and all that, right? Comparing the work Julian Assange does to something any news organization does in America is a fucking laughable comparison. He has the hero mentality because he's a goddamn boss doing a thousand times more than any fake ass news organization would. Also, it's obvious you haven't taken a look at the actual leaks themselves if you think they're just some transcripts of smalltalk by the water fountain at the pentagon. Essentially, this is a case of your ignorance and inexperience fueling false assumptions, which motivates me to figuratively punch you in the dick instead of wish to discuss this with you like an adult.

[BinaryLife]

The thing is, this is bringing attention to the average person who won't watch c-span, or any of the political channels. Like it or not, he IS doing a service to the average American. Many sheeple would prefer to keep their heads in the sand over shit the government does. Either because they feel there is nothing they can do, or because they want to remain blind to anything they may not agree with.

I agree that he is doing a service. But I think he's doing it wrong. I also feel like more people should go out of their way to watch cspan and other new sources that aren't fox. Real news and real transparency is a must in order to find out if the people we put in power are doing the jobs we want them to. And since we put them there they do need to answer to us for the things they say and do.

See now I went on a confusing tangent. Bottom line is that I agree we need more sources that cut through the bs and show us these types of articles. I absolutely agree. But I don't like the way assange is doing itm

[Iggy]

Yeah, I think he's going about it wrong, as well. But realistically, what choice does he have? It's getting attention, and while it's controvertial, it IS getting attention by people who won't seek that information out on thier own. Now that he's in custody, everyone and their great uncle is going to be trying to extradite him.

[Bridget]

What is wrong with it?

[Iggy]

Frankly, it's only getting people that might believe it to look at it, and of those, only the industrious ones at that. There are still people who look at him as some kind of nut, that he's making all this up(despite the government not denying any of it), and of course, the ones want his head of a plate for "treason against the United States" just on principles.

[Innoc]

I'm not generalizing. You've made your views about politics public. It's easy to deduce what kind of Conservative you are by your past and present posts, reading your signature, etc. I didn't need to 'generalize' or assume anything, all the evidence is right in front of me.
Stick to what's posted in the thread. Your deductions about me are completely wrong and you're only making yourself look bad. You've clearly confused me with someone else and you clearly can't aggregate and attribute impressions with any accuracy. Also, who's to say that someone's views don't shift over time.

If the source is REALLY that big of an issue (Are you really asking me to get an article from the MSM for you? Uh oh!) you could have easily just verified the claim by extracting the quotes that are referenced in the TechNewsWorld article from Pentagon/Defense Officials, and plugged them into Google to see if they were real.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%5BT%5Dhe+Department+of+Defense+will+not+negoti ate+some+%27minimized%27+or+%27sanitized%27+versio n+of+a+release+by+WikiLeaks+of+additional+U.S.+gov ernment+classified+documents%2C

There you go. Nearly 9,000 results, and the Pentagon's own press release is in the top results. Hopefully you'll excuse me for not spending an extra 30 seconds trying to confirm my previous 10-second Google search.
Again...you focus on the wrong thing and miss my point. Wikileaks NEVER offered to collaborate. Period. You cannot find a link that shows anything from Assange or Wikileaks that shows an offer of collaboration. That is the point you keep missing.

What are you referencing? Assange has never made any gaffes or said anything stupid in public.
What I am referencing is his past behavior. Look at it. His profile is that of an anarchist or damned close to it. The last thing someone fitting his profile would do is collaborate with any government. I don't believe that he wants to "improve" the quality of Govt...I believe he wants to take them down.

[GenghisTron]

Genghis, sometimes when you have a point you drown out your own thoughts with nonsense. It makes it difficult to follow, and causes a lot of confusion. You then get annoyed when other people find you difficult to converse with and you get even more confusing. You need to keep your responses as narrow as the conversation.

I disagree. People sometimes make extraneous things about themselves known by how they act, and other queues. Someone like Innoc fits a popular profile shared by a lot of people, and it's easy to extrapolate that by queues he gives off in his posts and otherwise. I realize that judging a persons character isn't a valid argument, but my attempt is not to always make a valid argument, but rather, persuade someone. I'm a polemicist, I'm good at making my case and getting people to think like me. Part of getting people to agree with me, is to criticize by trying to show them the flaws in their own thinking. If I wanted to keep everything strictly fact-based and keep the debate as narrow as possible, it would be awful boring, and I'd basically just be regurgitating Wikipedia, negating the need for actual debate. Debating is a binary thing, and I agree you should avoid logical fallacies, I don't think extraneous arguments like the ones you and Innoc are criticizing me for are off-limits.

If I say, I think Assange is and idiot. And you want to argue that, then focus your responses on why he is intelligent, and why I'm wrong to think he's an idiot. You shouldn't go on tirades about my resulting, inferred political beliefs and further confuse the discussion because then people stop caring.

Again, I respectfully disagree. There's reasons why people believe certain things, and unless you attack the reasons why people believe (wrongly) in certain ideologies, you'll never convince them that your position is better. Despite what most people think, the vast, vast, vast majority of people never challenge their own views, and this is why my style of debate is necessary. My goal is to find the ultimate truth, and the way to find the ultimate truth is to debate on the battlefield of ideas, and to also show people how I'm right. That is the zenith of debate, everyone thinks they're right, and they want to convince other people to agree with them. As I pointed out, people will believe in certain things for reasons other than pure logic and reason, and this is why keeping the debate as narrow as possible is dull and nothing more than a nicety, and not an actual rule of debating.

Also, don't confuse my style of polemicism with ad hominems, since people always bring this up. People will often accuse me (wrongly) of using an ad hominem when I go on extraneous rants. An ad hominem is when you attack someone personally INSTEAD of debating their argument. When I debate, I sometimes 'attack' people, but it's not in place of an argument, it IS an argument.

Now, the problem with Assange, is that much of what is leaked is irrelevant, but since he wants views and attention he hypes up things that would otherwise be overlooked.

Conjecture. Assange certainly isn't one to look for attention or to overblow things. If you have ever followed any of his earlier philosophical rants from his earlier years, you'd see he's entirely sincere in his goal. I also disagree what he's leaking is irrelevant, ESPECIALLY considering the most recent leak showed us that there's widespread corruption in Afghanistan, and is so bad our own diplomats don't even have any faith in it. You really think that's irrelevant? Don't you think Americans would like to know they're spending TRILLIONS of dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan, all to find out that it's pretty much a waste because drug runners have effectively shut down the Government are using it for their own benefit? It seems pretty clear to me that you haven't even followed the leaks and are just relying on what you heard on TV. There's PLENTY of relevant things we're learning from WikiLeaks. Some of the lessons are existential in nature, for instance, the recent leaks are basically confirming for us that the Emperor has no clothes.

create less of a hero mentality.

This is your own (flawed) extrapolation of what Wikipedia/Assange stand for. Wikileaks has really only had any notoriety in the media since the 'collateral murder' video was released earlier this year. It's been less than a year, and you're already convinced he has a 'hero mentality' despite the fact that he's been largely marginalized and unheard of in the short 4 years he and WikiLeaks have been around?

I like that there is someone to show us what our government is doing. But I also don't care what a political official mumbles to his friends when he's walking through the walls of the white house.

Do you care that our Secretary of State is concerning herself and her staff with essentially stealing the identities of foreign leaders and diplomats? While you're right that a majority of the recent cable leaks are mundane and boring (About 150,000 cables are barely secret, non-classified information), it's still nice to actually have SOME transparency.

[quote=BinaryLife;479305]I assume you'll over exaggerate my view points though. Take my advice too personally, or do something to imply I believe something I don't. Just be nice.

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/6084/1289205916447.gif

[GenghisTron]

Stick to what's posted in the thread. Your deductions about me are completely wrong and you're only making yourself look bad. You've clearly confused me with someone else and you clearly can't aggregate and attribute impressions with any accuracy. Also, who's to say that someone's views don't shift over time.

Read what I typed to BinaryLife above.

Again...you focus on the wrong thing and miss my point.

Actually, the only counter-argument you've made to mine is that I gave you an unreliable media source to back up my claim, and then you continued to support your unprovable claim that they never offered a 'bonafide offer of collaboration'. I then offered up a more reliable source, and now I'm missing the point.

I know, Innoc, you're a victim and a very busy person.

Wikileaks NEVER offered to collaborate. Period. You cannot find a link that shows anything from Assange or Wikileaks that shows an offer of collaboration. That is the point you keep missing.

Again, you're repeating a bold-faced lie, for which you have produced not a single shred of evidence to support, while on the contrary, I have.

Since this is apparently a very hard concept to swallow, let's try it again.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/18/pentagon-rebuffs-wikileaks-request-for-help/

The Pentagon rebuffed a WikiLeaks request for help reviewing 15,000 classified documents about the war in Afghanistan. Instead, it demanded the online whistleblower return all of the logs to the U.S. government and abandon plans to publish them.

Timothy Matusheski, a lawyer who says he represents WikiLeaks, had reached out to the Pentagon to discuss ways to minimize the risk to civilians who may be identified in the yet-to-be-published documents. WikiLeaks has already released some 76,000 classified documents covering the war from 2004 to 2010, leaked by a source the website has refused to identify.


The Pentagon said it believes that the 15,000 additional documents, like the initial batch, contain the names of Afghans who have helped the U.S. war effort and who could be targeted by the Taliban if their identities were made public.


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told the Associated Press in Stockholm that the Pentagon had expressed a willingness to discuss the group’s request for help going through the 15,000 documents.


The Pentagon acknowledged that it had arranged a phone call on Sunday between its general counsel, Jeh Charles Johnson, and Matusheski. But Matusheski was a “no-show for the call,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.


Matusheski disputed the Pentagon’s assertion that he missed a phone call on Sunday, telling Washington Wire he was never told that one was scheduled. He said WikiLeaks has set up a network interface to allow the Pentagon to review the 15,000 documents, but that the response from the department “didn’t leave any room for negotiation.”


In a letter to Matusheski released on Wednesday, Johnson said the Pentagon would not collaborate with WikiLeaks. “The Department of Defense will not negotiate some ‘minimized’ or ‘sanitized’ version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. government classified documents,” Johnson wrote in the Aug. 16 letter.


“The department demands that nothing further be released by WikiLeaks, that all of the U.S. government classified documents that WikiLeaks has obtained be returned immediately, and that WikiLeaks remove and destroy all of these records from its databases,” Johnson added.


The U.S. says it is investigating army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning as a possible source of the leak.


The documents touch on unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings by North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and covert operations against Taliban figures, among other things.


WikiLeaks’ supporters say the accounts of the conflict should be publicized to show potential war crimes and the toll of the war.


The Pentagon has said that posting more documents would be “the height of irresponsibility.”
If the Pentagon in the past refused to collaborate with WikiLeaks, then clearly an offer was struck in secret. Despite popular belief, not everyone wishes to make everything they do public, especially when you're the head of an organization that exposes secrets, and blood thirsty Statists want you assassinated. :rolleyes:

What I am referencing is his past behavior. Look at it. His profile is that of an anarchist or damned close to it.

He's publicly said that his ideas on Government closely mimic market (American) libertarianism. I'm not a minarchist, nor am I founding father nuthugger, but I think it goes without saying that someone demanding transparency is someone who has his head in the right place. Giving Government a complete, unquestioned monopoly on law, force, and information is the ultimate legitimization of the power of Big Government, moreso than raising taxes and forcing us to fill out census forms :rolleyes:

The last thing someone fitting his profile would do is collaborate with any government. I don't believe that he wants to "improve" the quality of Govt...I believe he wants to take them down.

More baseless conjecture. You still have not supported this argument with a shred of proof. Come back when you can.

[GenghisTron]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys

[Iggy]

You expect educated patriotic Americans to believe a foreign news source? Especially a British one? Shame on you! :p

[Bridget]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/world/09wiki.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

:>

[Iggy]

You expect educated patriotic Americans to believe a news source that differs from their beliefs? Shame on you!
;)

[GenghisTron]

Yea, 'cuz only Americans do that.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6774/erkel.gif

[GenghisTron]

lololololol

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004EEOLIU

[GenghisTron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRysDp0bnyM

[GenghisTron]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101203/15151112122/no-surprise-wikileaks-leak-shows-us-entertainment-industry-wrote-spains-new-copyright-law.shtml

[Bridget]

I love Iggy's method of escaping unfair stereotypes and misconceptions attributed to his nationality.


Realize the misconceptions and stereotypes are unfair and usually untrue.
Realize that nationality is arbitrary anyway, so it's foolish to judge from.
Somehow think you are exempt by wishing yourself not of your nationality.
Unfairly judge people on their nationality, despite admitting it's arbitrary.
Unfairly apply misconceptions and stereotypes to the judged, despite the same.

[Iggy]

You really DO need a funny bone, you know that, right?

[Crazycarl]

You really DO need a funny bone, you know that, right?

You gonna give it to him? ;)

[Innoc]

Read what I typed to BinaryLife above.



Actually, the only counter-argument you've made to mine is that I gave you an unreliable media source to back up my claim, and then you continued to support your unprovable claim that they never offered a 'bonafide offer of collaboration'. I then offered up a more reliable source, and now I'm missing the point.

I know, Innoc, you're a victim and a very busy person.



Again, you're repeating a bold-faced lie, for which you have produced not a single shred of evidence to support, while on the contrary, I have.

Since this is apparently a very hard concept to swallow, let's try it again.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/18/pentagon-rebuffs-wikileaks-request-for-help/

If the Pentagon in the past refused to collaborate with WikiLeaks, then clearly an offer was struck in secret. Despite popular belief, not everyone wishes to make everything they do public, especially when you're the head of an organization that exposes secrets, and blood thirsty Statists want you assassinated. :rolleyes:



He's publicly said that his ideas on Government closely mimic market (American) libertarianism. I'm not a minarchist, nor am I founding father nuthugger, but I think it goes without saying that someone demanding transparency is someone who has his head in the right place. Giving Government a complete, unquestioned monopoly on law, force, and information is the ultimate legitimization of the power of Big Government, moreso than raising taxes and forcing us to fill out census forms :rolleyes:



More baseless conjecture. You still have not supported this argument with a shred of proof. Come back when you can.
So, you don't understand what I posted and you're continuing with insults in lieu of reasonable discussion got it.

edit: If you're going to accuse me of being off-base at least get it right. You're asking me to prove a negative. I said that Wikileaks never offered to collaborate.

...and you say prove it.

I can prove a negative? The absence of something? Reallly? I did demonstrate that your first link had no input/feedback/commentary from Wikileaks to support the position of the author of the article. This is despite you offering that link up as proof to support your position that Wikileaks offered to collaborate.

You continue to go off on a point I wasn't making and you ignore the need to support your claim.

I think we are wasting each others time. You are not convincing. But keep telling yourself that. Binarylife was absolutely right.

[Iggy]

You gonna give it to him? ;)

My bone isn't funny..... well, at least my fiance' doesn't laugh at it.... :twisted:

[reaper18]

My bone isn't funny..... well, at least my fiance' doesn't laugh at it.... :twisted:

She knows how ashamed you must feel already ;)

[stray kitten]

Hi,

Checked to see if FF was updated since people on steam have been playing it lately.

So, if we started searching every foreign official and ambassador coming into the country and publishing whatever documents they had on their person, there would be a coup d'Kat of progressive socialist rioting in the streets.

Mr. ASSange does it to every diplomat that has ever communicated to the USA and he's a hero. At least to some. There is quite the cyber battle raging out there between people who support what wikileaks does and those who do not. At any rate governments will react like they did in 911 and steal away more of our own privacy and enact laws to further curtail freedom of speech. Even the peace loving neutral Swiss are pissed at Assange. What do they put in the water down there in Australia?

I don't think it's such a bad thing BTW. All it does is confirm what everyone expects. And while severely embarrasing to the USA and the confidence other national leaders have in us, did anyone really think China was going to keep supporting a fucking lunatic?

But what it really is.... bad for US. us little people. For example, in the USA they will enact new laws that make leaking precious government info a criminal offense. It will make publishing that info a criminal offense. It will make copying that info a criminal offense and they will make it so less people have access to information making everything less transparent. Then as if that is not enough we, the people, will re-elect then. Then re-elect them again. Even if they lose we'll elect one of them leader of the losing party. (can't help a reference to Nancy - she's so cute in a hideous troll kind of way.)

As for the dude who leaked the info... he's "apparently" in the military. Bad move Holmes. No civilian court for yo ass. I'll send you Obama's childrens book to keep you company.

[GenghisTron]

So, you don't understand what I posted and you're continuing with insults in lieu of reasonable discussion got it.

edit: If you're going to accuse me of being off-base at least get it right. You're asking me to prove a negative. I said that Wikileaks never offered to collaborate.

...and you say prove it.

I can prove a negative? The absence of something? Reallly?

God, you're so dense. I've already proven that WikiLeaks have offered to collaborate with the Government to desensitize sensitive leaks. They denied. What more do you need to prove that WikiLeaks gave a 'bonafide offer of collaboration'. I've proved they have, you haven't disproven my claim, or backed your own up with a shred of evidence. Suck it up and stop crying, you made something up based on nothing more than your own cognitive bias and you're now trying your hardest to deflect your own intellectual slothiness back onto me. I've backed up my arguments with sources and cogent arguments, you have done neither, all while projecting your own intellectual insecurities onto me (as per usual). Again, suck it up, and stop crying--if you make an argument, you have to justify it. Either with sources, or empiricism, and so far, you've done neither. Which is why you're making up conspiracy theories that I'm somehow debating you on a point you never made, because your brain is desperately seeking to get out of this hole you dug for yourself, but there's no logical way you can get out of it, because your entire argument is nothing more than an epistemological black-hole.

I did demonstrate that your first link had no input/feedback/commentary from Wikileaks to support the position of the author of the article.

I already addressed this point. WikiLeaks' attorney contacted the Pentagon trying to see if they'd assist WikiLeaks in trying to censor the sensitive material. What more do you fuckin' need? Does WikiLeaks need to come out with a public press release and have extensive public commentary to make it valid? No, they don't. There's no need for it. At this point, you're just demanding that they do it so you can sit back on your flawed argument from which you have no supporting facts and is purely conjecture. If you would read the links I've been posting, you'd see it's clear that WikiLeaks offered to collaborate, and while the offer wasn't public, it was still perfectly valid.

You continue to go off on a point I wasn't making and you ignore the need to support your claim.

I know, Innoc, you're a victim. I feel for you.

(Also, please point to which argument of yours that you claim I'm 'going off of' that you claim I'm somehow making up.

l
m
a
o

I think we are wasting each others time. You are not convincing. But keep telling yourself that. Binarylife was absolutely right.

Troll 'ya later.

[stray kitten]

Wiki leaks has been up and down lately but it's stable again because mirrors have been popping up.

I don't know which is scarier, having your email read by government police or having your internal flame war posted on wiki leaks for billions of people to read.

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/

And remember... stay tuned:

http://openleaks.org/

An Assange-less site. Seems that rape allegations take away from the organization's purpose. Can't wait to see some hacked court papers from Sweden and London. All that court stuff is imaged. One within the leaks realm would just have to find some disconnected narcissist in each organization to dump some files onto a CD.

[Iggy]

There is probably already a government agency reading, or at least having a computer filter out questionable, e-mails, postings, etc.... from all over the internet.

Remember the Patriot Act?

[GenghisTron]

lol, seriously? You didn't know the Government already reads your email? Most people don't know about it, but the Government strong-armed ISP's to filter through logs of internet activity and filter through keywords (Like bomb, for instance) and they assess the threat and inform the Government. There's literally hundreds of companies that are contracted by the US Gov't and the DHS to filter through internet logs. They don't actually go into your email, like you'd think they would, they just go through your logs, because they can, due to the nature of regulations that dictate how information is transmitted through infrastructure.

Washington Post (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/) did a huge thing about the security state since 9/11.

[Bridget]

LOL AMERICANS BRO

[Iggy]

lol, seriously? You didn't know the Government already reads your email? Most people don't know about it, but the Government strong-armed ISP's to filter through logs of internet activity and filter through keywords (Like bomb, for instance) and they assess the threat and inform the Government. There's literally hundreds of companies that are contracted by the US Gov't and the DHS to filter through internet logs. They don't actually go into your email, like you'd think they would, they just go through your logs, because they can, due to the nature of regulations that dictate how information is transmitted through infrastructure.

Washington Post (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/) did a huge thing about the security state since 9/11.

Ok... given all the "top secret" stuff going on in the government(some of which Wikileaks is letting out), do you seriously think that the content of e-mails aren't being scanned? I'll grant you, I doubt there is someone sitting somewhere reading each and every e-mail sent every day, but I figure it's like you describe; keywords are looked for, and if one is spotted, the content is flagged for further evaluation(probably by another, more complex algorithm), and anything deemed by the software to raise enough flags get's sent to an agent.

[Etzell]

New game:
Send an e-mail containing ONLY the following words
"Dirty bomb, Al-Qaeda, horseporn, jihad, child porn". Then make some new friends who work for the government.

[GenghisTron]

Every day new leaks come out (Assange/WikiLeaks distributed the leaks so they would be released over time, and so far only a couple thousand have been 'released', we will continue to get new leaks for the next few weeks/months, just an FYI for anyone who is a victim of partisan media politicking) that expose secrets that should have been public information.

Such as the fact that BP had a virtually non-reported blowout at an international oil well, just a year and a half before Deepwater Horizon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-bp-azerbaijan-gulf-spill), or that powerful nations around the world had a 'bank bailout' planned 6 months before the near-financial collapse in 2008. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-mervyn-king-bank-bailout?DCMP=EMC-thewrap08)

[Lynus]

Get this shit the fuck outta here...

Sick of these fucks thinking that these forums are 'the place to go' to write up any and all amounts of bullshit that they deem worthy of discussing.

This isn't CNN, this isn't CNBC - get your sorry fuckin ass's the fuck outta here.

[GenghisTron]

Don't read it if you don't like it. No one is forcing you to read these threads.

[Etzell]

Get this shit the fuck outta here...

Sick of these fucks thinking that these forums are 'the place to go' to write up any and all amounts of bullshit that they deem worthy of discussing.

This isn't CNN, this isn't CNBC - get your sorry fuckin ass's the fuck outta here.

I think this site has what you're looking for. (www.tampax.com)

[GenghisTron]

Assange strikes gold.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-wikileaks

[Bridget]

Don't read it if you don't like it. No one is forcing you to read these threads.

Actually, that's the problem. He can't read and comprehend these threads, so he's mad.

[moosh]

Don't read it if you don't like it. No one is forcing you to read these threads.

+


Calm down chef.

[GenghisTron]

Actually, that's the problem. He can't read and comprehend these threads, so he's mad.

lololol

[GenghisTron]

Not WikiLeaks news, but related. The guy who released the Pentagon Papers was arrested, along with some war vets, who were protesting in front of the White House.

...sad

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/war-opponents-arrested-white-house/?hl=en

[BinaryLife]

You make it seem like some grave injustice was done by them being arrested. Or at least that's how it seems to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, it is far from an injustice. These people went there and intentionally stayed as long as it took for them to got arrested. They made a vow. That makes it their own fault. I am glad they get arrested, I hope they go to jail. They probably do as well of course. But I see no issue with arresting people who think they are being martyrs by intentionally getting arrested for a protest that would have been equally successful had they not pushed it that extra inch.

Police waited before gradually sealing off the area and escorting remaining protesters -- who had vowed to stay until their arrest -- into two waiting buses.

[Bridget]

You are an evil statist.

[GenghisTron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl4NlA97GeQ

[Innoc]

Troll 'ya later.
That says it all. I'm done.

[GenghisTron]

That says it all. I'm done.

You're right. Nothing needs to be said, because you're too wrapped up in your victim complex to actually produce a decent debate. You basically forced me to troll you, because it's clear you don't care about the facts.

[battery]

Hey! The Norwegian newspaper claimed it has stolen all the uncensored cables. This is going to be interesting. Remember Assange said WikiLeak was going to reveal something that would "take out a bank or two?" I already sold by Bank of America stocks. I am gonna sell the other bank related stocks too.
________
Honda Racing Corporation specifications (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_Racing_Corporation)

[stray kitten]

New game:
Send an e-mail containing ONLY the following words
"Dirty bomb, Al-Qaeda, horseporn, jihad, child porn". Then make some new friends who work for the government.

The government's capabilities are grossly exaggerated. Still, that doesn't stop me from encrypting everything and being a general paranoid internet user.

[Iggy]

Bringing this back up, for a couple of reasons:

1> Mr. Assange will be on the CBS show 60 Minutes this sunday. (in case anyone is interested)
2> According to Wikileaks, the FBI has started tracking down "Anti-Censorship Supporters".... turns out they're looking for hackers (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/27/107589/fbi-serves-40-warrants-in-search.html)
3> Wikileaks seems to have some inside information on the Egyptian bruhaha... which I'm guessing means they still have people in sensative places feeding them info.