Thread: Wikileaks...

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Wikileaks does though. They have redacted information that is irrelevant to the importance of issues and potentially could harm individuals. They have also repeatedly tried to get the Pentaqon and the US government to make their own redactions where appropriate.

And they got a response. They were told those documents were not for release in any manner, and they were asked to redact them entirely. WikiLeaks refused to do so.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

They are not publishing willy-nilly. They have a long process of review before they release.

So what? The documents were stolen. WikiLeaks had absolutely no right to possess them, redact them or publish them.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Yes, there is always a need for resistance and dissent against the state - democracy is meaningless without it. Democracy would not even exist without it.

As i have already stated - i don't really believe that any individual involved is really that relevant or even worthy of much consideration at all, and their fate does not really concern me much. I'm more interested in the bigger picture. You wounded and devoted patriots seem to be more interested in name-calling. It seems pretty shallow to me. It lacks vision. The criticisms coming from you guys seem be devoid of any real substance. It comes across as mainly whining and wanting some sort of revenge, as if that will make the internet and people willing to expose corruption just magically go away... It just seems so short sighted.

Andrew

How do you know that even a single document WikiLeaks has posted is genuine?

Matt

Doesn't anyone find these revelations fascinating? Now you don't have to wait for a history to tell a bit of the truth: FDR the Bomb, Nixon Watergate, Reagan Contra, Bush Jr Iraq, now for the first time we get a seat in the backroom antics before piles and piles of BS is piled on top of reality. Historians now know the real thoughts, even when they are only thoughts? Next they are releasing corporate secrets, that should be interesting. The question is will this change anything? Will diplomacy suddenly become civil and will reasons finally become rational - or open and honest. Nah.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

You are really grasping at straws here.... yes, the picture is clearer on some issues. Nobody is denying the info is fake.

Andrew

"Nobody is denying the info is fake"?



There is no way of knowing whether the information is real or not. Sorry if my pointing this out to you conflicts with your blind faith in WikiLeaks.

Matt

Originally Posted by Andrewl

In the new year Wikileaks is going to expose the corruption of a major US bank..

Come on - tell me you guys don't want to know the details?? i know i do.

Anderw

Personally, I think this might be interesting. It probably also doesn't involve a major crime, unlike the prior thefts of information.

I'd also think the funding source of WikiLeaks would be very interesting. If only WikiLeaks were as open themselves as they demand that others be.

I'd think you, Andrew, would be interested in WikiLeaks' funding as well, since you've used funding sources as an argument against various individuals and organizations in the Global Warming debates.

Their funding becomes even more relevant when they begin going after publicly held corporations. There is a big potential for whatever bank they plan on going after to lose a lot of money - and for other people to make a lot of money. The question of whether or not Mr. Assange or any of the other principals in WikiLeaks has investments that might be impacted is very, very relevant. And only through disclosure could it be answered.

Certainly, a demurral from Mr. Assange without any documentation would be woefully insufficient.

Matt

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Their funding becomes even more relevant when they begin going after publicly held corporations. There is a big potential for whatever bank they plan on going after to lose a lot of money - and for other people to make a lot of money. The question of whether or not Mr. Assange or any of the other principals in WikiLeaks has investments that might be impacted is very, very relevant. And only through disclosure could it be answered.

Certainly, a demurral from Mr. Assange without any documentation would be woefully insufficient.

Matt

Excellent point, especially since the Wikileaks' fans tend to be the kind of people who are always whining about a conflict of interest.

Why would anyone rejoice at the supposed upcoming leaks from corporations?

If you work and participate in a pension plan, your pension plan fund's value could be significantly affected.

Without any way to legitimate the leaks, a company could go bust over false information. People would lose their jobs.

Competitors could plant fake leaks.

A U.S. employer's marketing plans could be leaked, enabling overseas competitors to take unfair advantage.

Proprietary information, obtained a great expense by one company, could be leaked so that other companies could use the information for free.

This is as immoral as insider trading.

-----

Why the hell do Wikileaks, its sofa dwelling leader, and the leakers get to yield so much power?

Originally Posted by leighredf

Why would anyone rejoice at the supposed upcoming leaks from corporations?

If you work and participate in a pension plan, your pension plan fund's value could be significantly affected.

Without any way to legitimate the leaks, a company could go bust over false information. People would lose their jobs.

Competitors could plant fake leaks.

A U.S. employer's marketing plans could be leaked, enabling overseas competitors to take unfair advantage.

Proprietary information, obtained a great expense by one company, could be leaked so that other companies could use the information for free.

This is as immoral as insider trading.

-----

Why the hell do Wikileaks, its sofa dwelling leader, and the leakers get to yield so much power?

"improvisation"

Originally Posted by MattInFla

There is no way of knowing whether the information is real or not.

Matt

Well, i guess they better release that Manning guy then since there can't really be a case against him...

Andrew

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Personally, I think this might be interesting. It probably also doesn't involve a major crime, unlike the prior thefts of information.

Well, challenging power and forcing change means breaking the law. This is a very long proud tradition - well for those of us who are not blindly devoted to the state at least.

I'd also think the funding source of WikiLeaks would be very interesting. If only WikiLeaks were as open themselves as they demand that others be.

I'd think you, Andrew, would be interested in WikiLeaks' funding as well, since you've used funding sources as an argument against various individuals and organizations in the Global Warming debates.

Nonsense. I have only used funding sources to reveal the motivation for spreading misinformation with regards to science.

I already know the motivation of the persons who would fund wikileaks so it sounds rather uninteresting.

Their funding becomes even more relevant when they begin going after publicly held corporations. There is a big potential for whatever bank they plan on going after to lose a lot of money - and for other people to make a lot of money. The question of whether or not Mr. Assange or any of the other principals in WikiLeaks has investments that might be impacted is very, very relevant. And only through disclosure could it be answered.

You sure like making things up with no evidence whatsoever and then talking about them as if they are real for some reason.... very weird.

Certainly, a demurral from Mr. Assange without any documentation would be woefully insufficient.

Matt

Still focused on the individual eh?

Andrew

Originally Posted by leighredf

Why would anyone rejoice at the supposed upcoming leaks from corporations?

If you work and participate in a pension plan, your pension plan fund's value could be significantly affected.

Without any way to legitimate the leaks, a company could go bust over false information. People would lose their jobs.

Competitors could plant fake leaks.

A U.S. employer's marketing plans could be leaked, enabling overseas competitors to take unfair advantage.

Proprietary information, obtained a great expense by one company, could be leaked so that other companies could use the information for free.

This is as immoral as insider trading.

Because the poeple who run these mega-corporations need to be exposed for the corrupt murderous ecocidal thieving creeps that they are.

-----

Why the hell do Wikileaks, its sofa dwelling leader, and the leakers get to yield so much power?

Why do the assholes who run banks and other corporations get to wield so much power?

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Well, challenging power and forcing change means breaking the law. This is a very long proud tradition - well for those of us who are not blindly devoted to the state at least.

I hope you don't sprain anything with this repeated patting yourself on the back.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Nonsense. I have only used funding sources to reveal the motivation for spreading misinformation with regards to science.

I already know the motivation of the persons who would fund wikileaks so it sounds rather uninteresting.

The logic here fails utterly. Because you don't know the identities of those funding WikiLeaks, it is not possible for you to "already know the motivation" of said unknown individuals.

But since you like WikiLeaks, you're not interested in what they are hiding. Your bias is, as usual, clear.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

You sure like making things up with no evidence whatsoever and then talking about them as if they are real for some reason.... very weird.

Please demonstrate where I have made anything up? My point about WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange's financial holdings is completely relevant.

But someone of your bias can't be expected to think that rationally.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Still focused on the individual eh?

Andrew

Yup - you're completely asleep when it comes to thinking critically about a group that aligns with your ideology. It's not something to be proud of.

Matt

Originally Posted by leighredf

Excellent point, especially since the Wikileaks' fans tend to be the kind of people who are always whining about a conflict of interest.

Nothing that aligns with Andrew's ideology gets examined that closely by Andrew.

Matt

Originally Posted by MattInFla

The logic here fails utterly. Because you don't know the identities of those funding WikiLeaks, it is not possible for you to "already know the motivation" of said unknown individuals.

Their motivation is obviously to support wikileaks in their mission to expose corruption, deceit, and lies.

But since you like WikiLeaks, you're not interested in what they are hiding. Your bias is, as usual, clear.

I might be interested and i might not be - im certainly not going to just make things up like you do and then pretend its the truth.

Please demonstrate where I have made anything up? My point about WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange's financial holdings is completely relevant.

It is just random thoughts and accusations borne out of your wounded pride. You certainly have done nothing but speculate nonsensically.

But someone of your bias can't be expected to think that rationally.

Matt, Your lashing out again.

Yup - you're completely asleep when it comes to thinking critically about a group that aligns with your ideology. It's not something to be proud of.

Matt

Im sorry if i find your personal crusade against Assange to be utterly boring and meaningless.

Andrew