You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Wiki Leaks
Who does he think he is, Sir Walter Raleigh?
Lol, musicians should learn to keep their mouths shut. They always end up embarrassing themselves. Write a fucking song if you got a beef, but don't go around acting like you're some academic intellectual like Chomsky or Fisk because you got a leather jacket and a cowbell in your tounge.
Re: Wiki Leaks
Assanage lost all credibility when he threatened to realse certain documents if he was arrested. If he really was interested in transparency, he wouldn't hold anything as collateral in case he gets fucked. The guy is an attention seeking whore who lives in fantasia. That being said, I don't think he's a criminal (though in all honesty I haven't put too much thought into the issue) and the idea of the US somehow prosecuting him is laughable. If the US can punish those in the media (even those who fit that title loosely such as wikileaks) what's to stop them from declaring every govt doct confidential. If the US isn't going to prosecute the editor of the NY Times, I see no justification to prosecute Assanage. The only true criminal thus far in any of this is Bradley Manning, and I'd volunteer to be on his firing squad.
Assange does not require credibility. We're not dealing with Martin Luther King Jr. or Adolf Hitler here. He's not a demagogue. Lack of character? Definately. A little weasily? Probably. But that's of little to no consequence cause he's not here to lead the revolution, he's just presenting facts. The spark if you will.
I find it funny that people are so eager to charge his character here. As if that had any bearing on what is being presented. Assange is not the New York Times or some other banking puppet who ommits as they see fit and consciously fuck with context to manipulate you. He doesn't ommit, he doesn't manipulate. All he does is releasing stuff in a controlled fashion, for whatever reason (probably selfish). But what you do get is as real and clean as you've ever will see in a commercial outlet. He does not black out passages in a document like CNN or FOX.
Also you're complaining he might compromise national security, but then turn around and attack him for not releasing the really juicy material? In the event he's excersising some form of decency, subtelty and care that's wrong too?
Why don't you just admit you don't like the guy and what he's doing? Could it be because he stands to compromise what you've invested so much of your life in? The faulty but well intentioned government?
(btw, "you" isn't only referring to you here. If the shoe fits and all that.)
Re: Wiki Leaks
I'm kind of ignorant to whether Iceland is considered officially part of Scandinavia and wikipedia isn't too sure either.
No, but it's part of the Nordic Countries. Scandinavia is only Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Gotta love those Icelenders though. Even though heavily americanized they still hold on to their culture and native language like a twelve year olds dick (icelandic is the closest you get to old norwegian because of this). Not too surprised to see this coming from them, although having their country bankrupted by the international credit cartels, then coerced into submission by the EU, probably helps their motivation.
Re: Wiki Leaks
Randall Flagg wrote:Assanage lost all credibility when he threatened to realse certain documents if he was arrested. If he really was interested in transparency, he wouldn't hold anything as collateral in case he gets fucked. The guy is an attention seeking whore who lives in fantasia. That being said, I don't think he's a criminal (though in all honesty I haven't put too much thought into the issue) and the idea of the US somehow prosecuting him is laughable. If the US can punish those in the media (even those who fit that title loosely such as wikileaks) what's to stop them from declaring every govt doct confidential. If the US isn't going to prosecute the editor of the NY Times, I see no justification to prosecute Assanage. The only true criminal thus far in any of this is Bradley Manning, and I'd volunteer to be on his firing squad.
Assange does not require credibility. We're not dealing with Martin Luther King Jr. or Adolf Hitler here. He's not a demagogue. Lack of character? Definately. A little weasily? Probably. But that's of little to no consequence cause he's not here to lead the revolution, he's just presenting facts. The spark if you will.
I find it funny that people are so eager to charge his character here. As if that had any bearing on what is being presented. Assange is not the New York Times or some other banking puppet who ommits as they see fit and consciously fuck with context to manipulate you. He doesn't ommit, he doesn't manipulate. All he does is releasing stuff in a controlled fashion, for whatever reason (probably selfish). But what you do get is as real and clean as you've ever will see in a commercial outlet. He does not black out passages in a document like CNN or FOX.
Also you're complaining he might compromise national security, but then turn around and attack him for not releasing the really juicy material? In the event he's excersising some form of decency, subtelty and care that's wrong too?
Why don't you just admit you don't like the guy and what he's doing? Could it be because he stands to compromise what you've invested so much of your life in? The faulty but well intentioned government?
(btw, "you" isn't only referring to you here. If the shoe fits and all that.)
You are full of crap on the "investing" shit. Randall is a hired Gunslinger, and he knows it. There's an honor in that, but only the short-sighted and those with limited brain power can't see it. Hopefully one day they'll be enlightened and look beyond their own needs, and be able to see honor can be found anywhere.
Everything else - You're absolutely right. Only the ones reading this crap, and thinking it means absolutely anything beyond "Captain Obvious" territory are the ones who are guilty, not Assange. He leaked what he leaked, and everyone crapped themselves for no reason.
I do not believe in any way that he compromises national security, as that has always been PR bullshit handed down by the U.S. government, because some little granny thought we interrogated suspects by pouring them a cup of hot tea and some sugar cookies and asked them where the bombs were hidden.
Assange is no threat to anyone's security, he's simply a guy pissing people off by releasing stuff they did or didn't know about.
The people that have climbed up on their holier than thou soap box are the ones who are a living joke. Whether it's Bill O'Reilly or people who felt the need to turn this story into an 11-page thread.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Wiki Leaks
I very much doubt Randall to be that dishonorable, but either way that's up to him to decide.
I'm confused in all of this. And have been meaning to reply to your posts. Leave me out of it and let's talk about the military in general. Are you saying that military service itself is not honorable or just not blanketly so? If the latter, I wholely agree. By mearly volunteering to wear the uniform, does not make one honorable. I know plenty of people in the military I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. Just as in the general population.
Your earlier comment about your own experience in the military and Rambo types isn't a fair comparison. First, I know very few Rambo types in the military. Those I do know who thought themselves such quickly changed their tune when the bullets started flying. Most people I know join the military because it gives them a purpose. Sure, some do it solely for the educational benefits, but by and large most fall under the category of "lost souls" who find meaning and direction. I fall into the 2nd category, though I also have a strong desire to defend the US Constitution as well as a family line of military service.
I guess you can call me a hired gun, though I dislike the mercenary conotation in that regard. I make about 85k a year currently. Good money for sure, but I could be making well over 100k if I took my skill set outside of the public sector. I choose not to do so at this time because I believe in what I'm doing.
I have mixed feelings about Assanage. I don't know him personally, so I really have nothing to go on. He's more of a thorn in the lion's paw than anything else. As I have repeated several times, my issue is with Bradley Manning; not Assanage. I don't know what sexual crimes Assanage may have committed and honestly don't care. Rape and sexual assault probably happens 1000s of times across the globe each day, so whatever alleged acts he may have done really mean dick to me.
The most supportive wikileaks types don't distinguish between the information and the man who made them available. The yahoo on this site calling him a hero is a perfect example. Endangering the lives of people or not, Assanage tries to portray himself as acting under the veil on transparency. Either way he fails at this. By holding back some information, he is stating that he is capable of what is newsworthy and what isn't. I don't believe him qualified to do so. And if such a line can be drawn, with regard to what can/can't be released, then how is he any different than the US govt and its determination of what is public domain? When he threatened to relase shit if he was arrested, that further shows that he isn't interested in transparency or security. The pain and suffering of one man can't justify the pain and suffering of many more just because he gets pissed off.
If the US really wanted him gone, they'd have the CIA take him out. This guy goes MIA for months at a time staying with friends in populated European cities. He's not that hard to track. Some CIA agent just needs to take him out when he's "underground" and he'll just never resurface.
This whole wikileaks thing has really been a joke to me. Nothing really important has been revealed and from a US intelligence perspective, Manning never had access to Top Secret material, so Wikileaks won't be revealing that anytime soon. It's mostly just gossip and information that everyone already knew or had very good reason to heavily speculate on.
But back to the original point of discussion. I don't know if what I do is honorable or not. I guess I would say so, but I kind of lack objectivity in this regard. And since no one here knows exactly what I do and I have no intention of elaborating, they too can only speculate. I'm a Captain in the US Army. I've been to Iraq and am trying to get to Afghanistan. If that's honorable, so be it. If not, life will go on. Either way, I'll be happy.
Re: Wiki Leaks
The most supportive wikileaks types don't distinguish between the information and the man who made them available. The yahoo on this site calling him a hero is a perfect example.
I'm presuming I'm the yahoo. Cute. I think it's brave to put yourself in harms way for the sake of justice. More than brave honorable even.
By holding back some information, he is stating that he is capable of what is newsworthy and what isn't. I don't believe him qualified to do so. And if such a line can be drawn, with regard to what can/can't be released, then how is he any different than the US govt and its determination of what is public domain?
He's a journalist though. Don't journalists decide what goes in the press on a daily basis?
When he threatened to release shit if he was arrested, that further shows that he isn't interested in transparency or security. The pain and suffering of one man can't justify the pain and suffering of many more just because he gets pissed off.
That could be true. It could equally be true that he was trying to protect wikileaks as a whole.
If the US really wanted him gone, they'd have the CIA take him out. This guy goes MIA for months at a time staying with friends in populated European cities. He's not that hard to track. Some CIA agent just needs to take him out when he's "underground" and he'll just never resurface.
I don't think they want him dead. Now of course I'm just guessing. But they probably want to make an example of him. If I was in their shoes Id want to make an example of him
This whole wikileaks thing has really been a joke to me. Nothing really important has been revealed and from a US intelligence perspective, Manning never had access to Top Secret material, so Wikileaks won't be revealing that anytime soon. It's mostly just gossip and information that everyone already knew or had very good reason to heavily speculate on.
I found it shocking. Shook me to my core. Probably a sign of my own naivety, it's not like I hadn't heard the same unofficial political rumours and what not, I just had written them off as conspiracy theory type BS.
If that's honorable, so be it. If not, life will go on. Either way, I'll be happy.
Lets drop the idea of honor. Would you still be happy if whatever it is you do was in the interest of the greater good ?
