News Stories

[Kaijo]

Another way the US is trying to push it's will on the world.

U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks

No matter where you are, please speak up in support of Julian Assange, the visible person running wikileaks. While I don't always agree with his attitude or the stuff he releases, I do feel he does fulfill a very needed role; that is, to find out what governments and people are up to, that would rather the truth remain hidden.

Ideally, the government would be releasing this information themselves, appropriately redacted to protect identities, but failing that, this is the next best thing. And Julian and his small overworked team are hard at work trying to redact documents so that people in the warzone aren't threatened.

He's gone public lately as a form of protection against those who want wikileaks shut down, but that only works if the citizens of each country speak up in support. Also, if you can donate time or money to wikileaks, I'd encourage you to do so.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Another way the US is trying to push it's will on the world.

U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks

No matter where you are, please speak up in support of Julian Assange, the visible person running wikileaks. While I don't always agree with his attitude or the stuff he releases, I do feel he does fulfill a very needed role; that is, to find out what governments and people are up to, that would rather the truth remain hidden.

Ideally, the government would be releasing this information themselves, appropriately redacted to protect identities, but failing that, this is the next best thing. And Julian and his small overworked team are hard at work trying to redact documents so that people in the warzone aren't threatened.

He's gone public lately as a form of protection against those who want wikileaks shut down, but that only works if the citizens of each country speak up in support. Also, if you can donate time or money to wikileaks, I'd encourage you to do so.

Though Assange overdid it this time, I do actually support Wikileaks. It is the kind of OSINT for lazy people like me who don't want to go into too much trouble digging for stuff or getting them through black connections (IP masking and stuff required to do that).

Wikileaks is a testament to CIA's failure to guard their secrets. McChrystal was right when he called Jones a clown : I seriously doubt that guy did anything to stem leaks.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

No matter where you are, please speak up in support of Julian Assange, the visible person running wikileaks. While I don't always agree with his attitude or the stuff he releases, I do feel he does fulfill a very needed role; that is, to find out what governments and people are up to, that would rather the truth remain hidden.

I can't begin to describe how wrong such an appeal feels to me. Julian Assange is a rabble-rousing opportunist with delusions of grandeur.

I don't care if the "role" he supposedly fills is important. There is simply no way I can bring myself to support such an individual. It's worth remembering that the ends do not justify the means.

There are ways to go about supporting the ideals of full disclosure and free expression, and Assange's methods are not among them. I would think twice before supporting such behaviour, on some horribly mistaken belief that it is somehow "noble" and worthy of emulating.

*snipped*

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I can't begin to describe how wrong such an appeal feels to me. Julian Assange is a rabble-rousing opportunist with delusions of grandeur.

I don't care if the "role" he supposedly fills is important. There is simply no way I can bring myself to support such an individual. It's worth remembering that the ends do not justify the means.

There are ways to go about supporting the ideals of full disclosure and free expression, and Assange's methods are more questionable then they are "noble". I would think twice before supporting such behaviour.

Agreed. Any sound-minded individual would know that a life is a life, and no sort of attempt to glorify the freedoms of speech is worth potentially (further) endangering the lives of others. That is simply inhumane and irresponsible. If anything, free speech is there to promote and protect life, and not to put it in jeopardy.

This is made even worse by him hiding behind free speech laws to justify his actions. The freedoms of speech is not, and should never be, absolute. To make them absolute, without regard for truth, integrity or ethics, is more dangerous than any weapon.

Pen mightier than the sword and all that.

Edit - Also his attempt to redact and control the information put out this late in the game when the damage is done and probably irreparable seems more like someone trying to cover their own asses and save some face after realizing they didn't get the support they expected, rather than someone who just realized that he has probably done more harm than good.

[SaintessHeart]

From an espionage POV, Assange simply fulfils the role of the role of the neutral party, not exclusively taking any sides in politics or teacup storms between nations. Whether he leaks information or not, those informants' lives are of zero value to anyone - they are disposable assets as compared to the higher level agents they report to. And the people behind Wikileaks articles did it on the principles of how local intelligence agencies do - to put down one would be a pot calling the kettle black.

That is how practical the black ops world operate. The only thing that possesses value is the information - human lives and equipment are dispensible. Like how the SVR didn't even bother to extract Hanssen or Aldrich Ames, how much value would the CIA put on the heads of the village informants? If they die, I am sure the CIA would just recruit another.

Investigative journalists, on the other hand, did it for mercenary purposes. And their existence simply messes up the world more than people like Assange did as they often omit or quote exclusively from the information they garnered rather than presenting it wholesale, much like their normal counterparts.

Freedom of speech should solely protect truth, not integrity or ethics as both are mallenable to fit personal gains. Decision should be made by the reader, and not influenced by the partiality of government transparency.

@ Meo - And yes, his PR stunt was plain stupid. Simply showed the inconsistency in his beliefs and lousy ass covering skills. If he's for free speech in that interpretation, why redact the article? He should have shown the finger to the NSA/CIA and tell their counterintelligence department to wake up their ideas.

[TinyRedLeaf]

At the heart of the debate lie a few key concerns that are deeply pertinent to media ethics.

(1) No more room for secrets

The idea that a "free press" is meant to reveal government wrong-doing, which of course assumes in the first place that all governments are ultimately up to no good.

The problem is, in the past, news organisations served as "gatekeepers" that decided which information had to be revealed in the name of public interest. So, in practice, we have an ironic situation where the "free press" isn't actually that "free" at all.

Who watches the watchmen? There is the increasing perception that the gatekeepers have themselves become too cosy with the establishment, and are therefore reluctant to rock the boat because of vested interests in the status quo.

In any case, at a time when information has become a massive commodity, freely available 24/7 on the Internet, the gatekeeping role has become irrelevant, if not farcically redundant.

Digitised information can be easily copied and transmitted, in bulk, at the blink of an eye, with almost zero risk to any would-be whistle-blower. So why should anybody with something juicy to reveal still bother to go through the "experts"? They can do so on their own, instantly.

The unsettling implication is that there is simply no room for secrets any more. And there is, especially, no place to hide embarrassing mistakes that the authorities would rather sweep under the carpet.

(2) Fact-checking vs let the reader decide

It used to be the case that the one crucial thing that separates a journalist from a gossip monger is his credibility.

It takes a lot of time and effort to build that credibility, through extensive self-study, in order to be as knowledgeable about a subject as possible; through as much fact-checking as possible to ensure a story's accuracy; through references to as many sources as possible, preferably from both sides of the fence, to ensure objectivity.

These were all supposed to be the hallmarks of a good journalism. Credibility is hard to earn, but extremely easy to lose.

But, now, it seems that things have changed. The Internet is the ultimate soapbox upon which any hack can broadcast, very loudly, whatever he wants. Who cares about objectivity, accuracy and insight any more? That's no longer the the reporter's responsibility, it seems.

It's up to the reader to cherry pick whatever he wants, since information is now freely available, everywhere. If the reader wants to gorge himself on every available tidbit out there, no matter how much it may smell like junk, that's his prerogative.

Which raises the question for news organisations: Should they even bother to stick to traditional standards of professionalism? The public certainly doesn't seem to care any more, so long as every little dirty secret is exposed, damned be to ethics and accuracy.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: In this brave new world of "free" information, we fully deserve whatever "news" we get.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I can't begin to describe how wrong such an appeal feels to me. Julian Assange is a rabble-rousing opportunist with delusions of grandeur.

I don't care if the "role" he supposedly fills is important. There is simply no way I can bring myself to support such an individual. It's worth remembering that the ends do not justify the means.

There are ways to go about supporting the ideals of full disclosure and free expression, and Assange's methods are not among them. I would think twice before supporting such behaviour, on some horribly mistaken belief that it is somehow "noble" and worthy of emulating.

*snipped*

Would you rather have NO idea at all as to what hidden things your government is up to? Would you rather not be aware of the secret CIA prisons, or what goes on at Gitmo, or what atrocities the US commits in Iraq and Afghanistan? That "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" philosophy is the best?

In one respect, I agree with you; Assange's methods aren't the best. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need wikileaks at all, and shouldn't be something that exists. But we live in an imperfect world, where men will be incompetant, stupid, evil, and greedy. And if they can get away with something, they will. What, exactly, do you feel is the proposed solution to this? How would you shine a light on the backroom dealings, the atrocities, the evil that men do when they want to keep it hidden?

Until you can institute something better (and I encourage you to do so), this is what we have. He redacts documents to take out names and such so no one is put at risk. Hell, he even asked the pentagon if they'd redact items so things could be released more safely. They brushed him off. He still has thousands of documents to go through, and that's the reason why not everything was released at once; him and his team are going through and making sure what they release puts no one in harm's way.

Except those who are trying to cover things up.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Would you rather have NO idea at all as to what hidden things your government is up to? Would you rather not be aware of the secret CIA prisons, or what goes on at Gitmo, or what atrocities the US commits in Iraq and Afghanistan? That "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" philosophy is the best?

The problem is that the leaked documents didn't actually reveal anything that we didn't already broadly know about the Afghan conflict. It has long been common knowledge, for example, that Pakistani intelligence is a two-faced monster. It has also been common knowledge that, in the heat of battle, fought under the fog of war, collateral damage will inevitably occur, as they clearly did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And long before the Wikileak's revelations, we already know about happened in Guantanamo, news of which were revealed via mainstream sources.

So, the important question here is: What did Wikileaks really do for public interest, in this one very specific example? I really don't see much value-add at all. On the other hand, the information it wilfully revealed carries potential harm to informants, and it certainly goes further towards sapping public and military morale, further hampering already troubled efforts on the ground in Afghanistan.

Most of all, where's the big scoop of systemic efforts to deceive the American public from the very highest levels of its government? Now, if that had been revealed, maybe I'd grant the leaks more respect. As it were, all they revealed were a great deal of incompetence in many levels of the military and the government. Again, though, how is that news?

Furthermore, was there actually anything in the leaked documents that was time-sensitive? There was essentially none. So why then the hurry to release the 92,000 logs?

If Julian Assange was truly sincere about his wish to expose government wrong-doing, why couldn't he have invested more time to comb through the data, and select the key ones to publish, while keeping potentially harmful information out of public eye? From this perspective, I find it extemely hard to believe his claims about serving "public interest", and I regard his attitude towards media ethics to be nothing short of cavalier.

To me, he is just an opportunistic attention-seeker, out to gain notoriety. Of course, if this is the kind of "hero" you wish to lionise, I can't stop you. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for, as you may just get what you want.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Would you rather have NO idea at all as to what hidden things your government is up to? Would you rather not be aware of the secret CIA prisons, or what goes on at Gitmo, or what atrocities the US commits in Iraq and Afghanistan? That "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" philosophy is the best?

Bit of a false dilemma, there. And as TRL pointed out, it's not like Wikileaks broke those stories.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Furthermore, was there actually anything in the leaked documents that was time-sensitive? There was essentially none. So why then the hurry to release the 92,000 logs?

If Julian Assange was truly sincere about his wish to expose government wrong-doing, why couldn't he have invested more time to comb through the data, and select the key ones to publish, while keeping potentially harmful information out of public eye? From this perspective, I find it extemely hard to believe his claims about serving "public interest", and I regard his attitude towards media ethics to be nothing short of cavalier.

In a way, it'd be more respectable if he was a crazy information integrist who really thought the modern world had, to use your expression, no room for secrets. That every little bit of information, regardless of consequences, should be at the disposal of the public.

As it is, it looks like he does acknowledge the value of secrets, and just couldn't be bothered till it bit him in the ass.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The problem is that the leaked documents didn't actually reveal anything that we didn't already broadly know about the Afghan conflict. It has long been common knowledge, for example, that Pakistani intelligence is a two-faced monster. It has also been common knowledge that, in the heat of battle, fought under the fog of war, collateral damage will inevitably occur, as they clearly did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And long before the Wikileak's revelations, we already know about happened in Guantanamo, news of which were revealed via mainstream sources.

So, the important question here is: What did Wikileaks really do for public interest, in this one very specific example? I really don't see much value-add at all. On the other hand, the information it wilfully revealed carries potential harm to informants, and it certainly goes further towards sapping public and military morale, further hampering already troubled efforts on the ground in Afghanistan.[/quote]

To a degree, I agree. But there's a few minor points. There is more to wikileaks than just the recently released documents. There is a bunch of other stuff on there as well, the actions of other companies and such, and up until know, it wasn't as widespread knowledge. This recent incident as really raised the awareness of wikileaks and what it does, as well as Julian himself (who made himself a public figure). You and I may already be aware of what's going on, and aware of wikileaks, but the average person on the street was not. That is changing.

That is why the US government is going after him now.

And it's not so much what was released about Iraq and Afghanistan, but what will be released in the future. The public knows about it now, and there is potential for documents that do shed light on more hidden things in the future. Imagine the next Bernie Madoff scam being revealed on wikileaks, now that the public knows about the site?

The public at large is now being confronted with the fact that the two wars we are engaged in are unwinnable(at least not without decades and trillions of dollars), and that will shape public policy.

Most of all, where's the big scoop of systemic efforts to deceive the American public from the very highest levels of its government? Now, if that had been revealed, maybe I'd grant the leaks more respect. As it were, all they revealed were a great deal of incompetence in many levels of the military and the government. Again, though, how is that news?

I don't understand; everything that was released were things that the government didn't want the public to know. Of course, they can't completely clamp down on things, but they can do it enough to keep most of the public unaware. That's changing, however.

Furthermore, was there actually anything in the leaked documents that was time-sensitive? There was essentially none. So why then the hurry to release the 92,000 logs?

If Julian Assange was truly sincere about his wish to expose government wrong-doing, why couldn't he have invested more time to comb through the data, and select the key ones to publish, while keeping potentially harmful information out of public eye? From this perspective, I find it extemely hard to believe his claims about serving "public interest", and I regard his attitude towards media ethics to be nothing short of cavalier.

I don't understand this as well. Having followed this from the beginning, wikileaks announced long ago that they had this information, and for weeks after, they didn't show it. Many were beginning to think they were bluffing or just trying to drum up interest, but they were taking time to go through them all and redact names to protect the innocent. There was no hurry, in fact, there's still about 15k pages worth of documents that they are still working on.

Far from being cavalier, Julian is showing remarkable sensibility toward making sure those on the ground in harm's way aren't being exposed. They are combing through the data, and releasing as much as they can.

I can understand an issue with releasing these documents at all, or the leakage in the first place, but wikileaks is doing pretty well in handling the situation. Agree or disagree that they should be released at all, or in his attitude, but that's about it.

And wikileaks can only release what they are sent. It's still reliant on those to leak information to them in the first place. Democracy can only function when the people have full access to correct information, and it's quite obvious we aren't getting full information. That's my main concern.

Anyway, going on a bit too offtopic, but if anyone is open to discussing further, there are PM's, VM's, or we can make a new thread.

[Terrestrial Dream]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10922522

Japan apologises to South Korea for imperialist past
Japan has offered another apology to South Korea for its war-time colonisation of the Korean peninsula.
It also promised to return cultural relics "in the near future", including records taken by Japan of an ancient Korean royal dynasty.
The apology, though not the first, is part of Japanese efforts to forge closer ties with South Korea.
Conservative politicians in Japan have resisted admitting Japanese atrocities throughout World War II.
In a statement, the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan expressed "deep remorse" for the annexation, 100 years ago this month.
Imperial aggression
Mr Kan expressed his "feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for the tremendous damage and suffering brought by the colonial rule".
"Through the colonial rule that was against their will... the people of Korea were deprived of their nation and culture and their ethnic pride was deeply hurt," Mr Kan said.
He said Japan wants to further improve relations with South Korea, which have often been overshadowed by the countries' shared history.
The statement was issued to coincide with the centenary of Japan's annexation of the Korean peninsular, and 15 August, when South Koreans will mark their liberation in 1945.
The BBC's Roland Buerk in Tokyo says that during Japan's rule, Koreans were forced to fight on the frontline, or work as slaves or in brothels set up by the military.
Successive Japanese prime ministers since 1995 have apologised for the country's imperial aggression.
But some conservative politicians in Japan have refused to acknowledge atrocities took place, our correspondent says.
'Unfortunate past'
In a separate gesture, Japan's Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa has announced that he will not be going to Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine on the anniversary of Japan's World War II defeat on Sunday.
Visits by prominent politicians have angered Japan's neighbours in the past because convicted war criminals are among the dead symbolically enshrined there.
South Korea's news agency Yonhap said Seoul "positively assessed" the Tokyo statement, and "paid attention" to the pledge to return the relics.
A foreign ministry spokesman, Kim Yong-sam, said: "We expect all Japanese people to share this view".
"We recognize Prime Minister Kan's statement as his and the Japanese government's willingness to overcome the unfortunate past between Korea and Japan and to develop bright bilateral relations in the future.
"We hope that through proper recognition and reflection of the unfortunate past, the close South Korea-Japan bilateral relations can further develop into a partnership for the future," Mr Kim said.

If Japan is truly sorry and want to improve the relationship between two countries I want so see more actions rather than bunch of apologizes. Their recent action showed they haven't change at all from before. However returning Korean artifacts is a step and I am hoping they return all of those. According to the wikis Japan has 34,369 Korean artifacts, I would be really surprise if Japan return most of them.

[Yu Ominae]

Big news as FIFA's checking in the North Korean soccer team with rumors that they were all sentenced to hard labor with their coach doing it on a construction site.

FIFA to probe reports of punishment of North Korean players and coach

(CNN) -- Football's ruling body is investigating reports that North Korea's national team and head coach were humiliated by government officials following a disastrous showing at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

The North Koreans, playing at the tournament for the first time since 1966, suffered an embarrassing 7-0 thrashing by Portugal and also lost to five-time world champions Brazil and the Ivory Coast.

The players, except for Japan-born Jong Tae-se and An Yong-hak, were summoned to a large auditorium on return to Pyongyang last month and subjected to a six-hour interrogation, according to Radio Free Asia.

Coach Kim Jong Hun was expelled from the Workers' Party and forced to do hard labor as punishment, sources told the station. He was reportedly accused of betraying Young Gen. Kim Jong Un, the anointed heir of the regime's longtime leader Kim Jong-Il.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter told a press conference in Singapore on Wednesday that the governing body had made contact with the North Korean Football Association.

"[We contacted them] to tell us about the election of a new president, and if it is true, the allegations made by the media that the coach and some players have been condemned or punished," Blatter said in quotes carried by the UK Press Association.

"The first step is the federation and we'll see what the answer will be, and then we can elaborate on that."

Blatter said FIFA, which has strict rules about no government interference in member associations' affairs, was wary of making an official statement about the reports.

"We once had a case in another country where it was said players were also condemned and under physical pressure, and we sent someone and it turned out not to be true," he said in quotes carried by the AFP agency.

"So let's see what we hear before we make an official statement."

Blatter, who is in Singapore for the Youth Olympic Games' football tournament, also confirmed that the International Football Association Board would be discussing the possible introduction of goal-line technology at its meeting in October.

The issue came to a head again at the World Cup, where England had a goal wrongly disallowed against Germany and Argentina were awarded an offside goal against Mexico.

[Vexx]

There's something very silly about the world if a sports association ends up having more influence than neighboring countries on the antics of an ass-clown government. But press on, FIFA, lets see what you can do.

[Xellos-_^]

next time another team plays NK, they are going to have to worry about beating too badly.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Vexx

There's something very silly about the world if a sports association ends up having more influence than neighboring countries on the antics of an ass-clown government. But press on, FIFA, lets see what you can do.

Then again FIFA is bigger and has more influence than UN.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

next time another team plays NK, they are going to have to worry about beating too badly.

Nah the North Korean team aren't that bad. As long as they just put 10 men on defense then its rather hard to beat them.

Now this is interesting contrast to 1966 team that went to quarterfinal. I believe despite their success they never played football ever again and was confined in North Korea forever. The reason from what I remember was to avoid them influence out citizens about foreign nations (could be very wrong about this).

You know the NK government could have always done this

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Another way the US is trying to push it's will on the world.

U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks

No matter where you are, please speak up in support of Julian Assange, the visible person running wikileaks. While I don't always agree with his attitude or the stuff he releases, I do feel he does fulfill a very needed role; that is, to find out what governments and people are up to, that would rather the truth remain hidden.

Ideally, the government would be releasing this information themselves, appropriately redacted to protect identities, but failing that, this is the next best thing. And Julian and his small overworked team are hard at work trying to redact documents so that people in the warzone aren't threatened.

He's gone public lately as a form of protection against those who want wikileaks shut down, but that only works if the citizens of each country speak up in support. Also, if you can donate time or money to wikileaks, I'd encourage you to do so.

Sorry but I can't do that. And even if I could, I'd refuse to with every fiber of my being.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

At the heart of the debate lie a few key concerns that are deeply pertinent to media ethics.

(1) No more room for secrets

The idea that a "free press" is meant to reveal government wrong-doing, which of course assumes in the first place that all governments are ultimately up to no good.

The problem is, in the past, news organisations served as "gatekeepers" that decided which information had to be revealed in the name of public interest. So, in practice, we have an ironic situation where the "free press" isn't actually that "free" at all.

Who watches the watchmen? There is the increasing perception that the gatekeepers have themselves become too cosy with the establishment, and are therefore reluctant to rock the boat because of vested interests in the status quo.

In any case, at a time when information has become a massive commodity, freely available 24/7 on the Internet, the gatekeeping role has become irrelevant, if not farcically redundant.

Digitised information can be easily copied and transmitted, in bulk, at the blink of an eye, with almost zero risk to any would-be whistle-blower. So why should anybody with something juicy to reveal still bother to go through the "experts"? They can do so on their own, instantly.

The unsettling implication is that there is simply no room for secrets any more. And there is, especially, no place to hide embarrassing mistakes that the authorities would rather sweep under the carpet.

I think it is due to the Internet that "made the free press freer". They are losing their income from the manufacturing of papers laden with daily world events, and that they are competing in terms of "quality" of the paper, regardless of the accuracy of the event or not.

(2) Fact-checking vs let the reader decide

It used to be the case that the one crucial thing that separates a journalist from a gossip monger is his credibility.

It takes a lot of time and effort to build that credibility, through extensive self-study, in order to be as knowledgeable about a subject as possible; through as much fact-checking as possible to ensure a story's accuracy; through references to as many sources as possible, preferably from both sides of the fence, to ensure objectivity.

These were all supposed to be the hallmarks of a good journalism. Credibility is hard to earn, but extremely easy to lose.

But, now, it seems that things have changed. The Internet is the ultimate soapbox upon which any hack can broadcast, very loudly, whatever he wants. Who cares about objectivity, accuracy and insight any more? That's no longer the the reporter's responsibility, it seems.

It's up to the reader to cherry pick whatever he wants, since information is now freely available, everywhere. If the reader wants to gorge himself on every available tidbit out there, no matter how much it may smell like junk, that's his prerogative.

Which raises the question for news organisations: Should they even bother to stick to traditional standards of professionalism? The public certainly doesn't seem to care any more, so long as every little dirty secret is exposed, damned be to ethics and accuracy.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: In this brave new world of "free" information, we fully deserve whatever "news" we get.

I think that would be a scathing example of how our local Chinese newspaper (Lianhe Wanbao) has become. The coverpage often glosses over gossip rather than real news, and it has become a pain to read.

It is hard to find something one can really believe in these days.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Would you rather have NO idea at all as to what hidden things your government is up to? Would you rather not be aware of the secret CIA prisons, or what goes on at Gitmo, or what atrocities the US commits in Iraq and Afghanistan? That "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" philosophy is the best?

Oh don't worry about that. Our government usually hides the harmless stuff. On top of that, not many local citizens really cared about what they hide as long as the country runs properly.

[Yu Ominae]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

next time another team plays NK, they are going to have to worry about beating too badly.

I know how ya feel. For all we know, they could've been sentenced to the gulags in the mountains. Not good.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Sorry but I can't do that. And even if I could, I'd refuse to with every fiber of my being.

[blunt]
If that was the first thing you wrote in these boards... I'ld assume you may have a good reason to say so. But that is not the case...

Let me guess. You can't do that, because it doesn't differentiate between the origin of the leaks. Which is essentially hypocrisy regarding free speach. If you were for example against Fox News, that would make sense, because they use free speach to instigate people using lies (reminds me of some german media too). What you are essentially against, is when the truth (without bias) hurts your interests (or rather that of the people who manipulate you into thinking it hurts your interests).
[/blunt]

[MrTerrorist]

Teaching philosophy with Spider-Man