News Stories

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

i kept saying that this stupidity is life threatening, now i've found the perfect example.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...srael-1.328521

this was an opinion he expressed privately because publically taking an anti-hezbollah or pro-israeli stand in Lebanon is an excellent way to get killed.
what happens to this guy who this leak has now exposed.
how long do you figure he's got left to live.

if something happens to this guy (Lebanon's defense minister mind you) then its directly the result of these leaks.

Time to contradict myself

I'll have to reconsider Assange's stance because that's just going too far now. I am all for freedom of speech and I stand by what I said earlier about revealing documents badmouthing other countries (which were things everyone already knew to begin with locally: all the more reason not to keep it a secret in the US). But this is an example like the one I mentioned before: plans for a new weapons system for the defense of the country. Granted, the article presents something completely differently but equally important, and that was wrong. There are secrets that really are meant to be kept secrets and it looks to me like Assange doesn't know the difference between the two.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Time to contradict myself

I'll have to reconsider Assange's stance because that's just going too far now. I am all for freedom of speech and I stand by what I said earlier about revealing documents badmouthing other countries (which were things everyone already knew to begin with locally: all the more reason not to keep it a secret in the US). But this is an example like the one I mentioned before: plans for a new weapons system for the defense of the country. Granted, the article presents something completely differently but equally important, and that was wrong. There are secrets that really are meant to be kept secrets and it looks to me like Assange doesn't know the difference between the two.

the thing is, this is just one example i saw and had enough personal knowledge about to mark as an example of a leak putting someone's life in specific danger.
but the number of cables i've personally learned about has been next to nothing compared to the total number of what has been or will be released, and i'm hardly an expert on most of these topics being discussed even in those other articles that i did see.
and i doubt the people behind WikiLeaks are experts on every single subject to the point where they can detect these situations all the time and avoid releasing them if it places people at risk.
they did, after all, miss this one.

i've brought one example.
there may well be thousands like it in those documents.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

A phrase that has been completely taken out of context over the years...

Yeah I know what you mean. Freedom of speech ends when it uncovers the hidden agendas of the mighty all around the world. Because this makes it so much harder to play with people's minds.
What I find most ingenious about the power to redefine the context of freedom of speech, is that most people will side with the mighty. This shows how well the indoctrination actually works, peer oppinion/pressure overrides factual thinking. The evaluation of complex matters is done by outsourcing critical thinking into the hands of those who can explain the world in easy words and make us feel important/relevant/understood.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

the thing is, this is just one example i saw and had enough personal knowledge about to mark as an example of a leak putting someone's life in specific danger.
but the number of cables i've personally learned about has been next to nothing compared to the total number of what has been or will be released, and i'm hardly an expert on most of these topics being discussed even in those other articles that i did see.
and i doubt the people behind WikiLeaks are experts on every single subject to the point where they can detect these situations all the time and avoid releasing them if it places people at risk.
they did, after all, miss this one.

i've brought one example.
there may well be thousands like it in those documents.

Well, after hearing about this, I've dumbed WikiLeak's work methods down to two possible strategies:

1. They're just releasing any and all classified US documents on the net for everyone to see without actually reading them thoroughly.
2. They're being given documents to release by the people behind the scenes of the government and they're making a public show to make him look like a bad guy so that they can get away with it. This is to distract the gullible public from things that are really occuring.

Either way, he's being rather reckless with the info he has in his hands.

[don_Durandal]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

how long do you figure he's got left to live.

Members of the South Lebanon Army that were captured (by Hezbollah) after Israel pulled out from occupying the south were tried by the Lebanese government. The Hezbollah just handed them over to Lebanese Army, and there are no records of executions. How is this any different?
And if he ends up in a Lebanese jail or in a court martial then he does diserve it. Lebanon is still officially in a state of war with Israel.

[Kusa-San]

It mights be true that there are some bad thing about wikileak but overall wikileaks is a good thing and must not disappear. Wikileak is a good thing simply because it makes governments lose their control and their power over informations and so over peoples. In our actual society controlling informations is what make you powerful. Wikileaks by doing what they do is saying that governments can't do what they want as they please. There is now a new force who is here to tell them "No you can't do what you want because we're here". That's why it's a good thing. So even if there is maybe some mistakes which are maybe dangerous, overall, I'm all for wikileak.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

It mights be true that there are some bad thing about wikileak but overall wikileaks is a good thing and must not disappear. Wikileak is a good thing simply because it makes governments lose their control and their power over informations and so over peoples. In our actual society controlling informations is what make you powerful. Wikileaks by doing what they do is saying that governments can't do what they want as they please. There is now a new force who is here to tell them "No you can't do what you want because we're here". That's why it's a good thing. So even if there is maybe some mistakes which are maybe dangerous, overall, I'm all for wikileak.

We don't need wikileaks to make us free to think about what we want. In fact, relying on wikileaks would be no different than relying from any other source of news. While it does have its extreme neutrality, the information provided there invariably makes you distruful of any government and news agency. Fact is, certain people already didn't trust governments and the media. If you really want to be capable of free thought, then your best bet would be to avoid those news sources and rely on what you see and your own experience, to live your life rather than be affected by what others tell you.

When you really think about it, a lot of the stuff on wikileaks is stuff people already knew: Berlusconi is described as vain and ineffective in the classified reports. As if we Italians didn't already know about that. I'm sure there's plenty of other useless info in there like that. We don't need to rely on other people to be free. Someone does need to say that governments can't do as they please, that is true, but there are some things best left in the dark.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

We don't need wikileaks to make us free to think about what we want. In fact, relying on wikileaks would be no different than relying from any other source of news. While it does have its extreme neutrality, the information provided there invariably makes you distruful of any government and news agency. Fact is, certain people already didn't trust governments and the media. If you really want to be capable of free thought, then your best bet would be to avoid those news sources and rely on what you see and your own experience, to live your life rather than be affected by what others tell you.

There is another approach... take different news sources, ideally contradicting ones. Try to find the core information that is equal in all of these sources and derive your POV of the matter by adding your own common sense. The next (and more interesting) step is to analyze the different interpretations in the news sources and derive some insight about the bias of the news source as a reference for future news analysis (if you know what bias you have to expect from a certain news source you can easier derive a more objective, own oppinion).

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

When you really think about it, a lot of the stuff on wikileaks is stuff people already knew: Berlusconi is described as vain and ineffective in the classified reports. As if we Italians didn't already know about that. I'm sure there's plenty of other useless info in there like that. We don't need to rely on other people to be free. Someone does need to say that governments can't do as they please, that is true, but there are some things best left in the dark.

Oh but I'm not saying that some thing should not be left in the dark, I'm just saying that we need something that will hold governments and that's why wikileaks is important.

And actually it's not that easy. You can't be free by yourself since the actual society don't want you to be free. There is no real freedom (and by freedom I don't mean "do what you want like killing people and all" of course) because the actual society impose you a way of living even if you don't like it.

[Ithekro]

The ROKMC is one of those groups that gets things done. In Vietnam, the US Navy river patrols knew that if the ROKMC was on their flank, they didn't need to worry about that flank.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

its also called reckless endangerment
and unlawful provocation
vandalism
slander (prove they didn't make stuff up)
theft of intellectual property (in a way).
illegally publishing another persons work without their express permission to do so.
trust me, where there is a will there is a lawyer.
finding the legal justification for a cease and desist is easy.
and if WikiLeak's people have a problem with it, they can spend the next 5 years in the court systems arguing about it.

I love how people define law in their own context......very much like the way Monsato sell their seeds and try to control the market.

Reckless endangerment and unlawful provocation - This doesn't exist under the UN charter nor any legal premise. When it comes to putting lives at stake, it is only in three forms : Assault, Murder, Manslaughter.

Vandalism - The Internet is a free place. To vandalise something is to cause damage to something that does not belong to you. How is that even vandalism?

Slander - If there is no challenge to a claim and there is evidence from one side to support the other, it isn't slander.

Theft of intellectual property - Information is free. If you consolidate it into a product (a book) THEN you get rights to IP. If it is just by itself it isn't - and secret documents don't count since they have not been recognised as existent by the general public, that is why it is SECRET in the first place!

illegally publishing another persons work without their express permission to do so. - The work has not been claimed by a specific individual. As abovementioned, technically these works are not been recognised to exist, so how can something that does not exist belong to anyone?

I would like to see the dumb lawyer trying to fight the case, there is nothing to win from it, and if the site is brought down, it would still go underground; information trafficking has been around for ages, and it is just that the dirty-doers just don't want to recognise it and the general public is too retarded to look for these unique pieces of information elsewhere.

besides, if its possible to ban showing pictures of Mohammad so as to not offend people.
banning publishing sensitive materials is easy.

Nope. Not with the Internet. I think it is important that people weigh what is crucial to their lives rather than being stupid and get offended at every single small thing. There is a benign reason for everything that is written or drawn - that is expression. To interpret the expression is from a perspective so it doesn't matter what is written or drawn, some dumbass if going to laud it as being offensive.

In expression, there are only two ways - when in doubt, either don't publish or ignore the people who are offended by publication. The information is neutral, it is the reaction to it that causes effects.

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Well, after hearing about this, I've dumbed WikiLeak's work methods down to two possible strategies:

1. They're just releasing any and all classified US documents on the net for everyone to see without actually reading them thoroughly.
2. They're being given documents to release by the people behind the scenes of the government and they're making a public show to make him look like a bad guy so that they can get away with it. This is to distract the gullible public from things that are really occuring.

Either way, he's being rather reckless with the info he has in his hands.

I have no idea why people are getting butthurt over the release of information, but the thing is that information is neutral and has absolutely no right or wrong - it is the reaction to it that has causes and effects.

It is the control of information that is really sick - if anyone of you read wikipedia you'd be disgusted at how weaselly written it is for most articles.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

... You can't be free by yourself since the actual society don't want you to be free. There is no real freedom (and by freedom I don't mean "do what you want like killing people and all" of course) because the actual society impose you a way of living even if you don't like it.

THIS.

UN, stop believing otherwise. Or trying to tell us that. I hate it when the self-righteous UN (in actuality, controlled by the founding members of the EU, the Scandic nations and the US) breathes down our throats.

[ganbaru]

Abbas says may dissolve PA if no peace deal
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6B26EW20101203

Probably it's just some big talk but...

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Jinto

There is another approach... take different news sources, ideally contradicting ones. Try to find the core information that is equal in all of these sources and derive your POV of the matter by adding your own common sense. The next (and more interesting) step is to analyze the different interpretations in the news sources and derive some insight about the bias of the news source as a reference for future news analysis (if you know what bias you have to expect from a certain news source you can easier derive a more objective, own oppinion).

This is very true, and it's what I do most of the time. What I mean to say is that one shouldn't become overdependent on a single source of information and believe that to be true over others. That's what it means to be free of thought and influence. Relying on a single source, even WikiLeaks, will influence you in some way.

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

Oh but I'm not saying that some thing should not be left in the dark, I'm just saying that we need something that will hold governments and that's why wikileaks is important.

And actually it's not that easy. You can't be free by yourself since the actual society don't want you to be free. There is no real freedom (and by freedom I don't mean "do what you want like killing people and all" of course) because the actual society impose you a way of living even if you don't like it.

It is if you chose not to believe in a single point of view. Often, news sources and the government are never devoid of opinions. As I said, freedom of thought is when you choose not to let other people's points of view influence you. I don't mean you should shut yourself away from information. In fact, I mean to say that you should open yourself to all channels.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I have no idea why people are getting butthurt over the release of information, but the thing is that information is neutral and has absolutely no right or wrong - it is the reaction to it that has causes and effects.

It is the control of information that is really sick - if anyone of you read wikipedia you'd be disgusted at how weaselly written it is for most articles.

I'm not offended by the release of information in its rawest form. In fact, I advocate it, and I'm still very much under the opinion that when WikiLeaks released delicate info on their opinions on foreign governments, they had it coming. I also believe that the control of information is sickening and governments have always wanted to control and mold the thoughts of the people to unify them for the gain of the people with money in their pockets. We've been virtually enslaved by this control of information, which is why one should be open to all channels of information. WikiLeaks doesn't represent all channels, and some of the information it disclosed could have serious consequences.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by don_Durandal

Members of the South Lebanon Army that were captured (by Hezbollah) after Israel pulled out from occupying the south were tried by the Lebanese government. The Hezbollah just handed them over to Lebanese Army, and there are no records of executions. How is this any different?
And if he ends up in a Lebanese jail or in a court martial then he does diserve it. Lebanon is still officially in a state of war with Israel.

that was 2000.

since then, Hezbollah has been responsible for the murder of the Lebanese PM because he was championing an end to Syrian occupation.
and actually conquered Beirut for a short time in 2008, because the official Lebanese government wanted to disconnect the groups secret communication lines.
and today, are openly threatening to overthrow the government if they are charged with the aforementioned murder of the PM.

saying that he deserves it because Lebanon is still in state of war with Israel is completely missing the changes that Lebanon has undergone in the past decade.
today, Hezbollah could legitimately be called a greater threat to Lebanon then Israel is in practical terms.

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Abbas says may dissolve PA if no peace deal
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6B26EW20101203

Probably it's just some big talk but...

its nothing more then talk.
they would never give up on the worlds largest donation gathering cash cow.
and they would never give up power once attained.
especially since they will never regain it in the state they are today.

@SaintessHeart
my point was, that if the government of Switzerland wanted to ban them, they will find an excuse to do so.

[ganbaru]

Mexican army parades 14-year-old suspect in drug cartel assassinations
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1824318/

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Mexican army parades 14-year-old suspect in drug cartel assassinations
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1824318/

Whoa, a 14 year old killer! O_o It's kinda scary what people can get kids to do if what he said is true that he'd been forced to assassinate people.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

We don't need wikileaks to make us free to think about what we want. In fact, relying on wikileaks would be no different than relying from any other source of news.

Precisely. Which is why it shouldn't be treated any differently from any other new source. Instead of having all that polemic over whether it should be banned.

While it does have its extreme neutrality, the information provided there invariably makes you distruful of any government and news agency.

And have you considered the possibility that the blame for that doesn't lie with Wikileaks?

Fact is, certain people already didn't trust governments and the media. If you really want to be capable of free thought, then your best bet would be to avoid those news sources and rely on what you see and your own experience, to live your life rather than be affected by what others tell you.

When you really think about it, a lot of the stuff on wikileaks is stuff people already knew: Berlusconi is described as vain and ineffective in the classified reports. As if we Italians didn't already know about that. I'm sure there's plenty of other useless info in there like that. We don't need to rely on other people to be free. Someone does need to say that governments can't do as they please, that is true, but there are some things best left in the dark.

Ah, yes. And so, judging by your advice, you know this because you know Berlusconi personally. You sit in on some of work meetings. Right?

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Whoa, a 14 year old killer! O_o It's kinda scary what people can get kids to do if what he said is true that he'd been forced to assassinate people.

Meh. There are soldiers younger than that in war-torn regions. And, at the other end of the spectrum, some kid once tried to contract a hit against an X-Box.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And have you considered the possibility that the blame for that doesn't lie with Wikileaks?

I've mentioned it before that Assange may be getting his stuff from the government itself to divert attention from what they're really up to. It almost sounds like the free Masons all over again to me.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Ah, yes. And so, judging by your advice, you know this because you know Berlusconi personally. You sit in on some of work meetings. Right?

Nah, it's already public knowledge in Italy. Either that or we figured it out on our own to begin with.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Meh. There are soldiers younger than that in war-torn regions. And, at the other end of the spectrum, some kid once tried to contract a hit against an X-Box.

Granted, but assassinations tend to be more personal compared to a battlefield. You're the only one doing the killing and no one to really support you if you were in this kid's position. Young soldiers tend to be working with a group of other kids so it's easier to support each other in such an environment. Now I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that soldiers and assassins are completely different.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Nah, it's already public knowledge in Italy. Either that or we figured it out on our own to begin with.

Public knowledge coming from...?