Wickileaks - love it or hate it

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:48 am

galraen wrote:Meaning what exactly?

Meaning that your "argument": If thinking a walking PR disaster should resign means you're automatically a Yankophobe then most of the world is
was not what I said nor argued and therefore warrant no substantial reply.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:36 am

Xandax wrote:The latest remarks that he thinks Hillary Clinton should resign seems to just underline my point.

I guess it must have been a different Xandax that posted this then!

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:20 am

One of the leaks that made me laugh was the one where William Hague tries to reassure the Americans that he and the other Tory leaders, including Cameron, are true 'Sons of Thatcher'.

For one thing Cameron has been endeavouring for ages to disassociate himself from Thatcher, and even pointedly refused to invite her to 10 Downing Street until several months after the election.

Also of course, the Americans probably would have been more impressed had he claimed they were sons of their pet poodle, Tony Blair. Or maybe Haig had forgotten that relationships between Maggie and Reagan had soured somewhat after the US illegally invaded and colonised a member country of the Commonwealth, without having the courtesy of letting her know!

I don't like Cameron, but he does have one saving grace; he isn't Haig!

Kaer · Post by **Kaer** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:35 pm

Back OT, it's all very well to shoot the messenger if you don't like the message, but it doesn't change the message. So far I've only seen one person deny the veracity of the leaks and that was the president of Iran! Many governments are wining about the leaks, but so far no opne has been able to point out anyone who has died as a result of them, and very, very few have called them fabrications.

I disagree. If the message comes out of Fox News, lots of people like to debate about the message as a result.

Claims that Assange may be withholding or targeting specific groups to the exclusion of others is important to the idea that he is anti-American, which is the point people were trying to make here. It's a bit of a leap to saying we disagree with the information itself.

I'd also disagree about the leaks not causing any damage. Keep in mind that even if no one has died, international pressure is now on Iran and Pakistan on specifics which were not there before and may exacerbate public opinion and neighbouring attitudes in the region. While no one may have died in the previous Afghan leaks, it's very likely people have been placed in danger.

Blown out of proportion, yes. Positive in some ways, yes. Worth rolling past or avoiding the fact that it could have negative consequences? Not a good idea. Ignoring Assange's history? Not good either.

Fljotsdale · Post by **Fljotsdale** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:28 pm

Well, there is a lot of effort to silence Assange, in one way or another, ain't there? Happily failing, so far. I was initially a bit dubious about there Wikileaks, but I'm not any more. Good luck to him (he's going to need it!) and also to whoever leaked the stuff to him (I don't envy him/her if found out). After all, it's pretty innocuous stuff, just deeply

to a good many hypocrites.

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:04 am

Like any other nexus for sharing and distributing info, it useful but the devil is always in the details. There is I believe reasonable limits to the public's right to know. Should I know that NATO troops have killed far more civilians in Afghanistan than was reported? Hell yes. Should I have easy access to the names and addresses of NATO collaborators in Afghanistan? Hell no.

The problems I have with this group can be summed up in a few small points. I'm not really certain what Assange's motivation is. His claims do not quite match up to reality. Even if the summer's leak did not directly lead to deaths the risk is there. Playing with people's lives is not cool with me when some redaction can erase names and addresses. In the meantime the reports of civilian deaths did serve as a black eye on the west. So we have a mix of good and bad here.

This latest batch strikes me as little more than a bunch of material that is suitable fro a gossip rag. The entire field of diplomacy is based on lies and espionage. The only sin committed here is some of them got caught. Really I would like to live in a world where nations of differing social, religious and economic policy can all join hands and sing kumbaya. If anyone here knows where that world is, point me to it so I can conquer it(just kidding). Until that utopian moment arrives, diplomats of all nations will be going around with greasy smiles and platitudes for their opposites and trying to screw their opponents over the most at the least cost to their own nations. That's their job. I don't like it but it is the reality, so this latest batch of releases came as no surprise to me. So the batch of files released this week contained few surprises for me.

One exception, I was at first a little surprised that several Middle Eastern countries were privately hoping the US would bomb Iran into the Stone Age, but reflection told me that they were just realizing their own self interest as these nations were one and all monarchies that feared going the way of the Shah in Iran. Not a pleasant prospect to be sure.

What's my point? Do I even have a point? Hell I don't even know. I don't fully trust Assange's motives. I trust governments even less. At the end of the day I have to define Assange as being too reckless with what has been released. I see no point in releasing info that could destabilize world relations. Fortunately it's only been a few backbiting bureaucrats which came as a surprise to no one.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:35 am

Well - seems some of the latest documents are basically a road map over where to execute terrorism to do the most damage.

Darth Gavinius · Post by **Darth Gavinius** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:47 am

Yeah, I'm not convinced this information best serves the public interest! I think Assange is hoping for the publicity of being taken to court to fight a First Ammendment battle on free speech - would explain why he is overwhelmingly attacking the US. The guy is a complete ****!

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:02 am

Darth Gavinius wrote:Yeah, I'm not convinced this information best serves the public interest! I think Assange is hoping for the publicity of being taken to court to fight a First Ammendment battle on free speech - would explain why he is overwhelmingly attacking the US. The guy is a complete ****!

I'm all for free speech, heck - in Denmark we usually annoy many countries in the defense of free speech (remember some cartoons

) - however I can't do anything but continue to do question the motives by now and whether or not these information releases benefit anybody but Wikileaks and Assange himself.

I do think some of the documents they've "leaked" are in the best interest to know - however .....just because you can release some information does not mean it is in the public's interest that such information is released. Especially under the guise of all information should be free when they put themselves as judge, jury and executioner of it.

Does anybody even know how much money Wikileaks pulls in, in donations and who provides such money?
I read somewhere that Paypal has canceled the account as well now.

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:39 am

Darth Gavinius wrote:Yeah, I'm not convinced this information best serves the public interest! I think Assange is hoping for the publicity of being taken to court to fight a First Ammendment battle on free speech - would explain why he is overwhelmingly attacking the US. The guy is a complete ****!

First of all, WikiLeaks aims to cover its efforts for governmental transparency globally, not merely against the US. And as far as manipulating public consensus goes, the White House is probably the most capable agency. That does not make them the only force he is up against.

So, if you were up making a case for governmental transparency against every single intelligence agency out there in the world, what would you do? Just crushing those numbers, you'd be outmaneuvered before you can set anything into motion.

Assange is smart enough to use this publicity to level that playing field. In other words; he's not playing this game on his terms, he is playing it on theirs. And they've done a whole lot worse already, in the least to his own person.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:50 am

The release of 'vital' facilities is an example of why I have reservations about Wickileaks. Releasing this is in no one's interest IMO, although I doubt that anything on the list is new to Al Qaeda, what's the point of it.

Although I expect Russia might be curious to know how it's installations are vital to the US National interest.

The Congolese might fins it useful though, now they know how vital their Cobalt mine is maybe they'll nationalise it and make the Yanks pay through the nose for cobalt!:laugh:

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:33 am

It still tells us more about the US than Wikileaks. It's funny, it's embarrasing.. it's just ammunition. Any government is guilty of worse.

Another thing. You can't personify 60 years worth of political maneuvering. I think many people prefer to attack Assange's character or Wikileaks' goals over those of their own countries because that's the only thing they can picture in the equation.

Also unrelated, but should still be said: I'm not an outright supporter of Wikileaks. I just recognize that what they are doing might be the only effective way toward change, now. It just doesn't happen with a broad smile, a handshake and a vague promise.

Kaer · Post by **Kaer** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:11 am

I think many people prefer to attack Assange's character or Wikileaks' goals over those of their own countries because that's the only thing they can picture in the equation.

I would tend to agree and disagree. While some no doubt feel that Assange is against their country and against them, I do think that as a central impact being damage to nations which have done a fair amount of good over the years it's unfair to say many people are doing it for that reason alone. It's not as if America hasn't had it's actions dissected to hell over the last few years. I am willing to bet if I look through GameBanshee, I'll find a few hundred threads on the US, and what it's doing.

Keeping in mind that those not of that opinion are typically getting their information via the media, and not actually from the source. Many of those on forums who have read it are shocked by the general banality of the actual documents, whereas the media are busy touting it as a great release of information.

We're already dealing with a slightly slanted view via the media, and from a man who appears to have a less-than-altruistic goal in mind. It's important to remember the slant of the source before we take it into account. If there is a slant here, than it's incredibly important since it could mean we are not getting the full picture.

Other people are likely opposed because Assange is removing freedoms to privacy. Let's keep in mind also that some diplomacy only occurs because diplomats don't lose face doing it behind the scenes. Applauding the opening of diplomatic ties removes familiarity between parties and the freedoms some privacy allows. If we can get a military dictatorship to agree for concessions in quiet, it does a lot more for everyone than failing to have them agree for concessions in public. Other things are easier to do if they are held quiet, for example, moving troops into areas for interaction with the locals.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:22 pm

Two things strike me as ironic, the first is that if it wasn't for the media continually making a mountain out of a molehill hardly anyone would even be aware of Wickileaks, and if the politicians of the world didn't have such a deep desire for soundbites the media would probably not have taken that much notice either.

The other thing is how the Swiss, who won't do anything about bank accounts owned by mass murderers and other criminal syndicates and individuals guilty of far worse than Assange, close his bank account with amazing alacrity!

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:05 pm

galraen wrote:Two things strike me as ironic, the first is that if it wasn't for the media continually making a mountain out of a molehill hardly anyone would even be aware of Wickileaks, and if the politicians of the world didn't have such a deep desire for soundbites the media would probably not have taken that much notice either.

The other thing is how the Swiss, who won't do anything about bank accounts owned by mass murderers and other criminal syndicates and individuals guilty of far worse than Assange, close his bank account with amazing alacrity!

Touche on both counts. I imagine a fair bit of pressure from the US was involved in Paypal closing up Wikileaks accounts. I'd hate to find a large number of wacky regulations crop up if I was running the official bank of the internet.

As for media and the politicians, they would hammer together their own coffins if it would spare them from actually having to work for their pay for a couple of weeks, or get them to say nothing in front of a big crowd for a couple hours respectively.

Fljotsdale · Post by **Fljotsdale** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:21 pm

galraen wrote:Two things strike me as ironic, the first is that if it wasn't for the media continually making a mountain out of a molehill hardly anyone would even be aware of Wickileaks, and if the politicians of the world didn't have such a deep desire for soundbites the media would probably not have taken that much notice either.

The other thing is how the Swiss, who won't do anything about bank accounts owned by mass murderers and other criminal syndicates and individuals guilty of far worse than Assange, close his bank account with amazing alacrity!

No US pressure, obviously.

OOps! Sorry jklinders - I posted before reading your post.

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:24 pm

No apologies needed. It
s not like I added much to the debate with my last post anyway

endboss · Post by **endboss** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:41 pm

So it looks like they arrested the dude.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:29 am

endboss wrote:So it looks like they arrested the dude.

Yep, and refused bail, even though he surrendered himself, and alll the rich and powerful are ganging up on him! The way the politicians and their rich friends, like PayPal and MAestro etc., are all having a go is really illuminating. Upset politicians and all of a sudden internet companies and banks etc, start attacking you? Hmm, doesn't leave much doubt about the source of corruption that rules the world does it?

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:20 am

Money?

There is a lot more to be lost in supporting Assange right now than to be gained. Paypal and Mastercard bailing was completely predictable. No one wants to make business for themselves in the US...awkward. Too much to lose so they take the easy way out. All it took from what I've read was a letter stating that the US gov't considers the release of the documents to be illegal, they all read in between the lines and put as much distance between themselves and Wikileaks as possible.

I'm not keen on the whole terrorist targets list being released. That smacked of irresponsibility. It's almost as if he wanted those sites to get hit. Anyway they had a good run. My money is on them very soon going underground and re-appearing under a different name. It's what I would do in their place.