• Assange ignores human rights groups as Wikileaks prepares to publish more documents
    868 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;24066952]If that were true they would have released all of the files immediately upon obtaining them.[/QUOTE] If they did that, they'd only get one news cycle's worth of attention. The longer they draw this out, the bigger it gets. [editline]09:26PM[/editline] [QUOTE=starpluck;24066980]They did it to inform the world about the USGs bullshittery and how war crimes are being comitted. This will have positive reprocussions in the long run.[/QUOTE] And the potential brutal deaths of a few thousand brown people are a small price to pay for such a wondrous goal, right? Lozenge is as much of an imperialist as the US is.
[QUOTE=TH89;24067000]If they did that, they'd only get one news cycle's worth of attention. The longer they draw this out, the bigger it gets.[/quote] Wait, so you're saying they're only doing this to get attention? [editline]09:26PM[/editline] [quote] And the potential brutal deaths of a few thousand brown people are a small price to pay for such a wondrous goal, right? Lozenge is as much of an imperialist as the US is.[/QUOTE] NO ONE ever died from the leaks and I can garuntee you no one will in the future. It's not as much of an informant leak as the USG claims it to be.
[QUOTE=TH89;24066926]They did it to fuck the US government, not for the sake of the Afghani people.[/QUOTE] No they did it so people know about these things. Whether that is fucking with the US govt or not, they should not cover war crimes up.
Wikileaks owner needs a slap to the face. If you can't proofread and remove ALL names, then don't publish at all. [editline]09:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Clark21;24067128]No they did it so people know about these things. Whether that is fucking with the US govt or not, they should not cover war crimes up.[/QUOTE] Wikileaks owner is doing a crime by publishing names. Because of that fucking idiot people who actually help either died or are endangered.
[QUOTE=starpluck;24067127]Wait, so you're saying they're only doing this to get attention?[/QUOTE] Leaking classified documents isn't very effective if nobody notices you do it. [QUOTE=starpluck;24067127]NO ONE ever died from the leaks and I can garuntee you no one will in the future. It's not as much of an informant leak as the USG claims it to be.[/QUOTE] No, you can't guarantee that, and neither can they. And I think you know that, but you seem to have a dog in this race so w/e [editline]09:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Clark21;24067128]No they did it so people know about these things. Whether that is fucking with the US govt or not, they should not cover war crimes up.[/QUOTE] I agree, but as evidenced by the OP the Wikileaks people are either too incompetent or too amoral to be trusted with those documents.
[QUOTE=edja007;24067167] Wikileaks owner is doing a crime by publishing names. Because of that fucking idiot people who actually [B]participated in war crime(s)[/B] either died or are endangered.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Alyx;24067377]blanquote[/QUOTE] The document isn't entirely about war crimes.
[QUOTE=TH89;24067306]Leaking classified documents isn't very effective if nobody notices you do it.[/quote] I mis read that, well yeah obviously. I'd you expose a war crime, there's no point if no one notices. [quote] No, you can't guarantee that, and neither can they. And I think you know that, but you seem to have a dog in this race so w/e[/QUOTE] Have you even read the leaks? Go read a piece of it right now, I bet you won't be able to understand it. And there's no "Informant" section. Some few documents just happened to have some names. Now everyone thinks that the Taliban will hunt them down. I wouldn't be suprised if the average American thought the purpose if the leaks were to expose the names.
[QUOTE=TH89;24067000]If they did that, they'd only get one news cycle's worth of attention. The longer they draw this out, the bigger it gets. [editline]09:26PM[/editline] And the potential brutal deaths of a few thousand brown people are a small price to pay for such a wondrous goal, right? Lozenge is as much of an imperialist as the US is.[/QUOTE] so you're saying they're too stupid to have a legitimate reason for doing this, but they're smart enough to engineer the news networks of america
[QUOTE=edja007;24067167]Wikileaks owner needs a slap to the face. If you can't proofread and remove ALL names, then don't publish at all. [editline]09:34PM[/editline] Wikileaks owner is doing a crime by publishing names. Because of that fucking idiot people who actually help either died or are endangered.[/QUOTE] Wikileaks is not the one commiting major crimes here the government is. They are still going to kill civilians whether it's delibrate or accidental until they stop the war. They are bringing this all on themselfs. Watch this [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelmEZe8whI[/url]
[QUOTE=starpluck;24067416]Have you even read the leaks? Go read a piece of it right now, I bet you won't be able to understand it. And there's no "Informant" section. Dome few documents just happened to have some names.[/QUOTE] What's your point? I know they didn't leak a document called "People the Taliban would Totally Kill if They Found Out Their Names." But that doesn't matter. If AI had serious concerns, there's a reason for it. [QUOTE=starpluck;24067416]Now everyone thinks that the Taliban will hunt them down.[/QUOTE] Well, they did promise they would. [editline]10:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;24067475]so you're saying they're too stupid to have a legitimate reason for doing this, but they're smart enough to engineer the news networks of america[/QUOTE] I don't think they're stupid at all. They wouldn't be able to get away with all they have if they were dumb. That said, news cycles are pretty basic stuff. Marketing companies and PR firms deal with them all the time. "Engineer the news networks of America" is a bit of an overblown way to put it.
I'm just throwing this out here, this is what Wikileaks put on their twitter account: [QUOTE=Wikileaks]"Don't be fooled on the "human rights groups". No formal statement. US led."[/QUOTE] I mean, what the fuck. If they aren't doing it for the attention now I don't know what they are doing it for, but they are being incredibly hypocritical here.
Are they saying they (Wikileaks) are not giving a formal statement on it, or are they saying the human rights groups haven't put out a formal statement with regards to this? (IE Suggesting its being made up by the media)
[QUOTE=starpluck;24067416]Now everyone thinks that the Taliban will hunt them down.[/QUOTE] Well they said that they would. And they've hunted down people in the past for collaborating with Nato forces. So I don't think that's a far fetched conclusion to make.
[QUOTE=Sickle;24057332]Scouring a post and banning people for the slightest infringement (Can you even call that an infringement?) of the rules to cut out a person trying to prove you wrong is a great way to win an argument.[/QUOTE] He ALWAYS does that. He has a bad habit of banning people whom he disagrees with. I remember I got banned for trolling a while back for asking for a source for some absolute bullshit claim he made. [editline]11:39PM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;24057160]Wow, flaming AND blatantly wrong. You failed pretty hard here, kiddo.[/QUOTE] Wow, bullshit ban and ignoring the argument. You failed pretty hard there, kiddo. Try fucking providing an argument. Again, you have CLEARLY never met a soldier. guess what Gunfox, 'gunfurry' was one word out of that long post. The rest was both observations and a fucking argument. waaaahhh, i disagree with him, he must be banned gunfox up to his ol' ban those who he disagrees with routine. And I didn't even fucking flame you. Try fucking providing an argument. Again, you have CLEARLY never met a soldier. [editline]11:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;24057877]I let countless amounts of shit go. I ENJOY debating. If I ban the other person, then the fun is over. However "Gunfurry" is about to start earning people a permaban. I've let it go for half a decade. It's over. EDIT: Oh hey, looks like the localflavor is actually Warhol. Come back to continue causing trouble even while banned.[/QUOTE] Not really, you ban people for any ounce of dissent. People walk on egg shells with you. gunfurry is going to get perma? Oh grow up. totally not like anyone ever uses alts right? Now if you'll kindly answer my points or are you going to ignore them again and ban me. [editline]11:42PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;24058503] Hey guess who suffers for this. (Hint: American soldiers and Afghan civilians).[/QUOTE] Anyone suffering right now is just a government smear campaign. [editline]11:42PM[/editline] There is NO evidence of anything of the sort happening. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Coming back to bitch on an alt" - GunFox))[/highlight]
Assange sounds like he's just leaking stuff for the sake of leaking it He should only reveal the most important stuff, goddamn
[QUOTE=johncage;24059544]Happens in any war. I don't think I need to be made aware of it. The alternative is to tuck tail and run then wait for them to fly another plane into a skyscraper.[/QUOTE] Alright boyo, lets fucking paint this: First of all, you know but others DON'T or refuse to. Not you, but OTHERS NEED to fucking be made aware. NOW, lets say for example you Americans "Tuck tail" and leave guess what, three little problems with that comment: A: The organisation that did that has been dissolved. The people in charge in hiding. What's left if an insurgency that has one goal: remove the US from their country. If they did a fucking repeat 9/11, then guess what? We're back to fucking square one. The three entities you're fighting, Iraq, The Taliban and Bin Laden, won't do such a thing on American soil. B: Tuck tail? Who gives an utter fuck about your stupid fucking "honour". Americans got their asses handed to them on several occasions, so who fucking cares if you do now. C: In the last 9 years, America has spent more money on defence, homeland security, TSA, the war, hunting people who "pose threats" to national security, upgrading police for Terrorist attack scenarios, establishing counter-terrorism groups, pumping money into other countries for similar things and training police in occupied countries to do work of Americans, then every single country in the world combined in history and you mean to fucking tell me you're scared a bunch of pissed off farmers are going to do a repeat 9/11?
[QUOTE=Max of S2D;24069888]Assange sounds like he's just leaking stuff for the sake of leaking it [/QUOTE] didn't some dude from oklahoma leak the documents
Warhol, why can't you debate without so much angst directed at other people?
do you even know what angst is
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24059513]But what if they release war plans and operations that are still going on? [/quote] So what? [quote]For example, what if one of the documents says "Tomorrow a whole bunch of soldiers will go to blahvillage" The document is released. Taliban kills them all because they knew they were going to blahvillage.[/quote] That's the problem of the US soldiers. Why are they going to Blahvillage, Afghanistan in the first place. Plus, the US should train their troops in Not only that, this is speculative, vague and kinda false. [quote]By the way we aren't "slaughtering" innocent civilians. Most of the time they were accidents. Only 25% of the civilian deaths were intentional by a rough estimate.[/quote] 25% is still a fucking massacre. oh pfffffffffft its only 25% out of 1.3 million, lol all goooooood And a tonne of accidents are caused by negligence and pure stupidity. When you fucking go out of your way, when the death toll is MASSIVE, and say that a majority is "accidents lol", is fucking disgusting. I don't give a rats ass if it's a fucking accident. First of all, you just chalking it up to being an accident so we should ignore it proves you don't a FUCK about the civilians there. And second, it in NO way makes it justified or right. Now uber, before you say you're not justifying it, don't, because you JUST did. You're saying a massive death toll is fucking FINE AND FUCKING DANDY because they were accidents. When my niece knocks over a jug a milk by accident, I don't get mad because I know she made a mistake and is sorry about it. When you murder 75% of 1.3 million people "by accident", you can take your excuse and shove it down your throat. [quote]If you want to see slaughtering civilians, go back to when the Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. They had fortresses where they would paint the walls with human blood.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? At this point, I'm pretty certain you're just lying. [editline]12:27AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sporkfire;24070545]Warhol, why can't you debate without so much angst directed at other people?[/QUOTE] You don't really know what angst is. oh noe, he curse! must be angst also, thanks for debating my points so clearly. I'll get right on that. [editline]12:28AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Uberman77883;24059572]They rig IEDs on frequently used highways. Its all a matter of luck that a US convoy goes past them. And what about that insurance file they have, but is still encrypted? What if that contains files that reveal operations? What happens then.[/QUOTE] you're speculating AGAIN. [editline]12:30AM[/editline] [QUOTE=lawl;24059679]lol blaming the US gov for wikileaks decision to release the documents with the names in them.. of course they're not going to help someone steal their classified documents..are you fucking serious? rofl[/QUOTE] lol wikileaks is withholding the documents to do the exact opposite of what you're saying, good job not reading the article..are you fucking serious? rofl
[QUOTE=Doriol;24070506]didn't some dude from oklahoma leak the documents[/QUOTE] Apparently. This is the small detail that is forgotten it seems. If Wikileaks wasn't around or they refused to publish it the documents would have ended up somewhere eventually. If the person who wanted to leak them was determined to he could get them out into the public domain without the help of a site like Wikileaks.
[QUOTE=johncage;24060457]Yeah, because those soldiers whose lives he put in danger don't have it much worse.[/QUOTE] He's a journalist, he reports news. Soldiers, whom he hasn't put in danger, are there because they're willing to give their lives. [editline]12:36AM[/editline] [QUOTE=johncage;24060484]Loose lips sink ships.[/QUOTE] What is 1943? [editline]12:44AM[/editline] [QUOTE=johncage;24060591]The Taliban parses military documents looking for patterns to the military's strategy on the micro and macro level. This forces the army to constantly change its tactics, but if even for one moment they fail to do so, then lives are potentially lost.[/QUOTE] A majority of the Taliban are insurgents who are pretty poor. So I doubt they can understand English or Swedish. Second, if this is the case, then maybe the US should leave? [editline]12:45AM[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;24061165]Alright... Fuck whatever I said earlier... Put this fucker up to his neck in desert sand, and let him boil for all I care.[/QUOTE] Wow you're a fucking sociopath. [editline]12:45AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragy;24061221]Actually we are. We're usually the ones who step in when something goes wrong.[/QUOTE] And usually make it worse.
Lol are you just replying to every post in the thread or what
[QUOTE=Warhol;24070795] A majority of the Taliban are insurgents who are pretty poor. So I doubt they can understand English or Swedish. [/QUOTE] I am guessing they have at least a few people who can translate documents and stuff for them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't this be considered treason? Definitions of Treason: • a crime that undermines the offender's government • disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior • treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal That sounds like people at Wikileaks to me. [b]Edit:[/b] Could Assange be charged with treason for this?
Possibly, but not Wikileaks. The person handing the documents to them is the person (if anyone) committing treason.
Uhhh if those Afghan civilians are informants to the US don't they pretty much deserve to die?
[QUOTE=notxmania;24071221]Uhhh if those Afghan civilians are informants to the US don't they pretty much deserve to die?[/QUOTE] no
[QUOTE=Warhol;24069772]He ALWAYS does that. He has a bad habit of banning people whom he disagrees with. I remember I got banned for trolling a while back for asking for a source for some absolute bullshit claim he made. [editline]11:39PM[/editline] Wow, bullshit ban and ignoring the argument. You failed pretty hard there, kiddo. Try fucking providing an argument. Again, you have CLEARLY never met a soldier. guess what Gunfox, 'gunfurry' was one word out of that long post. The rest was both observations and a fucking argument. waaaahhh, i disagree with him, he must be banned gunfox up to his ol' ban those who he disagrees with routine. And I didn't even fucking flame you. Try fucking providing an argument. Again, you have CLEARLY never met a soldier. [editline]11:40PM[/editline] Not really, you ban people for any ounce of dissent. People walk on egg shells with you. gunfurry is going to get perma? Oh grow up. totally not like anyone ever uses alts right? Now if you'll kindly answer my points or are you going to ignore them again and ban me. [editline]11:42PM[/editline] Anyone suffering right now is just a government smear campaign. [editline]11:42PM[/editline] There is NO evidence of anything of the sort happening.[/QUOTE] can we get a permaban on this tool already
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.