[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27838492]The people in the Muslim nations suffering revolutions at the moment and various agents of governments.[/QUOTE]
Possibly (the connection between Wikileaks and the revolt in Tunisia which sparked it off is possible but questionable) and no.
You are doing just what the (mostly American) media are doing, just saying that "various agents" (most of which signed up to a do a dangerous job in a dangerous place mind you) are being put at risk. There is no evidence what so ever that anyone has actually been put in danger as a result of Wikileaks.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;27835348]What shit did I make up to prove my point?[/quote]
Well...
[quote]It's all about promoting "west values" to the rest of the world and [b]uncovering sensitive information.[/b][/quote]
That is correct, they do not uncover data, they just publish it after they have verified it.
Gotta admit the Nobel Peace Prize isn't what it used to be. Seriously though, I fail to see how WikiLeaks made anything better, you don't see people celebrating in the streets, corrupted politicians being taken away in chains, all this has really done was make every world government distrust each other, its almost like a second Cold War. I understand how people would want to know what happened years ago, but releasing classified information about current conflicts seems like playing with fire to me. Its sort of like the Pentagon Papers case back in 1971, when the New York Times printed a bunch of documents from the early days of the Vietnam War. The reason they were allowed to print the files was because the events they depicted happened long ago, and would not effect national security.
For those of you too lazy to read this, long story short, I don't think WikiLeaks deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, because they caused more damage than peace.
Oh please give the price to wikileaks.
:foxnews: [b]TERRORISTS WON NOBEL PEACE PRICE?[/b] :foxnews:
It had been some amazing laughs.
[QUOTE=5killer;27828836]Honest question, what peace have they brought?[/QUOTE]
I agree, Wikileaks hasn't brought peace they have only risked the lives of government officials and our military abroad for their bullshit free information. Some information should be kept out of the public for fear of putting Americans in danger.
Also I don't want Obama to get the prize either, he really hasn't done anything. And the healthcare bill is unlikely to come into effect at this point thank god. I will admit he is a great speaker, and is probably a great person, just inexperienced for office. I also can't help but think that him being the first black president has to do with it. I think it is great we have come so far, but it's not such a big surprise that racial equality is better in the 21st century.
Wow! Just recently there has been both Obama, and Wikileaks. Can't they have someone that is helpful to the world, or advances peace somehow?
Wikileaks has worked against peace by releasing sensitive military documents to enemies. Making them guilty of espionage under the "Espionage act of 1917", Therefor nominating them is like nominating a criminal.
[quote]The US government has been exploring ways to prosecute Mr Assange for publishing vast quantities of state secrets online, many of which have embarrassed the US administration.[/quote]
No, they embarrassed themselves and got caught.
WikiLeaks definitely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, and so do the original efforts by Bradley Manning.
[QUOTE=DSG;27841908]No, they embarrassed themselves and got caught.
WikiLeaks definitely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, and so do the original efforts by Bradley Manning.[/QUOTE]
Really? By endangering lives and harming diplomatic relations throughout the world?
[QUOTE=-Matt-94;27841792]I agree, Wikileaks hasn't brought peace they have only risked the lives of government officials and our military abroad for their bullshit free information. Some information should be kept out of the public for fear of putting Americans in danger.
[/QUOTE]
As I said earlier in the thread, there is no evidence of this yet. Frankly it is just scaremongering by American media.
That aside, I hate it when people focus on Americans. Believe it or not there is an entire world outside of your country. Wikileaks do not only leak stuff about Americans, if they are putting people at risk they could well be putting people from any country at risk.
[editline]4th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE='[sluggo];27841958']Really? By endangering lives and harming diplomatic relations throughout the world?[/QUOTE]
Who's lives? Again, no evidence of this.
[editline]4th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE='[sluggo];27841832']Wow! Just recently there has been both Obama, and Wikileaks. Can't they have someone that is helpful to the world, or advances peace somehow?
Wikileaks has worked against peace by releasing sensitive military documents to enemies. Making them guilty of espionage under the "Espionage act of 1917", Therefor nominating them is like nominating a criminal.[/QUOTE]
I do believe someone (part jokingly) said recently that Wikileaks has done more for democracy and stability in the middle east in the past few months than the US in the last 30 years. I wish I could find where I read it.
And criminality is subjective to the country, Liu Xiaobo is in jail in China yet he received it last year. And wikileaks is not guilty of espionage they are simply doing what newspapers do. You might want to look up the pentagon papers and the court rulings around it.
I'm just going to leave this here
[url]http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/[/url]
Why do some FPers feel compelled to rate everyone dumb?
[QUOTE=toaster468;27842096]Why do some FPers feel compelled to rate everyone dumb?[/QUOTE]
Because clearly they think people are dumb.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];27841958']Really? By endangering lives and harming diplomatic relations throughout the world?[/QUOTE]
I agree, if anything, they caused the opposite of peace. I mean who knows, a country could have thrown a fit.
I feel like a lot of non-Americans highly support the Wikileaks thing to the point where they think they deserve the Nobel Peace Prize it is actually quite silly if they would think longer, so much compulsive facepunch disorder.
[QUOTE=toaster468;27842133]I agree, if anything, they caused the opposite of peace. I mean who knows, a country could have thrown a fit.[/QUOTE]
But they haven't.
America: We are convicting you of treason, communist scum!
Wikileaks: Huh? Not an American citizen, what the fuck?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27838115]This is the problem, above all it endangers lives and tells people too much.[/QUOTE]
ugh this is the kind of logic that lets governments do whatever the fuck they want. i don't give a shit about who gets endangered and i don't care if you're willing to live in ignorance my government does not have the right to hide shit from me
[QUOTE=Jsm;27841989]Look at me, I'm avoiding the real issues!![/QUOTE]
How about you give me proof that it HASN'T endangered people.
And, all of them have had names in them, anyone who says otherwise hasn't read them.
[QUOTE=Teracotta;27842246]How about you give me proof that it HASN'T endangered people.
And, all of them have had names in them, anyone who says otherwise hasn't read them.[/QUOTE]
You cannot prove a negative, not to mention usually when someone makes an allegation or statement (such as "wikileaks puts people in danger") the burden of proof is upon the person making the statement not other people.
Only the first batch of war diaries had names in them, they were later redacted IIRC. The newer releases have had names blocked out, which is why they are taking so long to release.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;27829292]also, i think albert einstein was the first rapist to be nominated for the nobel prize
his atomic bomb totally raped >200,000 people[/QUOTE]
the funniest thing about that joke is that Albert Einstein had hardly anything to do with the atomic bomb, pretty funny.
Also I hope wikileaks wins just to piss off the more secretive governments and the US. Why should a nominee win that pisses off china, another nomination win that pisses off everyone, even the nominee (coughobamacough) and not a nominee that pisses off the US?
[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;27842379]the funniest thing about that joke is that Albert Einstein had hardly anything to do with the atomic bomb, pretty funny.
Also I hope wikileaks wins just to piss off the more secretive governments and the US. Why should a nominee win that pisses off china, another nomination win that pisses off everyone, even the nominee (coughobamacough) and not a nominee that pisses off the US?[/QUOTE]
Looking through the list, there's been a few that have pissed off china.
[QUOTE=toaster468;27842096]Why do some FPers feel compelled to rate everyone dumb?[/QUOTE]
Because they are unable to write coherently.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];27841832']Wow! Just recently there has been both Obama, and Wikileaks. Can't they have someone that is helpful to the world, or advances peace somehow?
Wikileaks has worked against peace by releasing sensitive military documents to enemies. Making them guilty of espionage under the "Espionage act of 1917", Therefor nominating them is like nominating a criminal.[/QUOTE]
ugh
I'm sick of reading posts by idiots like you
[QUOTE=Source;27828853]Peace of mind to some people out there wondering what the shit they're corrupt government is up to?[/QUOTE]
More like worry. Ignorance is bliss, and the opposite is true as well.
[QUOTE=geel9;27844598]More like worry. Ignorance is bliss, and the opposite is true as well.[/QUOTE]
I hope you are not implying I am being ignorant by not wanting to know information about "corrupt shit." I am very much interested in how the military acts and uses my tax dollars. However, not to the point were it reduces the level at which governments can function and effectively communicate with one another.
Also, the endangerment case with whoever, does not mean someone was immediately put at harm. All it means is that there is a potential risk for harm. Releasing thousands of documents that concern national security and lists names and places, without redaction, is just that. I hope you can at least understand there is a concern that someone, somewhere may be harmed, even if no one eventually was.
Edit:
On another note, I don't want to go into another debate on why Obama was actually an excellent candidate for the Peace Prize.
Jsm, I believe that I had mentioned the Pentagon Papers case earlier, however the reason the Supreme Court allowed the New York Times to publish the documents, was only because the events listed had taken place in the early days of the Vietnam War, several years earlier, and therefore were not a threat to current US personnel. The WikiLeaks documents however are recent, and therefore could POSSIBLY endanger lives, however like several people have said has shown little effect. However, put yourself in someone's shoes for a second, say you're some suburban kid and a government official comes up to your door with a flag and an apology. Because somebody leaked information about your father's location and he was killed in action. Imagine how you would feel? Probably wouldn't be rooting for Julian then eh?
[QUOTE=CP-26;27844818]Jsm, I believe that I had mentioned the Pentagon Papers case earlier, however the reason the Supreme Court allowed the New York Times to publish the documents, was only because the events listed had taken place in the early days of the Vietnam War, several years earlier, and therefore were not a threat to current US personnel. The WikiLeaks documents however are recent, and therefore could POSSIBLY endanger lives, however like several people have said has shown little effect. However, put yourself in someone's shoes for a second, say you're some suburban kid and a government official comes up to your door with a flag and an apology. Because somebody leaked information about your father's location and he was killed in action. Imagine how you would feel? Probably wouldn't be rooting for Julian then eh?[/QUOTE]
I suppose you are right about the Pentagon papers, but I think it sort of applies to this situation as well. All of the "war diaries" are from no later than 2009 and I highly doubt any of the information that is contained in them is relevant any more (I think the US Government basically stated this a while ago).
The thing is a lot of things can POSSIBLY endanger people's lives, just being alive is highly dangerous. The info isn't up to date either, it is not like Wikileaks are leaking info in real time. So its not like its going to contain accurate information of where people are.
I honestly think that if these documents were putting people at risk the US government would have done more to stop it. I mean they could have stopped the releases (or just attempted to) but they haven't, this suggests that they are not that risky to the national security of the US.
As for the last bit of your post, it's a stupid scenario that is unlikely to happen, there are a 101 similar crazy scenario's about Wikileaks you can suggest people put themselves into. Nothing that Wikileaks has leaked (yet) can put people into that sort of situation IMO.
[QUOTE=imadaman;27839019]That is correct, they do not uncover data, they just publish it after they have verified it.[/QUOTE]
No, that's what he said the Nobel peace prize was about when it quite clearly isn't.
[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;27828814]Oh the irony[/QUOTE]
Where do you see any irony in this?
[QUOTE=CP-26;27844818]Jsm, I believe that I had mentioned the Pentagon Papers case earlier, however the reason the Supreme Court allowed the New York Times to publish the documents, was only because the events listed had taken place in the early days of the Vietnam War, several years earlier, and therefore were not a threat to current US personnel. The WikiLeaks documents however are recent, and therefore could POSSIBLY endanger lives, however like several people have said has shown little effect. However, put yourself in someone's shoes for a second, say you're some suburban kid and a government official comes up to your door with a flag and an apology. Because somebody leaked information about your father's location and he was killed in action. Imagine how you would feel? Probably wouldn't be rooting for Julian then eh?[/QUOTE]
The last part of your post is truly ridiculous. It isn't like WikiLeaks leaks troop movements and locations in real time to aid the terrorists, so the only way that kind of scenario could possibly take place would be if they, say leaked the location of an unknown (unknown for the sake of argument) military base in the area, and then a guy ran in and suicide bombed it or something. However I also don't understand how you go from "the documents however are recent" to "could possibly endanger lives", and frankly until I hear a name of someone who actually has died because of the leaks revealed their location (or other such thing), I fail to believe that these leaks put lives in danger. Also, please actually name the person who died if there is one, don't tell me to look it up myself or prove that no one has died, since if you know the leaks are dangerous, you should at least know the specifics as to why.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;27838816]Well...[/QUOTE]
So they didn't uncover sensitive information?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.