wikileaks attacked, releasing contingency plan passwords - Polidicks

I can easily see a world-wide government occuring on any planet we colonize since it would be formed from the people colonizing it. Brb dibs on becoming the Helghast.

[QUOTE=AutismoPiggo;51926353]Any World-Wide government would have to be a totalitarian military government to keep tabs on the multiple conflicts it would have to face. So probably not gonna happen.[/QUOTE] Imagine the ineptitude of the various superpowers in world history, and the modern organizations like the EU and UN trying to work within the bounds of their current power. Now extend that across literally the entire globe. Any fears of a one world government within our lifetimes, or our childrens lifetimes, or our grandchildren's lifetimes are simply delusions.

a benevolent dictatorship maybe? the problem being that we as a species seem to have a bad habit of elevating the worst kind of people to positions of power - or letting them worm their way there without realizing what's happening before it's too late - so i'm not sure how the "benevolent" part would work out if we were to keep humans in the equation. and even if one "tyrant" was tough but fair, their successor would have an all-too-high chance of being brutal and insane.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51926369]Imagine the ineptitude of the various superpowers in world history, and the modern organizations like the EU and UN trying to work within the bounds of their current power. Now extend that across literally the entire globe. Any fears of a one world government within our lifetimes, or our childrens lifetimes, or our grandchildren's lifetimes are simply delusions.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say it'd be delusions for our grand-children's lifetimes. But it will be more than likely our great-grand-children's generation that does it, perhaps.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51926062]Just because /pol/ is retarded and agrees with them doesn't mean wikileaks hasn't released important information in the past, it's a pretty dangerous thought pattern to just write it off as bullshit before you even know what the information is[/QUOTE] last time this code red happened it was because someone changed the wifi password at the embassy...

[QUOTE=Sableye;51926402]last time this code red happened it was because someone changed the wifi password at the embassy...[/QUOTE] This time it seems they're doing it because some video of theirs got taken down. Which is to say they're probably just using it as a pretext to punch back at the intelligence agencies for giving Trump hell.

Why is it that when Wikileaks released footage of the US killing journalists in Iraq, people celebrated and trusted them but when Wikileaks starts supporting conservatives and going against popular opinion, they are no longer trustworthy?

[QUOTE=Doozle;51926344]The cia will hack your smart tv and use it to assassinate you without being detected[/QUOTE] The cia will turn your wheels 90 degrees to the right on a freeway

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51926595]Why is it that when Wikileaks released footage of the US killing journalists in Iraq, people celebrated and trusted them but when Wikileaks starts supporting conservatives and going against popular opinion, they are no longer trustworthy?[/QUOTE] "Starts supporting conservatives" That's exactly it. They are selectively releasing information due to their bias and agenda. If they were truly devoted to the transparent truth, they would be independent.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51926595]Why is it that when Wikileaks released footage of the US killing journalists in Iraq, people celebrated and trusted them but when Wikileaks starts supporting conservatives and going against popular opinion, they are no longer trustworthy?[/QUOTE] If you're asking me personally, [URL="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wikileaks-deletes-poll-clinton-health"]this[/URL] was a pretty good turning point. While Wikileaks had the impression of being a neutral fact-finding mission prior to the 2016 election, they burned all credibility they had in becoming political activists against Clinton. Which is fine, Assange can wage his guerilla war against the deep state until the cows come home, but it means I'm going to start assuming that everything that comes from them ain't the gospel. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] You are basically asking "Why is it that when Wikileaks shows undoctored footage showing a thing people trust them but when they lie and spin to support conservative they are no longer trustworthy". You answered your own question.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51926595]Why is it that when Wikileaks released footage of the US killing journalists in Iraq, people celebrated and trusted them but when Wikileaks starts supporting conservatives and going against popular opinion, they are no longer trustworthy?[/QUOTE] Assange's releases dont seem to have anything about Russia in them, considering that he can apply for Russian citizenship, according to their ministry for foreign affairs. Russia has already been outed as meddling in the US election for their own purposes, and dollars to donuts that Assange might have been fed some information by the Kremlin to leak on his website, never mind the fact he released info every time Clinton's poll numbers went up. It isn't the fact that he supports conservatives, it's the fact that he hates Clinton that partly influenced this, and I quote his own statement, "Do I want cholera or gonorrhea" - when asked about the choices Americans had in the last election. He dislikes Trump as much as he hated Clinton. If he was dedicated to the truth he'd have maintained his neutrality in the affair instead of letting his personal bias influence him as well.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51926595]Why is it that when Wikileaks released footage of the US killing journalists in Iraq, people celebrated and trusted them but when Wikileaks starts supporting conservatives and going against popular opinion, they are no longer trustworthy?[/QUOTE] :huh: maybe because [I]supporting[/I] anyone means they lack transparency and objectivity?

[QUOTE=Ott;51926597]The cia will turn your wheels 90 degrees to the right on a freeway[/QUOTE] I was being silly. There's been talk/questions over whether it'd be possible for connected cars with drive by wire controls to be hacked for a few years. It's hardly surprising that the CIA would want in on that

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51926629]Assange's releases dont seem to have anything about Russia in them, considering that he can apply for Russian citizenship, according to their ministry for foreign affairs. Russia has already been outed as meddling in the US election for their own purposes, and dollars to donuts that Assange might have been fed some information by the Kremlin to leak on his website, never mind the fact he released info every time Clinton's poll numbers went up. It isn't the fact that he supports conservatives, it's the fact that he hates Clinton that partly influenced this, and I quote his own statement, "Do I want cholera or gonorrhea" - when asked about the choices Americans had in the last election. He dislikes Trump as much as he hated Clinton. If he was dedicated to the truth he'd have maintained his neutrality in the affair instead of letting his personal bias influence him as well.[/QUOTE] Well lets cut through the bullshit for a second; he supported Trump. Maybe if Sanders had won the Democratic primary he would have supported Sanders, but he opposes the political establishment in Washington fervently and Trump represented the best opportunity to destabilize it. Assange doesn't "support conservatives", he supports whoever or whatever will do the most damage to the American government. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] If you take it from that point of view his release of the Apache video and opposition to Clinton are logically in concert.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51926614]If you're asking me personally, [URL="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wikileaks-deletes-poll-clinton-health"]this[/URL] was a pretty good turning point. While Wikileaks had the impression of being a neutral fact-finding mission prior to the 2016 election, they burned all credibility they had in becoming political activists against Clinton. Which is fine, Assange can wage his guerilla war against the deep state until the cows come home, but it means I'm going to start assuming that everything that comes from them ain't the gospel. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] You are basically asking "Why is it that when Wikileaks shows undoctored footage showing a thing people trust them but when they lie and spin to support conservative they are no longer trustworthy". You answered your own question.[/QUOTE] Plus there was that flailing damage-control-esque twitter post some time back that whined something along the lines of "THE WHITE HOUSE LEAKS ARE A DEEP STATE PLOY TO DISCREDIT DONALD TRUUUMP!" I can't seem to find the tweet but if someone else knows where it is that'd be cool. That sounds very pro-trump and anti-transparency to me. I no longer trust wikileaks to release all of the information they acquire because of this. I figure most of the stuff they release probably has some truth to it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if they got information about the Trump admin that they'd bury it at this point. [i]Especially[/i] if it involved possible Russian ties, lol.

[QUOTE=froztshock;51926652]Plus there was that flailing damage-control-esque twitter post some time back that whined something along the lines of "THE WHITE HOUSE LEAKS ARE A DEEP STATE PLOY TO DISCREDIT DONALD TRUUUMP!" I can't seem to find the tweet but if someone else knows where it is that'd be cool.[/QUOTE] These, by chance? Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/831468455413030912[/URL] Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819949637255753733[/URL] [QUOTE=froztshock;51926652]That sounds very pro-trump and anti-transparency to me. I no longer trust wikileaks to release all of the information they acquire because of this. I figure most of the stuff they release probably has some truth to it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if they got information about the Trump admin that they'd bury it at this point. [I]Especially[/I] if it involved possible Russian ties, lol.[/QUOTE] To their credit, Wikileaks hasn't been caught (yet) outright fabricating anything, so what they leak is usually truthful in and of itself. You are absolutely right though that it's what they don't release or investigate that is worrying, and the fact is that Wikileaks only cares about transparency when it's politically expedient. They are clearly quite comfortable with Trump running his administration as opaque as possible by going out of their way to run interference for him.

What I'm gathering from this is that we are not supposed to trust the information sources give us if they are politically biased in any way, regardless of their track record for having solid information and not fabricating anything. Or is it just because this is a right leaning source and the people in here are being huge ideologues?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51926689]What I'm gathering from this is that we are not supposed to trust the information sources give us if they are politically biased in any way, regardless of their track record for having solid information and not fabricating anything. Or is it just because this is a right leaning source and the people in here are being huge ideologues?[/QUOTE] Wikileaks bears their affiliation proudly and clearly and I don't trust them not to lie via exclusion. I mean, you could argue that they've just never gotten this information, but riddle me this: Have they [I]ever[/I] released leaked inside information on the operations of the Kremlin? Do you think, if the republicans were hacked during the election as well, they would've released that information? If your honest answer is no, then you understand why I'm having trouble trusting them as of late now that they've made their biases clear. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] Basically at this point if I had insider information that I wanted to whistleblow, I [I]wouldn't[/I] bring it to wikileaks because I fear that they might bury it, and I suggest that anyone else do the same.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51926689]What I'm gathering from this is that we are not supposed to trust the information sources give us if they are politically biased in any way, regardless of their track record for having solid information and not fabricating anything. Or is it just because this is a right leaning source and the people in here are being huge ideologues?[/QUOTE] Calling people who disagree with you "ideologues" based purely on the fact that they disagree with your opinion is my favorite conservative meme. And again, you answer your own question by calling Wikileaks a "right wing source". They shouldn't be a fucking right wing source. Why is this so difficult for you guys to grasp?

All I want is journalists to go through the material and tell us what it contains. I don't trust Wikileaks for a variety of reasons but I do trust journalists. If they find something in there that's alarming, then that needs to put out there. As far as I know right now, this could be very well the next Snowden leak. ... ironic in a way I was watching Mr Robot season 2, episode 8 yesterday. And keep hearing "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" everywhere :V

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51926689]What I'm gathering from this is that we are not supposed to trust the information sources give us if they are politically biased in any way, regardless of their track record for having solid information and not fabricating anything. Or is it just because this is a right leaning source and the people in here are being huge ideologues?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Svinnik;51926595]Why is it that when Wikileaks released footage of the US killing journalists in Iraq, people celebrated and trusted them but when Wikileaks starts supporting conservatives and going against popular opinion, they are no longer trustworthy?[/QUOTE] "wtf people liked wikileaks when they thought they were neutral and only interested in the truth but now that they support conservatives and right wingers and run interference for my chosen politician and make up stupid lies about his biggest competition people doubt their veracity?" This is you. This is how you sound.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51926595]Why is it that when Wikileaks released footage of the US killing journalists in Iraq, people celebrated and trusted them but when Wikileaks starts supporting conservatives and going against popular opinion, they are no longer trustworthy?[/QUOTE] Why does everything need to be boiled down to us vs them

Yeah why is wikileaks a right-wing source anyways? Back in the day I understood them to be generally pretty anti-US-scumbaggery, which is something I can generally get behind. But now they've aligned themselves behind the president... Which doesn't really seem to bode well for their ability to actually continue to be that. If Trump gets a bunch of civilians killed in another raid, and it comes to leak, what is wikileaks going to have to say about it? Is it going to be another 'collateral murder', or is their tone going to be quite a bit softer? It'll be interesting to see... [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] Like I think you guys are getting it wrong, we were pro-wikileaks when it was, by extension, anti [I]Obama administration[/I]. Wikileaks should no be pro-administration, rofl.

I'm honestly surprised by the number of people, and the arm-bending they're engaged in, who seem to think these disclosures are a non-issue just because Wikileaks isn't on their side anymore. I'm not saying, "Hooray Russia! Hooray Trump! Ra-ra Russian Truth & Justice for all!" I'm not, by saying any of this, somehow endorsing some Pizzagate-tier, /pol/ circle jerk of Gay Frogs and a war of Heterosexuality. I'm not even actively condemning Barack Obama's administration, [B]or[/B] the Trump administration. I'm saying, there is clear documentation here of the United States, in particular an agency of the United States, doing something [I]bad.[/I] Something that, if say, Russia or China had engaged in it, we'd be calling it, "typical Russian-style bullshit," or some other meme. This is Wikileaks doing the thing that we [I]want Wikileaks to do,[/I] by exposing [B]corruption and abuse of power.[/B] (Which, I'll add, is the same thing they did with the DNC leaks.) And it's not like Trump's some hero who discontinued these policies. You can have your cake and eat it too on this one. (Though it might get messy, since Trump is actively condemning/working against the interest of these intelligence agencies?) Trump's administration can be held just as accountable for a brash Secret-Police-Tier CIA who are actively endangering [I]your[/I] privacy. Just because Wikileaks seems to think it's bread is buttered on one particular side doesn't mean you get to suddenly put on your worst wig and say, "fake news, SAD!" Wikileaks is still, for the most part, a legitimate source of real information. Information that is suppressed, information that people have gone to jail over when they tried to reveal it by legitimate means. Unless, you somehow want to now say that Edward Snowden has always been an enemy of the people, Bradley Manning deserved the death sentence, and we've always been rivals of the BRIC. I can't make people stop jamming their heads in the sand whenever, how did Al Gore put it, inconvenient truth? becomes apparent. I can however be greatly disappointed by the number of people who seem to be blind adherents to some sort of new East-v.-West, McCarthy tier endorsement of ignoring anything that's not being fed directly to us by our Home media organizations, on risk of it being spooky-scary Russian Propaganda.

[QUOTE=froztshock;51926709]Wikileaks bears their affiliation proudly and clearly and I don't trust them not to lie via exclusion. I mean, you could argue that they've just never gotten this information, but riddle me this: Have they [I]ever[/I] released leaked inside information on the operations of the Kremlin? Do you think, if the republicans were hacked during the election as well, they would've released that information? If your honest answer is no, then you understand why I'm having trouble trusting them as of late now that they've made their biases clear. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] Basically at this point if I had insider information that I wanted to whistleblow, I [I]wouldn't[/I] bring it to wikileaks because I fear that they might bury it, and I suggest that anyone else do the same.[/QUOTE] Your whole argument is that their information is not to be trusted, not because it's false, but because they may not reveal the information that you want them to reveal? That is THE most asanine thing I've ever heard of. All information they have released has been true. Them not releasing information you want them to, regardless if they have it or not, doesn't suddenly make true things false. [QUOTE=Raidyr;51926721]Calling people who disagree with you "ideologues" based purely on the fact that they disagree with your opinion is my favorite conservative meme. And again, you answer your own question by calling Wikileaks a "right wing source". They shouldn't be a fucking right wing source. Why is this so difficult for you guys to grasp?[/QUOTE] Are they some sort of bipartisan governmental group? No. This is a private entity. They can be whatever the hell they want. Why is that so difficult for you guys to grasp. And yes, assuming a source is wrong, despite a track record that proves otherwise, purely based on their ideological beliefs alone IS being an ideologue.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51926817]I'm honestly surprised by the number of people, and the arm-bending they're engaged in, who seem to think these disclosures are a non-issue just because Wikileaks isn't on their side anymore.[/QUOTE] I haven't even looked into this at all, I was just responding to two people who are wondering why Wikileaks has such a poor reputation now as opposed to earlier with what I think are pretty genuine reasons. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51926817]I can't make people stop jamming their heads in the sand whenever, how did Al Gore put it, inconvenient truth? becomes apparent. I can however be greatly disappointed by the number of people who seem to be blind adherents to some sort of new East-v.-West, McCarthy tier endorsement of ignoring anything that's not being fed directly to us by our Home media organizations, on risk of it being spooky-scary Russian Propaganda.[/QUOTE] Do you really think the people who distrust Wikileaks motivations approve of a wide ranging surveillance and hacking program being run by a conspiratorial deep state that answers to no one? Is it not possible that you can be skeptical of both, or does it not fall within your neatly squared away tribalist categories for people? Seriously, you make some really good and insightful posts sometimes then you just make these "It's really disappointing how fucking stupid people are :^(" ones and completely lose me. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51926829] Are they some sort of bipartisan governmental group? No. This is a private entity. They can be whatever the hell they want. Why is that so difficult for you guys to grasp. And yes, assuming a source is wrong, despite a track record that proves otherwise, purely based on their ideological beliefs alone IS being an ideologue.[/QUOTE] Being a government group has nothing to do with it. Your original post was just silly. You are asking why people don't trust a right wing source. Why the fuck don't you trust HuffPo and BuzzFeed? Ask the mirror, you [I]idealogue[/I].

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51926829]Your whole argument is that their information is not to be trusted, not because it's false, but because they may not reveal the information that you want them to reveal? That is THE most asanine thing I've ever heard of. All information they have released has been true. Them not releasing information you want them to, regardless if they have it or not, doesn't suddenly make true things false. Are they some sort of bipartisan governmental group? No. This is a private entity. They can be whatever the hell they want. Why is that so difficult for you guys to grasp. And yes, assuming a source is wrong, despite a track record that proves otherwise, purely based on their ideological beliefs alone IS being an ideologue.[/QUOTE] Look man, I'm not saying they're absolutely not to be trusted. I think that pretty much all the stuff they've released is true, and I would trust their recent leaks to be fundamentally true as well. I'm saying that they wear their biases on their sleeves and run interference that seems to run counter to their message of transparency, and I would not trust them to release certain kinds of information. That's all. Saying "Oh, well they have a RIGHT not to release information they don't agree with" doesn't help with the growing credibility problem, rofl.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51926829]Are they some sort of bipartisan governmental group? No. This is a private entity. They can be whatever the hell they want. Why is that so difficult for you guys to grasp. And yes, assuming a source is wrong, despite a track record that proves otherwise, purely based on their ideological beliefs alone IS being an ideologue.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously trying to compare Wikileaks to a business? Businesses follow laws, Wikileaks does nothing but break laws. And if you want sympathy for breaking the law you need a better reason for doing it than "I don't like these people".

[quote]“It would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations,” the release stated.[/quote] Yet surprisingly, we haven't gone full-on Russian and poisoned you yet Assange...

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51926852] Being a government group has nothing to do with it. Your original post was just silly. You are asking why people don't trust a right wing source. Why the fuck don't you trust HuffPo and BuzzFeed? Ask the mirror, you [I]idealogue[/I].[/QUOTE] No, I'm calling out people who are only questioning the veracity of the information leaked solely because they are or appear to support the right wing, even though their record with their leaks is top notch. [QUOTE=froztshock;51926866]Look man, I'm not saying they're absolutely not to be trusted. I think that pretty much all the stuff they've released is true, and I would trust their recent leaks to be fundamentally true as well. I'm saying that they wear their biases on their sleeves and run interference that seems to run counter to their message of transparency, and I would not trust them to release certain kinds of information. That's all. Saying "Oh, well they have a RIGHT not to release information they don't agree with" doesn't help with the growing credibility problem, rofl.[/QUOTE] Then I'm not talking about people like you then. My complaint is specifically with people who now have the attitude that what gets released false until proven true JUST BECAUSE of political affiliation (perceived or otherwise), and not because of actual metrics like track record.