• Julian Assange arrested
    506 replies, posted
[QUOTE=kmathis;26543188]Finally, this is fantastic news to wake up to. EDIT: I find it funny that I get rated dumb for an opinion. What a mature bunch you are.[/QUOTE] This is FP we're talking about here, what did you expect?
[QUOTE=kmathis;26543188]Finally, this is fantastic news to wake up to. EDIT: I find it funny that I get rated dumb for an opinion. What a mature bunch you are.[/QUOTE] Isn't that what ratings are for? Giving an opinion of an opinion?
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;26543282]Isn't that what ratings are for? Giving an opinion of an opinion?[/QUOTE] calling someone dumb isn't supporting your opinion.
Now the country will check every single IP that saw wikileaks and read stuff on it. They will send professional killers to kill everyone of them, to permanently delete files. Damn, I played to much hitman.
Good.
[QUOTE=Greendead;26543321]Now the country will check every single IP that saw wikileaks and read stuff on it. They will send professional killers to kill everyone of them, to permanently delete files. [/QUOTE] I would rate this funny, but tracing IPs is so unreliable it ruins the joke.
Why am I not surprised about this?
[QUOTE=Flapadar;26543373]I would rate this funny, but tracing IPs is so unreliable it ruins the joke.[/QUOTE] Seriously...? Unreliable?
Fuck, Shit fuck shit, Please tell me this is a hoax. There is nothing against him, I can guarantee you those rape and sex molest charges were made up by the US Govt. so they have a proper reason to arrest him, it's bullshit.
[QUOTE=Jallen;26542682]And rightfully IMO. As much as the bad needs to be uncovered, there are things which really jeopardise peace and could fuel terrorists. The list of important facilities to the US for example. That doesn't uncover any shit on the government, it just puts them at risk. In that way wikileaks can be considered a terrorist because it is terrorizing governments.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=FHamster;26542793]It shows lists of facilities associated with the US in harder to secure places that will be easy target for terrorists. What can any private citizen get from a list like this other that a fleeting sense of rebellion against power?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=FHamster;26542861]Terrorists are a war machine. They do what is necessary to get their point across. Attacking facilities associated with America in easier to attack locations sends a message of fear to the local population.[/QUOTE] Well all the fear-mongering about terrorism seems to have done its job. I was under the impression that normal smart people would have the media literacy to see through propaganda. Terrorists do not attack military facilities or random infrastructure. They do not care about normal military targets. An irrational fear of terrorist threats is exactly what they intended - this fear appears to be so great now that the publication of a few papers is a crippling threat to national security. Such fear-mongering fuels terrorist efforts better than any information leaks.
[QUOTE=faze;26543386]Seriously...? Unreliable?[/QUOTE] Yeah, without going to the ISP the best location you can get is the country.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;26543446]Yeah, without going to the ISP the best location you can get is the country.[/QUOTE] Not always.... ws.arin.net is usually pretty good about GeoIP.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;26543446]Yeah, without going to the ISP the best location you can get is the country.[/QUOTE] You think that goverment can't ask the ISP about IP?
I'm not sure I agree with everything he does but this case is a fucking embarrassment to the civilised world
[QUOTE=BmB;26542821]There's not going to be terrorist attacks on locations like that. Terrorists aren't a war machine. Every single terrorist attack I've ever heard of has been in a public or publically important location with lots of people. Terrorists don't do infrastructure.[/QUOTE] 9/11's intention was to crash and bankrupt the USA, which it did.
[QUOTE=cjone2;26543466]I'm not sure I agree with everything he does but this case is a fucking embarrassment to the civilised world[/QUOTE] The "civilized world" was a fucking embarrassment by itself for decades.
I wonder what they'll dig up next...
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;26543570]I wonder what they'll dig up next...[/QUOTE] Who? Wikileaks or the police?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;26542684]free julian assange [editline]7th December 2010[/editline] the government are terrorists because they terrorize me[/QUOTE] How, exacly?
[QUOTE=FHamster;26542754]Its a list of facilities necessary for national security. Why does the public need to know any of these?[/QUOTE] I bet someone who'd really want to find out where they are, could have done it anyway. This seems to be just an attempt to calumniate his name.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;26543440]Well all the fear-mongering about terrorism seems to have done its job. I was under the impression that normal smart people would have the media literacy to see through propaganda. [B]Terrorists do not attack military facilities or random infrastructure[/B]. [B]They do not care about normal military targets[/B]. An irrational fear of terrorist threats is exactly what they intended - this fear appears to be so great now that the publication of a few papers is a crippling threat to national security. Such fear-mongering fuels terrorist efforts better than any information leaks.[/QUOTE] First off, we aren't talking about military here, we are talking about government. Secondly, even if we were talking about military, you've made huge [citation needed] statements there. Why [I]wouldn't[/I] terrorists attack places given on the list? Finally, it's obvious that terrorists don't [I]need[/I] the information released by wikileaks, but so much of it is so irrelevant to the general public that the only people who really would have any reason to read it are terrorists. Niether did anyone say that this information is a "[I]crippling[/I] threat", but it [I]is[/I] a threat. I'm not scared of terrorists like everyone seems to imply when you say that wikileaks could be dangerous. There's a difference between caution and fear. I don't believe that the current information released is truely dangerous, but the afghan informants leak and the list of crucial national security facility leak are both treading on very dangerous ground. It's obvious that wikileaks don't thoroughly scan their entire releases (and if they do then I really wonder if they think about the political implications of their releases), which makes wikileaks potentially extremely dangerous. Some things are best kept secret from the public, for security reasons.
[QUOTE=Jallen;26543669]First off, we aren't talking about military here, we are talking about government. Secondly, even if we were talking about military, you've made huge [citation needed] statements there. Why [I]wouldn't[/I] terrorists attack places given on the list? Finally, it's obvious that terrorists don't [I]need[/I] the information released by wikileaks, but so much of it is so irrelevant to the general public that the only people who really would have any reason to read it are terrorists. Niether did anyone say that this information is a "[I]crippling[/I] threat", but it [I]is[/I] a threat. I'm not scared of terrorists, and I don't believe that the current information released is truely dangerous, but the afghan informants leak and the list of crucial national security facility leak are both treading on very dangerous ground. It's obvious that wikileaks don't thoroughly scan their entire releases, which makes wikileaks potentially extremely dangerous. Some things are best kept secret from the public, for security reasons.[/QUOTE] Two contradictory statements, first line...military [B]is[/B] government; and third line, you said you don't believe the leaked info is dangerous, yet you said the info about the national security facilities being leaked is dangerous...
Freedom of Speech isn't going to save you when you piss off the governments of several large countries
[img]http://imgur.com/UvjCD.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=faze;26543684]Two contradictory statements, first line...military [B]is[/B] government; and third line, you said you don't believe the leaked info is dangerous, yet you said the info about the national security facilities being leaked is dangerous...[/QUOTE] No, government is not military. Military is controlled by government, that doesn't make them the same thing. If you were to call the houses of parliament in the UK a military building, you would be wrong. Secondly, I said that I don't think that they are truely dangerous but they are on dangerous ground, i.e. slippery slope.
So will shit be going down now or what? Or was he just bluffing?
[QUOTE=Jallen;26543746]No, government is not military. Military is controlled by government, that doesn't make them the same thing. If you were to call the houses of parliament in the UK a military building, you would be wrong. Secondly, I said that I don't think that they are truely dangerous but they are on dangerous ground, i.e. slippery slope.[/QUOTE] Everyone in the military is employed by DoD, therefore they are government employees no matter how you look at it, at least that's how it is here in America.
[QUOTE=faze;26543758]Everyone in the military is employed by DoD, therefore they are government employees no matter how you look at it, at least that's how it is here in America.[/QUOTE] Ok you seem to be missing the heirarchy logic here. A cat is a mammal, not all mammals are cats. Military is part of government, government is not the military.
[QUOTE=Jallen;26543765]Ok you seem to be lacking the basic logic of heirarchy. A cat is a mammal, not all mammals are cats. Military is part of government, government is not the military.[/QUOTE] That's one way of looking at it...
[QUOTE=MisterLANCE;26542757]i like how everyone that supports what hes doing is 13-20 and lives with their parents. Yes he released some stuff showing injustices, but he also released a bunch of bullshit that didn't need to go public at all[/QUOTE] Wouldn't that make you his biggest fan
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.