First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
The truth? Freedom of speech? Espionage? Or just cyber terrorism?
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 12/7/10
Yes there are many ways you can look at this subject,
I'm talking ofcourse about wikileaks, and Julian Assange.

What is your opinion?
Should such documents be published even thoo they might endanger people, or is the truth simply worth that?
What about the actions of the politicians/companys trying to stop this, is this legal? Is this oppresing freedom of speech?
And what about the accusations of rape/sexual harrasment? Very convenient, or coincidence.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinion and the debates revolving around this subject.
So please, share your thoughts, but be wary, I might publish them on a website

53228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Norway
Offline
Posted 12/7/10
endanger who? is the fed american goverment that can't keep from lieing, and when it gets busted they make up charges to stop it? i think the Accusations are pure nonsense, in fact, the two apperently raped women have not charged him for anything as of yet.

I think there are a few people with dirt in the flour out there wanting him gone so they aint next:D
Posted 12/7/10 , edited 12/7/10

amersfoort wrote:

Yes there are many ways you can look at this subject,
I'm talking ofcourse about wikileaks, and Julian Assange.

What is your opinion?
Should such documents be published even thoo they might endanger people, or is the truth simply worth that?
What about the actions of the politicians/companys trying to stop this, is this legal? Is this oppresing freedom of speech?
And what about the accusations of rape/sexual harrasment?
Very convenient, or coincidence.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinion and the debates revolving around this subject.
So please, share your thoughts, but be wary, I might publish them on a website
From a moral standpoint, I think putting Julian Assange at risk in the search for truth is worth the cause for justice. Especially when we consider the contents involved American diplomacy behind closed-door, which is used to cover-up their immoral operation:

In a meeting with U.S. Gen. David Petraeus in the capital of Sana'a in January, President Saleh agreed to continue covering up the latest plan to use U.S. fixed-wing bombers with precision weapons to attack terrorists in his country. The Yemeni president told Petraeus that would be preferable to the continued use of long-range cruise missiles, which Saleh said were "not very accurate."

"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh said, according to the diplomatic cable written by the U.S. ambassador at the time, Stephen Seche. That comment prompted Saleh's deputy "to joke that he had just 'lied' by telling Parliament" that the U.S.-made bombs were used in attacks by Yemeni forces.

Yemeni and American officials are reluctant to publicly acknowledge the U.S. role, because it could cause a backlash in Yemen. The country is a hotbed of al Qaeda activity and is considered the launching point for recent attempts to take down airplanes using explosives. The home of radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is based in Yemen.(citation)
Why can't the Yemeni President himself just admit in public that the US was helping him? Well partly because thanks to the radical Islamic terrorists' track record of indiscriminate suicide bombing, they perceive anyone receiving aids from the West "fair game". That includes fellow Muslims and noncombatants. So hypothetically this might put others at risk, but the categorical threat is the backlash of the cruise missile strike conducted by the US Military, which caused real casualty among noncombatants:

In the secret cable from January 2010 published by the organization Wikileaks, Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported as having assured US General David Petraeus that his government would “continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours”.

According to the cable, this prompted Yemeni Deputy Prime Minister Rashad al-‘Alimi “to joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the ROYG [Republic of Yemen Government]”.

“The cable appears to confirm Amnesty International’s finding that the Abyan strike was carried out by the US military, not Yemeni government forces,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

An alleged al-Qa’ida training camp at al-Ma’jalah, Abyan, was hit by a cruise missile on 17 December 2009. A Yemeni parliamentary inquiry found that 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children, and 14 alleged al-Qa’ida members were killed in the attack. In the 4 January cable, General Petraeus is recorded as saying that the attack had caused the deaths of “only” three “civilians”.

Amnesty International provided the media with photographs of the aftermath of the Abyan strike in June this year, including remnants of US-sourced cluster munitions and the Tomahawk cruise missiles used to deliver them. The organization had requested information from the Pentagon about the involvement of US forces in the al-Ma’jalah attack, and what precautions may have been taken to minimize deaths and injuries.

The US government did not respond to Amnesty International, but a press report the day after the images were released quoted a Pentagon spokesman as saying that the USA declined to comment on the strike and that questions on operations against al-Qa’ida should be posed to the Yemeni government.

“There must be an immediate investigation into the dozens of deaths of local residents in the Abyan air strike, including into the extent of US involvement,” said Philip Luther. “Those responsible for unlawful killings must be brought to justice.”
(citation)
Furthermore, the US Military clearly intended to carry out an indiscriminate attack based on the type of munition they choose:

“Based on the evidence provided by these photographs, the US government must disclose what role it played in the al-Ma'jalah attack, and all governments involved must show what steps they took to prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries,” said Philip Luther.

The photographs enable the positive identification of damaged missile parts, which appear to be from the payload, mid-body, aft-body and propulsion sections of a BGM-109D Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile.

This type of missile, launched from a warship or submarine, is designed to carry a payload of 166 cluster submunitions (bomblets) which each explode into over 200 sharp steel fragments that can cause injuries up to 150m away. An incendiary material inside the bomblet also spreads fragments of burning zirconium designed to set fire to nearby flammable objects.

A further photograph, apparently taken within half an hour of the others, shows an unexploded BLU 97 A/B submunition itself, the type carried by BGM-109D missiles. These missiles are known to be held only by US forces and Yemeni armed forces are unlikely to be capable of using such a missile.



Image 1, additional details: The Tomahawk BGM-109D cruise missile would have carried 166 BLU 97 cluster bomblets, which are designed to scatter over a wide area, acting indiscriminately when used in civilian areas. Many also fail to explode on impact, as in the photograph above, but may explode if disturbed, making land dangerous for communities to use for months or years after attacks.(citation)
The irony of those who claimed to be at war on terrorism ended up acting exactly like the terrorists did not escape me.

Now that I've constructed moral ground on this subject, I can say with conviction that any attempt made by the governments or corporations to obstruct the objective truth released by WikiLeaks is oppressing not only the individuals' freedom of speech, but delaying the legal process of justice among civil society.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 12/8/10
I blame the governments lack of intelligence for this, its not hard to encrypt a hard drive with 256 bit Rijndael. If you don't want shit to be found then make sure its secure. Good luck brute forcing 256 bit Rijndael lol, take you well over 10,000 years even if you could check a billion billion keys a second.

Seems like a simple enough concept to me. But the solider who leaked the documents to Julian could be tried with espionage sure.
Posted 12/8/10

Allhailodin wrote:

I blame the governments lack of intelligence for this, its not hard to encrypt a hard drive with 256 bit Rijndael. If you don't want shit to be found then make sure its secure. Good luck brute forcing 256 bit Rijndael lol, take you well over 10,000 years even if you could check a billion billion keys a second.

Seems like a simple enough concept to me. But the solider who leaked the documents to Julian could be tried with espionage sure.
And your point is? When WikiLeaks itself acting as a whistle-blower for the civil society doesn't even need to actively hack into government database in the first place, while it offers complete protection through anonymous sources. Because the organization itself will conduct its own form of verification. Therefore your condescending attitude means nothing, when you've got nobody to place blame on.

As a matter of fact, your own lack of civil justice is risking individual's freedom of expression over the tyranny of the majority known as the US Military.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/9/10

amersfoort wrote:

Yes there are many ways you can look at this subject,
I'm talking ofcourse about wikileaks, and Julian Assange.

What is your opinion?
Should such documents be published even thoo they might endanger people, or is the truth simply worth that?
What about the actions of the politicians/companys trying to stop this, is this legal? Is this oppresing freedom of speech?
And what about the accusations of rape/sexual harrasment? Very convenient, or coincidence.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinion and the debates revolving around this subject.
So please, share your thoughts, but be wary, I might publish them on a website



The whole thing, to me, boils down to this:

We have proven ourselves incompetent in handling secret and sensitive information

Negotiations require, sometime, privy and sensitive information

Proving ourselves incompetent, we now lose our high ground on the negotiation table

Therefore, we have been severely weaken in the field of diplomacy.

I may be wrong, and this may all be untrue, but, based upon my beliefs, it is then not in our nations best interest that this information, which, has been call 'truth to the public', but is, rather 'sensitive dossiers' should never have been published on the web, where, not only are we weaken, we are even more humiliated, and we lose more credibility- just as we have with Iraq. Of course, this only arises from my temperment as a Red-blooded, True-Blue Patriot.
39 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Asia - Land Of An...
Offline
Posted 12/10/10
"freedom of speech" the westerners keep boasting and preeching are nothing but nonsense, I have gong to many western based forum telling westerners are doing racism to Asians when they try to impersonate Asians throught cosplaying Anime/Asian characters, but the result is the topic either got locked or deleted while I got banned.

The "freedom of speech" nonsense is nothing more than an excuse for westerners to stick their nose on other non western countries.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 12/10/10

ProudCutePureAsian wrote:

"freedom of speech" the westerners keep boasting and preeching are nothing but nonsense, I have gong to many western based forum telling westerners are doing racism to Asians when they try to impersonate Asians throught cosplaying Anime/Asian characters, but the result is the topic either got locked or deleted while I got banned.

The "freedom of speech" nonsense is nothing more than an excuse for westerners to stick their nose on other non western countries.


Someone who includes a racial distinction and the word 'pure' in their very name is complaining about racism. That IS cute.


Posted 12/10/10

longfenglim wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Yes there are many ways you can look at this subject,
I'm talking ofcourse about wikileaks, and Julian Assange.

What is your opinion?
Should such documents be published even thoo they might endanger people, or is the truth simply worth that?
What about the actions of the politicians/companys trying to stop this, is this legal? Is this oppresing freedom of speech?
And what about the accusations of rape/sexual harrasment? Very convenient, or coincidence.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinion and the debates revolving around this subject.
So please, share your thoughts, but be wary, I might publish them on a website



The whole thing, to me, boils down to this:

We have proven ourselves incompetent in handling secret and sensitive information

Negotiations require, sometime, privy and sensitive information

Proving ourselves incompetent, we now lose our high ground on the negotiation table

Therefore, we have been severely weaken in the field of diplomacy.

I may be wrong, and this may all be untrue, but, based upon my beliefs, it is then not in our nations best interest that this information, which, has been call 'truth to the public', but is, rather 'sensitive dossiers' should never have been published on the web, where, not only are we weaken, we are even more humiliated, and we lose more credibility- just as we have with Iraq. Of course, this only arises from my temperment as a Red-blooded, True-Blue Patriot.
But will that still be the case when you assent yourself to the position of a moral agent? What then will your diplomacy should be?


ProudCutePureAsian wrote:

"freedom of speech" the westerners keep boasting and preeching are nothing but nonsense, I have gong to many western based forum telling westerners are doing racism to Asians when they try to impersonate Asians throught cosplaying Anime/Asian characters, but the result is the topic either got locked or deleted while I got banned.

The "freedom of speech" nonsense is nothing more than an excuse for westerners to stick their nose on other non western countries
.
Your racist comment has got nothing to do with the topic at hand that's WikiLeaks, thereby you're showing disrespect towards the OP's intend. Now is that what you define as yourself being "Asian"? When you're "sticking your own nose" just like the Westerners that you despise at, you are no different.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 12/10/10
Thank you all for your responses

But allow me to expand this topic with the following questions:
What do you think of the group anonymous? Is what they are doing wrong?
Should goverments keep secrets from their people?
Is what the companys who stop supporting Wikileaks do wrong?
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 12/10/10

ProudCutePureAsian wrote:

It is a well known fact that american love lies, still remember who keep lying for over 20 years about Iraq possessing mass destruct weapon then invade it which cause countless innocent peoples to die?


Please try to remain on-topic
3498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nowheresville, MI
Offline
Posted 12/10/10 , edited 12/10/10

amersfoort wrote:
What do you think of the group anonymous? Is what they are doing wrong?


It's really no different than if this group of Anons were to vadalize a place of business. And for all their efforts, it accomplished what I thought it would, nothing really. One day later and it's back to normal. I'm sure there are a few of them who felt they were doing the right thing, but most of them were just looking to do some "wilding on the web".


amersfoort wrote:
Should goverments keep secrets from their people?


I'm okay with some secrets, depending on what it is. Cover ups, trying to hide the truth? No. Lists detailing locations around the globe important to our well-being? Sure, I'll accept that.


amersfoort wrote:
Is what the companys who stop supporting Wikileaks do wrong?


If, for whatever reason, these companies don't want to do business with Wikileaks, then they don't have to. Baring some sort of contractual agreement. I've seen a few people claiming it's censorship. Which is wrong. These companies are not stopping Wikileaks from puting this stuff out there, just making it tougher to get the scratch to do it. In a pinch, people can always mail a check.


2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/11/10


As an American, my sense of Diplomacy may be malformed (as we, Americans, are not particularly known for our prowess in that area), but, in my opinion, Diplomacy is completely unrelated to morals- although I believe that we are born with some core morals- thou shalt not kill that which is of the same species as yourself, &c.- moral is a subjective thing, and, as such, varies from person to person- what the moral thing to do for one would be the immoral thing to do for another. Therefore, no one can have the 'moral high ground', and that there should be no morals involved in diplomacy. Diplomacy then, is the art of coming to an agreement with another nation while trying to extract as much terms favourable to your nation as possible through the divers mean of persuasion- it is about getting the most of what you want while limiting what the other nation wants. This does not call for morals, but, rather, credency and confidentiality. With the release of these documents, we now lose both of these- credency in our ability to maintain confidentiality, and credency in our words.
Posted 12/11/10 , edited 12/11/10

longfenglim wrote:



As an American, my sense of Diplomacy may be malformed (as we, Americans, are not particularly known for our prowess in that area), but, in my opinion, Diplomacy is completely unrelated to morals- although I believe that we are born with some core morals- thou shalt not kill that which is of the same species as yourself, &c.- moral is a subjective thing, and, as such, varies from person to person- what the moral thing to do for one would be the immoral thing to do for another. Therefore, no one can have the 'moral high ground', and that there should be no morals involved in diplomacy. Diplomacy then, is the art of coming to an agreement with another nation while trying to extract as much terms favourable to your nation as possible through the divers mean of persuasion- it is about getting the most of what you want while limiting what the other nation wants. This does not call for morals, but, rather, credency and confidentiality. With the release of these documents, we now lose both of these- credency in our ability to maintain confidentiality, and credency in our words.
Objective morality stemmed from pure categorical reasoning is not subjected to any individual's standard. But rather that individual is acting accordingly via objective morality in order to apply moral worth through their expressions, thus they become moral agents not by their individual creeds but objective morality. Only an objective morality that exists solely outside of ourselves can truly be universal.

That's the objective truth behind "justice as fairness" that defines diplomacy as fair bargaining through transparency, not inequality through secrecy. And this is proven by human biology of the existence of mirror neurons, it's also how we learn differently than other great apes.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/11/10 , edited 12/11/10

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



As an American, my sense of Diplomacy may be malformed (as we, Americans, are not particularly known for our prowess in that area), but, in my opinion, Diplomacy is completely unrelated to morals- although I believe that we are born with some core morals- thou shalt not kill that which is of the same species as yourself, &c.- moral is a subjective thing, and, as such, varies from person to person- what the moral thing to do for one would be the immoral thing to do for another. Therefore, no one can have the 'moral high ground', and that there should be no morals involved in diplomacy. Diplomacy then, is the art of coming to an agreement with another nation while trying to extract as much terms favourable to your nation as possible through the divers mean of persuasion- it is about getting the most of what you want while limiting what the other nation wants. This does not call for morals, but, rather, credency and confidentiality. With the release of these documents, we now lose both of these- credency in our ability to maintain confidentiality, and credency in our words.
Objective morality stemmed from pure categorical reasoning is not subjected to any individual's standard. But rather that individual is acting accordingly via objective morality in order to apply moral worth through their expressions, thus they become moral agents not by their individual creeds but objective morality. That's the objective truth behind "justice as fairness" that defines diplomacy as fair bargaining through transparency, not inequality through secrecy.


Objective morality, I believe, cannot exist mainly because morality is a human concept, and human concepts are always bound by objectivity. Thus independent source of 'Objective Morality' cannot exist because there is absolutely no way that it can be formed, even if formed by a congress of the World's leading Ethicians there will be always stain of societal prejudice,individual beliefs, Culture &c. For example, Descartes attempted to prove that the body and mind exist through reason, but his Catholicism forces God to be part of his Metaphysical system. Diplomacy is trascultural, transending the bound of morality, striving to be as mechanical and as rational as possible, ridding itself of any human or emotive elements- it is to attain the best deal for your country- just as bargaining and haggling's primary objective is to attain the best deal, and, if the whole affair is made public, the whole objective will be hindered. Privacy between the talk of nations is essential in that secret information and dossiers between governments are exchanged in hopes that it would increase their ability to attain their desired goals.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.