Poetry Forum

Full Version: wikileaks founder such a nice guy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the pass word you sue is a lock that stops me seeing (the wikileak) and using my freedom of expression about it.

you say if they pay for this it would be fair. what about the billions who didn't pay. how is it fair that they also get to see?

the truth cannot be diluted, only hidden in the case of these leaks they show no new scandal. they show nothing most of us don't already know. they do show and things i personally don't think it's prudent to show. things like operating procedures in the field etc. even call signs on a radio frequency.

if you had a son wanting to join the arny and you didn't have a really good idea of what happens out there i'd say you were a moron. it's on every news channel almost every day. in every news paper. like the i say the only thing the leaks are showing us thats new is the trail leading back to those who leped the allied forces.

seriously, i'm sick of people telling me i think wikileaks sucks. i've said it before and i'll say it again. i think that often they do a good job. i just don't think in this instance i agree with the mass effusion of information into the public eye. some of which could cause innocent people to die along with their families. adapa asked whose job is it to know what we have the right to know. you and most others in this thread say wikileaks. i say no it isn't, what they do is mostly good but it isn't any ones job to tell me what they think i have a right to know.

sometimes omissions are omitted for a reason. again most of the leaks re the war were petty and of no value to me you the afghans or the truth. some of what was released in my mind could how ever cause the death of real people. if the truth is what you want, lets show babies after they've been raped and tortured on the news. lets show body parts on there as well from Myanmar and sudan and darfur. lets show the real pictures of all the dead bodies. lets listen to all the sick bastards and their reasons for child buggary and rape and murder and torture. let our kids see everything as well. or is the truth only for adults. let show fucking on all tv staions, pornos and goatses and all the other sick stuff we actually know is out there, because we're semi intelligent, but lets show it non the less because it's the truth. let all emails be public. let all mail land line and other be sent in open envelops. let all business transactions be posted. the real truth, sorry but we couldn't handle the real truth . if it was shown to us we'd simply turn away in disgust and do what we do now, censor it. what wiki leaks give us with the army leaks is mainly hold hat with the lives of real people put at risk. personally i don't belive they got this one right.
(08-26-2010, 08:49 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]A free press is the public's basic protection against government controlled news or spin, and government secrecy in general.
Wikileaks meets an important need by acting as a safe publishing outlet of the last resort for hot items that governments or corporations try to keep secret from the public.
there is no such thing as a free press. to think there is is not only naive but also immature. most have enforcible d notice restrictions and the like that can be used to shut them up. you onlt have to look at italy to see how inept they are. you only have to look at the philippine bus hostage fuck up to see how bad a free press really can be. they are arguably to blame for 8 deaths for showing the truth. free press my arse. again this discussion is about this incident wiki leaks put out not every leak.

free press against gov controlled news spin. the free press live for the gov controlled news spin they live for it, all they ever do is interview news spinners for fuck sake.
(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]so if i found out your cheating on your wife it's best if i tell the world or at leats your family.

Firstly, the analogy isn't a good one. If I was cheating on my wife I wouldn't be doing it while I was being paid by you to represent you.

Even then, it's the cheating that's bad. Revealing bad behavior may well hurt some people but that's the fault of the person who behaved badly in the first place. And telling might well bring about the end of the bad behavior.

(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]if all the truth is best, why do we have an admin section> or even passwords.

We have an admin section for the same reason we have a government--it's a convenient way to deal with threats. But do you really believe your mods and admins are infallible? Or that they should be beyond question?

(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]by checking them out i meant, crossing them out deleting stuff that could lead to deaths. so names of informants etc were not published. something smarmy arse said was done. what i and others are complaining about (i'm not on about the usa gov, so please vf don't make it out i support their stance, if anything i said it before they did Smile ) is the fact that simply removing the names doesn't ensure their saftey. the time lines and, areas and actions are still left in. to correctly remove them i presume would take long that they spent on the first batch.

But it still comes down to how much stuff gets deleted? Maybe the names of the soldiers who fired on the civilians from that helicopter should have been deleted. So their families wouldn't be persecuted. Or...maybe the video should simply have been deleted. So the US army wouldn't be embarrased. Where should the line be drawn? Who draws the line?

(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]who do i believe is empowered to make that decision? whiki leaks themselves could be so empowered.

They're already so empowered--they already made the decision--you just don't agree with their decision. But since you believe that they should be the ones who decide what you should/should not be told then you have no basis for your complaint.

(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]come on lets be honest here. is society any better off fro now a shagged be or even shit and most of it is, that's in the war leaks. sorry but we're not better off. the majority already knows and knew of killed civilians of drones dropping bombs everywhere.
How does the majority know that? Answer: because of leaks.

People have short memories. If the leaks stopped, people would forget, and wouldn't care. Until something they objected to was done to them...and not heard about.

(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]now the leaks that show how much a senator is stealing and from where i like. but as i say. some things in my opinion shouldn't be leaked.

Sure, but you've said above that your opinion is irrelevant. You believe other people should decide what should/should not be leaked.

(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]as for them holding the freedom of expression beacon, who for? you me? sorry no, i can't see any altruistic premise for what they do. not when they go on every news channel telling us why they do it.
You're allowing your personal dislike of a postman to turn you off having a mail system. Wikileaks is a valuable operation providing a valuable service. Whether the frontman is a tosser or not doesn't change that.

(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]sorry but to say they're fighting for the freedom of expression is a crock of shit.
If they're not fighting for it, who is? The people trying to silence them sure as hell ain't.

(08-26-2010, 07:01 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ](in my opinion) if those leaks are their stand on freedom of expression or any other freedom i'll eat my hat. freedoms freedom of free speech, freedom to know whats going on, freedom to do etc. that's what what they;re doing or showing. they're playing games. and as for the right to know. aren't the some thing we have the right not to know. so now the world knows and is better for it. wtf does the world now know? what? and how is it better for knowing it?

Even if you don't believe any good has come out of these particular leaks. You can't deny that some good might come out of future leaks. But if we close down the entire channel because you didn't like one thing they said once, you forgo any possible benefit in future.

More freedom is better than less freedom.
Quote:tstone said;

We have an admin section for the same reason we have a government--it's a convenient way to deal with threats. But do you really believe your mods and admins are infallible? Or that they should be beyond question?

right and to tell all the members whats happening would diminish the anbility to do deal with said threats.

Quote:tstone said;
But it still comes down to how much stuff gets deleted? Maybe the names of the soldiers who fired on the civilians from that helicopter should have been deleted. So their families wouldn't be persecuted. Or...maybe the video should simply have been deleted. So the US army wouldn't be embarrased. Where should the line be drawn? Who draws the line?

when crossing it costs even more lives. i think it right the video of that incident was shown. my arguement is the parts of the leak that have a time line which can show those who wish to know that certain info could have only come from certain people. the videos that show atrocities isn't what i'm argueing about. investigations often lead to the guilty party not because they have a name but because they have a solid time line. lots of informers will be living in fear of their lives more so than usual and some my even be killed. i'm saying leave out the leaks that have references to these people. i am not saying stop all of the leaks. my stance against wiki leaks changed when i saw an afghani on the news with his face covered say he and his family has had to move because of the leaks.

tstone said;

Quote:They're already so empowered--they already made the decision--you just don't agree with their decision. But since you believe that they should be the ones who decide what you should/should not be told then you have no basis for your complaint.
so are you saying that because i think they should decide i can't then say. i think they decided wrongly? if i vote for a political party and it gets power am i not allowed to voice my disbelief when i think they fuck up?

tstone said;

Quote:How does the majority know that? Answer: because of leaks.

People have short memories. If the leaks stopped, people would forget, and wouldn't care. Until something they objected to was done to them...and not heard about.

the majority knew before the leaks. the leaks in general to tell them anything they didn't already know but some could tell who those who helpd were. (the informers)

seriously do you really think these leaks will make any difference. these too will be out of the publics mind very soon if not already. most won't have even read any of them. all it is, is an empty vessle in that it's filled with what we already know. what we already see every day.

seriously. the majority of the public won't even know who or what wikileqks is. " oh yes they were on the news" they'll say.

Quote:tstone said;
You're allowing your personal dislike of a postman to turn you off having a mail system. Wikileaks is a valuable operation providing a valuable service. Whether the front man is a tosser or not doesn't change that.

no i'm not. my belligerence at wikileaks in general is that i think they made a cock up and i'm have a rant about it. i ranted about these particular leaks before even seeing golden boy lmao.

again, in general i'm for wikileaks, i'm just of a position they got some of these ones wrong, that they didn't really take the time to read what they put out there,

Quote:tstone said;
Sure, but you've said above that your opinion is irrelevant. You believe other people should decide what should/should not be leaked.
yes, whats wrong with that. my opinion carries no weight on the matter but i'm still entitled to it aren't i? i'm entitled to voice it should i think they've cocked up. the same way i rant about the bp fiasco. my opinion is irrelevant but i can still have it.

Quote:tstone said;(meaning freedom or truth)
If they're not fighting for it, who is? The people trying to silence them sure as hell ain't.

you again blanket statement my view. i think on this one they went too far. i couldn't care less about their other truths. and lets be clear on this. they are not showing the truth, they are showing other peoples truth. (supposedly)

Quote:tstone said:

Even if you don't believe any good has come out of these particular leaks. You can't deny that some good might come out of future leaks. But if we close down the entire channel because you didn't like one thing they said once, you forgo any possible benefit in future.

More freedom is better than less freedom.

i may have said once even twice in or out of rage or frustration that i hope the die in a fire or some such.
but when it was got down too, i've always said i think the wleaks does a good job and that i just don't agree with this one. if i felt (i know who am i? ) they had took a little more care in their release my view would be different. do i really want wleaks closed down, not really but i know look upon it with less respect than i used too.

with freedom comes great responsibility; in response to More freedom is better than less freedom. lest we unleash all prison inmates Sad
(08-26-2010, 10:06 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:tstone said;
Sure, but you've said above that your opinion is irrelevant. You believe other people should decide what should/should not be leaked.
yes, whats wrong with that. my opinion carries no weight on the matter but i'm still entitled to it aren't i? i'm entitled to voice it should i think they've cocked up. the same way i rant about the bp fiasco. my opinion is irrelevant but i can still have it.

Of course you can still have an opinion. I was simply pointing out that saying, "I don't want to decide things for myself but I want whoever decides for me to make the same decisions I would have made," is just a rant.

(08-26-2010, 10:06 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]no i'm not. my belligerence at wikileaks in general is that i think they made a cock up and i'm have a rant about it.

And it seems we're in agreement. Wink

(08-26-2010, 10:06 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]again, in general i'm for wikileaks,

Good. So am I. And I think that's the really important issue here.

(08-26-2010, 10:06 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]i'm just of a position they got some of these ones wrong, that they didn't really take the time to read what they put out there,

We'll have to agree to differ on that.
Quote:Of course you can still have an opinion. I was simply pointing out that saying, "I don't want to decide things for myself but I want whoever decides for me to make the same decisions I would have made," is just a rant.

don't get me wrong if i had a choice over this matter which i do not i would have spent more time and probably released less. but i don't have a choice, i only have an opinion. Wink all i can actually do is rant Wink



Quote:We'll have to agree to differ on that.
yep, and it's good that we can. nice debate from you btw thanks.

i really know its wrong of me to be so hurtful but i wish it were true.
if only to wipe the sweaty smile from his face. could it be that the case was dropped because it would look like he was being persecuted???
So not only is he the feted face of a world famous web-site he's also a bit of a stud--no wonder he looks so smug.
fame swells the ego
(08-27-2010, 08:04 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I am very happy that the existence of web sites like Wikileaks, and that the decision making as to what they chose to make available, is not at the mercy of either the American government, or Billy.

BTW, Wikileaks is hosted by prq.se, the hosting company founded by Fredrik Neij, aka TiAMO, who also started The Pirate Bay.
i could say the same about you for 99.999999% of companies and organisations throughout the world. thank fully the discussion isn't about us Wink

what i find extraordinary is that when someone shouts conspiracy about certain things many come out and say "stop it you idiot"
when something happens to someone they support they change their tune and scream conspiracy. i'm not pointing fingers (we all do the same i think) just making an observation.

yes the women may have colluded but we don't know. for all we know he date raped the both of them Wink but because you like this guy you paint the women as guilty, well done for being unbiased. at least i only wished the guy to be guilty lmao

As for who he is or what he's connected to, neither makes him a saint.


and this is for the very last time. i don'y wish to see wikileaks closed. i'd just like them to take a little more time before deciding what's released (in the afghan instance) before going to the presses.

which if i was running the leaks is what i would have done. Wink
(08-29-2010, 07:56 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]yes the women may have colluded but we don't know. for all we know he date raped the both of them Wink but because you like this guy you paint the women as guilty, well done for being unbiased.

To be fair, it wasn't Velvet who did that. It was the Swedish Prosecutor, who possessed far more of the facts than we do, who decided there was "[no] reason to suspect that he has committed rape" ie. that the allegations were not even plausible enough to be worth questioning him about.

Now you could argue that the Swedish prosecutors don't take rape allegations seriously and just brush off victims. I don't believe that.

Or you could argue that Swedish prosecutors conspire to protect people such as Assange--foreign nationals who site servers in Sweden bringing international pressure from America down on the heads of the Swedish government. I don't believe that either.
TS said;
Quote:To be fair, it wasn't Velvet who did that. It was the Swedish Prosecutor, who possessed far more of the facts than we do, who decided there was "[no] reason to suspect that he has committed rape" ie. that the allegations were not even plausible enough to be worth questioning him about.


and it seemed vf accepted that.

i think i can pretty much guarantee that when the Swedish prosecutors decided tpb should be prosecuted, everyone including myself voiced an opinion that the Swedish prosecutors were incompetent, inept and in no way able to tell right from wrong based on them prosecuting tpb.

did i miss something, did something change over the last year that made them capable and intelligent?

a quote from vf's source.
Quote:"Speaking anonymously, she said each had had voluntary relations with Assange: "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women."

the bold text made me chuckle Big Grin

we know people can smeared, we see it happen every day but that doesn't mean every time some one we like or think of as "my hero" is automatically being smeared when allegations are brought against them.

if i'm being fair, i would say the odds are, it was a smear or ruse to get money. but fairness isn't the name of the game. the outcome is.

i also found this part from the same source a little sad;

Quote:US generals have accused WikiLeaks of wholesale leaking that does too little to protect informants and the identities of Afghan villagers who co-operated with US and British forces.

Assange has riposted that it is US soldiers who have "blood on their hands" and he is seeking to edit sensitive files before posting them online.
yes soldiers do have blood on their hands. i just hope he ends up with none on his because he/they didn't take the time to weed out info that could harm real people.

like i say. i think wiki leaks a good thing, i just think with this one they need to reall take care not to print anything that could cause someone to die.
(08-29-2010, 01:08 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]i think i can pretty much guarantee that when the Swedish prosecutors decided tpb should be prosecuted, everyone including myself voiced an opinion that the Swedish prosecutors were incompetent, inept and in no way able to tell right from wrong based on them prosecuting tpb.

did i miss something, did something change over the last year that made them capable and intelligent?

Lots of people did say they were incompetent. But...they...won. They successfully prosecuted people whom you (and I) believe to be innocent.

You can make a case for them being biased, perhaps even corrupt, but incompetent? Unfortunately not.

And this case is exactly the opposite. Given an individual in many ways comparable to the TPB 4, whom you're arguing is guilty, you're saying they let off without even trying.

Your argument is self-contradicting.
(08-29-2010, 04:01 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-29-2010, 01:08 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]i think i can pretty much guarantee that when the Swedish prosecutors decided tpb should be prosecuted, everyone including myself voiced an opinion that the Swedish prosecutors were incompetent, inept and in no way able to tell right from wrong based on them prosecuting tpb.

did i miss something, did something change over the last year that made them capable and intelligent?
Lots of people did say they were incompetent. But...they...won. They successfully prosecuted people whom you (and I) believe to be innocent.

You can make a case for them being biased, perhaps even corrupt, but incompetent? Unfortunately not.

And this case is exactly the opposite. Given an individual in many ways comparable to the TPB 4, whom you're arguing is guilty, you're saying they let off without even trying.

Your argument is self-contradicting.
Quote:i said;
the Swedish prosecutors were incompetent, inept and in no way able to tell right from wrong based on them prosecuting tpb.

meaning if that is the case, then the chances of them being right when they say he's innocent seems to be very small. given their propensity for getting the truth wrong, one could safely bet on them being wrong.
the fact they managed to get a conviction on innocent people not only shows them tp be inept (they're supposed to prosecute those who are perceived to be guilty) but also deceitful Wink
it was politically motivated and so might be this case
i agree, but that goes both ways. it could have been dropped for fear of him claiming it was a witch hunt.
(08-29-2010, 11:30 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently, the sex was consensual, but he did not wear a condom as the women had expected.
He rode them bareback. That, and only that, is the basis for their sexual assault complaint.
what,they didn't feel the difference?

not everyone has a drainpipe for a willy sj Big Grin
if thats all then it will cert make for good reading when it all comes out. not
Okay... tricking the women into sex without a condom is not illegal. It does make him an asshole, though.
come on, be honest. it's only big in the media.
it's obvious to a point that he never raped anyone though
it would make me giggle no end should he be found guilty of it.

after the charges were dropped i think some spin lawyer took the case on
and probably promised the women lots of cash from the media for their stories
once they collect and everyone makes some cash, the same spin doctor lawyer will
advise them to drop their case.

if nothing else the use of condom sales may rise Smile

as for whats what, we can only surmise the two women are colluding, though nothing id finished till the fat jury sings. tpb can attest to that.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7