http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com
So Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?
So Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?
(
aMac updated his sig, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 23:15,
Reply)
So Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?
(
taters Bah weep grahnah weep ninibong, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 23:29,
Reply)
So Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?
(
mookay immune to icons since, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 23:35,
Reply)
So Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?
(
boyo81 was laying down his ordinance on, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 23:39,
Reply)
You seem to be lost.
4chan's over there. *points*
(
Kerrisis There's someone in my head, but it's not me., Tue 7 Dec 2010, 0:51,
Reply)
Oh, come on, that was easy meat.
You were practically camping there, just waiting for that to come along...
(, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 2:36, Reply)
Meh..
I used to support wikileaks but not anymore. They've changed from an organisation dedicated to exposing relevant, important information into an irresponsible, shit-flinging horde of baboons who's one aim in life is to embarrass the US government. The release of these diplomatic cables is simply dangerous. For example, The Saudis asking in private for the US to "cut the head off the snake" in reference to Iran. That would be the Iran who already have medium range missiles and are working towards getting themselves nukes. After Israel, who do you think they'll be targeting their nukes on now?
And the latest disclosure - the list of US "critical assets". That's a list of worldwide sites that US believes would hurt them if they were damaged or destroyed. Most of them aren't very well protected. Now who do you think will have scooped up that information with glee?
No. Wikileaks is simply an ego-trip for Julian Assange who's desperate need for publicity hasn't been seen since Lady Di snuffed it.
The cunt.
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 23:40,
Reply)
I'm all for exposing the lies and corruption within a government
but when it comes to releasing locations of secret bases, transatlantic cables etc. I think that goes a step too far. That just feels like releasing information for the sake of it
(, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 0:04, Reply)
Did they release a list of secret bases?
If you're talking about the 'sensitive sites', it is basically a compilation of shipyards, insulin factories, and other non-secret locations deemed to be important for US interests. I would be surprised if there was much on that list that people with the internet couldn't have already figured out.
I don't think that these would be cases of releasing information just for the sake of it, either. Rather, one of the prime goals of Wikileaks is to make conspiracy- that's secret planning by governments without the knowledge or consent of civilians- much more difficult. I can see reasons to disagree with that agenda, but it certainly isn't just pointless releasing of info.
(
the prick of misery pierced my foot on a spiiiike on, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 0:41,
Reply)
Oh, please.
Do you honestly think Iran's going to try *anything* right now? If they so much as sneeze the US will be up their arse with an invasion force and they know it.
Like it or not, the Wikileaks website has done a lot of good by exposing idiocy, corruption, and outright evil. The only reason the site seems to be targetting the US right now is because a) they tend to be more blatant in their assholery, so get caught more often, and b) they make such a meal of this sort of thing.
(
Kerrisis There's someone in my head, but it's not me., Tue 7 Dec 2010, 0:46,
Reply)
Iran Was Just One Example.....
here's an excerpt from the Guardian Q&A where a former Brit diplomat asks a searching question. Ass-Hole dodges:
JAnthony
Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.
Julian Assange small
Julian Assange:
If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.
********************************
The release of these cables hasn't, so far, shown the US to be doing anything particularly nasty or illegal. But what the release has done is make some foreign countries more suspicious, more paranoid and less likely to listen to reason in times of tension. Take North Korea for example. One of the cables says that China is sick to the back teeth of them and would support a unified Korea led by the South. Given what we know of North Korea's regime, what good did releasing that cable do? All it's done is make NK suspicious of the one power that had any pull with them - China.
And, while we're on about China, a cable was released that says Kevin Rudd, Oz's Foreign Minister, urged the US to be prepared to use force against China in certain circumstances. Furthermore, it goes on to say that China should be persuaded to give a degree of autonomy to Tibet and to recognise the Dali Lama. All things that press China's buttons. China goes mental when they think foreigners are meddling in what they see as their internal affairs. That cable alone has chilled Australia's relationship with China. And Australia is totally dependent, economically, on China...
Way to fucking go Wikileaks. Let's see how much more international tension you can ratchet up. Let's see how much more trust you can erode. Let's see if you can kick a fucking war off you slimy bastards....
There is no good reason for the release of these cables. None.
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 1:09,
Reply)
I'm sorry for being a cunt
but I don't see anything wrong in telling people what you really think of them. If David Cameron is seen as a "lightweight" by the US government, the sooner we know the better. If N. Korea knows it doesn't have Chinese support, good.
(, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 2:58, Reply)
You're
not being a cunt - you simply disagree with me - which is fine.
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 3:22,
Reply)
FInally! Someone capable of a reasoned debate over this
rather than just screaming "String 'im up!".
Having read through the question put to Julian Assange a couple of times, it strikes me that it's not designed to illicit facts or debate, it's designed to illicit a strong emotional response. In other words, what you've posted there is a very well written (and distinctly verbose) trolling attempt. Not responding to it was probably the best thing Assange could have done.
North Korea: Yes, the cable relating to them may well chill down their relationship with China. NK, however, is mostly mouth and trousers (See their claims at being a nuclear power - If they have nukes, I'm Anne Widdicombe). NK is in a very tenuous position however, and if they suddenly realise that the enormous superpower who they thought had their back in fact doesn't, maybe they'll rethink some of their more provocative actions.
Austrailia: Kevin Rudd has long been known as a bit of a mouthy pratt, and generally wasn't held in particularly high regard while he was the Aussie PM. While Oz may want to appear neutral on the Chinese front it's been obvious for a while that the Aussie government are happy to be obedient little followers of the US government (just like the UK gov), and the US are definitely starting to view China as their next big global threat. I'm pretty sure that the only surprise in that particular cable was that Rudd was quite *that* indiscrete.
Wikileaks releasing the US diplomatic cables may chill a lot of diplomatic ties temporarily, but it won't start a war, plain and simple. Governments, for all their red tape and systemic idiocy, have more sense and self control than you give them credit for. Besides, I doubt there's anything in those cables that most other governments didn't already know through leaks and espionage. The only difference now is that the general public know of them too. As for there being no good reason for releasing the cables at all, I completely disagree. Now that so much dirty laundry has been aired on subjects such as torture, the potential for nuclear accidents in Libya, illegal arms exporting, and a frankly staggering amount of corruption across the world, *maybe some of it will stop*. How can that not be a good thing?
(
Kerrisis There's someone in my head, but it's not me., Tue 7 Dec 2010, 10:36,
Reply)
*Rolls Up Sleeves*
It's undeniable that NK have nukes. They've made several, verified, nuclear explosions. OK - they might not have weaponized them yet (made them small enough to be put on a missile or artillery shell) but the fact that they have them is undeniable. In fact, they've had them for so long that they've exported the technology to other countries - Pakistan. And Pakistan *do* have the expertise to weaponize nukes. A scared NK or rather a scare Kim-Jong, is not something the world needs. He's easily crazy enough to launch nukes if he feels threatened. And at the moment, due to the shelling of SK, he's feeling very, very fucking nervous. Only China is holding him back.
K Rudd. I live in Oz and we know full well which side of bread is buttered. The Chinese side. Rudds comments were seriously stupid. We'd much rather piss off the Yanks than the Chinese. Our exports to the US are tiny compared to our exports to China. Having that cable leak was probably the worst thing for Australia that could possibly come out of these cables. When we piss China off, they arrest and charge Oz nationals with crimes (actually, with some justification. The last lot charged were guilty as sin but China only arrests them to make a point)
You have a lot more faith in how sensible governments are than I do. But in order for diplomacy to work (jaw,jaw being better than war,war), diplomats have to be able to talk back to their respective countries, candidly, in order to get anything done. The release of these cables (and don't forget we're only up to 951 out of 250 000) hinders the efforts of diplomats to work effectively.
Next point. I take it you know that Julian Arsehole has released the entire, unedited, archive as a torrent? And it's been downloaded over 100 000 times? It's called Wikileaks Insurance. The sad shit has encrypted it and has said the encryption keys will be released in the event of anything happening to him or Wikileaks. He also claims that there's some explosive stuff, some poison pill, contained in the torrent. But the problem with encryption is that it can ALWAYS be cracked given enough motive and computer power. Sometime in the next few months someone will claim to have cracked it and will give out the keys. What will happen then depends on what the archive contains.
And, if Arsewipe is so keen on freedom of information, why doesn't he tell us who leaked this shit in the first place? I mean, if governments aren't allowed to have secrets, then that should mean that wikileaks shouldn't be allowed to keep secrets too.
Last point. The rape allegations. Much as I despise the worm even I don't think there's the slightest shred of truth in them...
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 11:20,
Reply)
*dons boxing bloves*
Queensbury rules, sir?
(Apologies in advance for possible spelling mistakes. I'm on holiday this week and have decided to spend today colosally pissed =) )
I'm going to need some sort of source on the whole NK being a nuclear power thing. The last I heard they'd claimed to have detonated a single test nuke, which the rest of the world said was just a shipping container full of high explosives. Even if they are a nuclear power however, they'd have to be cataclysmically stupid to use them. If they did, the rest of the world would come down on them so hard the country wouldn't exist as a nation within a week, and Kim Jong-Il would effectively have signed his own death warrant. He may be scared and feel his back is to the wall, but is he likely to be insane enough to authorise a nuclear strike on SK or Japan, knowing the consequences? I doubt it.
On to Mr. Rudd. I think you're over-estimating the impact that his comments will have on Chinese attitudes towards your country. The CHinese government aren't idiots - far from it. They may use this as leverage on something economic to get a better deal (which is unlikely to be huge in the long run), and may find some Aussie nationals to imprison. On that subject, one thing I've noticed about the Chinese, they're actually surprisingly fair for the most part, and don't generally do something without justification (like you said).
I agree on diplomats needing to have completely secure communications channels to their governments. One of the major points that most people seem to have overlooked is the fact that these communiques were leaked en masse in the first place. Hopefully one of the results of this fiasco is that the US will tighten the security of their diplomatic communications channels.
You assume that that's what the "insurance" file Assagne posted contained. Since it's not been cracked open and the password hasn't been released yet, no-one knows for sure. yes, encryption can be cracked, but that file's encrypted with AES256. Without the password, getting into that file would take millennia, even if you managed to co-opt every single computer on the planet (and that's taking Moore's Law into account too). Chances are by the time the encryption on that file is cracked the contents will either already be known, or no longer be relevant. Personally I think he was reasonably wise to put a file like that up. The threat of a "massive information leak" is enough to stop the CIA from having him and his colleagues killed, which I have no doubt would have happened by now otherwise (yes, the CIA really are that unsubtle).
I see your point on Wikileaks not revealing the name of their source, and it could be viewed as hypocritical. If they did though, no-one would be willing to release information to them in the future for fear of their lives and/or livelyhoods, would they? Journalists have held the same code of conduct for decades now, why should Wikileaks be any different?
Finally, I agree entirely on the rape allegations. IMO it's another example of the CIA's "hob-nailed boots" approach to their profession.
Over to you, sir! =)
(
Kerrisis There's someone in my head, but it's not me., Tue 7 Dec 2010, 12:25,
Reply)
Oooh..
This is gonna get messy..
It's almost midnight here in Oz and it's bedtime for me. But, I'll reply to you on this thread tomorrow and by Gaz in case it drops down too far.
I do love a good argument. Especially ones where we can fundamentally disagree yet not descend into personal insults.
*Doffs hat*
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 12:51,
Reply)