US slams 'criminals' behind WikiLeaks

Why in teh world would the average joe care about us diplomats spying on other diplomats from other nations? Is the knowledge going to bring him more money or make his job better?

Same with the presisdent having affairs. Average joes like who gives a fuck.

Some things do not need to be brought into the light of day. I do wonder if wikileaks does things the same reason the media does it, for ratings/attention.
 
It will provide next to no change at all, the only thing it will do is give bored people like us on the internet something to gab about.

Some of the things our government does and the method in which they operate need not be known by the common man. That is the way it has been, the way it is, and the way it will be. Internet warriors can kid themselves that they will bring about "change" with stunts like this, but they wont.


DarkCorp said:
Why in teh world would the average joe care about us diplomats spying on other diplomats from other nations? Is the knowledge going to bring him more money or make his job better?
Click to expand...

Because the average joe leads a boring and dull life in comparison. Reading things about government conspiracies and secret operations and tricking his or herself into thinking they have some inside knowledge or role to play in the grand scheme provides some form of excitement or thrill. Granted I am the opposite, I enjoy being pessimistic and ruining the high of said individuals by constantly reminding them that nothing they do will have any impact what so ever :P.
 
All people are born with a special set of potential, that may see
activation, or not, some people stay average joe, until a certain
time. Information is influencing us, it's kinda 20th century to say
it won't have any impact. Just look at the age of government
paranoia we're in, the secret agencies that spawned just in
the last 10 to 20 years.

Maybe wikileaks is kind of a reality check.

There's always the question, do I care, or not, and sometimes
things happen, that don't let me not care anymore.
Sometime it's just change, and we've got to adapt.

Our mindsets got pretty ass-kicked the last couple
of thousand years, as if someone jump-started
a light-speed evolution device, not considering
our biological evolutions.
 
Bal-Sagoth said:
Some of the things our government does and the method in which they operate need not be known by the common man.
Click to expand...
It's more that certain operations and operatives need to remain secret in order to be effective. There clearly needs to be more transparency it's just naive to want complete transparency unless it's a multinational movement.
 
DarkCorp said:
Why in teh world would the average joe care about us diplomats spying on other diplomats from other nations? Is the knowledge going to bring him more money or make his job better?
Click to expand...
Funny is they are probably not even really "spying". Judging politicans of a different nation is usual buisness. Its not like Germany or France arent doing the same with US politicans. They all have friends or people they like to work with and you spend time talking with them happens to be sometimes about poltics. Some you like others you dont.

Its interesting that when it was released to the public many german people agreed with the diplomants and their opinion about the German politicans :lol:

Its hilarious. Because they are right.

34thcell said:
They've provided change already by publishing this material; that's the point; that we don't really know what happens in international politics and war. The average joe either has his senses deadened from constant rhetoric or finds some marginal view on an internet blog that is often ridiculous.
Click to expand...
And wiki will not suddenly provide here much more because truth told, you dont get names. Not many. Its more about "someone said this about another nation" - "there are combat reports about this and that". But that are things we know already anyway. Guatanamo, Abu Grahib (or what its called) have been known long before Wikileaks existed really. And ? What happend to the people responsible for it. They hvae thrown some female officer in jail and a couple of others. But whats with the people that gave orders ? The generals behind it ? I would not be surprised if those today are in the senate or something.

Thing is, its not in wikileaks interest to call "names" because as soon they would do that you can bet it would be harsh times for them. Crazier things happend then "suddenly" dissapearing people.

On the other side, to simply have informations doesnt change anything. Remember. Vietnam. Iran. There have been many informations present later to the public. There. Go google it you will find tons of tons of information even NAMES in wikipedia. Just 20 years after it all happend. And ? Did it changed anything ? Have people questions their gouvernement after 9/11 ? Or before the attack on Afghanistan? What is now after we know that the nuclear weapon programm with the Iraq was probably the bigest hoax of this century created by the Bush administration ? Nothing. A bit of questioning maybe. But people still suported the war in general just like they did always.

As garlic said. The average goe or lidle jimy only cares if its entertaiment. And that counts for Europe just as it does for the US. By the way I think there are much more important questions then what wiki leaks is adressing. Like why the gouverments of this world havnt done what they promised with the Kyoto protocols. Or why both the US and China still are in a limbo about restrictions for polution everyone blaming the other instead of simply "doing" something.

or bauty contests with 5 year old children (which is prohibited here by the way), with an cosmetic industry behind it which is donig every year 4 billion dollars on the mental stability of children which are drilled by their parents for perfection and "wining" a rather useless contest.

Wiki leaks idea is nice. But I prefer more the usual Wikipedia as it seems like they have a much more realistic goal with making informations and most important educaiton accesable to everyone. Now Wiki will never replace a good university and many of its informations are more generic and sometimes questinable. But Wiki provides great sources. They name books, writers and artists which you can browse, buy and use to educate your self. And after all the real change can only happen with education. The french revolution was not caused over night. Same with the schisma of catholics and protestants. People learned to read and write. Change oppinions and think for them self eventually.
 
As Crni has said, I think wikileaks may be more responsible for "collateral" damage of thsoe who were just following orders. If they actually do start picking fights with the true masterminds, releasing TRULY sensative information then something will happen.

Again to me it feels wikileaks just wants attention and coverage for "supposed" classified documents.
 
I imagine the government would be angry. The website has officialy brought to light that our tax money is handled by a bunch of decietful liars. This whole "national security" thing is bullshit. What amazes me is that people are defending the government here. Oh well, ignorance is bliss I suppose.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Thing is, its not in wikileaks interest to call "names" because as soon they would do that you can bet it would be harsh times for them.
Click to expand...
Actually they claim to be completely anti-censorship and don't censor what they release. Part of the big hoopla about this is that the authors are named.

ncr_insurgent said:
What amazes me is that people are defending the government here. Oh well, ignorance is bliss I suppose.
Click to expand...
You can't have intelligence agencies without secrecy, it's that simple. It's also nice to keep some details of current military strategies/operations secret. Of course operations should become public after they've occurred but again, total transparency is unrealistic and undesirable.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
Crni Vuk said:
Thing is, its not in wikileaks interest to call "names" because as soon they would do that you can bet it would be harsh times for them.
Click to expand...
Actually they claim to be completely anti-censorship and don't censor what they release. Part of the big hoopla about this is that the authors are named.
Click to expand...
Depends what you are talking about.

I mean like for example. If they released the name of a Diplomath which said about the German councler beeing a douche, then well thats embarassing but hardly any secret which will cause the US to fall apart.

though if they would come up for example with something like Watergate ... now we are talking about something in the REAL range of investigation. Its not like Wikileaks is a new thing, as like proven by those situations which have seen the light, like Watergate. I mean here you had journalists working on the part and they never expected such a big story.

There was also this situaoitn with that guy who told something about the Pentagon and the Vietnam war ... during the 70s I think. I cant remember his name ... but it was something big. And he was runing from talk show to talk show ending in jail for 60 ? 70 years ? No clue.

I mean thing is, I am just saying actualy nothing so far that was released on Wikileaks and made it in to the media was something where I would say that it is REALLY schocking or ground braking. I mean battle reports from Iraq which rather questionable content ? Welcome to the age of Abu Grahib ;) ... Or now with those informations out of the US diplomacy. If you ask me Wikileaks is making slowly a joke out of it self. It really seems to become rather a platform of entertaiment then really of "information". Particularly when I am quite sure the only reason we dont see anything biger is simply as those people would dissapear very fast ...

Wikileaks is just another place where the conspiracy nutz can get their porn from which they use to ... well thats better something which is not told.
 
yes, wikileaks is not living up to their goal

while they have leaked stuff that is embarassing/illegal...

none of it is game-breaking

and to be "significant" thats what you have to reveal
 
You're thinking of the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg but he was never sentenced.

The funny thing is that Watergate happened so people could get dirt on Ellsberg.
 
After doing some research, i have to say I agree with what most posters are saying: that wikileaks isn't going to bring sweeping change, at least not right now, and I see nothing wrong with what they're doing.

And I don't think wikileaks themselves should be getting the brunt of this controversy, they only posted the material they were given, the focus (if any) should be put mostly on the people who gave them the info to begin with, because they actually committed the real crime. And stopping wikileaks isn't going to stop this phenomenon (if you will) of leaked info, especially in a time when people are really dissatisfied with their govt.

But like Dennis Miller always said: Thats just my opinion and I could be wrong.
 
thegaresexperience said:
After doing some research, i have to say I agree with what most posters are saying: that wikileaks isn't going to bring sweeping change, at least not right now, and I see nothing wrong with what they're doing.
Click to expand...
The problem how I see it is that Wiki Leaks has no legal ground to work with. Or in other words you cant really hold them liable or responsible for what they "release". Particiularly if it would cause the death of people, if they ever release something with names, even if just accidently.

Now we all are loughing or react with a "schock" when some of those emails and dispatch with oppinions of politicans or videos shooting civilians appear on the net.

And the journalists love to always see them self as the fourth estate though now imagine someone spying on the email correspondence between journalists in the media between the Washington Post or New York times with certain politicans which would be just as interesting like any diplomatic dispatch about foreign nations ~ I supose. Though then you would suddenly find your self on the court for breaking personal rights like privacy of correspondence or the freedom of expression (or any other of those rights to protect the oppinion of the indidivual).

Wiki leaks and some of its suporters actualy use that as argument with the idea to make all informations available and the target for more transparency but they have to remember that this works both ways. And the problem is that they dont feel responsible and who is going to decide what should be released to the public and what not they have no obligation regarding anyone be it a state or nation or court not even to the public!. A journalist by some news papers can be at some point held responsible for his claims, a newspaper or media center sued by a court depending where they are registered ~ if it always works in the curt or not is of course a point to argue about BUT there is at least some level of juristication which eventually has the intention to protect the rights of its citizens though now who is responsible for Wikileaks?. A person like Julian Assange is jeting trough the world, from Kenia to Sweden always in places where the press has the bigest freedom. He and most of his desilusioned ex-hacker freaks (some seem to have a rather ... interesting past you know) dont look to me like people which will feel responsible for any actions and thats the issue I have with it. I am for free access to informations particularly when it is regarding coruptoin or military affairs. But it should be left to professional journalists.

You know when Nixon had this issues with his politics he for sure did not feelt responsible for what he did. But there was a "curt" higher then himself and he gave up his presidency before facing any serious trouble (more or less maybe the details have been different but its just to make a point). He was no almighty ruler nor any dictator or god of the USA. Hence why even if flawed its good to have a gouvernement and authority in the end. Transparency everywhere will lead not nesecary to better decisions or a better world even.

I am curious now that as Island or Sweden (no clue right now) is searching for Juilian Assange via interpol as molester of 2 females how he is thinking about that part "leaking" to the public. What ever if the story is true or not I am not saying he did it and at the moment they only "search" for him he is not convicted. But again a bit more transparency in "his" life might not hurt either no.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I am curious now that as Island or Sweden (no clue right now) is searching for Juilian Assange via interpol as molester of 2 females how he is thinking about that part "leaking" to the public. What ever if the story is true or not I am not saying he did it and at the moment they only "search" for him he is not convicted. But again a bit more transparency in "his" life might not hurt either no.
Click to expand...

I'm also interested in how that's turning out. I've read a couple sources which sort of implied that the charges were trumped up because of the leak, but I don't really trust them.
 
You guys are missing the point, it's not a matter of what happened. The media informs us of that well enough, but it's the context which is largely fabricated. Take the example of Viet Cong prisoner being shot; no one knew the context and that was what the photographer was pointing out; the camera cannot capture the truth. These documents tell us why something happened (at least the American perspective), which is a precedent I think. Such is usually left to conjecture
 
we are talking about Sweden here. They are like saints. I think we should wait what happens and if the situation tourns out to be a reasonable suspicion. Of course the "timing" of it is questionable. But as said we will see. I mean one would have to ask him self as well what will it help if they paint him as sex criminal. Even if Assberger gets in jail it would not change anything or stoping wiki leaks. ANd killing him would just make a martyr our of him. I doubt that they really went for a consipiracy just to "remove" or "discredit". He would not be the first person which became popular and suddenly a female decided its the correct time to come up with what happend in the past. Maybe thinking that she has a chance now to get him or what ever.
 
I never thought the sex charges were part of a conspiracy, like you said Crni its all about timing and opportunity. And like 34th said, wikileaks provides the full truth (or most of it) to our horrible news media here in the US, while they spin the story in their own way, Wikileaks shows us what really happened, without any of the useless sensationalism.

As cynical as it sounds I ALWAYS think the gov't is either lying or not telling us the whole truth, I don't care what party is in office, they all have their motives and all want to fuck us somehow.
 
thegaresexperience said:
Wikileaks shows us what really happened, without any of the useless sensationalism.
Click to expand...
Though do they really ? Who tells us we dont see more "wrong" informations in the future when Wikileaks grows biger.

Its not like everything on Wikipedia is correct either. An hoax can be easily identified as such. But untill that it might be to late when the inforation already went around the word.

There are still people which believe buzz cola and mentos let their guts explode ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top