11–20 of 65 posts
Is this referring to a leak distinct from the origianal wikileaks set? From the wikileaks.org site: "The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February 2010" Yet the nytimes article cites "the leaked U.S. diplomatic cable dated October 2010" Is the actual cable available anywhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People often think of the less extreme act that more people can get behind as being more extreme. It's the same reason that the person who risks death to save 100 people is more heroic than the person who risks death to save 2 people.
The person who risk deaths to save 100 people is indeed more heroic than the person who save 2 people. Are you saying there's no difference between 1 or 100 people?
It requires a greater degree of selflessness to value two lives over your own than it does to value a hundred lives over your own. A fairly large number of people would consider sacrificing themselves to save half the world — that many lives lost is such a tremendous tragedy, it almost seems like an obligation. But few people would seriously think about exchanging their life for a stranger's — they'd say sorry, too bad, you got unlucky.
Is this referring to a leak distinct from the origianal wikileaks set? From the wikileaks.org site: "The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February 2010" Yet the nytimes article cites "the leaked U.S. diplomatic cable dated October 2010" Is the actual cable available anywhere?
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/2011920... Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general. I guess their credibility is now completely out the window
It's of interesting timing - this ousting - especially with the theatre that we're about witness at the UN.
> "The incident illustrates that not even Wikileaks' former media partners are safe from the wrath of the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda." Wait, pointing out a clear conflict of interest and censorship is being "radically pro-transparency"? I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent, but since when is releasing information about a clear abu…
Is it? In today's media climate? You bet your ass.
"Don't Assume WikiLeaks Brought Down Al Jazeera's Director": http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/dont-assume-wi...
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/2011920... Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general. I guess their credibility is now completely out the window
What on earth could I mean? Well, in this particular case- I respect Al Jazeera. I am generally pleased with their journalism as compared to many American firms, and they have a different perspective from many American journalists, which is valuable. It could be a really good thing if Al Jazeera became a popular source for news in the USA. In that light, I can't help but wonder if a little co-operation with the US government is a small price to be paid compared to potential future payoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person who risk deaths to save 100 people is indeed more heroic than the person who save 2 people. Are you saying there's no difference between 1 or 100 people?
Heroism is a question of character, not just results. For example, an assassin who gets cold feet when he sees his target's bodyguards is not as heroic as a police officer who takes a bullet to save the assassin's victim, even though both decisions save the person's life. It requires a greater degree of selflessness to value two lives over your own than it does to value a hundred lives over your own. A fairly large n…
I continually wonder if Wikileaks has considered that, in their fiery no-compromise campaign, they may actually be setting back progress? What on earth could I mean? Well, in this particular case- I respect Al Jazeera. I am generally pleased with their journalism as compared to many American firms, and they have a different perspective from many American journalists, which is valuable. It could be a really good thing…
There's no progress, only perceived progress, where the US gov't gave you the illusion of choice of news networks.