101–110 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also impresses me by how many posts here believe the media coverage of Assange. Just goes to show, Americans are the most naive consumers of commercial news on the planet, by a considerable margin. All I want to know is where I can send a check. Long live government transparency.
Here's their bitcoin address: 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v
I'm impressed by the amount of comments here that point out some (perceived) hypocrisy in the actions of Wikileaks or Assange. This isn't the point. I myself don't really know what to think of Wikileaks. I, however, do know that major banks and financial institutions find it perfectly okay for you to send money to all kinds of horrible organisations (say, the Ku Klux Klan, clubs that campaign for underage sex, Westbo…
In this case, it's pretty clear the U.S. Government is instrumental in making it happen, not allowing it to happen.
I'm impressed by the amount of comments here that point out some (perceived) hypocrisy in the actions of Wikileaks or Assange. This isn't the point. I myself don't really know what to think of Wikileaks. I, however, do know that major banks and financial institutions find it perfectly okay for you to send money to all kinds of horrible organisations (say, the Ku Klux Klan, clubs that campaign for underage sex, Westbo…
I am just explaining the reasoning. Don't hate/downvote me for saying it ... Silencing people's political opinions (even horrible evil people) is considered bad. This is why donations to these evil organizations is tolerated. Wikileaks is being blacklisted not because of their political opinions, but because these organizations, rightly or wrongly, believe Wikileaks is threatening security of the nation, causing deat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm assuming they're all talk You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? I'm glad for you that you obviously live in a part of the world where hate-crimes are not m…
>Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. How? What violent or dangerous actions have they taken? >This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? No, I think they make posts on the internet about Jews controlling the world economy, sell racist bumper stickers, etc.…
If that's the case, then, why defend hate speech and not Wikileaks? It seems to me that hate speech also has the very real potential of inciting violence (holocaust, pogroms, etc).
I agree with you, though, that Wikileaks probably is more dangerous (in the people-could-get-killed sense) than Stormfront, right now. It certainly seems much more likely that Wikileaks could cause violent rioting (and worse) than that Stormfront will suddenly come to power, although my observations don't extend past the US. It could well be the case that neo-nazis are a bigger problem in other parts of the world.
Personally, I find myself becoming more pro-Wikileaks as I see more interviews of Assange. The man is articulate and logically consistent (a rarity for any public figure) and I've found his arguments quite compelling. If you haven't seen him speak, I'd recommend it. He does a better job defending Wikileaks than anything that I could articulate in a post on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key difference of course is that they are not a government. If you knew the slightest about Assange you would realize that he has always been a campion of individual privacy, while he at the same Itime attacks the privacy of nations and nation sized organizations. It takes some seriously warped logic to see hypocrisy in this, but hell, americas seem to think corporations are people, so I guess I shouldn't be that…
You seem to think the term "privacy" (i) can be applied to large organizations such as governments, and (ii) it bears a significant resemblance with an individual's privacy. I can understand (i) (though I would prefer the word "secrecy"), but you really really need to explain (ii). By the way, even if (ii) is correct, it makes little matter, because of the power balance. As Chomsky often points out, when the powerful…
I'm impressed by the amount of comments here that point out some (perceived) hypocrisy in the actions of Wikileaks or Assange. This isn't the point. I myself don't really know what to think of Wikileaks. I, however, do know that major banks and financial institutions find it perfectly okay for you to send money to all kinds of horrible organisations (say, the Ku Klux Klan, clubs that campaign for underage sex, Westbo…
well, the problem that bankers find with Wikileaks is probably that its not censored enough for them,
look for example what Wikileaks says about the Rothschilds banking family, informing us that the family is trillionaires , while referring to totally credible sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
While The Independent describes "an even older tradition - the ability of the family to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family. Secrecy has been a hallmark of the Rothschilds from the outset."[56]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can see how someone who has not spent significant time living outside of the US could be of this opinion, but every US resident I know who has lived outside of the country for any significant period of time is also of this opinion. You don't need to spend much time reading European or Asian newspapers, listening to or watching BBC, DW, then be insulted by FOX and Clearchannel to see exactly what the issue is.
I'm not an American. I've only been living in the US for the a few years. Of course there's some poor reporting in the US, like anywhere else. I don't know of any European/Asian newspaper that does a better job than the NY Times or WaPo (or for that matter any good regional US paper), for all their faults, and those who are comparable are usually less widely read than the American ones.
I'm impressed by the amount of comments here that point out some (perceived) hypocrisy in the actions of Wikileaks or Assange. This isn't the point. I myself don't really know what to think of Wikileaks. I, however, do know that major banks and financial institutions find it perfectly okay for you to send money to all kinds of horrible organisations (say, the Ku Klux Klan, clubs that campaign for underage sex, Westbo…
We're pretty sure they're not considered a terrorist organization... right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm assuming they're all talk You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? I'm glad for you that you obviously live in a part of the world where hate-crimes are not m…
>Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. How? What violent or dangerous actions have they taken? >This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? No, I think they make posts on the internet about Jews controlling the world economy, sell racist bumper stickers, etc.…
I'm afraid I can only relate anecdotal observations, but my corner of the Midwest does sadly host an active Neo-Nazi population. A couple of my friends in the city where I live have been violently assaulted and injured by self-professed Neo-Nazis (and strangers) venturing here from rural counties looking for trouble to start.
Likewise, I have a couple times seen Stormfront host threads by individuals who disagreed strongly enough with (usually far-left leaning) political protests in this city to seek identification of the protesters in any photos, names, and where they live. Along with not terribly subtle threats of violent retribution.
I can certainly see recklessness in Wikileak's actions, especially revealing identities of covert agents, thereby endangering them.
I would hope at my least anecdotal observation above of Stormfront's connection to violent criminal behavior makes clear both organizations do indulge in recklessness, albeit in degrees being debated here.
Can someone explain why diplomatic cables should be free and open?
They shouldn't. Everyone seems to be ignoring that, so you get my upvote. We should be aware that wikileaks actions are indeed crimes. That said, some cables put it crystal clear, some politicians are really corrupt and are using their privileged position to their own advantage. Do the goals justify the means?