Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> And last but not least, Wikileaks seems to be actively perusing leaks in banks and financial organizations. If you bite the hand that feeds you ... The banks are not "feeding" Wikileaks. The people are.
Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
121–130 of 132 posts
Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen anything like Fox News anywhere else?
Brazilian mainstream media is also very partisan-biased, though they won't ever admit it and always strive to come out as politically neutral. While there's a left-centrist party in office, not one positive news is to be shown in mass media vehicles, even when the president receives an international award, the people are kept in the dark about it and you have to follow alternative news to be informed. This discrepanc…
See for example this:
Universal Health Care is the Jihadists' secret weapon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMu6wCqdeyQ
Not carrying guns suggests Norway is not a democracy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EX3km583Dw
For News successfully argues in court that it is allowed to lie in its news: http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you explain why they shouldn't be? i can't think of any reason why a government should expect a right to privacy from their own citizens. the government should work for the people, and they should have a responsibility to provide full disclosure to their citizens. the only reason the government should want to keep things secret from their own people is if they aren't working in our best interests.
It's more to keep the cables from everyone else. They were intended as context-sensitive commentary from diplomats to the US. They were not intended for general release, and as such, contain information and observations that were intended to give the US an advantage over their counterparts at a later time. That is why they're "secret". They're not supposed to be viewed by any other country. If they are freely availab…
Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can't imagine how Wikileaks can be considered a so much more evil organisation than Stormfront I can, in spirit, though I wouldn't necessarily use the term "evil" as the comparator. Stormfront generates bigotry and hate speech. Distasteful and contempible. But Wikileaks spreads as widely as possible information which can pose real security risks to people (such as US soldiers). As a Jew, I'd rather see people supp…
How does Wikileaks threaten soldiers? It's not as if they have a live feed from the battlefield, or their own satellite. Also, they seem to scan stuff before they release it. This "threat" really seems to be blown out of proportion. And what if a Jewish soldier is captured in battle and his enemies are avid readers of Stormfront?
Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#125Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, consider this an IOU. I have to run and give a brown bag, and I will enumerate my reasons when i get back.
I didn't appreciate that the edit link expires. So the problem I have with Assange is, ultimately, that he's a terrible journalist. He's not even a good gonzo journalist. He made the epic mistake of letting the story become about him, and worse yet, making sure that Wikileaks's fortunes (both literally and figuratively) were directly tied to his. He did that in that Wikileaks is paying directly for his legal defenses…
Assange was intentionally the lightning rod. Within Wikileaks his role is similar to Rumsfeld's in the Bush administration. He takes lots of criticism, personal attacks, etc.
The strategy of those wishing to shut down Wikileaks has been to attempt to vilify Assange. This is to be expected. Yes, Assange should have been more careful about who he slept with, but can you blame him at this point for trying to clear his name and stay out of prison?
The release of the password and some of the other organizational challenges that Wikileaks has faced could be the result of a sloppily run organization, or they could be due to someone on the inside being bought off, etc. To accuse Assange of having the motive of self-aggrandizement (considering that he's the only one who has put himself at risk for assassination, prison, etc.) seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.
One thing to consider is that Assange is a poor judge of character -- he misjudged his publishing company, the two female accusers, and probably at least one of the core Wikileaks team members. So yes, Assange has lost a few points... but are you really ready to write him off? This is a guy with exceptionally uncommon courage and will, and he's up against professional intelligence organizations.
Wikileaks has been slowly learning how to do its own proactive PR, how to resist infiltration, etc. We're talking about a very small organization (a startup of sorts) that has had a few growing pains. I think the jury is still out on whether the organization will fizzle out or will continue to gain credibility, integrity, etc.
So far, I think the trend has been that Wikileaks has learned from its mistakes. It has been rather astonishing to me to see the extent to which companies and governments have gone into attack mode against Wikileaks and Assange. For every attack, subterfuge, and machination that has been public there have likely been dozens of others attempted. While these may have succeeded in ways we do not yet know in dealing a death blow to Wikileaks, I think it's too soon to write the organization off. Assange has inspired a lot of people that even in today's world a small number of dedicated people can make large and corrupt organizations very uncomfortable.
Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.…
> How? What violent or dangerous actions have they taken? 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 se…
Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#128I'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…
> If Wikileaks were a terrorist organisation (blowing up buildings and people and whatnot), I'd understand governments to force a ban. We're pretty sure they're not considered a terrorist organization... right?
Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.…
The stuff Wikileaks has released has had all the really sensitive stuff (like, names) removed, right? So, then, isn't the threat that Wikileaks represents mostly indirect (i.e. it might incite civil unrest if people knew what their governments were actually doing)? 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…
Wikileaks is doing what the press should have done years ago. What we need to know enough to look for in the future even if nobody spells it out for us.
Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen anything like Fox News anywhere else?
I think TV journalism isn't American media's stronger suite, but you could fairly say that globally Fox News is the rule rather than the exception.