[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way maybe this is a naive question, but what did Wiki gain from doing this?
Did they make money?
Did they make friends?
Did they somehow gain enough power to make money in the future?
Are they working for a terrorist organization?
I don’t understand their motivation, someone help me out.[/quote]
It’s an ego/ideology thing. They believe that they are being altruistic.
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way maybe this is a naive question, but what did Wiki gain from doing this?
Did they make money?
Did they make friends?
Did they somehow gain enough power to make money in the future?
Are they working for a terrorist organization?
I don’t understand their motivation, someone help me out.[/quote]
It’s an ego/ideology thing. They believe that they are being altruistic.[/quote]
Hmm, so this guy is putting his ass in a sling because he thinks he’s helping the world? And this is the same guy who is accused of rape in another country? Something tells me there’s more to it.
That seems odd. How about this instead: Follow the money!
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way maybe this is a naive question, but what did Wiki gain from doing this?
Did they make money?
Did they make friends?
Did they somehow gain enough power to make money in the future?
Are they working for a terrorist organization?
I don’t understand their motivation, someone help me out.[/quote]
It’s an ego/ideology thing. They believe that they are being altruistic.[/quote]
There’s nothing altruistic about their actions. It’s purely selfish and the soldier who stole these files in the first place should be tried for treason.
Take a look at the example of Yemen. Pres. Ali Abdullah Saleh only allows the U.S. military to bomb the shit of al Qaeda there if HE gets the credit for it. Naturally the U.S. says “By all means, as long as we kill terrorists we don’t care who gets the credit.” But these leaks have exposed that and will now lessen the chances that Saleh continues to give the U.S. military such latitude there. Not only that, al Qaeda now knows the extent to which Saleh has cooperated with the U.S. and this will probably lead to all sorts of attempts to remove a leader from power who had successfully worked with the U.S. to kill terrorists. This could be a big blow to the war on terror.
China is another example. China is basically in a position to tell the U.S. to go fuck themselves anytime we want their cooperation. Now that China has a clear look at how the State Dept views China, how it intends to go about getting what it wants from China, etc etc, China has even more leverage over us. International politics/diplomacy is a big poker game and the big stacks at the table are the U.S., China, any country with the potential to be a safe haven for al Qaeda and any country that is already a safe haven (Pakistan especially). All Wikileaks has done is shown everyone at the table what cards the U.S. is holding.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way maybe this is a naive question, but what did Wiki gain from doing this?
Did they make money?
Did they make friends?
Did they somehow gain enough power to make money in the future?
Are they working for a terrorist organization?
I don’t understand their motivation, someone help me out.[/quote]
It’s an ego/ideology thing. They believe that they are being altruistic.[/quote]
There’s nothing altruistic about their actions. It’s purely selfish and the soldier who stole these files in the first place should be tried for treason.
Take a look at the example of Yemen. Pres. Ali Abdullah Saleh only allows the U.S. military to bomb the shit of al Qaeda there if HE gets the credit for it. Naturally the U.S. says “By all means, as long as we kill terrorists we don’t care who gets the credit.” But these leaks have exposed that and will now lessen the chances that Saleh continues to give the U.S. military such latitude there. Not only that, al Qaeda now knows the extent to which Saleh has cooperated with the U.S. and this will probably lead to all sorts of attempts to remove a leader from power who had successfully worked with the U.S. to kill terrorists. This could be a big blow to the war on terror.
China is another example. China is basically in a position to tell the U.S. to go fuck themselves anytime we want their cooperation. Now that China has a clear look at how the State Dept views China, how it intends to go about getting what it wants from China, etc etc, China has even more leverage over us. International politics/diplomacy is a big poker game and the big stacks at the table are the U.S., China, any country with the potential to be a safe haven for al Qaeda and any country that is already a safe haven (Pakistan especially). All Wikileaks has done is shown everyone at the table what cards the U.S. is holding. [/quote]
Good analogy
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way maybe this is a naive question, but what did Wiki gain from doing this?
Did they make money?
Did they make friends?
Did they somehow gain enough power to make money in the future?
Are they working for a terrorist organization?
I don’t understand their motivation, someone help me out.[/quote]
It’s an ego/ideology thing. They believe that they are being altruistic.[/quote]
There’s nothing altruistic about their actions. It’s purely selfish and the soldier who stole these files in the first place should be tried for treason.
Take a look at the example of Yemen. Pres. Ali Abdullah Saleh only allows the U.S. military to bomb the shit of al Qaeda there if HE gets the credit for it. Naturally the U.S. says “By all means, as long as we kill terrorists we don’t care who gets the credit.” But these leaks have exposed that and will now lessen the chances that Saleh continues to give the U.S. military such latitude there. Not only that, al Qaeda now knows the extent to which Saleh has cooperated with the U.S. and this will probably lead to all sorts of attempts to remove a leader from power who had successfully worked with the U.S. to kill terrorists. This could be a big blow to the war on terror.
China is another example. China is basically in a position to tell the U.S. to go fuck themselves anytime we want their cooperation. Now that China has a clear look at how the State Dept views China, how it intends to go about getting what it wants from China, etc etc, China has even more leverage over us. International politics/diplomacy is a big poker game and the big stacks at the table are the U.S., China, any country with the potential to be a safe haven for al Qaeda and any country that is already a safe haven (Pakistan especially). All Wikileaks has done is shown everyone at the table what cards the U.S. is holding. [/quote]
So you’re saying that you believe this guy is in league with the terrorists?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way maybe this is a naive question, but what did Wiki gain from doing this?
Did they make money?
Did they make friends?
Did they somehow gain enough power to make money in the future?
Are they working for a terrorist organization?
I don’t understand their motivation, someone help me out.[/quote]
It’s an ego/ideology thing. They believe that they are being altruistic.[/quote]
There’s nothing altruistic about their actions. It’s purely selfish and the soldier who stole these files in the first place should be tried for treason.
Take a look at the example of Yemen. Pres. Ali Abdullah Saleh only allows the U.S. military to bomb the shit of al Qaeda there if HE gets the credit for it. Naturally the U.S. says “By all means, as long as we kill terrorists we don’t care who gets the credit.” But these leaks have exposed that and will now lessen the chances that Saleh continues to give the U.S. military such latitude there. Not only that, al Qaeda now knows the extent to which Saleh has cooperated with the U.S. and this will probably lead to all sorts of attempts to remove a leader from power who had successfully worked with the U.S. to kill terrorists. This could be a big blow to the war on terror.
China is another example. China is basically in a position to tell the U.S. to go fuck themselves anytime we want their cooperation. Now that China has a clear look at how the State Dept views China, how it intends to go about getting what it wants from China, etc etc, China has even more leverage over us. International politics/diplomacy is a big poker game and the big stacks at the table are the U.S., China, any country with the potential to be a safe haven for al Qaeda and any country that is already a safe haven (Pakistan especially). All Wikileaks has done is shown everyone at the table what cards the U.S. is holding. [/quote]
So you’re saying that you believe this guy is in league with the terrorists?
[/quote]
Absolutely not. What I’m saying is that he is completely ignorant of the effects of his action, largely due to his own hubris and inflated sense of what is “good”.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Most of this “idealistic” and “pie in the sky” thinking has been tried before. Read a fucking history book. It doesn’t work. The United States gets involved with other countries because IT HAS THE POWER TO DO SO. If we didn’t, than these countries, like little children, would burn the house down.[/quote]
If I understand correctly, you are perfectly fine with governments lying to their own people and engaging in behavior that is illegal just so they can advance their political (and hopefully benevolent) interests. Leaks erode power that has no justification of existing in a free society. There is really nothing to argue here. You believe that a state needs to be strong regardless of costs, while I do not.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Most of this “idealistic” and “pie in the sky” thinking has been tried before. Read a fucking history book. It doesn’t work. The United States gets involved with other countries because IT HAS THE POWER TO DO SO. If we didn’t, than these countries, like little children, would burn the house down.[/quote]
If I understand correctly, you are perfectly fine with governments lying to their own people and engaging in behavior that is illegal just so they can advance their political (and hopefully benevolent) interests. Leaks erode power that has no justification of existing in a free society. There is really nothing to argue here. You believe that a state needs to be strong regardless of costs, while I do not.[/quote]
If the only thing being leaked were govt lies and attempts to deceive the people of the United States, I’d have no problem with your assessment here. But that isn’t the case. Read the articles the OP posted. There is MUCH, MUCH more at stake here than what you think. The thoughts of the various Middle East leaders regarding Iran, the examples I mentioned above, soldiers and/or undercover agents’ positions/identities, etc. It’s not like this guy is simply revealing the most blatant examples of deceit. He’s released info that will harm the diplomatic efforts of EVERY country involved here. He should show some discretion at the very least, and he hasn’t.
I have some news for you guys, no one and I mean NO ONE puts himself in harms way without their being an ulterior motive. This guys must be raking in some big bucks from someone.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have some news for you guys, no one and I mean NO ONE puts himself in harms way without their being an ulterior motive. This guys must be raking in some big bucks from someone. [/quote]
So?
[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I have some news for you guys, no one and I mean NO ONE puts himself in harms way without their being an ulterior motive. This guys must be raking in some big bucks from someone. [/quote]
So?
So, you follow the money. Figure out who is making this guy rich and you have the scum who were behind it. Oh that’s right you don’t think they’re scum you like it when America is embarrassed - I forgot.
Assange is pretty radical. He thinks governments are too powerful in general; he wants to hinder their ability to keep secrets so that they’ll collapse. (This is all in his manifesto, which is, of course, online.)
I have my doubts about that project; I’m not sure it really would be good for humanity. I also don’t think it has any chance of working. And I think that it’s reckless to expose the names of people whose safety depends on their anonymity – Assange could have redacted their names, and he didn’t, and that’s pretty icky behavior.
But I do think the reaction to WikiLeaks has been pretty troubling in its status quo bias – the media really seems to want to protect the government from scandal. Traditionally journalism was supposed to have an adversarial relationship with government, exposing corruption and so on. But these days, it seems like reporters are more concerned with preserving access in Washington than with maintaining transparency and accountability. The “story” is that Julian Assange is a villain – not that Hillary Clinton apparently committed fraud, among other revelations. It’s really interesting to see people’s reaction to WikiLeaks because that tells you a lot about their attitude to power and to information.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Assange is pretty radical. He thinks governments are too powerful in general; he wants to hinder their ability to keep secrets so that they’ll collapse. (This is all in his manifesto, which is, of course, online.)
I have my doubts about that project; I’m not sure it really would be good for humanity. I also don’t think it has any chance of working. And I think that it’s reckless to expose the names of people whose safety depends on their anonymity – Assange could have redacted their names, and he didn’t, and that’s pretty icky behavior.
But I do think the reaction to WikiLeaks has been pretty troubling in its status quo bias – the media really seems to want to protect the government from scandal. Traditionally journalism was supposed to have an adversarial relationship with government, exposing corruption and so on. But these days, it seems like reporters are more concerned with preserving access in Washington than with maintaining transparency and accountability. The “story” is that Julian Assange is a villain – not that Hillary Clinton apparently committed fraud, among other revelations. It’s really interesting to see people’s reaction to WikiLeaks because that tells you a lot about their attitude to power and to information.
[/quote]
Govts may have become too powerful somewhere along the way, but I think that power has grown regarding their involvement in the lives of the people they govern domestically. I definitely think that’s the case in the U.S.
But we NEED powerful govts on the international stage that have the clout (militarily, economically or otherwise) AND the magnanimity to bend and shape geopolitical affairs in the direction of “good”, for lack of a better term. Not only is it pure fantasy, but it’s also blindingly ignorant for Assange to think that the weakening of govts around the world will be good for the international community.
There will ALWAYS be madmen at the helm of some country and it is THOSE govts that should be weakened, both in terms of their domestic and foreign policies. But all Assange has done is weaken the strong govts that have the ability to put checks on places like Iran or NK. People can say what they want about the U.S., but we are NOT the bad guy on the international stage. By weakening us, Assange has also served to strengthen countries like Iran, North Korea and organizations like al Qaeda.
Many of these leaked cables have now made clear to Iran who in the Middle East is onboard with them and who isn’t, something that Iran was not fully aware of before. This strengthens them and weakens countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Syria that could have served as some sort of buffer against Iranian aggression. The same goes for North Korea and China/U.S./SK. THESE are the issues that are important, NOT what sort of fraud Clinton may have committed. THESE are the issues that really impact the world. To say that Assange should not be the “story” and that Hillary should be is like saying that corporate espionage should not be the story and that Lindsay Lohan getting another DUI should be.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Most of this “idealistic” and “pie in the sky” thinking has been tried before. Read a fucking history book. It doesn’t work. The United States gets involved with other countries because IT HAS THE POWER TO DO SO. If we didn’t, than these countries, like little children, would burn the house down.[/quote]
If I understand correctly, you are perfectly fine with governments lying to their own people and engaging in behavior that is illegal just so they can advance their political (and hopefully benevolent) interests. Leaks erode power that has no justification of existing in a free society. There is really nothing to argue here. You believe that a state needs to be strong regardless of costs, while I do not.[/quote]
How can you say that power has no place in a fee society? Power what ALLOWS us to have that free society! Are you naive enough to believe that our (relatively) free society would exist if it weren’t for the military might of the United States? LMAO! Why don’t we all just roll around in candy cane fields with fanny-packs filled with rainbow dicks while puppy dogs lick our fucking ears holding hands singing “we are the world”?
And for the record, having a confidential foreign policy strategy is NOT the same as LYING to the people! If public officials break the law, I feel they should be held accountable. The reality of life is that in order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs - I’m fine with that.
With your line of thinking, an NFL coach should shout onto the field, “We’re going to PASS! You should probably blitz because our running back hurt his ankle on the last play and wont be able to block effectively!” We wouldn’t want him to keep a SECRET now, would we? Grow the fuck up. You probably think that it’s a good idea in youth sports to give the fucking LOSERS a trophy - because “they did their best”. Fucking pathetic.
I’d LOVE to hear how you propose to KEEP our society free without being powerful enough to discourage an attack. Please enlighten us. (let me guess, we should all “think loving thoughts” about our enemies and invite them all here for a free education and let them enjoy the benefits of western society by stealing money from successful people and “redistributing” it to those who just couldn’t hack it?)
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The reality of life is that in order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs - I’m fine with that.
[/quote]
No you are not.
YOu are fine with it when the US government does it, but not if Assange does it.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way maybe this is a naive question, but what did Wiki gain from doing this?
Did they make money?
Did they make friends?
Did they somehow gain enough power to make money in the future?
Are they working for a terrorist organization?
I don’t understand their motivation, someone help me out.[/quote]
It’s an ego/ideology thing. They believe that they are being altruistic.[/quote]
There’s nothing altruistic about their actions. It’s purely selfish and the soldier who stole these files in the first place should be tried for treason.
Take a look at the example of Yemen. Pres. Ali Abdullah Saleh only allows the U.S. military to bomb the shit of al Qaeda there if HE gets the credit for it. Naturally the U.S. says “By all means, as long as we kill terrorists we don’t care who gets the credit.” But these leaks have exposed that and will now lessen the chances that Saleh continues to give the U.S. military such latitude there. Not only that, al Qaeda now knows the extent to which Saleh has cooperated with the U.S. and this will probably lead to all sorts of attempts to remove a leader from power who had successfully worked with the U.S. to kill terrorists. This could be a big blow to the war on terror.
[/quote]
So Saleh insists on taking the credit for bobming the shit out of al Queda, yet the only reason they will try to remove him is because of what wikeleaks has exposed?
The whole bombing the shit out of them thing wasn’t enough insentive for al Queda to attempt to remove him, but this new information from wikileaks is where they will draw the line.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m just glad that he’s being completely objective by airing the dirty laundry of China, Russia and other major countries, too.
Oh wait…[/quote]
Why does everyone seem to think that they only target the US? They definitely seem to leak more information relating to Western governments & companies. This is probably partly due to the fact that for obvious reasons it’s much harder to find whistleblowers in China, Russia, Iran etc.
Personally I think that retribution from the US will be the least of his worries.
In October 2010, Assange told a leading Moscow newspaper that “The Kremlin had better brace itself for a coming wave of WikiLeaks disclosures about Russia.”[/quote]
I am aware of the October warning. It is now December. What is he waiting for?
If he’s already posted Russian, Iranian or Chinese secrets, please link me to them.
Otherwise, it’s just words.[/quote]
He has already leaked secrets from all three of the above countries. I’m not going to waste my time finding the links for you when you are clearly putting no effort into finding out the information for yourself. Spend 5 minutes on google & you will see.
It’s fair to say that there has been a disproportionate focus on the US, compared to the above countries, but I have explained that already. It’s much harder to find whistleblowers from countries where leaking information will get you tortured & killed.
Does anyone think that this is just downright dangerous and irresponsible? I don’t know what this guy is trying to prove, or what his ultimate goal is, but this just seems pointless.