www.ditl.org

stitch626 wrote:He withholds potentially world war quality information and threatens to release it if he gets taken to trial. His psyche is extremely easy to get, even from our computer chairs.

Yeah, I think that sums it up.

Nice to see our Mercs truly blending in with the local culture...

You cant have an ego and do good at the same time? Better tell thatto... pretty much everyone famous that does charity work or any politician who does good.

Teaos wrote:You cant have an ego and do good at the same time? Better tell thatto... pretty much everyone famous that does charity work or any politician who does good.

If he were doing good, his ego would be less of a problem. However, how is any of this ultimately good? Yes, whistle-blowing of topics like this is quite useful, however he seems to have gone far beyond mere whistle blowing/muck raking.

This is but one of many many things that have come out of this document drop. And as I said, his supposed main goal was to draw attention to the vast over classifiedness of US govermental polcy and the ease at which said documents can be attained.

This event should never have been allowed to happen is his point. Granted what he did was dangerous in many ways, but it could also end up helping the US latter on them revamping the system which they have already started doing.

Mikey wrote:The long run has nothing to do with anything. Whether or not Wikileaks does good or ill is irrelevant - the fact remains that the only reason Wikileaks exists is so Assange can say "Look at me! Look what I can do!" Any results from what they do are purely coincidental.

I'm not so sure about that. Assange is head of Wikileaks, yes. But in title only. He very likely has damn all to do with the everyday runnings of the site, particularly given how much he moves around. He may personally profit in terms of fame through Wikileaks, but the site certainly doesn't exist to serve him.

Isn't he the head by dint of being the founder/originator/prime mover of some sort?

Teaos wrote:You cant have an ego and do good at the same time? Better tell thatto... pretty much everyone famous that does charity work or any politician who does good.

Sure you can. Assange isn't in it to do any good, though. Any good that might come of it is completely accidental; and further, the net result of Wikileaks is bad, not good.

Mikey wrote:

Teaos wrote:You cant have an ego and do good at the same time? Better tell thatto... pretty much everyone famous that does charity work or any politician who does good.

Sure you can. Assange isn't in it to do any good, though. Any good that might come of it is completely accidental; and further, the net result of Wikileaks is bad, not good.

How can you know what's exactly in his head?

I can't, obviously. But let me ask you - exactly whose opinion do you expect me to post, if not my own?

Would it make you feel better if I amended my statement like so:
"Sure you can. I feel pretty confident in saying that Assange isn't in it to do any good, though. Any good that might come of it is completely accidental; and further, the net result of Wikileaks is bad, not good.

Considering he has been fighting this cause in obscurity the majority of his life I am fairly confident he is in it for the cause.


Had you heard much about him before all this?

Nope. Had anyone outside of SE Asia heard of Pol Pot before he started his genocide?

Listen - the guy does what he does, and there isn't any possible reason for it except one of the following:
a) to be a dick;
b) innnate megalomania;
c) all of the above.

There just isn't any other motivation that would lead someone to do what he does.

BTW... "fighting this cause?" He has no cause, save self-aggrandizement.

Unless, of course, you consider threatening any stability in the world (Lord knows there's already little enough of that) as well as endangering lives for no reason to be a "cause."

Have you not read what I and others have posted? You might not agree that that is why he is doing it but it is certainly an option and a perfectly valid one.

Yeah. I've read it. I don't buy it. If the net outcome of an action is bad things, I can't believe that the motivation for the action is a desire to make a positive impact.

Mikey wrote:Yeah. I've read it. I don't buy it. If the net outcome of an action is bad things, I can't believe that the motivation for the action is a desire to make a positive impact.

Regarding the underline: just because you don't buy it, you make an entire jugement call on the guy and his whole movement, deciding you, thereof, know ennough of his psyche to second guess his real motivations?

Regarding the rest of the argument: that doesn't mean anything. Since we don't even know yet what will be the net outcome, so how can you actually say there were, overall, a bad thing? And why can't somebody have good intention but still doing more bad than good in his fight? I mean, there are plenty of environmentalists who ended up worsening the situation by advocating something that they didn't knew would make things worse, and I doubt they weren't genuinely in their fight for the cause.


Saying that somebody who overall do bad can never actually be genuine in their fight, it's almost like saying that somebody who overall do good can never be a sellout. It's logical fallacy, non-sequitur, and I don't know what other rethorical failure.