www.ditl.org

Your forgetting the most important relationship between lies and lube - most of the time, you get either one when you're about to get f***ed.

I find it funny that one of their excuses for doing this is that the information is available duie tot he Freedom of Information Act... which it isn't. But even if it was, that only applies to citizens IIRC, in which case the guys at Wikileaks should be prosecuted by the US.

Bullshit. Even if you could get it from the FoIA all you'd receive in 6 to 8 years is a stack of papers with MAYBE the header intact and a great big block of black out text in the middle before the signature.

Sometimes, I wonder if such event make a good case against a democratic system. You don't hear that kind of scandal in autocracies likes China.

I wonder if they are laughing at us when we try to sell them our dear "enlightened democratic system"

Of course you never hear of it... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Tyyr wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: That, and the fact that that isn't the only thing that was in there. You've also got quite a bit of insider information that was told to US diplomats in confidence, like the fact that half the Mid East leaders really wish we'd level Iran's nuclear program. Now how will they trust us with that kind of information if it might wind up on Wikileaks in a month? We need to be able to have those kind of frank discussions with people and this could ruin that.

Good point, hadn't considered that. In my defense, I find it rather hard to rally behind politicians arguing against wikileaks when they seemingly activly produce terror-terror to cut my civil rights. On that note I also find it rather hard to be a "better" person and more forgiving than the supposedly world elite.

But your point remains and is very valid.

Atekimogus wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: That, and the fact that that isn't the only thing that was in there. You've also got quite a bit of insider information that was told to US diplomats in confidence, like the fact that half the Mid East leaders really wish we'd level Iran's nuclear program. Now how will they trust us with that kind of information if it might wind up on Wikileaks in a month? We need to be able to have those kind of frank discussions with people and this could ruin that.

Good point, hadn't considered that. In my defense, I find it rather hard to rally behind politicians arguing against wikileaks when they seemingly activly produce terror-terror to cut my civil rights. On that note I also find it rather hard to be a "better" person and more forgiving than the supposedly world elite.

But your point remains and is very valid.

The main reason I'm against wikileaks is due to the fact they could very easily put some of my fellow service memebrs at extreme risk..........

Foxfyre wrote:

Atekimogus wrote:
Good point, hadn't considered that. In my defense, I find it rather hard to rally behind politicians arguing against wikileaks when they seemingly activly produce terror-terror to cut my civil rights. On that note I also find it rather hard to be a "better" person and more forgiving than the supposedly world elite.

But your point remains and is very valid.

The main reason I'm against wikileaks is due to the fact they could very easily put some of my fellow service memebrs at extreme risk..........

Speaking of which, did you see the latest? Now they've leaked a record of locations deemed by the state department to be "vital to national security." If you want, I can provide a link.

Well at least a ton of places are getting in line and shutting them down.
Amazon and PayPal are refusing them service, and the French are trying to shut them down. The French! You know you've done something really bad when the French are willing to fight tooth and nail against you, I mean they can't even do that for their own country.

Foxfyre wrote:The main reason I'm against wikileaks is due to the fact they could very easily put some of my fellow service memebrs at extreme risk..........

Exactly why I'm against it - or rather, that's an indication of the reason. Assange completely ignores the normally-instinctive division between "can" and "should." Yes, he can allow all this information out; but doing so helps nobody, and harms a lot of people. He is nothing more than a media whore.

Sonic Glitch wrote: Speaking of which, did you see the latest? Now they've leaked a record of locations deemed by the state department to be "vital to national security." If you want, I can provide a link.

This kinda made the news in the paper, when we learned that the USA actually and genuinely acknowledge that Quebec's energy production is vital to US's northeastern region. We always kinda thought it was important, but it's nice to read have them acknowledge it officially.

(Yhea, we got inferiority complex to the U.S., what do you expect when you live right next to the world's #1 economy/military/nuclear/cultural powerhouse who treats you like his little brother?)

On the other hand, if such installations are that important to the US, maybe they would be against Quebec separation from Canada. Except if we strike a bilateral deal with Washington to assure energy delivery, upping Canada in the process... hmm.... food for thought.

Yeah, good luck with that.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:but it's nice to read have them acknowledge it officially.

Right... maybe, though, you'd rather have them acknowledge it in a place other than the "strike here first" list.

Mikey wrote:Yeah, good luck with that.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:but it's nice to read have them acknowledge it officially.

Right... maybe, though, you'd rather have them acknowledge it in a place other than the "strike here first" list.

Obviously. But it's notoriously difficult to blow up a dam with hand-patented explosives. Except if AQ manages to get back to the level of operational competence they had pre-2005, I doubt they will be of any remote threat.

These damns have been designed to prevent a sudden collaspe of the structure in case of damage to make for repair time. I think you'd need some serious artillery to punch a devastating hole into them.

There must be targets that offer a much better ratio of damage done/operational difficulty. AQ has to resort to hitting "soft targets" in western countries now. Thanks to competent intelligence work.

Mikey wrote:Exactly why I'm against it - or rather, that's an indication of the reason. Assange completely ignores the normally-instinctive division between "can" and "should." Yes, he can allow all this information out; but doing so helps nobody, and harms a lot of people. He is nothing more than a media whore.

And it seemed like such a good idea when it was first announced. A place where whistle blowers could safely reveal things that needed to see the light of day. Then they just completely lost their minds. I know I hear about it here because it affects the US but are they releasing anything comparable for other countries?

Yeah, Russia got really screwed over about some of their secrets. I believe that some of the Eu got it's dirty little secrets revealed, idr entirely though, but the US wasn't the only one who got screwed.