By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Canada's weakness brought out by Wikileaks!

bannedagain on 09 December 2010

Man is it me or is this guy going to start world war 3?

Scary sh-t he's putting out.



Around the Network
bannedagain on 09 December 2010
famousringo said:
MrBubbles said:
famousringo said:
MrBubbles said:

you know im starting to think that terrorist is a pretty accurate description of assange.


Knowledge as a weapon of terror?

I look forward to Al Qaeda's suicide squad of primary school teachers threatening us with flash cards and book reports. Do as we say or we will furnish you with information and understanding! Here's hoping our security forces can keep us safely ignorant.

I remember when we used to make fun of fascists and communists and theocracies and dictators for being afraid of books and knowledge. Apparently, now truth is so threatening it even endangers the societies of free, democratic nations. When will our leaders make us safe from the truth?

As for the OP, I'm not at all surprised that the US has plans on Canada's strategic weaknesses. That's just their military being prepared for any contingency. Just diligence, nothing personal. I'm sure they have similar plans for each and every country where they have strategic interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

 

If you have gained any benefit of whats been released then you must be from the taliban or some other group of terrorists.  had fun tracking down all the afghan informants listed in the first releases and murdering them? it had names and locations for them, so it must have been easy.   how are you enjoying your new shopping lists of "vital" targets, too? 

for anyone else, there is no information of any import.  there are no actual secrets revealed.  just a bunch of shit to try and embarass the US and make international diplomacy even harder.

You don't suppose that the Dutch people might like to have a public debate about whether their country should harbour nuclear weapons?

You know what the CIA's motto is? It's "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." A biblical quote which equates information with freedom. An ignorant person cannot take action on something s/he doesn't know about.

WikiLeaks is a group of idealists who believe that the more information they give all people in the world, the freer those people are. I agree that they're being extremely indiscriminate in what information they disseminate, but calling them terrorists is asinine. A terrorist is a person who tries to affect political change using fear and coercion. WikiLeaks is only terrorist if you find information threatening.

IS this info only about US? and why not others if so?



Joelcool7 on 09 December 2010
bannedagain said:

Man is it me or is this guy going to start world war 3?

Scary sh-t he's putting out.


Yah , I don't think it will start a world war. But if some of these targets get blown up. I'm placing the blame completely on him!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Jumpin on 09 December 2010

Considering how poorly US intelligence did with Iraq and the so-called Weapons of mass destruction; I would guess the VG Chartz staff would do a much better job. Seriously, the information is unlikely to be reliable.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Chibi.V.29 on 09 December 2010

All this wikileaks stuff amuses me highly (^.^)



Yeah i know my spelling sucks but im dysgraphic so live with it :3    

---------------------------------------------------Bets--------------------------------------------------

Conegamer - I say that the PS3 will beat the DS next week in Japan  (for hardware sales) Forfeit is control over others avatar for 1 week.

Around the Network
famousringo on 09 December 2010
Joelcool7 said:
famousringo said:
Joelcool7 said:


I wouldn't classify them as just plain terrorists. However I would call them cyber terrorists. Also they are using fear and Coercion. What about Assanges threat that if he is charged , killed or anything happens to him thousands more documents will be leaked? He's taking the entire United States hostage as these facts damage the countries reputation and also damage specific people.

Example the King of Saudi Arabia asking the US to bomb the shit out of Iran? He asked that in confidence and now if Iran gets a weapon guess who now might be a target? Or how about the Afghan informants who only wanted to live in peace and spread democracy, now they are being hunted down and killed thanks to these leaks. These leaks have also brought to light several soft targets as others have said.

When an organisation uses fear and threats of fear to control people. When an organisation attacks civilians by leaking out dangerous info. When a group funds virtual attacks on other governments then that group is called a cyber terrorist group.

You might think, well this only hurt the US why should I care? Well it doesn't it hurts every one of America's allies and you probubly live in one of the countries affected.

I was wrong. Wikileaks is not releasing this information indiscriminately:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297diplomatic cables it has.  Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, theNYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.).  Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm.

Are The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais, and Der Speigel cyber terrorists, too? If so, how do you propose we sanitize these journals so they stop saying terrorist things? If they aren't, why is Wikileaks a cyber terror group?

No they aren't also terrorist organisations. If they didn't report the news Wikileaks would release cablessomeone else would anyways and they would loose out on stories. News organisations are to report the news Wikileaks tells them that they will release these cables then it is the job of the media to report these cyber terror attacks.

Thats like saying man CNN reported 9/11 live so they are to be held as responsable as the terrorists attacking the two towers. P.S the site you list as a source isn't from any of these major papers is it. I somewhat doubt that these reporters released that many cables in such a short time and that they had input into what was released by Wikileaks and what wasn't.

If a reporter decided to leak a document on their own not from Wikileaks and that document named people who's lives might be taken do to the release of that document. Then that person is a murderer because they are the ones responsable for that person being killed.

By this line of thinking, WikiLeaks is not a cyber terrorist either. If they did not release these documents, the people who leak them would just go to some other media outlet and the story would still get out.

WikiLeaks does not actually fetch this information themselves. Informants give them this information, just like they might give information to any other journalist. An attack on WikiLeaks is an attack on journalism.

What you don't seem to be getting is that WikiLeaks is only releasing the information that their newspaper partners tell them it is okay to release. This being the case, I don't understand how one member of the team is a terrorist and the rest are A-okay-democracy-as-usual.

Cut the cognitive dissonance. Do you want a free press or not?



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

ShadowSnake on 09 December 2010
Tanstalas said:

Oh... based on the thread title I thought this was about the Toronto Maple Leafs


lol best post of the thread!!



Umos-Cmos on 09 December 2010
bannedagain said:
famousringo said:
MrBubbles said:
famousringo said:
MrBubbles said:

you know im starting to think that terrorist is a pretty accurate description of assange.


Knowledge as a weapon of terror?

I look forward to Al Qaeda's suicide squad of primary school teachers threatening us with flash cards and book reports. Do as we say or we will furnish you with information and understanding! Here's hoping our security forces can keep us safely ignorant.

I remember when we used to make fun of fascists and communists and theocracies and dictators for being afraid of books and knowledge. Apparently, now truth is so threatening it even endangers the societies of free, democratic nations. When will our leaders make us safe from the truth?

As for the OP, I'm not at all surprised that the US has plans on Canada's strategic weaknesses. That's just their military being prepared for any contingency. Just diligence, nothing personal. I'm sure they have similar plans for each and every country where they have strategic interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

 

If you have gained any benefit of whats been released then you must be from the taliban or some other group of terrorists.  had fun tracking down all the afghan informants listed in the first releases and murdering them? it had names and locations for them, so it must have been easy.   how are you enjoying your new shopping lists of "vital" targets, too? 

for anyone else, there is no information of any import.  there are no actual secrets revealed.  just a bunch of shit to try and embarass the US and make international diplomacy even harder.

You don't suppose that the Dutch people might like to have a public debate about whether their country should harbour nuclear weapons?

You know what the CIA's motto is? It's "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." A biblical quote which equates information with freedom. An ignorant person cannot take action on something s/he doesn't know about.

WikiLeaks is a group of idealists who believe that the more information they give all people in the world, the freer those people are. I agree that they're being extremely indiscriminate in what information they disseminate, but calling them terrorists is asinine. A terrorist is a person who tries to affect political change using fear and coercion. WikiLeaks is only terrorist if you find information threatening.

IS this info only about US? and why not others if so?

It's not only the US.  Several countries are trying to do damage control.  I don't support Wikileaks, but at the same time it's well within their right to publish these documents.  It's still a dick move, but not illegal.  They are anarchists, not terrorists as some have proposed.  The better question that we should be asking ourselves is who is leaking this information from within our governments.  That's where the real corruption is.



"Some of you are thinking that you won't fight. Others, that you can't fight. They all say that, until they're out there."
--
PIKMIN FAN CLUB MEMBER

Joelcool7 on 10 December 2010
famousringo said:
Joelcool7 said:
famousringo said:
Joelcool7 said:


I wouldn't classify them as just plain terrorists. However I would call them cyber terrorists. Also they are using fear and Coercion. What about Assanges threat that if he is charged , killed or anything happens to him thousands more documents will be leaked? He's taking the entire United States hostage as these facts damage the countries reputation and also damage specific people.

Example the King of Saudi Arabia asking the US to bomb the shit out of Iran? He asked that in confidence and now if Iran gets a weapon guess who now might be a target? Or how about the Afghan informants who only wanted to live in peace and spread democracy, now they are being hunted down and killed thanks to these leaks. These leaks have also brought to light several soft targets as others have said.

When an organisation uses fear and threats of fear to control people. When an organisation attacks civilians by leaking out dangerous info. When a group funds virtual attacks on other governments then that group is called a cyber terrorist group.

You might think, well this only hurt the US why should I care? Well it doesn't it hurts every one of America's allies and you probubly live in one of the countries affected.

I was wrong. Wikileaks is not releasing this information indiscriminately:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297diplomatic cables it has.  Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, theNYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.).  Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm.

Are The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais, and Der Speigel cyber terrorists, too? If so, how do you propose we sanitize these journals so they stop saying terrorist things? If they aren't, why is Wikileaks a cyber terror group?

No they aren't also terrorist organisations. If they didn't report the news Wikileaks would release cablessomeone else would anyways and they would loose out on stories. News organisations are to report the news Wikileaks tells them that they will release these cables then it is the job of the media to report these cyber terror attacks.

Thats like saying man CNN reported 9/11 live so they are to be held as responsable as the terrorists attacking the two towers. P.S the site you list as a source isn't from any of these major papers is it. I somewhat doubt that these reporters released that many cables in such a short time and that they had input into what was released by Wikileaks and what wasn't.

If a reporter decided to leak a document on their own not from Wikileaks and that document named people who's lives might be taken do to the release of that document. Then that person is a murderer because they are the ones responsable for that person being killed.

By this line of thinking, WikiLeaks is not a cyber terrorist either. If they did not release these documents, the people who leak them would just go to some other media outlet and the story would still get out.

WikiLeaks does not actually fetch this information themselves. Informants give them this information, just like they might give information to any other journalist. An attack on WikiLeaks is an attack on journalism.

What you don't seem to be getting is that WikiLeaks is only releasing the information that their newspaper partners tell them it is okay to release. This being the case, I don't understand how one member of the team is a terrorist and the rest are A-okay-democracy-as-usual.

Cut the cognitive dissonance. Do you want a free press or not?


I briefly read the link you gave and did not see the part where these newspapers are said to be okaying everything that is released. I also didn't see the part that says these leaks were not actually called for by Wikileaks and that these individuals just came out of the blue and looked to them to leak it.

You say that these people would have brought these leaks to other individuals if they didn't to WikiLeaks right? If so why didn't any other organisation leak these leaks before WikiLeaks? I'm sure these individuals would have approached more reputable journalistic organisations before resorting to a small time site. The first leaks leaked awhile ago about Afghan informants etc...etc... Are you saying that the people found WikiLeaks before it was known and told them this stuff trusting them with no reputation to leak the information?

WikiLeaks had to have been involved directly with the leaking or they wouldn't be the only one leaking cables. This is a globalized world and their are hundreds of more qualified news organisations to leak to. You say WikiLeaks is only leaking what newspapers and such are authorising. Well considering your list includes so many news organisations all Assange has to say is "I want to release this article" then half of them say no but one or two say yes so their for its okay.

WikiLeaks is an organisation and it can't use scape goats to make it look better. No body else released these documents, WikiLeaks did. If indeed these individuals were hell bent on leaking these documents then why is WikiLeaks the only organisation leaking them? Why isn't the New York Times or the Sun. Or AP.

WikiLeaks leaked them and they should be held completely responsable for leaking them. Plus chances are if WikiLeaks didn't leak these documents no other media organisation would. Because these media organisations know the damage these cables would do and I doubt any reputable one would leak them.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer