| Joelcool7 said:
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?

"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.







