By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 17 December 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

Oh, and I'm also angry at the guy for having "Information that's too damaging that will change world history!" that he's using as insurance.

 

I mean, that's EXACTLY the kind of shit that should be leaked first if you really have it!


Or maybe it's the kind of stuff that needs to be handled more carefully? It depends on what it means. For example if it's a list of American agents in Iran it either shouldn't be released or it should be released with every single name blacked out (which would just show how many of them there are).

So far with this latest bunch of cables they have been careful not to directly endanger lives.

That doesn't sound like "information that would change world history" to me.  To me a statement like that sounds like their is supposed to be some werid conspiracy theory that's true... like 9/11 was an inside job, FDR let pearl harbour happen, Clinton was compliant in a genocide or Russia and the USSA were always on good terms and it was all a show so borth orgizinations could gain more power.

Besiides, Wikileaks is a huge orginization... it shouldn't take that long to censor.

Well I was just assuming it was mostly hyperbole. To be fair the leak itself has change world history, much more so than anything actually in the leaks so far.