WikiLeaks - Official Thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

02 Dec 2010, 10:19 PM
Diff-chan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

You can't be so ignorant to not know how people like to act about information like this.

I don't really care. It's not like this stuff is being made up whole cloth; it describes actions the US is actually undertaking. We will take the heat from it one way or the other. I don't think this country should escape criticism or consequence from it. I really don't. Maybe if more Americans realized that other people hate us not "because of our freedoms", but because we blow up their friends and families, things can change.

Here's the thing... in many, many incidents over the years, the foreign press reported on bad shit the USA was actually doing while the domestic press utterly ignored it. The rest of the world has a much better idea of the stuff that happens in our name than we do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

The one thing you can do, and what bothers me the most, is release it without thought for the collateral.

As opposed to, say, invading a country that didn't attack us without thought for the collateral? Or firing rockets into other countries and maybe grazing a few innocent civilians on the side?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

A man can 'know' something, but not act until he is given that complete proof. I wasn't saying the # was going to be big, but this will probably force a few people who were not just mad at the US, or suspected that the US was being protected by Yemen, into have the catalyst they were waiting for to be convinced. American press did report on these attacks too, saying that it was the US but that the Yemenese govt didn't verify.

So you are telling me that there are a bunch of people sitting around and saying, "yea, Ackbed, I really wanna join al-Qaeda, but you know, I just need more proof to see if the Great Satan lives up to its name."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

It's information distributed out of it's means illegally.

So the Government says it is "secret" and that's the end of it? Why? Because the government says it is? That's probably the WORST argument for keeping it secret. In fact, it is exactly the stuff the government says is "secret" that Americans should be trying to uncover. The press gave up that job long ago, so now we have an arrogant, power-worshipping, ineffective press more interested in super soaker parties with the Vice President than uncovering the truth. That is much more harmful to this country, to world peace, to prosperity, than a bunch of leaked CYA memos.
02 Dec 2010, 10:30 PM
Thief Silver

Quote:

As opposed to, say, invading a country that didn't attack us without thought for the collateral? Or firing rockets into other countries and maybe grazing a few innocent civilians on the side?

You can say this all you want, but it beguiles the truth. The attack on Iraq nearly wiped out Al Qaeda, we decimated them and the fucked up because we didn't handle Afghanistan well. You say they didn't attack us? But they harbored the ones who did; and did nothing to help us. That should have been disclosed from the beginning, and we should have handled the war better no question; but the losses we have suffered there since we got there, is just now roughly equal to 9/11. Also grazing a few innocent civilians? Civilian deathcount is around 100,000 over 7 years, that's pretty bad (These numbers are probably off, and it's probably worse than this, so I may have to just let this point slide. But we also lack a good # of what Hussein did). But let's also take a moment to take into account Sadam, and Al Qaeda who also have kill counts. Sadam's being from what I can find, at minimum around one million. In I think 30 years of ruling? We're on pace to reach less than half of that, too bad we fucked up the new Govt that's in power and they will probably be terrible too!

Iraq was not a terrible or bad idea, it was a poorly implemented one. We could have just ignored the region too though, which would have been a viable option. Maybe surrendered some freedoms like we have done already for more protection, but just weather the storm until they got their own country that we could just slaughter in a real war.

Quote:

So the Government says it is "secret" and that's the end of it? Why? Because the government says it is? That's probably the WORST argument for keeping it secret. In fact, it is exactly the stuff the government says is "secret" that Americans should be trying to uncover. The press gave up that job long ago, so now we have an arrogant, power-worshipping, ineffective press more interested in super soaker parties with the Vice President than uncovering the truth. That is much more harmful to this country, to world peace, to prosperity, than a bunch of leaked CYA memos.

Quote:

Stolen, leaked, semantics. It's information distributed out of it's means illegally. My problem with this; to be honest, is much less than anything else. This is how information often gets out, not much you can do about it.

Some of this stuff should be put out in controlled channels, because reading them I'm going 'WHY IS THIS NOT AVAILABLE TO ME SOMEWHERE.' If they're not going to release it, someone is going to, or at least someone 'should'. I just want more discretion used with the information that is released.
02 Dec 2010, 10:40 PM
Diff-chan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

You can say this all you want, but it beguiles the truth. The attack on Iraq nearly wiped out Al Qaeda

No it didn't. al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after the attack, and even then, it was a subtly different organization, "al-Qaeda in Iraq." And now, in the end, all we've done is strengthen Iran's hand in the region. You can learn more details about that from the Wikileaks cables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

You say they didn't attack us? But they harbored the ones who did; and did nothing to help us.

Who, Afghanistan? I wasn't talking about Afghanistan. I supported the war in Afghanistan and still would if I knew why we were there. Right now it just seems like we are there to prop up Karzai's corrupt regime and beef up the narco-state. I don't want that.

BTW you can learn more about Karzai's corrupt regime from the Wikileaks cables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

Sadam's being from what I can find, at minimum around one million. In I think 30 years of ruling? We're on pace to reach less than half of that, too bad we fucked up the new Govt that's in power and they will probably be terrible too!

US in 1989: Shining City Upon a Hill
US in 2010: only half as bad as Saddam Hussein

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

Some of this stuff should be put out in controlled channels, because reading them I'm going 'WHY IS THIS NOT AVAILABLE TO ME SOMEWHERE.' If they're not going to release it, someone is going to, or at least someone 'should'. I just want more discretion used with the information that is released.

Yea, it would be great if we had a "perfect Wikileaks" that exercised "just the right amount" of discretion, redacted information perfectly, etc. But obviously that doesn't exist and will never exist. I'll take imperfect Wikileaks over no Wikileaks.
02 Dec 2010, 10:41 PM
Cerozero

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

Civilian deathcount is around 100,000 over 7 years, that's pretty bad (These numbers are probably off, and it's probably worse than this, so I may have to just let this point slide. But we also lack a good # of what Hussein did).

So you're saying it's alright to kill civilians because a cruel dictator did it?
02 Dec 2010, 10:47 PM
Thief Silver

Nope not at all, the less civilian casualties the better, but people can't act as though Iraq was a beautiful and cheery place without the suffering. And that in some ways at least ideally that suffering has decreased. However I think incompetence and mishandling have or at least will lead to a situation that is at a net, fucking shitty.

Quote:

Who, Afghanistan? I wasn't talking about Afghanistan. I supported the war in Afghanistan and still would if I knew why we were there. Right now it just seems like we are there to prop up Karzai's corrupt regime and beef up the narco-state. I don't want that.

No, Iraq. And where do people get off saying they didn't have any presence there? They were forced into a noticeable retreat afterwards until they were able to refocus their efforts with the Taliban, enabling an increased military pressure from both sides while allowing them to regroup and regain control of their organization.

Also I pretty much entirely agree about Karzai, he needs to go, badly. Then it'd just end up another Iraq.

Quote:

Yea, it would be great if we had a "perfect Wikileaks" that exercised "just the right amount" of discretion, redacted information perfectly, etc. But obviously that doesn't exist and will never exist. I'll take imperfect Wikileaks over no Wikileaks.

So will I, which is again why it doesn't really bother me that much anymore. Someone was going to, hell someone had to, just a shame it couldn't have been a wising up govt.

I don't know what I'd do if I met someone who supported Karzai.

Also what's with the idea that we are the only ones killing civilians? War casualties are too high in general there don't get me wrong, but we're not the only ones resulting in deaths.
02 Dec 2010, 11:01 PM
Diff-chan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

Nope not at all, the less civilian casualties the better, but people can't act as though Iraq was a beautiful and cheery place without the suffering. And that in some ways at least ideally that suffering has decreased. However I think incompetence and mishandling have or at least will lead to a situation that is at a net, fucking shitty.

Iraq was shitty before the invasion, no doubt, but it's simply wrong to think that we did not unleash huge amounts of misery. The sectarian war was staggeringly brutal and thousands of people who the country sorely needs today left in fear. There's also the enormous refugee crisis which unfolded. Today, the country is still pretty much a shithole, with much more Iranian influence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

No, Iraq. And where do people get off saying they didn't have any presence there?

Uhh, cause they didn't? But I mean, it's 2010. The invasion was in 2003. If you still think that, I guess there's not much that will convince you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

They were forced into a noticeable retreat afterwards until they were able to refocus their efforts with the Taliban

All evidence points to al-Qaeda "regrouping" in the mountains of Pakistan.
02 Dec 2010, 11:04 PM
Cerozero

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

Nope not at all, the less civilian casualties the better,...

What was I thinking? 100,000 innocent people isn't something anyone should lose sleep over. One wonders why they kept such modest figures secret to begin with.
02 Dec 2010, 11:06 PM
Thief Silver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

Iraq was shitty before the invasion, no doubt, but it's simply wrong to think that we did not unleash huge amounts of misery. The sectarian war was staggeringly brutal and thousands of people who the country sorely needs today left in fear. There's also the enormous refugee crisis which unfolded. Today, the country is still pretty much a shithole, with much more Iranian influence.

And I agree, like I said, it's been horribly handled, we could have done good but really, we failed there. The only good that came of it, which is now overshadowed completely is that after the invasion Al Qaeda ended up on the run. But now they're stronger than before, and the war has actually been brought to them significantly. They've learned to fight better, teamed up with a nationalist group (Taliban) that now owes them for empowering them, making Afghanistan even more important.

Quote:

Uhh, cause they didn't? But I mean, it's 2010. The invasion was in 2003. If you still think that, I guess there's not much that will convince you.

I'm trying to remember why I was thinking they were in there; I mean there is no doubt there was some there but much less than what I can recall. You may very well be right there, I think it's possible I was overdrawing the correlation betweeen Al Qaeda's subsequent defeats after the invasion of Iraq and their presence there.

Quote:

What was I thinking? 100,000 innocent people isn't something anyone should lose sleep over. One wonders why they kept such modest figures secret to begin with.

Just shut up and get out of here if you're not going to add anything reasonable you retarded lamb. Not here to discuss how terrible the loss of lives are, particularly when there is a net gain of lives in the region just because there is a terrible #. yes we know lots of people have died, it's terrible it sucks, fuck the soldiers who do shit on purpose or make these mistakes. And the people who command them, blah blah blah! We don't need to have a fucking discussion on how terrible it is, it's obvious.

Anyways can we get back to the matters on hands? I think I've made some of my points of what I have wrong with the way this information is coming out pretty clear... I think anyways. I'm bad at explaining things sometimes.

I would like to if possible reroute conversation to the Cables we find interesting.
02 Dec 2010, 11:40 PM
Cerozero

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

Just shut up and get out of here if you're not going to add anything reasonable you retarded lamb.

Ad hominem is always the right way to go with an argument.
02 Dec 2010, 11:49 PM
James

I love Wikileaks. Assange is a bit of a douche, from all I hear, but I don't really care to either know or work with him so it's not really relevant to my appreciation for the site's mission. Wikileaks does good works and I'm really looking forward to the fallout of the reputed bank documents that should be coming along in January-ish. This mildly embarrasing nothing of a leak is just a fun little appetizer.

James

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page