You can't show we are doing it. This makes sure it gets done because we now know about it. You can call me ignorant all you want but I'm not the one condemning leaked info. This doesn't make us vulnerable. We already were vulnerable. This makes it so now they can't try to sweep it under the rug.Originally Posted by Type Ryan
Only thing permanent is change
So, you and Razor are okay with WL posting a list of sites that are critical to national security, thus providing terrorists (who have the means to carry out an attack) with a clear picture of where their future attacks should be directed?
"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." -- Winston Churchill
They already know where to place their attacks. This shit didn't protect us on 9/11 and not all of it will protect us now. You are stuck on the idea that now the terrorists know where to strike when now this gives America the chance to fix the problems.
Only thing permanent is change
And you can't show me they're not doing it, so your argument is weak. And you think the government is going to tell you when they are? LOL! Given that the government already spends billions of dollars on national security, and the fact that this information was more than likely shared with top defense officials before the release, I don't see how they're "sweeping it under the rug".
You're stuck on the idea that America wasn't already trying to fix the problem and that this release will all of a sudden light a fire under the government's ass. I see a circular argument forming, so I'm going to stop now. You think it's okay for that particular information to be released, I don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Last edited by Type Ryan; 07 Dec 2010 at 06:18 PM.
"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." -- Winston Churchill
Under 2005 rules, no. But under these current circumstances, I'm willing to take some lumps for the prospect of a future of governments in glass houses to prevail. This is Magna Carta level shit, beyond that even. It's an idea and principle that if succeeds can prevent dictators from rising. Unless those dictators control WikiLeaks. Which is why it would be a good thing to create multiple outlets in the future, to prevent WL from it's eventual corruption.
Last edited by Doc Holliday; 07 Dec 2010 at 06:17 PM.
i drink it up!
Wikileaks censors and reviews all documentation it releases. It doesn't release everything. In fact, anything that puts anybodies life in danger is purposefully withheld. What you're creating is a justification for people to lie and get away with it. This isn't an ideal world, but the government shouldn't be lying as much as it does, or using as much secrecy. The problem here is you're using exactly the justification the TSA does to forcibly molest people - things COULD be harmed. Things COULD be attacked. So what? I think the underwear bomber proved that if someone wants to kill Americans he will find a way. All you're doing is corroding your freedoms.
Start drawing a hard line with what you'll allow the government to take from you.
I gotta be honest, I've been waiting for this exact post by this exact poster.
You know they already attacked the Pentagon, right? There are much more prominent, strategically relevant targets for them to attack besides some bunker where they monitor people's fucking phone calls or whatever the fuck. Secret government locations are not exactly good symbolic victories for an ideological crusade.
Contrary to what you might think from rhetoric, terrorism is not an actual war. They are not trying to destroy America or disrupt the government, they are trying to foster a state of alienation from the West in the middle east by agitating tensions between America and the Muslim world. The whole point of 9-11 was not to destroy America three buildings at a time, it was to get people in Kabul to stop wearing blue jeans.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks