Thread: WikiLeaks
View Single Post
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old Dec 12th, 2010, 10:12 AM       
Originally Posted by Pentegarn View Post
See this sort of thing it an ad hominem argument. But if you want to compare the holocaust (6 million lives lost) to the stuff on wikileaks lets do so, but let's put it in proper perspective.
No, It's not an ad hominen argument. It's a comparison. If I had used the Srebrenica massacre instead would that have been better? I'll pose that then, would it have been better if nobody found out about the Srebrenica massacre?

Pent, I don't actually think you understand what wikileaks is doing. Nor do I think you understand what information has been leaked to it. The comparison to the holocaust was an extreme example of things that governments do, and then cover them up and keep the information classified. I wasn't saying that anything the US has done in Iraq, Sth America, Afghanistan, the USA, or wherever is on par with the holocaust. You say that a government has a right to keep things classified if it deems them worthy, well, they thought the mass execution of Jews was something that should be classified, and despite everything when the war was over most Germans didn't know about the death camps. They were kept classified. That is the only comparison that I am making with it.

Again, who decides what is kept classified and what isn't? The government? Slightly biased I would say, since they are most likely to cover up their mistakes, crimes, embarrassments and such.

Also, dude, you can't just keep calling me young, childish impressionable, idealistic or whatever when you yourself haven't looked into it. A few posts ago you were saying that Assange was personally hacking into US mainframes or whatever and stealing secret military plans, so there really isn't any reason to bust out the insults.

You also seem to counter argue that fame without purpose cannot possibly be motivation. Tell that to Michael Lohan, every internet sensation on youtube, or John Goslin. None of these people exactly got rich off of their fame, yet they still are fame hogs. Just because you don't get rich off of something does not mean you do not get famous, and for some people fame in and of itself is a motivation. Maybe he is arrogant, maybe his life's purpose is to cement his name in the history books. All I know is a purely unselfishly motivated person would have simply funneled the information to a media outlet that has integrity. If you look hard enough you can still find an example of journalists who just report the news (Meet the Press is an example of this). If I, an average guy from the middle of the US can find one media outlet that I deem trustworthy, he.......
Wait, wait, wait.

Who is "he"?

.....could have too. He chose, that's right chose, not to take that route and went instead for this whistle blower site. All these examples you listed, Watergate, the Holocaust, etc, have all been exposed by the media. In fact let's look at Watergate for a moment. Notice how you could not for years tell me the real name of Deep Throat. The reason for this is they were altruistic, and not a fame seeker, they wanted a crime reported and went about it the exact way one should go to do so to see justice. There was no look at me moment, there was no whistle blower site, there was nothing but someone quietly reporting a wrong, with no expectation of a reward other then maintaining their anonymity.
Assange is not a whistle-blower so he doesn't have to remain anonymous. He is the public face of a web site that has been in the news a lot recently. What does his so called fame chasing actions have anything to do with the validity of a transparent government? You also haven't said whether you think the Watergate scandal should have been made public either. If yes, why?

There's a very sharp contrast between Deep Throat and Assange, one that cannot be denied.
Right, the fact that Deep Throat was a whistle-blower, and Assange is the head of a media outlet. What makes it; a not for profit website, untrustworthy in your opinion, and the highly profit driven news companies trustworthy I don't know. Wikileaks IS media. Are you now saying that it's OK for criminal activity to be brought out to the public so long as it's in a newspaper first?

Looks like that is a military secret to me, it is classified, it is designed to help get support from other countries, and yet now, thanks to some espionage (exposing classified documents about strategies can be called nothing else you see) this particular strategy has been compromised. Why did the whistle need to be blown on this? To show the US uses PR to gain support from other countries? Unless you live under a rock you should know every country does this. Now that this is out there the people have gained nothing, yet the US just lost face in a PR campaign they felt was necessary.
Assange didn't commit espionage to obtain the information. It was given to wikileaks by most likely a member of the US military. It's not espionage, nor is 'exposing classified documents' considered espionage. The fact that such classified information is leaked through this particular website is NOT proof that said website used espionage to obtain it. That's not proof that Assange is a spy, a head of a spy ring, a hacker, or assisting or being an accessory to spies.

The US is not calling him a spy that is stealing military secrets, since if they did so they would have to actually prove it. Why are you so keen to call him a spy and a hacker?

In fact THIS is ad hominem. We can't trust wikileaks because Julian Assange is a spy.

Originally Posted by ZHUKOV
You DO think that the torture of Iraqi civilians by the Iraqi government should have been made public, but the torture of Iraqi's by the US government has to stay secret. Right. Please explain to me how the consequences of A outweigh the consequences of B.
Reply With Quote