Assange to go!

[Collider]

Why is it Assange's fault about what people do with information?

Because he had the power to ensure no harm came from it. He controlled it, he edited it, he could have ensured nothing bad came of it. It didn't need that level of detail to do all the things you apparently want from him and think he can offer you and the world of the Xfactor (I'd recommend turning that off incidentally, you can control what is shown to you).

I think the arguments you make are rather naive actually, Assange is not a crusader we are not ready for, he is selective publisher of facts that suit him.

The one thing I'd agree with you about is that knowledge is power (though for different reasons I suspect)..Assange agrees with you too, look how much he is enjoying wielding it when it suits him. And withholding it when it doesn't.

I wonder how ready you feel for the truth about Ecuador. Assange won't be telling you that, that's for certain.

 

[Xordium]

He has no blood on his hands, .

Oh really:

"1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.

Previous page in case you missed it or were typing the wall of text.

 

[Third Opinion]

He has to come out.

Free speech is a laugh, didn't the South American nations invite Nazi's to come to their countries and protect the worst after WW2.

 

[Castiel]

And what about those civilians who have been killed, tortured and detained? Is it not in their interest that the truth comes out? If no one ever finds out about these things then they will just continue.

Not if the 'truth' causes the death of more civilians, particularly those who are trying to stem the flow of death, torture and detainment by force.

Given that the vast majority of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are a directly attributed to the Taliban and associated insurgencies it seems counter to the claims of wikileak stated mission to release information that puts even more civilians at risk...not to mention the freedom of expression, freedom of speech and Freddon of the individual that those they outed were trying to institute and protect in their own country.

Freedom of information needs to be tempered with responsible and considered assessment of the consequences of releasing such information and the timing of such a release.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Because he had the power to ensure no harm came from it. He controlled it, he edited it, he could have ensured nothing bad came of it. It didn't need that level of detail to do all the things you apparently want from him and think he can offer you and the world of the Xfactor (I'd recommend turning that off incidentally, you can control what is shown to you).

He edited out a lot of information, i'm guessing the more you edit the less context you get . Reminds me of nearly all of our newspapers and TV news.

I think the arguments you make are rather naive actually, Assange is not a crusader we are not ready for, he is selective publisher of facts that suit him.

Hardly, i wouldn't call the publishing of the helicopter video gunning down innocent civilians "suiting him".

The one thing I'd agree with you about is that knowledge is power (though for different reasons I suspect)..Assange agrees with you too, look how much he is enjoying wielding it when it suits him. And withholding it when it doesn't.

He withholds it because like i said we are not ready for it. We don't like being told the truth and as such i think he realises this. The last thing a person with a dying family member wants to know is that the NHS is doing something to jeopardise that persons health.

I wonder how ready you feel for the truth about Ecuador. Assange won't be telling you that, that's for certain.

I couldn't careless about Ecuador, what they do to there people is of no concern to me. And why should it? If the people in that country thought they were being oppressed they would do something about it. We are not the world police.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Oh really:



Previous page in case you missed it or were typing the wall of text.

I'm sorry but quoting out of context is exactly the problem here.

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country.

So he revealed corruption in the elections and the people rebelled. How is that his fault? Again, people are not ready for the truth. They react with violence, as evidenced in the Guardian article. The right course of action would have been to not vote for them.

 

[Collider]

I was actually going to post that he was going to tell you about Ecuador.

Here is a Wikileaks artcile about corruption in Ecuador.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Cable/corrupcion/elpepuint/20110404elpepuint_16/Tes

But as you don't care about Ecuador I guess that doesn't matter.

Nor does it matter he's obviously chosen to forget what he published.

His stance is incredibly hypocritical, as you are a fan of his perhaps you'd like to clarify why you are still a fan when he is doing precisely what you condemn other people for; ignoring facts that don't suit him.

I think Assange likes people who like his version of the truth and his only. And is liked by people who think the same.

 

[LateX'Dog]

I was actually going to post that he was going to tell you about Ecuador.

Here is a Wikileaks artcile about corruption in Ecuador.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Cable/corrupcion/elpepuint/20110404elpepuint_16/Tes

But as you don't care about Ecuador I guess that doesn't matter.

Nor does it matter he's obviously chosen to forget what he published.

His stance is incredibly hypocritical, as you are a fan of his perhaps you'd like to clarify why you are still a fan when he is doing precisely what you condemn other people for; ignoring facts that don't suit him.

I think Assange likes people who like his version of the truth and his only. And is liked by people who think the same.

Your claiming he is ignoring the facts, but how do we know he isn't fully aware of them and decided that this was his only real option?

If you knew eating McDonald's would make your fat, would you stop eating it? Because millions of people still do, regardless of the facts in front of them.

 

[Collider]

Your claiming he is ignoring the facts, but how do we know he isn't fully aware of them and decided that this was his only real option?

If you knew eating McDonald's would make your fat, would you stop eating it? Because millions of people still do, regardless of the facts in front of them.

You really don't believe that is not hypocritical to stand around preaching about human rights and Government violations in some countries and then seek asylum (to avoid questioning about a sex offence) in a country with an appalling record on human rights and Government violations. I think not to regard that as at least questionable defies all logic.

He can't claim ignorance and as for having 'no choice' he has lots of choices. More than most of the people he is writing about have indeed.

He also has lots of fans who seemingly ignore anything about him that is negative to justify his actions. He must be rubbing his hands thinking he can do whatever he wants henceforth and get away with it.

I might once have regarded Wikileaks as pretty daring stuff exposing things we might want to know about. Now I think it's agenda based flummery by someone who won't practice what he preaches.

 

[Glaucus]

If you knew eating McDonald's would make your fat, would you stop eating it? Because millions of people still do, regardless of the facts in front of them.

lol, it doesn't make you fat at all.

He gets far to much support from some people, so much so they turn a blind eye to the facts.

He could have sensored the leaks but decided not to. There's was zero reason to leave them unsponsored. He has responsability due to leaking hem.

As for Manning, what did he or other people think would happen and the people who called for a civilian trial are retarded, he's not a civilian. When in a country respect their law or deal with thre consequences. It doesn't matesr what's you think of those laws. That won't change the outcome.

 

[Xordium]

I'm sorry but quoting out of context is exactly the problem here.

It's not quoting out of context it's quoting the figurehead of Wikileaks saying leaks have subsequently caused deaths. Something you and AGD said was not the case.

 

[LateX'Dog]

lol, it doesn't make you fat at all.

He gets far to much support from some people, so much so they turn a blind eye to the facts.

He could have sensored the leaks but decided not to. There's was zero reason to leave them unsponsored. He has responsability due to leaking hem.

I think the context of the seriousness of the information would have been lost and naming people puts the blame firmly in there hands, rather at person x.

 

[LateX'Dog]

It's not quoting out of context it's quoting the figurehead of Wikileaks saying leaks have subsequently caused deaths. Something you and AGD said was not the case.

Wikileaks didn't kill anybody. The Kenyan people did, once they learned of the information.

I'm sorry but you are looking at this from completely the wrong angle, you seem to think wikileaks information made the Kenyans kill people, when in fact the Kenyans acted on the information given.

If i told you your partner is cheating on you and then you go and kill the next door neighbour, how is that my fault that the neighbour died? You acted the way you wanted to on the information that i provided you.

Which is why we are not ready as a society to handle the information coming from Wikileaks.

 

[Collider]

I think the context of the seriousness of the information would have been lost and naming people puts the blame firmly in there hands, rather at person x.

I think that's a complete rationalisation based on the fact the information has lead to / will lead to harm and the only way people can justify that is blame the people who act on it. When the simple answer is don't let them have it.

Controlling it would avoid these consequences (which of course you say you don't care about, in a nihilist world where you don't care about anything, why you care about this is a bit hard to understand) and everyone can see it would not be diminished one iota to leave out the details that put lives at risk.

It's hypocritical.

 

[Glaucus]

I think the context of the seriousness of the information would have been lost and naming people puts the blame firmly in there hands, rather at person x.

How would it be lost. That's just you being blind as you don't won't to accept wiki leaks didn't anything wrong.

It makes no difference if informants are called their real name or mr X, it does not change the context or anything else. You don't even need real place names.

You saying that just shows how unwilling you are to accept their responsabilities.
Just like media has lots of responsabilities in many areas. Take legal cases where they can't name names. Does that change the context. Mr X raped mrs x, strangled and killed her. Hmm nope, context remains intact.

Media and leaks do not and should never have rights to do what ever they want. They should have to follow frameworks.

 

[Xordium]

Wikileaks didn't kill anybody. The Kenyan people did, once they learned of the information.

I'm sorry but you are looking at this from completely the wrong angle, you seem to think wikileaks information made the Kenyans kill people, when in fact the Kenyans acted on the information given.

If i told you your partner is cheating on you and then you go and kill the next door neighbour, how is that my fault that the neighbour died? You acted the way you wanted to on the information that i provided you.

Which is why we are not ready as a society to handle the information coming from Wikileaks.

Hmm except I didn't say wikileaks killed anyone did I - I quite clearly said that the leaks caused subsequent deaths. Something you now agree with it appears but denied had ever happened at the start. Stop moving the goalposts and building strawmen.

 

[LateX'Dog]

I think that's a complete rationalisation based on the fact the information has lead to / will lead to harm and the only way people can justify that is blame the people who act on it. When the simple answer is don't let them have it.

Lots of information in the past has lead to lots of things.

For example we were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so we invaded to "protect" our country, but it turned out they didn't have anything. So yes the thousands of innocent people killed in the bombings and illegal occupation of Iraq was caused by incorrect information in the wrong hands.

The grass isn't always greener on the other side and i fully appreciate that people may die because of this information, but in the end to me its more important that we know, then not knowing at all.

Controlling it would avoid these consequences (which of course you say you don't care about, in a nihilist world where you don't care about anything, why you care about this is a bit hard to understand) and everyone can see it would not be diminished one iota to leave out the details that put lives at risk.

It's hypocritical.

I never said i didn't care about anything, i said i don't care about what other people get up to. Its not up to me and the people of the UK to make sure that Country X is treating there people right. Its up to the people to make sure of that.

I would much rather be told "Mr X who lives here is a paedophile" then be told that there are paedophiles in my area. How i act on that information is the responsibility of the individual and currently as a society we would react with hate and aggression.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Hmm except I didn't say wikileaks killed anyone did I - I quite clearly said that the leaks caused subsequent deaths. Something you now agree with it appears but denied had ever happened at the start. Stop moving the goalposts and building strawmen.

Hardly. I said he doesn't have blood on his hands and you said "oh really". Claiming that it was his responsibility of the actions from the Kenyan people.

 

[Xordium]

Please don't tell me you needed Wikileaks or something similar to know what the real reasons the wars in the Gulf were fought?

 

[Collider]

Lots of information in the past has lead to lots of things.

For example we were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so we invaded to "protect" our country, but it turned out they didn't have anything. So yes the thousands of innocent people killed in the bombings and illegal occupation of Iraq was caused by incorrect information in the wrong hands.

The grass isn't always greener on the other side and i fully appreciate that people may die because of this information, but in the end to me its more important that we know, then not knowing at all.



I never said i didn't care about anything, i said i don't care about what other people get up to. Its not up to me and the people of the UK to make sure that Country X is treating there people right. Its up to the people to make sure of that.

I would much rather be told "Mr X who lives here is a paedophile" then be told that there are paedophiles in my area. How i act on that information is the responsibility of the individual and currently as a society we would react with hate and aggression.

This argument simply suggests multiple wrongs make a right and they clearly don't. It's nonsensical to justify his actions by quoting the invasion of Iraq. Assange is like the Governments he holds to ridicule and yet people love him for it. All conspiracy fans seem to think its ok to hurt people as long as you are not the person getting hurt.

It can't be right for Assange to put lives at risk simply because the people he criticises have done it.

If you don't care what other countries do or what happens to the people in them then you cannot possibly have any interest in Wikileaks anyway.