GameBanshee Forums

As I posted on Facebook I have some reservations about Wickileaks, but finds the way it is making scumbag politicians the world over squeal like stuck pigs most amusing!:laugh:

While i am glad that such movements exist, let's hold on a minute and think about what will be done about supposed crimes of military / politicians, even if they're revealed.

If your first thought was "nothing", then you know how the world works.

Here i would go on about "9. XI", war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more, but while it would prove my point, it would be quite a bit TOO offtopic.

It's my thread, and you can go off -topic as much as you want!

The answer is of course nothing, and even if you change the guys at the top the answer will still be the same (see previous thread). The obvious example of that is George W Bush II, or Barak Obama as he's otherwise known!

What I like most is the destruction of the "classy diplomat" myth. Those people spend a lot of time and money to appear as well-bred, educated, qualified, having good manners and all that. All the while simply gossiping, exchanging demeaning, petty little remarks. Just like the proverbial washerwomen, on whom they look down their political noses.

I imagine the latest wikileaks releases, will do about as much as the last lot... funny for 5 mins, giving the liberal press room to say "See!" the conservative press to say "And?" and it will be forgotten in light of the rest of the more important crap that people have to deal with on a daily basis!

I mean so far there is nothing pointing to any hidden conspiracies... Military and Diplomats have always used derogatory terms for foriegn leaders and domestic leaders etc. and the Russians and Iranians probably have a few choice terms for Obama et al.

It is not so surprising that Iran's predominantly Sunni neighbours want the s*** bombed out of them to stop them getting atomic weapons... pretty much any interested journalism would have suspected as much.

Listening to the self important ass from the Guardian on BBC breakfast this morning was like reading a transcript of a Peter Molyneux interview... big promises on big life changing events... **** all but hype for Wiki leaks to further gain publicity and make money by exclusively selling the story to choice news sources. When the man running the company becomes bigger than the stuff he is touting... you have to wonder if his motives are the same as what he first intended.

I suppsose in term of whether I like Wiki-Leaks or hate it... I am quite indifferent to it. It is important to have something that reveals inconvenient truths - but in the UK we've had Private Eye thats been doing that for a long time, you should check out some of the lawsuits brought up against them!

It just seems lately with Wiki-leaks they are publishing way more than they can be bothered to screen - and unless they are going to take the care to check it - they will become irrelevant as a source of reliable impartial information, we have enough mis-information from left and right wing in the mainstream press as it stands.

Let's watch it spark a globally coordinated initiative against Internet privacy! \o/

(well it worked with planes didnit?)

Hehe, or have Russia, Germany etc. suspend the US embassies diplomatic immunity and arrest them all for espionage!:laugh:

QuenGalad wrote: Those people spend a lot of time and money to appear as well-bred, educated, qualified, having good manners and all that.

In the UK our Diplomats tend to be people who are in-bred, eton educated, under-qualified, born to good manners and with just the right connections to serve abroad, but without the general likability to get an elected seat at home.

Can I pick option number 3: blown out of proportion?

It seems if Assange so much as farts these days, a half dozen major news companies have to be there to make sure they recorded the tone, for it might mean something.

While wikileaks have brought up some good things, I think the mass majority of the time the actual news being brought up is more being blown out of proportion by the media rather than actually being shocking.

As an example, we recently discovered that the States are spying on Canada. Then the article described how they were spying. To be honest, I think the general response in Canada has been "um, so" and "really, we thought they would do, you know, real spying." The information they are collecting is basically the same information you could get out of any Canadian by offering them a large double-double with a Boston Cream on the side.

I don't know, stuff like Pakistani duplicity was fairly well known already. Seeing that there were reports of it being suspected being leaked wasn't a surprise -- basically, we were just hearing the same thing over again, except this time it was coming out of leaked documents.

I really think a few people have to get off their high horses here, Assange included, but I don't mind as much as others I know who feel that these are absolutely destructive to American national security. I am not security expert, but if things like sources in the middle east who could be put into danger are being outted, then I think Assange should stop since he is doing far more harm than good. If he remains with a fairly nebulous gray realm which stays away from actually causing someone real harm, then I am willing to view news stories on the topic as I would them on any other topic -- when the media isn't trying to turn them into the next big thing.

offering them a large double-double with a Boston Cream on the side.

Mmm, Boston Cream pie, [licks lips] so what do you want to know?

How big of a rock do you have to live under for any of this stuff to be news?

Wikileaks are cybercriminals led by an egomaniac.

Kaer wrote: ...
The information they are collecting is basically the same information you could get out of any Canadian by offering them a large double-double with a Boston Cream on the side.
...

The same thing has been said about those Russian spies in US. But Wikileaks profits of the secretive connotation of the word "leak". It seems that the world has accepted that somehow, they have access to other information than the regular media so they must really be in the know! It's the whole conspiracy theory instinct kicking in.

I can understand your regular person getting a pang of satisfaction over this, but why do news companies play along when it's obviously to their detriment?

I'm torn on Wikileaks because I do think some of the things they reveal deserve to be public, however much of it is starting to resemble a personal vendetta from the owner/founder of Wikileaks towards the US and the need for attention/publicity from him - then actual "public service".

The "we will release information soon" approach just underlines this for me, along side the removal of other material while posting a lot of US material.

So right now, I simply think he's hungry for attention.

much of it is starting to resemble a personal vendetta from the owner/founder of Wikileaks towards the US

Off target with that I think Xandax, I suspect the material he's got originates from the US is because their security sucks so badly, and they have a higher number of whistle blowers. Difficult to use info from another country if yu don't have it.

Also if it was an Anti-Yank campaign he wouldn't have released material about how Uncle Sam has been resisting pressure from many Arab states to nuke Iran!

I know I repeat things said here already, but I'll throw my opinion anyway.

While it's good thing some of the stuff revealed there gets to the attention of public, there is a lot of crap which I would comment like "So?". For example, who did not actually know that US is spying more or less everything? Or, why should we care if some diplomat thought that someone is fat and lazy? We all have personal opinions about other people, and while we may state those opinions in private conversations or letters, we still may not let it affect to our behavior in public. Of course, "official" diplomatic messages are perhaps the best place to state those opinions, but did those affect to anything? Until Assange, or anybody else, can prove that those did or do I hardly care of such opinions.

Also, it has begun to seem like Assange just wants to hurt the relations of different countries, perhaps mostly because he can. The point of that?

So, publishing real crimes of nations should be done, but not because of personal vendeta or just because you can, and the publishing should come from the nation, not some guy whose sources we do not know. It's even possible that some reveals are not accurate, totally false, or out of bigger context.

Xandax wrote:I'm torn on Wikileaks because I do think some of the things they reveal deserve to be public, however much of it is starting to resemble a personal vendetta from the owner/founder of Wikileaks towards the US and the need for attention/publicity from him - then actual "public service".

Or some other motive aside from personal vendetta. When I saw this on the news together with other leaks, it does make you wonder what he is up to with all this. Not saying that I have anything against Wikileaks or it's founder Julian Assange. Just saying.

Gets him publicity and status of some sort. Or should that be notoriety? Whatever. Probably gives him a buzz to be in the news.
On the other hand, it is a sort of service... isn't it? :mischief:

galraen wrote:Off target with that I think Xandax, I suspect the material he's got originates from the US is because their security sucks so badly, and they have a higher number of whistle blowers. Difficult to use info from another country if yu don't have it.

Also if it was an Anti-Yank campaign he wouldn't have released material about how Uncle Sam has been resisting pressure from many Arab states to nuke Iran!

It'll worsen the relationship between those Arab nations and the US and perhaps weaken the US influence within the region because those nations will now try to distance themselves from the events and thus the US.

In no way is the US security worse than many others countries. There's just not as much publicity to release them from lesser countries. He'd get much less television time if it was from most other things.

I do question his motives as Wikileaks in itself is closed land in regards of many things such as who contribute financially to the site for example, or even those who support with documents.
Of course then the excuse that it is for safety and what not - however they then put themselves as the judges because they do not care about the safety of other things. That in itself is contradicting the entire philosophy of total openness - it is nothing more than a matter of do as we say, not as we do.

Now as said - I do think some of the stuff should be published, but the motives do not strike me as altruistic as presented, but purely self-serving and with ulterior motives when all things considered.
Therefore - it smells like a personal vendetta.

Altruisitic, definitely not I agree, but I think it's part ego trip, part a power trip, not specifically anti-Yank. Their security is I believe weaker, despite all the precautions they take, because of the much greater volume and greater propensity for whistle blowing. Remember he didn't come by all this material through his own hard work, he was given most of it by an insider.