Topic: Wikileaks

[NickCalder15]

Frankly my dear, I'm 40 years old, I have studied in politics, I was the President of the political departement of my university and I was 3 years a member of the Central Committee of my university do you really think I will waste my time to debate with an ideaslistic 14 years old who doesn't know what the real life is?

My dear? I like the condescension. Creative.

Congratulations on your credentials. But you see you don't have to have them to have an educated opinion and viewpoint on something like this. You just need to know the basics of law (such as what treason actually is), the difference between a free society and a closed-off one, and what the difference between Julian Assange and traditional journalists (hint: Little difference)

But no you don't have to waste your time with me. I don't have to waste my time with you either. I may be an "idealistic 14 year old" (who actually knows what life is, get off your high horse for once) but I know enough about this subject not to be swept up in the widespread mania gripping it, and actually develop an educated opinion. Honestly all those credentials don't mean anything. Have you been in the same room as the diplomats? Were you there when they handed over prisoners to Iraqi interrogators (or when diplomats pressured other diplomats into accepting prisoners)? No you weren't. Trust me being on a committee in school must be a lot different from being in the same room as some of the most influential diplomats on the planet.

And one final note: Age has little to do with this debate. We are discussing the morality (or I am trying to discuss) of accepting Julian Assange's death, the separation of him and journalists, the US government's reaction etc. Please if you want to leave, please do. I'll continue my discussion with Jon, who I just met and already have a load of respect for.

Anyway onto Jon:

Ah, but we shouldn't be privvy to everything for our own good. People have this perverted view of free-speech.

I call it the back-to-basics view of free speech actually.

A recent Wikileak was a discussion between US diplomats about British troops in Afghanistan. He basically called them cowards and useless. Now I'm biased, of course, but the British army is the best and most efficient in the world, but whatever you think, having some old fart shooting his mouth off is not good for the world to hear. And normally they wouldn't have had any idea of this example. As it was, our media leapt on it, soldiers were suddenly forced to defend themselves in interviews and taken any further, it could have damaged the relationship between the US and UK which is very powerful. And for what? You're absolutely right, it was just gossip and that's why it should have stayed buried.

You do have a point, I admit (and for the immature here who think this is me caving in, no this me being smart and achieving what I want in a debate:
Which is to learn). Maybe it should be buried. But I still think burying this stuff is intensely dangerous and...immoral on the US' part. See while the revelation of what the US was thinking of the UK forces was....insulting, on the other side of that we also got documents which exposed how the British were helping train a death squad in Bangladesh or some place. It applies to Afghanistan's documents. On one side we got troop reports. On the other we get reports of illegal murders by soldiers. Its not a very fair situation, I admit.

This is why diplomacy is so important. Yes, on occasion it is used to cover something up (allegedly), but the alternative is a breakdown of the political system. Assange might as well be a bloody terrorist.

I suggest taking a look at Sweden actually. They have one of the most transparent governments in the world. Most of their documentation is open. The rest- the very sensitive- are all kept secret. Why can't the US and the UK follow suit? Are they too powerful.

And on the terrorist part.
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You can argue the "threats" he is using- the threatened release of 1.4 gigabytes of documents (which I've downloaded hehe)- can constitute a terrorist attack. But the US does a lot worse over in the Middle East. If he's being demonized, why not the soldiers?

Just think about an office situation. A manager goes to see the director and says, "I think Bill in Accounts is a f***ing wanker and I want to string him up by his balls for what's he's done". Meanwhile, Bill is mouthing off to a colleague about his Manager, "who is a prick and if they piss me off one more time, I'm walking out!".

Now the Director, diplomatically arranges a meeting, where Bill and his Manager are very polite to one another. Bill eventually apologises for an error, but points out a problem with the system that allowed him to do it. His Manager accepts this and arranges a review of the system. Everything is fine.

Efficient, but dishonest, because they hate each other guts at that moment. Assange meanwhile would storm into the meeting and show each of them proof of what the other thinks about them.

Result? Anarchy and the business fails for the sake of crap said in the moment by employees who when asked to support their comments, would likely retract them anyway.

We don't need to know what politicians say behind closed doors most of the time. The stuff that has been covered up is another matter, but Assange is releasing everything. He's a prick and the site needs taking down.

In that situation, yes. That's how society is run these days. People are so afraid of what people/countries think of them that they throw a hissy fit when the opinions get to them. I have some advice: Tell each country to get over it and accept the rules of the game. Some country calls your defense forces weak, you reply back and prove them wrong. That sounds naive though.

You know I could keep referencing Sweden. I only dug up some research on them today after a TIME article was sent to me and I was astounded by how well it is. That's why so many people are surprised by the reaction to the release over there in Sweden. Here's a proper course of action: Don't write your opinions down on paper. I may come off a bit naive but that's how I think it should be done.

Assange is a bit of an idiot, I know. He was a bit over-the-top with the dumping. But. He's also not indiscriminately dumping them with Cablegate either. Personally until I see proper harm come out of this (which we won't know about since it'll be behind closed doors), I'm just gonna keep supporting the free society view. But you do bring some good points. I applaud you.

[hal9g]

Assange is nothing but a journalistic ambulance chaser!  He is the recipient of stolen property in addition to other charges that have been mentioned.

This concept that total transparency is good for the world is both naive and misguided.

The idea that the U.S has committed "crimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan is also naive and misguided.  When a country is attacked as we have been over and over again by terrorists, then we have every right to go wherever they are and kill them to prevent future attacks.

To believe otherwise is to believe in the Land of Oz.  It would be lovely if "we could all just get along", but it is never going to happen, so the job of any government is to protect its citizens from all threats to their lives and property by whatever means necessary!

Here's a reminder of the terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated against us and the death tolls involved:

1975
    Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.

1979
    Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982–1991
    Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
    April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
    Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
    Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
    Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
    Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985
    April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
    June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
    Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
    Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
    April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
    April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
    Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
    Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
    April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
    Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
    June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
    Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
    Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
    Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002
    June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003 1
    May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
    May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
    June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
    Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
    Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006
    Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.

2007
    Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
    Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.
2008
    May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
    June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
    June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
    July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.
    Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
    Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
    Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.
2009
    Feb. 9, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills four American soldiers and their Iraqi translator near a police checkpoint.
    April 10, Iraq: a suicide attack kills five American soldiers and two Iraqi policemen.
    June 1, Little Rock, Arkansas: Abdulhakim Muhammed, a Muslim convert from Memphis, Tennessee, is charged with shooting two soldiers outside a military recruiting center. One is killed and the other is wounded. In a January 2010 letter to the judge hearing his case, Muhammed asked to change his plea from not guilty to guilty, claimed ties to al-Qaeda, and called the shooting a jihadi attack "to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."
    Dec. 25: A Nigerian man on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit attempted to ignite an explosive device hidden in his underwear. The explosive device that failed to detonate was a mixture of powder and liquid that did not alert security personnel in the airport. The alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told officials later that he was directed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The suspect was already on the government's watch list when he attempted the bombing; his father, a respected Nigerian banker, had told the U.S. government that he was worried about his son's increased extremism.
    Dec. 30, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills eight Americans civilians, seven of them CIA agents, at a base in Afghanistan. It's the deadliest attack on the agency since 9/11. The attacker is reportedly a double agent from Jordan who was acting on behalf of al-Qaeda.
2010
    May 2, New York City: After discovering a bomb in a smoking vehicle parked in Times Square, authorities arrest Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani who recently became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and charge him with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and several other federal charges. American officials later announce that the Pakistani Taliban likely played a role in the bomb plot, including training Shahzad.



Read more: Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html#ixzz19zHwrB00

[Jimmy]

When a country is attacked as we have been over and over again by terrorists, then we have every right to go wherever they are and kill them to prevent future attacks.

Have to agree again with you and I'm more surprise than you are with this one since I was against the Afghan war since day one. But now we are a target as much as you are, nothing big had happened yet but it's because the Canadian Secret Service do a really good job at catching them before they succeed. It will be sad day when we will have to close our border and return all the muslim in their countries because of a minority knowing that we are a very welcoming nation, but sometimes the choices seem obvious.

Of course the same small minority who make a big deal with the fact we refuse to take back a terrorist in our country will start to cry again...

[Najemikon]

But you see you don't have to have them to have an educated opinion and viewpoint on something like this. You just need to know the basics of law (such as what treason actually is), the difference between a free society and a closed-off one, and what the difference between Julian Assange and traditional journalists (hint: Little difference)

This is where problems start. Traditional journalists, lawyers, diplomats and politicians are all part of a system they understand explicitly. "You just need to know the basics" is a dangerous statement that undermines professional education. I recognise that I think I understand, but I am happy to defer to someone with proven credentials.

It's an argument I regularly have in film theory, in particular the notion of Genre. Almost everyone I speak to thinks Genre is a subjective term where the viewer is free to decide in which a particular film belongs. In fact, there is much to learn about a film by understanding which Genre a director intended it to be and it is actually a fairly strict set of rules in some cases. But most people are not open to consider it, because they believe their own education is enough.

Now in movies, it doesn't matter, but in politics it could be life and death. Which brings me to...

I call it the back-to-basics view of free speech actually.

No such thing. Free speech has never changed, just people thinking they understand it. Basically it's freedom to express an idea without risk of persecution, but it is not supposed to be used as an excuse for endangering others. Which Assange is doing.

I suggest taking a look at Sweden actually. They have one of the most transparent governments in the world. Most of their documentation is open. The rest- the very sensitive- are all kept secret. Why can't the US and the UK follow suit? Are they too powerful.

In that situation, yes. That's how society is run these days. People are so afraid of what people/countries think of them that they throw a hissy fit when the opinions get to them. I have some advice: Tell each country to get over it and accept the rules of the game. Some country calls your defense forces weak, you reply back and prove them wrong. That sounds naive though.

You know I could keep referencing Sweden. I only dug up some research on them today after a TIME article was sent to me and I was astounded by how well it is. That's why so many people are surprised by the reaction to the release over there in Sweden. Here's a proper course of action: Don't write your opinions down on paper. I may come off a bit naive but that's how I think it should be done.

A heck of a lot of what you think about this situation ties in with how the populace will react. There seems to be rampant paranoia in both the US and UK, while a country like Sweden tends to be very laid back. Their public have a much more pragmatic attitude.

And that's what it comes down to. Like it or not, we need protecting from ourselves. I mean, if you take Assange's viewpoint, he would probably like to expose court cases to public scrutiny! In a court, each piece of evidence is presented and analysed in a measured, clinical way. As soon as you expose it to the public, they react emotionally and the whole thing is compromised.

As Hal and Jimmy have both pointed out, very tough decisions are being taken on our behalf. We do not have the intelligence, the stamina, the organisation or the context to assess those decisions. At some point we have to hand over trust to the Government and let them pull the trigger for us.

Actually, have you seen Men In Black? There's a wonderful line from Tommy Lee Jones when he explains to Will Smith what MIB is. Smith says, let's just tell everyone there are aliens, area 51, all that. People will understand! Jones replies something like, "a person is intelligent and will understand; but people are dumb and reactionary and will panic". I'm badly paraphrasing, but I always loved the notion and come across it all the time.

I mean, I don't know anyone who wanted to see Meet The Fockers, but it was the biggest film over the weekend! Where are all these thick people?

Oh, this classic clip from The Third Man might give you another perspective on Sweden (Switzerland for the clip, but you get the idea especially as the countries are so often confused!  ). Actually the film as a whole is quite relevant from a certain perspective:

[hal9g]

Jon, the clip form the Third Man is so apropos.

Just look at the lack of progress in the U.S space program compared to the 1950s and 1960s and you get a very clear picture of the difference that "competition", and even strife, creates!

It is an unfortunate fact that we need conflict or we become complacent and lazy!  Just the way it is.

[NickCalder15]

Assange is nothing but a journalistic ambulance chaser!  He is the recipient of stolen property in addition to other charges that have been mentioned.

This concept that total transparency is good for the world is both naive and misguided.

Actually I need to elaborate on that. A few days ago I had a very interesting discussion about that with a good friend of mine. We both ended up agreeing that most should be public, the rest- the really sensitive stuff- needed to be kept in a locked file. Now the sensitive stuff can be up to interpretation. It can be only the really extreme Area 51- type stuff. It can be diplomats and their gossip (although I find keeping all that secret such a waste of time) or it can be troops and operation plans for operations that haven't happened yet. I don't believe in total transparency, not in this day and age. If we achieved that, drug cartels would be killing the moles inside their ranks immediately. I know where to draw the line. I just don't believe diplomats is the line.

The idea that the U.S has committed "crimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan is also naive and misguided.  When a country is attacked as we have been over and over again by terrorists, then we have every right to go wherever they are and kill them to prevent future attacks.

To believe otherwise is to believe in the Land of Oz.  It would be lovely if "we could all just get along", but it is never going to happen, so the job of any government is to protect its citizens from all threats to their lives and property by whatever means necessary!

Ah but you see. I wasn't just referring to general attacks on the insurgents as crimes (although. The Iraq War was perpetrated based on very very shoddy information, and kept up by their own inability to let the country go. Plus Iraq had no real connection to Al-Qaeda. I can accept invading Afghanistan though). I was referring to some of the worst- such as the team that murdered 3 Afghanistan civilians before intimidating one of their own into remaining quiet. I'm not quite sure what happened to them. But I'm yet to see why it was covered up. Too embarrassing, perhaps?

And yes I know, it's why I said it came off as naive and very wishful-thinking. But also: These diplomatic documents don't actually give the terrorists ammunition at all. They just expose some hilarious opinions, embarrass the politicians etc. It's pissing some countries (Russia) off big time. But it's not really destroying relations (Australia and the UK are still strong as ever). I'm yet to see a UK fundamentalist go into London going "Death to the British for helping Bangladesh!"

{Quote] Here's a reminder of the terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated against us and the death tolls involved:

You don't think I know how umm...loved the US is on the terrorist side of the world? But in my opinion it doesn't justify invading Iraq when they had no connection to the idiots who put two planes into two buildings. And all the terrorist attacks after the insurgency began in Iraq and Afghanistan? They knew that was going to happen. Hell they practically began the insurgency in Iraq when they sent tens of thousands of pissed off former Iraq Army soldiers into the arms of the insurgents. Besides: While the insurgents have killed thousands in their side of the war, didn't a US army helicopter gleefully shoot a dozen civilians from a helicopter based on very weak evidence? Seems like an attack to me.

It will be sad day when we will have to close our border and return all the muslim in their countries because of a minority knowing that we are a very welcoming nation, but sometimes the choices seem obvious. 

You're serious? You actually think Canada will close it's border and deport all of the Muslim back to the Middle East because of the idiotic minority? There's just as much danger coming from very idiotic Christians, you know. It's just the Islamic extremists are much more vocal since their country wasn't invaded and their religion insulted globally by the ignorant.

No such thing. Free speech has never changed, just people thinking they understand it. Basically it's freedom to express an idea without risk of persecution, but it is not supposed to be used as an excuse for endangering others. Which Assange is doing.

Ah gotcha. I thought you were referring to an entirely different version of free speech. And with Iraq and Afghanistan, yes he may well be endangering lives (although a Pentagon investigation proved nobody had denied. Innocent until proven guilty, I say) but he's also simultaneously exposing some of their idiotic crimes. With diplomats? It's just hurt feelings at the moment. Clinton is working overtime to repair any damage, Australia is still strong with America as is the UK etc. It's just gonna make people a lot more cautious in their diplomatic dealings.

A heck of a lot of what you think about this situation ties in with how the populace will react. There seems to be rampant paranoia in both the US and UK, while a country like Sweden tends to be very laid back. Their public have a much more pragmatic attitude.

And that's what it comes down to. Like it or not, we need protecting from ourselves. I mean, if you take Assange's viewpoint, he would probably like to expose court cases to public scrutiny! In a court, each piece of evidence is presented and analysed in a measured, clinical way. As soon as you expose it to the public, they react emotionally and the whole thing is compromised.

That is very true now that I think about it. A good point, I'll give you that. The US and UK public is very paranoid (RUN, THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING is the US mentality based on everything I've read in the past several months). However I still hold out hope one day- one day if the US doesn't turn into a fascist state- the public can mature enough to not react emotionally to every single occurrence.

As Hal and Jimmy have both pointed out, very tough decisions are being taken on our behalf. We do not have the intelligence, the stamina, the organisation or the context to assess those decisions. At some point we have to hand over trust to the Government and let them pull the trigger for us.

That's also a mentality that is extremely dangerous. On paper that sounds great. Society isn't mature enough. We need protecting. But if governments get to operate completely in the dark, it can build up corruption, human rights abuses, criminality etc. The government has to be held accountable or the society just risks losing all of their "freedom" in all ways except one- voting. I mean look at North Korea. Their government exists entirely in the dark from them. And what do they do? They sell their weapons, they kidnap South Korean citizens, they torture and murder their own prisoners etc. Although it is...tempered by the huge military force they have on their side.

Actually, have you seen Men In Black? There's a wonderful line from Tommy Lee Jones when he explains to Will Smith what MIB is. Smith says, let's just tell everyone there are aliens, area 51, all that. People will understand! Jones replies something like, "a person is intelligent and will understand; but people are dumb and reactionary and will panic". I'm badly paraphrasing, but I always loved the notion and come across it all the time.

Nope I haven't seen Men in Black (saw the first one though). But that's a very true line. It resonates well. It's just sad it perfectly describes our current society. But I can dream. I can dream (and also protest the welcoming of Assange's death, or him being charged with treason or spying whenever someone brings that up).

Oh, this classic clip from The Third Man might give you another perspective on Sweden (Switzerland for the clip, but you get the idea especially as the countries are so often confused!  ). Actually the film as a whole is quite relevant from a certain perspective:

Ah yes. The disadvantage to having no conflict. I get it. While we've also become closed off from our own governments, we've also become lazy. Yeah. True enough.

Just look at the lack of progress in the U.S space program compared to the 1950s and 1960s and you get a very clear picture of the difference that "competition", and even strife, creates!

It is an unfortunate fact that we need conflict or we become complacent and lazy!  Just the way it is.

Very, very true. Competition is the best motivator 
I wonder how far they'd get into the solar system if Russia decided to begin the space race again. Although this isn't the cold war.

[hal9g]

The Iraq War was perpetrated based on very very shoddy information, and kept up by their own inability to let the country go. Plus Iraq had no real connection to Al-Qaeda.

The Iraq war was the result of two things.  George Bush, Sr's failure to oust Saddam in the first Gulf war AND the virtual universal belief of the entire international community that he was developing or possibly had biological and nuclear weapons.  It had little to do with terrorism or Al Quaeda at the time, but that doesn't mean Al Quaeda wasn't training recruits in the country.  It has been proven that they were.  The UN passed resolution after resolution requiring him to stop the weapons development and allow inspections and he ignored them...to his own peril.  Personally, I  believe the intelligence regarding the development of weapons of mass destruction were true, however, we telegraphed to him months before the invasion that it was coming and he had plenty of time to relocate them to "friendly allies like Syria.  Hell, he sent his whole airforce to Iran, and they weren't even on good terms at the time.

We, the public, only know what the media publishes and the very little that the government allows out.  Which is probably less than 1% of the information that the people in the government(s) had at their disposal when making these decisions in real time.  Arm-chair quarterbacking 10 years after the fact is real easy to do!   

I'm not saying I agree with an all-out ground war the way it was done.  I would have used surgical strikes and blockades instead and just kept them up until we reached our objectives.

[Critter]

 

[Jimmy]

OK we don't talk about politics here and I think the kids is at the wrong place. If he want to talk lunacy fine but there are other places for that.

Sometimes a new "member" isn't welcome or usefull Karsten.

Think about it there isn't a big difference between a spammer, a lunatics, a kids who doesn't know but think he is and a troll...

Seriously this is a forum from movie collector and this is what Eric wanted the day the new forum was launched...
Something goes wrong here since some times and I'm sure Eric won't be proud of it...
There are places to talk about lunacy as there are other places to talk movies and not being insulted for it...

If that place turn like that because a fucking kid got the right to shit on the place and insult the older members, I will be out of here and this time for real.

I'll took a couple of days to think about it and if nothing is done about that troll from down under I will request a detetion of my account and the removal of the written works I did here in the last 3 years.

Like I said I'm serious and ignoring this post will change nothing in the fact that in 2 days I'll decide of my action.

[Critter]

Jimmy calm down again. Nick is an avid movie collector and a huge fan of cinema and television, that's why he joined this forum. He also happens to be somewhat... obsessed with Wikileaks. When he joined the forum he didn't know what there was a Wikileaks thread, and if there wasn't one he wouldn't have made one. But since it is here of course he is going to post in it to speak about something he is passionate about, and of course it would have caught his eye on his first day here. As you will notice he has already been talking about DVD's in other forums but this particular discussion caught his eye, and now three members of the forum are having an intelligent and intellectual debate about a topic and I see nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it then just stop reading this thread.

Also, since when is someone a troll for speaking their mind? I think you need to double check what the words internet troll actually mean.

[NickCalder15]

The Iraq War was perpetrated based on very very shoddy information, and kept up by their own inability to let the country go. Plus Iraq had no real connection to Al-Qaeda.

The Iraq war was the result of two things.  George Bush, Sr's failure to oust Saddam in the first Gulf war AND the virtual universal belief of the entire international community that he was developing or possibly had biological and nuclear weapons.  It had little to do with terrorism or Al Quaeda at the time, but that doesn't mean Al Quaeda wasn't training recruits in the country.  It has been proven that they were.  The UN passed resolution after resolution requiring him to stop the weapons development and allow inspections and he ignored them...to his own peril.  Personally, I  believe the intelligence regarding the development of weapons of mass destruction were true, however, we telegraphed to him months before the invasion that it was coming and he had plenty of time to relocate them to "friendly allies like Syria.  Hell, he sent his whole airforce to Iran, and they weren't even on good terms at the time.

We, the public, only know what the media publishes and the very little that the government allows out.  Which is probably less than 1% of the information that the people in the government(s) had at their disposal when making these decisions in real time.  Arm-chair quarterbacking 10 years after the fact is real easy to do!  

I'm not saying I agree with an all-out ground war the way it was done.  I would have used surgical strikes and blockades instead and just kept them up until we reached our objectives.

What you said about the airforce is very interesting. I'd like to find an article or two on that. But about George senior, when did they announce that? All I've heard is the WMD rumors. I actually read an article once about how Bush was pressuring the CIA and other intelligence agencies to get information which could criminalize Iraq enough to warrant a full scale invasion and occupation. Speaks volumes about the mentality at the time, doesn't it? War-mongering.

It is incredibly easy to arm-chair quarterback 9 years on, yes I'll give you that. But to me that doesn't excuse the gross lack of post-invasion planning, the failure to locate any dangerous WMD's, the human rights abuses that were and still are prevalent across the country, the deception used on the American public, the covering up of deaths etc. At the very least those indicate a revenge mentality by the US at the time (human right's abuses, the pressure to find evidence of WMD's before the invasion), or a mentality that is much worse (the deception used on the American public).


Now Jimmy, Jimmy

OK we don't talk about politics here and I think the kids is at the wrong place

We are on the General board, are we not? I didn't see any rule saying "Sorry guys but no politics here". Or are you the judge, jury and executioner of threads?

Think about it there isn't a big difference between a spammer, a lunatics, a kids who doesn't know but think he is and a troll...

 
Says the moderator who doesn't know the true legal meaning of treason.

Seriously this is a forum from movie collector and this is what Eric wanted the day the new forum was launched...
Something goes wrong here since some times and I'm sure Eric won't be proud of it...
There are places to talk about lunacy as there are other places to talk movies and not being insulted for it...

Oh I know it is. If you check my post history, you'll see me beginning to actively take part in Movie and TV discussion. I just saw this thread and since I've become so passionate about it in the last few months, I decided to jump in. I caught your post and was incensed by the ignorance. It read like a Fox News letter. Although I admit it was my mistake to post so many messages so soon.

Seriously this is a forum from movie collector and this is what Eric wanted the day the new forum was launched...
Something goes wrong here since some times and I'm sure Eric won't be proud of it...
There are places to talk about lunacy as there are other places to talk movies and not being insulted for it...

This is the General board. The General board is for discussing off-topic things, such as wikileaks. I am fulfilling the purpose of this thread by discussing wikileaks. I had no idea you regarded it as "lunacy" when it really isn't. Besides my interactions with you, it is a very mature discussion, a true debate. You were the one who decided to spout your ignorance. If you notice by how I interact with Jon and Hal, I'm not nearly as harsh. I listen to them completely. Why? They are respectful and intelligent.

And one more thing: You had no problem with this thread when everyone was unified under the common belief that Assange is a dick. But when I come along and get a real conversation going, a real discussion, suddenly it's lunacy? So anything that is contrary to what you want is lunacy, eh? Hypocrite

If that place turn like that because a fucking kid got the right to shit on the place and insult the older members, I will be out of here and this time for real. 

Calm down, kiddo (Act like a child, you get called one). I never said you should leave, or that you needed to leave. All I was doing was provoking discussion. I was harsh on you for what you said which I deemed insulting and ignorant. It doesn't mean I wanted you to leave. I'm perfectly willing to get along with you, you know.

Oh. For your information
- The "fucking kid" is insulting only you. The "fucking kid" is being respectful and is listening to the other adults of this thread out of respect for their views, how they articulate it, and the possibility they may be more right than he is. Whereas the "moderator" is the one acting like a child. The moderator is the one threatening to leave. The moderator is the one who is acting a true hypocrite.
- I'm not shitting on the place at all. If you actually look at my posts out of here you'd find I am at the least friendly. And that's what I am. Outside of debates, I'm friendly and willing to get along with everyone. It's just when the ignorant decide to speak, I become a much more colder person.

I'll took a couple of days to think about it and if nothing is done about that troll from down under I will request a detetion of my account and the removal of the written works I did here in the last 3 years.

The troll down under? Oh I get it now.

Anyone who opposes you, challenges you and seeks to start intellectual discussion is automatically a troll who seeks to get a kick out of the reactions of his opponents. Yeah that's really what I'm doing, you idiot. Grow up for once. In the past....14 hours I've been registered, I've seen many things on here. Genuine discussion, intelligence and then I've seen you overreact in threads and bitch and whine. If you can't handle the debate, shut up and get lost. I may be 14, I may have a little bit of immaturity, but I'm still intelligent enough to engage intelligently in discussion without acting like a coward and a hypocrite. Your whole "he's a kid" mentality really speaks volumes btw. You hold a preconception that kids can't be as intelligent as you. So very wrong. I'd like to applaud Jon and Hal while I'm at it for NOT referencing my age, rather focusing on the points that I've been bringing up. Just like I have done.

Now before I stop typing this let me say this: You have no reason to leave. At all. You've been here a while, I'm guessing so I'd hate for it to be me to cause you to leave. Hell Critter just told me that she's very rarely seen drama on here. I feel sad being the one to cause the drama.

[Blair]

Everyone has secrets.

Everyone.


That doesn't mean that everyone else should know them.


Since my teenage years when a local reporter's leaked information resulted in a shooting killing two cops, injuring a few others, and in another case ruined the reputation of another due to nothing more than speculation, I've held the belief that overly-ambitious reporters ("It's freedom of speech! The world needs to know everything that isn't being told to us!") should be required to have 24/7 webcams installed in every room of their homes with at least one facing every computer and a camera following them every moment of every day.

It's not so easy to receive what you are giving out when it comes to privacy.

[hal9g]

I actually read an article once about how Bush was pressuring the CIA and other intelligence agencies to get information which could criminalize Iraq enough to warrant a full scale invasion and occupation. Speaks volumes about the mentality at the time, doesn't it? War-mongering.

And you believe everything you read.  Is it possible the person who wrote the article may have had their own agenda?  The very idea is preposterous!  The invasion was predicated on Iraq's refusal to abide by UN resolutions regarding WMD, and was AUTHORIZED by the UN security council!  You're only hurting your own credibility when you say "I read so and so...".

... the human rights abuses that were and still are prevalent across the country, the deception used on the American public, the covering up of deaths etc. At the very least those indicate a revenge mentality by the US at the time (human right's abuses, the pressure to find evidence of WMD's before the invasion), or a mentality that is much worse (the deception used on the American public).

Yeah, war is hell.  Were there innocent civilian casualties?  Yup...there always have been in wars, and there always will be.  That doesn't make them human rights abuses. There were also innocent civilian casualties in most of the terrorist attacks I listed earlier, but they were not part of a war theater.   Were some criminal acts done by some of the military?  Apparently so, and they were punished accordingly.  That doesn't mean those actions were sanctioned by anyone above the people who committed them.  If they were covered up, how is it that you know about them?

Please study some world history and try to discover the results of appeasement, which is the way I am interpreting your view!

Out of respect for Jimmy, I  will now drop out of this discussion!

[Jimmy]

Like I said I'm serious and ignoring this post will change nothing in the fact that in 2 days I'll decide of my action.

OK, this day start to piss me off a lot since this morning... I have exchange some PM and I'll decide tomorrow what I'll do.

This place turn as something it wasn't because of one member and her teammates. I'm here to talk about movies with long time friends and not stupid shit. Maybe it's the time to do like the founder did and move on

Says the moderator who doesn't know the true legal meaning of treason.

The moderator is the one threatening to leave. The moderator is the one who is acting a true hypocrite.

I ain't one, do you thing I would made those comments if I was one

[hal9g]

I know we're not supposed to have any rules here, but, perhaps we need to implement a rule for the forum banning discussions of politics and religion.

That might help eliminate these kinds of brouhahas.