wikileaks petition- stop the crackdown

24

Comments

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited December 2010
    John Briggs 2008 wrote:
    I don't trust my government but that doesn't mean I should or can trust wikileaks or Assange either. Best wishes to everyone just the same though. 8-)

    It's not about Assange, it's about the information Wikileaks has released which is further proof that those in power are liars and murderers who don't give a fuck about the people they are elected to govern.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    if you dont want your secrets found out, make sure they cant be.




    person A has a secret, person B finds out and tells person C. person C tells the world. whos at blame here??


    theres a fair amount of gossipy stuff being exposed, which whilst not security threatening, is amusing. my fave was when putin was said to be an alpha dog... no? really?????????????? whoulda thunk it? :roll: :lol:
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • jamingjamers
    jamingjamers Posts: 383
    [/quote]

    really?

    well that's...very teen-ish of you.

    wanna be careful, my friend, our moderators do not take too kindly to those kinds of words.[/quote]

    sounds like you wouldnt mind living in a policed state
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    haffajappa wrote:
    the men who sign the papers to start a war are the victims here, clearly, while those who merely uncover the truths about it are treasoners...


    Off with their heads?
    ummmm...................

    down here in the south we call them traitors. ;)8-)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    jamingjamers wrote:
    jeagler wrote:
    really?

    well that's...very teen-ish of you.

    wanna be careful, my friend, our moderators do not take too kindly to those kinds of words.

    sounds like you wouldnt mind living in a policed state

    lets not get the thread locked. the mods get jittery sometimes. i thought your post was uncalled for too. 8-)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • jamingjamers
    jamingjamers Posts: 383
    catefrances wrote:
    jamingjamers wrote:
    jeagler wrote:
    really?

    well that's...very teen-ish of you.

    wanna be careful, my friend, our moderators do not take too kindly to those kinds of words.

    sounds like you wouldnt mind living in a policed state

    lets not get the thread locked. the mods get jittery sometimes. i thought your post was uncalled for too. 8-)


    i think most of this board is uncalled for
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    jamingjamers wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    lets not get the thread locked. the mods get jittery sometimes. i thought your post was uncalled for too. 8-)


    i think most of this board is uncalled for

    maybe someone should alert wikileaks.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • jamingjamers
    jamingjamers Posts: 383
    i ha ve the right of freedom of speech, dont i?
    or is that for when i just say stuff that everyone else agrees with?
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    catefrances wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    the men who sign the papers to start a war are the victims here, clearly, while those who merely uncover the truths about it are treasoners...


    Off with their heads?
    ummmm...................

    down here in the south we call them traitors. ;)8-)
    haaaa, i went all sarah palin on that i guess, what of it?
    there might be such thing as a treasoner... :lol::lol:
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    jamingjamers wrote:
    i ha ve the right of freedom of speech, dont i?
    or is that for when i just say stuff that everyone else agrees with?


    sure you can say whatever you want but that doesnt mean you should. i see it more as a privilege than a right and one that should be treated as such.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    haffajappa wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    the men who sign the papers to start a war are the victims here, clearly, while those who merely uncover the truths about it are treasoners...


    Off with their heads?
    ummmm...................

    down here in the south we call them traitors. ;)8-)
    haaaa, i went all sarah palin on that i guess, what of it?
    there might be such thing as a treasoner... :lol::lol:

    not in the english speaking world. :lol::lol::lol:

    treasonous and treasonable are synonymous as adjectives... but one can not be a treasoner unless one is a manga character. 8-)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • John Briggs 2008
    John Briggs 2008 Posts: 1,024
    Byrnzie wrote:
    John Briggs 2008 wrote:
    I don't trust my government but that doesn't mean I should or can trust wikileaks or Assange either. Best wishes to everyone just the same though. 8-)

    It's not about Assange, it's about the information Wikileaks has released which is furhter proof that those in power are liars and murders who don't give a fuck about the people they are elected to govern.

    Notice that I said wikileaks or Assange. I didn't make it about Assange. You did. :mrgreen:
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    catefrances wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    catefrances wrote:

    down here in the south we call them traitors. ;)8-)
    haaaa, i went all sarah palin on that i guess, what of it?
    there might be such thing as a treasoner... :lol::lol:

    not in the english speaking world. :lol::lol::lol:

    treasonous and treasonable are synonymous as adjectives... but one can not be a treasoner unless one is a manga character. 8-)
    well i AM half japanese
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    catefrances wrote:
    theres a fair amount of gossipy stuff being exposed, which whilst not security threatening, is amusing.

    Like the fact that The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer paid investigators to unearth corruption links to Nigeria's attorney general in an attempt to persuade him to stop his legal action against a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -thewrap08 - or that that the US and China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every attempt by European nations to reach agreement during the Copenhagen climate summit, or that British and US officials colluded to manoeuvre around a proposed ban on cluster bombs, allowing the US to keep the munitions on British territory, regardless of whether a treaty forbidding their use was implemented - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... -thewrap08 - ?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    John Briggs 2008 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    John Briggs 2008 wrote:
    I don't trust my government but that doesn't mean I should or can trust wikileaks or Assange either. Best wishes to everyone just the same though. 8-)

    It's not about Assange, it's about the information Wikileaks has released which is furhter proof that those in power are liars and murders who don't give a fuck about the people they are elected to govern.

    Notice that I said wikileaks or Assange. I didn't make it about Assange. You did. :mrgreen:

    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?
  • John Briggs 2008
    John Briggs 2008 Posts: 1,024
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?

    I don't know who either are other than what they tell me. Assange for one thing has a history I am not comfortable with much like my government. I am supposed to trust them because someone says they can be trusted? Like so many put there faith in the US government they lay there faith in the wikileaks organization and Assange. I find this disturbing. Much like I do not condone much of my government's behavior I feel equally the same towards wikileaks and Assange. Can you prove without a doubt that wikileaks or Assange can be trusted? Highly doubtful. I happen to be one of those in my generation who believe in questioning the validity and agenda of such things. So I remain an observer and healthy skeptic to it all until I see something that proves otherwise. Anyways, I think I am guilty of taking this thread off topic. My apologies.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited December 2010
    John Briggs 2008 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?

    I don't know who either are other than what they tell me. Assange for one thing has a history I am not comfortable with much like my government. I am supposed to trust them because someone says they can be trusted? Like so many put there faith in the US government they lay there faith in the wikileaks organization and Assange. I find this disturbing. Much like I do not condone much of my government's behavior I feel equally the same towards wikileaks and Assange. Can you prove without a doubt that wikileaks or Assange can be trusted? Highly doubtful. I happen to be one of those in my generation who believe in questioning the validity and agenda of such things. So I remain an observer and healthy skeptic to it all until I see something that proves otherwise. Anyways, I think I am guilty of taking this thread off topic. My apologies.

    I don't think it has anything to do with anyone laying their faith in Wikileaks. They're simply relaying the information that's been made available to them. I don't understand why people can't assess that information itself instead of focusing on the messenger.
    Did everyone spend their time focusing on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate affair? No, they focused on the criminals in the U.S government. So why should it be any different now?
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • John Briggs 2008
    John Briggs 2008 Posts: 1,024
    edited December 2010
    Byrnzie wrote:
    John Briggs 2008 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?

    I don't know who either are other than what they tell me. Assange for one thing has a history I am not comfortable with much like my government. I am supposed to trust them because someone says they can be trusted? Like so many put there faith in the US government they lay there faith in the wikileaks organization and Assange. I find this disturbing. Much like I do not condone much of my government's behavior I feel equally the same towards wikileaks and Assange. Can you prove without a doubt that wikileaks or Assange can be trusted? Highly doubtful. I happen to be one of those in my generation who believe in questioning the validity and agenda of such things. So I remain an observer and healthy skeptic to it all until I see something that proves otherwise. Anyways, I think I am guilty of taking this thread off topic. My apologies.

    I don't think it has anything ro do with anyone laying their faith in Wikileaks. They're simply relaying the information that's been made available to them. I don't understand why people can't assess that information itself instead of focusing on the messenger.
    Did everyone spend their time focusing on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate affair? No, they focused on the criminals in the U.S government. So why should it be any different now?


    Well, to each there own but I disagree and debating your stance on what you think it is about or isn't doesn't change the fact that I don't trust any of it and indeed it is about trusting the source and agenda of said source if you want to be properly informed on both sides of the situation. The whole lot leave many things to be questioned. I don't readily jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts and the fact is that it's not unfolded yet so I won't be signing any petition for or against.
    Post edited by John Briggs 2008 on
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Byrnzie wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    theres a fair amount of gossipy stuff being exposed, which whilst not security threatening, is amusing.

    Like the fact that The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer paid investigators to unearth corruption links to Nigeria's attorney general in an attempt to persuade him to stop his legal action against a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -thewrap08 - or that that the US and China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every attempt by European nations to reach agreement during the Copenhagen climate summit, or that British and US officials colluded to manoeuvre around a proposed ban on cluster bombs, allowing the US to keep the munitions on British territory, regardless of whether a treaty forbidding their use was implemented - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... -thewrap08 - ?

    no :roll: ..... like the aforementioned putin alpha dog comment.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,598
    Byrnzie wrote:
    John Briggs 2008 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?

    I don't know who either are other than what they tell me. Assange for one thing has a history I am not comfortable with much like my government. I am supposed to trust them because someone says they can be trusted? Like so many put there faith in the US government they lay there faith in the wikileaks organization and Assange. I find this disturbing. Much like I do not condone much of my government's behavior I feel equally the same towards wikileaks and Assange. Can you prove without a doubt that wikileaks or Assange can be trusted? Highly doubtful. I happen to be one of those in my generation who believe in questioning the validity and agenda of such things. So I remain an observer and healthy skeptic to it all until I see something that proves otherwise. Anyways, I think I am guilty of taking this thread off topic. My apologies.

    I don't think it has anything to do with anyone laying their faith in Wikileaks. They're simply relaying the information that's been made available to them. I don't understand why people can't assess that information itself instead of focusing on the messenger.
    Did everyone spend their time focusing on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate affair? No, they focused on the criminals in the U.S government. So why should it be any different now?

    woodward and bernstein were already respected journalists. assange is just....umm....
    www.myspace.com

Categories