The Gaming Den

Draco_Argentum wrote:There was a bit by an Australian reporter on the ABC news site that I can't find anymore.

The gist being "in 2006 I reported on the civil uprising and murders in Iraq. The US said I was a liar. Now wikileaks releases proof that the US knew I was right. Now the US says thats old news, you reported that in 2006."

Civil uprisings and murders in Iraq had been fact since like 2004 (the year after the invasion), and had been widely reported already in 2005 by the mainstream media outlets like CNN.

He's an extremely poor reporter if he just reported these "facts" in 2006 - which was the year that Rumsfeld was forced to resign because he was still claiming everything was "Ok" despite the clusterfuck of the two previous years .

Retroactively saying "Woo! Wikileaks proves me right!" in these kinds of cases frankly sounds like ass-covering for very poor journalism.

If you can't find anything juicy in the Wikileaks cables, either you aren't looking or you aren't looking at the right source. The "right source" is of course The Guardian, as they are the only English newspaper to get the cables straight from the horse's mouth.

Here's a big example: the Google cyber attacks were ordered by the top parts of the Chinese government.

Not exactly. US diplomats suspect it's the Chinese government that's behind the attack. The cables merely show some US diplomats airing their suspicions.

Suspicions by US officials is different from direct evidence proving Chinese officials ordered the attack.

I have been browsing The Guardian, BTW. And most of their juiciest tidbits are either stuff we already know, or stuff that the US government suspects but has not proven.

FAIR actually points out that the juiciest evidence they've found is how the US Embassy in Georgia did, in fact, keep feeding Washington the wrong information when the Georgian-Russian war broke out. Meaning that in FAIR's view, the most eye-opening fact they discovered was how wrong the information of some of these diplomats are.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/12/02/wik ... urnalists/

Zinegata wrote:FAIR actually points out that the juiciest evidence they've found is how the US Embassy in Georgia did, in fact, keep feeding Washington the wrong information when the Georgian-Russian war broke out. Meaning that in FAIR's view, the most eye-opening fact they discovered was how wrong the information of some of these diplomats are.

Do you have any idea how important this one is? The US government decision making process is shaky in that light. And a leak is the only way we'd ever know.

It'd be more important if the US actually had gone through with the hilarious promise McCain made Georgia, as that'd be another case of the US entering a war based on bad information (but not their own lies, this time).

So apparently Anonymous have started DDoSing the various groups that are refusing service to Wikileaks (such as Paypal stopping donations and that Swiss bank freezing the assets). I'm not entirely sure I'd want their help, seeing as it ties you in with the whole INTERNET HATE MACHINE thing. Curtains, dog, etc.

Draco_Argentum wrote:Do you have any idea how important this one is? The US government decision making process is shaky in that light. And a leak is the only way we'd ever know.

Stop exaggerating. If you thought the US government decision process isn't shaky, you probably missed the whole Iraq war thing .

Again, holding these leaks as some kind of revolutionary eye-opener actually just proves how stupid and ill-informed a lot of people are. Even the maintstream press.

Wikileaks made the mistake of releasing too much information which was - ultimately - inconsequential. That's why they're no Woodward and Bernstein. Woodward and Bernstein didn't just release a bunch of leaks without context. They actually gathered additional facts together to form a complete story of a major US government fuck up. That's actual journalism, not a pointless data dump.

In this case, we've got like twenty different pieces of circumstantial evidence, which sort of corroborates various suspicions and stuff that we already know.

TL;DR: Wikileaks fails because its signal to noise ratio is becoming shittier with each release. And that's before they told Al Qaeda that they should blow up a Danish Insulin plant to send thousands of American diabetics into a panic.

zinegata wrote:And that's before they told Al Qaeda that they should blow up a Danish Insulin plant to send thousands of American diabetics into a panic.

Wat.

I read an interesting take on the value of Wikileaks, courtesy of the Huffington Post {OK, Terrorists, Proof, Assange}.

Surgo wrote:Today's Wikileaks revelation: US Government Contractors in Afghanistan engaged in a sex party involving underage boys, Afghan government asked US government to pressure journalist who found out to remain silent.

Is this where tzor comes into the thread saying "See? Not Catholic Priests!" That tzor is such an ass.

tzor wrote:

Surgo wrote:Today's Wikileaks revelation: US Government Contractors in Afghanistan engaged in a sex party involving underage boys, Afghan government asked US government to pressure journalist who found out to remain silent.

Is this where tzor comes into the thread saying "See? Not Catholic Priests!" That tzor is such an ass.

Yes. That kind of stupid passive aggressive trolling makes you an ass. The fact that there are other religious groups (in this case Afghan Muslims) who also have a thing about raping children doesn't let Catholic Priests off the hook for their own behavior in systematically covering up and obstructing the criminal investigation of child rape. Like, at all.

Raping children is a bad thing to do, and using the power of a multinational organization to defend and assist child rapists is inexcusable. And pointing fingers at other groups who also have disgusting practices does not improve the situation.

-Username17

Prak_Anima wrote:

zinegata wrote:And that's before they told Al Qaeda that they should blow up a Danish Insulin plant to send thousands of American diabetics into a panic.

Wat.

One of the facilities on the list of "critical infrastructure" released by Wikileaks (mentioned by cthulhu) includes a Danish Insulin plant which is one of the prime suppliers for US diabetics.

It's a bit of hyperbole on my part, but if any one of those critical infrastructure sites have an accident you can be sure people are gonna blame Wikileaks and use it as a further excuse to clamp down on transparency - which actually counterproductive to Wikileak's supposed goals.

FrankTrollman wrote:Raping children is a bad thing to do, and using the power of a multinational organization to defend and assist child rapists is inexcusable. And pointing fingers at other groups who also have disgusting practices does not improve the situation.

Gee. Where was the rage when Kaelik called child molestation hilarious in that other thread?

Pretty clear that nobody here actually cares about kids being raped. It's just a double standard because you wanna bash tzor.

If you wanna rage about people making a joke about child molestation, you have to do it consistenty.

Is this where tzor comes into the thread saying "See? Not Catholic Priests!" That tzor is such an ass

Not funny dude.

Zinegata wrote:Gee. Where was the rage when Kaelik called child molestation hilarious in that other thread?

If I had to guess, it wasn't there because unlike you, Frank is actually capable of reading, and so knows the difference between calling child molestation hilarious, and calling the people who think that anyone will believe the claim that the Pope's Diocese only experienced a single incident of child molestation in a ten year period that had over 250 incidents in Germany alone hilarious.

But you know, don't let what I actually said get in the way of your attempts to slander me as being pro child rape because I am the most staunch critic of the institution that is responsible for attempting to cover up thousand of cases over the last 40 years.

Spoilered for being a complete waste of everyone's time:

Pretending for a moment that you are even remotely reasonable or honest in any of your dealings, and that you are just genuinely confused:

You keep claiming that I am so happy the Catholic Church rapes kids, and I want them to keep doing it so that I can have someone to bash. Let's look at the real world.

Here are a bunch of religious organizations that I think are wrong about their religions:

Baptist Church
Lutheran Church
Catholic Church
Methodist Church
ect
Any and all Muslim Organizations (I don't think Sunni and Shi'a count as organizations, but in most cases, Muslim countries probably count)
The Mormon Church
Native American Tribes that have that religion where they smoke Peyote
All Buddhist organizations
All Hindi organizations
Any Deist organizations
All Jewish organizations

Here is a list of religious organizations that I criticize for Child rape:
Catholic Church

Here is a list of religions I criticize for patriarchy:
Islam
Conservative Jews in Israel
Mormon Church founding to 1978
Sometimes Catholics, but way less than those other three.

Now, clearly I have no problem criticize Baptists for being wrong about religion, and I spend plenty of time doing that when the subject of logic, or false premises, or biblical apologia comes up.

But when shitty things done by religions today comes up, it usually comes down to Catholics, or Muslims, depending on if it's about kids or women.

That doesn't mean I need the Catholics to keep raping children to keep bashing them. Hell, the Pope says all kinds of stupid religious shit that I would happily criticize him over... except that he also personally covered up quite a lot of child abuse to protect his church from criticism, and that's more important.

There is no reason I need or want the Catholic Church to keep raping children, protecting rapists, or having times where that has happened in the past be uncovered. I would love if all that stopped happening, because then, I could spend more time talking about what I actually enjoy talking about, which is how stupid religious people are, and the likelihood of Jesus Historicity compared with Jesus Mythicism.

But even I have some small moral concerns that I have to get out of the way first.

Ask yourself, do you really actually think that if the Catholic Church had never raped kids I would not bash them for their religious thinking? What possible reason would you have to think that I can only bash the Catholic Church because they rape kids?

The problem, Kaelik, is the perception that you only bash religious organizations who rape children, not non-religious organizations that rape children.

That being said, I don't particularly care about any reality other than one where people are starting to shit "feud"al history all over threads again. Please stop.

Maj wrote:The problem, Kaelik, is the perception that you only bash religious organizations who rape children, not non-religious organizations that rape children.

Well I don't have to, because non religious organizations that rape children get disbanded and have their leaders and perpetrators put in jail. So far, only the Catholic Church has managed to avoid this fate once it's crimes have come to light.

Maj wrote:That being said, I don't particularly care about any reality other than one where people are starting to shit "feud"al history all over threads again. Please stop.

So you are mad at Tzor for jumping into a Wikileaks thread and talking about Catholics raping children? Great, tell him that.

*ignores Kaelik's non-sequitors about how Zine can't read, and instead focuses on this gem*

Kaelik wrote:because I am the most staunch critic of the institution that is responsible for attempting to cover up thousand of cases over the last 40 years.[/b]

"Most Staunch Critic"?

From sombody who just called a major coverup of child molestation "hilarious" in that other thread?

Yeah. Continue being delusional.

The truth is, again, you're using child rape and its cover-up to slander people you don't like - by calling them child-rape apologists. Even though nobody is doing anything of the sort. That is it.

Stop trying to associate yourself with people who do real things to help kids who were molested. You're a fraud and it's sickening how you keep trying to associate yourself with them to feed your delusional fantasies.

You're just a paranoid git who sees enemies where they do not exist. And you're just doing it to feed your own grand delusions of your own self-worth. Again, seek professional help.

Now that's funny.

FrankTrollman wrote:Yes. That kind of stupid passive aggressive trolling makes you an ass. The fact that there are other religious groups (in this case Afghan Muslims) who also have a thing about raping children doesn't let Catholic Priests off the hook for their own behavior in systematically covering up and obstructing the criminal investigation of child rape. Like, at all.

Well I was spoofing the image of myself that others seem to have. Nothing excuses this horrid crime, but it does strike me as being like that start trek episode where Spock tries to confuse an andriod by saying that he likes A but hates B even though they are identical. You don't hear people here talk about child rapists in general, but rather this incorrect equality of child rapists and Roman Catholic Priests. You can't rant about andriod 2 and ignore the identicial android 1, they are eitehr both metitorious of a rant or neither one of them are.

No. We were just talking about Child Rapists. And being unhappy with them. As expected.

The Catholic Church remains the only major international organization with a policy of aiding and abetting child molesters, which means that you making a joke about it is in incredibly poor taste. "Ha ha! Some of my money goes to hiding known pedophiles from the law and giving them access to more children in different parts of the world! Ha ha!" That shit is revolting, and not funny.

-Username17

Swiss Politician about the campaign against Wikileaks

Rough translation:

Ruedi Noser is a member of the swiss parliament and leads an IT firm

"The campaign against Wikileaks is hypocritical"

Post Finance canceled the account of Wikileaks, Visa and MasterCard stopped the transfer of money to the group. This stopped the flow of donations and restricted access to financial resources without an actual indictment against Wikileaks. If something happens in the virtual world, common sense seems to fail.

What exactly happened? A source gave secret information to an online news service. The news service published the information. Something that has already happened a thousand times in the media world, without anyone taking offense at it.

Why is Postfinance making the names of one their customers public?

Media representatives publish documents leaked to them. That's what they do. It is also their duty to do so. But when a newspaper did it it never suffered having its accounts blocked by the bank or had its publishing house cut off from the financial system!

Before Wikileaks it was understood that for this to happen legal action and judicial decisions were necessary. Also, that defendants have a right to be heared and to appeal. And how in the world is it possible that Postfinance speaks publically about their customer relationships! Is the Bankgeheimnis worth nothing anymore in Switzerland?

Traditional values of Switzerland

Freedom of expression, press freedom and protection of sources. Why would what in the analog world is taken for granted suddenly be invalid in the virtual world? Why are we suddenly ready to question the most important achievements of democracy when it comes to Internet?

Switzerland was one of the first states in the 19th Century to actively campaign against censorship and for freedom of publication, information and opinions, and those fundamental rights are enshrined in the Constitution. It is our duty to ensure respect for these fundamental rights on the Internet. Without freedom of expression and freedomof press democracy can not work!

The agitation against Wikileaks is hypocritical and arbitrary. This is supported by two facts:

In the U.S. there are thousands of websites with racist and defamatory content. I have never heard that Visa and Mastercard would have made public whether they accept donations to groups that stand behind such websites or not.

Interestingly, the exact same states which have applauded a few months ago when people stole customer information from Swiss banks to sell them to other states for good money are now shocked about the disclosure of secret data by Wikileaks.

It needs rules

Of course the internet too needs rules. However, these rules must be based on the rule of law and must not be arbitrary! Switzerland needs to take on a leadership role for the development of such rules.

We are among the states with the longest traditions of free speech and have, with international organizations in Geneva, also the opportunity to build the necessary platform. I wish that the new President of the Swiss Confederation will start an initiative about this.

tzor wrote:Well I was spoofing the image of myself that others seem to have.

Don't. You're here... No spoofing needed.

Fuchs wrote:Post Finance canceled the account of Wikileaks, Visa and MasterCard stopped the transfer of money to the group. This stopped the flow of donations and restricted access to financial resources without an actual indictment against Wikileaks. If something happens in the virtual world, common sense seems to fail.

The US no longer needs the force of law, merely the force of political displeasure to have major corporations shut you down. Shadowrun soon?

I did hear some rumblings about the US hauling the NYT into court for publishing the cables. That would be amusing to watch.

So I got an email from DemandProgress.org the other day. For a political lobby group they seem... either confused or less than well informed on the whole Assange thing.

DemandProgress.org wrote:BREAKING NEWS: The Independent reports today that the American government is trying to extradite jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

There's just one problem: experts say WikiLeaks hasn't broken any laws. So Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is trying to change the law to make WikiLeaks illegal. He even wants to go after The New York Times for publishing the cables!

Click here to sign our urgent petition opposing this blatantly unconstitutional move.

The debate in Congress about this bill is going to be fast and furious, so we need to rally all the support we can get. We can't just let the government lock people up for publishing the news.

Add your name now. We'll make sure lawmakers and the media know how many people oppose this censorship.

Add your name today -- it just takes a second.

Keep on fighting,

-- Aaron Swartz and the Demand Progress team

And they want me to email congress their little form thing, or my own writing, saying the arrest of Assange was wrong.

I'm sorry, but the charges he was arrested on:
1- have nothing to do with wikileaks (motivation may be a different story, but the actual charges are independent, in my understanding)
2- were not laid by the US. The warrant was put out by the brits, for a crime he supposedly committed in Sweden. And he's Australian.

so... what exactly does DemandProgress want to happen? for Congress to make a law saying leaking documents makes someone immune to rape charges in other countries?