Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Julian Assange, Neo Nazis, et al. Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dnaalpha)
    yeah they can make up their own minds, and they of course have the freedom to think what they want, but nearly 400,000 British people didn't give their lives to defeat fascism only for us to allow neo-Nazi's to go around preaching hatred and for us to not even tell them we think its wrong?!
    No they didn't, they gave their lives to defeat fascism so it didn't invade the British Isles. Besides, who are you to tell other people what is right and what is wrong?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    This is an ad-hominem argument. You're covering the bigger picture and not confronting what Wikileaks is all about.
    How do we know what wikileaks is all about... because saint Julian tells us?
    is that it?

    it's not a pipeline passively conveying pure truth - it's edited, someone decides what goes on the site and what doesn't go on the site.

    where there's an editor there is bias.

    if you want to know what the bias is, you look at the bias of the people doing the editing.

    if you don't want to know what the bias is you'll blow smoke about what wikileaks is really about and 'ad-hominem'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    How do we know what wikileaks is all about... because saint Julian tells us?
    is that it?

    it's not a pipeline passively conveying pure truth - it's edited, someone decides what goes on the site and what doesn't go on the site.

    where there's an editor there is bias.

    if you want to know what the bias is, you look at the bias of the people doing the editing.

    if you don't want to know what the bias is you'll blow smoke about what wikileaks is really about and 'ad-hominem'
    Everything has an agenda, I agree. But Wikileaks is a force for good so long as it remains truthful. The public deserve to see the true agenda of politicians. A site called OpenLeaks is apparently going to up soon and will contain leaks which do not harm diplomacy but do show transparancy with countries actions which I think is better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoliceStory)
    ...

    In no way does this alter my perception of wikileaks. Political opinions should be considered on a different scale from professional achievement. Those employees probably do good work for the organisation despite being fascists. Werner von Braun was according to several historians guilty of hideous crimes when he was an SS officer, yet he became of the greatest rocket scientists in the world and in his own way helped defeat the soviet union by accelerating the US space program. It pisses me off that he got away with war crimes, but I respect his achievements all the same.

    It seems to me like the OP has his own negative opinions about wikileaks and is trying to find corroborating evidence in any way he can. Stop grasping at straws OP. Criticize Wikileaks for the stuff it does, not the opinions of the people it employs. On all starbucks cups with quotes you've got the phrase : "the opinions of those persons are not necessarily those of Starbucks co."

    Personally I think that the anti american bias wikileaks seems to suffer from is not so bad after all. It's not like we need more proof that dictartorships are corrupt. What we need is a check against those two faced western nations who claim to be the heart of democracy and freedom when they are violent and manipulative just like the rest of the world, if not more so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What reason would he have to hold anything back?
    Assange has explicitly stated his political agenda on more than one occasion. He has for instance named the end of American intervention as one of his aims.

    He has many reasons to hold things back. Given the utter lack of information regarding him, his organisation, his activities or his contacts; I am extremely sceptical of everything he does and says. It is ironic that one who is apparently crusading for openess keeps himself and his activities so secret and shady.

    If he has no reason to hold anything back. Then why does he? Why hasn't he released everything he has? Obviously he does hold things back because he threatens to release some really juicy stuff if America snatch him.

    Why not release it to us now if everything he does is benevolent?

    Plus from what I have heard a couple of Gurdian journalists were given memo sticks with all the cables on as well

    Why not release it now?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Assange has explicitly stated his political agenda on more than one occasion. He has for instance named the end of American intervention as one of his aims.

    He has many reasons to hold things back. Given the utter lack of information regarding him, his organisation, his activities or his contacts; I am extremely sceptical of everything he does and says. It is ironic that one who is apparently crusading for openess keeps himself and his activities so secret and shady.

    If he has no reason to hold anything back. Then why does he? Why hasn't he released everything he has? Obviously he does hold things back because he threatens to release some really juicy stuff if America snatch him.

    Why not release it to us now if everything he does is benevolent?

    Why not release it now?
    Assange is not the only wikileaker, just the face of wikileaks. If he is garroted in a motel room, the organisation will still continue without him. He has to keep his life a secret because so many people want to kill him. Besides I doubt his innermost secrets are of any political or diplomatic value, unlike those of governments. The staggered release is probably because they have to analyse it all and it makes it easier for the press to digest and give out the key information. A huge release would be forgotten in a few months because the public doesn't actually care enough to delve into the subject, they only want the salient facts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chimaira)
    No they didn't, they gave their lives to defeat fascism so it didn't invade the British Isles. Besides, who are you to tell other people what is right and what is wrong?
    Not saying what is right and what is wrong, im saying my opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Like what? I have not heard anything about false info
    During an appearance on Echo Moskvy radio, Yulia Latynina, a reporter at the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, wondered “What does it mean that Assange is allowing himself to be represented by an extremist?” Latynina also found that the Kremlin-friendly paper working with Shamir to promote the WikiLeaks material had already published “outright lies” Shamir claimed were supported by leaks. According to Latynina, Shamir faked a cable related to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the United Nations, which supposedly showed collusion amongst those who walked out of the talk in protest. That he would invent such a cable is perhaps unsurprising, considering Shamir has previously written an encomium to the “brave and charismatic leader” of Iran.
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    In
    It helps to read the article posted before commenting.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dnaalpha)
    he has the right to be a nazi but we have a duty to challenge people who have those views
    I suppose because your own views are so close to perfect?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoliceStory)
    It helps to read the article posted before commenting.
    How do you personally know that this was a fake cable?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    bloggers aren't credible sources..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    Assange is not the only wikileaker, just the face of wikileaks. If he is garroted in a motel room, the organisation will still continue without him. He has to keep his life a secret because so many people want to kill him.
    :yawn: No they don't. Can you perhaps direct me to a recent attempt on his life?


    Besides I doubt his innermost secrets are of any political or diplomatic value, unlike those of governments. The staggered release is probably because they have to analyse it all and it makes it easier for the press to digest and give out the key information.
    Wikileaks do not analyse anything. It is the press and the public who analyse it. Another dud excuse. So much fo wikileaks being a simple channel for secret information.

    A huge release would be forgotten in a few months because the public doesn't actually care enough to delve into the subject, they only want the salient facts.

    So there IS an agenda? According to you Wikileaks is not the simple channel for secret information it claims to be. Why would it want to publicise these like ne of the mainstream media channels? It's not as if they make profit from coverage. So much for nuetrality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    I suppose because your own views are so close to perfect?

    What an utterly contemptible and repulsive position. Perfection is metaphysical fecal matter and demanding ones views be perfect before they can challenge those of another is simply an attempt to silence them altogether. The guy by all accounts holds some abhorrent beliefs. I doubt you would challenge those who wish to challenge him if he were not an important member of an organisation you evidently have faith in.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What an utterly contemptible and repulsive position. Perfection is metaphysical fecal matter and demanding ones views be perfect before they can challenge those of another is simply an attempt to silence them altogether. The guy by all accounts holds some abhorrent beliefs. I doubt you would challenge those who wish to challenge him if he were not an important member of an organisation you evidently have faith in.
    Hold your horses Jimmy. Before you choose to descend onto my post with blind outrage, consider what my post was trying to convey. He is welcome to his views, as I am to mine and you are to yours. Equally, the man in question is too welcome to his set of opinions, whether you me and the guy I quoted agree with him or not. I am not defending the man's position, in fact I confess to having not read the blog article. However the lad I quoted, from that post and others, seemed to think that because this man had his views which were so at odds with his own, that therefore this warranted a complete black out and immediate invalidity of anyone lumbered with the fascist label (whether it is deserved or not). yes, this man to us has some what we consider "abhorrent beliefs", but why do we have a duty to challenge his views more than anyone elses?

    Now I respect you. From the many people on TSR, you seem like one of the more intelligent and I dont just mean in that you have the ability to recall vast quantities of info. Whether I agree with them or not, your posts are one of the few people whose posts I generally enjoy reading. That is why I am even more disappointed that you have made the assumption that I am on "Wikileaks" side. I am indifferent. While I personally find it amusing that, given our much heralded lack of censorship and scorn given to those countries who try and smother information that is embarrassing to them, many western countries seem to be collaborating in minimizing Wikileaks voice. On the other hand much of the revealed info is irrelevant and usually the opinions of individual diplomats that are damaging diplomatic relations. Please dont make such assumptions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    Hold your horses Jimmy. Before you choose to descend onto my post with blind outrage, consider what my post was trying to convey. He is welcome to his views, as I am to mine and you are to yours. Equally, the man in question is too welcome to his set of opinions, whether you me and the guy I quoted agree with him or not.
    That is exactly what the poster stated in the post you were contending. He said that these individuals have every right to their views but it is our duty to challenge them. (Our in this case being those of a leftist inclination)


    I am not defending the man's position, in fact I confess to having not read the blog article. However the lad I quoted, from that post and others, seemed to think that because this man had his views which were so at odds with his own, that therefore this warranted a complete black out and immediate invalidity of anyone lumbered with the fascist label (whether it is deserved or not). yes, this man to us has some what we consider "abhorrent beliefs", but why do we have a duty to challenge his views more than anyone elses?

    Because he holds abhorrent beliefs. Duty is a foggy, vauge term, but I also believe it essential to challenge and call out those indivdiuals who propogate such ideology so as to expose what more often than not is sheer intentional ignorance. Is that not what you do and have done time after time on this very forum? I recall you being a vehement and staunch adversary of the BNP and other ethno-nationalist groups.

    What I took exception to was the insinuation that you believe for some reason you shouldn't challenge abhorrent beliefs at every oppurtunity because you don't want to assert your own, or do not feel anybody should assert theirs. This is a rather troubling and masochistic trait that is becoming more general among left leaning individuals. Because rest assured, those with abhorrent beliefs will assert them at every oppurunity, often forcefully and always without intellectual honesty. To adopt such a defeatist or subservient attitude is to grant the floor to all manner of groundless, dangerous and frankly, lethal assertions.

    As for your stance on wikielaks I apologise. I happen to agree with you about state hypocrisy and the irrelevence of much 'revelation'. Perhaps I have come across one fanatic wikiciple too many on this forum, and now see them in every post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dnaalpha)
    Not saying what is right and what is wrong, im saying my opinion.
    Well what is your opinion over their opinion?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Assange has explicitly stated his political agenda on more than one occasion. He has for instance named the end of American intervention as one of his aims.

    He has many reasons to hold things back. Given the utter lack of information regarding him, his organisation, his activities or his contacts; I am extremely sceptical of everything he does and says. It is ironic that one who is apparently crusading for openess keeps himself and his activities so secret and shady.

    If he has no reason to hold anything back. Then why does he? Why hasn't he released everything he has? Obviously he does hold things back because he threatens to release some really juicy stuff if America snatch him.

    Why not release it to us now if everything he does is benevolent?
    A single person, even if one is a spokesman for an organisation, is in no way comparable to the size, influence and power of an entire government, especially that of America's. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to compare the transparency of one with another. In other words; the bigger the body, the greater the transparency. Yes, he does hold things back because he needs a trump card in case anything untoward happens to him personally.

    Everything can't be released right now because it has to be vetted to remove any names which could come to harm if they were released plainly. Again, this goes back to the idea of a bigger body being more transparent.

    As for not trusting Assange because of his 'shady' character, I'd far trust that guy than the thousands of slimy politicians which, even without Wikileaks, we know to be corrupt in the main and incredibly secretive with their information (both personal and global). The cables that have been released - and it's only a small portion so far of the ones collected - is a fractional amount of the data which is kept on your supposedly free and open world and it's testament to the closed networks of information which exists in governments across the world.

    Why not release it now?
    See above paragraph.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)

    Everything can't be released right now because it has to be vetted to remove any names which could come to harm if they were released plainly. Again, this goes back to the idea of a bigger body being more transparent. .


    You mean like the names of the tribal elders and community members who met US, ISAF or NATO forces in order to discuss the rebuilding of Afghan infrastructure in direct and life threatening defieance of the Taliban? Because Wikileaks certainly did not vet their names and so their lives were in danger.

    Assanges reply to this: They shouldn't have been informing in the first place.

    Face it you can throw as many excuses as you want but most of them fall flaccid in the face of the truth and this mans personal political agenda. He is not only being criticised by western governments but also various human rights organisations in South West Asia.

    If we can be so skeptical about the activities of western powers. Then why not shady organisations? There are too many inidviduals to whom assange and wikileaks have become some apostolic and pure inspiration. Don't let novelty blind you to objective analysis.

    Here is the link for what I speak about above. http://www.channel4.com/news/article...p/3727677.html
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You mean like the names of the tribal elders and community members who met US, ISAF or NATO forces in order to discuss the rebuilding of Afghan infrastructure in direct and life threatening defieance of the Taliban? Because Wikileaks certainly did not vet their names and so their lives were in danger.

    Assanges reply to this: They shouldn't have been informing in the first place.

    Face it you can throw as many excuses as you want but most of them fall flaccid in the face of the truth and this mans personal political agenda. He is not only being criticised by western governments but also various human rights organisations in South West Asia.

    If we can be so skeptical about the activities of western powers. Then why not shady organisations? There are too many inidviduals to whom assange and wikileaks have become some apostolic and pure inspiration. Don't let novelty blind you to objective analysis.

    Here is the link for what I speak about above. http://www.channel4.com/news/article...p/3727677.html
    Sure. I agree that the names should've been vetted in that case and hopefully, there was either a strong reason for it (i.e. the Channel 4 report is misinformation) or it was a genuine risky and stupid strategy.

    Of course we can hold organisations to account for what they're doing but, aside from the case you mention, I see nothing else which has been done wrong unless I am missing something here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Sure. I agree that the names should've been vetted in that case and hopefully, there was either a strong reason for it (i.e. the Channel 4 report is misinformation) or it was a genuine risky and stupid strategy.

    Of course we can hold organisations to account for what they're doing but, aside from the case you mention, I see nothing else which has been done wrong unless I am missing something here.
    But my simple point pierced the heart of your argument. That the leaks are vetted by wikileaks to keep people safe. They simply are not (The channel 4 story is valuidated across the board. It was widely reported at the time they were released) and Assange has stated explicitly that he wants an end to US intervention abroad. Evidently, judging by his flagrant disregard for Afghan lives as long as they are helping Nato and associated humanitarian charities. His political agenda comes before the safety of innocent civilians who just want stability and protection.

    How is that any better than those who support the war explaining away civilian casualties as necessary colatteral.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.