Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 2, 2010 11:59:18 GMT -4
What's interesting is that so much attention is being (publicly) focussed on Assange, in spite of his fundamental irrelevance to the wikileaks site, as if hurting or discrediting him somehow alters the material facts of the leak or would hurt or discredit the site. It's almost as if Assange is setting himself up to be a martyr and variious and sundry governments are falling for it. Or you could go with the more likely theory - which is that Assange is in fact a rapist.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 2, 2010 13:06:26 GMT -4
Speaking of crimes and leaks that state the obvious.... The Guardian wrote this article on the U.S.'s real view of Russia. I particularly liked the phrase "autocratic kleptocracy." (Notice the period within the quotes.)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 2, 2010 14:03:51 GMT -4
I'm sorry; is some aspect of that summary not the common perception of Russia? And, indeed, is it wrong?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 2, 2010 14:33:59 GMT -4
I'm sorry; is some aspect of that summary not the common perception of Russia? It is an example of WikiLeaks releasing a government secret that states the plainly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 2, 2010 15:11:20 GMT -4
Oh, yes. I agree. I'm just not sure why anyone felt the need to comment on it.
If I were to present a conspiracy theory on the subject, it would be about the fact that the petty stuff gets so much more mainstream press than the important stuff. Who cares what some diplomat we've never heard of thinks of some world leader the average American can't name on a bet? There are a lot more important things in those documents, but no. Let's focus on childish backbiting instead of the very real and serious discussion of the countries which would like us to bomb Iran.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 2, 2010 15:17:57 GMT -4
Or you could go with the more likely theory - which is that Assange is in fact a rapist. Not just governments I see. Relevance? Seriously, what do these allegations, true or otherwise, have to do with the material content of the leaked documents or the operation of the wikileaks site?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 2, 2010 15:22:37 GMT -4
Or you could go with the more likely theory - which is that Assange is in fact a rapist. Not just governments I see. Relevance? Seriously, what do these allegations, true or otherwise, have to do with the material content of the leaked documents or the operation of the wikileaks site? It does sound like a textbook example of character assassination.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 2, 2010 16:39:04 GMT -4
Not just governments I see. Relevance? Seriously, what do these allegations, true or otherwise, have to do with the material content of the leaked documents or the operation of the wikileaks site? None, but it is why there are warrants for his arrest, and at least one of the reasons why he is getting a lot of media attention. And it's Sweden that has an arrest warrant out for him, not the US.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 2, 2010 18:39:53 GMT -4
What's interesting is that so much attention is being (publicly) focussed on Assange, in spite of his fundamental irrelevance to the wikileaks site, as if hurting or discrediting him somehow alters the material facts of the leak or would hurt or discredit the site. It's almost as if Assange is setting himself up to be a martyr and variious and sundry governments are falling for it. Or aware that a warrant is pending Assange dumps this information into the public domain so he can create the impression the charges are politically motivated.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 2, 2010 18:50:18 GMT -4
Or aware that a warrant is pending Assange dumps this information into the public domain so he can create the impression the charges are politically motivated. As if the data materially affects the material facts of the charges? Actually, I'm petty sure he was trying to do that when he said the CIA were pressuring the Swedish govt. into pressing false charges.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 2, 2010 19:09:48 GMT -4
I'm wondering if it's a modern thing that we aren't able to talk about the information without talking about the man. I acknowledge that he pushes himself forward--the one who brings all this information to light--but why should we go along with him? Let's look at the substance of the documents, not the personality of the whistle-blower.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Dec 3, 2010 8:13:35 GMT -4
Like I said, it's as clean and humane as a war can be, but it's still a war. War is by its nature dirty and inhumane. Which is what makes it something to be avoided; sadly, it often isn't.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 3, 2010 11:01:51 GMT -4
Let's look at the substance of the documents, not the personality of the whistle-blower. As we discussed above, much of the content is just stating the obvious. OTOH, Assange himself is rather interesting. Not many people would go to that much trouble to piss off so many governments. He certainly has gotten more than his 15 minutes of fame and I have a certain admiration for his reckless tenacity.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 3, 2010 11:38:05 GMT -4
Like I said, it's as clean and humane as a war can be, but it's still a war. War is by its nature dirty and inhumane. Which is what makes it something to be avoided; sadly, it often isn't. "Death... destruction... disease... horror... that's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. You've made it neat, and painless. So neat and painless, you've had no reason to stop it." - Captain James Tiberius Kirk, "A Taste of Armageddon"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 3, 2010 13:34:58 GMT -4
Here's a conspiracy theory: If the government didn't want Assange to leak, it would shut him down. Who's getting the most damage? Right now it's Hillary. Why would the current gov want to damage Hillary? It's not like she was planning to run against Obama...or IS she? Just a thought. For what it's wroth, Mrs. Clinton said in an interview yesterday that she will not be running in 2012, and that Secretary of State will be her last political office.
|
|