Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 3, 2010 13:36:12 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. Sometimes, despite being as horrible as it is, it is better than the alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 3, 2010 15:17:07 GMT -4
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. Sure, but there are actually some things in there worth looking at, and they get subsumed by personalities.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 3, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -4
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. Sure, but there are actually some things in there worth looking at, and they get subsumed by personalities. True enough, but I suspect most of us don't come to this forum to discuss politics or war. In fact it is the low level of the discussion on politics that I like about this place. Interesting people on the other hand are interesting to talk about, at least as a side bar until the next HB comes along.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 3, 2010 17:17:21 GMT -4
Perhaps the issue for me is living with a boyfriend who doesn't care about politics and a best friend whose anxiety issues mean she isn't allowed to watch the news. The cats don't care, either.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Dec 4, 2010 8:54:23 GMT -4
Something closer, er..., further from home: www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+ufoApparently, someone mentioned UFOs somewhere in the materials that Wikileaks have. As you can see in the search results, the usual suspects are frothing in anticipation.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Dec 4, 2010 11:53:31 GMT -4
Well, it's very obvious to most people that the "leaked" material is, redundantly, stating the obvious... just that in a more official level. Yesterday (or the day before, not sure), for some reason, BBC News feed took out of the locker the famous Mincemeat Operation and compared it with the current Wikileaks thing going on. This might seem very fictitious, but I tend to believe that Assange is the protagonist (voluntary or not) of a similar plan. The US intelligence might have known (it's a supposition) about the attempts to leak data concerning their diplomats. Aware of the the situation, they planted documents containing good, bad and fictitious information. To give them legitimacy, they act against the release of the documents, make a call to stop it, but, eventually, the documents make it to the public. Concerning why would they do it, well... there's a lot of interests I can think of.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 6, 2010 12:10:41 GMT -4
Assange has now threatened to release even more documents that he has ready if he is arrested. Of course, this raises the question - if his goal was letting people know the truth why is he not already disseminating these "ready to go" documents?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 6, 2010 13:04:46 GMT -4
Assange has now threatened to release even more documents that he has ready if he is arrested. Of course, this raises the question - if his goal was letting people know the truth why is he not already disseminating these "ready to go" documents? Other reports paint a slightly different picture. So maybe Assange, himself, did not make the treat and maybe he doesn't have full control over the documents. I doubt that any one report has all the facts even if all the facts are public. These may well be documents that were withheld because of the extra potential for damage that WikiLeaks, as a group, didn't want to take. Or it may be a bluff by his lawyer. Either way, a little strategic game play through proxies is a wise precaution when ruffling feathers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 6, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -4
It looks very much like a peer into Assange's true motives in getting these documents out in the first place - to damage the US government. NOT to reveal the truth. He is looking more and more like a terrorist.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 6, 2010 14:02:19 GMT -4
Perhaps the issue for me is living with a boyfriend who doesn't care about politics and a best friend whose anxiety issues mean she isn't allowed to watch the news. The cats don't care, either. Wow, I've been saying for a long time that the single most important thing you can do for your mental health is to not watch the local TV news. I see I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 6, 2010 14:58:16 GMT -4
She can't watch any news. She can't even watch The Daily Show. Bear in mind that she very much wants to, because it's important to know what's going on in the world. Not doing so is, to me, extremely socially irresponsible. However, not watching the news is better than spending all your time curled in fetal position in the bathtub in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 6, 2010 15:30:28 GMT -4
However, not watching the news is better than spending all your time curled in fetal position in the bathtub in the dark. I have to limit my exposure to the news. It just doesn't pay for me to get riled up by the idiots in the world. def. Idiots- those who see things differently than I do.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 6, 2010 16:02:21 GMT -4
I keep up with the news (and I absolutely love The Daily Show), but I also have to limit my exposure to it sometimes because I'm an anxious and sensitive person. For example, hearing too much detail about certain notorious violent criminals (I don't want to name names) really upsets me, so I change the channel if they are being discussed on TV and I don't read articles about them online. Gillianren, if it's not too personal a question, did your friend decide on the news moratorium herself or did a mental health professional tell her not to watch the news? For me, it's a form of self-censorship: "I think this is bad for my mental health, so I won't watch it."
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 6, 2010 16:50:18 GMT -4
I believe it was a mental health professional, but given the vagaries of her life over the last handful of years--she's lived in four states in the nine years since she graduated from college--it wouldn't surprise me if she's continued it of her own volition. I know she misses The Daily Show like crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 6, 2010 19:31:56 GMT -4
I keep up with the news (and I absolutely love The Daily Show), but I also have to limit my exposure to it sometimes because I'm an anxious and sensitive person. For example, hearing too much detail about certain notorious violent criminals (I don't want to name names) really upsets me, so I change the channel if they are being discussed on TV and I don't read articles about them online. Gillianren, if it's not too personal a question, did your friend decide on the news moratorium herself or did a mental health professional tell her not to watch the news? For me, it's a form of self-censorship: "I think this is bad for my mental health, so I won't watch it." I, too have anxiety issues, along with panic attacks. I stopped watching the news for a few years because they kept mentioning mortgage and interest rate hikes. I kid you not!
|
|