Your words, not mine.benzyme said:
And i am against war.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
wikileaks: friend or foe?
- Thread starter polytrip
- Start date
And i am against war.
You can say what you want, but after saddam, one of the worst dictators in the world, was removed the situation in iraq worsened.
The people in afghanistan would rather have the taliban back, than having to live in a lawless country.
When law enforcement falls away, when nobody has to fear the government anymore, even when they commit crimes, then this is what happens.
People turn into scavengers, cannibals. They eat eachother alive, they feed on eachothers blood and pain, they'l rape, torture, mame, steal, lute, kill and destroy as far as their powers reach.
Humans are predators on one another and they need to be tamed.
Untamed, humans are the ugliest of all creatures, uglier than the maggots on your rotting corpse.
In iraq, people find their beheaded loved ones on their doorstep, with the message: 'you're next'.
When saddam was still there, at least you had certainty's.
Now, everybody can be saddam: your neighbour, your other neighbour, your own brother or father in law, the cable guy....
And that would happen here, if it wheren't for governments who keep secrets.
The people in afghanistan would rather have the taliban back, than having to live in a lawless country.
When law enforcement falls away, when nobody has to fear the government anymore, even when they commit crimes, then this is what happens.
People turn into scavengers, cannibals. They eat eachother alive, they feed on eachothers blood and pain, they'l rape, torture, mame, steal, lute, kill and destroy as far as their powers reach.
Humans are predators on one another and they need to be tamed.
Untamed, humans are the ugliest of all creatures, uglier than the maggots on your rotting corpse.
In iraq, people find their beheaded loved ones on their doorstep, with the message: 'you're next'.
When saddam was still there, at least you had certainty's.
Now, everybody can be saddam: your neighbour, your other neighbour, your own brother or father in law, the cable guy....
And that would happen here, if it wheren't for governments who keep secrets.
Again, it was USA/Western country/greedy world governments fault that Iraq/Afghanistan/the world became as violent/terrible as it is in the first place so saying that now its worse, as if the now could somehow relate to what wikileaks is doing, makes no sense IMO. Also because wikileaks is not a coup 
Im sure you can see the difference between released confidental files on one hand, and a military invasion on the other with all the direct deaths and psychological pressures it entails.
How many innocents lives more are gonna have to be destroyed for people to realize that the governments as they are is completely unsustainable and should be changed entirely? How many innocent lives were killed or ruined in Iraq/Afghanistan because of 'state secrets'? How many millions around the world are kept in poverty because of it? Again, I dont think wikileaks by itself is the solution to the worlds problems but its definitely a step which can be used positively if there's a worldwide movement to build saner organization structures.
I think humans are both the ugliest and the most divine creatures of all at the same time. I think the difference between one and the other is in how we establish our societies and education around these people. While the governments spends 1,3 trillion dollars a year on military (not to mention on all sorts of other shady secret deals), of course what you are gonna see is a beast of a civilization. Only 1% of that (literally) is calculated to be enough to solve the world's necessities regarding education so that the Education For All program can reach all its goals (which could potentially lead society into its 'divinity'.
I believe in exposing the government's secrets and investing all we can in education and sustainable development so that our grandchildren can live in a better world. All this secretive and military spenditure isnt making our world safer, it has been destroying our world for millenia and it is the responsible in long-term for the bad state we are in.
Im sure you can see the difference between released confidental files on one hand, and a military invasion on the other with all the direct deaths and psychological pressures it entails.How many innocents lives more are gonna have to be destroyed for people to realize that the governments as they are is completely unsustainable and should be changed entirely? How many innocent lives were killed or ruined in Iraq/Afghanistan because of 'state secrets'? How many millions around the world are kept in poverty because of it? Again, I dont think wikileaks by itself is the solution to the worlds problems but its definitely a step which can be used positively if there's a worldwide movement to build saner organization structures.
I think humans are both the ugliest and the most divine creatures of all at the same time. I think the difference between one and the other is in how we establish our societies and education around these people. While the governments spends 1,3 trillion dollars a year on military (not to mention on all sorts of other shady secret deals), of course what you are gonna see is a beast of a civilization. Only 1% of that (literally) is calculated to be enough to solve the world's necessities regarding education so that the Education For All program can reach all its goals (which could potentially lead society into its 'divinity'.
I believe in exposing the government's secrets and investing all we can in education and sustainable development so that our grandchildren can live in a better world. All this secretive and military spenditure isnt making our world safer, it has been destroying our world for millenia and it is the responsible in long-term for the bad state we are in.
Yes, endlessness. I think you're right about everything you say.
How revealing a secret inventory of objects that are sensitive to terror attacks fit's that picture though, is still not clear to me.
It doesn't seem asange wants the world to floorish, it rather seems he is an anarchist with a god-complex who wants to destroy. He would probably like it if terrorists would take advantage of that list. Agter all, people of the extreme left and islamic fundamentalists share the same enemy wich is 'the capitalist west', so how convenient it would be for them if some muslim radicals would hijack some more planes and crash it in some buildings ocupied by that species we all hate so much, namely bankers.
The reason he leaks is probably because he wants this to happen.
Ofcourse he says he doesn't, because that wouldn't cost him some sympathy, but why then does he only leak information that makes the west vulnerable? why not leaking about chavez's venezuela, ahmedinejad's iran, the people's republic of china or an organisation like al-qaida?
The answer is simple: he sees those regimes and organisations as an ally instead of a threat, he likes what al-qaida is trying to do.
You can smell political extremists from miles away, whether from the left or from the right, because what they all want is that very same thing benzyme described...some people may call it revolution, others would call it freedom or 'a new beginning', but it would remain to be...just another war.
How revealing a secret inventory of objects that are sensitive to terror attacks fit's that picture though, is still not clear to me.
It doesn't seem asange wants the world to floorish, it rather seems he is an anarchist with a god-complex who wants to destroy. He would probably like it if terrorists would take advantage of that list. Agter all, people of the extreme left and islamic fundamentalists share the same enemy wich is 'the capitalist west', so how convenient it would be for them if some muslim radicals would hijack some more planes and crash it in some buildings ocupied by that species we all hate so much, namely bankers.
The reason he leaks is probably because he wants this to happen.
Ofcourse he says he doesn't, because that wouldn't cost him some sympathy, but why then does he only leak information that makes the west vulnerable? why not leaking about chavez's venezuela, ahmedinejad's iran, the people's republic of china or an organisation like al-qaida?
The answer is simple: he sees those regimes and organisations as an ally instead of a threat, he likes what al-qaida is trying to do.
You can smell political extremists from miles away, whether from the left or from the right, because what they all want is that very same thing benzyme described...some people may call it revolution, others would call it freedom or 'a new beginning', but it would remain to be...just another war.
Mmm Polytrip.....
Maybe Al-Qaedas 'diplomats' dont keep such detailed records about their important chats?:roll:
I think to state that Assanges' worldview is the same as that of Al-Qaeda is bizarre.And as a side issue Al-Qaeda has no desire to simply destroy the Capitalist West; this is a myth propogated by the West to keep its people fearful and 'on-side' in the 'War on Terror'.
If you really want to know what Al-Qaeda hopes to achieve I suggest you read a book called 'Messages to the World-The Statements of Osama Bin Laden'; this should put their ideology into a more credible perspective.
Maybe Al-Qaedas 'diplomats' dont keep such detailed records about their important chats?:roll:
I think to state that Assanges' worldview is the same as that of Al-Qaeda is bizarre.And as a side issue Al-Qaeda has no desire to simply destroy the Capitalist West; this is a myth propogated by the West to keep its people fearful and 'on-side' in the 'War on Terror'.
If you really want to know what Al-Qaeda hopes to achieve I suggest you read a book called 'Messages to the World-The Statements of Osama Bin Laden'; this should put their ideology into a more credible perspective.
polytrip said:
One must tear down a condemned building before one can build something better in its place. The old has to end for something new to begin, as every new beginning is some other beginnings end. I believe he wants the world to flourish, but the whole current system needs to be exposed in order for that to have any chance of succeeding.
He leaks this particular information that makes the west "vulnerable" as they are the perpetrators of the greatest crimes against humanity. What the western Corportrocracy malfeasance has done to this planet and its people far outshines the pubescent antics of Chavez, al-qaida, or Ahmedinejad.
polytrip said:
I'm really surprised you said this. Humans are not naturally this way, it is the way they have been condidition to behave. We have been taught and manipulated to deny the divinity within each of us, to become unconscious ego constructs that sees everything as "other" to ourselves.
Saying that humanity needs to be "tamed" sends shivers down my spine.
I do not need anyone to tell me what I should or should not be able to do with my existence. I do not believe that humanity as a species needs that either. What we do need is for the same opportunities to be given to all. If everyone had all the necessities of life provided for them (food, water, shelter, education, which can easily be accomplished at a minimum of expense in todays world) then allowed to explore they innate talents, abilities and dreams, we wouldn't have wars, crime, poverty, or any of the things that require us to "prey" upon one another..
Psychologic research has shown that a pessimistic worldview is more often accurate than an optimistic worldview.
So you agree that he wants to destroy the west and have thousands of innocent cvilians murdered?Saidin said:
I rest my case...
that's ridiculous.
it's more likely he wanted to expose the travesties of global governments who exploit the
naivete of common citizens. trying to paint him as a terrorist is like trying to paint anyone who doesn't agree with authoritarianism a terrorist.
sorry, but that logic is FAIL.
it's more likely he wanted to expose the travesties of global governments who exploit the
naivete of common citizens. trying to paint him as a terrorist is like trying to paint anyone who doesn't agree with authoritarianism a terrorist.
sorry, but that logic is FAIL.
polytrip said:
definition of the word tamed;
tamed-Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to human provision and control. A defining characteristic of domestication is artificial selection by humans. ...
# tame - correct by punishment or discipline
# tame - tone down: make less strong or intense; soften;
nuff said.
polytrip said:
No, I am stating that he wants the truth of what is being done to the world to become known. If that leads to the destruction or collapse of a system that serves the interests and benefits the few over the many then so be it. If some people happen to die in the process, innocent or not, then that is the price that must be paid.
Freedom is never free and often requires sacrifice, even the ultimate sacrifice in order to be assured. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives have been lost, and will continue to be lost daily to maintain the lopsided system we currently have in place.
Murder to maintain slavery, or martyrdom to guarantee freedom...which would you choose?
polytrip said:
After all a pessimist is simply an optimist who is aware of all the facts!!:lol:
Are you familiar with the phenomenon of football hooliganism?olympus mon said:
That's the state of nature if humans are not restrained by any form of authority.
And football hooliganism is only a mild form.
Don't blame society for their behaviour. Society is all that keeps them constrained. Without society they'll be worse.
Every society has it's share of degenerate's, whether it's a very enlightened society or not.
And you need law-enforcement agencies that infiltrate, tap phones and make arrests with heavily armed SWAT-teams to keep those degenerates in line.
Someone who disagrees with that is either very naive or a hater of society and thus mankind, who sees criminals and terrorists as an ally in the quest for the total destruction of it.
Wikileaks seeks to destroy law-enforcement and thus society and thus mankind.
polytrip said:
It may sound funny to some but I don't hold people accountable for their actions as people are only a result of how society conditions. Law enforcement barely even treats the symptoms of that and no one seems too bothered about a long term solution.
Football hooliganism is a perfect example of a cultural conditioning.
Actually i don't need to make these points. It's the greatest proponents of wikileaks themselves who do this for me.
Benzyme and saidin themselves have said that they want war and the destruction of western society and that they see wikileaks as a step towards the realisation of that goal.
Benzyme and saidin themselves have said that they want war and the destruction of western society and that they see wikileaks as a step towards the realisation of that goal.
And you think NOT restraining these degenerates would be an improvement?soulfood said:
They'll lute your town and rape every women and child they encounter and slice their throats, they're savages.
And i don't see how you could hold society responsable for their behaviour, in another way than that it does not constrain them enough.
polytrip said:
Well yeah of course you need restraints as we're far off a perfect world. But the fact is that law enforcement is not an ultimate solution and any challenge to the current process can only be a good thing. The only progression I see in law enforcement is in the field of tracking and trapping, much of which is unjust.
Look, i am not a fascist. For god's sake..i started a thread against any form of chauvinism.
Anybody can easily convince me that i am wrong. You just need to convince me that either of the following four points are wrong:
1-If you want to fight crime or terrorism you need to keep some things secret.
2-If you don't want to fight crime or terrorism you automatically must want criminals and terrorists to have free play.
3-If you want criminals and terrorists to have free play, you must by definition want innocent people to become victims of terror and crime.
4-If you want society to change, then this can be done peacefully since peacefull protest is allowed in our society's.
If you can proof me wrong on ANY of those four points, then i will immediately admit that i am wrong.
Anybody can easily convince me that i am wrong. You just need to convince me that either of the following four points are wrong:
1-If you want to fight crime or terrorism you need to keep some things secret.
2-If you don't want to fight crime or terrorism you automatically must want criminals and terrorists to have free play.
3-If you want criminals and terrorists to have free play, you must by definition want innocent people to become victims of terror and crime.
4-If you want society to change, then this can be done peacefully since peacefull protest is allowed in our society's.
If you can proof me wrong on ANY of those four points, then i will immediately admit that i am wrong.
I would like to touch on more points later on, polytrip, but for the moment I just want to say that no, peaceful protests are not necessarly allowed. I've participated in peaceful protests that were violently dispersed by police in so-called "developed nations" even when there was no violence or reason to. Maybe they allow a few marches here and there as long as it doesnt call enough attention, but have it happen regarding a touchy subject and in some important area, and you can be sure they will find a way to stop it.
Also, I've come to the conclusion that street protests do very little if anything to help. IMO there's several more efficient (short or long term) ways of changing things for the better, and wikileaks is hopefully one of them. Ill think about your other points and Ill post my thoughts some other time
Also, I've come to the conclusion that street protests do very little if anything to help. IMO there's several more efficient (short or long term) ways of changing things for the better, and wikileaks is hopefully one of them. Ill think about your other points and Ill post my thoughts some other time
Well, you immediately came to the most vital point.
As long as change is possible in a peacefull manner, any violent solution is wrong.
I'm not even going to argue that point.
But if i would it would go like: if the police can stop a criminal without putting a bullet in his head, it would be rightfully called excessive force if they would use deadly force anyway.
I take it most of us would agree on that.
In that way ANY support of violence is equally wrong, whether it's making false pasports for terrorists or planting a bomb yourself, whether it's information retreival with the purpose of helping terrorists or flying planes into a building.
If indeed, there is no way to change anything but to resort to violence, then everything is totally different.
But even then violence could only ever lead to anything good, if the leaders of this revolutionary movement would be well aware of this and in a sense would resort to violence, very much against their will.
The ANC youth-movement used violence against it's will, knowing that the south african regime wasn't like the brittish regime in india that allowed peacefull protest. These are nelson mandela's own words.
The change they established where an improvement of the situation in south africa.
The russian revolutionary leaders allowed themselves to get cought with raging lust for blood.
The change they established was a deterioration of the russian situation.
As long as change is possible in a peacefull manner, any violent solution is wrong.
I'm not even going to argue that point.
But if i would it would go like: if the police can stop a criminal without putting a bullet in his head, it would be rightfully called excessive force if they would use deadly force anyway.
I take it most of us would agree on that.
In that way ANY support of violence is equally wrong, whether it's making false pasports for terrorists or planting a bomb yourself, whether it's information retreival with the purpose of helping terrorists or flying planes into a building.
If indeed, there is no way to change anything but to resort to violence, then everything is totally different.
But even then violence could only ever lead to anything good, if the leaders of this revolutionary movement would be well aware of this and in a sense would resort to violence, very much against their will.
The ANC youth-movement used violence against it's will, knowing that the south african regime wasn't like the brittish regime in india that allowed peacefull protest. These are nelson mandela's own words.
The change they established where an improvement of the situation in south africa.
The russian revolutionary leaders allowed themselves to get cought with raging lust for blood.
The change they established was a deterioration of the russian situation.