Broccoli Dog Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Maybe if Wikileaks had existed the the 1930s there wouldn't have been a Holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 You've confused me here, Law Stud. I routinely dismiss your posts as wind-ups but this time I'm agreeing with you. What have I missed? As far as I'm concerned there are reasons for diplomacy requiring secrecy. You don't show your hand in international negotiations and the publication of secrets can lead to bloodshed. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt can be traced back to Wikileaks (although some would say they were coming anyway and that both could be seen as welcome). It's not impossible that the next round of leaks could have consequences with bigger players. He has no right (legally or morally) to publish and although the rape charges are possibly trumped up, he deserves to be tried in America. That's just my opinion. If he were to be tried in America then surely the Guardian or at least someone at the top of the Guardian should be following him over? As it is, I seriously doubt he will be going to America anytime soon. He will not get sent to Sweden on these laughable rape charges and Britain would never send him to the States with the possibility of the death penalty hanging over him, regardless of any assurances that America give Britain about him receiving nothing more than life without parole if found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 There was plenty of quoteable evidence in the programme. For example the editor of the Guardian said that they were to publish and Asange wanted the names of Afghani informants published. The Guardian disagreed but Asange was planning to publish the stories on Wikileaks at the same time as the Guardian and he was planning to publish unedited. Both the Guardian editor and Asange's former number 2 at Wikileaks said that Asange took the attitude that since they were informers he didn't care if they got killed. In the end Asange came round to not publishing the unedited article but by that time the name of the informers were out there already - leaked by Asange!! Now I find it difficult to believe that the Taliban with their record would have left the informants and their families alone once they found out their identities no matter what the US is saying on the record. As for the Manning support group what are they supposed to say. They've been promised £50k, so far they have £15k. If someone said to me keep your mouth shut, don't complain and we'll get round to giving you £35k in the near future I'd do it - wouldn't you? I'm amazed that you believe what you hear from those pinkos at the Guardian and the Beeb! The Grauniad have been caught out redacting loads of stuff from Wikileaks documents that exposes corruption around the world, especially when it involves British companies. I'm not surprised Assange complained about it. I'm also not surprised at them slagging him off now that Wikileaks have stopped giving them anything and are handing it to the Daily Telegraph instead. Again, there's no evidence from any source that anyone has been put in danger by Wikileaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Maybe if Wikileaks had existed the the 1930s there wouldn't have been a Holocaust. I doubt it. All Germans knew about the persecution of the Jews, as did most of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I'm amazed that you believe what you hear from those pinkos at the Guardian and the Beeb! The Grauniad have been caught out redacting loads of stuff from Wikileaks documents that exposes corruption around the world, especially when it involves British companies. I'm not surprised Assange complained about it. I'm also not surprised at them slagging him off now that Wikileaks have stopped giving them anything and are handing it to the Daily Telegraph instead. Again, there's no evidence from any source that anyone has been put in danger by Wikileaks. Apart from the source that is his former number 2 at Wikileaks, and from the newspaper editor that handed him over a shitload of cash, or some of his closest colleagues..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Apart from the source that is his former number 2 at Wikileaks, and from the newspaper editor that handed him over a shitload of cash, or some of his closest colleagues..... Bitter ex employee has a go at former boss shock! "He was a big bully and got all the attention! " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Bitter ex employee has a go at former boss shock! "He was a big bully and got all the attention! " Aye right. Or possibly ex employee who decided his boss was acting immorally putting lives in danger? Certainly his evidence was corroborated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I doubt it. All Germans knew about the persecution of the Jews, as did most of Europe. Aware of the camps certainly, but aware of the mass slaughter? Those facts didn't arise until late in the war are were suppressed in the media here and in the US, thought our government were certainly aware. Had the technology existed for an orginisation like Wikileaks to publish government secrets such as this, it could have radically changed the events of 41-45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Aware of the camps certainly, but aware of the mass slaughter? Those facts didn't arise until late in the war are were suppressed in the media here and in the US, thought our government were certainly aware. Had the technology existed for an orginisation like Wikileaks to publish government secrets such as this, it could have radically changed the events of 41-45. In what way? There is certainly plenty of evidence that civilians right across mainland Europe knew exactly what was happening to the Jews. It wouldn't take much of a genius to work it out. 6m Jews were killed in the holocaust, that's 1m more than the population of the Scotland stored in 62 camps across Europe? Where would they have thought they would have hid them all - especially if the Nazi propaganda about holiday camps was to have been believed. Civilians were too busy protecting their own lives. Why save a Jew you didn't know or care about when what was at stake was Gestapo interrogation and torture for you and your family, and possibly concentration camp internment or being shot to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwififer Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Say there's a leaked paper that confirms that Labour bullied Holyrood into releasing Paula Abdul, would Stu be in favour of that being released? In fact Stu, would you be in favour of papers being released stating that he didn't do it and that the investigation actually pointed the finger towards Iran? One better. Blair lied to us over WMD, we were bumped into an illegal war and it's basically all about Iraq's oil. This will bury Labour for generations. Should it be released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Say there's a leaked paper that confirms that Labour bullied Holyrood into releasing Paula Abdul, would Stu be in favour of that being released? In fact Stu, would you be in favour of papers being released stating that he didn't do it and that the investigation actually pointed the finger towards Iran? One better. Blair lied to us over WMD, we were bumped into an illegal war and it's basically all about Iraq's oil. This will bury Labour for generations. Should it be released? Papers get released through official channels every single day. We don't need a self publicist and some anti-Semitics releasing what they want to suit their own political agenda, especially when it's got a willful disregard for lives, and for political consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwififer Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Papers get released through official channels every single day. That they do, but every government no matter the rosette will be 'economical with the truth'. I'd rather get the truth than government spin, especially when it comes to the previous government. If they said the sky was blue, I would go and check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 That they do, but every government no matter the rosette will be 'economical with the truth'. I'd rather get the truth than government spin, especially when it comes to the previous government. If they said the sky was blue, I would go and check. Surely you aren't naive enough to think that Wikileaks and The Guardian were doing what they were doing without putting their spin on it? The profitable route was to hit at the US. It's strange but I don't remember reading many leaks from the Osama Bin Laden camp, or from Saddam Hussain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Hey as long as the guardian don't stick their spelling on it.. Assange sounds a c**t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessies long lost ghost Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I see Panorama has shown up Assange for the c**t he is. All his closest allies spilled the beans over a pint. Assange has set up Afghan informants by naming them and he's set up Wikileaks informants who have been arrested by not sending them the promised finance for legal assistance. Amnesty International are critical of Assange. We shouldn't be harboring this alleged rapist. We should be putting him a plane to the US and letting them deal with him. Do you think he did it? If he did do it, why did the alleged case only arise after the wikileaks were leaked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Do you think he did it? If he did do it, why did the alleged case only arise after the wikileaks were leaked? Oh I think he probably did. You know the details of the case don't you? Doesn't sound that far fetched to be honest. I think the c**t sees himself as a world celebrity now, above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessies long lost ghost Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Oh I think he probably did. You know the details of the case don't you? Doesn't sound that far fetched to be honest. I think the c**t sees himself as a world celebrity now, above the law. Fair enough. I do know the details of the case. Edit to add - why do you the case only came out after the leaks though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarko_son Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 just seen the panorama programme, have to say i like the idea and aims of Wikileaks. Asange i'm so sure about, hard to trust him seen as he's secretive and he's quite suddenly rose to power etc he's a bit of an enigma my main point though was about the programme itself i think that was the most biased programme i've ever seen from a supposed neutral media company (the BBC), every single thing was completely negative about him. I think any sort of average viewer who didn't really know much about Wikileaks, and who he was etc would think he was an utter c**t. When i believe in making himself the figurehead of the site he's allowed all the media attention to be attracted to him so Wikileaks can continue (what i consider) their good work anyway needed to get that off my chest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessies long lost ghost Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 just seen the panorama programme, have to say i like the idea and aims of Wikileaks. Asange i'm so sure about, hard to trust him seen as he's secretive and he's quite suddenly rose to power etc he's a bit of an enigma my main point though was about the programme itself i think that was the most biased programme i've ever seen from a supposed neutral media company (the BBC), every single thing was completely negative about him. I think any sort of average viewer who didn't really know much about Wikileaks, and who he was etc would think he was an utter c**t. When i believe in making himself the figurehead of the site he's allowed all the media attention to be attracted to him so Wikileaks can continue (what i consider) their good work anyway needed to get that off my chest , i know you did say supposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarko_son Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 , i know you did say supposed. yeah that's entire different debate really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.