Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ramadhan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 131
  • Views Views 15K
ChargerCarl said:
I don't understand what you're confused about. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. So using it as a motive to argue that 9/11 was an inside job makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

would it be easier if it were spelt out for you?

9/11 happens, America goes to war with Iraq.

comprehende?
 
I love Wikileaks.

But hey, isn't it truly interesting how the US used to cry about China's net sensors? And now the US is censoring Wikileaks and threatening to murder an innocent man to shut him up?

Apparently freedom of speech is there when the US government approves it.
 
Runaway said:
I love Wikileaks.

But hey, isn't it truly interesting how the US used to cry about China's net sensors? And now the US is censoring Wikileaks and threatening to murder an innocent man to shut him up?

Apparently freedom of speech is there when the US government approves it.
Click to expand...

1. How is the U.S. censoring wikileaks? All of the censorship I have read about has been carried out by private institutions.

2. Of course freedom of speech only extends as far as the government allows it. I don't know what made you think otherwise.
 
ChargerCarl said:
I don't understand what you're confused about. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. So using it as a motive to argue that 9/11 was an inside job makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like you followed the war at all. The whole basis of the pre-emptive strike on Iraq was 9/11. Bush constantly went on about how in order to avoid another 9/11 they had to attack (at that time weapons of mass destruction was being used as the reason, this was later changed). The Bush Doctrine? None of this would have been possible without 9/11.

ChargerCarl said:
1. How is the U.S. censoring wikileaks? All of the censorship I have read about has been carried out by private institutions.
Click to expand...

Amazon said they stopped hosting wikileaks after pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman (he chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security). Osama Bedier (a Vice President in Paypal) said that the decision to suspend the wikileaks paypal account was influenced by the State Department.

ChargerCarl said:
2. Of course freedom of speech only extends as far as the government allows it. I don't know what made you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
 
ChargerCarl said:
How is that censorship?
Click to expand...
(Let's say) I have some ice cream at home and I called some guests over. Now I can either eat all the ice cream (block the sites in question completely) or hide the tasty parts of it and serve them the rest (censor).

Alright, let's change it to blocking sites. However, which of the above would be worse? To not give them anything at all (leave them hungry (>heedless)) or give them something but less tasty.

That is no different than an employer disallowing someone to use facebook while at work. Those computers are government property.
Click to expand...
It is different. For example (just an example) If the previous employees in that workplace turned out to be murderers or they were somehow mistreated, the employer has no right to hide the magazines (or Facebook) which would inform the employees of this.

Its governments role to protect and provide a society to ensure optimal and efficient market exchanges through regulation.
Click to expand...
Huh? By calling for the murder of an innocent man (or anyone else who dares to open his mouth) and denying them their basic human rights?
 
Last edited:
Dagless said:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Click to expand...

Harm principle. This is common knowledge and it doesn't mean you don't have freedom of speech.
 
Lynx said:
Harm principle. This is common knowledge and it doesn't mean you don't have freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Since when is he harming anyone?
I also didn't say he doesn't have freedom of speech. I was responding to a comment (which I did actually quote).

edit: btw still reading "on liberty" I see. I saw another one of your posts referring to things in that book too.
 
Last edited:
Runaway said:
It is different. For example (just an example) If the previous employees in that workplace turned out to be murderers or they were somehow mistreated, the employer has no right to hide the magazines (or Facebook) which would inform the employees of this.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Those computers are government property. Unless you can somehow provide evidence that they are not you have no argument.
 
Dagless said:
Since when is he harming anyone?
I also didn't say he doesn't have freedom of speech. I was responding to a comment (which I did actually quote)
Click to expand...

Releasing CLASSIFIED documents containing sensitive information of US humint operations and informants and disrupting international diplomacy and nuclear non-proliferation.
 
ChargerCarl said:
Releasing CLASSIFIED documents containing sensitive information of US humint operations and informants and disrupting international diplomacy and nuclear non-proliferation.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying uncovering wrongdoing is a bad thing? Governments are speaking for the people; we should know the bad things they do in our name. No lives have been lost due to the leaks, can you say the same about the wars?
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top