Wikileaks Shenanigans

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

...If you let the rest of the world burn the fire will eventually spread to your doorstep....The universal values of liberty, freedom and democracy have to be pressed in all corners of the globe, because it IS what all people want, even if government controlled polls suggest otherwise. You need to wake up, buddy. There's a reason we're interfering in, for example, Iran's internal politics - because we don't want a theocratic autocracy whose president wants to bring about apocalyptic conditions for the return of the Islamic messiah to acquire nuclear technology. If that pisses a bunch of extremists off then so be it.

In line with a lot of being said here, but on the same line of "government controlled polls", our own government also hides a lot of information from us that deserves to be seen. Is it too idealistic of me to desire the spreading liberty, freedom and democracy without violating them at the same time? Because by spying on our allies and violating UN policies (revealed in Wikileaks), we're doing the opposite of what you purport.

Originally Posted by SinisterKid

The precedent for being considered jahiliyya is inconsistent and depends on the preconceived notions of whatever extremist is declaring it, but it has facilitated the unification of various groups. Repugnant Abomination offered Quranic scripture that obviously states the murder of disbelievers is against Sharia, but the would be leaders of al-Qaeda very early on found clever ways to leverage and misinterpret other portions of the Quran and Sharia to influence young Muslims into committing terrorist acts.

One thing I distinctly remember thinking while painstakingly reading Islam: A Short History (Good read...kinda.) was how ridiculously god damn confusing the constant re-interpretations of the Qur'anic scripture were. It seemed that every hundred or so years of different rulers changed dramatically depending on which particular person was in power, whether it was the government leader or the caliph, and which sect was in charge. I really probably should read it again to try and make some sense of it.

What it basically boils down to, at the time of conception (and I feel the same with many religious texts, stripped from all the bullshit), is that Mohammed wasn't a terribly bad guy, and I agreed with a lot of his motivation behind what he did. That being said, most scripture has been manipulated and man-fucked to the point of infinite interpretations, none of which can be verified, obviously, because of a complete lack of any sort of god. I am digressing, however...

Originally Posted by SinisterKid

Repugnant Abomination offered Quranic scripture that obviously states the murder of disbelievers is against Sharia

Certainly, but this isn't by any means how most Muslims view it. Could anyone with personal experience enlighten us to the general attitude among most Muslims they have encountered? In regard to spreading territory, the concept of dhimmi's's, etc.


Sorry this post is kind of a mess, had to type it out quick.

[Beebs]

Everybody spies on everybody, this is part of international diplomacy.

The Clinton order to get biometric and security data on the secretary general of the UN is completely out of line though, even by my standards.

[SinisterKid]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Certainly, but this isn't by any means how most Muslims view it.

I am not trying to protect Islam, but think saying "most" Muslims approve killing every non-Muslim is a little much. A lot do though.

And, as non-bro Repugnant Abomination pointed out, the Quran is full of contradictions.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by SinisterKid

...saying "most" Muslims approve killing every non-Muslim is a little much. A lot do though.

I wasn't trying to infer that you were trying to protect them. I think this area is where a lot of people get fumbled up, especially those (most of us in the Western world) who haven't had much experience with Muslims. It generally boils down to two attitudes:

All Muslims want to kill us, Islam is a violent religion, they hate our freedom!

and

The Muslims that really want to kill us are a very small and extremist minority, most Muslims are just like you and me.

But now you are telling us that, a lot of Muslims truly do feel like we are infidels and that we should be converted or subjugated or killed? I'm not trying to seem naive, as i've done a lot of research on the matter, but this shocks me a bit, as I've tried very hard to not have such a fearful attitude of Islam. But what kind of percentages are we looking at here?

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mistoffelees

I remember my friends and I pretending we were planes and crashing into each other.

Weird, since I ran for office just a year later with no consequences for my thoughts on 9/11.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Did you win? No, no you didn't sheriff f3lix.

[Mr. Blonde]

Just ftr f3lix quoted the wrong thing, hilarious non sequitur though.

[Mr. Blonde]

Wikileaks is currently offline supposedly due to their host being hammered by DDOS all this week. More on Reddit here and an article about it here.

EDIT: This should be fine, in the long run, for the record. They should be able to change the nameservers to a different host (or transfer the domain name, whichever is the case) no problem. It's kind of Wikileaks bad of they really did notify them of problems beforehand.

[SinisterKid]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

But now you are telling us that, a lot of Muslims truly do feel like we are infidels and that we should be converted or subjugated or killed? I'm not trying to seem naive, as i've done a lot of research on the matter, but this shocks me a bit, as I've tried very hard to not have such a fearful attitude of Islam. But what kind of percentages are we looking at here?

I suppose the term "a lot" is subjective. In my opinion, any amount of folks wanting to kill or subjugate other folks because of their religion is too many. I couldn't give you a percentage though. If you look at say, Christians and Muslims, I would assume that there are more Muslims who are less accepting of the Christian way of life and are willing to kill or subjugate them because they aren't Muslim than the other way around. That is purely conjecture, and I am not, in this instance, protecting Christianity. Thoughts?

[Mr. Blonde]

They are really different kinds of religions. Islam (means "surrender [to God]", as many of you know) is very much convicted to the good of the ummah. Their entire government and ruling system is tied in with religion, and always has been. Whereas in the past certain leaders were partial to one religion or another, in Islam it's plain and simple, a theocracy.

Also, a point Hitchens makes in god is not Great, they are a much younger religion than Judaism and Christianity. Every major religion seems to go through a period of forceful conversion/subjugation of others(Old Testament Jews, Crusades), and Islam started the latest of the three, so they're going through that period now, I think was the point being made.

[SinisterKid]

Last two paragraphs are compelling.

The Associated Press: Could WikiLeaks survive without Julian Assange?

[Mr. Blonde]

Doesn't seem like Wikileaks.org is coming back, at least any time soon. I've always wondered how that works with ICANN being a U.S. nonprofit.

WikiLeaks site's Swiss host dismisses pressure to take it offline | Media | guardian.co.uk

[Mr. Blonde]

WikiLeaks: US Manipulated Climate Agreement | Mother Jones

Personally, i'm not happy about this, but it presents an interesting moral pickle for climate-science denying conservatives:

Support Wikileaks for exposing corruption from those pushing climate change legislation?

Decry Wikileaks for exposing government secrets?

I imagine lots of stuff like this is going to be uncovered.

[f3lix]

I don't think governments should have secrets and that the people of a country deserve to know what their government is doing. A secretive government can/will/does misrepresent its people when its people don't know what it is doing.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I don't think governments should have secrets and that the people of a country deserve to know what their government is doing. A secretive government can/will/does misrepresent its people when its people don't know what it is doing.

What an absolutely fucking stupid statement. If we were unable to keep secrets we would have been conquered as a country several times over.

[f3lix]

It's not a "fucking stupid statement." What it is, is a different way of federal governments acting and treating each other. How diplomatic do you think foreign nations are going to be when the find out we've been going behind their back, trash talking their leaders, and trying to keep everybody else down while we prop ourselves up? Those who try to run the world all fail in the long run. The U.S. won't be on top at the end of this century, and I'd set a line of 2055 when we are looking up to and for help from a more superior country.

[Mr. Blonde]

YouTube - Julian Assange's lawyer on bullsh1t charges and Wikileaks (05Dec10)

YouTube - Julian Assange's lawyer on bullsh1t charges and Wikileaks (05Dec10)

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

It's not a "fucking stupid statement." What it is, is a different way of federal governments acting and treating each other. How diplomatic do you think foreign nations are going to be when the find out we've been going behind their back, trash talking their leaders, and trying to keep everybody else down while we prop ourselves up? Those who try to run the world all fail in the long run. The U.S. won't be on top at the end of this century, and I'd set a line of 2055 when we are looking up to and for help from a more superior country.

To quote one British dipolmat "you should see what we say about them"

Seriously, no secrets means no D-Day invasion, basically no way to defend our country.

[thekremlin]

Originally Posted by f3lix

The U.S. won't be on top at the end of this century, and I'd set a line of 2055 when we are looking up to and for help from a more superior country.

Does anyone consider this a bold statement?

Wikileaks published a pretty wide list of locations the US considers vital to national security worldwide. Not really sure how the CIA havent assassinated this guy yet.

I'm kidding. I don't think this guy should be assassinated. But I do think he should be tried for treason.

[Fruitacious B]

He's Australian, so the whole treason thing won't really work.

[thekremlin]

Fair enough, but assassination is still in play right?

[SinisterKid]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I don't think governments should have secrets.

Like, any secrets? Can you expand on that?

[f3lix]

I think citizens of a country should be entitled to knowing what their representatives (all branches and divisions) are doing in regarding foreign and domestic affairs. If some Russian wants our info, fuck him. But I sure as hell would like to know what we are doing overseas and I can't gain access to that. It's wrong.

[Mr. Blonde]

The latest updates to Barack Obama's Facebook news feed. - By Christopher Beam and Chris Wilson - Slate Magazine

[heurisdick]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I think citizens of a country should be entitled to knowing what their representatives (all branches and divisions) are doing in regarding foreign and domestic affairs. If some Russian wants our info, fuck him. But I sure as hell would like to know what we are doing overseas and I can't gain access to that. It's wrong.

You gain access by being involved in US intelligence. If you can't get a clearance, you shouldn't have access. How do you propose getting all our secrets out to just our citizens without "some Russian" getting in on it? Hold a national town hall meeting?