WikiLeaks - irresponsible journalism

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by derrick drew, Jan 15, 2011.

  1. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Is it against the rules to express an opinion, even a stupid one ?
  2. pepo Member

    but have done a great job, who would have thought that we would hide whether they are fools but as an exaggeration for that I give my congratulations to Wikileaks for helping us media coverage and the cyber revolution that i hope you go so long
  3. Ersatz Global Moderator

    Nope, just thought I might point that out. Transparency and all.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. pepo Member

    are the best but with flaws, but who has no defects
  5. Anonymous Member

  6. Anonymous Member

    I really wish the counterpoint was better spoken and not nauseating to read
  7. Anonymous Member

  8. Anonymous Member

    I now assume this thread was only created to force the admins to finally make a thunderdome directory.
    Carry on.
  9. Perhaps, we have met. Were you at Seabrook, or Wall Street, in 1o/79???

    Cheers, me
  10. Anonymous Member

    Your point?
  11. Zak McKracken Member

  12. Ersatz Global Moderator

    No point, just a heads up for our new users. You know, in case they say something that may violate our TOS, or the law, or fucktarded.
  13. Zak McKracken Member

    how do i violate fucktarded?
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Ersatz Global Moderator

  15. Le Revisor Member

    well, diplomacy needs secret, since the beginning of human history, that's true. So why leaking state secrets?That's a real problem. It seems that wikileaks choose the leaks that they make public, that's another problem, they are not just journalists.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Diplomacy needs to be built on a mutual platform of trust. In the case of diplomacy in a democratic government, that trust needs to go three ways: our diplomat must trust their diplomat, their diplomat must trust ours, and the people must trust their own diplomat. The issue exposed in the state department dumps is that our trust in these diplomats in some cases has been grossly violated, and this needs to be addressed. There is also an issue especially in Pakistan that our diplomats on the ground are trying desperately to get Washington to understand, but our elected officials have their fingers stuck in their ears going "la la la I can't hear you."

    Journalists aren't people who parrot what the government says with flashy graphics and nice suits; journalists are the people who yell from the rooftops when there are problems that the public needs to know about.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Le Revisor Member

    Journalists are not all parrots.Concerning wikileaks, they are involved in a fight.Journalists, normally, are first of all observers. But, that's not the real problem, the only question is: what is the goal?
  18. Anon1942 Member

    It takes an informed public to run a republic. Goverment lies helped cause Viet Nam and caused many deaths. Leaks are bad for bad goverment but good for the Republic so people know what we as a goverment are doing.
  19. Fantôme Member

  20. Zak McKracken Member

    The goal is to find the suppressive persons and delete them from society?
    So we can clear our planet and be free?

    Do you have a different goal?
  21. Le Revisor Member

    Nice to meet you!I'm a VSP(very suppressive person), for years and years.VSP club is very little(few alive members, here in France).Did i answer your question?FRANTZ LEFRANçOIS-BAILLIARD.
  22. Anonymous Member

  23. Boris Korczak Member

    Wikileaks is NOT a terroris organization. You simply do not comprehend that there was no control entity over the government and it was doing whatever it chose to do especially under the Commander in Idiocy GWB.
    Wikileaks acting as a journalist exposed the stupidity and might change the ways the gov will act in the future. Perhaps it can make better, softer and more resonable government. Nobody appointed US as the gandarme of the world and this myth might go away thanks to Wikileaks.

    Stay sane


  24. Darkduck Member

    ROFL listen to this whole patriot talk, I mean come on first, you cannot be a patriot to more than one Country, so how can Wikileaks be a patriot to America, the UK, Australia, the EU????

    Second, why is it that when the truth is told and the US government ends up with egg on their face that they say someone is not being a Patriot, is it not the government who are not being a patriot, after all a patriot serves their nation, the government of these countries (particuarly the US) have not served the country but undermined it, failing to abide by their own pillars.

    and of course, how are they irresponsible??? Wikileaks does not release sensitive data or information that will effect national security. this has been a fun troll thread
  25. Boris Korczak Member

    Right Darkduck. Wikileaks is not a patriot of any country. It is something called journalism and its goal is to informs the world how not to be stupid and not to elect "patriots" with no brain to "serve" the nations, and as you justly stated ...failing to abide by their own pillars. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows us to attack other, smaller countries and spread democracy that we do not know what is is, neither there is anything permitting us to torture the oponents directly or in the foreign countries by proxy.
    It does not permit us to kill civilians, ruin cities, economy and treat them as our new colony. To those like Le Revisor I advice to read the US Constitution.

    Stay safe.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Herro Member

    Actually it does. The Constitution grants the US Congress the authority to declare war. Read up on it you crazy Red bastard.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Boris you should make a video (3-4 min) as to why you're in favor of wikileaks and entitle it "Ex-CIA Agent Boris Korczak in favor of Wikileaks"

    Or make a series of them that discusses your dealings with the USSR and compare your experiences with what diplomats did up until wikileaks
  28. Fantôme Member

    If your constitution grants the Congress the authority to declare war on any country without proof (and I mean real proof) that you have been attacked by them, then your constitution sucks... or the Congress does... or maybe you and people alike who support unjust procedures do.
    To retaliate after being attacked may be just. To retaliate in the wrong place after beign attacked by an unknown country/organization can be either stupid, or greedy if we talk about strategic or plundering purposes. To launch a "preventive" war is just behaving like a bully.
  29. Boris Korczak Member

    Which part of your Scientologist's brain produced this idiocy? (If any brain is left). Consider yourself being totally ignored.

  30. Boris Korczak Member

    There is nothing wrong with the Country, Constitution and declaring defensive war.
    CO$ troll is just a troll and should be ignored.
    Stay safe.

  31. Fantôme Member

    There is no such thing as "defensive war", that's bullocks. It´s like kicking someone's face in because he is staring weirdly at you. He might be cockeyed, you know...
  32. Fantôme Member

    What would the other guy think? It's like "oh shit, If I hadn't enough by beign cockeyed, this fucker just kicked me face in for no reason!?!?!"
  33. Anonymous Member

    The fact is Congress is allowed to declare war. There's nothing in there that says "but only for defense" or "only if it's Hitler." It's up to Congress to determine what is worthy of the sacrifice of thousands of young American lives, and it's up to their constituents to raise hell if they get that decision wrong. There is a difference between what is "legal" and what is "right." Herro is very particular about making that distinction, and you should be too.

    -Herro's Mistress
  34. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Who said "Geneva conventions", especially the fourth ? Herro, you should lurk moar.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Congress didn't declare war on terror. The war on terror is therefore unconstitutional.
  36. Anonymous Member

  37. Anonymous Member

  38. Fantôme Member

    Did I hear "Guantánamo"?
  39. Anonymous Member

    That and Cult too.
  40. Anonymous Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins