Wikileaks

[Gota]

gah at least bother to think before you write..if your gonna use an English word than at least know what it means.
Go read the common definition of terrorism.

IF you dont agree with Israel's policies that fine(though i have yet to hear an attempt by you to criticize it objectively) calling it a terrorist organization is just retarded and your either just writing things for the sake of writing them(when people make silly comparisons its usually that) or you just do not know what terrorism is.

[Soul]

Do you dispute that HAMAS is a terrorist organization?

By same grounds;
Do you dispute that israel is not a terrorist organization?

gah at least bother to think before you write..if your gonna use an English word than at least know what it means.
Go read the common definition of terrorism.

IF you dont agree with Israel's policies that fine(though i have yet to hear an attempt by you to criticize it objectively) calling it a terrorist organization is just retarded and your either just writing things for the sake of writing them(when people make silly comparisons its usually that) or you just do not know what terrorism is.

Well, i supose you have a valid point, but i think my definition of terrorism is quite accurate, violence against civilians, that instills fear and or submission in that of the local populance.

There might be some loopholes but i think that covers most of it.

And although i do not claim here that Israel is a terrorist state, i would nonetheless claim that some of its actions are within the definition of terrorism and maybe aswell within the definition of racism.

So Sleksa has a point, although he is quite blunt when trying to express it.

Wait wait...i thought he was charges with rape in sweden....

No, it wasn't rape, but "surprise sex".

I think he had sex with a woman without a condom despite she told him to wear one... an intresting topic since that would imply that she was willing to have sex with him, just that she had another preference then he did.

He was also charged with initiating sex with a sleeping woman, this i do not know the details of it.

This could very well be rape if they never before have had any sexual relations and or she explicitly told him she did not want to be with him, however if they had relations in the past then it would be trickier.

Think about it this way, would people react as much if it was a guy that woke up to the feeling of having a woman preforming, for an example, oral on him?


I'm not saying that hes not a rapist nor am i say he is, to condem him as such before his trial has ended with a condemning verdict would be, frankly, quite wrong.

[Sleksa]

gah at least bother to think before you write..if your gonna use an English word than at least know what it means.
Go read the common definition of terrorism.

IF you dont agree with Israel's policies that fine(though i have yet to hear an attempt by you to criticize it objectively) calling it a terrorist organization is just retarded and your either just writing things for the sake of writing them(when people make silly comparisons its usually that) or you just do not know what terrorism is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

My point was that they both use same methods (escalating retaliation , painting the other side as a inhumane subhuman army of rabid nazis and so on) to achieve their goals.

The difference is that they are on the other side of the fence

So Sleksa has a point, although he is quite blunt when trying to express it.

ya i think it came off as too harsh ;-(

[Gota]

Well you can make such comparisons with anything and with any side in any conflict...
You can say that Germany and Britain were both just as bad and both acted in unjust and immoral ways on the same scale.
And I can suddenly claim that none of them was more right in it's actions or motives.
It's a toxic way of presenting things and such comparisons are only made by one cultural zone in a way that does not serve its purposes(IMO its the impotent one).

Moral relativism is a bad thing(i mean the meta-ethical relativism to be precise).

[PicassoCT]

If Killcount isnt wright, who won Nam?

[Kixu]

The war on terror was retarded to begin with, you can't have a war on a noun. You need a country or a nation state not just a noun. Terror or terrorism which they say is an ideology, its not an ideology, its a politcal technique. They made it into an ideology, then through the media connected it to muslims making out that terrorism is an ideology inherent in Islam. Which is a fucking lie because no ones religion has terrorism as an ideology. "And jesus said strap that bomb to your face."

Yet they made a war on terror, what does war create? Terror. So they have a war on the consequence of the actions they are involved in.

The USA is the only country in the world to be convicted of terrorism by the world court, but they vetoed the judgement. And calling HAMAS extremists is hilarious. Palestinians defend themselves against one of the largest armies in the world with rocks. All comes down to this idea that there can be a war where only one side can shoot, any one defending themself is an extremist. A simple use of metaphysics and George Orwell is probably masterbating in his grave right now.

[PicassoCT]

Kixie is that you? You are still around, like in the good old times?

[Gota]

The war on terror was retarded to begin with, you can't have a war on a noun. You need a country or a nation state not just a noun. Terror or terrorism which they say is an ideology, its not an ideology, its a politcal technique. They made it into an ideology, then through the media connected it to muslims making out that terrorism is an ideology inherent in Islam. Which is a fucking lie because no ones religion has terrorism as an ideology. "And jesus said strap that bomb to your face."

Yet they made a war on terror, what does war create? Terror. So they have a war on the consequence of the actions they are involved in.

The USA is the only country in the world to be convicted of terrorism by the world court, but they vetoed the judgement. And calling HAMAS extremists is hilarious. Palestinians defend themselves against one of the largest armies in the world with rocks. All comes down to this idea that there can be a war where only one side can shoot, any one defending themself is an extremist. A simple use of metaphysics and George Orwell is probably masterbating in his grave right now.

I loled.

Bush did 9/11!!!
Lets nuke the middle east!!!
etc etc etc..

[hoijui]

in my definition of terror (i did not invent it myself ), it means attacking the enemy through means of altering its environment, instead of attacking in a more direct sense. guys with bombs that detonate them-selfs are doing this through changing the mental environment of people, making them feel un-save where they felt save before. israel is doing the same, when they attack out of nowhere with missiles or helicopters or whatever. israel is also doing this by actively dictating the economy through isolation, and by the fences and walls they erected, and control points.
i would say israels terror is much more efficient.

[Forboding Angel]

If the US doesn't fight vs terrorism, who will? I don't see any of your countries rushing into the limelight. It's easy to sit back and make snide remarks and potshots when you're an armchair pilot, which, incidentally, makes you very similar to a politician.

Or from the other side's perspective, If the jihadists dont fight usa and its allies on their war of occupation, who will?

If it weren't for the jihadists, there wouldn't be a war of occupation. Your statement vs mine cancels each other out.

[hoijui]

i would rather describe it as a chicken egg problem, while the US is laying eggs, to prove that they are right, that eggs were first.
what they fail to see, is that they are a chicken.

yeah i know, it is tricky to get that one... why are they a chicken... ?!?

[zwzsg]

If it weren't for the jihadists, there wouldn't be a war of occupation. Your statement vs mine cancels each other out.

There were no jihadists in Iraq, yet the US started a war of occupation. Your statement is invalid.

[SpliFF]

Go easy on him. It's not his fault he can't separate whitehouse propaganda from facts. It's not his fault the US media repeat said propaganda without the slightest attempt at objective analysis. It's not his fault that years of propaganda have enabled him to hold mutually exclusive views without accepting the obvious conclusion that one or both of those views must be wrong.

I mean what you say if you were simultaneously the worlds most lovable and free nation (at least that's how you see yourself) and the worlds most violent and abusive country (largest military budget, most nuclear weapons, most treaty violations, most troops in foreign lands)?

The yanks hate Wikileaks because they want to protect their own delusions. The rest of the world seems to have no problem seeing the US for what it really is.

[Forboding Angel]

Spliff, you need to lurk moar. Say around page 3 or so.

[afisara]

Do the Wikileaks revelations help create peace or further conflict? This is a pretty controversial topic. Many governments from around the world support it and others criticize it. I'm assuming that it is favorable for democracy but on the other hand it ruins the governments. Although the leaks show secret information sometimes it lead peace. What are your sides of the argument and do you ahve any examples to support it? Lemme know what you think.
______________________________
keyword research ~ keyword tool ~ keyword tracking ~ affiliate elite

[SpliFF]

Assange has stated unreservedly that his intention is to ruin governments... that rely on secrets to function. Presumably if it works, those governments will have to be replaced with one of two things:

1.) Governments that function fine without secret plots
2.) Governments that can hide their secret plots from the public.

Assange theorises that any government based on 2.) will simply weaken itself further, and therefore a government based on 1.) is the only possible outcome in the long-term even if 2.) is the result of the current round of leaks. I think he may be right, it isn't easy to hide anything in a connected world.

To answer your question though it seems pretty clear to me that most 20th century conflicts have relied on a misinformed public. If most Americans knew what they were getting into BEFORE Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan would they have been so quick to give their lives? I honestly doubt it.

[Forboding Angel]

Every government has secrets, and requires that certain things stay secret to run effectively in some cases.

To believe otherwise is just silly.

[hoijui]

that is what they said about open source too, and they were proven wrong, by hard dollar.

[AF]

Just because I need to keep my PIN number secret to manage my finances effectively doesn't mean I need to cheat on my partner and contract STDs and pass them on to them and keep it a secret to manage a relationship effectively.

There are secrets that are kept because they are necessary for diplomacy to function.

There are secrets that are kept because you did something you shouldn't have and you want to cover it up instead of facing the consequences or being responsible and not doing the wrong thing to begin with.

Stop confusing the two.

[Gota]

Just because I need to keep my PIN number secret to manage my finances effectively doesn't mean I need to cheat on my partner and contract STDs and pass them on to them and keep it a secret to manage a relationship effectively.

There are secrets that are kept because they are necessary for diplomacy to function.

There are secrets that are kept because you did something you shouldn't have and you want to cover it up instead of facing the consequences or being responsible and not doing the wrong thing to begin with.

Stop confusing the two.

Well put.