Tsunami Of Wikileaks Has Hit Thailand

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Maybe it's just your reading skills that is the problem

Err, no. I don't think so:

If a terrorist is "A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals...in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful or ... a weaker opponent", then that includes pretty much any state.

and if a conspiracy is "To try to make things go a certain way", then that includes pretty much any intentional action.

Not particularly useful definitions.

[whybother]

Maybe it's just your reading skills that is the problem

Err, no. I don't think so:

If a terrorist is "A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals...in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful or ... a weaker opponent", then that includes pretty much any state.

and if a conspiracy is "To try to make things go a certain way", then that includes pretty much any intentional action.

Not particularly useful definitions.

Given that the definition uses the term "a government", that would imply that "A person, group, or organization" is not "a government".

So, any violent action by "A person, group, or organization" is not an action by a state (ie "a government").

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Your definition says that a terrorist is 'A person, group, or organization'. Governments are organizations. If you think that governments are by definition excluded from being terrorists - although I can't see any reason to think that they should be - then you should say so.

[animatic]

Maybe it's just your reading skills that is the problem

Err, no. I don't think so:

If a terrorist is "A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals...in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful or ... a weaker opponent", then that includes pretty much any state.

and if a conspiracy is "To try to make things go a certain way", then that includes pretty much any intentional action.

Not particularly useful definitions.

Given that the definition uses the term "a government", that would imply that "A person, group, or organization" is not "a government".

So, any violent action by "A person, group, or organization" is not an action by a state (ie "a government").

There is the entity called a terrorist state.

[whybother]

Your definition says that a terrorist is 'A person, group, or organization'. Governments are organizations. If you think that governments are by definition excluded from being terrorists - although I can't see any reason to think that they should be - then you should say so.

The definition used "a government", separating them from "a person, group, or organization".

But, whatever! The point was Sergei was asking pointless questions. I cut and paste a definition.

I will send an email to someone to clarify their definition.

[whybother]

There is the entity called a terrorist state.

Yes ... and it specifically uses "state" to differentiate from a "regular" terrorist.

Edited December 5, 2010 by whybother

[SweeneyAgonistes]

So what? People used to call the IRA a 'terrorist group'. The group bit just indicates a particular feature of the terrorist organisation.

[Spee]

Anti-Americanism: A Clinical Study

By Bernard Chazelle

Big stinky steaming pile of leftist steer manure written by another life long pissed off Marxist who doesn't have the stones to leave his cushy perch in America to try and go live, teach and publish in some socialist or communist hell hole abroad. The guy is a complete nitwit as demonstrated by his "credo" here:

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/politics/creed.html

Next!

[Piengrudee]

Tsunami? I didn't even see a swell.

[animatic]

Anti-Americanism: A Clinical Study

By Bernard Chazelle

Big stinky steaming pile of leftist steer manure written by another life long pissed off Marxist who doesn't have the stones to leave his cushy perch in America to try and go live, teach and publish in some socialist or communist hell hole abroad. The guy is a complete nitwit as demonstrated by his "credo" here:

http://www.cs.prince...tics/creed.html

Next!

I guess you didn't really read it, and more did a Cliff Notes Browse n Trash.

Guy had a lot of humor and good observations going on.

Not particularly kind to the far left in any way.

Had nothing to do with Socialist Theory, or most anything else Marxist.

Edited December 5, 2010 by animatic

[TAWP]

But let's get back to Wikileaks for what it is, a rogue website with no real purpose other than to make democratic governments and government officials look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. As others have suggested, why isn't Wikileaks releasing all kinds of information about the abuses in places like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Burma and other rogue nations?

Because they don't have it.

Are you really this badly informed?

[LaoPo]

Well, at least you did not claim that I was "bashing" you this time, but I'm sure that you know that you can look up the definition of anti-American is any dictionary - or just examine your posting history carefully and work from there.

Not an answer to my offer; but I didn't expect too much of it anyway.

You're anti-anybody if they don't walk on your path of wisdom and views.

It's so silly.....if I would comment I don't like Ben & Jerry's Icecream I'm already qualified as anti-American...

But, I like Häagen-Dazs!

Does that make me a better American-lover ?

But, I don't like American cars so I'm afraid I'm still anti-American

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Good ahead, have a field day with this.

Over and over again I'm surprised why members post such lengthy posts with multiple quotes they didn't write themselves and even off-topic, expecting others to read them.

Wrong thinking.

LaoPo

Edited December 5, 2010 by LaoPo

[Scott]

Posts that are off-topic and personal attacks have been removed.

Stay on-topic, please. If you wish to have a personal argument, you may use the PM function, however, the forum rules still apply.

[brahmburgers]

back on topic........

I watched a round table discussion on TV last night, with reps from major newspapers. The editor of one of London's major newspapers expressed a similar opinion to how I perceive the Wikileaks thing: It will compel already-guarded diplomatic communications to clam up even more. Examples: the Saudis/ Jordanians/Kuwaitis/Emirate States/Yemeni (a.k.a. 'The Dunes') who currently have decent relations with US State Dept, will now be less frank in their communications with the Uncle Sam - knowing that any utterance/communique might be compromised.

[Spee]

... why isn't Wikileaks releasing all kinds of information about the abuses in places like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Burma and other rogue nations?

Because they don't have it.

Or alternatively ... they are making absolutely no effort to seek it out, possibly because they are sympathetic and have no axe to grind or they are being sponsored in whole or in part.

[LaoPo]

back on topic........

I watched a round table discussion on TV last night, with reps from major newspapers. The editor of one of London's major newspapers expressed a similar opinion to how I perceive the Wikileaks thing: It will compel already-guarded diplomatic communications to clam up even more.

Examples: the Saudis/ Jordanians/Kuwaitis/Emirate States/Yemeni (a.k.a. 'The Dunes') who currently have decent relations with US State Dept, will now be less frank in their communications with the Uncle Sam - knowing that any utterance/communique might be compromised.

Decent relations you say...?

I doubt that, since behind the diplomatic curtains in Washington DC -US State Department- there's a revolution going on about the relations with said countries; I think the Americans have a big big problem in the Middle East:

Saudi Arabia is 'biggest funder of terrorists'

By Rob Hastings

Monday, 6 December 2010

Saudi Arabia is the single biggest contributor to the funding of Islamic extremism and is unwilling to cut off the money supply, according to a leaked note from Hillary Clinton.

<snip>

Saudi Arabia is accused, along with Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, of failing to prevent some of its richest citizens financing the insurgency against Nato troops in Afghanistan. Fund-raisers from the Taliban regularly travel to UAE to take advantage of its weak borders and financial regulation to launder money.

Entire article:

http://www.independe...ts-2152327.html

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

...or they are being sponsored in whole or in part.

The spooky dude, George Soros!

[LaoPo]

Cables Suggest Mideast Resists U.S. on Cutting Terrorists' Cash

WASHINGTON — Nine years after the United States vowed to shut down the money pipeline that finances terrorism, senior Obama administration officials say they believe that many millions of dollars are flowing largely unimpeded to extremist groups worldwide, and they have grown frustrated by frequent resistance from allies in the Middle East, according to secret diplomatic dispatches

The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.c...nancing.html?hp

LaoPo

[Spee]

Anti-Americanism: A Clinical Study

By Bernard Chazelle

Big stinky steaming pile of leftist steer manure written by another life long pissed off Marxist who doesn't have the stones to leave his cushy perch in America to try and go live, teach and publish in some socialist or communist hell hole abroad. The guy is a complete nitwit as demonstrated by his "credo" here:

http://www.cs.prince...tics/creed.html

Next!

I guess you didn't really read it, and more did a Cliff Notes Browse n Trash.

Guy had a lot of humor and good observations going on.

Not particularly kind to the far left in any way.

Had nothing to do with Socialist Theory, or most anything else Marxist.

Oh, come on now. I read every word, more than once. The guy has absolutely no sense of humor. He is pissed off at the left only because they aren't radical enough. Everything he espouses is for government to provide for society. The only way that happens is for government to use force to take way one person's property to give to another, or put another way, the whole idea of one's inalienable right to personal property goes away and the government becomes the sole provider. That is the very definition of Marxist socialism and the world has many historical examples of where that road ends.

[geriatrickid]

Anyway, who's watching the leakers at wikileaks? It is somewhat fascinating to watch people that are the first to complain about mainstream media and big brother so readily embrace pre-digested information. Wiki Leaks unlike wikipedia is not subject to continuous review. What's getting distributed is one side of a story and in international relationships its 3D, but hey, what do I know, I'm just one of the dumb workers that needs the enlightened intellectuals to tell me what to think.

[Wallaby]

Wikileaks don't give a one sided view, they give every view they have. They don't decide what to publish and what not to publish. If someone from any country leaks info to them they publish it. Hardly their fault it is only the US govt at this stage. I'm sure others will follow.

By the way, for those that have wondered what Assange does with the money etc, they are a non profit organisation.

Lao Pro, yes I believe many posters have been 'bashing' you yet I continually see you state that you would be just as happy had Wikileaks leaked documents from other countries as well. I guess the other posters just follow like sheep and no amount of common sense will change their mind.

[Ulysses G.]

WikiLeaks has raised one million dollars during the last year and pays for all of Assange's "travel expenses" and he seems to be traveling full time.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

In light of some of the comments being made by those that support the actions of WikiLeaks, I would ask if you also support the actions detailed below.

It is the same moral principle with a different "victim".

______________________________________________________________

German hackers allegedly steal pop music

Dec 3, 7:24 AM (ET)

BERLIN (AP) - Two German hackers allegedly stole pop songs from Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, Kesha and Kelly Clarkson, selling them online and forcing the advanced release of several singles, officials said Friday.

A 17-year-old student and a 23-year-old unemployed man allegedly used Trojan viruses to hack into the artists' computers for about 12 months before being discovered, Duisburg chief prosecutor Rolf Haferkamp told The Associated Press.

During that time, they earned more than euro10,000 ($13,240) in illegal sales of tracks acquired from the stars' computers.

The student, an amateur DJ known as "DJ Stolen," also allegedly downloaded a sexually compromising photo of one artist and used it to blackmail her. Haferkamp would not comment on which artist it was.

Haferkamp said the police were informed of the hacking after a fan of Kelly Clarkson alerted her management that unreleased songs of the singer were being sold online.

Unlike in the U.S., German prosecutors first launch formal investigations and then file criminal charges if they find enough evidence. Haferkamp said the investigation should be concluded by January and can lead to criminal charges. The alleged hackers are still living with their parents in western Germany.

Spokesmen for the artists were not immediately available for comment.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101203/D9JSE31G1.html

________________________________________________________________

What say you? Do any of you support these acts of intellectual piracy?

[Gulfsailor]

In light of some of the comments being made by those that support the actions of WikiLeaks, I would ask if you also support the actions detailed below.

It is the same moral principle with a different "victim".

______________________________________________________________

German hackers allegedly steal pop music

Dec 3, 7:24 AM (ET)

BERLIN (AP) - Two German hackers allegedly stole pop songs from Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, Kesha and Kelly Clarkson, selling them online and forcing the advanced release of several singles, officials said Friday.

A 17-year-old student and a 23-year-old unemployed man allegedly used Trojan viruses to hack into the artists' computers for about 12 months before being discovered, Duisburg chief prosecutor Rolf Haferkamp told The Associated Press.

During that time, they earned more than euro10,000 ($13,240) in illegal sales of tracks acquired from the stars' computers.

The student, an amateur DJ known as "DJ Stolen," also allegedly downloaded a sexually compromising photo of one artist and used it to blackmail her. Haferkamp would not comment on which artist it was.

Haferkamp said the police were informed of the hacking after a fan of Kelly Clarkson alerted her management that unreleased songs of the singer were being sold online.

Unlike in the U.S., German prosecutors first launch formal investigations and then file criminal charges if they find enough evidence. Haferkamp said the investigation should be concluded by January and can lead to criminal charges. The alleged hackers are still living with their parents in western Germany.

Spokesmen for the artists were not immediately available for comment.

http://apnews.myway..../D9JSE31G1.html

________________________________________________________________

What say you? Do any of you support these acts of intellectual piracy?

I don't support theft. But the big difference with Wikileaks, is that they Wikileaks did not hack or steal anything (nor are they selling it for monetary gain). They are a news medium, just like a newspaper, that publishes the information they were given.

It is debatable if this particular information should be published for the general public to read, but then as much blame lies with The Guardian, Der Speigel, Le Monde and the other papers that have the cables in full and publish them alongside Wikileaks (while these papers are making money on releasing the information!). If you start a witchhunt on the messenger (Wikileaks in this case), then just get rid of all news media and accept a government that is not accountable to its citizens.

The US should have accepted Wikileaks' offer to sit around the table and discuss which cables are too sensitive or dangerous to release at this time, but they did not want to. Futhermore, if some of these cables are considered to be so dangerous, then the US should have classified them top-secret in the first place. There are no top-secret cables being released by Wikileaks, only confidential and secret ones that were already to be seen by over 2 million!!! public officials in the US anyway.

Governments around the world are very well aware of what the US thinks of them and how the game is being played. Governments around the world are upset, because it shows how they sell a certain story to its voters, while behind closed doors, making agreements with the US that are opposed to what their voters would have wanted or expected.

[flying]

If the actions of wikileaks releases obvious crimes perpetuated world wide & then covered up then I have no problem with it.

How is the patriot act in the USA any different?

It allows the govt to monitor your mail... your calls..without any charges being filed.

If your suspected in the least by any claim they can do all of that & more.

They can hold you without charging you.... nor do they give you a speedy trial....so much for habeas corpus or constitutional rights these days in the USA.

I say Fu_k em...If they are so entwined in the illegal web they have wove they deserve to be exposed.

We cant get transparency so I'm glad someone has just torn the curtains down

Edited December 6, 2010 by flying

[geriatrickid]

Wikileaks don't give a one sided view, they give every view they have. They don't decide what to publish and what not to publish. If someone from any country leaks info to them they publish it. Hardly their fault it is only the US govt at this stage. I'm sure others will follow.

By the way, for those that have wondered what Assange does with the money etc, they are a non profit organisation.

Lao Pro, yes I believe many posters have been 'bashing' you yet I continually see you state that you would be just as happy had Wikileaks leaked documents from other countries as well. I guess the other posters just follow like sheep and no amount of common sense will change their mind.

It is a one sided view because the reader is not aware of all the events and facts that led up to the document published. Yes, the cables paint a grim view of money funding terrorists via Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia. What they do not provide is background information where Kuwait said the US claims were unconvincing.and its laws just didn't allow for the draconian measures proposed. Having the other side of the issue puts things in perspective. The wikileaks haven't achieved any good have they? So far, all the documentation from the middle east in respect to Iran makes the arab countries out to be closet zionists. And yet, do you think that information will change any of the bigoted people resident in TVF? It's as if I went into your medical file and pulled out the info from 2001-2002. Without knowing that came before and that followed that period, it really wouldn't help anyone now. Information has to be put in context. Mr. Assange and his cronies have not published anything from Russia or China or Iran or Arab countries have they? Think about it. While your gnawing at the legs of Uncle Sam, Mr. Chan is getting ready to eat you.

[Ulysses G.]

Without knowing that came before and that followed that period, it really wouldn't help anyone now. Information has to be put in context. Mr. Assange and his cronies have not published anything from Russia or China or Iran or Arab countries have they? Think about it. While your gnawing at the legs of Uncle Sam, Mr. Chan is getting ready to eat you.

If China ends up in charge, there will be no uncontrolled news on the Internet - or anywhere else.

[Wallaby]

Wikileaks don't give a one sided view, they give every view they have. They don't decide what to publish and what not to publish. If someone from any country leaks info to them they publish it. Hardly their fault it is only the US govt at this stage. I'm sure others will follow.

By the way, for those that have wondered what Assange does with the money etc, they are a non profit organisation.

Lao Pro, yes I believe many posters have been 'bashing' you yet I continually see you state that you would be just as happy had Wikileaks leaked documents from other countries as well. I guess the other posters just follow like sheep and no amount of common sense will change their mind.

It is a one sided view because the reader is not aware of all the events and facts that led up to the document published. Yes, the cables paint a grim view of money funding terrorists via Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia. What they do not provide is background information where Kuwait said the US claims were unconvincing.and its laws just didn't allow for the draconian measures proposed. Having the other side of the issue puts things in perspective. The wikileaks haven't achieved any good have they? So far, all the documentation from the middle east in respect to Iran makes the arab countries out to be closet zionists. And yet, do you think that information will change any of the bigoted people resident in TVF? It's as if I went into your medical file and pulled out the info from 2001-2002. Without knowing that came before and that followed that period, it really wouldn't help anyone now. Information has to be put in context. Mr. Assange and his cronies have not published anything from Russia or China or Iran or Arab countries have they? Think about it. While your gnawing at the legs of Uncle Sam, Mr. Chan is getting ready to eat you.

If, when someone from another country decides to provide information it will be published.

If the US govt considers it so one sided then why don't they provide their side of the story. No one is stopping them.

Where are the negative comments against the newspapers for reporting the leaks? Why is it just Wikileaks. Surely those papers are just as much complicit in any 'alleged' crime. Have they had attempts made to restrict their funding? Have they been taken off domain sites?

Edited December 6, 2010 by Wallaby

[chuckd]

If the actions of wikileaks releases obvious crimes perpetuated world wide & then covered up then I have no problem with it.

How is the patriot act in the USA any different?

It allows the govt to monitor your mail... your calls..without any charges being filed.

If your suspected in the least by any claim they can do all of that & more.

They can hold you without charging you.... nor do they give you a speedy trial....so much for habeas corpus or constitutional rights these days in the USA.

I say Fu_k em...If they are so entwined in the illegal web they have wove they deserve to be exposed.

We cant get transparency so I'm glad someone has just torn the curtains down

So, Mr. Flying, are you saying if somebody is stealing information from an entity you personally disagree with, it is acceptable? Please clarify your position.

What about the intellectual piracy mentioned in my post above. Do you object to that?

What does the Patriot Act have to do with any of this?