FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Do you think wikileaks is a terrorist?





Cliffer
Do you think wikileaks is a terrorist?
Do you support wikileaks website to keep running?
liljp617
No.

Yes, so long as they continue the policy of not intentionally placing anyone in life-threatening danger.
deanhills
There has been no terrorism involved to date. I believe the effort to make the documentation public in order to show Government excesses is genuine and sincere, or at least has been so to date. Perhaps the Wikileaks Website could be temporarily closed until all the hype around it has settled down a little. The destruction that has been caused however is no fault of Wikileaks, but people who are revolting for reasons that perhaps have nothing to do with Wikileaks. I don't believe that any blame for the revolting and furore can be attached to Wikileaks or Julian Assange.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
There has been no terrorism involved to date. I believe the effort to make the documentation public in order to show Government excesses is genuine and sincere, or at least has been so to date. Perhaps the Wikileaks Website could be temporarily closed until all the hype around it has settled down a little. The destruction that has been caused however is no fault of Wikileaks, but people who are revolting for reasons that perhaps have nothing to do with Wikileaks. I don't believe that any blame for the revolting and furore can be attached to Wikileaks or Julian Assange.


If Wikileaks isn't the reason for the revolting (could you specify what revolting you're talking about) and they're not to blame, what good would shutting down the website do?
Bondings
I think the term "terrorists" should be restricted the the people who actually participate in the blowing up (or other similar means) of other people.

Releasing leaked information has absolutely nothing to do with the above.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There has been no terrorism involved to date. I believe the effort to make the documentation public in order to show Government excesses is genuine and sincere, or at least has been so to date. Perhaps the Wikileaks Website could be temporarily closed until all the hype around it has settled down a little. The destruction that has been caused however is no fault of Wikileaks, but people who are revolting for reasons that perhaps have nothing to do with Wikileaks. I don't believe that any blame for the revolting and furore can be attached to Wikileaks or Julian Assange.


If Wikileaks isn't the reason for the revolting (could you specify what revolting you're talking about) and they're not to blame, what good would shutting down the website do?
There is a great difference between shutting down a Website and temporarily closing it. And it was not meant in a negative way at all. I'm sure Wikileaks must be going through some major pressure, and should welcome some time out to get their ducks in a row again.

My reference to people revolting meant that people may revolt without really understanding what they are revolting about. Some of course do, so I probably should modify my statement to include those who do, but there may be many others who just revolt for the sake of revolting.
Bikerman
I'm with Bondings on this one. It diminishes the word 'terrorism' if it is used in this context which, in turn, lessens the revulsion we feel at genuine examples of terrorist atrocity.

Naturally the 'injured parties' - chiefly the US and UK establishments - will use the same justification they always do for keeping information from the public - it is not in the public interest and may cost lives. Unfortunately they have resorted to that line so often that, even if it is true, many people (including me) are not going to believe it without some pretty solid evidence.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There has been no terrorism involved to date. I believe the effort to make the documentation public in order to show Government excesses is genuine and sincere, or at least has been so to date. Perhaps the Wikileaks Website could be temporarily closed until all the hype around it has settled down a little. The destruction that has been caused however is no fault of Wikileaks, but people who are revolting for reasons that perhaps have nothing to do with Wikileaks. I don't believe that any blame for the revolting and furore can be attached to Wikileaks or Julian Assange.


If Wikileaks isn't the reason for the revolting (could you specify what revolting you're talking about) and they're not to blame, what good would shutting down the website do?
There is a great difference between shutting down a Website and temporarily closing it. And it was not meant in a negative way at all. I'm sure Wikileaks must be going through some major pressure, and should welcome some time out to get their ducks in a row again.


I don't know, I imagine they're as organized as any business or news organization currently. Perhaps more organized.

Quote:
My reference to people revolting meant that people may revolt without really understanding what they are revolting about. Some of course do, so I probably should modify my statement to include those who do, but there may be many others who just revolt for the sake of revolting.


I don't disagree, but I was looking for more specification. As a general point, yes, that's probably true. But what specifically are we talking about in relation to this thread? Who is revolting without understanding? Are you referencing any specific recent events?
ocalhoun
Quote:

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Since wikileaks has neither used, nor threatened to use violence (that I know of), I don't think they fit the definition.

...(Unless the definition of 'violence' changed while I wasn't looking.)
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I don't disagree, but I was looking for more specification. As a general point, yes, that's probably true. But what specifically are we talking about in relation to this thread? Who is revolting without understanding? Are you referencing any specific recent events?
I was referring to the Wikileaks supporters who have been hacking Mastercard, Visa, Swedish prosecutors' and Swiss Banks who have acted against Julian Assange. I am almost certain Wikileaks or Julian Assange had nothing to do with those "attacks". So that was a revolt that was initiated by people who had their own cause.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I don't disagree, but I was looking for more specification. As a general point, yes, that's probably true. But what specifically are we talking about in relation to this thread? Who is revolting without understanding? Are you referencing any specific recent events?
I was referring to the Wikileaks supporters who have been hacking Mastercard, Visa, Swedish prosecutors' and Swiss Banks who have acted against Julian Assange. I am almost certain Wikileaks or Julian Assange had nothing to do with those "attacks". So that was a revolt that was initiated by people who had their own cause.
Well, clearly those attacks are as a direct result of action against wikileaks, so I don't see your point. I presume you are saying that those involved either have a wider agenda or have simply used wikileaks as a convenient excuse?
As for the suggestion that wikileaks be 'closed' - I thought you were against Government blocks on the internet?
gandalfthegrey
I find the title for the topic pretty lame.

The only people calling wikileaks a terrorist are a handful of Republicans who call most things terrorists, helping terrorists or being terrorist sympathizers.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
As for the suggestion that wikileaks be 'closed' - I thought you were against Government blocks on the internet?
If you bothered to read my posting Bikerman I said that it was in the interest of Wikileaks to close their Website temporarily. Not completely. I also gave my reasons for it. I most certainly did not say that the Government should close it. That was your conclusion. I did not say it loud, but I thought that Wikileaks could close their Website themselves. Temporarily, until all the upheaval has settled down, in their own interest.

You also came to a completely wrong conclusion below:
Bikerman wrote:
I presume you are saying that those involved either have a wider agenda or have simply used wikileaks as a convenient excuse?

I was saying what I was saying indirectly to defend Wikileaks and Julian Assange against the charge of terrorism. That none of the furore, i.e. the attacks on the Websites were Wikileaks' or Assange's doing. Those attacks happened by people who had their own cause, which they saw as defending Wikileaks and Assange. If there would be court cases afterwards, then Visa Card for example won't be able to charge Wikileaks or Assange.
mengshi200
I don't think so. on the contrary,the world need wikileaks.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
As for the suggestion that wikileaks be 'closed' - I thought you were against Government blocks on the internet?
If you bothered to read my posting Bikerman I said that it was in the interest of Wikileaks to close their Website temporarily. Not completely. I also gave my reasons for it. I most certainly did not say that the Government should close it. That was your conclusion. I did not say it loud, but I thought that Wikileaks could close their Website themselves. Temporarily, until all the upheaval has settled down, in their own interest.
What you actually said was
Quote:
Perhaps the Wikileaks Website could be temporarily closed until all the hype around it has settled down a little.
.The only people who could do that are the ISP and the Government - unless Wikileaks decided to do it themselves, and they have been clear from the start that this is not going to happen.
Quote:
You also came to a completely wrong conclusion below:
Bikerman wrote:
I presume you are saying that those involved either have a wider agenda or have simply used wikileaks as a convenient excuse?

I was saying what I was saying indirectly to defend Wikileaks and Julian Assange against the charge of terrorism. That none of the furore, i.e. the attacks on the Websites were Wikileaks' or Assange's doing. Those attacks happened by people who had their own cause, which they saw as defending Wikileaks and Assange. If there would be court cases afterwards, then Visa Card for example won't be able to charge Wikileaks or Assange.
I understood what you were saying. What you also said was that
Quote:
..people who are revolting for reasons that perhaps have nothing to do with Wikileaks.
And I disagree. The actions you have seen on the net are certainly 'to do with' Wikileaks'. We have no way to know whether any members of the wikileaks staff have been involved in demonstrations and illicit activity in attacking sites - it would neither surprise nor shock me to find out that some had.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
As for the suggestion that wikileaks be 'closed' - I thought you were against Government blocks on the internet?
If you bothered to read my posting Bikerman I said that it was in the interest of Wikileaks to close their Website temporarily. Not completely. I also gave my reasons for it. I most certainly did not say that the Government should close it. That was your conclusion. I did not say it loud, but I thought that Wikileaks could close their Website themselves. Temporarily, until all the upheaval has settled down, in their own interest.
What you actually said was
Quote:
Perhaps the Wikileaks Website could be temporarily closed until all the hype around it has settled down a little.
.The only people who could do that are the ISP and the Government - unless Wikileaks decided to do it themselves, and they have been clear from the start that this is not going to happen.
As I said, I was thinking along a voluntary closure of the Website by Wikileaks themselves, but if they are against that, then of course that won't be happening. I'm almost certain if you had followed my previous postings on Wikileaks, that I have never been anti-Wikileaks, and for me to suggest that the Government closes Wikileaks would be a little crazy, as that seems to be an enemy of sorts for Wikileaks.
Bikerman wrote:
Deanhills wrote:
I was saying what I was saying indirectly to defend Wikileaks and Julian Assange against the charge of terrorism. That none of the furore, i.e. the attacks on the Websites were Wikileaks' or Assange's doing. Those attacks happened by people who had their own cause, which they saw as defending Wikileaks and Assange. If there would be court cases afterwards, then Visa Card for example won't be able to charge Wikileaks or Assange.
I understood what you were saying. What you also said was that
Quote:
..people who are revolting for reasons that perhaps have nothing to do with Wikileaks.
And I disagree. The actions you have seen on the net are certainly 'to do with' Wikileaks'. We have no way to know whether any members of the wikileaks staff have been involved in demonstrations and illicit activity in attacking sites - it would neither surprise nor shock me to find out that some had.
Hopefully most people who know me have an idea of what I meant, if not with my first posting, hopefully the second posting when I tried to explain what I meant. I seem to be quite unsuccessful in explaining it to you so if it makes you happy to come to your own conclusion, no problem Bikerman.
c'tair
The day when releasing important information becomes terrorism will be the day that both Orwell and Huxley will turn in their graves.

Oops, Wikileaks is already accused of releasing information that shouldn't have been released, information which plainly shows how ungentlemany diplomacy is.

The funniest thing I've noticed during the news interviews and everything, was commentators using doublethink: Wikileaks are actually against transparent government, Wikileaks are actually against freedom of speech Shocked

Yeah, I almost lost my breakfast when I heard those.

Oh and guys, remember: war is peace.
watersoul
c'tair wrote:
Oh and guys, remember: war is peace.

...and we've always been at war with Eurasia Wink
liljp617
I nearly had an aneurysm when, a couple days after Assange was arrested on the assault charges, I read that the US was going to be hosting "Free Press Day" this year. Rolling Eyes
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I nearly had an aneurysm when, a couple days after Assange was arrested on the assault charges, I read that the US was going to be hosting "Free Press Day" this year. Rolling Eyes
If that gave you a near aneurysm, you must have a very strong heart as "Free Press" has to be a anomalous where so much money is washing hands all the time and there are so many people trying to make names for themselves.
Related topics
"terrorist" my thoughts
Why the Democrats don't have any great leaders either..
Al Quida
Domestic Spying
International Terrorist is in Pakistan
Who is a terrorist?
us supports an admitted terrorist group
Google funding terrorist groups???
Wikileaks.... US government blocking free speach
Hey all, Your friendly neighbourhood terrorist here
Is Cricket being targetted in Asia by terrorist?
Why do terrorist kill innocent people?
How much % of ALL profits are charities actually getting?
Wonder how far WikiLeaks is from prosecution?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.