WikiLeaks

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
At the risk of being labeled a "paranoid schizophrenic", I find WikiLeaks' work supremely interesting. I don't agree with the popular notion that the people with the most guns decide how information flows, and regardless of their motives I'm glad they're putting a spotlight on whatever they like, regardless of law. I think it's a precedent that ought to be set.

"National security" as a magic pass-phrase to withhold information doesn't impress me.

Doesn't matter what impresses you. Endorsing illegal publication of classified information lends the practice of governments and other organizations of working outside the confines of the law; isn't this what Wikileaks is supposed to be reporting, actions similar to that which it itself is guilty of doing?

Those soldiers were ****ing pricks, even if they operated within the area, I remember they asked for permission through radio, but they lied about the situation, they were making stuff up to shoot those people and even insulted them. Seriously. And also the blowing up of the building in the end was weird as well, although that was more justified since those had some weapons, but still wrong.

They lied? Where is your proof, other than the conjecture made up in your head?
 
Last edited:

Leo(T.C.K.)

I did something m0tarded and now I have read only access! :(
May 14, 2006
4,794
36
48
They said they had weapons and stuff, they weren't even holding them as far as i remember and the only weapon was there was of the guard, they lied about them being armed and dangerous or something like that. So stfu.

They all lied to the families of the victims too.
 
Last edited:

GRAF1K

****** Kamikaze
Oct 16, 2003
874
0
0
Doesn't matter what impresses you. Endorsing illegal publication of classified information lends the practice of governments and other organizations of working outside the confines of the law; isn't this what Wikileaks is supposed to be reporting, actions similar to that which it itself is guilty of doing?

You've missed the point of WikiLeaks. Legality is irrelevant to them and they can determine what they think is right and what isn't without your help.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
When the American people see (for example) authenticated footage of American troops killing journalists and then just not care about it, something's badly wrong about society.
That's the entire thing you're not getting, though. Poeple DID care that innocent bystanders were killed. What they didn't care about was WikiLeaks trying to make the US look like garbage because innocent people died in a firefight. Once all the information about this incident came out, people were sad that it happened but nobody gave two poops about WikiLeaks reporting the information anymore. Sensationalism works up front but rarely works long term.
They said they had weapons and stuff, they weren't even holding them as far as i remember and the only weapon was there was of the guard, they lied about them being armed and dangerous or something like that. So stfu.
Remember harder. There were people in the video carrying weapons.

To me this is like saying that allied forces in WW2 should not have killed any innocent people, even if they were behind enemy lines in the middle of a firefight.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
You've missed the point of WikiLeaks. Legality is irrelevant to them and they can determine what they think is right and what isn't without your help.
Then does it really surprise you that so few people care what they have to say? It's like a convicted murderer trying to tell you that it's bad for serial killers to kill people. It's particularly like this considering that Assange himself is a criminal.
 

Leo(T.C.K.)

I did something m0tarded and now I have read only access! :(
May 14, 2006
4,794
36
48
I don't know if that guy is a criminal or not, however the guns were only carried at the part with the building being blown up(at the end of the full video) and there was no conflict immediately right there, the area was rather silent and those who were killed before were reporters with cameras and stuff, they were shooting at them even when they were lying dead! when the reporter moved on the floor trying to call for help they killed him, hell they killed those that were helping them, there were also children in the ****ing van and they got injured. I don't know WHAT THE **** you are talking about.
 
Last edited:

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
I think you need to go re-educate yourself on the situation you are talking about.

Primarily, there was only one reporter there.
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
They said they had weapons and stuff, they weren't even holding them as far as i remember and the only weapon was there was of the guard, they lied about them being armed and dangerous or something like that. So stfu.

They all lied to the families of the victims too.
You obviously did NOT watch the entire clip. It was difficult to determine if those were rocket launchers or really big camera lenses. Besides, the way the photog was popping in and out of sight made him appear to be hostile. The fact he inserted himself into an established hotspot only served to add to the fog of war. It isn't pretty, but combat is hard enough without idiot photogs trying to get their moneyshots.

You've missed the point of WikiLeaks. Legality is irrelevant to them and they can determine what they think is right and what isn't without your help.

No, you miss the point that Julian Assange is NOT above the law. He has no legal right to publish information he did not legally obtain. To make it easy enough for you, consider these documents as being copyrighted, and Wikileaks failed to obtain permission to publish them. That is a violation of the law; whether you or that nimrod Assange care about breaking the law is irrelevant. I hope they catch that jerk and let him rot with his buddy Manning.
 
Last edited:

Leo(T.C.K.)

I did something m0tarded and now I have read only access! :(
May 14, 2006
4,794
36
48
Okay, so it was only one reporter or two, that doesn't change the whole thing. I think you need to reeducate on it yourself as well.
 

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
16
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
You've missed the point of WikiLeaks. Legality is irrelevant to them and they can determine what they think is right and what isn't without your help.

What is so special about wikileaks that makes it ok for them to decide what should be public and what shouldn't? In fact they have already shown that they're the last ones that should be making such decisions.
 

Leo(T.C.K.)

I did something m0tarded and now I have read only access! :(
May 14, 2006
4,794
36
48
What is so special about wikileaks that makes it ok for them to decide what should be public and what shouldn't?

Because they're Batman....

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOSvzHRWlww[/M]
 
Last edited:

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Okay, so it was only one reporter or two, that doesn't change the whole thing. I think you need to reeducate on it yourself as well.
That innocent people were "behind enemy lines" got shot at and hit?
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
When the American people see (for example) authenticated footage of American troops killing journalists and then just not care about it, something's badly wrong about society.
oh jesus.
were you born yesterday?

now I can't speak for all "American people," but I can tell you why I personally didn't get my panties in a bunch over the leaked attack helicopter footage. and that's because I live in the real world. I don't pretend that life is perfect or fair or just.

did you even watch the video?
if so, did you have your sound on?

the footage clearly shows the US engaging a group of men only after it was reported that the targets were hostile. they didn't just open fire on them because they were bored and looking for some action. the helicopter circles the area for a long time, all the while discussing with ground troops in the area the possibility that the targets were friendly. field reports indicated that the men may have been carrying weapons and the quality of the on-board video from the chopper makes it difficult to discern otherwise.
the order to lay down fire was not given until after it was determined that one of the men may have been carrying an RPG, another an RPK, and another some kind of long rifle. yeah, it's hard to tell. but assuming that to be the case, the helicopter crew did its job by engaging a potential threat in order to secure the area for nearby ground units.

turns out they weren't hostile.
turns out they weren't carrying any weapons. just cameras and tripods.

you know what?
oh well.
sh*t happens. this is war.
war is not neat and orderly like Stratego.
war is fast, chaotic, uncertain and most definitely unfair.

the reason that people were not more shocked by this footage is because they understand the burden of warfare. decisions are made and carried out with little hesitation. yes, mistakes will sometimes be made, but maintaining the chain of command is imperative. this is just another in a long line of unfortunate circumstances due to the nature of modern warfare. it sucks, but you can't be surprised by it. you can't act like it's some huge deal that we should all cry about.

you know, a hundred years ago this would not have happened because those douche bags wouldn't even be there. the reporters I mean. yes, those reporters were douche bags. and so is every other journalist walking around in the middle of the fight.
they went to a war zone. they knew the risks.
what did they expect?

they wanted their merit badge. they wanted to take a bunch of shocking war photographs to improve their portfolio and boost their resume.
oh goody, just what we needed, more pictures of a war-torn and bullet-ridden sand village. gimme a break, we know what the sh*t looks like. we don't need a bunch of assholes wandering around snapping photos making it more difficult for the allies to distinguish between friend and foe.

can't stand the heat?
get your ass out the kitchen....
 
Last edited:

GRAF1K

****** Kamikaze
Oct 16, 2003
874
0
0
WikiLeaks didn't shoot anyone from a helicopter, they simply released footage of it happening. They can do this for the simple reason that they want to. Whether this is 'illlegal' or 'criminal' doesn't make it wrong in my eyes or theirs, it simply puts them at odds with people who have more guns than them.

So while this is not a good move from a self-preservation standpoint, it sets the precedent that men who believe in something can tell the world their side of the story. This is more noble than following any law, and if it comes at the price of being labeled a criminal then so be it.

Continue to make the case for censorship if you will, but when that comes back to bite you I'll expect you to shut up and take it.
 

BITE_ME

Bye-Bye
Jun 9, 2004
3,564
0
36
61
Not here any more
you know what?
oh well.
sh*t happens. this is war.
war is not neat and orderly like Stratego.
war is fast, chaotic, uncertain and most definitely unfair.

Your ****ed now.

"The My Lai Massacre (Vietnamese: thảm sát Mỹ Lai [mǐˀ lɐːj]; English pronunciation: /ˌmi:ˈleɪ, ˌmi:ˈlaɪ/ ( listen),[1] Vietnamese: [mǐˀlaːj]) was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on March 16, 1968 of 347–504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children (including babies) and elderly people."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre