Wikileaks: Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:01 PM, Al5x said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:49 PM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:31 PM, kaini said:

i think that's one of the problems - wikileaks dumps info in such unfeasibly large amounts, it usually takes a week or two for someone to editorialise and provide a condensed version with the major points. (and introduce BIAS! BIIIAAASS!!! in the process, said cbrown)

 

n/m. carry on.

 

Befored you editted this post you claimed wikileaks may have some sort of bias.

 

The only problem with this is I've paid attention to a fair amount of coverage of wikileaks from every concievable side, and no one (including those it would be advantageous to) claimed the information in that last two leaks were false information. If I am wrong about this and someone is claiming that wikileaks is making shit up, someone point me to the article/whatever it is.

yeah, with the previous big leak, wikileaks actually made it available to the US government several weeks before release to see if there was anything in there they'd like to pass comment on, or anything they'd really really like to redact for safety reasons. the govt didn't respond - but there was also no 'this is a pack of lies' comment from them, which i would imagine there would be if the information contained within was untrue.

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:22 PM, chenGOD said:

yeah if you want a board where the whole point of it is to sit around and call each other "douche", there's a super elite one here.

ill have you know for all in tents and porpoises xltronicdotcom is a respected nonpartisan source of facts and truisms, a source of which cbrown is already a celebrated and contributing member you dousche

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:14 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

 

...

if this is your only goal you're either a troll or butt hurt from another political thread (it appears you are carrying some resentful baggage from some previous political thread, and i suspect you're mad at my views on 9/11 since you used the pejorative form of conspiracy theory above) and trying to spill it out here to get your frustration out. I think what most of the members of the forum were trying to say, besides 1 other person, is that if you come with nothing besides 'he's a douche and i don't like him' and offer no compelling or interesting viewpoints of any kind, it's time to give it a rest. It becomes a futile exercise of you cleverly vieling your lack of backbone or being able to hold anything resembling a passionate viewpoint on an actual issue (of course besides the issue being you don't like the cut of my jib ).

Is it really hard to understand why people would ask you to put yourself out on a limb and possibly *risk* being wrong or not entirely correct on offering a particular viewpoint on wikileaks?

edit: I find it amusing you think i'm a bully for disagreeing with people. please thicken your skin a little bit.

    Quote

In its story, the Guardian assessed the Pakistan disclosures with some skepticism: "For all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred."

 

The leak drew a sharp response from the White House.

 

National Security Adviser James Jones said in a statement, "The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security."

 

"Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents – the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted," the statement said. "These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people."

from

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/25/massive-leak-of-documents-show-faltering-afghan-war-duplicity-b/

i find it interesting that cryptome has never attracted a similar shitstorm to wikileaks, considering they've been playing the same game for much longer.

Awepittance - why the link to that story? It's from July...

kaini: cryptome is a little more low-key in their approach, and don't you remember this story from last month?

  On 11/27/2010 at 11:15 PM, chenGOD said:

this story from last month?

damned turkish hackers.

i wasn't aware of this, but it's not a huge setback - to paraphrase linus, 'i don't back stuff up, i just upload it and people mirror it' ;)

second time in a year though ;)

But I think it's mostly cause Cryptome doesn't make videos entitled Collateral Murder and splash them on youtube.

  On 11/27/2010 at 11:15 PM, chenGOD said:

Awepittance - why the link to that story? It's from July...

 

kaini: cryptome is a little more low-key in their approach, and don't you remember this story from last month?

whoops, thought it was from today.

this is the newest article i can find

http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/28/us-in-touch-with-pakistan-on-wikileaks-2.html

as far as i can tell the leak hasn't happened yet. Anyone care to speculate why Assange is sitting on a video from Afghanistan that he has described as much more horrific than the 'collateral murder' video?

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:20 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:14 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

 

...

 

if this is your only goal you're either a troll or butt hurt from another political thread (it appears you are carrying some resentful baggage from some previous political thread, and i suspect you're mad at my views on 9/11 since you used the pejorative form of conspiracy theory above) and trying to spill it out here to get your frustration out. I think what most of the members of the forum were trying to say, besides 1 other person, is that if you come with nothing besides 'he's a douche and i don't like him' and offer no compelling or interesting viewpoints of any kind, it's time to give it a rest. It becomes a futile exercise of you cleverly vieling your lack of backbone or being able to hold anything resembling a passionate viewpoint on an actual issue (of course besides the issue being you don't like the cut of my jib ).

 

Is it really hard to understand why people would ask you to put yourself out on a limb and possibly *risk* being wrong or not entirely correct on offering a particular viewpoint on wikileaks?

 

edit: I find it amusing you think i'm a bully for disagreeing with people. please thicken your skin a little bit.

i'm friends with jay exillon and attend many of the shows thereabouts....if i'm not mistaken you used to be around these parts (are you close to berkeley now?). surely i'll just meet you in person soon and i can tell you to your face what a douchebag i think you are. then we'll see who has the backbone.

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:04 AM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:20 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:14 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

 

...

 

if this is your only goal you're either a troll or butt hurt from another political thread (it appears you are carrying some resentful baggage from some previous political thread, and i suspect you're mad at my views on 9/11 since you used the pejorative form of conspiracy theory above) and trying to spill it out here to get your frustration out. I think what most of the members of the forum were trying to say, besides 1 other person, is that if you come with nothing besides 'he's a douche and i don't like him' and offer no compelling or interesting viewpoints of any kind, it's time to give it a rest. It becomes a futile exercise of you cleverly vieling your lack of backbone or being able to hold anything resembling a passionate viewpoint on an actual issue (of course besides the issue being you don't like the cut of my jib ).

 

Is it really hard to understand why people would ask you to put yourself out on a limb and possibly *risk* being wrong or not entirely correct on offering a particular viewpoint on wikileaks?

 

edit: I find it amusing you think i'm a bully for disagreeing with people. please thicken your skin a little bit.

 

i'm friends with jay exillon and attend many of the shows thereabouts....if i'm not mistaken you used to be around these parts (are you close to berkeley now?). surely i'll just meet you in person soon and i can tell you to your face what a douchebag i think you are. then we'll see who has the backbone.

wow, so now we're at the 'thinly veiled threats' level, from a poster with a history of violence.

you stay classy, cbrown.

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:17 PM, 24ourange said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:22 PM, chenGOD said:

yeah if you want a board where the whole point of it is to sit around and call each other "douche", there's a super elite one here.

 

ill have you know for all in tents and porpoises xltronicdotcom is a respected nonpartisan source of facts and truisms, a source of which cbrown is already a celebrated and contributing member you dousche

i was only on briefly enough to utterly trash and humiliate beneboi. haven't been back since!

but it really was the kind of place i wanted to wash my hands after visiting. if watmm isn't an embarrassing enough turd, a place full of banned watmm flunkees

etc

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:04 AM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:20 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:14 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

 

...

 

if this is your only goal you're either a troll or butt hurt from another political thread (it appears you are carrying some resentful baggage from some previous political thread, and i suspect you're mad at my views on 9/11 since you used the pejorative form of conspiracy theory above) and trying to spill it out here to get your frustration out. I think what most of the members of the forum were trying to say, besides 1 other person, is that if you come with nothing besides 'he's a douche and i don't like him' and offer no compelling or interesting viewpoints of any kind, it's time to give it a rest. It becomes a futile exercise of you cleverly vieling your lack of backbone or being able to hold anything resembling a passionate viewpoint on an actual issue (of course besides the issue being you don't like the cut of my jib ).

 

Is it really hard to understand why people would ask you to put yourself out on a limb and possibly *risk* being wrong or not entirely correct on offering a particular viewpoint on wikileaks?

 

edit: I find it amusing you think i'm a bully for disagreeing with people. please thicken your skin a little bit.

 

i'm friends with jay exillon and attend many of the shows thereabouts....if i'm not mistaken you used to be around these parts (are you close to berkeley now?). surely i'll just meet you in person soon and i can tell you to your face what a douchebag i think you are. then we'll see who has the backbone.

pulse for temp ban

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:06 AM, kaini said:

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:04 AM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:20 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:14 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

 

...

 

if this is your only goal you're either a troll or butt hurt from another political thread (it appears you are carrying some resentful baggage from some previous political thread, and i suspect you're mad at my views on 9/11 since you used the pejorative form of conspiracy theory above) and trying to spill it out here to get your frustration out. I think what most of the members of the forum were trying to say, besides 1 other person, is that if you come with nothing besides 'he's a douche and i don't like him' and offer no compelling or interesting viewpoints of any kind, it's time to give it a rest. It becomes a futile exercise of you cleverly vieling your lack of backbone or being able to hold anything resembling a passionate viewpoint on an actual issue (of course besides the issue being you don't like the cut of my jib ).

 

Is it really hard to understand why people would ask you to put yourself out on a limb and possibly *risk* being wrong or not entirely correct on offering a particular viewpoint on wikileaks?

 

edit: I find it amusing you think i'm a bully for disagreeing with people. please thicken your skin a little bit.

 

i'm friends with jay exillon and attend many of the shows thereabouts....if i'm not mistaken you used to be around these parts (are you close to berkeley now?). surely i'll just meet you in person soon and i can tell you to your face what a douchebag i think you are. then we'll see who has the backbone.

 

wow, so now we're at the 'thinly veiled threats' level, from a poster with a history of violence.

you stay classy, cbrown.

thinly veiled threats? i'd happily smash awepittance in the face if i saw him. how's that for thinly veiled?

as long as he wants to talk shit, hey - he's in my area and i can demonstrate to him that it's generally a bad idea :D

seriously dude.

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:08 AM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:06 AM, kaini said:

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:04 AM, pulsewarrior said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 10:20 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/27/2010 at 9:14 PM, pulsewarrior said:

 

again, i have formed an opinion about a member on the board and the way he presents information, yet every next member that comes along tells me that i need to either a) argue with him about something or b) need to prove a general statement that says all sources are biased and we don't really know the truth.

 

...

 

if this is your only goal you're either a troll or butt hurt from another political thread (it appears you are carrying some resentful baggage from some previous political thread, and i suspect you're mad at my views on 9/11 since you used the pejorative form of conspiracy theory above) and trying to spill it out here to get your frustration out. I think what most of the members of the forum were trying to say, besides 1 other person, is that if you come with nothing besides 'he's a douche and i don't like him' and offer no compelling or interesting viewpoints of any kind, it's time to give it a rest. It becomes a futile exercise of you cleverly vieling your lack of backbone or being able to hold anything resembling a passionate viewpoint on an actual issue (of course besides the issue being you don't like the cut of my jib ).

 

Is it really hard to understand why people would ask you to put yourself out on a limb and possibly *risk* being wrong or not entirely correct on offering a particular viewpoint on wikileaks?

 

edit: I find it amusing you think i'm a bully for disagreeing with people. please thicken your skin a little bit.

 

i'm friends with jay exillon and attend many of the shows thereabouts....if i'm not mistaken you used to be around these parts (are you close to berkeley now?). surely i'll just meet you in person soon and i can tell you to your face what a douchebag i think you are. then we'll see who has the backbone.

 

wow, so now we're at the 'thinly veiled threats' level, from a poster with a history of violence.

you stay classy, cbrown.

 

thinly veiled threats? i'd happily smash awepittance in the face if i saw him. how's that for thinly veiled?

some words on a screen for you to read.

pulse, you've clearly got major issues.

you know Jay? Jay is a really nice, humble, and interesting talented guy, i doubt he'd be hanging out with the likes of you.

and yeah i don't see the point of debating with someone who clearly has a hair trigger for that kind of rage, i'll go on with my life now

edit: but on second thought i dare you to try something, it would be really entertaining.

edit2: violence is a great way to compensate for being intellectually deficient

i agree, Jay's awesome. ask him about me and see what he says.

violence is no ends for an intellectual deficiency. i already made all of my points clear and demonstrated not only how you're a douchebag but also how you've been fallacious in your arguing here. now you've only turned it back around on me to say i'm boring, and now spineless.

now you're calling me an idiot. so at this point you're just insulting me and i'm telling you i'd love to see you in person and smash you in the face. get it?

so in addition to you just generally being an arrogant douchebag who reasons improperly, when you get called on it you tend to lash out and start demeaning people further? is that it?

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:36 AM, pulsewarrior said:

violence is no ends for an intellectual deficiency. i already made all of my points clear and demonstrated not only how you're a douchebag but also how you've been fallacious in your arguing here. now you've only turned it back around on me to say i'm boring, and now spineless.

you left out the bit where no-one else agreed with you, and the bit where you threw your toys out of the pram.

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:36 AM, pulsewarrior said:

now you're calling me an idiot. so at this point you're just insulting me and i'm telling you i'd love to see you in person and smash you in the face. get it?

    Quote

"violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - isaac asimov

  On 11/28/2010 at 1:36 AM, pulsewarrior said:

so in addition to you just generally being an arrogant douchebag who reasons improperly, when you get called on it you tend to lash out and start demeaning people further? is that it?

i don't see awepittance threatening to 'smash (someone) in the face'.

i live in ireland, if you'd like me to PM you my full address so you can call round and smash me in the face (you probably could, i'm not a tough guy nor am i claiming to be one), just let me know.

make it stooooooooooooooooooop....

oh, and it was hilarous how pulsewarrior dropped in a quote from cbrown. If you need any more I keep the "unabringed little brown book of cbrown maxims, aphorisms, and chicken soup for the soul" in my back pocket.$3.99, Who Gives A Shit Press.

OK So this thread is a wash. Let's start a new wikileaks one when the leaks actually happen.