Julian Assange : Wrong Political Gamble, Know When To Hold'em, Know When To Fold'em...

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

While I am a conspiracy theorist, through and through, I do what I do, without breaking the law.

What about when the law states we can't talk about conspiracy theories because it's potentially very hazardous for the Government?

Whether I agree with the law or not, whether I always agree with foreign and or domestic policy, or not, there is a clear delineation of what I will and will not do.

So, you admit you just do what other people tell you whether you agree with it or not?

And the actions taken by Julian Assange, are criminal, period, and I could care less if anyone agrees with me or not, because his website, Wikileaks supports criminal activities.

I want you to explain exactly why he is a criminal...he just provides a way for people to submit documents and expose corruption does he not? Did you even read that extract you took from Wikipedia for Christs sakes...it states the internet is an artifact of hackers...oh, I guess hackers and crackers are always scum aren't they...your points of view are rather naive...I found your whole thread quite ridiculous actually...

We sit around and complain, whine, and bitch about politics, but never take a legal action towards changing them, through stepping into politics, if we know they are corrupt, change them, if you know the election is rigged, volunteer to work at the polling place, if you know you are not properly represented, then get involved.

...yet you sit here whining and bitching yourself about some dude you know nothing about...he is out there making a difference my friend, and he's achieved a lot more than all the posts on ATS combined will ever achieve...so I'm sorry if corrupt entities feel threatened by wikileaks, but they wouldn't be so God damn worried if they didn't have anything to hide would they? Then they make laws to stop us doing so, which morons follow, so they can continue on happily with there corrupt schemes...

Because they are politically ignorant it is their fault the system got this bad to begin with.

You know, I'm gunna turn this right around, and blame the condition of the "system", on people exactly like you. People who feel they need to do everything the "right" way, the politically correct way, the way that doesn't offend anybody, the way that even makes those we work against happy with our operations...you have no passion or real desire to change anything, you claim to be working against the "enemy" so to speak, meanwhile you do everything they tell you and abide by their rules precisely, probably even feeling like a good citizen because of it. Would you like them to give you a pat on the head and a treat for being such an upstanding citizen? The reason they've come so far is because delicate little flowers like yourself are too scared to assert yourself and enforce your will, therefore they can do whatever they want, and they know everyone will still follow their rules and aren't likely to oppose them.

So, I say Julian Assange, has gambled away his life, by choosing to become a criminal.

If you call his actions criminal, then ATS should be shut down right now. Yes, the man risks his life in what he does, AND I SALUTE YOU JULIAN ASSANGE, I for one, highly appreciate, all your efforts, and all the risks you have taken. Not many people have the will or intelligence to go to the lengths this man will, all in the name of TRUTH AND JUSTICE. His methods may not be mainstream, but the effect is undeniable. Corrupt corporations are sweating over the next leak, and in my books, that's one big mother of a green tick. Your entire thread lacks all logic and sense IMO, only someone who wanted to further the level of corruption would ever oppose Julian...and for a conspiracy theorist to do it, well I just don't know what to say...


EDIT: Remember that Gary Mckinnon guy? He actually did break the law, he hacked into Government computers. Now...that's a bit more controversial. Do we need to use fire to fight fire...if we begin using underhanded and sneaky tactics to defeat the enemy, does that make us just as bad as them...but they are implementing such tactics to achieve unethical things, where as were are implementing such actions to stop those very unethical schemes...what happens when we have no freedoms or rights left...all because you wanted to show the enemy some compassion and do things the way they set out for us...Im not sure that's going to work...

[edit on 3/7/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


SKL,

i have read alot of your posts and normally even if i dont agree i still enjoy them. i appreciate the fact that you put a lot of effort into thinking that extra step and voicing it clearly, i also appreciate your constant use of outside links/video ( i doubly appreciate the time you take embedding ) to make your case. but something you said early on in this thread bothers me, and i feel the need to voice it. this is with all do respect sir,
-----------------------
you posted
"No, I do not believe we should support him, his actions says he is a non-thinker.

He would rather exploit a weakness instead of use his brain and figure it out."
-----------------------
Now , having played chess for over 25 years this statement makes no sense to me whatsoever and just through me off,and ill explain why.
The man wanted the truth, he wasnt getting it, he saw a flaw in thier defense, and capitolized(exploited)it. Regardless of your moral objections to HOW he beat his opponent, you simply cannot call the man a non thinker, i would think it would take a very intelligent man to gather a network of hackers(not the most trusting of people) filter the false information from the truth(which in itself would be no small task verifying all that data would in my opinion show the possession of a vast knowledge of world affairs).

basically what im saying is a "non thinker" would not be able to find a weakness to exploit..

i appreciate your passion on the topic and your moral stance on the way this went/is going down i myself am struggling with the "ends justifying the means" aspect of this. i just think maybe this one time you may have let your emotion get the better of you.

Very Respectfully Yours,
~meathead

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Amagnon

 

Wow, this is insanity, because from where I sit we are against criminal actions.

Your pronoun is misplaced - 'we' are not against criminal actions. You might be - for myself, I endorse just action, whether someone deems it criminal or not, I am indifferent - I do not need anyone else to tell me the difference between right and wrong - I certainly do not need a system of (corrupt) laws.

The common laws are self evident, and supersede any top down programming.

Do no harm, cause no loss, do not infringe upon a man or his property, honor your contracts - what Assange is doing is not contravening these laws.

Everything produced by the government is theoretically the property of the people - they own it - this includes information.

Also - you point to a list of books - that is all well and good, but how are you going to get 300 million Americans to read them?

They can all watch a youtube clip a few minutes long, and it has a far greater impact.

Educate people by all means - but direct use of information that undermines the credibility of a government that deserves none is the most direct and just method.

You are on the wrong side of the issue SKL - if you keep pushing it, people will question your motivations and you will lose credibility.

EDIT: I suggest you have a look at this thread, then tell me you still think illegal=bad - Obama has passed a law to prevent people investigating the oil spill.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Amagnon]

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
While I am certainly not defending Government, neither am I defending Julian Assange, not because of some love of the law, but through a moral, ethical, and belief system that not only tells me to beat these bastards in power, but do it in such a way as they cannot sick their dogs on me, making their every effort wasted.

EXACTLY!
in the end, all for naught!

Julian Assange's methods not only compromised him but everything he stood for.

Whether you believe in America or not, we cannot allow our actions, to reflect a negative position.

i agree 100% with both of those statements.



i like the way you think!
foresight is far sharper than hindsight!

You are trying to make the case that there is another way - one of the best ways to fight is to get incriminating information and get it onto the net. If you have to break a few of their fake laws to do so, and they 'set the dogs on you' that is called fighting injustice, and it may cost you.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Amagnon]

Wow, you're against hackers as well

How bizarre. Do you realize a lot of professional hackers are conspiracy theorists at heart ??

Don't you realize that they're taking it a step further and putting their ass on the line to uncover truth and disrupt the beast

Screw what's considered illegal. If it's wrong, it's wrong, period. You are in the path of righteousness by uncovering truth. I can't believe you've bought into this programming, Spartan. I held you with a little more respect before this.

You can't beat a system from within their rules of law that has been entirely infiltrated by psychopaths, and been reconstructed to act as a psychopathic entity in itself. It holds everyone else responsible, yet denies responsibility itself.

It is our responsibility, right, and duty as citizens of this earth to uphold the truth at all costs. This supersedes any petty national or international law system which does not serve the people. The law of the common man trumps all.

If we are to win this battle against the oppressive forces of government, corporations, and banking institutions, we must wage war outside their systems of control. We must envision what must be done and execute with a swiftness and without mercy.

We are not being hypocrites, for they are not within our family of trust. They are people, but not human beings, as they operate without conscience. Behead those without conscience and restore peace to humanity. That will never be done by complying with all the rules.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by C0bzz
But without information then there is no way to create the policies on which a think-tank is based on. That is the point of Wikileaks - to give the world information. What you have done is rubbish all forms of information simply stating that if it doesn't create or change law then it is useless and apparently does no accomplish anything. The irony is that it applies to all of your own posts too. If information is useless then so would all your posts, and ATS as a whole. You still haven't proved that they have done anything criminal, you just keep repeating it over and over again.

Oh, and you're encouraging more lobbying. Just what America needs.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by C0bzz]

So, what you're saying, is without something derogatory, a policy cannot be made?

Well, that is wholly incorrect, and that goes with Amagnon's assumptions as well.

A think-tank needs to know how Government functions, it needs to know what policy is, how to write it, and what is important to the people it represents.

Depending of course upon whether it is started for the whole country, or just a select perspective within the country, say for instance Christian right-wing, or Liberal left-wing beliefs, that is what and how a think-tank is directed.

Personally, I see one formed for the best interests of a country, as a whole, all positions within that country being represented, that is how I want to see a think-tank represent America, and the conspiracy theorist community would and should have a say within it, but over all the entire country is represented.

Not just one faction, not just one interest, but all interests, open and discussable.

And as for your comment about information, Julian Assange being Australian, has no reason, and or permissable excuse to have information belonging to America.

The fact that he got them from Bradley Manning, means he got them from a source which had no right to distribute them, Manning had a security clearance.

A contract with America, to protect and defend America, plain and simple.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Arrest of Bradley Manning

A 22-year-old US Army intelligence analyst, PFC (formerly SPC) Bradley Manning was arrested by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command in May 2010 after apparently telling journalist and former hacker Adrian Lamo that he had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video (of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike), in addition to a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to the whistleblower website Wikileaks.

U.S. investigators are searching for evidence to determine whether Manning's apparent statements to Lamo were true.

As of June 16, three weeks after his arrest, Manning was still being held without charge in Kuwait.

Before being arrested, Manning had been demoted, and was to be discharged early.

Manning reportedly said that the diplomatic documents expose "almost criminal political back dealings" and that they explain "how the first world exploits the third, in detail".

He said that he hoped the release of the videos and documents would lead to "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms".

Manning reportedly wrote, "everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed."

However, Wikileaks said "allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".

Wikileaks have said that they are unable as yet to confirm whether or not Manning was actually the source of the video, stating "we never collect personal information on our sources", but saying also that "if Brad Manning [is the] whistleblower then, without doubt, he's a national hero" and "we have taken steps to arrange for his protection and legal defence".

On June 21, Julian Assange told The Guardian that WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning but that they had not been given access to him.

If Manning had a problem and or issue with how America is run, behind the scenes, he has every right each and every American citizen has, to take it up with Congress.

As for your comments about my posts, they are going to go into making policy.

Each and every one of them, but that is something I am working on, and considering you're not even an American citizen, unless you're interested in becoming a part of a multi-national policy think-tank, something separate from an American one, that truly is none of your business, now is it C0bbz my friend?

I see my international friends, ATS or otherwise, as great friends, whether you consider yourself mine or not, I have no clue, this is the first thread we've spoken on together, but ultimately, they are international friends, meaning their interests might align with mine in some regards, but not all.

Not knowing you well enough, it is something I cannot say with any degree of certainty at this time, but you being an Aussie definitely scores high on my international list.

As for the lobbying comment, no, I see lobbying as nothing more than legalized bribery.

Personally, I believe the entire country, should be represented fairly without lobbyists and special interest groups, but this is not something currently happening.

Manning had every right to write his Congress representative if he had an issue.

Being a 22 year old, Specialist, dropped to P.F.C. in the U.S. Army, as an Intel Analyst, he's barely a man.

More like a wet behind the ears individual who probably got in way over his head.

I am ultimately, a patriot of my country, who does not like the lies our Government tells its own people, who does not like when crimes are committed by our Government, and who does not like duplicitous policy which is bogus.

If we're in Iraq for oil, tell it to us, just like that, or protection of oil pipelines, the same.

But we are a Republic, not a democracy, we practice democracy, not always well, but we do.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Republic

A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.

The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition.

The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch.

In republics such as the United States and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage.

In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy, and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".

In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.

Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as "republican" in nature.

For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."

The Soviet Union was a single nation composed of distinct and nominally sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics.

Niccolò Machiavelli described the governance and foundation of the ideal republic in his work Discourses on Livy.

These writings, as well as those of his contemporaries such as Leonardo Bruni, are the foundation of the ideology political scientists call republicanism.

If you or anyone else in another foreign country though asked me to supply you with classified documents, or get you close to someone who could, it would never happen.

Would I report you?

Not likely.

A snitch is a snitch is a snitch, Bradley Manning in a snitch, who is clueless.

If however, a Chinese or Russian spy were to try to recruit me, to denigrate my U.S. citizenship, by supplying secret and or classified documents, I would what any patriot would do, defend my country to the best of my ability.

There is a big difference from conspiracy theorists, and spies though, conspiracy theorists are people who discuss differences of opinion with how their country, or others act, operate, and or report their histories, and a spy is someone trying to obtain information that they have been sent to obtain by their country.

Wikileaks, operates as a spy-ring, as far as I am concerned.

How it was formed states exactly how it might not be what it says it was started as :

Quote from : Wikipedia : Wikileaks

The organization has stated it was founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.

Chinese "dissidents" have just as much legitimacy as it has the potential for being a spy ring.

Started by the Chinese Government as an avenue towards turning patriotic, but disenfranchised students, citizens, and military people into double-agents spying for China.

I suggest a really good book for you if your interested in knowing how the Chinese operate.

The Tao Of Spycraft: Intelligence Theory And Practice In Traditional China

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b15fd3404a7.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

In The Tao of Spycraft, for the first time anywhere Ralph Sawyer unfolds the long and venerable tradition of spycraft and intelligence work in traditional China, revealing a vast array of theoretical materials and astounding historical developments.

Encompassing extensive translations of relevant portions of theoretical military manuals previously unknown in the West (such as the T'ai-pai Yin-ching, Hu-ling Ching, and Ping-fa Pai-yen), the book spans centuries to trace the development and expansion of agent concepts, insertion and control methods, recruitment, and covert practices such as assassination, subversion, and sexual entrapment and exploitation, going on to explore counter-intelligence and all aspects of military intelligence, including objectives, analysis and interpretation.

But The Tao of Spycraft is more than an examination of military tactics, it also provides a thorough overview of the history of spies in China, emphasizing their early development, ruthless employment, and dramatic success in subverting famous generals, dooming states to extinction, and facilitating the rise of the first imperial dynasty known as the Ch'in.

The cases discussed-particularly those exploiting women and sex-not only became part of China's general mindset over the ages, but coupled with the theoretical writings remain the basis for the study and teaching of contemporary spycraft methods and practices as the PRC trains and aggressively deploys thousands of agents throughout the world, including the United States.

Now, I am not stating Wikileaks was or is a spy-ring, I said it has the potential for it.

But due to my knowledge of Government, Military/Military-Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and quite a lot of other things, it is suspicious as far as I am concerned.

I did not just formulate this opinion based upon Julian Assange but on all the evidence.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Reasons For Spying (Espionage)

There are many suggested motives for spying that an individual may have. In general, espionage carries heavy penalties, with spies often being regarded as traitors, and so motivating factors must usually be quite large.

There have been various attempts to explain why people become spies.

One common theory is summed up by the acronym "MICE", which stands for "Money, Ideology, Compromise or Coercion (depending on source), and Ego".

Other explanations have stressed the role of disaffection and grudges, or of personal links.

The above acronym of M.I.C.E. is an acronym of reasons people might spy for or against their own country.

Again, I am not stating Wikileaks is doing that, but there is a potential for it, based upon it being started by "Chinese dissidents".

Something the website itself has declared apparently, something to consider, at the very least.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I don't see any absolute problem with committing crimes...(which is not to say crimes are appropriate at this point, not at all)...but there is a certain sense in which "Crime is the politics of the dispossessed"...by which I mean, when you are herded into a concentration camp, everything that you are going to want or need to do will be a crime, right?...You can be made into an illegal being, and then your choices are "Crimes or Death"...

Here we go, I respect my own survival more than the laws of others...Not that I would do any bad thing whatsoever in order to survive, but, I don't care what the police have to say about my morals....

(And by the way I went and looked at your profile to see if it made me feel weird, like that one poster said...and I was very disappointed...it did not make me feel weird at all...)

Originally posted by Galactic Council of Light
Ok, my other post was removed, apparently to offensive, I didn't even bother reading your post Mr. Halo, but calling hackers and crackers criminals is like calling people who attempt to combat the rising tide of private sector information keeping and cloistering criminals. Hackers, real hackers do not destroy, they pursue knowledge for the betterment of there fellow man, End statement.

Actually, if they were just pursuing information, I might have less of an interest.

But they do not just seek information now do they Galactic Council of Light?

Crackers, short for criminal hackers, actually seek to just destroy, steal, and or wreck havoc.

Now, if you want to differentiate between hackers, and crackers, fine by all means.

Please do so then and a full scale explanation of your perceptions of the differences would be appreciated, so I can better understand where you're coming from.

Maybe you know something I do not which differentiates the two separate sects.

If hackers, are separate from crackers, great, but I see very little to any difference.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Okay, but did Martin Luther King Jr. ever steal documents, and use them?

Forget the issue of Civil Rights and anything illegal King might have done.

As far as marches, speaking out, etc, I am interested if he ever stole documents?

Did he align himself with the Russian's or the Mafia to do what he did?

How about the Chinese who were once our allies during WWII but are now Communists?

Originally posted by monkcaw
If these documents show the United States engaging in Illegal activities then it's likewise illegal for government to classify them. They just can't classify something as secret because they want to hide the record of wrongdoing.

I see valuable precedents established by the Supreme Court in defending the rights of the press in the similar situation of The Pentagon Papers

Well, of course not, my argument has never been with covering up secrets.

It has been with theft of documents and or leaked information.

I do not believe National Security should be a blanket covering for crimes.

However, I believe our Government does have right to National Security as a means to make our country safe, but not in covering up blanketed crimes.

I believe the silencing of F.B.I. Agents by other F.B.I. Agents of Osama bin Laden's interest in attacking the World Trade Center was stupid, ignorant, and showed malfeasance.

There is however a big difference between a country running and telling its citizens what they have a right to know, and covering up crimes and operating against the people, for instance, COINTELPRO was vile and malicious.

Quote from : Wikipedia : COINTELPRO

COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States.

The FBI used covert operations from its inception; however, formal COINTELPRO operations took place between 1956 and 1971.

The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order."

According to FBI records, 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups suspected of being subversive, such as communist and socialist organizations; the women's rights movement; militant black nationalist groups, and the non-violent civil rights movement, including individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the American Indian Movement, and other civil rights groups; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society, the National Lawyers Guild, the Weathermen, almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, and even individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; and nationalist groups such as those "seeking independence for Puerto Rico."

The other 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and National States' Rights Party.

The directives governing COINTELPRO were issued by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders.

I see our Government using COINTELPRO against it's people, as inherently wrong, meaning suppression of freedoms guaranteed us by our Constitution.

But I also see those places, where our freedoms are infringed upon, where people will rally, and or march, and or raise funds, as having just as much a potential for people who are not interested in the rights of our country, but in assisting foreign countries in subversive overthrow, not against tyranny of the U.S. Government, but of the Government itself, an example might be Communists.

Each and every year, countries around the world, send students into our country.

And each and every year, a certain percentage of them are approached by their respective Government's, to spy upon the United States, via college enrollment.

That is an indisputable fact.

But the problem with this is they often recruit people to do their dirty work for them.

A foreign national of another country, is not always operating in this manner, but some are and some have been caught for just this act, and deported.

Look at my reply to C0bbz with regards to a book on spycraft.

It is one of many I own in which I read regularly to not only understand our Government.

But other Government's as well.

I don't usually comment, but this is just plain fail

So what you are basically saying is that we should obey the "laws" established by the criminals, in which the criminals themselves don't obey, but makes us obey them, but you want us to obey them, because they are laws?

*tear* Good laugh actually. This is flawed in some many levels I don't even know were to begin. If you want to change the world, you sometimes need to become them in order to beat them.

Also, there is different levels of "criminals". We can't judge a person that is "hacking" to obtain secret data to a person that is deliberately killing thousands the same way. If that was true, we should put someone that stole a too-brush out of CVS, with a first degree murderers, in the same cell.

Forgot to add, if you really think that "honesty", "morality", yadada...is gonna help solve the problems in politics and government. Well, my friends you are delusional. History tell us that the governments and politicians won't change. Why? Plain and simple...human nature. The more we have, the more we want.

50 years from now they will release the videos of atrocities in this era. What will they say "We are sorry, it won't happen again". Guess what it WILL happen again. Assange is just doing it ahead of time, but it does not mean he is gonna change the world in any way. What it means is that he might get killed and make people think which might lead into revolution. After that a new government will be establish which will like the previous one(in terms of corruption etc)

This is the TRUTH. If you don't see it, then you don't know what human beings are capable of doing when given so much power.

Originally posted by Amagnon

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Assange holds no journalistic license, he is not a reporter.

Can you not see the terrible irony of what you have said? A license is a permit issued by a state that allows you to break a law.

It is also a way of controlling a particular group, if they don't behave how the controllers want them to behave - they can revoke the license.

In other words, exposing the truth, investigating and reporting facts is against the law?

Surely you can see this is utterly unholy - every citizen, every human being has a right to speak and reveal the truth in anything they find.

To say otherwise is pure evil.

A license is permission to break the law?

Are you serious here?

So, a Drivers License is a piece of documentation, which allows you to break the law?

Horse puckey.

Sweetheart, are you 14 years old, or something?

A license is an agreement, a contract, to utilize something responsibly.

Period.

And a license, for journalism, goes farther, with regards to Freedom of Speech.

Because people can and often do purchase that which is written upon it.

Meaning, money is the means of how it is spread, in other words, business.

Not all newspapers, nor all television stations for that matter, obey everything Government says.

If that were true nothing interesting would ever be said at all.

And this would be Russia and Pravda would be the newspaper of choice.

I seriously have to question your education level if you really believe that.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

So , you actually believe Assange does this simply to be known for 'criminal behavior' ?

I have never stated as such now have I?

I said his intent might have been altruistic but his method and means are questionable.

Period.

Originally posted by okbmd
Did you have knowledge of the 'Collateral Murder' video before it was made public thru Wiki ? If so , why did you not share it with the world ?

War is Hell, bub, making war, and or being a part of war, evil things happen.

And it happens on all sides participating in warfare, ours and theirs.

There is a military chain of command, most branches have a C.I.D..

Quote from : Wikipedia : Criminal Investigation Division

Criminal Investigation Division may be:

United States Army Criminal Investigation Division, now the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command

And while I might not have known about that particular video, I'm sure enough not naive enough to not believe it happens, every single day everywhere.

Whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even in America, it happens.

If I had access to that video I sure would never dump it online for any indiscriminate person to see, I would investigate it, and get it to the correct person.

Someone, within the Government, who I know would not cover it up, period.

Originally posted by okbmd
Um , that's kind of a given , don't know why you felt you needed to share that little pearl of wisdom with us .

Because it was in a reply, and not everyone knows the same levels of knowledge.

Originally posted by okbmd
Once more , I can't help but notice how you tend to assume that we are all uneducated idiots here . Surely , you don't believe that you are the only one who understands such things ? Please tell us , without making an entire thread out of it , HOW MANY LAWS HAVE YOU GOTTEN CHANGED ?

You cannot.

I never once suggested anyone was an idiot, uneducated, or otherwise.

As a matter of fact, I keep suggesting people on ATS are smart, some are more intelligent than others, and I see ATS as a viable place to discuss things.

As stated to Amagnon, I have yet to have gotten laws changed, but not for a lack of trying, I assure you, but I keep educating myself towards information.

That's not because of anything I am lacking though.

It is from discussing things with ATS'ers who seem to think complaining, whining, and bitching will change everything, which it will not.

Actually particpating within politics, in some sense, some style, or some semblance is the only way to do it, I am doing my part in that on several levels.

What exactly are you doing to change policy?

Originally posted by okbmd
I am seriously wondering if the real Spartan has fallen out of a tree and landed on his head . I have S&F'ed your threads for months , this one comes as a total surprise .

Still have to disagree with you totally on this one bub .

I am the same person I was the day I joined ATS 5 years ago.

No more.

No less.

And I have gained intelligence from many discussions, such as with this one, of where I will and will not go, and how I will and will not stand.

Disagree all you want.

I encourage you to disagree if you do and or must, that's great.

If you star and or flag this thread, or any others, great, if you do not, great.

Because guess what, I do not see hackers and or crackers as having any right to do what they do, if it is illegal, just as much as I do not see the Government having any right to do something which is illegal either.

And as far as I am concerned, neither Government nor hackers/crackers have any right in anyone's computer, at all, whatsoever.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by RavagedSky
To the Original Poster -- the logic you're using is truly terrifying. I think the problem is that you have gotten "lawfulness" and "goodness" all tangled up to the point where they've become synonyms for you. This could not be further from the truth. Some of the most pure-hearted and heroic people in history have been utter criminals. "Criminal" does not have to carry a negative connotation. A person who is morally good is still a criminal to a morally evil government.

I do not doubt that.

Some of those same people are still criminals, in the eyes of the law.

Dick Cheney, is a criminal in my eyes, but not in the eyes of the law.

Only because he has not been caught yet.

No, criminal does not have to carry a negative connotation, you are correct.

But for the most part it does carry that and mean that.

So, since you brought it up, which connotation was I using about Assange?

Do you even know because very few here even have noticed and or mentioned connotation?

Originally posted by RavagedSky
Laws are NOT intrinsically good. Laws are a means of control that one human places upon another; it's a power disparity. That is not to say that ALL laws are bad, since I'm sure we can all agree that murder and theft are wrong -- but saying that there is a definitive link between laws and goodness/righteousness is just ridiculous.

Actually, laws are just written down idea, socially accepted by masses of people.

It is when they are or are not enforced, which is in question, laws hold no "good" or "evil".

At least you're bring up great points about the law and opening discussion.

Thank you.

Originally posted by RavagedSky
Is it morally right for me to be taxed? For one person to have the right to my money even though I don't have the right to his?

Hey, before going off topic, tax law is not theft and or hacking/cracking law, I suggest Congress pays the same taxes we do, okay?

Originally posted by RavagedSky
What if tomorrow Congress passes a law that commands you to kill any person who disagrees with the policies of the state? What if your wife is a Republican and you're a Democrat? Would you suddenly pick up a gun and kill her because it was lawful to do so? I would certainly hope not, but that is what your logic suggests.

If a law is evil, not only CAN it be violated, but it is your moral duty as a human being to violate it.

I think you're not asking more basic questions and inflating the issue.

The Government can no more suggest anyone kill their mate as they can make me do it.

And I think the whole division of Republican or Democrat is stupid.

I see people picking sides, as stupid, usually both sides, are completely wrong.

I never said I was right or wrong here, now did I?

I have erely stated when, where, and how I stand on the issues of hackers/crackers.

And theft of classified documents.

They are U.S. Government property, rightfully the State Departments, and thereby, ownership resides ultimately to the United States citizens.

If I decided to jump through political hoops to gain them, I would.

But knowing what I know of Government, the State Department, in it's fullest capacity, ultimately is only another level of bureacracy, and a buffer between Government's.

Nothing more.

If it is misused by one politician or more than one, it is still a fuction of Government.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
While I admire your patriotism, I dont admire your lack of critical thinking and sound reasoning.

Your opinion is that I am not critically thinking.

I suggest you are not critically thinking.

Do I get a cookie?

Sorry, your comment is insulting, you suggest my thinking is not critical.

It is critical on every level because I know Government.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
When the enemies of our Constitution are writing the rules, and writing them in such a way that they apply to us, but not to them, how on Earth can you play by their rules and win?

Seriously?

So, according to your question, all people writing laws are enemies of the Constitution?

Horse puckey.

Some people are, some people are seriously misguided, some are just idiots.

I do not suggest anyone "play" and or "win".

I do however suggest people actually know the laws are there, to know what they mean, to understand and comprehend them, and if it causes you enough discomfort how they are, to get involved in changing them.

By entering politics.

This is not some hokey game where you win or lose, it's called life, period.

Life happens.

Either you're a part of it, or your secluded from it by your lack of actions.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
How can you "work smarter" when one of their "rules" is that we are to have no truthful information?

Well, therein lies the rub, if you can decipher propaganda, do so.

If not, well I guess you're in trouble, because I can.

Half of my challenge as a conspiracy theorist has been deciphering propaganda.

Now I find it was quite easy and boring.

All of the books I purchase, assist and aid me in discovery of what's going on.

The one's in the library do so as well, so does discussion of topics like this one.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
What does working harder have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with it.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Imagine a game where whomever answers a question receives 3 points, and then the first person to hit 20 points gets to make a rule. Now, I happen to be the first person to hit 20 point, and the first rule I make is that anyone who answers a question correctly must give me 2 of their three points. Can you ever "play by the rules" and win? Is it possible at all?

No, I am bored with games, so I will imagine instead other people are participating.

Instead of complaining, whining, and bitching, and doing nothing,

Once you imagine politics is a game you have lost before even doing a damn thing.

Policy, procedure, protocol, those are things I follow, "games" have rules.

Policy, procedure, and protocol, they have actions, repercussions, and consquences.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The answer is, no you cant. And while our "game" is not based on answering questions correctly, a similar thing has happened where at the outset the rules were there to facilitate the possibility of anyone winning, and now the rules have been altered by the winners of previous rounds in such a way that no win is possible by those following "the rules."

If the "rules" we or anyone breaks are in conflict with the original spirit of the game, (what America was intended to be) then we are honoring our country more than mindless patriots like you.

And your comment, an insult really, about mindless patriotism, is rather uncalled for.

I am not some mindless flag-waving boob, so do not suggest I am, ever.

I am a patriot, not someone who can be manipulated by a flag, or the word patriotism, coming from a politician, but someone who ultimately loves his country.

You see America as a game, and I believe that is stupid, notice I called your seeing that as stupid, not that I called you stupid, two totally different things.

America is a country, period, it is not a game, and I am not playing for any side.

I am for my country.

I always have been.

My Government is not my country, it is an entity of my country, the two are separate.

My country, is not always best represented by my Government, period.

The United States of America however, is the land I live in, I do not live within my Government, it is merely the operational control mechanism controlling it.

If I choose to change my country, it will be through politics, not through theft.

Not through overthrow.

Not through violence.

And certainly not through blind patriotism but intelligent patriotism with knowledge.

My Government is not necessarily my country even if one represents the other.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by ThePowerOfOne
Forgot to add, if you really think that "honesty", "morality", yadada...is gonna help solve the problems in politics and government. Well, my friends you are delusional. History tell us that the governments and politicians won't change. Why? Plain and simple...human nature. The more we have, the more we want.

not all of us.
not every soul is driven by greed!

if the problems we want to solve are rooted in dishonesty and a lack of ethics, then the ONLY solution must be rooted in honesty and a dedication to ethical behavior.

i say ethics, not morals, because morals are easily bent and adjusted to please others. they are based on the appearance of one's behavior in the eyes of others rather than in the heart where one's behavior begins and is motivated.

from thefreedictionary.com

ethic n.
1. a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" (Gregg Easterbrook).

2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

moral adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

the idea that morals are the bottom line is part of the problem, too. no one thinks about ethics, the strength of which is nearly incorruptible, when one holds themselves true to the ethics they are convicted of.

such as the founding fathers. the corruption began immediately after their time was up, but not before.

we must emulate their dedication and resolve and unselfishness!



someone once said that it is foolish to expect to solve a problem using the same way of thinking that caused the problem to begin with

Originally posted by des9996
I'm not sure if you read your original post?

Since when has being a hacker been illegal?

Also, notice how the internet and the worldwide web exist because of hackers?

Yes, I read the original post, I wrote it, the origins of the Internet are deeper.

Quote from : Wikipedia : ARPANET

ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), created by a small research team at the head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense, was the world's first operational packet switching network, and the predecessor of the contemporary global Internet.

The packet switching of the ARPANET was based on designs by Lawrence Roberts, of the Lincoln Laboratory.

Packet switching, now the dominant basis for data communications worldwide, then was a new and important concept.

Data communications had been based upon the idea of circuit switching, as in the old, typical telephone circuit, wherein a dedicated circuit is occupied for the duration of the telephone call, and communication is possible only with the single party at the far end of the circuit.

With packet switching, a data system could use one communications link to communicate with more than one machine by disassembling data into datagrams, then gather these as packets.

Thus, not only could the link be shared (much as a single post box can be used to post letters to different destinations), but each packet could be routed independently of other packets.

It was originally created, through military funding, for Continuity of Government.

So, what exactly was your point, please?

While hackers may have had a hand in it somewhere along the line they got lost.

I have a few theories on the "Internet" being the largest openly covert breach of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights, if you want to delve into that.

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Ah yes, of course, and I suppose the very existence of the National "Security" STATE - the REAL government - with its many tentacles of alphabet soup agencies (and Heaven knows what else) certainly has to be a total lovefest of transparency. No secrecy at all, eh? Such Orwellian doublespeak reminds me of the most blatant public statement of the most vile kind of hypocrisy in the US: the etching on the front of the Supreme Court building that reads "equal justice under law." Sure, when injustice is codified into LAW, and therefore the entire (secrecy-BASED) system, it should automatically qualify as "equal justice." F-ing Spookified totalitarians make me SICK, to wildly understate it!

There is a distinct difference between it not being secret and transparency.

You do know that don't you?

My comment about not being secret was simply, know your Government.

I cannot guarantee that Government will be transparent.

No more than I can guarantee you are an American citizen.

If you want to delve into transparency, we do not register our accounts via our Drivers Licenses, not that we should, or should not, but how can I guarantee you are who you say you are on ATS to begin with?

I cannot.

Just as much as you cannot do the same for me.

Other than to take my word for it as I take your word.

If you want your Government to be transparent, then I hope you have warehouses, where they can send all the documentation, when they carbon copy you.

It would take about 1,000 warehouses, a week, to contain all of what Government does.

In documentation.

I suggest you go to the Government Accounting Office first.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Government Accounting Office

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of the United States Congress.

It is located in the legislative branch of the United States government.

The GAO was established as the General Accounting Office by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (Pub.L. 67-13, 42 Stat. 20, June 10, 1921).

1921 Act This Act required the head of GAO to "investigate, at the seat of government or elsewhere, all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and application of public funds, and shall make to the President...and to Congress...reports (and) recommendations looking to greater economy or efficiency in public expenditures" (Sec. 312(a), 42 Stat. 25).

According to GAO's current mission statement, the agency exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people.

The name was changed in 2004 to better reflect the mission of the office.

While most other countries have government entities similar to the GAO, their focus is primarily on conducting financial audits.

The GAO's auditors conduct not only financial audits, but also engage in a wide assortment of performance audits.

The GAO is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States, a professional and non-partisan position in the U.S. government.

The Comptroller General is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a 15-year, non-renewable term.

The President selects a nominee from a list of at least three individuals recommended by an eight member bipartisan, bicameral commission of congressional leaders.

The Comptroller General may not be removed by the President, but only by Congress through impeachment or joint resolution for specific reasons.

Since 1921, there have been only seven Comptrollers General, and no formal attempt has ever been made to remove a Comptroller General.

The long tenure of the Comptroller General and the manner of appointment and removal gives GAO a continuity of leadership and independence that is rare within government.

Good luck sorting through all that information.

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
More power to Julian Assange. One can only hope he actually has the courage to RELEASE the information he (presumably) has. And even moreso than Assange, I hope Gary McKinnon - another "evil" hacker - can get the proper publicity he deserves.

Ultimately, his information is going to do what, for you or America?

Nothing.

It will land him in jail and embarrass America.

Nothing more.

Except tighter restrictions on the Internet and military soldiers.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The very act of calling communication criminal denigrates and misses the point of what a crime is.

It is true that there are people who have something to hide...manipulations which can be called criminal.

Communication is not a crime...period.

Bring it, Julian...you're not the one acting in such a fashion as to get others hurt.

Such is what crime should be defined as...(I know...complicated, but exposing other people in their infinite wisdom is not a bad thing)...

Nothing I have read here dissuades me from my initial reaction...

That's fine, MemoryShock, and I commend you for your disagreeing with me.

The problem with communications, as you call them, is not all countries are out for what America is out for, whether we like it or not, just as not all countries see eye to eye, and while I agree with you on some technicalities, and to some degree, this is where the rubber meets the road.

A foreigner, has zero right to knowledge of anything our Government deems classified.

It does not matter if you or I agree on the basis of that information or not.

In a perfect world, all Government's might agree to disagree, and not spy on each other.

But in this world, such as it is, not being perfect, far from it, other countries spy on America, just as much as our country spies upon them.

Utopia is an impossible dream and I do not seek it.

I seek a fair balance of information, for our people, without giving those who oppose America beneficial ability to destroy our country, period.

Yes, I agree, communications should not be hampered, nor criminal.

And I do agree Government should practice what it preaches but it does not.

It never has and never will unfortunately.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I am rather non-judgmental in regards to this issue. The governments and corporations are in fact building an electronic control grid around us.

Having people able to penetrate those electronics is rather vital to the cause of freedom.

Laws, well lets just say they are seldom representative of the people or for the people. Secrets, well lets just say people usually are not keeping them because they want your Birthday Party this year to really be a surprise.

Criminal, well that depends on whether you are on the side of the thin blue line that usurps the people’s powers and creates rules that favor you and your actions, or whether you are on the side of the thin blue line, where rules of oppression are made to stack the playing field in favor of a corrupt few chosen elite’s actions.

The truth getting out, is not a crime. In fact much of the truth being suppressed from us details moral crimes, that are not always legal crimes, because after all if so and so says it’s ok, well so is a water board, some restraints, a nice undisclosed location, and a nice secure cell and you to play with it all in.

Yeah, come to think about it, this guy has my vote for cool cat of the year.

Outback Steak House, no rules, just right!

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

What about when the law states we can't talk about conspiracy theories because it's potentially very hazardous for the Government?

By then it will be far too late because you did not act within your ability.

Originally posted by CHA0S
So, you admit you just do what other people tell you whether you agree with it or not?

Where did I ever say something to that effect?

Not hardly.

I know the law and know how to not break it and still do things in life.

Like living it, sharing ideas, making an impact.

So you think all laws are, are written words, which tell you how you have to obey?

Ridicoulous.

Laws tell you what you can and cannot do and what you can do if you agree and disagree with them, there is an equal balance you know what society allows.

Originally posted by CHA0S
I want you to explain exactly why he is a criminal...he just provides a way for people to submit documents and expose corruption does he not? Did you even read that extract you took from Wikipedia for Christs sakes...it states the internet is an artifact of hackers...oh, I guess hackers and crackers are always scum aren't they...your points of view are rather naive...I found your whole thread quite ridiculous actually...

Great, guess I will not look forward to your childish participation, huh?

Originally posted by CHA0S
...yet you sit here whining and bitching yourself about some dude you know nothing about...he is out there making a difference my friend, and he's achieved a lot more than all the posts on ATS combined will ever achieve...so I'm sorry if corrupt entities feel threatened by wikileaks, but they wouldn't be so God damn worried if they didn't have anything to hide would they? Then they make laws to stop us doing so, which morons follow, so they can continue on happily with there corrupt schemes...

Not hardly.

He has done nothing except steal documents he has no right to.

Really, people who particpate, in their communities, they make the differences.

Are you involved in your community?

I see you are here on ATS but I am speaking of your local one.

Gone to a City Council meeting?

What about a Boy Scout meeting?

Or possibly spoken to someone in City Hall without it being in regards to speeding tickets?

Or do you only sit online and whine?

I am not assuming but since we have never spoken I do not know you.

I have not been to a City Council meeting, not because I did not want to, but because the night they meet conflicts with other things I am interested in.

But I guarantee I have been to City Hall on several matters not regarding tickets.

Originally posted by CHA0S
You know, I'm gunna turn this right around, and blame the condition of the "system", on people exactly like you. People who feel they need to do everything the "right" way, the politically correct way, the way that doesn't offend anybody, the way that even makes those we work against happy with our operations...you have no passion or real desire to change anything, you claim to be working against the "enemy" so to speak, meanwhile you do everything they tell you and abide by their rules precisely, probably even feeling like a good citizen because of it. Would you like them to give you a pat on the head and a treat for being such an upstanding citizen? The reason they've come so far is because delicate little flowers like yourself are too scared to assert yourself and enforce your will, therefore they can do whatever they want, and they know everyone will still follow their rules and aren't likely to oppose them.

Where on Earth have i ever suggested I do everything "politically correct"?

I offend people on a daily basis.

Look, I'm doing such a great job with you, now aren't I?

The "enemy" I am against is what exactly?

Do you even know or are you so narcissistic to assume you know what I stand for?

Delicate flower?

That had me laughing hard.

Buddy, I have told Police Officer's, to go screw themselves, to their face.

And screw was not the word I used either.

Within my rights to do so at age 12 so you're assuming far too much here.

Because I knew the law better than that one when I was 12 years old.

You're just another wannabee bandwagon jumper.

Originally posted by CHA0S
If you call his actions criminal, then ATS should be shut down right now. Yes, the man risks his life in what he does, AND I SALUTE YOU JULIAN ASSANGE, I for one, highly appreciate, all your efforts, and all the risks you have taken. Not many people have the will or intelligence to go to the lengths this man will, all in the name of TRUTH AND JUSTICE. His methods may not be mainstream, but the effect is undeniable. Corrupt corporations are sweating over the next leak, and in my books, that's one big mother of a green tick. Your entire thread lacks all logic and sense IMO, only someone who wanted to further the level of corruption would ever oppose Julian...and for a conspiracy theorist to do it, well I just don't know what to say...

No, actually, therein is your mistake, I support freedom of information.

I do not support theft of said information.

You know, I am middle-ground, meaning I see both sides, understand the complexities.

Something I believe you barely know anything about at all.

"Government" is not some evil entity, there are some slimy bastards within it.

"Government" is a system, a control mechanism, that is all it has even been.

It is like a car, not every jerk getting behind the wheel is a total tool, just some of them.

Originally posted by CHA0S

 

EDIT: Remember that Gary Mckinnon guy? He actually did break the law, he hacked into Government computers. Now...that's a bit more controversial. Do we need to use fire to fight fire...if we begin using underhanded and sneaky tactics to defeat the enemy, does that make us just as bad as them...but they are implementing such tactics to achieve unethical things, where as were are implementing such actions to stop those very unethical schemes...what happens when we have no freedoms or rights left...all because you wanted to show the enemy some compassion and do things the way they set out for us...Im not sure that's going to work...

[edit on 3/7/10 by CHA0S]

Compassion?

Seriously, I think you mistake doing things correctly, with intent towards actual solutions, instead of stupid solutions, there is no compassion for Government.

A country, yes, my country, but Government, is nothing but a hollow gesture.

It is the people within it who do anything corrupt and or criminal.

And it is also the people within it who do not do things corruptly or criminal.

People are people, at all levels, out in society, or in Government.

Some are stupid, some are ignorant, some are criminal, some are good.

Differientiating which is which though is all according to perceptions.

Originally posted by Mike Stivic
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

SKL,

i have read alot of your posts and normally even if i dont agree i still enjoy them. i appreciate the fact that you put a lot of effort into thinking that extra step and voicing it clearly, i also appreciate your constant use of outside links/video ( i doubly appreciate the time you take embedding ) to make your case. but something you said early on in this thread bothers me, and i feel the need to voice it. this is with all do respect sir,
-----------------------
you posted
"No, I do not believe we should support him, his actions says he is a non-thinker.

He would rather exploit a weakness instead of use his brain and figure it out."
-----------------------
Now , having played chess for over 25 years this statement makes no sense to me whatsoever and just through me off,and ill explain why.
The man wanted the truth, he wasnt getting it, he saw a flaw in thier defense, and capitolized(exploited)it. Regardless of your moral objections to HOW he beat his opponent, you simply cannot call the man a non thinker, i would think it would take a very intelligent man to gather a network of hackers(not the most trusting of people) filter the false information from the truth(which in itself would be no small task verifying all that data would in my opinion show the possession of a vast knowledge of world affairs).

Mike Stivic, please forgive me, if I do not call you "Meathead".

Ah, yes, I play chess as well as think strategically, I understand your question.

The way I see what Julian Assange did, was not make a chess move, so much as steal a chess piece off the board, while I hate using the game euphemism, you brought it up that way, Assange was not a "player".

He is not representing America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Australia, nor the U.N.

So, I see he has no right to that information, just as a spy would not have the right to it, nor a foreign dignitary, he essentially is not even "on the board".

All of my posts prior to answering yours, clicked here, if we do not participate, as in become involved in politics, or voice our opinion in the correct manner, we are nothing but spectators, in a World Theatre.

I do not see the "World Theatre" though as some game.

While certainly, some of the "moves" are similar to that of "games", they are not so much the same, people can and often will get killed in this endeavor.

War is Hell, so is politics, I absolutely hate politics, but all of my friends keep pushing me to go into politics, and I keep telling them no, I'm not ready.

Originally posted by Mike Stivic
basically what im saying is a "non thinker" would not be able to find a weakness to exploit..

i appreciate your passion on the topic and your moral stance on the way this went/is going down i myself am struggling with the "ends justifying the means" aspect of this. i just think maybe this one time you may have let your emotion get the better of you.

Very Respectfully Yours,
~meathead

I do see your point.

The problem comes from his "thinking" as conflicting with his nation and ours.

He is operating outside of both of Australian and American law.

There is a fine line between knowing something and acting upon it.

As well as acting upon it correctly.

If I were at war with America, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Australia I might make the same choice he made, however I am not at war, I am at peace.

I have not declared war against anyone not even hackers/crackers.

We are simply having a discussion and I shared my ideas, views, and perspectives.

First.

Now ask me is my country at war with me?

No.

I know the Art of War, yet practice the Art of Peace, knowing war when I see it, and often I seek a middle ground, in shutting down the entire conflict.

Without taking sides.

My side?

In the middle like it has been since the beggining of my lifetime.

Trying to stop both sides from being ignorant fools and killing each other.

Personally, American citizens do not get told 1% of what our Government does.

I am all for American citizens being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but that will ultimately, never happen in any of our lifetimes.

Originally posted by Amagnon

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Amagnon

 

Wow, this is insanity, because from where I sit we are against criminal actions.

Your pronoun is misplaced - 'we' are not against criminal actions. You might be - for myself, I endorse just action, whether someone deems it criminal or not, I am indifferent - I do not need anyone else to tell me the difference between right and wrong - I certainly do not need a system of (corrupt) laws.

So, what you're saying, is all laws are corrupt?

I never asked you to agree with me now did I?

But I guarantee the Manson families victim's would disagree with you about laws.

I no more "need" Government than I "need" you replying.

Goverment is a functionary unit of control, a control mechanism, nothing more.

If you choose to reply to my posts I choose to reply back.

Originally posted by Amagnon
The common laws are self evident, and supersede any top down programming.

Do no harm, cause no loss, do not infringe upon a man or his property, honor your contracts - what Assange is doing is not contravening these laws.

Everything produced by the government is theoretically the property of the people - they own it - this includes information.

Not correct in all regards.

Assange is not American.

If he were I might agree more with you but he is not.

And not all countries operate that way.

Please, tell me you're not naive enough, to believe they all operate the same?

Because they do not.

Some have tyranny, like China, where to disagree with Government will get you killed.

Russia at one time might have sent you to Siberia, a Gulag, or just shot you.

Germany under Hitler would have sent you to the Concentration Camps.

Originally posted by Amagnon
Also - you point to a list of books - that is all well and good, but how are you going to get 300 million Americans to read them?

They can all watch a youtube clip a few minutes long, and it has a far greater impact.

Educate people by all means - but direct use of information that undermines the credibility of a government that deserves none is the most direct and just method.

Yes, short attention spans, but all you got was those were for spreading out?

That shows me you never bothered reading what they were about.

Nor did you even bother to evaluate what power they hold within them.

Originally posted by Amagnon
You are on the wrong side of the issue SKL - if you keep pushing it, people will question your motivations and you will lose credibility.

EDIT: I suggest you have a look at this thread, then tell me you still think illegal=bad - Obama has passed a law to prevent people investigating the oil spill.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Amagnon]

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Amagnon]

To you, perhaps I am on the wrong side of this issue, but not to me.

I could care less if someone online questions my motivations.

Yeah, I have seen that thread, did you notice the source of it?

The "news" source was questionable so it was meaningless to me.

If Obama really did that Congress and the Supreme Court would be in an uproar.

Sorry, "blogs" and non-news sources, are not viable sources for Washington D.C.