I saw that there isn't a thread about it. Anyway, I think that Israel won most than anyone else because that it shows that Isael isn't the one pressurising the US into attacking Iran.
Yeah but I'm really just fixated on how this war could be justified in killing of innocent people. I understand other wars could, like WWII but not this one.
We can not explain how the war is justified because neither one of us supports this war. So the deaths of civilians are wrong, merely because the war as a whole is wrong.
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that we are completely neutral about the war. We do not support it nor are we against it. The civilian casualties are a part of war. Murder, in general, is bad, whether you kill a civilian or a soldier.
It does not matter if the war is justifiable or not, you can't expect the war to be fought so that innocent civilians are unharmed. War is an all or nothing deal.
For example they hunted down and individual who was hurting cat/cats and reported it to the police in the area. [quote]
Some of them did. Most of them didn't. It's like saying a whole school is pro-life when only 10 or 20 students are marching outside with pro-life banners. I understand that people who are anonymous can get together and form a devastating attack. Anonymous never does something as a whole. It never did. Maybe a lot of anonymous members have done something, but they never do it as a whole. Most people on 4chan don't do squat.
Just be careful when giving credit to anonymous. If 20 people who consider themselves anonymous impact the world, thousands of people behind the title of anonymous are looked at as if having a role. The only role those people play is that they were there to hide those who really did take action, and that's why anonymous is so powerful. If you can't spot the true numbers and names, you generally assume most of them are in on any given act.
But even simple uncoordinated systems display coordination at times. Crowds are not as simple as you believe they are.
You have completely misunderstood what I was saying.
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Each O represents an anonymous person.
There are 100 anonymous people I have shown here, and I'm using 100 to keep things simple. If there's an attack, it is a given that not all 100 of those people were involved. Instead, you know only that some of those people were involved. You don't know how many or who, but you know that some of them were involved.
Because you can't pinpoint the number of people, you must talk as if all 100 people were in on the plan, even when it could have been a single person, or 10 people, or 20, or 50, or 99.
I was talking about the people involved in Operation Payback - the 'Anonymous' (note the capital A) people. I think you're saying that if 100 people were anonymous then you couldn't tell how many out of them were involved in the attacks. I was referring specifically to those people and not just anonymous people in general. It's true that many people are anonymous and that many identify themselves under the banner of Anonymous but I was referring to Anons - rather like a person would refer to a soldier as part of an army (but not a personal army, of course).
I just realized how much of that made absolutely no sense but I'm too tired to rewrite it - goodnight.
NoName you really seem to be more of a NeoCon than a libertarian, sorry.
I am offended because I have merely stated that there's risk that may come from leaking classified documents from the military. Don't make everything I say into something it isn't.
I am torn in the middle when it comes to wikileaks and the government.
How can America promote freedom of the press, yet shut down, or attempt to shut down wikileaks?
That is a good point. War is complicated. You can't be too transparent when it comes to war, but at the same time you don't want to allow the military to cover everything they mess up on up. Even if we were in a war that we SHOULD be in, a war where we were fighting an enemy who threatened to destroy us and tried, if documents are leaked that exposes fraud, I would still believe it a good thing. But if leaked documents will hinder progress, then what?
I suppose my mind is stuck more in the "what if". I don't support this war so it's easy to side with wikileaks posting classified documents. If this was a war where we were on the defense, would that make any difference? I'm just throwing my mind out there. To win a war, you have to play dirty. At the same time, any military capable of playing dirty is able to become mad with power.
What if documents were being leaked that did not expose fraud, but rather future plans? Unlikely, but it's all on my mind none the less. I refuse to stand on one side of this issue until every pro and con is weighed out due to the fact that war is NOT simple and I will not delusion myself to think an honest war can be fought.
Look at Vietnam, coverage was a good thing. If I support wikileaks now, would it be hypocritical to be against leaked documents that could potentially harm us in the future? And as I already mentioned earlier, these documents could strain US relations with other countries.
Is it really about ending war, or is it about being transparent? Wikileaks may very well further the amount of harm done, but it will force the government to put up a more honest front. However, if our goal was to succeed at war (which at this point it is to pull out), is that what we would want?
Is it really about ending war, or is it about being transparent? Wikileaks may very well further the amount of harm done, but it will force the government to put up a more honest front. However, if our goal was to succeed at war (which at this point it is to pull out), is that what we would want?
I would err on the side of transparency. We are meant to own and control government. Can you guess how many people feel like that is happening?
I wonder why this guy did not start this at the Australian government since he is after all Australian. Oh wait I know. You dont get noticed by the world unless you involve america somehow. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame Mr. Wikileaks. You earned it. Also dont drop the soap.
You dont get noticed by the world unless you involve america somehow.
Or America is much more corrupt.
I am offended because I have merely stated that there's risk that may come from leaking classified documents from the military. Don't make everything I say into something it isn't.
Only stating my opinion based on various observations. I'm not the only one here making things into something they aren't. Watch the video for a libertarian view of the situation from one of the few true libertarians in the government; Ron Paul.
Is it really about ending war, or is it about being transparent?
Transparency, the goal of wikileaks is to deny the American government to think without the knowledge of the people thus preventing it from perpetrating its own agenda.
And yet it is not the most. But he chooses it to attack for the publicity.
Would you like to attack Iran or North Korea instead? America's corruption is largely unknown by the general populace of America, it's a wake up call for government to be given back to the people. People are critical of America because they see the potential it has to be greater than it is.
