WikiLeaks strikes again -- U.S. diplomacy stripped naked

Chomsky denied the fact that Pol Pot killed anyone in large numbers. He went one to say those that were killed were enemies of the people or what have you. Since the truth has come out he has been trying to weasel his way out of what he said. I respect the man for his work in Anthropology, but he is a colossal douche in every other regard.
Chomsky didn't deny that Pol Pot was monstrous, or that he was killing people 'en masse'. He questioned whether or not the numbers were accurate or if they were just propaganda. He thought the number of murders was in the hundreds of thousands (not 1.5 to 2 million) and speculated that the rest had died from famine. I can't really fault the guy for not believing US politicians in 1979.

He also argued that our bombers killed 2/3 fewer civilians than critics of the war claimed, so I'd hardly say he was on the side of the communists.

Good quote from him on the whole matter:
When we criticize fabrications about US crimes, that's fine, when we criticize and in fact expose much worse fabrications about some official enemy, that's horrible, it becomes apologetics.


Did you read this? I'd hardly call that an unbiased criticism of Chomsky. According to this, he must be one of the most evil SOB's to ever walk the earth.
 
Chomsky denied the fact that Pol Pot killed anyone in large numbers. He went one to say those that were killed were enemies of the people or what have you. Since the truth has come out he has been trying to weasel his way out of what he said. I respect the man for his work in Anthropology, but he is a colossal douche in every other regard.

It's part of the left wing thinking of the 60s and 70s. We saw much the same from our home grown left wing politicians. Lots of people thought well of Stalin in the west until the 70s. And there's a reason for it. What Pol Pot did was very clear to a normally thinking person, as it was in the papers. But from the perspective of 70s maoists, it was seen as right wing propaganda, much in the same way stories about good black people (gode svartinger, as it's called in Norwegian) are seen as multicultural propaganda from a PC media by certain right wingers today. It's a normal way of thinking, they didn't feel they had the ability to trust the media, as it was borgeois, or at least said to be so.

I can't get into the head of Naom Chomsky, of Jan Myrdal, of Sigurd Allern or any of the 70s radicals. It's possible they realized some of what were taken about were true. But it's just as likely it was just seen as exageration, lies and propaganda from a news media that would write anything to discredit the left.

Who here really trusts that ie. Fox News tells the story correctly? At least political stories? I don't.
 
Chomsky didn't deny that Pol Pot was monstrous, or that he was killing people 'en masse'. He questioned whether or not the numbers were accurate or if they were just propaganda. He thought the number of murders was in the hundreds of thousands (not 1.5 to 2 million) and speculated that the rest had died from famine. I can't really fault the guy for not believing US politicians in 1979.

He also argued that our bombers killed 2/3 fewer civilians than critics of the war claimed, so I'd hardly say he was on the side of the communists.

Good quote from him on the whole matter:




Did you read this? I'd hardly call that an unbiased criticism of Chomsky. According to this, he must be one of the most evil SOB's to ever walk the earth.

I don't fully support the essay writers, but his facts on Chomsky and the DK are backed up.
 
It's not that the meme isn't funny anymore, I just feel the effort has gone down hill.

Someone want to post the SNL skit about wikileaks?
 
Is this what it feels like to have sycophants? Because it's not redeeming as you'd think it would be.

The problem is, that those sycophants are mostly countries who somehow feel missed out, because they think they don't have enough own power (politically and economically) to make a stand on their own. And instead of trying to make changes to theirselves to be more competitive or (shockingly) become better friends with their neighbours, they go the easy way and become pals of the school bully (no offense, it's just an analogy) in order to bask in its power and glory a bit. Doesn't help on the long run but seems to help a bit with self-confidence.

It's a pity, really. And no wonder, that the Obama administration doesn't take Europe serious anymore.

Britain is a special case, though. They seem to live in a kind of love-hate relationship with the whole world really. I suppose that's because they still haven't gotten over losing the Empire.
 
Last edited:
And I think more PMs than Eden has had bad feelings over Suez.
 
Suez was a huge mistake but seen through the prism of the time at least understandable. Equivalent of the "Nationalisation of American assets in CUBA" actually, the response to which has been less than satisfactory also.
 
Yeah, it's quite funny how Suez was "old fashioned imperialism", Cuba wasn't. Yeah.
 
Hate em or no, Wikileaks has a sense of humour! (Twitter)-

Sarah Palin says Julian should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden--so he should be safe for at least a decade.
 
Wikileaks is pathetic, all they're going for is the shock and awe factor without providing any substantiated point or purpose. The sad part about the entire thing is seeing just how naive how the general public really is. This world really needs to wake up if most people think that world gov'ts are real honest institutions.
 
Wikileaks is pathetic, all they're going for is the shock and awe factor without providing any substantiated point or purpose. The sad part about the entire thing is seeing just how naive how the general public really is. This world really needs to wake up if most people think that world gov'ts are real honest institutions.


And that is exactly why we need a wikileaks.
 
Hate em or no, Wikileaks has a sense of humour! (Twitter)-

Bwahaha.

And as disappointed as I am in wikileaks judgement or targeting, all this "Terrorist" and "Hunt em down" rhetoric is so far off base it's not funny. No, FFS, Assange is not a terrorist. It demeans the word much like comparing everyone to Hitler. So, I say to you John Boehner, stop acting like Hitler and being a dick with the language. I'd like to see him prosecuted for leaking documents sure, but this other junk is ridiculous.
 
Bwahaha.

And as disappointed as I am in wikileaks judgement or targeting, all this "Terrorist" and "Hunt em down" rhetoric is so far off base it's not funny. No, FFS, Assange is not a terrorist. It demeans the word much like comparing everyone to Hitler. So, I say to you John Boehner, stop acting like Hitler and being a dick with the language. I'd like to see him prosecuted for leaking documents sure, but this other junk is ridiculous.
Agreed. I think Gingrich was calling this an "act of war". Really? Who the hell are going to war against? The internet?

I read something today about Australia taking a look at the Afghanistan war leak, to see if anything in the leak affected their operations there. The aim being to find a reason to revoke Assange's passport.
 
Last edited:
Bwahaha.

And as disappointed as I am in wikileaks judgement or targeting, all this "Terrorist" and "Hunt em down" rhetoric is so far off base it's not funny. No, FFS, Assange is not a terrorist. It demeans the word much like comparing everyone to Hitler. So, I say to you John Boehner, stop acting like Hitler and being a dick with the language. I'd like to see him prosecuted for leaking documents sure, but this other junk is ridiculous.

Assange/wikileaks didn't "leak" the documents though (as far as anybody can tell), they are just publishing/distruibuting them, which I don't think is a crime in itself in the US from memory.

Interesting one though. Now that documents have been leaked about Kevin Rudd giving advice to Clinton on China, one could argue that Assange could be charged with treason. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Agreed. I think Gingrich was calling this an "act of war". Really? Who the hell are going to war against? The internet?

I read something today about Australia taking a look at the Afghanistan war leak, to see if anything in the leak affected their operations there. The aim being to find a reason to revoke Assange's passport.

The Attorney-general has said that actually cancelling his passport would be very difficult because they have to physically serve him with a notice, which is hard to do when you don't know where said person is! :lol:

Assange did raise a good point though- at the time of the AG threatening to cancel his passport, Assange had been convicted of no crimes in Australia or worldwide that warrant cancelling his passport (according to my admittedly crap legal knowledge). So it is easy to think that the only reason the gov't wants to do this is to aid the US, who are the most hurt by the leaks. Yes, what he is doing is somewhat immoral and incorrect, but immoral and incorrect should not give your government the right to strip you of your rights. Illegal yes, but he hasn't been proven to be doing anything illegal yet. It does make you think about how much protection you have as a citizen of your country....
 
Agreed. I think Gingrich was calling this an "act of war". Really? Who the hell are going to war against? The internet?

I read something today about Australia taking a look at the Afghanistan war leak, to see if anything in the leak affected their operations there. The aim being to find a reason to revoke Assange's passport.

Well, Dubya went to war against an idea. Terrorism. I actually get most irritated over the State Department. From bible bashing idiots on the far right of politics, I expect a little idiotic rethoric and bloodlust, but from the most liberal Secretary of State since Nancy Pelosi went to a French Resturant, her spokesman speaks a little.. idiotic.

"What's crucial here is that Mr. Assange is not a journalist. He is an anarchist. And he is not worthy of the protections of a journalist," Crowley said.

Source.. Sorry about using Free Malaysia Today, but I had to google for a story with the complete quote in English, as I came over it in Norwegian.

Right mr. Phillip Crowley. Have you ever once met a journalist? I have. I am one. If there's ONE THING we get grumpy about, it's when governments try to tell us what the definition of a journalist is. A journalist is anyone between the reporter from the Washington Post to the sad guy who writes a newsletter about bible bashing idiots on the far right all on his own, and yes, Julian Assange is a journalist. He recieves material, and he publishes it. There is no provision that you have to edit stuff for it being journalism. Some of the best journalism is just the facts. This is a prime example of just that.

Wether he's an anarchist or not, it has no fucking bearing on wether or not he's a journalist. Where do we draw the line? Can quackers be journalists? How about bible bashing idiots on the far right? Or tofu bashing idiots on the far left? Where do we draw said line?

This question has a really simple answer. You don't draw any line. Never, ever.

As for the guy who leaked it, I'd be interested to know his motivations. I'd also be interested to know how he did it. Time will show. He is undoubtedly a traitor. I won't call him a traitor in a time of war, though. The ongoing wars aren't even close to the idea meant by "in a time of war". World War 2, that was a time of war. When the British invaded in 1812, that was a time of war, a time of national emergency. 9/11 wasn't close.

As for Sarah Palin, I think Jon Stewart has written my own musings on the subject. Take it away, Jon.
 
And that is exactly why we need a wikileaks.

Yes but not at the cost of putting people's lives in danger. Much of gov't dishonesty can be taught with simple history lessons. If people don't see a trend within their history books then they are just really dumb.
 
Last edited:
How is this putting people in danger? I keep hearing that but have seen nothing to back it up.
 
Top