• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I am gonna go out on a limb and say that Julian Assange is a hero

Status
Not open for further replies.
nublikescake

nublikescake

Senior member
First off, I don't believe this story is strictly political anymore. It's all over the news now and the more important issue I want to focus on in this thread is freedom of expression and journalism at large.

I know that ATOT is a predominantly American forum but I'll speak my mind anyway. I think the man is a true hero. To go public with this kind of information and as a result incur the wrath of the superpower of the world with all its fury is nothing short of heroic. The sources that delivered the information to him deserve much praise as well but it is Julian Assange who's risking everything he has by putting the information out, in his name.

As if it hasn't already been proven before, this sort of information does not "endanger lives" but I find this argument, at least when applied to the U.S./coalition forces, spurious to begin with. It presupposes that U.S. troops can do no wrong and hence any retributive action against them as a result of actions by Wikileaks is wrong and immoral. Well, guess what? You reap what you sow.

At its heart, the man's doing what real journalists should be doing anyway, instead of parroting the party line. Most of the reaction from the western media has been downright laughable since the recent Wikileaks affair began, preferring to focus on seemingly trumped up charges against his person rather than discussing the content of the revealed information and the hundreds of thousands of lives the deceitful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have claimed. What he's revealed so far may not be ground-breaking (yet), but I think what he's done is remind us all in this world of sell-out corporate "journalists" what true journalism is all about.

:colbert:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah... journalists are pretty useless human beings these days. Almost as useless as the politicians they are supposed to be reporting on. Especially the ones who work for places like Fox News, CNN, etc...
 
nublikescake said:
First off, I don't believe this story is strictly political anymore. It's all over the news now and the more important issue I want to focus on in this thread is freedom of expression and journalism at large.

I know that ATOT is a predominantly American forum but I'll speak my mind anyway. I think the man is a true hero. To go public with this kind of information and as a result incur the wrath of the superpower of the world with all its fury is nothing short of heroic. The sources that delivered the information to him deserve much praise as well but it is Julian Assange who's risking everything he has by putting the information out, in his name.

As if it hasn't already been proven before, this sort of information does not "endanger lives" but I find this argument, at least when applied to the U.S./coalition forces, spurious to begin with. It presupposes that U.S. troops can do no wrong and hence any retributive action against them as a result of actions by Wikileaks is wrong and immoral. Well, guess what? You reap what you sow.

At its heart, the man's doing what real journalists should be doing anyway, instead of parroting the party line. Most of the reaction from the western media has been downright laughable since the recent Wikileaks affair began, preferring to focus on seemingly trumped up charges against his person rather than discussing the content of the revealed information and the hundreds of thousands of lives the deceitful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have claimed. What he's revealed so far may not be ground-breaking (yet), but I think what he's done is remind us all in this world of sell-out corporate "journalists" what true journalism is all about.

:colbert:
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
ThePresence said:
Really?
Click to expand...

What was the stated reason for the Iraq war? WMD. Did Iraq have WMD? No. Was the WMD threat grossly misrepresented and even doctored in some cases? Yes. Was regime change the stated purpose for the Iraq war? No. Did Saddam have a role in 9/11 or was he a threat to the West? No. I think you get the point.
 
nublikescake said:
What was the stated reason for the Iraq war? WMD. Did Iraq have WMD? No. Was the WMD threat grossly misrepresented and even doctored in some cases? Yes. Was regime change the stated purpose for the Iraq war? No. Did Saddam have a role in 9/11 or was he a threat to the West? No. I think you get the point.
Click to expand...

Look at what I quoted from your post. Afghanistan.
 
He is no more a respectable, unbiased journalist than any other. he puts great effort into releasing his info in bunches that create the story that he wants to create.

He actually believes that it is his duty to control the perception of the info that he leaks. There is very little honor in what he does.

Though, I understand the reasoning and desire for making this info public. He has balls, in a way, but I find them to be shriveled and rather perverted balls.

this article was published a week or two before his more recent huge releases. before he became a household name. it actually details the lead-up and prep to that bomb shell release and in his ow words, he trumpets the necessity "to create the perception of this story the way I want it to be seen." In terms of releasing video clips, editing to proper dramatic effect, adding "condemning" music to toy with emotional response, etc...


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian
 
nublikescake said:
What was the stated reason for the Iraq war? WMD. Did Iraq have WMD? No. Was the WMD threat grossly misrepresented and even doctored in some cases? Yes. Was regime change the stated purpose for the Iraq war? No. Did Saddam have a role in 9/11 or was he a threat to the West? YES. I think you get the point.
Click to expand...

Umm, NO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

Read the 26 reasons listed for authorization for use of force. Regime change was one of the stated reasons among many, many others.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top