Wikileaks
 

I really whant to know if what is relased by wikileaks is true or not.
In my particular case i whant to know if my everlasting(20 years:fuzsad:) dwarf Berlusconi is really known by the foreign press for being such a laughable man.

If they weren't true, the various national governments wouldn't be so concerned.

If Wikileaks released false information then there wouldn't be a response on a government level.

Unless the governments are being clever about it.

EDIT: Oh snap

So you are implying for all my life i was (and still i am) under a dwarf:(
That's even worse than Molluck (and i'm not kidding here).
Since we don't have a proper free information network PLEASE next time tell us before letting pass 20years:fuzmad:
How was Abe's odysee line.... get me out of here!!!!

I can't wait for the next release.

That's it. Whenever I am gonna read something you wrote, I will hear the voice of Dexter from Dexter's lab reading it out for me.

Have they released the documents about the member of the Royal family "behaving inappropriately" yet?

I so wanna hear about that.

Is there ever a day when there isn't news about the Royal Family behaving inappropriately?

Anyway, what's wrong with dwarves?

They dig too greedily, and too deep.

if you know what I mean

they found a balrog

Dwarves dug too frugally and too high and struck Elves.

Belive me they dig really, really deap.
You can get lost in the mines they dig and asking a shrink for directions isen't the smartest thing to do.:fuzemb:
And the worst here is that all the shrink are telling us wikileaks is a liar (probaby the only country in the world doing this).

Hate.

Mate.

To be honest, I think Wikileaks is just a lot of smoke for a little bit of fire.


Maybe it's just me, but when someone tells me they have information on the government that will "change world history forever," I just instantly think crackpot.

Yeah. The information that was leaked didn't exactly blow my mind.

I dunno, it was worth it for the butthurt hilarity of Australia's media over the US referring to them as overestimating their political impact.

Heh. Silly Australians.

I'm kind of inclined to agree with the US there - how often does Australia make international news?

You've got to consider the part journalists have to play in that, in simply ignoring Australia regardless of what's going on. It helps that Australia is very well behaved, but really, how much coverage did Harold Holt get? If a US president or UK prime minister went missing, it would be international news, no question.

I'm not sure that journalists have much to do with the amount of political clout that a country has. I think that if a country has more political clout then it is more likely that the media will care about it.

Anyway, the comment was only referring to Australia not having enough clout in one particular instance (which can be said of any country in different situations). It didn't strike me as being particularly rude, as it was just a diplomat advising what they should or should not rely on for that particular situation.

I don't agree with what they're doing and I think they should stop.

However.

Have they read the stuff we already know?

I like the idea behind Wikileaks, however their implementation is something to be desired.

You desire their implementation?

Are you kidding? You don't need Wikileaks to tell you this. The man is more corrupt than the American government and that's quite an accomplishment. It's laughable that the Italian people are still putting up with this clown as the head of their country.

When I saw that the founder of Wikileaks was named 'Julian Assange' I must admit I did not anticipate a man who looks like a 70 year old English woman with a skullet.

From what I can see he's trying to do the right thing, but he's doing it in a really blunt, unrefined way.

Also, he's wanted for rape in Sweden. Mull that over.

I think he was going for bluntness, honestly.
Admittedly I don't know alot about Wikileaks, but what I've read so far seems more appropriate without mincing words. Cold, hard, hit you in the gut kind of approach. Granted, a more subtle approach might have prevented some of this controversy.

Can you say 'Ad hominem'?

Doesn't apply. I was just agreeing that he's creepy, and saying "Look. Here's some other creepy stuff". I never once tried to refute his point of view by calling his character into question. In fact, I'm not sure he has a point of view. He just leaked some documents. How could I possibly refute that?