Fuck facebook. For all those who think that Mark is a hero... Hill PM HIE, ill I ENE Til! FINITE ] I' ll EH. You guys are aware that the reason the US government doesn't want certain info released isn't to keep it from the public, but to keep it out of the hands of ter
x
Click to expand

Comments(161):

[ 161 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #6 - luidias (05/11/2013) [-]
You guys are aware that the reason the US government doesn't want certain info released isn't to keep it from the public, but to keep it out of the hands of terrorists and countries like North Korea, right...?


mind you, zuckerberg is still a massive dickmonger for selling out all our info.
0
#34 to #6 - toughactintinactin has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #40 to #6 - dafunkad (05/11/2013) [-]
both
#95 to #6 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
I completely agree with you.
#145 to #6 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
talk **** about north korea one more time

one. more. time.
#8 to #6 - bartdude (05/11/2013) [-]
i agree, its not to keep from us, the good people of the world, but the bad people. So that in turn, this keeping of information makes us, and our people on foreign soil safe.

Yes zuckerberg is an a-hole
assange is a bigger one
User avatar #7 to #6 - worldofwarcraftdog (05/11/2013) [-]
i agree, like releasing private diplomatic cables discussing other countries is completely inappropriate.

**** you julian assange.
#72 to #6 - ineedthistothumb (05/11/2013) [-]
Also, Man of the Year doesn't mean you're the greatest person of the year. It just means you're the most influential person of the year. For example, Hitler was man of the year at one point.
User avatar #14 to #6 - mrcockman (05/11/2013) [-]
I agree too, but Assange didn't want to make the US to lose the wars. He wanted to reveal the truth. And he did a good ******* job.
#101 to #6 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
if a nobody like me can get them, then "the terrorists" and north korea can get them no problem.
User avatar #142 to #101 - ilovehitler (05/11/2013) [-]
But... you ARE in North Korea...
#48 to #6 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
Its not like Wikileaks published launch codes or anything. They've published dirty backroom politics, backstabbing diplomats, hidden agenda's for personal gain. And some serious crimes.
The information that has been leaked as all embarresed governments towards their own people, or towards their Allies. And i think its very good that we have people digging up this dirt and showing the people how their leaders screw them over.

And for the "but you give your information freely to facebook". Wikileaks publishes, they dont really steal. They get handed information, usually by certain officials who have access to this information, and they publish it.
User avatar #10 to #6 - youngfearless (05/11/2013) [-]
another difference is that people are willing to put there personal on facebook
#78 - andyshandy (05/11/2013) [-]
Ah yes, alongside such great company as Stalin and Hitler.

Man Of The Year just means they were the most prominent figure that year, it doesn't say whether or not they were good or bad.
#100 to #78 - deathcampforjewtie (05/11/2013) [-]
If Jew have something to say, say it to mien face.
If Jew have something to say, say it to mien face.
#17 - trolololer (05/11/2013) [-]
Can we just stop for a second and admire how Julian Assange is so much similar to Barney Stintson?
#67 to #17 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
more like that dude from Community
0
#133 to #67 - recio **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #18 to #17 - trolololer (05/11/2013) [-]
is looks
#111 to #18 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
letrolekid.jpg
User avatar #135 to #111 - trolololer (05/11/2013) [-]
No I meant to say "looks", not "is". I was being imprecise with my language.
#31 - teamrocketninja (05/11/2013) [-]
He gives out information. That I willingly post. On his website. To save companies the time of simply doing it themselves.
User avatar #32 to #31 - teamrocketninja (05/11/2013) [-]
Also, if Mr. Assange had done anything really important besides ruffling a few feathers, he'd have had an unfortunate traffic accident or a very bad random fall by now.
#37 - archiehicox (05/11/2013) [-]
Neil Patrick Harris looks terrible.
#161 to #37 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
looks more like kevin spacey
#12 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
Mark Zuckerberg is such a tool.
#11 - drewbridge (05/11/2013) [-]
"I got arrested for hacking into the government and exposing classified information that could endanger lives? This is ******** !"

And yes, Zuckerberg is selling our web addresses for money so I can get more Toyota Sonata ads. I have never been more offended in my life.
#57 to #11 - bigmanfifty (05/11/2013) [-]
And how does the leaking of diplomatic cables 'endanger lives'
And how does the leaking of diplomatic cables 'endanger lives'

#47 to #11 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
Julian Assange did not hack the goverment, he asked around for these videos of them killing innocent civilians. He is now wanted by the interpool for rape, witch is total ******** for a excuse for jailing him & killing him. Your stupidity made me have to comment even tho I never comment, I've been here since FJ was green.
#102 to #47 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
Sure you have. That's why you're hiding behind being anonymous instead of having the balls to even use your FJ name. Mainly because you're one of those types who tries to act like you know about something because you read a wiki article once when you can't be bothered to look into the larger implications on a national & worldwide scale.

Why should you? After all you can hide like a bitch and snark at people then never have to be seen again or concern yourself with hurting your precious site-affiliated name's reputation. Unless you're going to try and fire off one of those responses about having been banned a lot which only further emphasizes how dumb you are when you can't even follow simplistic rules on a website.

It's cool though man, stay strong anon and you snark from the shadows with your ignorance. I shall post as anon too so you don't feel all alone.
#22 to #11 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
He hosted a website where other people could post whistleblowing documents showing govermental and corporate corruption.

This is not why he was attempted to be arrested because it is not a crime. America got butthurt that their security was shown to be so crap and suddenly some bogus rape charges appear out of ******* nowhere. Now Assange is taking refuge i nthe Ecuadorian embassy.

Helps if you actually know whats going on in a situation before looking stupid.
#130 - I Am Monkey (05/11/2013) [-]
"Private information" being things you willing posted to hundreds of people, many of which are strangers.

Don't get me wrong, Zuckerberg is somewhat of a douche, but if you think that's the same thing as stealing secret information from the government and expecting no consequences you probably have the downs.

Also, facebook is a service that almost everyone enjoys free of charge. They have to make money somehow and they don't rape you with ads like youtube. Should they make their consent more explicit before selling said information? Absolutely. But if some advertiser knowing I own a dog is the price of enjoying the worlds largest social network I would gladly pay it.
User avatar #132 to #130 - cormy (05/11/2013) [-]
Posted to hundreds of people?
Privacy settings...?
When I used facebook, I never had more than 30 friends on there and I only made posts that only my friends could see, not friends of friends or public or anything.
User avatar #134 to #132 - I Am Monkey (05/11/2013) [-]
Well you would be in the minority. I also only keep a few dozen friends just for the fact that I don't want people I barely know blowing up my feed, but most of my friends have a few hundred.
#144 to #130 - Slicernicer (05/11/2013) [-]
I read this all in George's voice.
User avatar #173 to #130 - animationhac (05/11/2013) [-]
I have things set to where I can only see them :o. Doesnt mean everyone has doors wide open to other people.
#53 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
"hurr durr but Julian Assange released info that worsened relations"

You mean that info that showed us the U.S bombing and killing 11 children, and attacking the nurses who tried to treat said children.

Maybe they shouldn't have done that in the first place. I'd prefer to be aware of the things my government is doing rather than having them swept under the rug.

I will still never understand how people can have so much animosity toward him for releasing that video and not giving a damn about the men responsible for those deaths.
#71 to #53 - adrenalinbbq (05/11/2013) [-]
Right, because we're all going to treat an entire country the same way because of the actions of one person.

His information did two things. Highlighted the actions of a few bad individuals in the U.S. military, and then put all the other members of that military into greater danger as a result. Is that fair to those families overseas? No. Is that fair to those families in the U.S.? No.
User avatar #74 to #71 - defeats (05/11/2013) [-]
Don't shoot the messenger though, guy.
User avatar #42 - reginleif (05/11/2013) [-]
It's pretty ****** up that the Swedes and the English are so caught up in their nationalist pride that they don't see the problem with their abusive governments making an obvious overreach in putting Assange in jail.

First off, who spends that much money trying to put a rapist in jail? Millions of dollars a day in just surveillance? The UK must really invest a lot of money in keeping itself rape free right? ^.-


Secondly, the Swedish laws that Assange is being charged under are ******* jokes...

Sex without a condom is considered rape?
Sleeping sex with someone that you have had consensual sex with multiple times in the past, is rape?

Also their laws conveniently keep them from questioning him at the embassy, for some reason he HAS to be on Swedish soil.

And if that wasn't enough, they won't even promise to not extradite him.

-sigh- Don't get me wrong, there is plenty wrong with the American justice system (hot cofee anyone?) but that's the thing...most Americans are willing to admit the ******** aspects of our CJS. People from England and Sweden (add Italy if you want to include the really corrupt Amanda Knox case), have proven that they can't or won't.
User avatar #82 to #42 - defeats (05/11/2013) [-]
By the way I'm UK, not Sweden. What the **** Sweden?
Though having sex with a sleeping person is rape even if they have consented to sex previously, if they didn't specify that you could have sex with them as they slept it isn't consented.
User avatar #92 to #82 - reginleif (05/11/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

Not really man, at the very least in Canada. A court there ruled you can't give future consent.

User avatar #103 to #92 - defeats (05/11/2013) [-]
From reading the article I don't think they know what to do either way.

Such as this line:
"The Ontario Court of Appeals dismissed the charges. The majority ruled that people can legally consent in advance to sex that is expected to occur while someone is asleep or unconscious."

I mean, I am really sickened by rape etc but I have been woken up by one of my past girlfriends having sex with me are you saying I was raped? Because I can tell you, I didn't feel violated.
I can see where they were coming from in that article, knocking people out during sex then continuing to have sex with them is a bit weird, but I think in some parts of the BDSM culture both partners go for that.
Because I did mean asleep while they're sharing a bed and maybe they've already had sex the evening before, not choke her out of conciousness then have sex with her.
User avatar #127 to #103 - reginleif (05/11/2013) [-]
Yeah but the charges are simply the logical extension of people's beliefs in "sleeping sex". If you argue that an unconscious or drunk person cannot consent to sex and that consent is active and can be removed at any time, then you really can't approve of BDSM or any fantasy in which one agent loses his/her senses by being unconscious.

So in a nutshell, yes according to some people you were raped by your girlfriend.

I would agree with the concept that having sex with someone that is sleeping CAN be wrong, and that if someone asks you to put a condom on, then you probably should..... I just wouldn't put it in a category with those guys who jump in bushes or chain others into apartment buildings and have many people over.

I also wouldn't make an international case over it, spending as much time and resources as some countries have.
User avatar #164 to #127 - defeats (05/11/2013) [-]
I do get where they're coming from with the whole "when they're unconscious they cannot withdraw consent" but in this day and age everybody is experimenting with different things.
As long as it's safe, consented and both parties are content after the fact then I don't think either party should be convicted of rape for anything that happens during. Obviously when I say this I'm not including under-age sex.

In that article that you linked, was the woman pressing charges claiming she was raped? Because I couldn't tell from it.
#131 to #42 - molehasmoles (05/11/2013) [-]
"Sex without a condom is considered rape?"
Not as far as I know, and I'm Swedish, please provide some sources that back this up.

"Don't get me wrong, there is plenty wrong with the American justice system (hot cofee anyone?) but that's the thing...most Americans are willing to admit the ******** aspects of our CJS. People from England and Sweden (add Italy if you want to include the really corrupt Amanda Knox case), have proven that they can't or won't. "

I have a hard time believing that you know enough about Sweden or England to say that most Swedes and Englishmen can't admit that their country isn't flawless. For example I'd definitely say that there are many problems with my country (Sweden), no country is flawless. Anyway, please tell me about your experience with swedish and english people, have you lived there for a couple of years or what?
#81 to #42 - defeats (05/11/2013) [-]
But we don't like rapists...
User avatar #86 - TarnRazor (05/11/2013) [-]
Julian Assange shouldn't be leaking critical information about a government that could lead to great danger to the United States.

Also, Zuckerberg's terms and conditions warn you about these things. You're pretty much agreeing for your information to be sold when you make a Facebook account.
User avatar #97 to #86 - sketchysketchist (05/11/2013) [-]
True, you never know who's reading wikileaks and using that to their advantage.

Mark zuckerberg is still messed up for selling his users out in such a way.
It should be illegal to sell other people's information like that, even though it's in the terms and conditions.
I'm not making a big deal out of it though, I don't really use facebook.
User avatar #175 to #97 - animationhac (05/11/2013) [-]
Not to mention, terms and conditions change too if they want to.
User avatar #64 - Crusader (05/11/2013) [-]
Because Zuckerberg does it legally.
The terms of agreement say that Facebook owns any information, videos, or pictures you post there.
That is why Facebook is free, it looks like it has no product, you are the product, you are what facebook is selling in order to stay functioning.
Don't act like it was some big secret, if you read the fine print and thought about it, you would have known this as soon as you made a facebook account.
-4
#93 to #64 - kaoknight **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #162 to #64 - poniesareghey (05/11/2013) [-]
Just because it's legal doesn't make him not a faggot ******
User avatar #83 to #64 - defeats (05/11/2013) [-]
He does it legally, yes, but I think it's the fact that it isn't made obvious to users. Especially with all the "privacy settings" and stuff they tell you keeps your personal information safe.
User avatar #114 to #83 - defeats (05/11/2013) [-]
Damn guys I'm not saying I care either way, I'm saying why people may be upset about it. I don't even use Facebook...
#139 to #114 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
Mostly, because of your pic. You'll be getting all the red thumbs I can give you, every time I see you!
User avatar #166 to #139 - defeats (05/11/2013) [-]
Oh, fair enough Anon, I really thought that I had changed it already...
User avatar #79 to #64 - racrox (05/11/2013) [-]
Just cause it's legal doesn't make it right, and just cause it's illegal doesn't make it wrong.

All information should be available to everyone at all times (and when I say all, you should know what I mean, government plans, company agendas, etc, not the fact the little jimmy down the street like african midget transvestite porn)
User avatar #109 - brettyoke ONLINE (05/11/2013) [-]
>Puts private information on a FACEBOOK profile
>Pissed when other people see it
#113 to #5 - enorus (05/11/2013) [-]
I found that way too 			*******		 funny
I found that way too ******* funny
#98 - anon (05/11/2013) [-]
Lol, you children actually believe anything on the internet can be private.
#120 - porchmonkeywarrior (05/11/2013) [-]
Hey, that guy was sucking his own dick!
User avatar #44 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
Corporations? They were military secrets + political minutes.

I'm all for transparency of government, but a whole lot of what he released just worsened public relations and international relations.

Not to mention he used illegal methods to obtain the info, though I guess you can't really pursue legal means to get the info out there...
User avatar #168 to #44 - poniesareghey (05/11/2013) [-]
It was innocent people being gunned down, we deserve to know our government is a ******* ****** .
User avatar #169 to #168 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
Yes. But not all of the information released were innocent people being gunned down. Also, in the case of the reuters reporter, the attack was not against a reuters reporter, the attack was against a presumed terrorist. Mistakes like that happen. The question is should the public know, and this is one of those ambiguous things where there's literally no benefit to the public knowing that an airforce gunner made a mistake, but that revealing this information will certainly do harm to the military effort. You're the guy at the helm. Do you try to deal with it quietly, or do you make it the front page of the tabloids? Do you quietly give reparations to the family and an apology for the mistake, or do you allow the public to demand the guy's head on a stake?

There are always ambiguitites. Certain things don't NEED to be known, certain things do. The question is how we differentiate one from the other. Assange did not make that effort. He just spewed it all out there and let everyone else clean up the mess.
User avatar #171 to #169 - poniesareghey (05/11/2013) [-]
I think it's ******** that the government feels privileged enough to withhold information like this from its people. Also, it wasn't one gunner's mistake, it was multiple people over a chain of command, clearly desensitized to the point where they have no value for human life. Yes, I think it's my right as a citizen of the ******* US to know this **** . Also, there's a difference between making a mistake and murdering men, women and children as well as other concerned people helping wounded then proceeding to bomb multiple building and then, when you find out it's a mistake just ignore it and hope it goes away. Also imagine how the people on the ground felt when they had to roll in and clean up dead kids out of vans, because America.
User avatar #177 to #171 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
Multiple people?

Buddy, it was one plane, one guy, the guy says "I see the target" the guys above say "you're OK to fire"

Where in the charter of rights and freedoms does it say "Thou doth haveth the right to know everything that your military has ever done".

Leave your poetics aside. When you're at war you don't have the priviledge of knowledge. You need to fight for every piece of information you have. You don't know if your target is planning on blowing up a base or planning a bombing like the Boston marathon. All you know is that the van looks like the one your guy was known to drive and if you don't kill him, he may kill your mother tomorrow. Mistakes happen. That's life. Now I'm not saying we hide the mistakes, but there's a time for outrage and there's a time for solemn acceptance. You need to accept when one civilian dies because of a gunner's mistake, you can be outraged when civilians are kidnapped and tortured without investigation.

I'll give you the same analogy I gave the other guy who thinks it's his right to know everything and to be allowed to scrutinize every mistake made. Country A and Country B are at war. Country B is launching dud missiles at country A's subs. Country A does not release this information to the public for fear of country B learning of this and using live ammunition.

Is Country A in the wrong for keeping information from the public that they didn't need to know?

Also, good job general. After revealing the information to the public, you and half of your staff have all been dishonorably discharged. You're spit on by everyone back home and the 20 or so year old who shot the reporter thinking he was a militant is now being held up on war crime charges and stands to have at least a decade in prison. The victims family is no better off than they were before the public statement.

But it's your right to know. Damned be the consequences.
User avatar #178 to #177 - poniesareghey (05/11/2013) [-]
It was a helicopter outfitted with high-caliber machine guns and air-to-ground rockets and several times they asked permission, to be clear. This is not an instance of national security, this isn't live or dead ammunition, this is dead families and reporters that we choose to ignore and it's that straight forward. Excuse the **** out of me for wanting to know this **** , but it seems pretty ******* important and brought some more light to pulling us the **** out of this dumb war before more innocent people died. It's powerful footage and it had an effect on our country's view towards the military.
User avatar #179 to #178 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
Because one instance defines a military.

Also, you did not address my analogy.
User avatar #181 to #179 - poniesareghey (05/11/2013) [-]
>Implying killing innocents has only happened once
Your analogy was **** , this isn't national security, it's ******* trigger-happy retards in the air shooting at **** they can't properly identify under ****** up R.O.E's, which basically consisted of, "If it moves, kill it" at that point.
User avatar #183 to #181 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
Implying that innocents killed is far less than militants killed and that innocents dying is an unfortunate reality of war. At least we aren't targeting civilians.

My analogy was fine. I was providing an instance where the government does not reveal information. You DEMAND 100% transparency do you not? You believe that even though it is not stated in the constitution it is your god given right to know everything. If you lose 100% control you get scared and start getting angry. Then you start swearing at people on the internet because you think that solves problems. In reality the people you're swearing at want the same thing you want. A safe country, a responsible government, and peace. You just have a different opinion on what should be done to ensure these things.

Do you not think that 100% transparency is necessary?
User avatar #184 to #183 - poniesareghey (05/11/2013) [-]
At what point did I ever say I want 100% transparency? When did I say I think we should know what the government does at all times? Really, read though this and quote me on that. Additionally, there's a difference between the constitutional rights and the general right that I shouldn't be dragged into a war that a super-power government made without the backing of its citizens, and then proceed to be left in the dark about anything in there but ******* propaganda. We always hear "America did this **** and saved people", but we're shielded from this. It's ******** , quite frankly, to have what I can know about an issue that directly effects me limited by an oppressive propaganda-fueled government. We can only advance by embracing and reforming our flaws, not by hiding them and repeating them.
User avatar #185 to #184 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
So you're saying the same thing as me. Release information that is necessary to have released, but don't release everything. Great. Then we're not even fighting except over what each of us defines as necessary to have released.

You can stop swearing at any time you want. It's never good for conducting constructive debate.
User avatar #188 to #185 - poniesareghey (05/11/2013) [-]
It's a heated topic and so you should expect a heated response.
User avatar #59 to #44 - bigmanfifty (05/11/2013) [-]
I think that a more informed public is a benefit that outweighs the drawbacks
User avatar #73 to #59 - yusay (05/11/2013) [-]
Not always.
User avatar #85 to #73 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
I'm sure Hitler would say the same thing
#88 to #85 - yusay (05/11/2013) [-]
It can also ruin foreign relations and cause outrages and reactions that would enable the government to be unable to fix. Imagine trying to defuse a bomb. Now imagine it with 20,000 people yelling around you trying to claw your eyes out for the fact the bomb is even there.

Is it good to have the public informed? Sometimes, not always. It depends on the situation. It is not a black and white issue.
User avatar #89 to #88 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
I'm sure Hitler would also say that exposing his secrets would ruin foreign relations and cause outrages.
User avatar #91 to #90 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
Thumb me down all you want, unless you can provide something that contradicts me, my point still stands.
User avatar #136 to #91 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
The unwritten rule of the internet. Any civilized discussion will inevitably end with one party comparing the other to the nazis.
User avatar #148 to #136 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
**** godwin's law, comparing it to Hitler is actually valid here. Can you provide anything that says otherwise?
User avatar #150 to #148 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
Tell me everything you know about Hitler's views on the spreading of information.
User avatar #152 to #150 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
How about I assume that I know the same level as you do, and you can tell me how I'm wrong in saying that Hitler would agree that releasing state secrets is dangerous instead of me "telling you everything I know".
User avatar #163 to #152 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
It has been 17 minutes, do you ever intend to reply or did you just rage thumb and leave?
User avatar #170 to #163 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
I apologize for not being on funnyjunk 24/7 to reply to your incessant whining
User avatar #174 to #170 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
Gonna keep trying to insult me?

I literally replied to you 2 minutes after you replied to me. The least you could do is come back in 10 minutes or so. Seriously, leaving a debate for over half an hour, then having the gall to call your opponent whiny. You're really trying to impress me, now aren't you.

In the time it has taken you not to reply to me I've altogether come up with a different approach to the issue entirely.



Instead of asking you about Hitler, whom I'm sure you know many intimate details, I'm going to tell you exactly what's wrong with your manner of debate and why comparing people to the Nazis and filling their mouths with words they never said is a bad idea if you want to convince anyone of anything.

Neither I nor hitler ever said anything about revealing state secrets being wrong. You fabricated that. Now, Hitler may have been opposed to it, but you're going to need direct quotations as support for statements like that. Hitler aside, let's look at myself. Now, I disapproved of wantonly revealing military secrets and political minutes. Now the difference between military secrets and state secrets is that you don't NEED to know military secrets. They really don't affect you much for the most part. Here's an example; I forget the countries so we'll call them country A and country B. Country A and B are at war. Country B's subs are launching dud missiles at Country A's submarines. Country A does not inform the public of this for fear of Country B getting the information. Does the lack of transparency immediately put Country A in the wrong?

As for political minutes, a great deal of them were off the record and should not have been considered stated on behalf of the country. The resulting controversies over stupid things tired men said when they thought no one was recording is hardly a fair respect to the right that every man has to privacy.

Am I still Hitler for not viewing the issue as black and white?
User avatar #153 to #152 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
No, I want you to tell me what you know so I can fill in any gaps without insulting your knowledge and assuming you're entirely ignorant to the way a fascist dictator runs a country.
User avatar #172 to #153 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
The way Hitler ran his country was with total control over everything - the media, the press, etc were all ran by his government. The people were absolutely not free to criticize his government, similar to Stalin. Despite that, Hitler did do all he could to better the people he felt were worthy, which were native Germans, and he despised Jews, Gypsies, etc and felt the need to remove them from Germany. His anti-semitism wasn't unknown, as he wrote about all of this in Mein Kampf and he introduced a vast number of anti-semitic laws over the period of about 7 years before he decided to start exterminating them en-masse, but this was largely kept hidden from the German public. The average citizen wasn't even aware of the exterminations, only groups such as the SS and his army that invaded Poland and the Ukraine were. If information about the exterminations had been released before Poland was liberated, the Allies would have done even more to stop it if they knew about it (location of the camps, carpet-bombing German cities as primary targets, etc).

Your turn
User avatar #176 to #172 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
What does any of this have to do with not approving of releasing military secrets unless it is to reveal corruption/mishandling of the state's resources?
User avatar #180 to #176 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
Because freedom of information is an important thing. People have the right to know what their government is doing.
User avatar #182 to #180 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
how about with the situation I presented to you before? Of the two countries at war with one country launching dud missiles.
User avatar #186 to #182 - gammajk (05/11/2013) [-]
If Country B is incapable of producing functional missiles, then would it not be beneficial for country A to release this information as an attempt to increase morale? In this day and age, unless country B is absolutely technologically backwards then they will already know that their missiles aren't working because of a lack of blown-up submarines.

I can understand keeping military tactics a secret, unless your tactics are things like "massacre POWs instead of taking them captive" or "carpet bomb innocent civilians because there's an ammo cache there" or something like that. I guess what I'm saying is that the government does have the right to withhold information, but they should absolutely not have the right to punish those that release it, ESPECIALLY if that information is exposing a government's wrongdoings.
User avatar #187 to #186 - Sethorein (05/11/2013) [-]
They punished the soldier for mishandling of information that wasn't his to spread. Assange actually wasn't punished for that, he was hounded for alleged "rape". It's just an excuse to nab him. Totally stupid.

So there you go, me and you agree then. I say there should be an organized system behind what gets released and what doesn't instead of having people like assange going in and releasing everything, even unnecessary things.
0
#149 to #148 - Sethorein has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #146 to #136 - ilovehitler (05/11/2013) [-]
Happens in real life, too.
User avatar #167 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (05/11/2013) [-]
Zuckerberg's a money-grubbing asshole with no respect for his customers, everyone knows that.

Assange leaked information that endangered the lives of troops abroad and also attempted to rape someone.

They're both ******* scumbags.
User avatar #106 - grrphc (05/11/2013) [-]
...Who gives a **** ?
You guys all act like you're in the witness protection program.
Besides, you guys agreed to this when you "read" the Terms and Conditions.
#108 to #106 - douchebuttt (05/11/2013) [-]
I actually read the terms and conditions (Don't as why, long story), but I don't remember reading anything that allowed anyone to do that.
I actually read the terms and conditions (Don't as why, long story), but I don't remember reading anything that allowed anyone to do that.
User avatar #110 to #108 - grrphc (05/11/2013) [-]
I'm assuming you mean Facebook, in which this doesn't apply to.
This has to do with the company Zuckerberg bought called Instagram.
#112 to #110 - douchebuttt (05/11/2013) [-]
Ohhhhhhhh, my apologies. I'm a simpleton
[ 161 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)