Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Time now to close down Wikileaks
52 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/3y3b8ru
So the Afghan president Hamid Karzai dismissed British forces as 'not up to the task.
And U.S. general Dan McNeill - who led Nato forces in Afghanistan in 2007/08 - is said to have been 'dismayed' by a British effort which 'made a mess of things' in Helmand.
And Helmand governor Gulab Mangal is also said to have criticised British troops for failing to get out of their bases and engaging with local people.
Failing to get out of their bases? how is it then so many troops were killed in Helmand? because they 'WERE OUT OF THEIR BASES'.
How do you think this makes our troops who have served numerous dangerous tours out in Helmand feel, and what of the families of those that died, how will this disclosure make them feel?
When is this vile Wikileak site going to be closed down, and most of all when are our media going to stop helping them to promote their damaging gossip?
If it was a site highlighting racist views likely to cause racial disturbances, a site encouraging vile acts against children, or a site encouraging terrorism, etc. etc. It would have been closed down long ago, and rightly so.
But this site remains open, and the media continues to broadcast it's wares, unlike of course, when they join together and are careful what they report, in case it offends certain sections of the community.
So the Afghan president Hamid Karzai dismissed British forces as 'not up to the task.
And U.S. general Dan McNeill - who led Nato forces in Afghanistan in 2007/08 - is said to have been 'dismayed' by a British effort which 'made a mess of things' in Helmand.
And Helmand governor Gulab Mangal is also said to have criticised British troops for failing to get out of their bases and engaging with local people.
Failing to get out of their bases? how is it then so many troops were killed in Helmand? because they 'WERE OUT OF THEIR BASES'.
How do you think this makes our troops who have served numerous dangerous tours out in Helmand feel, and what of the families of those that died, how will this disclosure make them feel?
When is this vile Wikileak site going to be closed down, and most of all when are our media going to stop helping them to promote their damaging gossip?
If it was a site highlighting racist views likely to cause racial disturbances, a site encouraging vile acts against children, or a site encouraging terrorism, etc. etc. It would have been closed down long ago, and rightly so.
But this site remains open, and the media continues to broadcast it's wares, unlike of course, when they join together and are careful what they report, in case it offends certain sections of the community.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the Americans are doing their best to shut it down, and seemingly succeeding
http://www.guardian.c...-off-net-dns-everydns
Funnily enough, it seems like only last week Hillary Clinton was berating the Chinese for trying to censor the internet...
http://www.guardian.c...a-internet-censorship
http://www.guardian.c...-off-net-dns-everydns
Funnily enough, it seems like only last week Hillary Clinton was berating the Chinese for trying to censor the internet...
http://www.guardian.c...a-internet-censorship
Oh yes,
Let's close down EVERYTHING that lets us the public know just what goes on in reality.
Censor EVERYTHING and keep us in the dark.
We mustn't know ANYTHING must we.
God help us if YOU were in charge of the internet.
As Jake says,trying to monitor/censor the internet is impossible,Ok close down Wikileaks it would only come out somewhere else.
Thank God.
Let's close down EVERYTHING that lets us the public know just what goes on in reality.
Censor EVERYTHING and keep us in the dark.
We mustn't know ANYTHING must we.
God help us if YOU were in charge of the internet.
As Jake says,trying to monitor/censor the internet is impossible,Ok close down Wikileaks it would only come out somewhere else.
Thank God.
I agree.
It's important that Governments must be free to lie, and mislead the public.
It's vital that politicians are free to speak passionately on public television, without having to care whether there is one jot of truth in what they say.
Where would we be if we had to start being truthful with our UN allies?
It will be a sad day when American politicians are forced to stop stealing computer passwords from European diplomats.
It's important that Governments must be free to lie, and mislead the public.
It's vital that politicians are free to speak passionately on public television, without having to care whether there is one jot of truth in what they say.
Where would we be if we had to start being truthful with our UN allies?
It will be a sad day when American politicians are forced to stop stealing computer passwords from European diplomats.
jno,
It;s not the US Government that has/is trying to close down Wikileaks.
The server that Wikileaks is hosted on has been subject to cyber bombardment(no doubt from some official source) and has had to close down their service to Wikileaks.
No doubt when this all blows over Wikileaks will re~emerge on this or another server.
Quite who is doing the cyber bombarding I can't say,I leave it to your own intelligence.
It;s not the US Government that has/is trying to close down Wikileaks.
The server that Wikileaks is hosted on has been subject to cyber bombardment(no doubt from some official source) and has had to close down their service to Wikileaks.
No doubt when this all blows over Wikileaks will re~emerge on this or another server.
Quite who is doing the cyber bombarding I can't say,I leave it to your own intelligence.
Website's aren't like TV stations they don't need a license.
Look at all the fun the media organisations have had trying to shut down the piratebay.
Look at China and Google
If you shut down a website it can just move its hosting elsewhere - exactly what happened in that link - they just re-emerged with a Swiss domain name.
Trying to shut it down like this just draws attention to it.
If the US could just shut down web sites like that I have a list of spammers, fraudsters and other general miscreants in Russia and the far East that they could get stuck into
Look at all the fun the media organisations have had trying to shut down the piratebay.
Look at China and Google
If you shut down a website it can just move its hosting elsewhere - exactly what happened in that link - they just re-emerged with a Swiss domain name.
Trying to shut it down like this just draws attention to it.
If the US could just shut down web sites like that I have a list of spammers, fraudsters and other general miscreants in Russia and the far East that they could get stuck into
But America is against internet censorship :)
http://www.guardian.c...a-internet-censorship
(unless it involves information about them it would seem)
http://www.guardian.c...a-internet-censorship
(unless it involves information about them it would seem)
jno - as per your first leak they just deregisterrred the domain name - but the US doesn't controll all the domain names. If you read the article you'll see that they just moved to a swiss domain name
http://wikileaks.ch
fill your boots!
http://wikileaks.ch
fill your boots!
yes, but what happens if Switzerland is sufficiently leant on by Washington to do the same?
(I doubt whether more attention could be brought to Wikileaks than they have already had. I also believe the US government is every bit as innocent in these attacks as the Chinese before them, though I could be wrong.)
(I doubt whether more attention could be brought to Wikileaks than they have already had. I also believe the US government is every bit as innocent in these attacks as the Chinese before them, though I could be wrong.)
Sorry forgot.
http://tinyurl.com/293ne9n
http://tinyurl.com/293ne9n
Has Wikileaks broken any law, I am against these revelations, but if its not illegal, this sight cannot be censored.
The Americans would be better looking thier own security protocols, rather than blame the messenger. These leaks are coming from somewhere.
AoG Have you ever raised any topic on AB without putting race into the question?
And why? You don't fool anyone.
The Americans would be better looking thier own security protocols, rather than blame the messenger. These leaks are coming from somewhere.
AoG Have you ever raised any topic on AB without putting race into the question?
And why? You don't fool anyone.
"yes, but what happens if Switzerland is sufficiently leant on by Washington to do the same?"
Well for a start Switzerland is famously hard to pressure into anything.... but in the unlikely event the swiss host there are 250 countries in the word, pretty much all of them will have the ability to host websites and there are plenty of them that would never bow to American pressure to take down a website.
they also host a mirror on a Swedish host who are very committed to maintaining the security and availability of all sites they host
http://prq.se/?intl=1
Well for a start Switzerland is famously hard to pressure into anything.... but in the unlikely event the swiss host there are 250 countries in the word, pretty much all of them will have the ability to host websites and there are plenty of them that would never bow to American pressure to take down a website.
they also host a mirror on a Swedish host who are very committed to maintaining the security and availability of all sites they host
http://prq.se/?intl=1
Assuming for a moment the criticism are correct and justified. We are told that we have performed brilliantly in Afghanistan. If that is a lie, and for whatever reason, lack of proper equipment, poor leadership or whatever, we have really done a very bad job, isn't it better to know rather than believe our own publicity?
The truth may be unpalatable, but it is not a reason to shoot the messenger (where have I read a post with that title before?).
The truth may be unpalatable, but it is not a reason to shoot the messenger (where have I read a post with that title before?).
Sounds like a danger zone to me - using the government to put pressure on internet service providers and stop the site existing will only force those that want the site to exist to find other ways - even if that means using other countries to do it. If they keep closing down the site, what will stop the 'creators' jumping into bed with another government (maybe one that WANTS the site to exist to throw mud at the US etc) and the situation becoming more hostile.
Freedom of speach... you either have it or you don't. There can't be any picking and choosing but you have to take the good with the bad either way.
Freedom of speach... you either have it or you don't. There can't be any picking and choosing but you have to take the good with the bad either way.
Well here's the latest bunch of cables
http://213.251.145.96...ate/2010-12-02_0.html
Seriously it's pretty difficult to shut a site down internationally like this - the Americans can try to lean on who they like but it's pretty difficult and the more they do it the more they look like China.
Wikileaks doesn't even have to have a domain name - they could just operate with a numeric address. Jurnalists and other interested parties would soon know how to find them
http://213.251.145.96...ate/2010-12-02_0.html
Seriously it's pretty difficult to shut a site down internationally like this - the Americans can try to lean on who they like but it's pretty difficult and the more they do it the more they look like China.
Wikileaks doesn't even have to have a domain name - they could just operate with a numeric address. Jurnalists and other interested parties would soon know how to find them
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Crosswords156 mins ago
News174 mins ago
'Abuse' What Does It Mean To You?
Society & Culture185 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.