In a secret room in a secret place is a terminal that North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il secretly plays World of WarCraft. So secret because everyone knows all Koreans are suppost to be playing StarCraft or Aion. But, 11/20 Aion issued a warning that the game stopped keeping track of level progress and was working on the problem, so Kim went grinding to level 80 on his new death knight, then the unthinkable....someone ninja looted from a 40 man raid, "Nooooooooooooooooooo!" he screamed. Americans must die!!!! He ran around in a paniced frenzy pushing ever red button he could find yelling, "F*** U ninja looter in California! I'll NUKE your happy a**!" In an unforturnate series of events, he pushes the wrong button and starts an artillery strike on South Korea. Kim cannot appolgise because no one must find out a level 80 gnome yelling, "Sweet cheaks!" ninja looted a purple epic one-hand weapon.
It's a very confusing place out there. Please stay safe and be nice to people when you play. Aion servers are promising a fix shortly and everything will be back to normal.
Well no. That's an act of war, and depending on your perspective it may be viewed as immoral (I certainly did not support it). But it is not an act of terrorism.
The words you're looking for are "invasion" and "conquest". Far, far more people were killed in those actions then have ever been killed by terrorists, largely because the millitary has much bigger guns.
Calling wikileaks "terrorists" is pretty amusing for people from a country where politicians are actively promoting assassination as a way to deal with the problem. Last time I checked, that was drastically more illegal (and immoral) then causing embarrassment to the government is.
Except, of course, that that's almost certainly what the Russians will do to him. It won't look like it, but hey, when you mess with countries like Russia, China, Israel, and what-have-you, you're really asking to get shot in the face.
America is a plutocratic Police state feigning as a democracy. So terrorism is defined loosely as anything that harms those in power. Or anything that provides a pretext to increase the weath and power of the ruling Class.
The literal definition of terrorism was thrown out long ago in favor of a the new definition that tries to ignore that indeed many acts of the U.S. government itself is literal terrorism.
As far as wikileaks goes.. it cannot be considered terrorism in the literal sense.. but its a perfect example of how the word terrorism itself has become convoluted in U.S. society.
@OP
I lol'd
No the word I'm looking for is war, although there was an invasion as part of the war. And yes wars kill more people then terrorists but I'm not sure how that's relevent. Wars kill more people then murderers too, but we still try to stop murder.
We have a LOT of politicans, so there will always be people who say stupid things. I'm not sure how that's relevent. Whether he is a terrorist or not has no bearing on what some grandstanding politicians are saying we should do about him.
War by definition is terrorism first of all.
Second of all its amusing simply because releasing information is itself not violent and there for Isn't terrorism.. however assassination could very well be considered terrorism.
Except for the fact that it is HIGHLY likely that much of the released information has caused harm to those civilians in Afghanistan.
Additionally, Fistalis, you are an idiot if you think that war is by definition terrorism. War is not terrorism; it is actually the function of one entity attempting to impress its own will on another entity; whether this is two people, or two nations (or more than two parties for that matter) is fairly irrelevant as pertains to what war is.
War requires a declaration, which was never issued (although it seems nobody does that anymore). It also requires an opposing force, and the Iraqi military didn't fight back. That wasn't a war, it was an invasion, conquest, and then resistance.It also worked out really badly, given both the deaths and how cozy the new Iraqi government is with Iran (and thanks to Wikileaks we know what the rest of the region REALLY thinks of Iran).
The fight with the Taliban is more like an actual war. Shame the US abandoned it for years to go on that Iraq adventure.
Lol. Terrorism is simply an act of violence to achieve some goal. You call me an idiot simply because you don't understand the words you use.
Speaking literally war is by definition terrorism.
While the release or sharing of information no matter how damaging to an entity is not.. because it involves no violence. Again you have simply demonstrated the way the word terrorism itself has been convoluted and misunderstood by nearly the entire population of the U.S.
Terrorism is not a catch all phrase for doing things you don't like. Yet it has become the modern day version of McCarthy's communism in the collective mind of the uninformed populace.
No, terrorism is not simply an act of violence to achieve some goal. It may be an act of violence to achieve a goal, but first and foremost it is a violent act intended to inspire TERROR and fear into the enemy, usually the enemy civilian populace.
The fact remains that terrorism != war. War can involve terrorism, and terrorism can escalate to a full-scale war, but they are NOT the same thing.
Terrorism is an act of violence. It is used to achieve a goal. But that's not its main purpose, which happens to be to inspire terror and fear in an enemy civilian populace (or military force).
Convoluted definition.. not literal.. lol. If your going to argue semantics atleast take your time to learn the accepted definitions.
Terrorism is a violent act to acheive a goal(usually political in nature) which is what war is. Terrorism's main goal is not to intimidate or cause terror in the populace its goal is political in nature. To change political policy. An effective way to assert this in a democracy is causing terror in the populace but this isn't the main goal of terrorism at all simply a means to the end.
A terrorist succeeds not when people are scared but when policies are changed in reaction to his action.
(see 2004 Madrid train bombings for a perfect example. They bombed. People voted and spain left the coalition of the willing)
Regardless I can see there will be no agreement and this conversation is going no where. so go back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Except the fact that terrorism is one-sided. Utterly, completely, and INCONTROVERTIBLY one-sided.
Why do you think terrorism is called "terrorism" then? /begin British accent/ it's a fancy word that's sounds nasty, so we'll use it to describe things we don't like /end British accent/
The fact of the matter is that the invocation of terror is the central element of terrorism. THAT would be why it's called terrorism and not "violent political policy changing" or "armed rebellion" or something.
Besides, you fail to account for the fact that Party A may decide to go to war with Party B because for the past 10 years Party B has been building up massive military force and has openly declared that they intend to conquer Party A's territory, and make it into the equivalent of a puppet state. After all, wouldn't you agree that it is in Party A's best interest to preemptively declare war on Party B, destroy aforementioned military buildup, and then withdraw from Party B's territory?
I believe terrorism to be violent attacks intentionally directed at civilian populaces for the purpose of causing fear in said civilians. Blowing up a military base is not terrorism as the intended targets are military in nature. Placing bombs in a shopping mall or market is terrorism because the intent is to cause harm and terror to civilians. Yes, this means that if a military force intentionally attacks civilians in order to cause terror, that is terrorism. Yes, the Tokyo and Dresden firebombings were terrorism, and ineffective terrorism at that.
I have to say that I concur with most of your post Sparda. I'd have to dig more into WWII history to form an opinion on the Tokyo&Dresden firebombings, but hey, can't say I don't want to do my research.
I'm rather curious about what American propaganda about North Korea and what Wikileaks whistle blowing of government and corporate questionable behavior have to do with pc gaming? I"m sure there will be some cheesy games about these subjects soon, there always is, but why post this crap now in a section called pc gaming?
My two cents:
Deciding which words to use to describe needless violence and killing is an utter waste of time. War, terrorism, etc., it doesn't matter.
Julian Assange could not do more harm to the soldiers or civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq than what the U.S government is doing on a daily basis, even if he tried. A lot of people are very sensitive when it comes to the soldiers. The soldiers have been lied to, just like everyone else, but there is a difference. When you agree to kill people you don't know at the order of other people you don't know, for a cause you cannot actually be certain about, then there is definitely something fundamentally wrong with you.
Fighting to defend family, friends, fellow citizens, rights, land and country, is certainly understandable and justifiable. Not so however when it comes to some bullshit war on terror that does more to fuel terrorism/war/violent resistance than it does to stop it.
People need to wake up to what their governments are doing, and what their taxes are paying for. People can't wake up if they don't know the truth. In other words, the world needs Wikileaks.
Except of course, when WikiLeaks releases documents of highly covert operations where the mere knowledge that there IS an operation puts all operatives in danger.
The fact remains that by releasing these documents people, many of which are almost certainly innocent Afghani civilians, ARE being put in danger.
And when Assange releases those Russian government papers that he's said he's going to, he'll have pretty much signed his death warrant. The Russians aren't going to fuck around; they'll just kill him.
It won't be pretty. The Russians killed an ex-pat in England by putting polonium, which emits alpha radiation, in his tea. Alpha particles (emitted as part of alpha decay) are made of two neutrons and two protons each, and are the deadliest form of radiation known to man. Due to the size of the particles, skin can pretty much neutralize the effects by stopping them dead in their tracks. When they're inside the human body though, they slam through the internal organs, shredding them into a gooey mess.
Even more evidence that they'll definitely get rid of Assange in a very permanent fashion. Though I have to say, that's some pretty gruesome methods right there. I'll be sure to use them if I ever happen to found an independent nation; they'll certainly defer foreign agents from trying to muck around.
Why don't you just shoot them?
And gruesome is only the beginning of that method. I find it ironic that the Russians killed the man as if he were a plot device in a James Bond movie and they were, well, the Russians. The irony was probably the real cause of death, actually.
Most of them will be summarily executed in a suitably *BLAM*-tastic fashion.
But death by irony just seems so much more amusing.
Except of course, when WikiLeaks releases documents of highly covert operations where the mere knowledge that there IS an operation puts all operatives in danger.The fact remains that by releasing these documents people, many of which are almost certainly innocent Afghani civilians, ARE being put in danger.And when Assange releases those Russian government papers that he's said he's going to, he'll have pretty much signed his death warrant. The Russians aren't going to fuck around; they'll just kill him.
No. The operatives agreed to be placed into danger and harms way when they signed up to be hired killers for their government. They are in a place they shouldn't be, doing things they shouldn't be doing. Make no mistake, the U.S is only out for their own interests in the region. The Taliban is a very convenient reason to stay and be active in the country, though if the Taliban were to disband tomorrow, that would be great news for the families of the soldiers, but horrible news for the U.S government agencies involved. In all likelihood though, they would probably fund the 'other side' to continue the fight, as they have done before in places like Lebanon. It would not be surprising in the slightest if the U.S was covertly supporting and bolstering the Taliban (in fact I'd be surprised if they weren't), similar to how they created Saddam and Osama as we know them.
The strategy is always the same one, cause and/or support dissent, malcontent and unrest by placing focus on rival interests, racial and religious differences, and old feuds to cause revolts, political uprisings, insurgency, and civil and international war. Then they bring their military and/or politicians into the fray with the pretense of aiding that country, and take by force and extortion whatever boon or piece of chocolate they had their eyes on. In other words, divide and conquer.
Prevention is better than cure as they say, and if these leaked documents can be a step towards preventing or reducing these kinds of occurences by placing less trust in governments, making them more accountable, and forcing them to be more transparent, then we would all be placing less of our fellow humans in danger.
The U.S is already trying to have Julian assassinated, or failing that, discredited with that ridiculous rape charge that even the women involved are denying. The problem with those types of public charges is that they don't have to stick, and the damage is already done. So in effect, he's guilty whether or not he's proven innocent.
The Russians might also try to assassinate Julian, and they may or may not be successful (though I hope not). The previous president of Syria had countless assassinations attempted against him over a span of 30 years, but in the end died of natural causes. The point there being, it's never a sure thing, and you don't go until it's your time to.
The fact that Julian Assange is willing to risk his own life and his freedom, safety and security to publish these documents shows a lot of character. I have heard it suggested that his motive is financial, and that I find preposterous.
The fact remains that if the U.S government agencies kept their murderous hands out of the region, the Afghan civilians would be better off and safer for it. What I don't understand is, why and how are so many people in this world so against the uncovering of this corruption and bloody murder that is occuring on a worldwide scale? How can you condemn Julian Assange for allegedly placing people in danger by leaking the documents that were given to him, but not in the same breath speak to the danger the entire world is being placed in by all these reckless dealings that are being uncovered?
You know why I can do that? Because of the fact that what Assange is doing is illegal. He's leaking classified documents. That pertain to current events.
That and that alone is illegal, at least in the US. Pretty much everything else is irrelevant in that respect. Because he's broken the law, and leaked classified documents.
I personally am waiting for the day when the news headlines say "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange discovered dead".
Assange may or may not be in it for the money. I personally consider his motives to be irrelevant, only his actions matter at this point. And those actions, to me, show a blatant disregard for the laws of powerful nations, several of which are perfectly happy to send one or two people to kill him. IMO, he's one of those people who thinks that, for some reason or other, they are above the law, and can do whatever the hell they want.
As for the whole "murderous US government agencies", I'm guessing you're either-
1. Not American OR
2. An American citizen who likes to bitch about current American policy because you think that the whole world can hold hands and work everything out with words.
Neither of them makes me consider your opinion to be particularly pertinent.
EDIT: I meant to add this but forgot.
One of my other problems with Assange is the fact that he's Australian. I've got nothing against other nationalities; it's just that since he's Australian, why the hell should he give a shit about anything going on with the American public, and what they do or do not know?
It simply further reinforces my belief that he's only doing this because he can, and the excuses he's drummed up let him make it look like anyone trying to stop him is an opponent of freedoms.
Still, once he releases something on Russia or China (or some similarly powerful and ruthless nation), he's screwed.
EDIT 2: I'd like to see your proof that the US has already attempted to assassinate Assange. As to the rape charges, he's admitted that he didn't use a condom when he had sex with one of the women in question. Which can qualify as rape in Sweden.
You've made one thing clear to me that pretty much settles the entire discussion. You aren't interested in the moral or ethical side of this. What Julian did is technically illegal, and so (to you apparently) that trumps all the disgusting corruption that was uncovered, and all the callous, immoral and reckless activities of the U.S government, and all the humiliation, rights deprivation, torture and death they have been party to. Of course, this is the same government that made the law which says that you're not allowed to expose their filth. Brilliant.
But at the same time, as you say, Julian is not a U.S citizen. So should the laws of the U.S be applicable to anyone anywhere? To your mind, this one breach of law has justified the murder of a non-U.S citizen for the breaking of a U.S law whilst not in the U.S.
As for why should any non-American care? Because what is occurring on a global scale is leaving no country unaffected. If you live on this planet and don't give a shit, then you're not in a position of entitlement to complain when the shit hits your personal fan and splatters in your face.
If sex without a condom is considered rape in Sweden (I'm assuming it only applies to non-married couples, as otherwise where would babies come from?), then the word loses all meaning. You could say that sex without a condom is illegal, but to call it rape is just stupid. The only real advantage to calling it rape is in the negative stigma associated with that word. This is only advantageous to those would seek to discredit Julian. Most people (even Swedish people) wouldn't really think less of the guy if they found out he had sex without a condom. Once again, this is a perfect example of the U.S using it's influence in the media to villainize and discredit.
At any rate, if you don't care about or don't mind the corruption and murder that has resulted from the actions of the U.S government agencies, and that has been to some extent uncovered by these leaks, and if you only care that a law that protects these types of actions was possibly broken, then there is really no sense in taking this discussion any further.
US laws should be applicable to him because it is the US that he is compromising. Anyways, the reason I consider him dying perfectly acceptable is because if I was running a country and he leaked classified documents of any kind about my country, well that constitutes a threat to national security. Killing him would be the most efficient means of dealing with said threat.
Of course, I do think that the definition of rape by Swedish law is absolutely ridiculous; and I personally think it's rather ridiculous that the media is focusing on that. Mostly of course, because I think his site is absolutely a threat to the security of any nation.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
