Wikileaks rides again

[skyraider]

I cant believe they are using an Army Pvt as the fall guy this time, come on now, there has to be more then one person in on this. Probably some folks in the highest places in all governments wish they had kept their mouth shut now. And the beat goes on and on and on.

 

[RLENT]

I cant believe they are using an Army Pvt as the fall guy this time,

This time ?

AFAIK, the buzz has been that Manning was responsible for all the leaks thru Wikileaks (Afghanistan, Iraq, and State)

come on now, there has to be more then one person in on this.

One can only hope .....

Probably some folks in the highest places in all governments wish they had kept their mouth shut now.

I believe there was recently a call for exactly that here in a thread on EO ....

And the beat goes on and on and on.

Hopefully the drumbeat will continue .... with the exposing of government crimes and malfeasance by patriotic citizens becoming the new "in" thing to do .... a fad if you will .....

Imagine that: Individuals taking responsibility for the bad acts of their government, and doing something effective to expose it ..... so that there is at least some hope that it might eventually be corrected ...

What a concept ....

 

[RLENT]

Here's a real hoot:

"From unflattering, flippant remarks about foreign leaders to deadly serious security concerns, the massive publication of U.S. diplomatic correspondence by Wikileaks could have one collective and potentially disastrous effect, according to policy officials: the loss of trust in the U.S. government."

"I think the greatest harm ... is the loss of trust that other governments will have in dealing with the United States of America," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told "Good Morning America" today."

Official Says Wikileaks Greatest Danger: 'Loss of Trust'

Polls have shown that even most US citizens don't trust their government (with very good reason) .... and up there on Capitol Hill they figure that foreign people and governments are gonna trust us ?

Ya really hafta wonder what kind of delusion-inducing Kool-aid they're drinking .....

Clue: If one wishes to be trusted, then act in a manner which merits it.

 

[greg334]

patriotic citizens?

You joking?

If he was a civilian worker, yes I partially agree.

If he waited until he left the military, yes I partially agree.

BUT as an active military person, he should be tried for treason and executed. This is a despicable act against everyone in this country.

I would agree that some, not all of the information should be open but the stuff that includes names, operations that include civilians and other things that are helping those in Afghanistan and Iraq should be left out of it.

 

[RLENT]

patriotic citizens?

Yup.

You joking?

Absolutely frickin' not ....

If he was a civilian worker, yes I partially agree.

Good .... as it's evidence that you are at least somewhat cognizant of what the problem is ...

If he waited until he left the military, yes I partially agree.

Excellent .....

BUT as an active military person, he should be tried for treason and executed.

Nope - because his intent was clearly not to levy war, adhere to our enemies, and provide aid and comfort to them (as evidenced by his statements regarding his motivations in the log of IM's with Adrian Lamo)

The intent apparently was to expose what he considered to be criminal activities.

Had he taken this data and given it directly to Bin Laden or the like it would be an entirely different thing.

Which might have something to do with why he hasn't been charged with treason ....

This is a despicable act against everyone in this country.

Sorry, don't see it that way ....

I would agree that some, not all of the information should be open

You might be able to persuade me on this one (re "not all") - but doing so would require specific details concerning particular data/circumstances ...

but the stuff that includes names, operations that include civilians and other things that are helping those in Afghanistan and Iraq should be left out of it.

Possibly ...... in some instances ....

Do you have any particular, specific examples from Afghan War Diaries, The Iraq War Logs, or Cablegate that you would care to cite ?

"The first reports claimed that "128 Viet Cong and 22 civilians" were killed in the village during a "fierce fire fight". General William C. Westmoreland, MACV commander, congratulated the unit on the "outstanding job".

As related at the time by the Army's Stars and Stripes magazine, "U.S. infantrymen had killed 128 Communists in a bloody day-long battle."

"The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on March 16, 1968 of 347–504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children (including babies) and elderly people."

"Many of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated." - Mai Lai Massacre, Wikipedia ...

 

[LDB]

The portions that endanger U.S. troops and operations shouldn't have ever been published and shouldn't be allowed to stand. Those who caused the loss of life and failure of important U.S. missions should be tried to the fullest extent of the law and receive the maximum penalty allowed by law, preferably execution if at all possible.

 

[RLENT]

The portions that endanger U.S. troops and operations shouldn't have ever been published and shouldn't be allowed to stand.

The above assumes there even are any such portions that actually do endanger US troops or operations ....

Of course, the guvmint (which includes the military) will scream bloody murder all day long that it does indeed endanger lives and ops .... and many folks will blindly accept those assertions ..... 'cause as we all "know":

.... the folks from the guvmint are just here to "help" us ....

Those who caused the loss of life and failure of important U.S. missions should be tried to the fullest extent of the law and receive the maximum penalty allowed by law, preferably execution if at all possible.

The above assumes there even has been any loss of life, or failure of important missions, as a consequence of what was exposed ....

And the government will likely never make any showing of fact that the above has occurred .... wonder why that is ....

But then the guvmint is the same outfit that has a long history of repeatedly lying to the public ... not to mention a rather sordid history of unethical and criminal activity ...

 

[RLENT]

Letter from Julian Assange to the US Ambassdor in London:

November 26 2010 Letter

Letter From Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, United States Department of State to Julian Assange in reply to above:

November 27 2010 Letter

Letter From Julian Assange to the US Ambassador in London in reply to above:

November 28 2010 Letter

The State Departments response speaks volumes .... as pointed out in Assange's reply:

The Emperor hath no clothes .....

 

[Freightdawg]

America is a continent ...... not a country ......

Actually The United States Of America is a country.
North America is a continent as is South America.

 

[RLENT]

Actually The United States Of America is a country.
North America is a continent as is South America.

Yup, precisely ... none of what you stated above is in any way in conflict, or disagreement with, my sig line ......

..... the point of your post was what, exactly ... ?

 

[Turtle]

Well, to say that "America is a continent..." is incorrect.

 

[RLENT]

Well, to say that "America is a continent..." is incorrect.

Well .... no ..... not really :

"From the 16th century the English noun continent was derived from the term continent land, meaning continuous or connected land ....." (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, 1989)

"..... and translated from the Latin terra continens." (The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition revised. Oxford University Press, 2006)

"And in his 1752 atlas, Emanuel Bowen defined a continent as "a large space of dry land comprehending many countries all joined together, without any separation by water. Thus Europe, Asia, and Africa is one great continent, as America is another." (The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 29, 1997)

"From the late 18th century some geographers started to regard North America and South America as two parts of the world, making five parts in total. Overall though the fourfold division prevailed well into the 19th century." (The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 30, 1997)

"From the mid-19th century, United States atlases more commonly treated North and South America as separate continents, while atlases published in Europe usually considered them one continent. However, it was still not uncommon for United States atlases to treat them as one continent up until World War II." (The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 32, 1997)

"The Olympic flag, devised in 1913, has five rings representing the five inhabited, participating continents, with America being treated as one continent and Antarctica not included." (The Olympic symbols Olympic Museum and Studies Centre, Lausanne, International Olympic Committee 2002)

"From the 1950s, most United States geographers divided America in two ...." (The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 32, 1997)

"...... consistent with modern understanding of geology and plate tectonics. With the addition of Antarctica, this made the seven-continent model.

However, this division of America never appealed to Latin America, which saw itself spanning an America that was a single landmass, and there the conception of six continents remains, as it does in scattered other countries."

(Wikipedia, Continent: History of the concept)

..... Snap

 

[EnglishLady]

Well .... no ..... not really :

"From the 16th century the English noun continent was derived from the term continent land, meaning continuous or connected land ....." (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, 1989)

"..... and translated from the Latin terra continens." (The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition revised. Oxford University Press, 2006)

"And in his 1752 atlas, Emanuel Bowen defined a continent as "a large space of dry land comprehending many countries all joined together, without any separation by water. Thus Europe, Asia, and Africa is one great continent, as America is another." (The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 29, 1997)

"From the late 18th century some geographers started to regard North America and South America as two parts of the world, making five parts in total. Overall though the fourfold division prevailed well into the 19th century." (The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 30, 1997)

"From the mid-19th century, United States atlases more commonly treated North and South America as separate continents, while atlases published in Europe usually considered them one continent. However, it was still not uncommon for United States atlases to treat them as one continent up until World War II." (The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 32, 1997)

"The Olympic flag, devised in 1913, has five rings representing the five inhabited, participating continents, with America being treated as one continent and Antarctica not included." (The Olympic symbols Lausanne: Olympic Museum and Studies Centre, International Olympic Committee 2002)

"From the 1950s, most United States geographers divided America in two ...." (The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 32, 1997)

"...... consistent with modern understanding of geology and plate tectonics. With the addition of Antarctica, this made the seven-continent model.

However, this division of America never appealed to Latin America, which saw itself spanning an America that was a single landmass, and there the conception of six continents remains, as it does in scattered other countries."

(Wikipedia, Continent: History of the concept)

..... Snap

Okaaay .... He's convinced me

 

[Turtle]

Roll yer eyes all you want, there are seven continents, and "America" ain't one of them. Quoting from the "History of the Concept" section of the Wiki page on Continent is great for illustrating the evolutionary history of the concept, but it doesn't define what a continent is. It only defines the history of it and how it became what it is today. The historical definition isn't the same as the contemporary definition. There are a lot of terms that are like that. Just because a particular term had one definition in the past doesn't mean that it must retain that same definition for all time. Same as those in some Latin American countries who want to be more closely associated with North America for social and political reasons, so they keep pounding into school children the notion of America being one big continent, and of Spain, Portugal and a couple of other countries trying to hang onto the two Americas being as one continent for their own ego reasons, doesn't make it so.

Most geographers today, to remain consistent with geology and plate tectonics and how the continents actually move, separate North and South America correctly as two distinct land masses, since they are, in fact, two distinct land masses.

Also, you have to be careful relying too much on Wikipedia. For example, the quote from the Olympics PDF that describes the meaning behind the rings, appears nowhere in the PDF itself that was used for the quote.

On the other hand, the first paragraph on that same Wiki page nailed it with

A continent is one of several large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, with seven regions commonly regarded as continents – they are (from largest in size to smallest): Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.

And of course there several other areas on the same page where it states quite plainly that "America" is not a single continent, but is in fact two continents, each with their own proper name.

Also, while we're at it, saying that America is "not a country" is also somewhat incorrect. While technically "America" is not a country, the accepted nomenclature and practical use of the term is to refer directly to the United States of America. So both in the abstract and the concrete, America is a country. There's a reason why Canadians and Mexicans and Bolivians and Surinamese aren't called Americans, but you can go almost anywhere on the planet and tell people you are an American, and not one of them will instantly think "Brazil", rather, they will know instantly from which country you came.

Truth is...
__________________

America is a country ...... not a continent ......​

I'm at a complete loss why that statement, correctly or incorrectly stated, is important enough for a forum sig, tho. For example, your sig, let's say it's a correct statement. OK. My response is, yeah, so? Let's say it's incorrect, which it is, my response it still the same. Yeah, so? If you restate it correctly, as I have done above, my response doesn't change. I must be missing it completely (which shouldn't come as a surprise if I am), but the statement seems to be akin to something like

Velcro is a brand name ...... not a hook and loop enclosure ......

Now there's a statement for the masses.

 

[RLENT]

For example, the quote from the Olympics PDF that describes the meaning behind the rings, appears nowhere in the PDF itself that was used for the quote.

That would be your error (above) - the quote I cited is from Wikipedia, not from the Olympic PDF file - the PDF file is merely referenced in support of the statement made as part of the Wikipedia article.

In the PDF it mentions the rings representing the five continents of the world, from which the participants came:

Pierre de Coubertin, the father of the modern Olympic Games, explains the meaning of the flag:

“ The Olympic flag […] has a white background, with five interlaced rings in the centre: blue, yellow, black, green and red […]. This design is symbolic; it represents the five continents of the world, united by Olympism, while the six colours are those that appear on all the national flags of the world at the present time. ” (1931) Textes choisis, vol. II, p.470.

and

"it was only at the 1912 Games in stockholm (Sweden) that, for the first time, the participants came from all five continents. One year later, in 1913, the five rings appeared at the top of a letter written by Pierre de Coubertin. He drew the rings and coloured them in by hand.

It was also Coubertin who had the idea for the Olympic flag. He presented the rings and flag in June 1914 in Paris at the Olympic Congress."

Riddle me this:

Given the above, which 5 continents do you believe are being referring to ..... if the five include all continents from which participants came ?

 

[Freightdawg]

To quote from Wikipedia is like me quoting my 94 year old Uncle Toppy. He may be entertaining, but not always accurate!

 

[RLENT]

To quote from Wikipedia is like me quoting my 94 year old Uncle Toppy. He may be entertaining, but not always accurate!

Cute

Many reference materials - including big name, rather expensive, written ones - are not always accurate. It's an inherent liability of using info from another, as opposed to direct personal experience and observation.

So, tell me ..... what online reference encyclopedia do you use ?

 

[RLENT]

BTW, feel free to take a stab at the five continents question I posed above if you care to ....

 

[RLENT]

Roll yer eyes all you want, there are seven continents, and "America" ain't one of them.

LOL .... that would seem to be a rather absolute statement ..... as though it were simply and entirely an empirical matter.

That is clearly not the case - I'm afraid that things aren't quite as cut and dried as you are making them out to be.

Obviously, you have chosen to agree with the 7 continent premise. Many others in the world are less prone to do so - the following is quoted/excerpted from Wikipedia (yeah, yeah ... I know - wikipedia is Lucifier's encyclopedia .... except when it happens to agree with your premise):

"Number of continents

There are numerous ways of distinguishing the continents:"

What follows at this point is a graphic/pictorial representation, showing various models of the continents (the 4, 5, 6, and 7 continent models) I have attached a screen capture of this at the bottom of this post, showing the various continental models (I would have directly linked to the image, except it isn't only an image ... but also a table)

It can be seen online at the following link (under the heading of "Number of continents"):

Continent

Additionally, the article provides some usage context for these various models as follows:

"The seven-continent model is usually taught in China and most English-speaking countries. The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, the former states of the USSR (including Russia), and Japan. The six-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, and some parts of Europe, including Greece[citation needed], Italy[citation needed], Portugal and Spain. This model may be taught to include only the five inhabited continents (excluding Antarctica) — as depicted in the Olympic logo."

(In the interests of treating the subject fairly, I left in the [citation needed] tags in the above passage, to show they lack a published source reference at this point in time. While lack of a published source reference is less than ideal, it does not necessarily mean the representation made is inaccurate. Portions of the article may have been written by people from the regions in question, who have made their own personal direct observations)

As indicated above, there currently is push from some quarters in the geographic community to treat Europe and Asia as a single continent, as they are both part of the same land mass .... if that were to happen, under the 7 continent model which you choose to currently accept, then there would only be 6 continents.

Where did the other one go ?

Nothing changed on the Earth, no physical land masses disappeared, only the agreement changed.

Clearly, we are not dealing with absolutes here.

 

[Turtle]

That would be your error (above) - the quote I cited is from Wikipedia, not from the Olympic PDF file - the PDF file is merely referenced in support of the statement made as part of the Wikipedia article.

No, it would not be my error. It would be Wiki's error, which is why I said, "Also, you have to be careful relying too much on Wikipedia." The quote you cited was from Wiki, but THEY cited it from the Olympic PDF file, and referenced it directly as footnote #23, which you also provided in your post. But the text they used does not appear anywhere in the PDF document. The text was changed, where they added "participating continents", which is something that's not supposed to be done when doing a direct footnoted reference on Wiki.

Riddle me this:

Given the above, which 5 continents do you believe are being referring to ..... if the five include all continents from which participants came ?

Easy... Australia, Europe, Asia, Africa and America. But that doesn't mean Baron Pierre de Coubertin was right in combining the two Americas into one. However, that was largely the prevailing thought of most Europeans at the time, so I can't fault him on that one.

You know who first came up with the idea for the five rings and gave it to de Coubertin? Some dood named Carl Jung. Now you and Dr Jung have something in common.