ScottL wrote:The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,"
Well darn so they leaked information pointing out a corrupt gov't. which resulted in a revolt (good for their people) and 1300 people died. Is your preference that the Kenyan people stay under a corrupt go't. or fight for change? These facts are exceedingly skewed. Your first link doesn't mention that why 1300 people were killed (it was the revolt, not the leak).
So when it comes to rebutting you actually go to the trouble of reading something?
My first link has embedded in it very early a link to the Guardian, from which they got that information. I regard your lack of notice of the Guardian link as further evidence that you just gloss over something without really bothering to comprehend what information is contained within it.
At the Guardian Link, Julian Assange himself admits that it was his leaks which resulted in those 1,300 deaths, but he shrugs it off as someone who would say "if you are going to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs." He figures that since 40,000 children die of Malaria (Thank you Rachel Carson. Millions of Dead people appreciate your efforts at eradicating DDT) then what do the lives of 1,300 who died as a result of his leaks matter?
"1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."
How about this argument? Instead of throwing out all the information and creating a stampede of death and political killings, could he? Should he? Have perhaps sent a slow drip of information to the newspapers in Kenya, rather than provoking an overreaction which resulted in the 1,300 deaths, and the 350,000 displacements?
The best evidence that what he did was irresponsible was to point out how the benefits could have been accomplished without the deaths and displacements. Why provoke a nation to unreasoned anger, when the corruption could have been exposed slowly in a controlled fashion?
Julius Assange lit a forest fire, and rationalized it because it would have burned anyway.
ScottL wrote:
As for Republican's not having a propaganda arm? Are you kidding, the easiest one to name is Fox News, but there are several others.
You simply do not understand. Fox News is hardly conservative. Sure, they are more conservative than the OTHER networks, but that is a relative scale. They still employ 80% Democrats, and 100% Union employees to staff their network. Shepard Smith is as Liberal as a three dollar bill. Bill Reilly is an asshole moderate/rino/opportunist. They have a few conservative anchors but even ABC has Jake Tapper, Brit Hume, and John Stossel. (The only people over there who are worth a shit in my opinion.)
A News Company would have to employ 90% Republicans with >70% of them being John Brown style conservative Fanatics to even begin to approximate the degree to which the Usual news networks are leftist extremists.
If every TV anchor at Fox news sounded like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, you would have a better idea of what an actual conservative network would look like on the air. Fox has spiked numerous stories which would have seriously hurt Obama. The Kahlidi story was spiked, the funny business surrounding his American citizenship status has never been covered, Fast and Furious is not being made clear to the public, the online illegal campaign contributions to the Obama campaign was never made known to the public, The GM and Chrysler dealership scandal, Solyndra, Global Financial, and a whole host of other stories are redacted from public consciousness because Fox is not a conservative network, it is just less liberal than the others.
ScottL wrote:
I've come to the conclusion you are dellusional Diogenes. Any conversation with you is futile, I think I'll leave you to your faith and me to my facts.
I don't think you know what facts are. I perceive you need to grow some older and wiser before you start getting a clue. Fortunately for you, California is soon going to teach you a lot of life lessons.