Justin Bieber suports wikileaks

[Anonymous No.]

Justin Bieber has donated £10,000 to aid wikileaks and be put towards Asange's UK bail payment and leagal costs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7571483.stm
>"He did a courageous thing and he did a patriotic thing," Bieber said.

[Anonymous No.]

>he did a patriotic thing
>divulging national secrets
well, it's not like I expected much out of him anyways

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641661
Even the worst "musician" can do the occasional good thing.

[N00b64 !FbbmtHBgtc No.]

Why do you care OP?

[Anonymous No.]

In b4 people slinging shit at Assange because they hate Bieber (typical "guilty by association" fallacy), never mind those two people are better and more successful than you'll ever be in your pitiful existence.

[Anonymous No.]

Supporting, hacking, leaking what the US governement think of other country does not constitute something patriotic and threatening to release informations about important place civilian places that the US is not exactly what I consider patriotic as much as I hate the US.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641670
True patriots do not blindly parrot the law.

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>6641670
I don't even know where to start with you, so I just won't.
Fuck national "secrets"
/jp/ Justin Bieber/General

[Anonymous No.]

Supporting, hacking, leaking what the US governement think of other countries does not constitute something patriotic, meaningful or advancing liberty and freedom and threatening to release informations about important civilian places that the US need is not exactly what I consider patriotic as much as I hate the US.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641706

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641695
Sup Glenn.
If your government is responsible for shady and / or illegal activities, it's important that the population must know. Keeping this dirty moneky business away from public eye is a violation of the mutual trust between the common people and their representative, and it becomes even a more serious infringement when they are trying to fool them into believing that their country's policies are "transparent" and "can do no wrong".

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641706
You do realize there's actually important cables in the pile, right? Like Shell boasting that they control a country, or the US telling allied nations that they don't mind if they commit war crimes.

Or that the portland lawyer who was falsely arrested for the spain bombing some years back was arrested after Spain had caught the suspects.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641722
It tells us things anyone with a brain can figure out? Useful!

[Anonymous No.]

In the future, you will find the codes and location to nuclear missiles because "people wanted to know".

Of course, in this future, everyone is dead because of that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641730
Here comes another Republitard who has no fucking idea what Wikileaks is about.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641730
Security through obscurity does not work.

[Scooter !mG3KnJhmpI No.]

You know, I think governments having some transparency is all a good idea and stuff though I think they should still be allowed to have some secrets. I just can't really agree with people fucking putting military personnel locations on the fucking internet when I know people who are currently down range.

[Anonymous No.]

>Bieber trolls on Tom Brady
>Bieber supports Assange

Bieber bro status +1
Shit this kid should be doing the press conferences along with him

[Anonymous No.]

>The claimed recent discovery of Bigfoot in the US state of Georgia has turned out to be a hoax - it was a rubber gorilla suit in a block of ice.
>recent
>1998

[Anonymous No.]

Shameful attempt to get publicity. I bet he doesn't even know what Wikileaks is about.

[Anonymous No.]

Did anyone even bother to check the link? MY god people are retarded.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641736
It's a really stupid idea. Next thing we know, people want to know what kind of stuff the government is researching, how our bases are laid out... and make it accessible to anyone in the US.

It's not like the government needs some level of secrecy to keep the people safe. I mean, when WW2 happened, the government just openly told everyone we were making nuclear bombs right?

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>6641730
Sounds like a good way to global disarmament to me.

[Anonymous No.]

Why is OP linking us to a story about bigfoot being a monkey suit?

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641756
>Next thing we know, people want to know what kind of stuff the government is researching, how our bases are laid out... and make it accessible to anyone in the US.

Oh my god, that's horrible!

...oh wait, no, it's not.

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>6641756
>and make it accessible
Slippery slope.
No one is saying all the vital locations need to leave their doors wide open, only that hiding information regarding them isn't appropriate.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641755
This shit doesn't belong here. Go back to /b/ with your retarded political activism. Habbo raids were more meaningful for Christ's sake.

[Anonymous No.]

I normally hate Bieber but....

He has done well, trolling so many people.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641760
Nobody follows the links.

[Anonymous No.]

>political activism
>bigfoot

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641763
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm referring to OP's link which doesn't even contain news about Bieber. In short, OP is trolling.

[Anonymous No.]

1. Justin Bieber donates money
2. Fangirls (and boys) of Justin Bieber start to support Asange.
3. Game FUCKING over America. YOU LOSE!

[Anonymous No.]

epic troll OP, but check out these quads

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641756
I don't think you fully understood what I was meaning to say when I posted that message, so let's be less subtle this time.
Wikileaks isn't about exposing sensitive informations about national security like positions of nuclear silos, password to government archives and so on.
Wikileaks is supposed to expose government lies and machination, especially if such actions enable them to trample on their population's rights and jeopardize world security (e.g. government-sanctioned homicides and information cover-ups).

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641783
AUTISMO

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641785
>>83
you're off by 2 posts

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641783
More often then not, good things have come from that, or to prevent worse things from happening.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641795
AUTISMO.

[Anonymous No.]

This shit is retarded. Also not /jp/.

As a normal human being, do you want to know how your father fucks your mother? Do you want to know what the freak they do wherever they are?

No, you do not.

Same shit here. Not everyone is an able diplomat. Not everyone can handle how dirty the world works just to protect the lives of these same hipsters who think that everyone in the world will love each other if we just shared stuff.

There's some shit people are better off not knowing.

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>6641863
Indeed, there are some thing people are better off not knowing. Why does the government get to make that call, and I don't? more importantly, why can they pry into my life, but suddenly it's wrong when someone does it to the government?

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641863
So you're better off not know how the US military killed your husband (reporter), his colleagues, the people who tried to save him and two other kids in the process, then steamroll the corpse with a tank?

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641863
>not everyone is an able diplomat

I'm not american and I havent read the wikileaks yet but what I think people are interested in is that the government is:
1/ trying to force peoples hands through indoctrination
2/ committing the crimes that they temselves condemn the public for

[Anonymous No.]

Nothing is going to be secret in the modern communications age, governments just have to get used to it

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641863
So you're better off not knowing how the US military killed your husband (reporter), his colleagues, the people who tried to save him and two other kids in the process, then steamroll the corpse with a tank?

[Anonymous No.]

I like the idea of secrets being revealed but it has to be on a global scale or not at all. I mean consider the kind of shit we would be getting if it had been China's documents being leaked. If everyone knew what was on your mind at all times then you wouldn't have any friends, unless everyone knew what was on their mind too. Every country needs to take a hit, otherwise no country should.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641896
They get to make that call because if everybody had the power to make that call, people would end up killing each other. That's also why the government was even voted to power. And all these things get declassified decades later anyway.


There's a reason why people keep a lot of secrets even with their own loved ones. You don't just say whatever's on your mind. Nobody does, because the world would turn into a hellhole if everyone was honest as fuck.

Diplomacy is based on confidence that you can be frank about anything without it leaking out. None of these things need to be known at all by the public. It's damaging to the current negotiations taking place. And just leaking the sites where US interests have critical need of is just asking for a terrorist to blow them up. There was no need to do any of that shit.

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>6641934
>They get to make that call because if everybody had the power to make that call
So much for "By, for, and of the People"

I disagree that the world would be a hellhole if everyone was honest. It's a hellhole ow, and keeping secrets propagates this.

If diplomats were so concerned about secrecy, they shouldn't be keeping records.
Right to privacy is bullshit, and it's jsut more governmental "Do as I say and not as I do"

Just asking for a terrorist to blow something up is piss-poor physical defense of vital sites. Releasing that information shows how weak and poorly defended they really are. This could be solved by actually DEFENDING the sites instead of assuming not knowing how sites are defended is some sort of genuine protection.

IF you can't be frank without secrecy, you are straight dishonest.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641959
So instead of intelligence, hiding bases, you just want them to have loads of soldiers. Are you sure you want the government to be less powerful? Do you think that Hitler would have still lost if the allies had revealed all their secrets just because 'it's the right thing to do'? Morality isn't black and white. I agree that if all nations revealed their secrets there would be no problem, but that isn't happening any time soon.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641959
>This could be solved by actually DEFENDING the sites instead of assuming not knowing how sites are defended is some sort of genuine protection.

Yes, and one missile could destroy that base once they know where it is. So compared forcing the enemy to pay for espionage, the extra missles they need to hit the target, and fuel to fly over and find it, we're forcing ourselves to pay more for anti air (and it would have to be a fucking massive radius to stop terrorist suicide bombers), just because 'it's honest'?

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>6641976
Government sites don't need to be protected by soldiers. Are there soldiers patrolling your local mall, your local bank?
There's private security firms all over the country, and private military as well.
A well-designed site would need less security than they have even now.
Morality is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6641989
>Morality is an illusion.

I disagree but if this is your case then you don't have a leg to stand on. If morality doesn't exist then what reason do governments have to release this information? It's not tactical, profitable or diplomatic to do so.

>Government sites don't need to be protected by soldiers. Are there soldiers patrolling your local mall, your local bank?

Malls and Banks aren't government sites...

>There's private security firms all over the country, and private military as well.

So you'd rather instead of a government we elect, we are protected by a firm that is only out for profit, sounds much better.

>A well-designed site would need less security than they have even now.

I see no proof of this other than your anecdotes.

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>6641988
They'd have to get close enough to launch that missile. Missiles capable of striking the US from long range aren't much owned by terrorist, and are already owned by hostile nations. Our cities, our POPULATION CENTERS lay comparatively undefended. Terrorists already proven to be able to strike our financial centers, but these aren't "vital sites". Fucking ridiculous.

Frankly, I'm of the belief that I don't give a rats ass if they do strike. Serves us right for being douchebags for decades.

If the US's highest-in-the-world defense spending can't protect us, we really need to rethink it as a valid defense. We spend TEN TIMES what China spends. You really think we'd need to spend more and not just reevaluate how we're already using what we have?

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>6642001
>Why
it is, however, logically consistent. The citizenry is expected to be honest and our records could be subpoenaed without our sayso.

Really, the problem here isn't that I think information should be freely accessible, but rather that I think "land of the free" is so much bullshit rhetoric. Also the idea of "inalienable human rights" has time and again proven to be rather "violable human privileges granted by the authority" instead.

I really don't care about government rights to secrecy so much as I care about not being fucking lied to on a daily basis.

Government sites don't really require government-controlled defense.

Yes, all of military history is in fact just an anecdote I cam up with. Castles and fortresses weren't easier to defend than open, wall-less villages. Mountain passes don't require fewer men to defend than open plains. Use your head.

[Anonymous No.]

not video games