2 ms·

It's interesting that you talk about people lacking rigor in their thinking, while your understanding of the leaks lacks rigor, and you use your lack of rigorou

by chaps 6y ago

It's interesting that you talk about people lacking rigor in their thinking, while your understanding of the leaks lacks rigor, and you use your lack of rigorous understanding as the foundation for platitudinal statements filled with repeated "probably"s. That, and you call VW an institution with integrity, despite their massive coverup. Just sayin'.

jariel 6y ago
No, I didn't refer to 'VW' as having integrity - rather the University, i.e. the institution the students were 'backed by' - that's clear enough in what I wrote. (Edit - maybe it's not so clear, but if you look at what I wrote overall, it should be clear enough I'm talking about the students, not VW.) It takes 'rigour' to counteract one's own impulses which usually amount to things like 'I disagree with the war, it was wrong, ergo, any leaking regarding it must be whistleblowing' - or - 'I agree with the war, therefore any leakage is treason'. Manning 'cable leaks' exposed no US crimes, not even any wrongdoing on the part of the US and the questionable nature of 'whistle blowing' is compounded by the fact that he didn't even know what he was leaking in the first place. Manning's 'exposure' didn't result in anyone being prosecuted except for himself, which was done by law (under a 'Democrat' political regime FYI). Just the opposite, it demonstrated a US diplomatic corps trying to do a their very difficult and grinding jobs in a very complex and totally corrupt Middle East political situation. What was the result of the leaks? Mass protests against America? No - it was the Arab Spring - Arabs on Main Street protesting, and in some cases overthrowing their own governments - because they were informed by the cable leaks. So Manning, upset with his own government, leaks 'private information' - which materially has the opposite of the intended reaction: highlighting US diplomatic corps doing their jobs - and the entirety of the ME in deep corruption - highlighting the very underlying cause of external intervention in the first place. The populist narrative of Manning being an absolute whisteblower is clearly wrong, mostly promoted by those who simply hate the fact the US was involved in a military capacity. If Manning is a hero, it's to Tunisian and Egyptians, not to Americans. Edit: for an example of material 'whistleblowing' relating to the war in Iraq, refer to Joe Darby [1], i.e. Abu Gharib. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Darby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Darby

by chaps 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

No, I didn't refer to 'VW' as having integrity - rather the University, i.e. the institution the students were 'backed by' - that's clear enough in what I wrote. (Edit - maybe it's not so clear, but if you look at what I wrote overall, it should be clear enough I'm talking about the students, not VW.) It takes 'rigour' to counteract one's own impulses which usually amount to things like 'I disagree with the war, it was wrong, ergo, any leaking regarding it must be whistleblowing' - or - 'I agree with the war, therefore any leakage is treason'. Manning 'cable leaks' exposed no US crimes, not even any wrongdoing on the part of the US and the questionable nature of 'whistle blowing' is compounded by the fact that he didn't even know what he was leaking in the first place. Manning's 'exposure' didn't result in anyone being prosecuted except for himself, which was done by law (under a 'Democrat' political regime FYI). Just the opposite, it demonstrated a US diplomatic corps trying to do a their very difficult and grinding jobs in a very complex and totally corrupt Middle East political situation. What was the result of the leaks? Mass protests against America? No - it was the Arab Spring - Arabs on Main Street protesting, and in some cases overthrowing their own governments - because they were informed by the cable leaks. So Manning, upset with his own government, leaks 'private information' - which materially has the opposite of the intended reaction: highlighting US diplomatic corps doing their jobs - and the entirety of the ME in deep corruption - highlighting the very underlying cause of external intervention in the first place. The populist narrative of Manning being an absolute whisteblower is clearly wrong, mostly promoted by those who simply hate the fact the US was involved in a military capacity. If Manning is a hero, it's to Tunisian and Egyptians, not to Americans. Edit: for an example of material 'whistleblowing' relating to the war in Iraq, refer to Joe Darby [1], i.e. Abu Gharib. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Darby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Darby