For years, states try to sell us their new security law “enhancements” with “nothing to hide, nothing to fear.” The argument is always the same: Since you’re a good guy, why should you care for a law that is meant to hurt only the bad guys?
Along came Wikileaks. Suddenly, all the same people suddenly cry out in anger.
Um … Do they have something to hide?
It shows once more that the world isn’t as simple as those politicians try to make us believe. The truth is that if the same politicians didn’t create an atmosphere of suppression and mistrust, we wouldn’t need those laws in the first place.
In a similar way, Wikileaks is just a symptom: It raises our attention to the sore spots of the “perfect” world we live in. Wikileaks didn’t kill people. It just shows without doubt that war is never a solution but rather another problem on top of all those we already had.
But didn’t the publication of the Wikileaks documents kill dissidents?
Did it? I’m not sure how well the Internet works where the Taliban live or whether they would use such a tool — surely they assume the Internet as the work of the devil. So unless you have hard fact that any dissidents were in fact killed, let’s use ‘endanger countless lives’ – as the US government did.
Next, choosing sides in a war is a pretty sure way to get you killed. And who started the war? On which grounds? Wasn’t the whole thing just one big lie? Can you prove to me that this was the sole option for the whole world to get rid of Saddam Hussein?
COSTOFWAR says that the US spent $745 billion so far in Iraq. No matter how corrupt the old Iraq government was, if that money had been spent in bribing them to stand down and enjoy the rest of their lives in some nice place or to treat their people better, I’m sure Wikileaks would have much less to spread.
Q: How do you know for sure a politician is lying to you? A: His lips are moving.
Dark Views 