this post was submitted on
1,935 points (67% like it)
3,778 up votes 1,843 down votes
shortlink:

YouShouldKnow

unsubscribe136,525 readers

~77 users here now

A community to share obscure things that most people should already be aware of, but aren't.

Please provide citations/documentation whenever possible.

  • To see what other people are learning about today, check out r/TodayILearned!

  • Check out r/LifeProTips to pick-up secrets of overcoming everyday problems (aka LifeHacks)!

  • Find out what every man should know over at r/EveryManShouldKnow!

  • Not sure which subreddit to post a submission in? Use r/Assorted!

  • r/AMITOP: Am I The Only Person...? Join us and find out if you are absolutely wacko in your social mannerisms or completely normal!

created by PhilxBeforea community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1934
1935

What we've learned from Wikileaks (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by obitechnobi

top 200 commentsshow all 276
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]Horaenaut 322 points323 points ago

Not all of Wikileaks reveal of non-public information has been good. Additional consequences of Wikileaks U.S. cable leak include:

While Wikileaks brought to light a lot of injustices, sometimes things are not public for a reason.

[–]PunchInTheNutz 12 points13 points ago

Wikileaks originally released the cables slowly with identifying information redacted in order to protect people. They were doing this in conjunction with many newspapers across the world. It was a Guardian journalist who published the password of the encrypted cables in his book. Not Wikileaks. When Wikileaks finally decided to officially release everything it was simply because the cables were all freely available on the internet to begin with.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/01/wikileaks-prepares-unredacted-us-cables

[–]Horaenaut 3 points4 points ago

Oh, definitely. However Wikileaks made the whole cache available to the Gaurdian. While the file was supposed to only be accessible on the secure server for a short amount of time, and password was published 7 months after that, it still somehow made its way onto torrenting sites.

"Avoiding the re-use of passwords and avoiding republishing temporary files are both considered basic security procedures among online security experts."

[–]PunchInTheNutz 3 points4 points ago

That's a fair point. I think all parties should share the guilt really. Even after all that I still think publishing the password would be the biggest mistake here by a mile. No password = no uncensored cables.

But it just seems like the loudest people are the guys who are pointing out the faults in Wikileaks whilst completely omitting the other side of the story. That's why I made the above post.

[–]joshdick 28 points29 points ago

This is what happens when amateurs release classified information en masse.

Professional journalists take great care not to get human rights activists killed. I guess Julian Assange and the rest of Wikileaks just don't care enough to put in the work.

[–]rcgarcia 3 points4 points ago

Journalists also take great care in covering the shit governments do. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this thing. The release of documents have harmed the world in some ways, but the important thing here is that USA officials have been proved to be a bunch of world bullies.

[–]joshdick 1 point2 points ago

That's simply false that journalists have not held governments to account for their actions. The New York Times and other reputable newspapers reported on what Wikileaks found — and they did it without putting activists' lives in danger.

[–]Mulsanne 0 points1 point ago

Yeah that's REALLY important. Super important. That knowledge has...well.umm...that knowledge has caused...

You know, I can't come up with a single reason why that knowledge is useful or really anything that knowledge has ever caused.

[–]5hiroi 0 points1 point ago

It's useful because its existence runs the chance of removing the perception of legitimacy the governing body has for authority. While it may not seem like it has an immediate effect, it is a huge nonviolent action for democratic movements to grow and contend against the corrupt nature of the governing body. The curtain of propaganda has been lifted enough for the people to fight for the liberty the government claims to provide. It is corrupt, and we need this information to stand against that corruption.

[–]Patius 0 points1 point ago

I think it's more that Assagne's motivation is less "spreading the truth" and more "sticking it to big bad America."

Don't get me wrong, the US has done plenty of bad stuff. Leaking abuses by the US military is good. Leaking a bunch of cables that cause all kinds of diplomatic problems and get people working to advance human rights in risky areas into trouble to put egg on the face of a country you don't like is highly irresponsible.

We need a more open media and more accountable government. We just need someone who's responsible and doing it for those reasons, not as a vendetta against a nation they don't like or for their ego.

[–]thbt101 66 points67 points ago

That's just the tip of the iceberg. The kind of information mentioned in the original infographic has been heavily used by al-Qaeda to recruit terrorists and fuel violence all over the world by cherry-picking bits of information among all the cables that makes the US look like the bad guys.

The harm that has been done to democracy and world peace is immeasurable and it may take generations for the damage to be healed.

[–]Edvino 17 points18 points ago

The harm that has been done to democracy?

Democracy is based on the populations access to information to base their choices on. If the US government is waging secret wars, treating human beings as animals, don't you think that is something that the public would want to know about, and that would affect how they think about their government?

[–]Weakness 91 points92 points ago

Just to be clear, the terrorists are using facts that the US tried to keep secret as a method to demonstrate that they US is doing bad things in their countries.

[–]thbt101 20 points21 points ago

I think it's actually more surprising that they didn't reveal anything truly shocking that we didn't already pretty much know.

Instead of uncovering or stopping any US government wrong doing, mostly it just caused a lot of distrust among world governments and leaders (because of private remarks about world leaders and sensitive issues). That has lead the world farther away from peace.

It also provides a new source of information about things like civilian casualties that al-Qaeda and extremists can cherry-pick from to quote loudly, while disregarding any greater good that came from the military actions (...or at least good intentions).

[–]lakerswiz -2 points-1 points ago

I'm surprised to see you sitting +20 on the upvotes and downvotes right now. Props for having an open mind and not being part of the hivemind.

[–]Phallic 4 points5 points ago

If he has upvotes he's part of the hivemind. That's what a hivemind is.

I think it's a ridiculous notion, personally, and think it's generally invoked by people who are sulking because they're demonstrably wrong, and instead of acknowledging that they just blame some sort of "hivemind" as the intangible culprit.

Having said that, if you're going to make reference to one at all it's a bit ridiculous to say that a positively rated comment is "not being part of the hivemind".

[–]lakerswiz 5 points6 points ago

That's not how Reddit works. Just because one off hand comment in a thread gets a handful of upvotes doesn't mean it's a part of the hivemind.

Look at the entire attitude of Reddit towards WikiLeaks and the information that came out. The majority of Reddit does not feel the way that thtb feels. Some of the most upvoted posts in the history of Reddit pertain to WikiLeaks and how amazing they are for the information they've released. The amount of people highlighting the backlash from this information getting out is scarce.

[–]Phallic 1 point2 points ago

I just think it's interesting that no-one talks about a "hivemind" when they personally agree with it. No-one says "I'm with the hivemind on this one".

[–]lakerswiz 0 points1 point ago

They do. Quite often.

load more comments (1 reply)

    [–]MrBigMon 11 points12 points ago

    This is true-- everything has its time and place. But perhaps the idea is that it is the responsibility of a democratic government to allow civilian oversight. In principle, at least, it doesn't seem proper to second guess what the reaction might be as justification for secrecy: instead, we should hold those the react in an inappropriate way accountable.

    [–]AlbertIInstein 22 points23 points ago

    Wikileaks is a shotgun approach to problems requiring a sniper rifle. They have no discretion or regard for consequence and have the sole intention of causing damage. In addition they editorialize and take sides unlike what we expect from good journalists. All in all, some good things may have resulted but they could use a drastic change of modus operandi if they want respect. As of now the label of cyberterrorists isn't as far off as you want to believe. The OPs picture is incredibly one sided.

    [–]glennerooo 6 points7 points ago

    Wikileaks is a shotgun approach to problems requiring a sniper rifle.

    If government's are withholding information from citizens, what other choice is there to get information out there?

    [–]AlbertIInstein 6 points7 points ago

    So when Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame's identity that was a good idea and good for society?

    Do you think secrets might ever be a good thing? Maybe we secretly tell two countries we both side with them knowing full well if we did it in public they wouldn't accept.

    I think you underestimate how stupid the population is and how easy it is for the media to make a story out of a non story. Secrets keep things efficient without having to constantly go onto the television and explain yourself.

    I must be in bizarre land today, I keep defending the govt for kinda sleazy things.

    [–]glennerooo 0 points1 point ago

    I don't disagree with you. But something needs to change, as nobody wants to air their dirty laundry. Perhaps the secrets should be better vetted before being released? Then again, at some point you have to release names, otherwise you can't hold anyone accountable for shit that goes down, granted releasing anyone's name in connection with hidden activities is potentially a life-altering/threatening risk.

    [–]AlbertIInstein 3 points4 points ago

    Perhaps the secrets should be better vetted before being released?

    That was my point. Wikileaks is a shotgun. They just take papers and throw them. They dont read them first, they dont pick and choose if some facts are dangerous, they dont only release stuff that should be released. It is reckless and irresponsible and they should NOT be praised for it under any circumstances. They are encouraging terrorism not whistle-blowing.

    Valarie Plame was a spy. Her name was leaked SO she would be fired. It was a dick move, not something that had to be done.

    [–]Patius 0 points1 point ago

    Yeah. Diplomacy involves tact. Leaking the fact that a few US diplomats called Putin and Medelev (I'm 100% I misspelled that) "Batman and Robin" in a cable between the two of them just makes the relationship between two countries sour.

    No government can operate on 100% transparency, especially in foreign relations. The game of diplomacy is far too complicated for it.

    [–]herosavestheday -1 points0 points ago

    Did you ever consider that truth is not the highest standard by which a government should aspire to? Sometimes not all things that are true an known by some need be aired publicly. Certain actions and attitudes make good strategic sense ut. unpopular because your average citizen is not geopolitically minded. So do you tell the massests everything and watch your country burn or do you witghold information? Personally Id withhold information and sleep soundly at night.

    [–]orthag 8 points9 points ago

    Which is why Assange is an ass and we need to stop making him out as a hero.

    [–]maximusawesomus 5 points6 points ago

    This. I disagree with his extradition based on the likelihood of him being sent to the USA for a sham trial.

    But he's still an ass and no one should sugar coat it.

    [–]AlbertIInstein 2 points3 points ago

    Yea I don't want to turn his trial into election time politics. He should be felt with without 24 hour news blowing it up into a story it isn't. "bad guy is an idiot and asshole, probably getting what he deserves. Up next puppies, natures teddy bear."

    [–]TallonWarrior 2 points3 points ago

    You mean "Up next puppies mauled by natures teddy bear, the grizzly" Nothing is ever nice on my news.

    [–]AlbertIInstein 0 points1 point ago

    Hmm I dunno. NBC morning/daytime and cnn do quite a bit of random cute crap.

    [–]Tastingo -3 points-2 points ago

    You jump to big conclusions on very little info.

    [–]maximusawesomus 5 points6 points ago

    His conclusions are based on what we've all seen in the release of information. That in itself is the citation. What do you want, graphs?

    load more comments (7 replies)

      [–]snuckasneak 0 points1 point ago

      But perhaps the idea is that it is the responsibility of a democratic government to allow civilian oversight

      Just who do you think is running the US government, if not civilians? Hell, even Petraeus was forced to retire from the military before becoming head of the CIA

      [–]dghughes 2 points3 points ago

      I agree, Yemen isn't the nicest place around and the US did accidentally kill children but it seems to be a work in progress to try to combat terrorism at the source.

      But the government of Yemen took the hit for the US and covered up those things which seems to indicate they are trying to secretly crack down on terrorism, but need help, now that's no longer an option.

      [–]mraggoth 4 points5 points ago

      Wow I hadn't realized that.

      [–]scoops22 3 points4 points ago

      To me that seems like a very minor trade off for potentially stopping tens of thousands more people being killed by bringing to light the reality of the war.

      Nothing is free and what you listed seems like a small price to pay.

      [–]huge_hefner 11 points12 points ago

      Assuming that Wikileaks did or could actually stop any war?

      [–]scoops22 7 points8 points ago

      Key word "Potentially". It raised awareness about the reality of the war and its things like that which stopped the Vietnam war.

      [–]RedAnarchist 10 points11 points ago

      1) A lot of the things revealed in the leaks were already pretty well known, just not confirmed 100%.

      2) Mass protests did not stop the Vietnam war. Nixon came in with a policy of Vietnamization to end the war. This policy was a reaction to the success of the Tet Offensive.

      3) In 1972, when the anti-war protests where at it's peak, Nixon won reelection in a landslide victory taking 49 of 50 states.

      [–]herosavestheday 2 points3 points ago

      Mass protests did stop the war and that is via Henry Kissinger in his latest talk at Harvard.

      load more comments (3 replies)

        [–]7Year1tch 1 point2 points ago

        Because your not the one paying the price.

        [–]scoops22 0 points1 point ago

        I'm not the one paying the price for the war either don't forget. I'm a complete third party on both ends of the issue. The war in the Middle East isn't threatening my life in any way nor are the cables and leaks.

        [–]femanonette 1 point2 points ago

        I don't mean to sound like I have no idea what it is, but I actually don't: What are "cables"?

        [–]Twixius 1 point2 points ago

        I was in the dark too, but they refer to this

        [–]femanonette 1 point2 points ago

        Thank you! :)

        load more comments (7 replies)

          [–]darksim905 69 points70 points ago

          I haven't heard anything about the UN stuff toward the end. Anyone have more info?

          [–]angriers 35 points36 points ago

          Same here. How did we miss this in 2009 (and prior)?

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333920/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-ordered-U-S-diplomats-spy-UN-leaders.html

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

          Baaaaad Americaaaaans.

          [–]terf2004 0 points1 point ago

          We didnt really miss it, its the kind of thing common sense says is obviously happening. People acted shocked to put forward a political opinion.

          [–]darksim905 1 point2 points ago

          Well, the MSM does shove a lot of ''war this'' and ''war that'' and ''terror this'' and ''Glen Beck this'' and ''Celebrity that''. I'd imagine nobody noticed. It's bad when the U.K and Al-Jezeera knows more about our country than we do.

          [–]BANANARCHY 12 points13 points ago

          It was reported in the NY Times, LA Times, and the Washington Post, among others. What are you talking about?

          [–]darksim905 -3 points-2 points ago

          What? But do you see that on CNN 3 nights in a row? On Fox News?

          No. That's why I said MSM. There are insanely more people who watch TV than read the news.

          [–]BANANARCHY 10 points11 points ago

          The "mainstream media" is all the large media distribution channels, not just cable news, sorry buddy.

          [–]AL85 1 point2 points ago

          yeah. its all the mainstream medias fault. of course. its so simple.

          [–]BANANARCHY 10 points11 points ago

          New York Times

          LA Times

          [–]slackeyed 81 points82 points ago

          Cool read, though some of the points are opinion such as: "...greatest military leaks in history"

          And the spelling errors do not add to its credibility.

          [–]bullseyes 26 points27 points ago

          You have a point but keep in mind this was translated, perhaps by someone who also isn't a native English speaker

          [–]thebitchrake 12 points13 points ago

          Which is confirmed by the way the thousands are separated with a "." instead of a "," or a " ".

          [–]McMeanface 5 points6 points ago

          To some, this kind of analysis is Playskool Detective. To me, it's CSI.

          [–]Paul_Simons_Face 13 points14 points ago

          Also the part where he says the documents portrayed the true nature of the war. Women and children dieing, corruption, general inhumanity -- these things happen in all wars throughout history. We just get a clearer picture of them now.

          [–]thecoffee 3 points4 points ago

          I lost it when they say the media gave wikileaks sole credit for the Arab Spring. Everyone knows the media gave Twitter the credit.

          [–]Schiesty 0 points1 point ago

          They misspelled missile and responsibility in the first section after the "8 Things..." part. This thing is terrible. Also, I've never seen someone cross through 5 lines to make 6.

          [–]DankDarko 5 points6 points ago

          You must be a fairly sheltered individual if you have no understanding of language barriers. This is clearly a translated piece.

          [–]Mysteriousdoor 47 points48 points ago

          Revealed the true nature of the war

          Ok, what is it? War is dirty and bloody, people are going to die. I'd like to know why we are doing it rather then the consequences of our actions. I know tons of civilians die, that happens in about every war. I know that there are going to be sketchy practices going on, you arn't going to fight fair when you believe there is a legit threat. Give me a "true nature" that details why we are there and what we are doing to further that goal rather then generalize things on a list.

          [–]b0w3n 33 points34 points ago

          Which also ignores the facts that insurgents are generally civilians by their very nature. Who is doing the classifications?

          [–]nerds-fuck-adaquetly 24 points25 points ago

          THIS. People also tend to forget that while Americans cause civiliain casualties, most of the planted IED's in towns like Baghdad and Mosul, big cities, kill civilians. IED's planted by insurgents killing Iraqi civilians. Those numbers get factored into the American number too because the Americans do everything wrong.

          [–]b0w3n 8 points9 points ago

          One thing I learned about warfare from history is people make a big stink if you kill a civilian even if they're guerrilla. Don't sweat the type of fighter as any death is probably tangentially related to warfare in some capacity.

          If a weapons contractor showed up in a war zone, even though they're a civilian, I wouldn't begrudge someone if they were a collateral death. Or the family of a military man.

          All in all, civilian deaths have been on the decline in warfare thanks to our technology. At least we don't plant fucking mines everywhere anymore. God damnit.

          [–]nerds-fuck-adaquetly 7 points8 points ago

          We don't but IED's are some nasty fuckers I'll tell you.

          [–]b0w3n 6 points7 points ago

          Like land mines on steroids I hear. I'll take a few collateral civilian deaths over purposefully burying that shit to cause random damage.

          [–]nerds-fuck-adaquetly 3 points4 points ago

          They are scarey. They are varied so this doesn't apply to all of them, but I remember being in the back seat of our Humvee behind the driver and we got hit by a big nasty fucker buried exactyly where another IED went off a week ago. They workers who patched the road up put another one right back into the hole and waited for us. It ripped the front half of our truck off. The truck filled with smoke and my fucking ears were ringing so god damn loud. All of us in the truck got out with minor injuries. The TC was the worst got a fair bit of shrapnel in the leg but after a few days in the CSH he was fine, but they are probably the scariest thing I've ever encountered.

          [–]b0w3n 2 points3 points ago

          Sorry to hear that man. Thanks for serving though, glad you didn't die.

          I'm surprised they didn't have military eyes watching repair work after that.

          [–]nerds-fuck-adaquetly 3 points4 points ago

          Mosul is a big ass city. We can't be everywhere at once.

          [–]b0w3n 1 point2 points ago

          Hah fair enough.

          I'm glad I didn't enlist like the rest of my family, though. Air force typically doesn't do ground surveillance though do they?

          [–]CiD7707 1 point2 points ago

          EFP's are worse in some cases. Like shooting a shotgun through a wall of butter.

          [–]nerds-fuck-adaquetly 0 points1 point ago

          I never got hit by one of those, but when I was on R&R on of trucks apparently got a soccer ball size hole put into the engine block. They are devilishly smart over there.

          [–]CiD7707 0 points1 point ago

          Luckily none of guys were hit by them either, but the guys we had replaced weren't so lucky. The pictures they showed us were insane.

          [–]Patius 0 points1 point ago

          That and our bombs are way more accurate.

          70 years ago: blowing up a factory would involve flying over it, dropping a bomb, and hoping the cross winds didn't cause the bombs to fall on a school full of children.

          Today: Laser guided bombs that generally hit the target. Now, if we could make sure that those targets are actually the enemies we're trying to target and not a family with far better intelligence, then we'll be a lot closer to eliminating collateral civilian deaths altogether.

          [–]Mysteriousdoor 9 points10 points ago

          Exactly, war, especially this one, is not clear cut. No one wears a uniform on the other side. There are mercenaries alongside their regular ranks. How do we know that they will be "reformed" or not?

          [–]o0eagleeye0o 8 points9 points ago

          The insurgents cause more civilian casualties than Americans. In The Lone Survivor the author, a navy seal, talked about how insurgents would blind fire all the time around corners. This resulted in quite a few civilian casualties. Also, IEDs kill a lot of civilians

          [–]b0w3n 6 points7 points ago

          As much as I hate war I can't help but feel that this has had a net positive effect in the region as a whole, even if we are facing the brunt of their ire.

          [–]iamadrofjournalism 0 points1 point ago

          I was under the impression that the US was using super soakers and trying real hard to make the other guys become "it".

          load more comments (2 replies)

            [–]sudosandwich3 17 points18 points ago

            Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't wiki leaks originally post an edited video of the helicopter attack that cast the military in a bad light? IIRC the full version was released later and the context of the massacre was they thought one of them had an RPG. Still terrible but not entirely senseless.

            [–]ProbablyNotWorking 1 point2 points ago

            That is correct. We'll still get downvoted though.

            load more comments (3 replies)

              [–]Dmitri_Karamazov 31 points32 points ago

              I like how the sources are tinyurls and it's full of spelling mistakes. And vague statements.

              [–]DankDarko 4 points5 points ago

              First off you dont need to be ignorant to something your not sure on. The article is spelt incorrectly due to there being a minor language barrier. Due to translation, some words were fumbled. Yeah, yeah, I know, fuck the foreigners but some of us here in the word are somewhat tolerant of others. Also, tinyurls can be anything. A tinyurl is just a shortened, alternative link that redirects to larger, cumbersome links.

              [–]Dmitri_Karamazov 0 points1 point ago

              It has nothing to do with not liking foreigners. It has to do with the fact that it's supposed to be a source of information and it presents itself poorly. And yes, my PROBLEM is that tinyurls can be anything. I want to see the source as is.

              You are the one being prejudiced by assuming I must not like people who don't speak the same language. Fuck you, I speak three.

              [–]danamos 0 points1 point ago

              Make something better then information king.

              [–]bitcloud 0 points1 point ago

              Hyperlinks are a hell of a thing!

              [–]TheyAreOnlyGods 1 point2 points ago

              the afghanistan section is one large vague statement.

              [–]soggit 42 points43 points ago

              So....nothing of any substance at all?

              Not a single thing on there has led to any sort of change in policy or been an important piece of information in the election, policy making, etc. It's all just stuff that made people more or less say "yeah that sounds about right."

              [–]jfkk 3 points4 points ago

              Yeah, that's pretty much how I felt then and how I feel now. Plenty of people were angry, but anger without action is nothing.

              [–]knightofmars 4 points5 points ago

              It'll take something horrible in the US for Americans to actually fight for change, protesting and being loud doesn't do much for serious things.

              [–]terf2004 1 point2 points ago

              Pretty much this, its the kind of thing people politicize because it lets them hang their bias off it.

              It endangered peoples lives but because someone in the suburbs of a first world country can feel like a social activist its the most important thing to keep doing ever.

              It also lets people feel less removed from the world than they really are.

              I do have a massive amount of bias, wikileaks just annoys the hells out of me.

              [–]hauntedchippy 0 points1 point ago

              Not a single thing on there has led to any sort of change in policy

              You can't possibly be trying to hold wikileaks responsible for public apathy? Wikileaks isn't out to change policy.

              [–]soggit 12 points13 points ago

              It's not public apathy. None of their "leaks" were anything that needed to be said. There was no major whistle blowing or scandal that was unveiled.

              What do you expect? Breaking news bulletins saying EXTRA EXTRA: WIKILEAKS CLAIMS THAT CIVILIANS DEATHS OCCUR IN WAR. READ ALL ABOUT IT.

              [–]hauntedchippy 2 points3 points ago

              Only one or two were about civilian deaths in war. But I suppose it's no big deal that the US has DNA profiles of members of the UN? You clearly knew all about that before the leak so it didn't need to said right? Or the Yemeni government taking the flak for dubiously legal US missile strike. You knew that one too of course.

              [–]dickcheney777 5 points6 points ago

              I suppose it's no big deal that the US has DNA profiles of members of the UN?

              I would have been surprised if they didn't.

              Next you'll be surprised when the face book and google turns out to be huge voluntary data banks for the NSA?

              Yemeni government taking the flak for dubiously legal US missile strike

              Everybody knew that. The missile casings are easily identifiable...

              [–]hauntedchippy 1 point2 points ago

              I would have been surprised if they didn't.

              The difference is between suspecting and knowing. You no doubt suspect lots of things that the US government gets upto, but suspicions are worth nothing.

              Everybody knew that. The missile casings are easily identifiable...

              Yemen claimed they purchased the missiles from the US and used them on their own authority.

              Saleh lamented the use of cruise missiles that are “not very accurate” and welcomed the use of aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs instead. “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Saleh said, prompting Deputy Prime Minister Alimi to joke that he had just “lied” by telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the ROYG.

              [–]Patius 0 points1 point ago

              The UN DNA was the only remotely surprising one on there, and I imagine intelligence organizations world wide catalogue DNA, probably for something like making sure people are replaced with doubles or something out of a spy movie.

              US using missile strikes and Yemen covering for it? Not surprising and not new. It wasn't officially admitted, but it was kind of known about.

              Guantanamo Bay stuff? Disgusting, deplorable, but not new.

              6 digit civilian casualty rates in the Iraq and Afgan wars? Not only not new, but available before the leaks. Showing that something like a bomb dropped from thousands of feet in the sky sometimes killing the wrong people and/or demolishing other buildings is bad, but around 100,000 deaths overall is an improvement: we were killing that many civilians in single bombing runs 70 years ago. (And no, not nukes. There was one firebombing of Tokyo in 1942 that killed over 100,000 people.) Is 100,000+ too many? Yes. But war is dirty.

              This stuff isn't exactly shocking. These leaks weren't really doing much more than exposing a lot of classified details about stuff we already knew about.

              [–]soggit -1 points0 points ago

              No you miss the point. It doesn't make any difference whether I and everybody else knows that the US has dna samples (which is pretty ambiguous. Are we just grabbing old coffee cups?) or that the Yemen government was claiming it had done something it didnt. Is any policy change in order because of these things? No...are they even something that makes you raise your eyebrows? Nope again.

              The only people that the whole Yemen thing matters to is the Yemen government who wanted its people to think that it was capable of policing itself instead of needing the US to help. Does exposing that help anybody at all? No.

              There is an important role for whistle-blowing to play. If for instance I found out that the president was committing breaking and entering to record his opposition at their hotel that might be the sort of thing I'd want leaked. But as it is now wikileaks just grabs anything at all they can get their hands on and throws it out to the public in order to drum up attention, media coverage, and donations without any regard for the people who they are affecting.

              [–]Wazowski 1 point2 points ago

              What is its purpose then? To make Julian Assange famous?

              [–]ByroniousCat 70 points71 points ago

              Thanks for posting this.

              Now we're all on government watch lists because we've viewed it.

              [–]noisefun 44 points45 points ago

              No, we are cool, its full of spelling mistakes.

              ...missil...

              [–]alvinm 16 points17 points ago

              its

              Muphry's law?

              [–]eat-your-corn-syrup 3 points4 points ago

              now we're all on grammar watch list

              [–]noisefun 1 point2 points ago

              Nice work. :-)

              [–]borophagina 1 point2 points ago

              responsability

              [–]dmmnd 1 point2 points ago

              "unofficial translation"

              [–]scrubadub 15 points16 points ago

              The only solution is to get it to the front page and try to blend in with the crowd.

              [–]tboner6969 4 points5 points ago

              well then everyone should read it to make it the norm that everyone is aware of this information, so the goal of wikileaks is attained. and then, since we are all in it together, we have nothing to fear at all by reading and sharing this information. but then the government has a lot to fear in its populace, which is a good thing. accountability is the overarching key here, and our rights and liberties are what is at stake.

              [–]captainpixystick 0 points1 point ago

              If you're an active participant on certain political segments of reddit then you're likely already on watch lists. Join the club, folks.

              [–]loserbum3 0 points1 point ago

              A bunch of redditors have gotten their FBI files, and I don't remember any watch lists. So who is investigating us? CIA? DoD? NSA? TLA?

              [–]Mumberthrax 1 point2 points ago

              Right, because they're just going to tell you if you're on a watch list. That makes a lot of sense. "Excuse me, FBI/NSA/CIA, I'm totally not a criminal and I want to know if you're keeping tabs on me. Would you tell me if you were?" "Oh sure we would tell you, because we value transparency in government even if it disrupts security concerns. You're not on any of our lists, friend."

              [–]captainpixystick 1 point2 points ago

              Naive redditors think they can get their FBI files? Wow, that's how you definitely get on an FBI file.

              [–]FVAnon -1 points0 points ago

              proof or gtfo?

              [–]iDontSayFunnyThings 0 points1 point ago

              Even worse. As someone in the military we were briefed we could lose our careers for visiting wikileaks. I know several other units in my area received the same brief. Any other soldiers get told this?

              [–]PhantomRedFistPhoton 0 points1 point ago

              It wasn't visiting wikileaks, its the fact that you would be viewing documents that had not been declassified yet. Therefore you were violating policy by viewing info that you didn't have the clearance level/ need to know for.

              [–]iDontSayFunnyThings 0 points1 point ago

              I know & understand. Does not make my statement any less true. We were forbidden from looking at wikileaks.

              [–]femanonette 0 points1 point ago

              Everyone wave and smile for the camera!

              [–]Mulsanne 1 point2 points ago

              You're paranoid.

              [–]Dmitri_Karamazov 1 point2 points ago

              And so what if we are? Even though we aren't...

              [–]mr_pleco 5 points6 points ago

              To be fair, being nominated for the nobel peace price means shit. It's like being nominated for the golden globes or some other vaguely hollywood award. You can get nominated just by being vaguely popular for a few months doing something peace related, and if you're suffering it only increases your chances.

              That being said, the kid needs a trial already.

              [–]Mulsanne 16 points17 points ago

              Nothing useful. I don't need a heavily biased infographic to tell me that. Wikileaks has changed nothing.

              [–]faggot44 8 points9 points ago

              district 9 man. district 9.

              [–]normalboy 0 points1 point ago

              Fookin' prawns, bru.

              [–]No_Easy_Buckets 13 points14 points ago

              People want to compare Manning with Ellsburg but he just isn't. Daniel Ellsberg helped write the Pentagon Papers. He knew what was in those bitches. 23 year old private manning quite possibly had mental stability issues and access to the army's semi secret internal network. He used the access to release some 300 thousand documents. He did not read them all. He did not have time. Though I am glad he did and though his efforts have yielded important information this activity is still treasonous.

              [–]justwantanaccount 5 points6 points ago

              Daniel Ellsberg himself thinks that Manning isn't any different from himself, though. His pro-Wikileaks activities, according to Wikipedia:

              On June 17, 2010, Ellsberg was interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez on the Democracy Now! program regarding the parallels between his actions in releasing the Pentagon Papers and those of Pfc. Bradley Manning, who was arrested by the U.S. Military in Kuwait after allegedly providing to the WikiLeaks web site a classified video showing U.S. military helicopter gunships strafing and killing Iraqis alleged to be civilians, including two Reuters journalists. Manning reportedly claims to have provided WikiLeaks with secret videos of additional massacres of alleged civilians in Afghanistan, as well as 260,000 classified State Department cables. Ellsberg has said that he fears for Manning and for Julian Assange, as he feared for himself after the initial publication of the Pentagon Papers. WikiLeaks initially said it had not received the cables, but did plan to post the video of an attack that killed 86 to 145 Afghan civilians in the village of Garani. Ellsberg expressed hope that either Assange or President Obama would post the video, and expressed his strong support for Assange and Manning, whom he called "two new heroes of mine".

              On December 9, 2010, Ellsberg appeared on The Colbert Report where he commented that the existence of WikiLeaks helps to build a better government.

              On March 21, 2011, Ellsberg along with 35 other demonstrators were arrested during a demonstration outside the Marine Corps Base Quantico, in protest of Manning's current detention at Marine Corps Brig, Quantico.

              On November 16, 2011 Ellsberg camped on the UC Berkeley Sproul Plaza as part of an effort to support the Occupy Cal movement.

              [–]No_Easy_Buckets 2 points3 points ago

              I was actually aware. And I'll double down on my statement. Just because Ellsberg draws "parallels" doesn't make the case the same. It makes it similar. Did Ellsberg release documents he had no knowledge of? Did he release 260,000 cables without knowing what was in them? It's fine for the man to protest, and there are similarities, and I think the world is a better place because they got out, but the actions aren't the same.

              [–]Rasalom 8 points9 points ago

              Someone please edit "Responsability" in the top row, last column.

              [–]shaurz 0 points1 point ago

              Also "missil"

              [–]Bastro8 0 points1 point ago

              Thank you, it drove me crazy thinking someone looked up all this info but couldn't spell common words -____-

              [–]Rasalom 3 points4 points ago

              It's a translation if you look at the bottom.

              [–]phunkphreaker 7 points8 points ago

              This may be the worst infographic I've ever seen.

              [–]mkelley 6 points7 points ago

              I've learned that you can be so good at social engineering, you can get people to call you a journalist.

              [–]youcanteatbullets 4 points5 points ago

              Note: Not even slightly exhaustive

              [–]GyantSpyder 5 points6 points ago

              I'm pretty sure the description of the events in Yemen in this graphic are not accurate based on what I read in the documents.

              The missing piece is that the President of Yemen asked the United States to intervene, because he didn't have the power or political backing to take out the camps himself. But the condition was that if it came out that the United States was doing it, he wouldn't support it anymore, because he didn't want to be seen publicly as supporting the United States.

              Yemen wasn't "covering up" for the U.S. - the U.S. was "covering up" for Yemen.

              Still not a great situation, obviously.

              [–]Duderino316 1 point2 points ago

              Source?

              [–]GyantSpyder 5 points6 points ago

              Sure.

              Here's a Guardian article on it

              Here's the cable where it's revealed that the President of Yemen wanted the strikes to continue until they had "eradicate the disease" (his words, sent through his deputy defense minister to the State Department).

              [–]Workhorse9 7 points8 points ago

              Wow - Anyone can be nominated for the nobel peace prize.

              Manning knowingly broke the law by violating his non-disclosure agreement, and compromised a lot of people and government secrets. He is a fucking criminal, and is being treated like one.

              This 'inforgraphic' is so biased against the US it's not even funny. Reading this gives you two impressions: The US Government is purposely killing civilians (it's not) and holy shit - people didn't know that people die in a war!

              [–]ramonycajones 4 points5 points ago

              This infographic is, indeed, a piece of poop. It numbers civilian deaths but declines to mention a) who did the killing b) how many of those were previously unreported. Without that information it's meaningless (and, in fact, insurgents are responsible for far, far more civilian deaths than NATO forces are).

              Just the image they use for the people in suits is enough to throw the whole thing in the shitter.

              [–]Workhorse9 1 point2 points ago

              No shit. I hate how easily this is taken at face value though..

              [–]2xThink 6 points7 points ago

              Last I checked most criminals, even the ones responsible for the most abhorrent things, got a god-damned trial. Where's his?

              [–]Workhorse9 3 points4 points ago

              He is a member of the military, as such under UCMJ laws, the speedy trial part isn't in his rights. They are also working on getting the jury prepared, since a lot of evidence is going to be classified material, they need a fair number of soldiers/officers with TS:SCI clearances.

              You have to realize how fucking unprecedented this trial is in the US Military, we have never had a leak this size done intentionally and so brazenly by one of our own.

              It's coming, and they are debating whether or not to put the death penalty on him.

              Also, he is still getting paid right now.

              [–]2xThink 0 points1 point ago

              Ok, I don't get why they're still paying him, that's weird. But the conditions he is being held in are terrible (correct me if I'm wrong, please) but I read that he can't even sleep properly because they always 'check' on him. He's not allowed a proper bed or even to do a whole bunch of simple things like exercise. Criminals which have mass murdered and serial killers who murder and torture just because they get off on it, have better conditions in jail (in states where they're not outright killed). I guess I'm not happy with because when you commit heinous crimes against humanity you get a less severe punishment than someone who commits crimes against the US government. It seems unfair and justice is SUPPOSED to be fair.

              The death penalty is a terrible thing and I think if it must be used it should be used on the worst scumbags alive like mass murders and serial killers. People who are completely irredeemable. I think it would be a complete over-reaction to even think of using it on him and to me its just shows the state the USA is in.

              [–]Workhorse9 -1 points0 points ago

              As a soldier, he continues to draw a paycheck until the day he is declared guilty, he is still considered a soldier on active duty. When they find him guilty, they can strip him of all future pay, and I'm not 100% on this, but the pay from day one of the charge. He also accrues paid leave.

              As for his holding arrangements - He has in his head intelligence of the highest scale, and is accused of treason - as such they need to limit his exposure to other inmates and guards - as a stop gap to prevent him from continuing to leak sensitive information. The guards all have the same clearance as he had, and higher, but they are concerned about him spouting secrets to prisoners who talk it out of the prison. This is SOP with any person accused of spying in the USA, and usually ends after a few years, or up to 15, when the intelligence is no longer classified or relevant.

              The checks are SOP with suicide watch, it happens in a lot of prisons with a lot of prisoners, and yes it fucks up your sleep. The prevention of exercise happens in a number of prisons, but is in the minority. If he tries to do pushups in his cell, I'm sure they won't open the bars and restrain him, but they aren't going to supply him with a weight set or bike.

              There are nice civilian federal prisons where people who murder judges play tennis all day, and there are local lockups where drug users have to share a two men cell with 8 people. It sucks, but he made his bed, and he has to sleep in it - he knew the price he would pay when he made the decision to leak intel. He didn't just release the daily reports of Iraq (which funny enough were marked secret and did not contain any real secrets, just stories we swept under the rugs), but he compromised many operations, assets, and intelligence sources we had, undoing things we have spent billions of dollars, and millions of man hours building. I can assure you that people died as a result of the files he released - and I'm not talking about Americans, I'm talking foreigners, their families, and friends. I can't name a number, but I can safely say 100+ met their death as a result of this. Anyone who was implicated as being complicit, being a source, or asset to friendly forces faced immediate danger and death.

              As for his conditions - he is held in a maximum security prison under control of the US Military, and the death penalty is on the table for high crimes like treason. We used to hang soldiers in WW2 that raped civilians, and rape still carries the possibility of death in the US military, however we haven't executed a soldier in over 50 years.

              There are very few nations in the world that have the death penalty, that don't use it for treason.

              [–]2xThink 0 points1 point ago

              Still, he can't have a proper bed? Why? People should be treated better than this. If those drug dealers are real they should not be treated that way. He should not either.

              I also don't think he saw every single last one of those documents and even if he did, they're out there now. Why spend so much energy keeping secrets that are out?

              The problem is that what he did is more ambiguous and you can't just say he wanted all those people to die. I don't think he did. Those serial killers, etc. DID. They did, with their own hands and there's no denying that they deliberately killed and tortured people on purpose. Even if he did there should still be a trial before he is punished.

              You can't really prove those deaths (are there any sources that can attribute deaths to his actions? I'm genuinely curious) are directly caused by what he did, he did not go and kill them. Someone (maybe a few Governments) did, but not him. You can't expect him to be responsible for their actions too. They also made choices they shouldn't have, their own choices, they need to be responsible for.

              I also might point out that consequences of even some of the most trivial actions are impossible to tell fully. To use an example (I know this is entirely different and very unlikely, but I'm making a point about consequences and actions); what if you needed an ambulance for something non-fatal and by using it, denied a pregnant lady the care she needed until it was too late and she died, then her child which would've grown up to cure cancer if he'd had his mother, becomes an orphan and never grows up to become a doctor/scientist and doesn't cure cancer. Would you be responsible for the cancer victims that died because he never cured it? Its too ambiguous. I'm pretty sure if this was the case you wouldn't want that to happen and you certainly wouldn't have planned it. But if you hadn't taken that imaginary ambulance, so many more imaginary people would be alive.

              You can argue that he was more direct and he DID break the law and he needs a trial for that and those deaths need to be taken into consideration (if it can be shown they are connected). But can you argue he did it to kill on purpose? Do you really think he just wanted those people to die?

              What I'm saying is that, yeah he broke the law, but like all people who do, he needs his trial BEFORE his punishment (you can't tell me you wouldn't mind living how he is) and criminals, especially non-violent offenders should be kept in better conditions. It is not OK (in my opinion) to just accept that some people get treated well and others get treated poorly, even though their crime is less deserving. Criminals are still PEOPLE.

              [–]Workhorse9 0 points1 point ago

              I'm not sure about the bed and all that. And for the secrets he knows - they are big and not in the files he released. Anyone who worked where he worked for as long as he worked knows some big shit. Some intel isn't written in reports, some intel isn't shared in that sense, some of the SCI intel he couldn't access or reproduce for wikileaks, but he knows.

              No, he didn't realize the extent of his actions, maybe he did, but probably not, but he still did it. He knew full well what the repercussions would be, and not he has to pay them.

              As for the deaths, no, you can't prove them, and you can't link a story where it will say 'Government executes Ahmed and his family for being an intelligence asset', but if you don't think people didn't die, you are naive. If you have a document that says 'Johnny Mob Bosses driver is a snitch' and you release it, you know he is going to die. He knew full well what would happen. Was it his driving force, his intention to get people killed? No. Is it the intention of a drunk driver to run over someone and kill them? No, it's to get home, but they kill a person, they still get punished.

              The heart of the matter is this: He signed a document stating he would keep secret any material he processed. It lined out very clearly what the penalty is for breaking this agreement, anyone who has ever had a clearance has signed this document. He knew what he was doing, and he did it, now he pays the price. The trial will hold the charges of treason, espionoge, breaking his NDA, and improper handling of sensitive documents. Two of those charges carry death.

              Yes, his life sucks right now - prison isn't a fucking hotel. Beyond that it's a military prison, they do hard labor, and if they refuse, they get rations cut. He gave al qeada the best recruitment tools they have had in a long time - his actions has strengthened the enemy, and weakened a nation. He has no real defense, even his supports don't argue he broke the law, and everyone knows he is dead to rights, we are just waiting on the trial.

              It sucks how he is treated, but it's nothing special. He isn't being physically harmed, but you could make an argument about emotional or mental harm. If I was in his shoes, I would hang myself, because his life is over. As a former soldier, I hope he gets the death penalty if convicted.

              [–]2xThink 0 points1 point ago

              I didn't say I didn't think people died. I said its hard to pin it on him when other people carried out the actions, they should be punished more harshly than him since they really did actually murder people. But gee, they aren't. They'll probably get away with it. That's bloody annoying.

              It was damned dumb for everyone who helped make this info public to also release names or details that could identify people. I don't know wtf that was about.

              He broke the law, yes, he needs to be put on trial. That's a RIGHT last I checked, trial before punishment. Instead he gets; punishment, trial, more punishment. Did he really sign away his right to have a trial then punishment? That's insane on both parties' sides. I'm not liking this whole guilty until proven innocent thing, its not just happening with him in some manner but in my nation and it was brought about by the US. We can't just be OK with things like this, because it'll keep happening, if you don't stop it, it will grow. If you don't believe me, you put too much faith in people in power (anyone in power).

              Yes, he understood what he was doing. I KNOW THAT. But I just can't agree with what they are doing, lawful or not, contract or no. I find it disturbing and cruel. That might just be my cultural background but a lot of what happens in the US especially to do with prison and war/the military seems strange, even alien and unnecessarily harsh and sometimes violent, I find it truly disturbing. You probably wouldn't agree with how the North Koreans or Cubans treat their prisoners, but its lawful, all the same. Their law. And I damn well don't agree with any of it.

              His life is over, that's sad to me. Its sad that people died.

              In the end this is coming down to opinion and we obviously will not agree on how he should be treated. I think he and everyone else (with possible exceptions to serial killers/mass murders and only in certain situations) should be treated well. You want him to die.

              [–]kontra5 2 points3 points ago

              What happened with that Bank of America stuff?

              [–]infinitymind 2 points3 points ago

              We have learned that the U.S. government is one of the most corrupt entities in the world & it has succeed in keeping the people in dark about both internal and world politics [still]... we've learned that it will aggressively seek to limit our access to information & will destroy anyone that tries to stand in its way... we have also learned that majority of Americans are ignorant, have the attention span of a mouse and is overly trusting of the shit spewed by the mass media.

              [–]foundd 2 points3 points ago

              THIS, it freaks me out that most Americans have a blind loyalty to the country and think America can do know wrong, and that people want to attack us because they "hate our freedom"

              [–]mindlessrambling 3 points4 points ago

              I think its exceedingly arrogant to claim wikileaks caused the arab spring. Could the tunisians know their government was autocratic and corrupt? of course not it had to be a western organisation to tell them. It's demeaning to those who stood up and fought for their freedom..

              [–]EbbaGreen 11 points12 points ago

              Ready the downvotes!

              This list is wrong on one major account, it claims that if there were no WikiLeaks, we would not know about these incidents, I believe that we would, but the information would have taken another route before reaching the public.

              As for WikiLeaks, after watching this documentary:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvmfOaZ34Pk

              I have lost a lot of respect for them, while WL is using Julian Assange as their spokesman it will be hard for me to regain the respect for WL.

              However OpenLeaks looks to be a better alternative, I have even thought about applying to work for them.

              Of and please do not use tinyurl when supplying sources, if you must, please paste the full URL next to the tinyurl

              [–]scrubadub 19 points20 points ago

              You have more respect for open leaks? Really!?

              It was started by a guy that published a book shitting on Assange because he was butthurt for Assange suspending him. Then he goes and starts openleaks claiming it will be more transparent than wikileaks. Except he won't publish to the public, only to news organizations. And it doesnt look like anything has been published yet.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openleaks#OpenLeaks

              [–]Cenodoxus 4 points5 points ago

              I don't think that's quite fair to Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Assange has a distinct talent for hurting and alienating people. He suspended Domscheit-Berg because the latter believed (and he was far from being the only one at WikiLeaks) that WL was betraying its true mission of giving whistleblowers a safe method of holding powerful people to account. Instead, Domscheit-Berg felt that WL was simply turning into Assange's poodle, a tool to be used as a bludgeon against countries and people that Assange didn't personally like. He also felt that Assange became a massive, controlling asshole with all the fame that WL brought him, and it's kind of hard to argue that that wasn't actually the case. I don't think Assange has ever quite appreciated the irony of becoming exactly the sort of person he had once wanted WL to hold in check.

              We can quibble about Domscheit-Berg's methods, but he wanted OpenLeaks to publish stuff that had been vetted and wouldn't harm an innocent person caught in the crossfire (like, say, the people who gave information on the Taliban to NATO forces in Afghanistan. Assange didn't bother removing their names from the Afghanistan war leaks under the rationale that if they got killed, they had it coming.)

              [–]scrubadub 0 points1 point ago

              I've seen an interview where assange claimes he reached out to the pentagon before leaking information to see if they want to redact anything but he never heard back. I have nothing to prove that obviously.

              [–]Xaisle 0 points1 point ago

              More like what we learned from Reddit

              [–]NGC_224 -1 points0 points ago

              Responsability!

              [–]HiImTed 0 points1 point ago

              We are in some serious trouble, not just now, but years later on down the line when all this shit blows back on us.

              [–]Mesthione 0 points1 point ago

              Can anyone spell these days? After being on Reddit for nearly two years and seeing many graphics like this, I'm not so sure. If you are going to put time and effort into making something this nice, proofread so I don't have to intellectually trip over "missil".

              [–]iamaelephant 1 point2 points ago

              60% of deaths in Iraq were non-military? Wow.

              [–]TheyAreOnlyGods 1 point2 points ago

              the section on afghanistan is vague as fuck.

              [–]SchecterShredder -2 points-1 points ago

              In other words, the USA is the most bad ass country ever.

              [–]TheyAreOnlyGods 0 points1 point ago

              this may be a stupid question, but I ask it purely from curiosity; what stops wikilleaks from making shit up? In what way could you prove emails to be genuine?

              [–]bitcloud 0 points1 point ago

              Facts can be cross referenced.

              [–]TheyAreOnlyGods 0 points1 point ago

              Isn't a tad much to suggest wikileaks started the Arab Spring? I was under the impression this was something that had been building for some time.

              [–]DiggingNoMore 0 points1 point ago

              The missiles killed 14 women and 21 children. I'm supposed to care how many women were killed but not how many men?

              [–]TuppyHole 0 points1 point ago

              I stopped reading at the spelling error.

              [–]kcg5 1 point2 points ago

              Is all that true about ACTA? The wiki doesnt make it seem as secret, or follow the timeline of the graph to well..

              As far as what Hilary wanted or didn't... Im surprised any of this is news. Its well known we spy on everyone, and they spy on us. We probably have a sample of Queen Elizabeths urine somewhere. It is the nature of the beast. We want to know everything, prepare for everything.

              I am not saying any of it is right, but its reality.

              [–]nachumama -2 points-1 points ago

              What we learned about wikileaks? We learned that the traitor who leaked these top secrets should fucking hang. At least that's what i learned?

              [–]ChrisCipher 0 points1 point ago

              Not to be a stickler, but this infographic spells "responsibility" incorrectly. Kind of puts a blemish on its credibility.

              [–]AintGettinDatKarma 0 points1 point ago

              I don't think the Egypt thing was Wikileaks's doing... That's been common knowledge for ages...

              load more comments (37 replies)

                Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

                REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

                π Rendered by PID 17836 on app-90 running e31913e.