What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
196 Comments
- cky3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+66When they violate Constitutional rights of Americans they shouldn't be secret.
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -10/+64You're really out to lunch davenp35.
Bush's actions resulted in a 'how to build a ***** NUKE' manual being posted on the internet and you're saying the media is giving away secrets? Take off the blinders. - Poltras, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45Mmmh... davenp35, I'm not american but... you know, wouldn't the CONSTITUTION be apt to decide what's constitutional or not?
- clearzen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+45omg, please can I see treason charges for someone in the administration. Enough is Enough......talk about being weak on national security.
- tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33@davenp35
Fit to decide? You bet. Everyone whose rights are violated has a right to decide. It's the peoples document. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+43How many nukes did we find in Iraq again? You are a sheep.
- crashnburn275, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32I thought Republicans only used the internet for seducing teenage boys..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34***** you, these congress-***** revealed information that was ACTUALLY secret, yes actually dont-tell-anyone-or-you-will-go-to-jail secret and they deserve to have the book thrown at them, dirty little rabbit-rapers
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Gordo's trying to make a slightly different claim. Rather than outright claiming Iraq had nukes, he's saying they had the plans and the parts to *make* the nukes.
@Gordo: That's not what this administration told everyone 3 years ago. They claimed, in no uncertain terms, that Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction. Those claims turned out to be false. So, yes, it was a lie (intentional or otherwise). Don't try to be a revisionist. - cardwell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Can't wait until elections are done, so I can get back to wasting my time digging non-political stuff...
Until then...vote early...vote often - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25How about because on the Internet anyone can get their ***** hands on the documents where as at least Saddam Hussein would have the god-forsaken mother-***** sense to keep it to HIMSELF since he had plenty of enemies who would have loved to get hold of this. Let me rephrase that for you because you are clearly in the remedial class:
SADDAM HEUSSAIN DID NOT LIKE ANYONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, HE WOULD NOT HAVE SHARED NUCLEAR SECRETS WITH ANYONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD ANY AFFILIATION WITH A MIDDLE EASTERN TERRORIST ORGANISATION.
Where as these dirty *****-monkey politicians DID share nuclear secrets and are mother ***** ***** traitors and do have an affiliation with a ***** called George W-***** Bush - JBCougar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Saddam? Nukes? hahahahahahahaha. I can't wait for people like you to stop existing. /snark
- MrBlackthorne, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19You can blame the media for this if you'd like, but it's pretty hard to be rosy about the outlook in Iraq when people are still dying by the thousands. Maybe by your (and Mr. Wilson's) assessment, the news should shovel the negative under the rug in favor of painting a rosy picture of Iraq. When almost 3000 US soldiers have died, Iraq is obviously not a rosy picture, and shouldn't be portrayed as such. You can cheer lead all you like, but it is a little hard to explain to the American public that a war is going well when their peers are coming back in flag-draped boxes. This will always outweigh any "good" that has happened. It's human nature.
- 60days, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21I believe the parts were missing. Thats kind of been known for a while.
- mindovermatter, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24This was discussed at great lengths the other day on another Digg post. There's nothing secret about the methods and techniques of building nuclear weapons. It's all over the internet, and this material is studied at great lengths at universities across the country. I go to USC, and it was part of our Physics 100 curriculum. Another student from Berkeley mentioned that they were also taught how to make nuclear weapons on the other Digg post. The entire process is actually quite simple. The only thing that stops anyone from making a nuke is the need for enriched uranium or plutonium. Enriched uranium is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to manufacture, even for developed nations. And plutonium is too toxic and volatile to handle without the right technology.
The real scam here is that the Bush administration posted this information online in the hopes of justifying the debacle that is the Iraq war. Instead of realizing that this information is mundane and that any nation in the world (as well as any physics student) has expedient access to it they thought they could deceive the public by posting this as a "red flag" of evidence that Iraq was making nuclear weapons. Now all they have is a huge PR mess. - tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16hey, some people leave the iron on, others leave nuclear secrets online.
tomAto, tomAHto - rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Easy, these documents are from before the 1991 war. We destroyed Saddam's nuclear program then and effectively prevented him from restarting it, as we proved after reinvading the country.
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11A senior federal official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Times that:
Scientists at California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory protested some of the weapons papers on the site to the National Nuclear Security Administration, they knew it revealed information that should not be revealed and warnings about the site came from the government's own arms experts as well as from international weapons inspectors.
The Bush administration set up the Web site in March at the urging of Republicans in Congress who said that public access to such materials from Iraq could increase the understanding of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. The republicans put up the site, the times revealed it was a danger to national security.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-04T070105Z_01_N02171090_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-INTERNET-IRAQ.xml&src=rss - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24(sigh) Another lemming who would jump off a cliff if Bush led him there.
- cthulhu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16It's a ***** war you moron. What's all this rosey ***** going on that you neocons want us to focus on?
- rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Why do you assume this sort of broad-brush stuff is what was posted online? According to AP, "One of the documents, running to 51 pages, covered the technical advances of Iraq's early nuclear program, including 18 pages on the development of its bomb design -- materials that one expert told the Times "constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."" You think this stuff, blueprints and all, is on Wikipedia?
If the US Government were serious about preventing nuclear proliferation, they wouldn't be distributing documents with details on constructing a nuclear bomb. The documents could do harm but no good. If you need further proof of that, look at how quickly they pulled the documents.
Or, viewed another way: Saddam had no WMDs and no nuclear program when Iraqw was invaded. The most dangerous thing he had was this information, and the US invades just in order to freely distribute it to all the aspiring nuclear powers in the world. Great job. - cthulhu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"if it was a Democratic president who posted this material, everyone would (rightly) note that the information is already widely available on the internet."
*****. - razor150, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11That's funny, everyime the NYT is accused to releasing state secrets a lof of the time the Government had a website all about the program readily available to the public. In the case of going after terrorist funds they even had a magazine dedicated to the program. This time it is the Government releasing sensitive info and they are crying foul because the NYT asked "Why?" Republicans don't make a lot of sense, they just love to blame the media. Last I checked the media didn't make the website.
Yes, scream about the evil NYT releasing state secrets again. I'll just laugh at your stupidity. - bexmex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@iceperson:
"Too bad we know this is a lie because Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapon program..."
Saddam DID have a WMD program, like in the 80s and early 90s. Bush Sr. and Clinton made him stop. Saddam probably kept the papers, but had neither the materials, nor expertise, nor lab to make a bomb.
Of course, Iran does.
So... Bush Jr. decided it was OK to post hundreds of top secret papers on how to build a nuke... conveniently already translated into Arabic.
UNBELIEVABLY INCOMPETENT
If any other American did something that stupid, he would be thrown in jail for 40 years. If he was a Democrat, or brown, or wore a turban, Hannity and O'Reilly would demand he be shot without a trial. - rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+91 dictator has access to nuclear secrets = bad
All dictators and terrorists in the world have access to nuclear secrets = ? - mindovermatter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec05.pdf
There you go.
Thanks for all your Digg downs, btw. I guess being a rational liberal isn't so hot on Digg right now... - mindovermatter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@deanlowe,
Your point is non sequitur. The point is that this information isn't dangerous because (a) it's prolific and simple; and (b) no one has access to the materials that would make it feasible. What you should be worried about is when a country gets access to uranium and starts building facilities to developed fissionable masses. - sdwilly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@Mindovermatter
Can you please send me this links to how to build a nuclear weapon? I keep hearing how the information is "all over the Internet" yet no one can actually provide a link to a actual design.
The theory is simply the design isn't, just ask North Korea (Who happens to have all the parts needed). - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Mmmm, puppies. They're the veal of dogmeat, you know.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@iceperson:
I know it is confusing but no one denies they had a program or that they probably would have restarted it if the sanctions were removed.
What is denied is that he had an active program right before we went to war. But everyone knew he had a program.
you know that is why we had weapons inspectors.. it wasnt to see if he had a program, it was to see if he stopped. - MrBlackthorne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Now that you bring this up, I never thought of Clinton as a "glorious leader" until W was elected. Funny how your view changes over the years.
- redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Rebrane, they are actually from 2002."
- Wrong. The documents are from "...almost-successfull nuclear weapons program that Saddam had built before 1991"
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/154/32/
(Or just do a google news search of "iraq wmd internet" and you will find plenty of articles) - AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I did downvoted you.
These documents were first checked and *then* released. It was an attempt to use all the right-wing bloggers in finding a smoking gun (oops they failed). Furthermore they were told last week about the content of the documents, but they still did not take it down.
Incompetence? All there is. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8geez I am sorry but to me give terrorist the info to make a bomb, something we accused saddam was trying to do is far far worse than releasing the info on torture, rendition or the swift program(that is meantioned many many times on the whitehouse own site and really wasnt a secret.. not they didnt meantion it by name but bush said about 100 times he was going after the terrorist money)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@ Gordo... Saddam didn't have nukes... What part of that don't you get?
BTW: Bush's war in Iraq has killed more innocent Iraqi's (non-hostiles) than Saddam did in 20! Perhaps we should hang Bush instead! - redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov03/0,4670,IraqDocuments,00.html
Even Fox reported it... First line "predated 1991"....
Move along scrub. - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's amazing to me how many people are so enthralled with Bush Co. that they'll support the fool no matter what damage he does. Bush could order a nuclear strike on Dallas tomorrow and some in the Right would support it. These idiots put detailed instructions on how to build a nuke...IN ARABIC even. If that's not incompetent then I don't know what is. Every American, Right or Left, should be enraged about this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11By all means, lets invade EVERY country who has information on how to build a nuke, but not the means.
If this is the case, we might as well invade every major college campus in the U.S. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13You're looking for neutral points of view... on Digg... in the politics section? Buddy, you're out of touch...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I love the appologists.. it is no big deal the us let terrorist have nuclear secrets.. you are just a bunch of liberal cry babies..
well sorry i would hate for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud and i am not a liberal but i am quickly becoming one.
It is amazing what you people justify
foley, haggard, nuclear secrets... sometimes it is best just to keep your neo mouths shut.. and not sound liek a bunch of hypocritical idiots..
and yeah i would say the same thing if liberals had done it and cried
"but you can google crap liek this, or but this supports bushes claims of wmds, so why are you neos crying about it" well because it is wrong.
To me it doesnt matter who did it, you can blame the intelligence communities if you want, but it is still wrong. - Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Gordo,
Bush said Saddam would only need 45 min to launch a WMD at Israel.
That was clearly a lie. - digimat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10thank god with have reporters and news channels worthy of reporting the TRUTH and not the ***** news story I first saw this story on. Look what we found!!! look what we found!!!... in 1991.
Bush should be sharing a chair with Sadam. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec05.pdf
This link does discuss nuclear weapon theory in detail. It is NOT a "how to" that one could follow in actually building a weapon from scratch (no schematics, in fact no diagrams at all). Apparently that type of information is exactly what was disclosed when Iraq's papers were published.
I don't think the title should be "Did Top Republican Congressmen Give away Nuclear secrets on the Internet?". It should be "Top republican congressmen disclose details on how any nation can begin a nuclear weapons program." The second statement is absolutely 100% true and is not in dispute. Now, you may set up strawmen arguments about this being available already so no biggie. However, none of the strawmen will make the second title any less true.
By the way, I'm an independent. I don't think they MEANT to disclose the details of how any nation can start their very own nuclear program, I just think they are desperate to hold the House and Senate. - sadmancomputer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I don't understand the reason why Clinton is so praised yet I can't see why he is steppped on. Yes, Clinton was involved in a sex scandal that made the US a joke, but at least it was between two consenting adults. To try to make that on par with an old man discussing boners with a male minor is not fair. Clinton was no saint, just read up on Waco, but Bush is a really terrible president. When we look back on this time, I'm confident it will be with shame. I would like to hear some defense from the right side as to why Bush is so great and why the republicans should have another 4 years. In all of the tiring adolescent political fights on digg, I never really see anyone argue their case. It usually ends up with a war between "fagots" and "*****." Please someone make an intelligent argument. I really do want to hear the other side because I can't understand why someone can still support bush.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Again we find Digg users posting stories from Keith Olbermann and pretending it is not opinion.
Note: If someone posts a video clip of segment from "The Oreilly Factor" it would and should be filed under "political opinion".
Stop abusing the sytem. Vote to bury: wrong topic, YET AGAIN. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6actually, the documents showed no ties between saddam and bin laden, and that he had no weapons.
- clearzen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@quick22 National security does have it's place. I'm just against taking away civil liberty with the guise of national security.
- Chebyshev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5takeda:
It is dangerous because it releases the information to other parties. Like the terrorists we're all told to be so scared of. Saddam had this info, but they didn't. Now they do (or could if they found it in time or know about Google cache).
And about justifying the war - I hope having information about doing something bad isn't enough to justify the ousting of a government at the expense of thousands of lives. - redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The documents are pre-1991, every single major news site says this. It is in the first line on the Fox News report on it, which is linked a couple times in this thread.
- redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In every single article it says that the material is "in greater detail" than anything currently avaliable on the internet....
news.google.com search, or go to your replublican favorite.. foxnews... and search.. of course its not on the front page like it should be.. but even they reported it! -
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is