|
On December 02 2010 06:52 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 06:46 Nitan wrote:A subsidiary of the US private security firm Xe (then known as Blackwater) flouted German arms export law. It transported German helicopters to Afghanistan via Britain and Turkey without a permit because it was taking too long to get the German export papers. Oh Blackwater! You scamps! Compared to the other stuff Blackwater's done, I don't think that's so bad. In fact, that's downright cute.
I like how this guy is supposed to monitor Canadian TV.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/01/08OTTAWA136.html
When American TV and movie producers want action,
the formula involves Middle Eastern terrorists, a ticking
nuclear device, and a (somewhat ironically, Canadian) guy
named Sutherland.
Ironic indeed.
|
America installing nukes in European countries was public knowledge.
|
I don't understand the Blackwater event. They shipped helicopters to the Afghanistan without a permit? How did they get the helicopters out of Germany without proper documentation?
Ah
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,732127,00.html
They just "took" the helicopters out looool, how did this go unnoticed?
|
On December 02 2010 06:48 JAN0L wrote:Can anyone give me an explination that actually makes sense on why this happened http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/to for example this site: http://torrent-finder.com/and why US gov couldint do that to wikileaks.org? it looks like they can seize and site they want because they hold organization naming sites and they can just "steal" domain and display whats wisible in the link above and if its true this would mean they for some reason want these information revealed (also there is no information there that would really hurt image of US)
First off all Wikileaks works together with major newspapers like NY times, the guardian or Spiegel which makes it impossible to completly shut down the revealing of those information.
Second they could just reveal all the names of those who help the usa in afghanistan, iraq or even foreign governments. lets see how this hurts the US.
Probably the reason why Asange is still alive.
|
Oh Russia...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy
• Russian spies use senior mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations such as arms trafficking.
• Law enforcement agencies such as the police, spy agencies and the prosecutor's office operate a de facto protection racket for criminal networks.
• Rampant bribery acts like a parallel tax system for the personal enrichment of police, officials and the KGB's successor, the federal security service (FSB).
• Investigators looking into Russian mafia links to Spain have compiled a list of Russian prosecutors, military officers and politicians who have dealings with organised crime networks.
• Putin is accused of amassing "illicit proceeds" from his time in office, which various sources allege are hidden overseas.
González said he had evidence – thousands of wiretaps have been used in the last 10 years – that certain political parties in Russia worked hand in hand with mafia groups. He alleged that intelligence officials orchestrated gun shipments to Kurdish groups to destabilise Turkey and were pulling the strings behind the 2009 case of the Arctic Sea cargo ship suspected of carrying missiles destined for Iran.
At the summit of what is known in Russia as the power "vertical" lies the Kremlin, a prime beneficiary of the entrenched system of kickbacks, bribes, protection money and suspect contracts.
He made clear he was not amused by a US diplomat's description of him as "Batman" and President Dmitry Medvedev as "Robin". "To be honest with you, we did not suspect that this [criticism] could be made with such arrogance, with such rudeness, and you know, so unethically," Putin remarked.
I dunno Putin, it's pretty funny.
|
Why would you be upset at someone describing you as "Batman"? I mean, there must be some cultural dissonance going on here, that's like a compliment of the highest order in America.
Being called "Robin", though, I can definitely see how that would piss someone off.
|
On December 01 2010 19:52 ZerglingSoup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 19:44 Grumbels wrote:On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world. There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are. I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so.
haha.
So what common goal of the public has been hurt by these releases? source plz.
Also, I like how government officials openly ask for extrajudicial assassinations on network television. funny shit.
|
On December 02 2010 05:46 Taguchi wrote:i believe the context of those remarks in the iranian report refers to the current leadership of iran and not persians as a whole i remember reading an excerpt in it saying "these are the same people that overthrew the regime in 1979" , so it could be a fair assessment and not just racist dribble, being that these people have gone from rebellion to a prolonged war with iraq to isolation from the rest of the world, after all edit: it was written in 1979, i am very wrong in my assessment  it is too far back to make something out of it though however... Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 03:42 domovoi wrote:
You cannot honestly say that this is whistleblowing, because what, exactly, is Wikileaks blowing the whistle on? how about spying on UN members, denying confirmation of nukes being installed in various european countries, conducting military missions while the host government lies about them to their parliament all in the first few documents released also, i'd wish people would drop the "diplomats cant conduct business properly now", can u not see that every single major government - apart from equador and a couple others i guess - is trying to hush this? so they can do business as usual like nothing ever happened? because governments do have stuff to hide, and its in everyone's best interests that the people are kept in the dark about many things (oh wait, thats for our own good, cuz they said so even if we cant see how and they wont tell us how or why and every time we find any sort of secret info it all points to special interests being served, be it oil or weapons companies or banks or whateverelse, certainly nothing of benefit to the average ppl)
It does affect the people... this will augment taxes. Furthermore, do you know that 20% of the United States thinks that Obama is a muslim? You really think the average american deserves this information you imbecile? No, this will not just be hushed under the table? This gives leverage to other places and now relations between Iran-Saudi-Arabia and these sort of relations will be compromised you ignorant fool.
|
Does anyone know how these documents were obtained? Were they leaked by someone working for the government? Did someone hack into a government database and steal them? Something else maybe?
|
On December 02 2010 07:45 gozima wrote:
Does anyone know how these documents were obtained? Were they leaked by someone working for the government? Did someone hack into a government database and steal them? Something else maybe?
Bradley Manning I think.
|
On December 02 2010 07:37 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 19:52 ZerglingSoup wrote:On December 01 2010 19:44 Grumbels wrote:On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world. There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are. I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so. haha. So what common goal of the public has been hurt by these releases? source plz. Also, I like how government officials openly ask for extrajudicial assassinations on network television. funny shit.
Peaceful world relations? We said some pretty mean things about the Russians.
|
This has nothing to do with the merit or non merits of his work but in interviews he really comes off as an arrogant asshole to me.
|
On December 02 2010 07:51 Slaughter wrote:
This has nothing to do with the merit or non merits of his work but in interviews he really comes off as an arrogant asshole to me.
so true.
if assagner were a charismatic guy, his reputation would be soooo much better.
|
On December 02 2010 07:48 Nitan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 07:37 Half wrote:On December 01 2010 19:52 ZerglingSoup wrote:On December 01 2010 19:44 Grumbels wrote:On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world. There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are. I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so. haha. So what common goal of the public has been hurt by these releases? source plz. Also, I like how government officials openly ask for extrajudicial assassinations on network television. funny shit. Peaceful world relations? We said some pretty mean things about the Russians.
You mean, the ruling class of America insulted the ruling class in Russia. We didn't say anything.
The fuck does that have to do with any of us?
The dealings of these diplomats should be a joke to laugh about to anyone in any country who reads them.
|
On December 02 2010 07:48 Nitan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 07:37 Half wrote:On December 01 2010 19:52 ZerglingSoup wrote:On December 01 2010 19:44 Grumbels wrote:On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world. There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are. I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so. haha. So what common goal of the public has been hurt by these releases? source plz. Also, I like how government officials openly ask for extrajudicial assassinations on network television. funny shit. Peaceful world relations? We said some pretty mean things about the Russians.
How has peaceful world relations (hahahaha) been hurt? Source? Any conference canceled, treaties annulled etc?
|
On December 02 2010 07:57 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 07:48 Nitan wrote:On December 02 2010 07:37 Half wrote:On December 01 2010 19:52 ZerglingSoup wrote:On December 01 2010 19:44 Grumbels wrote:On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world. There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are. I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so. haha. So what common goal of the public has been hurt by these releases? source plz. Also, I like how government officials openly ask for extrajudicial assassinations on network television. funny shit. Peaceful world relations? We said some pretty mean things about the Russians. How has peaceful world relations (hahahaha) been hurt? Source? Any conference canceled, treaties annulled etc?
Well, it's only been a few days. You need time for things to happen.
It remains to be seen what actually happens but it's not unreasonable to think that publicized insults towards the leadership of a foreign country we have to work with will dampen things.
|
On December 02 2010 08:04 Nitan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 07:57 Half wrote:On December 02 2010 07:48 Nitan wrote:On December 02 2010 07:37 Half wrote:On December 01 2010 19:52 ZerglingSoup wrote:On December 01 2010 19:44 Grumbels wrote:On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world. There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are. I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so. haha. So what common goal of the public has been hurt by these releases? source plz. Also, I like how government officials openly ask for extrajudicial assassinations on network television. funny shit. Peaceful world relations? We said some pretty mean things about the Russians. How has peaceful world relations (hahahaha) been hurt? Source? Any conference canceled, treaties annulled etc? Well, it's only been a few days. You need time for things to happen. It remains to be seen what actually happens but it's not unreasonable to think that publicized insults towards the leadership of a foreign country we have to work with will dampen things.
It will dampen the leverage American leaders have in backroom dealings with other westernized nations.
I believe this was more or less the point.
It will not effect large scale dealings such as the ability to respond to terrorist threats or deal with rogue states. These events are on such a large scale that this leak won't impact.
|
On December 02 2010 07:51 Slaughter wrote:
This has nothing to do with the merit or non merits of his work but in interviews he really comes off as an arrogant asshole to me.
Dude is nuts.
This is Julian Assange
I've always found women caught in a thunderstorm appealing. Perhaps it is a male universal, for without advertising this proclivity a lovely girl I knew, but not well, on discovering within herself lascivious thoughts about me and noticing raindrops outside her windows, stood for a moment fully clothed in her shower before letting the wind and rain buffet her body as she made her tremulous approach to my door and of course I could not turn her away.
But then, just when one might suspect that men are krill to the baleen of female romantic manipulation, I found myself loving a girl who was a coffee addict. I would make a watery paste of finely ground coffee and surreptitiously smear this around my neck and shoulders before seducing her so she would associate my body with her dopaminergic cravings. But every association relates two objects both ways. She started drinking more and more coffee. Sometimes I looked at her cups of liquid arabicia with envious eyes for if there were four cups then somehow, I was one of them, or a quarter of everyone one of them...
|
On December 02 2010 08:06 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 08:04 Nitan wrote:On December 02 2010 07:57 Half wrote:On December 02 2010 07:48 Nitan wrote:On December 02 2010 07:37 Half wrote:On December 01 2010 19:52 ZerglingSoup wrote:On December 01 2010 19:44 Grumbels wrote:On December 01 2010 13:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I lean towards the opinion that Wikileaks has lost its vision with these new leaklets.
The State Dept. is tasked with maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world and these leaks really undermine the trust that it has with the foreign heads of state. I don't understand why an anti-war group would want this at all. I think it's clear that anymore, Wikileaks is in it for scandal and a sort of twisted authority they've found that they can have over one of the most powerful governments in the world. There's nothing in the cables that wasn't already known by every relevant country. Their goal is not to be solely anti-war; it's that, but it's also being anti-authoritarian, and breaking down the ability of powerful governments to communicate in secret helps. Governments habitually say one thing in private and one thing in public, and this is another step to force the media and such to discuss the issues as they really are. I understand the argument towards transparency in internal politics, but if the US State Department can work with a foreign government to achieve a common goal, but can only do so privately, there is no reason to attack its ability to do so. haha. So what common goal of the public has been hurt by these releases? source plz. Also, I like how government officials openly ask for extrajudicial assassinations on network television. funny shit. Peaceful world relations? We said some pretty mean things about the Russians. How has peaceful world relations (hahahaha) been hurt? Source? Any conference canceled, treaties annulled etc? Well, it's only been a few days. You need time for things to happen. It remains to be seen what actually happens but it's not unreasonable to think that publicized insults towards the leadership of a foreign country we have to work with will dampen things. It will dampen the leverage American leaders have in backroom dealings with other westernized nations. I believe this was more or less the point. It will not effect large scale dealings such as the ability to respond to terrorist threats or deal with rogue states. These events are on such a large scale that this leak won't impact.
No, the point was freedom of information and transparency, not some sort of attack on America. Wikileaks releases everything (like its donor list) which I can respect.
You also underestimate the pettiness of politicians.
|
On December 02 2010 08:07 Nitan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 07:51 Slaughter wrote:
This has nothing to do with the merit or non merits of his work but in interviews he really comes off as an arrogant asshole to me. Dude is nuts. Show nested quote +This is Julian Assange
I've always found women caught in a thunderstorm appealing. Perhaps it is a male universal, for without advertising this proclivity a lovely girl I knew, but not well, on discovering within herself lascivious thoughts about me and noticing raindrops outside her windows, stood for a moment fully clothed in her shower before letting the wind and rain buffet her body as she made her tremulous approach to my door and of course I could not turn her away.
But then, just when one might suspect that men are krill to the baleen of female romantic manipulation, I found myself loving a girl who was a coffee addict. I would make a watery paste of finely ground coffee and surreptitiously smear this around my neck and shoulders before seducing her so she would associate my body with her dopaminergic cravings. But every association relates two objects both ways. She started drinking more and more coffee. Sometimes I looked at her cups of liquid arabicia with envious eyes for if there were four cups then somehow, I was one of them, or a quarter of everyone one of them...
Gandhi was a wifebeater and MLK was an adulterer.
No, the point was freedom of information and transparency, not some sort of attack on America. Wikileaks releases everything (like its donor list) which I can respect.
You also underestimate the pettiness of politicians.
It was an attack on corrupt self serving politicians and diplomats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
