Latest Wikileaks report

So now that they've been released, is anyone shocked by what they've seen? Perhaps the most interesting is that the Arab nations have been lobbying for a strike against Iran. What is interesting is that if the US did strike against Iran we'd all say it was Israel who lobbied and leave it at that.

Aside from a few small nuggets of interesting info, I'd have to say this latest leak seems like a bit of a let down. I like keeping politicians honest and transparency is good thing, but I don't see this as a step towards that. If anything, governments will be more secretive and perhaps less likely to communicate with each other. I'm also not sure why anyone would leak this stuff, it seems to have no purpose unless their purpose was to just embarrass a bunch of people. In that case, job well done, but I was hoping for more serious stuff, you know, like evidence of crimes or something. Government will always keep secrets, always spy on others and have opinions on others. Not much news there. Similar documents from Russia or China would be equally un-newsworthy. If you're gonna leak something, cherry pick the nasty stuff and forget about this shotgun approach.
 
Glaucus said:
Aside from a few small nuggets of interesting info, I'd have to say this latest leak seems like a bit of a let down. I like keeping politicians honest and transparency is good thing, but I don't see this as a step towards that. If anything, governments will be more secretive and perhaps less likely to communicate with each other. I'm also not sure why anyone would leak this stuff, it seems to have no purpose unless their purpose was to just embarrass a bunch of people. In that case, job well done, but I was hoping for more serious stuff, you know, like evidence of crimes or something. Government will always keep secrets, always spy on others and have opinions on others. Not much news there. Similar documents from Russia or China would be equally un-newsworthy. If you're gonna leak something, cherry pick the nasty stuff and forget about this shotgun approach.
Click to expand...

Maybe the leaks aren't all that leaky anymore. Since you can't stop the leaks maybe it's better to use the leaks. Maybe the leaks are already cherry picked before they are "leaked" these days. After Manning's high profile arrest do we think insiders are still leaking stuff that command doesn't want to see go public?

I'm not dismissing the leaks outright. These seem to have been in the pipeline for quite some time. I presume these are the consular communications that were being discussed back when the last leak came out. We know that Arabs don't actually necessarily get along with Persian - it's one of the last things that Saddam said before the US hanged him - watch out for the Persians - and they have gained considerable power since the Iraq debacle. A large number of the Arab governments only exist because of US backing and could quickly be destabilized by foreign interests like Iran.
 
From Lt. Col. Anthony (Vigilant Guardian) Shaffer

[youtube:2ej3w2p9]mD1V49zl8TE[/youtube:2ej3w2p9]
 
Seems the leaks show Obama is a foreign policy dufuss. The revelations are a vindication of what Cheney has been saying all along.

What the Wikileaks documents reveal is a gap between the private assessments of American diplomats and allies in the Middle East and public statements made by U.S. government and State Department officials.

Obama tours the Middle East wanting to talk about Israel & the Palestinians, and the Arab leaders all want to talk about attacking Iran! Apparently the Saudis, are neocons too! Seems to be a behind the scenes Israeli-Arab alliance over Iran.
 
metalman said:
Obama tours the Middle East wanting to talk about Israel & the Palestinians, and the Arab leaders all want to talk about attacking Iran! Apparently the Saudis, are neocons too! Seems to be a behind the scenes Israeli-Arab alliance over Iran.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing something here. If Obama went to the Middle East to talk about attacking Iran, don't you think he'd want a good cover story? Like, oh I don't know, Israel and the Palestinians?

Diplomacy in Action

Conservative critics have portrayed President Barack Obama as an international naif who relies excessively (or even exclusively) on accommodation and engagement. However, the documents show him, in his first few months in the White House, maneuvering to tighten and broaden the scope of economic sanctions.

George W. Bush had also tried to rally a worldwide sanctions campaign, but he faced roadblocks from Russia and China, whose participation was vital to any such effort's success. Both countries had strong trade ties to Iran. (China imported nearly one-eighth of its oil from Iran.) So, the documents show, Obama set out to pry loose those ties or to offer rewards for untangling them.

In the case of China, Obama dispatched Dennis Ross, a White House adviser who had been the Middle East negotiator for Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush (but who had no post in his son's administration), to persuade Saudi Arabia to guarantee that it would supply oil to the Chinese if Iran cut them off. As a result of that assurance, China signed up for sanctions.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me Obama was able to accomplish what Bush tried and failed at. Not sure how you consider this a flop.
 
Glaucus said:
metalman said:
Obama tours the Middle East wanting to talk about Israel & the Palestinians, and the Arab leaders all want to talk about attacking Iran! Apparently the Saudis, are neocons too! Seems to be a behind the scenes Israeli-Arab alliance over Iran.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing something here. If Obama went to the Middle East to talk about attacking Iran, don't you think he'd want a good cover story? Like, oh I don't know, Israel and the Palestinians?

Diplomacy in Action

Conservative critics have portrayed President Barack Obama as an international naif who relies excessively (or even exclusively) on accommodation and engagement. However, the documents show him, in his first few months in the White House, maneuvering to tighten and broaden the scope of economic sanctions.

George W. Bush had also tried to rally a worldwide sanctions campaign, but he faced roadblocks from Russia and China, whose participation was vital to any such effort's success. Both countries had strong trade ties to Iran. (China imported nearly one-eighth of its oil from Iran.) So, the documents show, Obama set out to pry loose those ties or to offer rewards for untangling them.

In the case of China, Obama dispatched Dennis Ross, a White House adviser who had been the Middle East negotiator for Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush (but who had no post in his son's administration), to persuade Saudi Arabia to guarantee that it would supply oil to the Chinese if Iran cut them off. As a result of that assurance, China signed up for sanctions.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me Obama was able to accomplish what Bush tried and failed at. Not sure how you consider this a flop.
Click to expand...
wait!!?? don't tell the teabaggers that Obama actually did something - it will spoil their party :mrgreen:
 
Z-Big's opinion.

It's not a question of worry. It's, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.
Click to expand...
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
From Lt. Col. Anthony (Vigilant Guardian) Shaffer
Click to expand...

Just thought I'd clarify what I meant by that remark.
here and ... yes ... I do seem to be wrong. He is speaking about Able Danger not Vigilant Guardian. My mistake.
 
Mike Huckabee: Execute WikiLeaks Cable Source

"Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty," he told reporters while signing books at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum..
Click to expand...

And then, apparently without irony:
.... blood is on their hands.
Click to expand...

And this medieval, bloodthirsty scumbag was being touted for president.

Assange is currently locked up in the UK, unable to consult his legal team, on a Swedish arrest warrant for rape.
Perhaps he is guilty of rape but it does seem like an incredibly convenient coincidence.

The whole thing riechs of shite.

And now we have Paypal, Mastercard and others being hit by 'revenge' DDOS attacks.
 
TYT's take on the Operation Payback by Anonymous.
[youtube:1fkj5x5r]dH5ZoOZ4fI4[/youtube:1fkj5x5r]
 
Can't argue with anything he said, except that they neglected to mention that Assange did allow access to the leaks to the mainstream media before he posted them online. I'm not convinced that all mainstream media is against him, or at least, it does appear that some media outlets are at the very least neutral (as they should). The sex charges seem a little suspicious to me. And by "little" I mean "a lot"! Can't say with certainty who's pulling the strings though, Assange has a lot of enemies and they all know that right now if anything happens to him the US will likely take the blame. If anything he's lucky to be in custody right now, as I would not be surprised if the Russians or Chinese or Iranians took him out in a way making it look like a CIA hit. Who here would believe anyone other then the US could have killed him? Well, other then me of course. :mrgreen: Not saying the US wouldn't, just saying it's a golden opportunity for anyone else to do so.

I still think Assange misplayed this latest release of leaks. Publishing leaks that only embarrassed people is only a waste, and when you embarrass a LOT of powerful people, you're asking for trouble. If he stuck to more targeted leaks, leaks that show actual illegal behavior like the video of the US gunship killing civilians, then that would show that he's exposing criminals. But the latest release makes him look like he just wanted to {bleep} shit up just like any old anarchist would. This makes it easier for the government to paint him as an enemy to the people instead of their champion. It also makes it easier for the government to pressure companies like Mastercard or PayPal to cut him off.

As for Anonymous? I have nothing against this attack or the one against the RIAA, but who's Anonymous and why should I trust them to serve my interests? Not everyone they've attacked are necessarily people or sites I want to be attacked. They don't only target big corporations or governments, they have a history of targeting smaller sites that they just don't agree with - basically imposing their own form of censorship. So yes, I don't have issues with their current high profile attacks, but I wouldn't go so far as to support them.
 
@Fluffy:

I'd forgotten about the Scott Ritter allegations.

Only serves to reinforce suspicions.

Crying Wolf, etc.
 
Glaucus said:
Assange has a lot of enemies and they all know that right now if anything happens to him the US will likely take the blame. If anything he's lucky to be in custody right now, as I would not be surprised if the Russians or Chinese or Iranians took him out in a way making it look like a CIA hit. Who here would believe anyone other then the US could have killed him? Well, other then me of course. :mrgreen: Not saying the US wouldn't, just saying it's a golden opportunity for anyone else to do so.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

As for Anonymous? I have nothing against this attack or the one against the RIAA, but who's Anonymous..
Click to expand...

Bravo!
That made me smile.

and why should I trust them to serve my interests?
Click to expand...

Indeed. I don't think too many people are saying we should trust them, right enough.
 
This has taken an interesting turn.

It's just been on the BBC news that the Swedish authorities are claiming the appeal lodged against Assange being released on bail is at the behest of the UK.

The UK prosecution service are claiming to only be acting on Swedish instructions.

Also, it is claimed that, even if convicted of this in Sweden, it is highly unlikely he would be given a prison sentence, yet he is currently being denied bail.

Curiouser and curiouser.....
 
Looks like he'll be out on bail for xmas at least - just being announced on TV.
 
It still boggles my mind that the man could be wanted for sex crimes ... in SWEDEN!!!
 
The charges have some questionable (and unintentionally comic) aspects.
Hell has no fury like ...

Step 7 ‘Go to it and keep your goal in sight. Make sure your victim suffers just as you did.’

''Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte."

In this case it looks like he doubled up on the scorning.
 
Going back to what wikileaks has released (and that we therefore know that we didn't know before) ...
[youtube:30yfuuzq]rsXefHSnurQ[/youtube:30yfuuzq]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top