Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Milton

Wiki-Leaks

Recommended Posts

The existing structure and strategy of the USA remains a near-total mystery to the Average Citizen who pay the bills, and whose children fight America's Wars

1.] Yes. Wikileaks stands for the sacred liberal principles of Democracy, and the people have a right to freedom of information regarding their governments activities.

2.] No. Information must be censored, as secrecy is neccesary for Governments to operate effectively in securing the interests of their nation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the question is too simplistic as it depends too much on what info is being published. If it's relating to serious breaches of the law then it's probably justified to publish it. If it's merely someones person opinion from remarks made essentially in private then that may be a different matter.

The other problem is the way in which it was published. Vast amounts of info all dumped on the internet at once. No one is going to make me believe that wikileaks have read though every page and carfeully studied the impact of releasing it. Even if they have, there is no way they could possibly know about other factors which may endager people or have wider security implications.

On blance though, it's all pretty harmless from what I can see. I mean, the fact that Prince Andrew made some disparaging comments about the frogs is hardly of earth shattering importance and is probably in line with what most Brits think anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes.

But that's in the context of a world where we've lost trust in our leaders. In better times (pre-Liar in the UK), I'd need to weigh it up a lot more carefully before reaching a decision. Or indeed in worse times: what secrets would've been right to leak in 1939-45?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exhibit A:

April 2010 WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Footage like this would never have been released by the Mainstream Media.

Would the Military have released this footage? I highly doubt it.

Do the 'American People' have a right to see it?

I would say unequivocally, Yes.

[Can anyone tell me if this footage was ever shown by the BBC, Channel 4, or ITV news?]

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack.
The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers.

View the link below with caution. Or Do Not.

The Apache Gunner, acts as if he is going for a high score on a video game.

This is an extreme example. And should not be viewed lightly. {It is sickening.}

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.
The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

There is an argument that without the release of this type of footage, The Senate, would not be urging the U.S Military, to change the Rules of Engagement that the U.S Military adhere to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on, Send him a Tenner........;)

Julian Assange Defence Fund

Please donate directly to the Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks Staff Defence Fund. These funds will be used exclusively for defence costs

To donate please do an electronic bank transfer (EFT) to:

PostFinance

SWISS POST

Account number: 91-765019-6

IBAN:CH55 0900 0000 9176 5019 6

BIC:POFICHBEXXX

Account name:Assange Julian Paul, Geneve

Address::Swiss Post

PostFinance

Engehaldenstrasse, 37

3030

Bern, Switzerland

–>

1. Online Transfer via Credit Card

Using our friendly credit card processing partner Datacell Switzerland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Footage like this would never have been released by the Mainstream Media.

[Can anyone tell me if this footage was ever shown by the BBC, Channel 4, or ITV news?]

I first saw it on the Internet (YouTube IIRC) and I am sure I have seen heavily edited clips on TV since. I think the editing was on the grounds of taste rather than keeping viewers in the dark.

In this particular case, I am pretty sure that mainstream TV would have shown it, if they had had access to the video in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list of locations has outraged some people I know.

They feel like it's a list for opportunist terrorists.

It's not. It's a list of rather dull places that wouldn't cause mayhem if they were attacked... A colbalt mine in Congo is amongst them.

If you wanted to strike terror in the UK and cause major chaos and panic, shooting a couple of z-list celebs would have more affect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list of locations has outraged some people I know.

They feel like it's a list for opportunist terrorists.

It's not. It's a list of rather dull places that wouldn't cause mayhem if they were attacked... A colbalt mine in Congo is amongst them.

If you wanted to strike terror in the UK and cause major chaos and panic, shooting a couple of z-list celebs would have more affect...

You are being very selective in your one example. Attacking many of the other targets would have a more immediate effect.

You are also assuming that terrorists (or other agencies) would not have a long-term strategy.

Icidentally, there are few reliable/lawful sources of cobalt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list of locations has outraged some people I know.

They feel like it's a list for opportunist terrorists.

It's not. It's a list of rather dull places that wouldn't cause mayhem if they were attacked... A colbalt mine in Congo is amongst them.

If you wanted to strike terror in the UK and cause major chaos and panic, shooting a couple of z-list celebs would have more affect...

Happy_renting is correct. The 7/7 bombers could have caused vastly more damage to the UK, and saved untold suffering of survivors and the victims families, if they had targeted the communication network within the City of London. Several well placed devices at refineries and gas-pipe landing points would soon tilt us into civil unrest.

Wikileaks (although I have no real problem with previous disclosures that I've read) have provided a target list for any numpty with a grudge

Assassination of a,b....z list celebrities will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the great proletariat, but that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wanting to be insulting, my initial impression upon hearing that Wikileaks had released 'sites' of importance, that Terrorists could target, was the government via the media, were doing a piss poor job of trying to 'pull the wool over our eyes.'

I did not for one second think people would fall for it.....!:rolleyes:

Lets face it, Wikileaks released a dozen UK sites, including two telecommunications centres, several undersea communications cables, and a military manufacturing plant

If I was a terrorist, I'm positive It would take very little time to come to come up with a hundred such sites, which I could attack, that would have a devastating impact.

And the media impact, being one of the main goals of terrorists, would suggest going to the type of trouble the media are suggesting is fantasy land, when you could blow up a bus or perform some much simpler terrorist act, with a far better chance of success.

To say that Wiki have published 'Terror Targets' , the government would also have to have analysed a load of other data.

Excuse me, but do you really think a couple of religous zealots, with rucksacks full of hydrogen peroxide could plan an attack to cut undersea comms cables?

What a load of ********.

Are these the type of target the terrorists would aim for?

How likely they are to attack infastructure as a pose to something like dropping a bucket of arsenic in the water supply?

And would the terrorists even try? Im highly scpetical, that this would be a prefered target of the type of homegrown terrorists that we produce.

And the people who have fallen for such government rhetoric, baffle me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't vote as there's no option to select the information published is pointless.

Surely that is a question of perception? And how the information affects you personally?

I do not understand your point.

[As in the example above. If it was a member of your family who was gunned down, yet the tape, and information pertaining to the tape was withheld, but then was released to you by Wikileaks. Would you consider it pointless? Or worthless?]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so does anyone here have the "insurance" file?

No point really. It will have been downloaded so many millions of times, as soon as it is released, the de-crypted version will be available everywhere.

[i'd like to hear the alternative p.o.v, from the people who voted No. in the poll.]

Bulltraderpt, and GStar66. [No posts at all, on any thread for Gstar66. Is this someones secondary account?]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point really. It will have been downloaded so many millions of times, as soon as it is released, the de-crypted version will be available everywhere.

[i'd like to hear the alternative p.o.v, from the people who voted No. in the poll.]

Bulltraderpt, and GStar66. [No posts at all, on any thread for Gstar66. Is this someones secondary account?]

I think it highly unlikely that these files will ever get released.

My gut feeling, is that the whole episode will quickly come to a head. He has got some big guns behind him now - Pilger, Loach, Khan et al. I also understand that Geoffrey Robertson,QC, Australian Human Rights Lawyer, has ended his vacation early to defend him. Julia Gillard is backtracking on her previous dumb comments, and public opinion in Australia is that they have let him down.

Public opinion will become such a cacophony of noise, that authorities will back down asap.

Apart from those thickies over the pond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a terrorist, I'm positive It would take very little time to come to come up with a hundred such sites, which I could attack, that would have a devastating impact.

...and Wikileaks has revealed which of your hundred are considered by the US to be critical to their interests and security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Wikileaks has revealed which of your hundred are considered by the US to be critical to their interests and security.

You do not know that. Wikileaks does not know that. And who believes the US government?

Also do not believe that my government, or the US government has my best interests at heart either. Why should I blindly trust what they tell me?

Most important to our Governments is to control the flow of information to their own citizens. Its ALL about control. They will never give it up easily. If this is the beginning of a revolution in media. Its long overdue. [surely this cannot be 'news' to anyone. We all, already know this]

Critical in what regard? Is the heightened risk from Muslim fundamentalists? Or Russia? etc.

Surely certain sites will be more critical than others, dependant on who the risk is from, and what form it takes?

And I plucked a hundred out of the air. I could just as easily have said 10,000 sites.

And what about the rest of my post?

Sorry ~Dont buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Wikileaks has revealed which of your hundred are considered by the US to be critical to their interests and security.

And?

It reminds me of a passage in "The Dam Busters". Before WW11 an eminent German scientist wrote about how seriously their economy could be damaged if if the dams holding their reservoirs were breached. When Barnes Wallis put his proposal to the top brass he was ordered to treat his ideas as top secret. Of course he did even though the information was already in the public domain.

I think the same applies here. More pertinently how dare the americans think they rule the world and can make everyone kowtow to their sensibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the content I have posted I want to add I am certainly not anti-American per se.

Im sure the majority of Americans feel the same way we do. In fact some of the most lauded historical figures, would be the loudest critics of their own government.

God only knows what someone like Mark Twain would have said, about the USA's Rules Of Engagement, and the hundreds of thousands of 'collateral casualties' in Iraq.

Considering Twain's views on 'Mans Inhumanity against his fellow Man'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on, Send him a Tenner........;)

Julian Assange Defence Fund

Please donate directly to the Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks Staff Defence Fund. These funds will be used exclusively for defence costs

To donate please do an electronic bank transfer (EFT) to:

PostFinance

SWISS POST

Account number: 91-765019-6

IBAN:CH55 0900 0000 9176 5019 6

BIC:POFICHBEXXX

Account name:Assange Julian Paul, Geneve

Address::Swiss Post

PostFinance

Engehaldenstrasse, 37

3030

Bern, Switzerland

–>

1. Online Transfer via Credit Card

Using our friendly credit card processing partner Datacell Switzerland.

isn,t this account the one that they have denied access to funds today :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grauniad have a decent summary of the whole situation here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks

I dont think you can simply say leaks are good or bad, there are probably a few details in those files that should be hidden if they are putting troops at risk but the vast vast majority 99.999% is only bad because it shows up the truth about western governments.

Funny how the whole "if youve got nothing to hide" argument they use with CCTV and ID cards, suddenly doesn't seem to apply when the boots on the other foot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.