Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Wikileaks...

A.steve

By A.steve,
in The off-topic forum

Recommended Posts

A.steve

A.steve

Posted
Posted

Hrafnsson, speaking at an event in London, confirmed that the website had information about the operations of a U.S. bank, but declined to identify it.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6B11XC20101202

I'm not sure what to make of this. Right now, Wikileaks is centre stage with its massive leak of politically sensitive materials. If they're now about to blow the lid on a US bank, I imagine this is even more likely to be a politically dangerous move... yet they announce, ahead of time, what they plan to do... at a time when embarrassed politicians are unlikely to offer support.

Is this a big bluff? Is the big political splurge a cleverly selected bunch of materials that we should expect to give context to the next leak? What is the purpose of announcing that there will be a leak? Is this a bluff move? Do this crowd know what they're doing - or are we witnessing a shambles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Confounded

Confounded

Posted
Posted

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6B11XC20101202

I'm not sure what to make of this. Right now, Wikileaks is centre stage with its massive leak of politically sensitive materials. If they're now about to blow the lid on a US bank, I imagine this is even more likely to be a politically dangerous move... yet they announce, ahead of time, what they plan to do... at a time when embarrassed politicians are unlikely to offer support.

Is this a big bluff? Is the big political splurge a cleverly selected bunch of materials that we should expect to give context to the next leak? What is the purpose of announcing that there will be a leak? Is this a bluff move? Do this crowd know what they're doing - or are we witnessing a shambles?

What can they leak on a bank that is not already known?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A.steve

A.steve

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What can they leak on a bank that is not already known?

Thar's what made the news particularly interesting.

If this next leak is even in the same league as the diplomatic one currently making headlines, it will be real, yet plausible, news .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maddog21

Maddog21

Posted
Posted

Domain name provider forces Wikileaks offline

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11907641

The website of whistle-blowing organisation Wikileaks has been shut down by the company providing it with domain name services.

EveryDNS.net said it had terminated services because Wikileaks.org had come under massive cyber attacks.

I love the smell of freedom of speech in the morning

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wahoo

Wahoo

Posted
Posted

Its been banjo'ed.

The gestapo are alive and well in the US of A

They're trying real hard to shut it down...

Wikigone

We love free speech, we love Democracy.........Blah Blah Blah

Bullshiite

I have just emailed Amazon, informing them that I will never buy from them again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
blankster

blankster

Posted
Posted

Wikilleaks is now reported as being permanently closed down by its domain host.

Wikileaks and it's closure probably marks a turning point in the history of the internet, as it will become an increasingly regulated and controlled environment.

One question that needs to be asked is whether Wikileaks did more harm than good. For instance a lot of Americans on the internet say that British troops haven't pulled their weight in Afghanistan (and also Iraq). Now it's confirmed that US officials actually said this and so did the President of Afghanistan, according to Wikileaks.

Even I, as a leftie, have misgivings about a site like Wikileaks, because a minor thing said in private by a drunken official could start a war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
blankster

blankster

Posted
Posted

How verifiable is all this stuff that appeared on Wikileaks? I'm sure some was genuine, but can we be sure it all was?

A few years ago predicted the Iraq conflict could lead to war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. After revelations about what the King of Saudi said, it looks like I wasn't too wide of the mark, although I thought it would be the result of them backing opposing sides in a Shia / Sunni civil war in Iraq.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bearORbullENIGMA

bearORbullENIGMA

Posted
Posted

Julian Assange is supposed to be online right this moment taking questions on the Guardian website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Subject to internet connection of course.

"Update: we are currently experiencing technical difficulties on guardian.co.uk"

Link to post
Share on other sites
bearORbullENIGMA

bearORbullENIGMA

Posted
Posted

Julian Assange is supposed to be online right this moment taking questions on the Guardian website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Subject to internet connection of course.

Assange is now online.

He has replied to Arshavinslittlelegs question:

"Is there anything we can do to help??"

His answer:

"Yes."

Link to post
Share on other sites
bearORbullENIGMA

bearORbullENIGMA

Posted
Posted

Julian Assange is supposed to be online right this moment taking questions on the Guardian website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Subject to internet connection of course.

"Update: Thank you for all your questions. We are temporarily closing comments and will post Julian Assange's answers as soon as we can."

Link to post
Share on other sites
tinker

tinker

Posted
Posted

I was just going to post that link General.

The Daily Mash on the money again.

JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CRUSHING WIKILEAKS, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE NEXT, SAY GOVERNMENTS

03-12-10

GOVERNMENTS around the world today stressed that just because they are trying to crush Wikileaks to death, it does not necessarily mean that you will be next.

Important officials in fancy offices in grand capital cities said the only reason they are erasing the whistleblowing site from existence and trying to arrest its spokesman on some trumped-up rape charge was because it had done some things they didn't particularly like.

One government spokesman said: "We know that you wouldn't do that. Sure, you might get upset about budget cuts, but that's all part of the everyday rough and tumble. It's not like you are engaged in a relentless campaign to expose us as liars, cheats and murderers.

"No, as far as you're concerned everything is going to be just fine. As long as you just keep watching television.

"Of course at some point we may have to step in and decide exactly which television programmes you're allowed to watch, but again, it's really nothing for you to get all worked up about.

"Especially with your diabetes and your high blood pressure."

He added: "No, you'll be just fine with it, and of course if you weren't, then we would just switch you off as easily as pressing the stand-by button on your remote control. But that's obviously not going to happen to you. For goodness sake, why on earth would it?

"So we're agreed then - everything's cool and that man that we're beating to death in the corner of the room is just some smart-alec with a horrible website - probably with photos of children on it - that could very easily have killed you. Good.

"Anyway, I think that's the second half of Loose Women coming on, so I'll let you get back to it.

"Sorry to have bothered you.

All rather chilling. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • 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.

  I accept