Wikileaks
- Thread starter Hamm
- Start date
Every country does whatever it wants in its own interest at the time. We still have little idea of the amount of hand-holding under the table.
We funded tribal chiefs which included members of the now 'Taleban' when it suited us to destroy the Russian invaders in Afghanistan. Now we have properties in Belgravia owned by Russians - and even football clubs.
I listened to Peking Radio spouting out to the assorted tribes of then Northern Rhodesia to throw off the shackles of the imperialist oppressor/bloated capitalist pigs and their running dogs. Now the country's got several billionaires, let alone millionaires, and it has replaced the imperialist oppressor in taking over rail lines and copper mines, none run with the slightest nod to Health, Safety, and the progress of the indigenous peoples. So much for the cant from Canton.
I have a friend who still won't buy Japanese cars because of how nasty they were in WWII, rather forgetting about the unpleasantness of Germany at that time. The Nippons were appalling to captive Australian troops, beheading and torturing many who didn't die from malnutrition, disease, and overwork, but now Oz encourages them in their thousands as tourists, where they are made most welcome. My friend's small gesture seems outdated and slightly absurd given the change wrought in a few decades.
Everything changes over time, which means shifts in allegiances in accordance with what's best for one's own position.
I can't think there's anything revealed about the Wikileaks scenario that has sent me reeling and in need of smelling salts. The Saudis a bit concerned about Iran? No shit! Would they like Ahmedinajad out of the way? Yes, of course they would. Like they'd have liked the Ayatollah Khomeini out of the way back in 1979, when he was exhorting Saudi Shi'ites to rise up against the imperialist oppressors and their running dogs (the Saudi royal family-cum-government). The eager purchasers of BAe Systems weaponry, equipment, and training nous has been tormented by native dissidents since the 1960s, through the 1970s in particular with the seige of Mecca and onwards by homegrown extremists - some who'd like the royals out and an even stricter regime imposed, some who'd like the royals out and a democracy instead of an autocracy. There are regular street shoot-outs in the country between Iranian-inspired or Al-Queda-inspired groups, but we hear little of it in the UK.
Prince Andrew a buffoon? Seriously? No, I'd always thought the British royals represented the most finely-tuned of intellects...
Governments have been brought down by leaked scandals, lest we forget the Profumo Affair, high-placed ministers ruined by tabloid smears involving their personal lives (Jeremy Thorpe, Lord Boothby, et al), you name it. Only last month, a 'very funny' book was published revealing the letters sent by British ambassadors in various outposts round the world, criticising the halitosis of this or that PM or Prez, the disgusting state of their lavatories, the backwardness of the people, etc., etc. And these were recent whines, not culled from 17C diaries.
It was inevitable that as soon as the Wikileaks appeared, there'd be the usual drum-beating about how there would be 'blood'. Why? One country's rep opining that another could do with being bombed? When Iran, for example, has quite openly and blatantly announced it'd quite like to see Israel 'wiped off the map'?
As for dissidents, I can't think there are too many of those not known to the types of governments which beget them. They'll be disappeared or murdered soon enough - lest we forget the ricin and plutonium murders right here in London by the KGB or its replacement oppressor? And that of Litvinyenko right at the time that English estate agents were eagerly selling off prime London real estate to his billionaire brethren from his utterly corrupted country, too. That's how well we protect dissidents, and that was without Wiki.
We funded tribal chiefs which included members of the now 'Taleban' when it suited us to destroy the Russian invaders in Afghanistan. Now we have properties in Belgravia owned by Russians - and even football clubs.
I listened to Peking Radio spouting out to the assorted tribes of then Northern Rhodesia to throw off the shackles of the imperialist oppressor/bloated capitalist pigs and their running dogs. Now the country's got several billionaires, let alone millionaires, and it has replaced the imperialist oppressor in taking over rail lines and copper mines, none run with the slightest nod to Health, Safety, and the progress of the indigenous peoples. So much for the cant from Canton.
I have a friend who still won't buy Japanese cars because of how nasty they were in WWII, rather forgetting about the unpleasantness of Germany at that time. The Nippons were appalling to captive Australian troops, beheading and torturing many who didn't die from malnutrition, disease, and overwork, but now Oz encourages them in their thousands as tourists, where they are made most welcome. My friend's small gesture seems outdated and slightly absurd given the change wrought in a few decades.
Everything changes over time, which means shifts in allegiances in accordance with what's best for one's own position.
I can't think there's anything revealed about the Wikileaks scenario that has sent me reeling and in need of smelling salts. The Saudis a bit concerned about Iran? No shit! Would they like Ahmedinajad out of the way? Yes, of course they would. Like they'd have liked the Ayatollah Khomeini out of the way back in 1979, when he was exhorting Saudi Shi'ites to rise up against the imperialist oppressors and their running dogs (the Saudi royal family-cum-government). The eager purchasers of BAe Systems weaponry, equipment, and training nous has been tormented by native dissidents since the 1960s, through the 1970s in particular with the seige of Mecca and onwards by homegrown extremists - some who'd like the royals out and an even stricter regime imposed, some who'd like the royals out and a democracy instead of an autocracy. There are regular street shoot-outs in the country between Iranian-inspired or Al-Queda-inspired groups, but we hear little of it in the UK.
Prince Andrew a buffoon? Seriously? No, I'd always thought the British royals represented the most finely-tuned of intellects...
Governments have been brought down by leaked scandals, lest we forget the Profumo Affair, high-placed ministers ruined by tabloid smears involving their personal lives (Jeremy Thorpe, Lord Boothby, et al), you name it. Only last month, a 'very funny' book was published revealing the letters sent by British ambassadors in various outposts round the world, criticising the halitosis of this or that PM or Prez, the disgusting state of their lavatories, the backwardness of the people, etc., etc. And these were recent whines, not culled from 17C diaries.
It was inevitable that as soon as the Wikileaks appeared, there'd be the usual drum-beating about how there would be 'blood'. Why? One country's rep opining that another could do with being bombed? When Iran, for example, has quite openly and blatantly announced it'd quite like to see Israel 'wiped off the map'?
As for dissidents, I can't think there are too many of those not known to the types of governments which beget them. They'll be disappeared or murdered soon enough - lest we forget the ricin and plutonium murders right here in London by the KGB or its replacement oppressor? And that of Litvinyenko right at the time that English estate agents were eagerly selling off prime London real estate to his billionaire brethren from his utterly corrupted country, too. That's how well we protect dissidents, and that was without Wiki.
Last edited:
And Mastercard, using DDoSing malware. (She says, not having a clue!) But doesn't this throw up a fascinating New World in some ways? No need any more to throw prehistoric bombs - just whack companies' sites until they get so tired of having to bring in anti-hackware etc. that they restore full services.
The Wikileaks business, though, only exists because, presumably, one of America's finest decided to either hit back at his employers for some reason, or because he was motivated by some real desire to have the right to free speech - by politicos and others - more widely known. The USA is very proud of its right to 'free speech' (tested by the right of extremists to spout hate, as is ours), which inherently must include the right to express those words in whatever medium is current. But as soon as someone else's 'right' doesn't coincide with America's own limited world view, it reacts in an entirely hostile, bloodthirsty manner, ready to smash a peanut with a jackhammer, it seems. Their right to bear arms (mostly against other men) seems to be over-bearing, inasmuchas they would batter their own government's dissidents' right to free speech and anyone else's if it's not in their self-interest. America, you can't have it both ways. It is, or it isn't, a right. It is, or it isn't, free. It cannot be a right on some occasions which you decide on the day. It cannot be free when it suits you, not free when it doesn't. That Constitution states inviolable rights - not fuzzy guidelines to be adjusted every few weeks to fit with the current mindset.
The Wikileaks business, though, only exists because, presumably, one of America's finest decided to either hit back at his employers for some reason, or because he was motivated by some real desire to have the right to free speech - by politicos and others - more widely known. The USA is very proud of its right to 'free speech' (tested by the right of extremists to spout hate, as is ours), which inherently must include the right to express those words in whatever medium is current. But as soon as someone else's 'right' doesn't coincide with America's own limited world view, it reacts in an entirely hostile, bloodthirsty manner, ready to smash a peanut with a jackhammer, it seems. Their right to bear arms (mostly against other men) seems to be over-bearing, inasmuchas they would batter their own government's dissidents' right to free speech and anyone else's if it's not in their self-interest. America, you can't have it both ways. It is, or it isn't, a right. It is, or it isn't, free. It cannot be a right on some occasions which you decide on the day. It cannot be free when it suits you, not free when it doesn't. That Constitution states inviolable rights - not fuzzy guidelines to be adjusted every few weeks to fit with the current mindset.
Last edited:
Found a little nugget squirrelled away in an article about Tony Elliott, founder of Time Out mag, who's just released a 50% stake in it to equity house Oakley Capital, due to falling revenues. I wasn't aware that he got into some trouble for once publishing a list of CIA operatives.
One might ask whose interests were served by that caper? But clearly lives weren't lost and there wasn't any 'blood', because I'm fairly sure the CIA would've been very capable of ensuring he met a convincing end via a 'totally unexpected' heart attack, or was the victim of a 'mistaken identity' killing.
Meanwhile, the august Washington Post has opined that the leaks are well short of killer revelations. "It's hardly shocking to hear that President Sarkozy is high-handed, given that a diplomat described him in a cable as 'thin-skinned and authoritarian', or to Italians that their Prez has a reputation for 'partying hard'. Most of these so-called secrets were already in the public sphere."
Seriously, would the security-paranoid USA publish really important secrets on a network accessible to a junior intelligence analyst, which is viewed by more than TWO MILLION US personnel estimated to have access to Siprnet? It mightn't be widely known that the Saudis were pressing America to attack Iran, but presumably some in the US government will be pleased that the world now knows that Israel isn't the only country in the Middle East who wants Iran bombed!
As for Hilary Clinton allegedly calling on US diplomats to spy on the UN (in contravention of international covenants) and then shrieking about the leaks being an 'attack on the international community' - hmm, what's that about thinking the lady doth protest too much?
One might ask whose interests were served by that caper? But clearly lives weren't lost and there wasn't any 'blood', because I'm fairly sure the CIA would've been very capable of ensuring he met a convincing end via a 'totally unexpected' heart attack, or was the victim of a 'mistaken identity' killing.
Meanwhile, the august Washington Post has opined that the leaks are well short of killer revelations. "It's hardly shocking to hear that President Sarkozy is high-handed, given that a diplomat described him in a cable as 'thin-skinned and authoritarian', or to Italians that their Prez has a reputation for 'partying hard'. Most of these so-called secrets were already in the public sphere."
Seriously, would the security-paranoid USA publish really important secrets on a network accessible to a junior intelligence analyst, which is viewed by more than TWO MILLION US personnel estimated to have access to Siprnet? It mightn't be widely known that the Saudis were pressing America to attack Iran, but presumably some in the US government will be pleased that the world now knows that Israel isn't the only country in the Middle East who wants Iran bombed!
As for Hilary Clinton allegedly calling on US diplomats to spy on the UN (in contravention of international covenants) and then shrieking about the leaks being an 'attack on the international community' - hmm, what's that about thinking the lady doth protest too much?
Oooh, just found another little nugget! (Most of this guff courtesy of The Week mag, dated 4 December.) From the City section, quoting Simon English of the London Evening Standard:
"An intriguing snippet from an interview with Forbes magazine suggests that (Assange's) ambitions extend well beyond politics and the diplomatic community. Assange relates that he will soon release a batch of emails from inside Wall Street that "could take down a bank or two" - in much the same way as email evidence secured the fate of Enron. Two years on from the banking crisis, it's noteworthy that there hasn't been a single prosecution for the subprime mortgage bubble, despite evidence that the edifice was built on fraud.
"So far, the worst thing to afflict Wall Street bankers has been shame (Dick Fuld), government bail-outs they insist they didn't need but were happy to take anyway (Goldman Sachs), and a temporary delay in bonus payments (weep in unison)." If Assange really has got the goods, this could be a huge development.
No doubt there will be influential voices arguing that Assange should leave the banks alone because fresh revelations could damage stability. I say, let's see what he's got."
What's the betting that the USA would far rather see the Saudis very slightly miffed about wanting to see Tehran reduced to rubble than have Wikileaks weeing all over the remains of their shoddily-run banking system?
"An intriguing snippet from an interview with Forbes magazine suggests that (Assange's) ambitions extend well beyond politics and the diplomatic community. Assange relates that he will soon release a batch of emails from inside Wall Street that "could take down a bank or two" - in much the same way as email evidence secured the fate of Enron. Two years on from the banking crisis, it's noteworthy that there hasn't been a single prosecution for the subprime mortgage bubble, despite evidence that the edifice was built on fraud.
"So far, the worst thing to afflict Wall Street bankers has been shame (Dick Fuld), government bail-outs they insist they didn't need but were happy to take anyway (Goldman Sachs), and a temporary delay in bonus payments (weep in unison)." If Assange really has got the goods, this could be a huge development.
No doubt there will be influential voices arguing that Assange should leave the banks alone because fresh revelations could damage stability. I say, let's see what he's got."
What's the betting that the USA would far rather see the Saudis very slightly miffed about wanting to see Tehran reduced to rubble than have Wikileaks weeing all over the remains of their shoddily-run banking system?
What evidence?
The US is articularly strong on fraudulent trading and business parctices (more so than over here....eu? italy? ) and what has occured is now very out in the open. It was bad bets and bad judgements but it wasnt a stamford. there is a big difference
You'll have to address your views to Simon English, clivex - what I've put up are quotes, not opinions.
Gal - oh, why, why can't the daft bint keep her trap shut? That way she'd give the impression of some intelligence! She and Dubya would've been the perfect couple.
Gal - oh, why, why can't the daft bint keep her trap shut? That way she'd give the impression of some intelligence! She and Dubya would've been the perfect couple.