another terrorist group

[PLAYER57832]

I am forever pessimist. I used to believe, back when I was young (5 years ago) that when people knew what was going on, that when we had some sort of proof.. things would change, people would demand and succeed in punishing those who deserved it.

But we know a lot of stuff now, and we don't care, and nothing happens really. For instance we know that W. Bush didn't win in 2000. We know that Iraq didn't have WMD. What has happened with that? Oh, but Clinton surely deserve it for getting a blowjob.

In Mexico we know that Salinas didn't win in 1988 and in 2006 we allowed the same thing to happen (exactly, one candidate was winning, the computers are shutdown and when they are back up, the other candidate is winning!).

Why do we want to know really? Moral judgements don't make much to these guys. Are we so eager to prove moral superiority? Wake me up when people is ready to do something.

But see, that is the problem with stuff like Wikkileaks. Nothing they present is truly of that level importance. However, it does divert people for a time.

What I ask is what is really going on while so many are scrambling over this. And... as I said before, how much harder will it now be to get real stuff?

regardless as to whether or not WL is real or fake, this blind-trust-in-the-leadership attitude exhibited by these two commenters is how a certain country in central Europe stumbled into committing the Holocaust

Trust in leadership??? From what I have seen, this stuff is just stupid. Embarrassing, but not in a fun way, just in a "he farted at dinner" way. It's just good manners to ignore it. I mean, so a lot of Arab countries are not too happy with Iran, some leaders made dumb comments, etc, etc... big deal and not particular true secrets. So, unless there is something really good that all the news media is ignoring, its [yawn].

We're talking about a quarter million documents that have only been out for about a day.. Mainstream news organizations like the New York Times have pledged not to fully disclose what these documents contain:
The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world ... rnote.html

It's going to take a bit of time to go through the details of this release. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still unturned stones in the first two packages...

Keep digging. I imagine there will be a few headlines, particularly if the news front is otherwise dull. However, for all the fuss about releasing this stuff, the major compromises will be in releasing informant names.. something I hardly support. I mean, regardless of your politics, someone (almost certainly low-level folks anyway) doesn't deserve to be thrown under a bus just because they choose to work for the CIA.. unless they DO deserve that, and frankly, you won't hear about those that do. Then you have some political outfall as other leaders are embarrassed, truly the diplomatic equivalent of kindergarten tattling.

But, folks attention will be diverted for a while.

[saxitoxin]

But see, that is the problem with stuff like Wikkileaks. Nothing they present is truly of that level importance. However, it does divert people for a time.

LOL, hilarious.

Sorry kapo, if you don't think revelations that German citizens are being yanked off the streets of Hamburg and whisked away to be tortured for 3 months in Afghanistan by accident, that the French ambassador is having his security info stolen by Obama spies on the eve of the French government deciding to turn-over control of their armed forces to the U.S., are "truly of that level importance" you're hopeless.

You don't care whose civil rights are violated or what war crimes are perpetrated as long as the people violating them or perpetrating them are wearing a red armband when they're doing it.

What a sycophant!

I've never in my life called anyone an "ugly American" but you - my dear - make me teeter on the edge.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry kapo, if you don't think revelations that German citizens are being yanked off the streets of Hamburg and whisked away to be tortured for 3 months in Afghanistan by accident, that the French ambassador is having his security info stolen by Obama spies on the eve of the French government deciding to turn-over control of their armed forces to the U.S., are "truly of that level importance" you're hopeless.

I did miss that bit about German citizens being yanked and its possible there are new people mentioned for that. However, rendition is old news, as is the rest of what was presented.

Overall, I think this will result in crimping down on release of information to which we should be advised, not more release.

[saxitoxin]

I did miss that bit about German citizens being yanked and its possible there are new people mentioned for that. However, rendition is old news ...

apologize, excuse, spin

Seems like you "miss" a lot. Is using espionage to manipulate a UN Security Council member to turn over control of their armed forces to you "old news" as well? What's the party talking point to minimize that one?

Go back to sleep, dear. There are plenty of kapos here already.

[saxitoxin]

LMAO, Randy Andy comes off as a slightly raving madman with a serious case of penis envy in this cable.

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/20 ... html#par12

My FAV parts:

British Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic Paul Brummell invited the Ambassador to participate in briefing His Royal Highness Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, ahead of his October 28 meetings with Kyrgyz Prime Minister Igor Chudinov and other high-level officials. The Prince was in Kyrgyzstan to promote British economic interests. Originally scheduled to last an hour over brunch, the briefing ended up lasting two hours, thanks to the super-engaged Prince’s pointed questions. The Ambassador was the only participant who was not a British subject or linked to the Commonwealth. The absence of her French and German colleagues was notable; they were apparently not invited despite being fellow members of the European Union.

Prince Andrew reached out to the Ambassador with cordiality and respect, evidently valuing her insights. However, he reacted with almost neuralgic patriotism whenever any comparison between the United States and United Kingdom came up. For example, one British businessman noted that despite the “overwhelming might of the American economy compared to ours” the amount of American and British investment in Kyrgyzstan was similar. Snapped the Duke: “No surprise there. The Americans don’t understand geography. Never have. In the U.K., we have the best geography teachers in the world!”

Ol' Saxi likes learning new English words and "neuralgic" is my new word-of-the-week!

[PLAYER57832]

Seems like you "miss" a lot.

Like I said, none of this leaked information is really new, other than the bits to purely embarrass other leaders..

[karel]

i hope this prv that leaked this stuff out gets found guilty of treason

[saxitoxin]

Seems like you "miss" a lot.

Like I said, none of this leaked information is really new, other than the bits to purely embarrass other leaders..

OK, kapo - quickly direct me to where it's previously been reported Hillary Clinton has ordered diplomats to collect DNA samples of world leaders -- just a quick URL will do - thanks!

Please do reply. I need a couple good new quotes --

i hope this prv that leaked this stuff out gets found guilty of treason

But you probably said the same thing about Rosa Parks.

[saxitoxin]

BTW - if a washed-up Australian neo-hippy is stealing 300K classified U.S. documents imagine what the federation's Federal Security Bureau is doing even as I type this. Americans should be on their knees thanking God for wikileaks if it motivates their defence establishment to engage in greater information compartmentalization. Seriously - why does an Army PFC in Kuwait need access to a personality assessment of Prince Andrew by the ambassador in Kazahkstan?

The real thing wikileaks exposed is what a bumbling gaggle of buffoons the U.S. is when it comes to einsatzgeheimhaltung (forget what the English was for that word again, like TopSec or something). That's why the bureaucracy is blustering the "danger! danger!" line, not because there's really any danger but because they look like total fools and people can only imagine to what secrets the Russian Federation or People's Republic of China has access if half-a-dozen World-of-Warcraft players have this much.

[saxitoxin]

Kudos to Ecuador for their egalitarian worldview. President Correa definitely is walking the path of international socialist solidarity in the Americas with comrades Castro, Chavez and Morales. El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!

Ecuador on Monday offered Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who has enraged Washington by releasing masses of classified U.S. documents, residency with no questions asked.

"We are ready to give him residence in Ecuador, with no problems and no conditions," Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas told the Internet site Ecuadorinmediato.

Lucas said even though Ecuador's policy was not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, it was "concerned" by the information in the cables because it involved other countries "in particular Latin America."

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ecuad ... story.html

In other news ...

Canadian intel chief thinks his countrymen are naive dullards:
CSIS director Jim Judd said Canadians and their courts had an "Alice in Wonderland" worldview, according to a 2008 U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/ ... -cable.htm

[Phatscotty]

I am generally for transparency, but this does seem to go beyond what is OK. That so much of this is "nothing", embarrassing, but of no real substance else, makes it worse.

Further, as more of this junk is released, the less people will pay attention. People will pay less attention and more steps will be taken to tighten security. That means it becomes far less likely we will hear of things we ought to hear about. All-in-all, a poor job, from any direction.

unless it's a republican being embarrased, then all my values change 180 degrees. That is why I do not have any value.

[saxitoxin]

From State Hate, a list of websites seized and shut-down by Obama (the cyber version of book burnings ... though they still do that, too: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127452&p=2796269&hilit=book+burning+obama#p2796269 )

http://statehate.tumblr.com/post/172912 ... government

[nietzsche]

Player, I don't agree with your opposition on WikiLeaks.

We need to know what happens behind doors, and if we have to start by knowing semi-trivial stuff before getting good important stuff, well, it's worth it. Whether it's real or not, the meme is there. If some individual has access to information that he thinks the world must know he now knows how to share it.

[Baron Von PWN]

\
I'll just leave this here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Saxi.. Regardless of whether or not these leaks are intentional, do you doubt the authenticity of any of the reports so far?

That's a good point and, no, even if this were a planned leak it would have to be of real cables. Forged cables of this quantity would involve a conspiracy of thousands of people which would be ridiculous to imagine outside of some Ian Fleming novel. That said, given the sheer quantity of information generated by these missives it would be wholly possible to select only those cables that supported a specific position while not releasing contrary cables. Also, so far as I've seen, nothing released so far has been classified above Secret and mostly - it seems - are recitations of meetings or analysis of open-source information. I think Top Secret cables that contained Signals or Human intelligence would be more interesting in supporting the conclusions the Charge d'Affairs in Yemen or the 3rd Deputy Legation Minister in Singapore or wherever are making.

Though, I could be wrong and you do raise a valid point that merits consideration.

Some may not be forged, but couldn't some simply be misinformation without forgery?

Like what?

Not everything has been leaked, so it's hard to say; however, to assume that all of the information is true would be a mistake.

[BigBallinStalin]

The mainstream media has privy to such information, while many people sit on the encrypted file...

Is that file bogus? Why would anyone release that information that could probably be cracked? It would counter the careful editing that the mainstream media is doing.

If the code is released (like it was for earlier ones), then everyone would have access to the raw information.

So if the information within the insurance file is genuine, then that would lend creedence to speculation that wikileaks isn't a CIA operation.

If the code is never released, or if the information turns out to be bogus, then that would be suspicious.

Does anyone follow? I'm a bit tired...

[PLAYER57832]

Seems like you "miss" a lot.

Like I said, none of this leaked information is really new, other than the bits to purely embarrass other leaders..

OK, kapo - quickly direct me to where it's previously been reported Hillary Clinton has ordered diplomats to collect DNA samples of world leaders -- just a quick URL will do - thanks!

Please do reply. I need a couple good new quotes --

i hope this prv that leaked this stuff out gets found guilty of treason

But you probably said the same thing about Rosa Parks.

Not even decent trolling.

[BigBallinStalin]

He does have a good point though...

[Ruffled Feathers]

These leaks are a good thing! It shows that our military is lax in security. We just need to strengthen our security clearances and to impose the same harsh treatment to our military as we do to ordinary travelers at airports.

All in all, these leaks hurt the relationships between the Arabs and Iranians. Great propaganda for us and the free world.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, I don't agree with your opposition on WikiLeaks.

We need to know what happens behind doors, and if we have to start by knowing semi-trivial stuff before getting good important stuff, well, it's worth it.

We'll have to just disagree, then, because I see the release of the trivial as impeding the release and understanding of real information. People ignore gunshots and murder when they are commonplace. It's only rare events that get attention. Also, each of these minoir leaks points out the weaknesses in the information arena. In that regard, they did anyone in the government wanting to keep secrets a favor. Now the holes will be plugged.
Besides that, this just wastes time. Maybe not as much of a time waster as debating which star is dating whom, but those are pure entertainment (and therefore of value as such). This gives folks the illusion of paying attention to something important, but it isn't.. so it wastes time.

Whether it's real or not, the meme is there. If some individual has access to information that he thinks the world must know he now knows how to share it.

[/quote]The bar here must be very, very high. Yes, there are times when releasing information is needed, when something that is, effectively "treason", is in fact high patriotism. However, those cases are relatively rare in a functioning system. And, while our system is not perfect, it essentially functions. (Else, we are headed for anarchy anyway).

Basically, what someone who releases this stuff needs to ask is "is this release worthy my life, the well-being of my family?". Because, when it really matters, those are the things at risk. Fro sane, intelligent people, only rarely is the answer "yes, it is". Usually there are other , more effective alternatives.

[PLAYER57832]

He does have a good point though...

In the case of diplimatic information, a lot is "known" that is not readily available on the internet. In the case of diplomatic stuff, up to and including espionage.. well, the "nature of the beast" is that this stuff is "deniable". I mean, does the CIA even have an official budget now-a-days? At one point, it did not.

In science, the information is not available online because often times there is no market value, no profit impetus to put it online. Usually it costs a lot of money just to put out verified scientific information. It's not like entertainment where putting out the information, itself, generations the money.

[saxitoxin]

Seems like you "miss" a lot.

Like I said, none of this leaked information is really new, other than the bits to purely embarrass other leaders..

OK, kapo - quickly direct me to where it's previously been reported Hillary Clinton has ordered diplomats to collect DNA samples of world leaders -- just a quick URL will do - thanks!

Please do reply. I need a couple good new quotes --

Not even decent trolling.

Asking you to provide a source to back-up a very concrete claim is "trolling"?

It's a pretty simple question. Where has it been previously been reported Hillary Clinton has ordered diplomats to collect DNA samples of world leaders? Just a quick URL will do - thanks!

[GabonX]

Also, if wikileaks is the US, why would that be there?


I'm pretty sure that Assange is in fact an enemy of the State.

[PLAYER57832]

It's a pretty simple question. Where has it been previously been reported Hillary Clinton has ordered diplomats to collect DNA samples of world leaders? Just a quick URL will do - thanks!

My point was that if the US wants diplomatic DNA, they can certainly get it. No proof, but it doesn't take much imagination, either.

I don't know if any of that is on the internet or not. LIkely any such reference has been quietly buried or removed. If I did know of it, I would not post it, since it's likely it would have come from an illegal source and I rather prefer my house to a 10 X 10 cell.

Beyond that:
#1 I did not read any report of trying to get DNA, except your assertion. #2 I actually can see a lot of sense to getting DNA from diplomats, for a lot of very good reasons, reasons not at all harmful to the diplomats even if making the request might be politically difficult. In this day and age, thats about like getting a fingerprint used to be. Something collected and given very, very regularly. (can debate whether that is good or bad elsewhere).

[saxitoxin]

Seems like you "miss" a lot.

Like I said, none of this leaked information is really new

WIRED (among many other outlets) reports: "U.S. Chases Foreign Leaders’ DNA, WikiLeaks Shows"
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11 ... aks-shows/

Where was this previously reported that it is "not new"? A simple link to even one outlet that reported this prior to November 27 will do. Just one.

Third request.

(Please don't simply "go dark" like you did here - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=130810&p=2867007&hilit=thrift+savings#p2867007. I would like a URL. It shouldn't be that difficult for you since you obviously have a very good, well-informed grasp of what you're discussing.)