Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wolfun wrote:So, looks like the 'rape victim' worked with the CIA.

Really quite a stretch. I'd go so far as to call the entire article a fallacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:So other countries have the right to know what another country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?

I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.

We find out because we spy on them and they spy on us.

Imagine what would've happened if the details of the D-Day invasion had been leaked to the mainstream media. What would've happened is a called of landing and a protracted war. Governments need to hide espionage details in order to prevent other governments and radical groups from finding out what plans the government has.

If any information is leaked it should be after the situation it covers is over.

If you agree with the bolded portion (as I do for the large part although I recognize the necessity of certain things being secret) then your entire argument is null and void.

Plz don't use personal opinions as a basis for objective statements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:[
Sorry, do you sterilize your trash when you throw it away?

You probably won't believe me, but I compost all my paper products, I keep my hair short enough that its very very difficult to see when I shed, my nails are kept totally trimmed and cleaned under the potion of the nail where trace can collect, and I abrade my skin in the shower 3 times a week. I also wash out all my garbage and never use plastic throw away utensils.

I know...thats pretty odd, but hey just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Its really superfluous action though, I've been arrested so my prints are on file. Thankfully it was before mandatory mouth swabbing started poking its ugly head.

All talk and no facts. Laughable, if it wasn't so infuriating.

Go read about civism, firstly. You seem to be missing some of it's finer points.

What facts do you want me to site? I mean, I would put the burden of proof on you for claiming that the ambassador and his offices actions were approved by usgov officials, but you don't actually have that information and the crux of what you posted is based in Assanges words.

The U.S. created the scenario when they did everything that was leaked. I thought that one was easy to understand.

Ahh. So it's blame the victim. I see. It's their fault they had a thing that could be stolen. Hey, you using your credit card numbers? I want to publish them online. If you didn't want that to happen you wouldn't have them, right? I mean, it's not like they have a use outside of being your little black secret. Again, I ask, are you high? How is it the governments fault it keeps records on diplomatic transactions? Should the diplomatic view individuals hold for their colleagues in embassies be open information for everyone? That sure as hell makes doing the job a bit difficult, don't you think? Governments act in secrecy often as a necessity, and such acts do not easily function under political scrutiny in a democratic country.

*sigh* and I was talking about the official. I highly doubt that the ambassor took that decision without contacting the Government. Still, the news source reported "the government refused". This could mean the ambassor, representing the US. Or this could mean the US, whom the ambassor contacted - which is more likely. We don't know the details of the conversation, but I doubt that he was given any ludicrous conditions, like you do say and do not even bother to fundament.

I was positing that asking a foreign government to help you release their state secrets under threat is a ludicrous condition and that assange didn't try particularly hard to do the right thing in this instance since there is a clear business recourse for performing the act of redacting harmful information even if you don't have U.S. officials helping you do it.

And do read my posts with a bit more care.

Excuse me, I don't care when you devils advocate a conspiracy theory to subtly enter it into the conversation.

I thought it was obvious I wasn't posting conspiracy theories, God knows this thread has had enough of that.

Regardless you have both posted it and overtly aligned yourself alongside it's view by posting it. Which you did. When you posted it. I'm not sure how you can say you aren't posting conspiracy theories when you are actually acknowledging that you are posting conspiracy theories.

So, a bit redundant, the part about Eagle Shield, though I can't find BBC's stuff on it. I've been reading way too many articles, and some of them are a bit dodgy.

Wasn't aware that it was published beforehand elsewhere. Doesn't look like the russians were either given Kremlins responses to the cable though.

I don't know how credible this was, and searched a bit more. EDIT: but only found something on the same site. Can't find anything on BBC at the moment.

http://wfol.tv/stop-nato/5880.html

Yeah, my bad. It's eagle guardian, not eagle shield. I think I read eagle shield referenced as the implementation of the plan, but not it's title. Theres the BBC article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11933089

Da Boss wrote:Shuma: The methods are reliable enough to be good, and as you say, it varies depending on what's in the environment. But for individual level identification I'd still be a bit skeptical (this crops up in DNA profiling cases too). I'm also not sure what they'd use DNA information for.
Fingerprints and retinal scans, maybe. But not DNA, it hardly has any security applications.

I'm not a molecular biologist though. (I know a few, but I'm not trained above undergraduate level at molecular techniques.) (And I'm completely off topic at this stage)

Perhaps the US is going to clone Ban Ki-mun and use the copy to take over the UN.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Shuma: The methods are reliable enough to be good, and as you say, it varies depending on what's in the environment. But for individual level identification I'd still be a bit skeptical (this crops up in DNA profiling cases too). I'm also not sure what they'd use DNA information for.
Fingerprints and retinal scans, maybe. But not DNA, it hardly has any security applications.

I'm not a molecular biologist though. (I know a few, but I'm not trained above undergraduate level at molecular techniques.) (And I'm completely off topic at this stage)

Perhaps the US is going to clone Ban Ki-mun and use the copy to take over the UN.

That would imply Ban has some sort of power.

You know...one thing I feel people might have overlooked...just how official are these documents? Can their veracity be confirmed? Seeing as how this cretin makes his living via donations, how easy would it be for him to pinch a bunch of documents, and sex them up a little? It's not like Governments are going to confess to the lot of them. Blanket denial, to the paranoid freaks, means blanket admission. You could (and most likely has) make up any old bollocks.

Mr Mystery wrote:You know...one thing I feel people might have overlooked...just how official are these documents? Can their veracity be confirmed? Seeing as how this cretin makes his living via donations, how easy would it be for him to pinch a bunch of documents, and sex them up a little? It's not like Governments are going to confess to the lot of them. Blanket denial, to the paranoid freaks, means blanket admission. You could (and most likely has) make up any old bollocks.

.

Off hand I'd say making the stuff up is likely not the case. That's the one thing we have yet to hear said by the governments in question, and the first thing I would have expected to hear.

efarrer wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:You know...one thing I feel people might have overlooked...just how official are these documents? Can their veracity be confirmed? Seeing as how this cretin makes his living via donations, how easy would it be for him to pinch a bunch of documents, and sex them up a little? It's not like Governments are going to confess to the lot of them. Blanket denial, to the paranoid freaks, means blanket admission. You could (and most likely has) make up any old bollocks.

.

Off hand I'd say making the stuff up is likely not the case. That's the one thing we have yet to hear said by the governments in question, and the first thing I would have expected to hear.

Eh, one conspiracy theory is as good as another. It isn't as if any of them are based on rigorous logic and review.

Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.

Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.

You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?

Maybe. and also who's open to a quick bribe.
It's not like thats anything new in america, is it? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-america-is-now-officially-for-sale-2125447.html

loki old fart wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.

Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.

You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?

Maybe. and also who's open to a quick bribe.
It's not like thats anything new in america, is it?

Oh ho ho, so only America takes bribes or uses politics now? It seems to me if you wanted to be honest you should have just stopped after 'new'.

Ahtman wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.

Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.

You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?

Maybe. and also who's open to a quick bribe.
It's not like thats anything new in america, is it?

Oh ho ho, so only America takes bribes or uses politics now? It seems to me if you wanted to be honest you should have just stopped after 'new'.

Then I wouldn't have known if you were awake

loki old fart wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.

Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.

You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?

Maybe. and also who's open to a quick bribe.
It's not like thats anything new in america, is it? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-america-is-now-officially-for-sale-2125447.html

It's rare to see a website with more flash adverts then IGN.com decrying the sale of something. Though it's very common to then see such an article site no sources.

ShumaGorath wrote:What facts do you want me to site? I mean, I would put the burden of proof on you for claiming that the ambassador and his offices actions were approved by usgov officials, but you don't actually have that information and the crux of what you posted is based in Assanges words.

To which I say,

ShumaGorath wrote:Also, that one official doesn't have the authority to accept or refuse such a request as they don't have the authority to release classified documents to foreign civilian nationals. I think under technicalities if he had accepted he would have been guilty of espionage.

I based that one on the fact that the ambassor most likely reported that to the government. It would seem logical that it was so, but I'm not in any position to say that it's standard protocol. Assuming so, I based my opinion. If he didn't have the authority to accept or decline, as you said, I assume he communicated it to the USGOV.

Ahh. So it's blame the victim. I see. It's their fault they had a thing that could be stolen. Hey, you using your credit card numbers? I want to publish them online. If you didn't want that to happen you wouldn't have them, right? I mean, it's not like they have a use outside of being your little black secret. Again, I ask, are you high? How is it the governments fault it keeps records on diplomatic transactions? Should the diplomatic view individuals hold for their colleagues in embassies be open information for everyone? That sure as hell makes doing the job a bit difficult, don't you think? Governments act in secrecy often as a necessity, and such acts do not easily function under political scrutiny in a democratic country.

You're right and I should clear my position on this. I thought I said that certain facts shouldn't have been divulged. The document should've been properly edited, as the outrage caused by unecessary embarassments is outweighting on (and shifting the discussion from) the more pertinent facts regarding some US funded shady activities and the fact that some politicians knew about it. However, adressing your first point about victims,

I was positing that asking a foreign government to help you release their state secrets under threat is a ludicrous condition and that assange didn't try particularly hard to do the right thing in this instance since there is a clear business recourse for performing the act of redacting harmful information even if you don't have U.S. officials helping you do it.

It is unclear and I haven't searched for declarations from the involved ambassor. But the US had prior knowledge and could have tried to minimize the collateral damage as it was in their best interest. I'm not saying that they were helping Assange, they would be helping themselves, given that the documents were going to be published either way.

And like I said before, yes, Assange should've been more careful and try to work ways in which the divulged information wouldn't reveal sensitive military information, like dealings with China and North Korea.

About the credit card analogy, it's a bit different. I wouldn't state my opinion on a certain subject if I knew beforehand (which I doubt the diplomats didn't know) it was going on record. They were official state business, and as such are likely to come under some scrutiny by someone. A more accurate depiction would've been if I worked for a company, had access to it's funds, and used them wrongly. That would have been mis-usage of the assets I'm given, which I'm given to understand is what happened.

Excuse me, I don't care when you devils advocate a conspiracy theory to subtly enter it into the conversation.

Someone said some pages ago, regarding Assange's rape scandal, that it would be funny if it was another double-game. Given the timming, it was weird. Given the later information released regarding Woman A (or W) regarding CIA association... well, it's a bit too many coincidences, and given all the information manipulation involved, it certainly raised some eyebrows.

Regardless you have both posted it and overtly aligned yourself alongside it's view by posting it. Which you did. When you posted it. I'm not sure how you can say you aren't posting conspiracy theories when you are actually acknowledging that you are posting conspiracy theories.

I did post them, taking them lightly. I should've phrased them differently, and used an emoticon to emphasize. But that doesn't mean you can say whatever the heck you want, because I try to base my opinions on facts and "conspiracy theories" on speculation, even if wildly.

Wasn't aware that it was published beforehand elsewhere. Doesn't look like the russians were either given Kremlins responses to the cable though.

Kremlin's responses to the cable were, I suppose, because public in the West found out about it and the russians were expected to say something about it. Wikileaks certainly had more bang and exposure than the Polish newspaper.

Yeah, my bad. It's eagle guardian, not eagle shield. I think I read eagle shield referenced as the implementation of the plan, but not it's title. Theres the BBC article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11933089

No problem, I'll read it later, as I will the Yemen bits. Media here didn't focus on that at all, and some articles online are hard to miss.

Now, is there anything not related to my opinion or theories? You're focussing on the diplomatic scandal, and hardly talking about the more monstruous things there.

Kanluwen wrote:

dogma wrote:No, not really.

Define for me the "means" of a given person.

Define for me how Internal Affairs investigates officers for taking bribes?

We know what they're paid. We can get their financial information and a general idea of how much money they have available to them through their spouses, or if they've gotten any inheritances, things of that nature.

Da Boss wrote:I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.

Hey now, let's not facts get in the way of a good conspiracy

Where was the deflection, at all, there Dogma?

But since apparently you're going to be a smug git:
The "means of a given person" is what they can reliably have access to without liquidating everything they own.

It's why when police officers, who haven't won the lottery or come into money, have suddenly started buying things like boats or expensive cars are looked at with suspicion.

About the credit card analogy, it's a bit different. I wouldn't state my opinion on a certain subject if I knew beforehand (which I doubt the diplomats didn't know) it was going on record. They were official state business, and as such are likely to come under some scrutiny by someone. A more accurate depiction would've been if I worked for a company, had access to it's funds, and used them wrongly. That would have been mis-usage of the assets I'm given, which I'm given to understand is what happened.

It's a diplomats job to give frank and accurate assessments to his superiors. It is also decent and common conduct to not spread such views around like common gossip. What the diplomats confer to eachother and their superiors is what is needed to do the job, when you place that under scrutiny you politicize an entity that is meant to work for the common good but without public political pressure. If you want a good example of exactly why that is needed just look at the U.S. healthcare debates, the citizenry isn't intelligent enough to understand the nuances of everyday diplomacy and foreign governments do not need to know the interior thinking of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. They don't interface with it's interior, they interface with it's actions which are guided by those internal conversations. Misgivings and embarrassments can be highly damaging on the diplomatic stage, and no one is particularly helped by the cables making fun of Silvio Berlusconi or Ghadaffi. They write secret things on those secret documents, because it's their job. It's what they do. Those documents are secret because the functionality of their job is hinged on the lack of foreign and public scrutiny.

Now, is there anything not related to my opinion or theories? You're focussing on the diplomatic scandal, and hardly talking about the more monstruous things there.

Such as Assanges arrest? If he's innocent and the swedish government functions as it brags then he will be found innocent. There will probably be a lengthy attempt by the U.S. to have him tried for espionage or something similar, but that hasn't happened yet. He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him. He's likely cost the lives of several people and he's done damage to the causes of world peace and mideast security by revealing top secret military files and NATO plans. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about that is "monstrous". "Free speech" and "revealing stolen classified information taken from another government concerning matters of national and international security" are two different things. I'm happy to wait to see what actually happens before I travel down the path of predictive conspiracy mining.

Destrado wrote:
Someone said some pages ago, regarding Assange's rape scandal, that it would be funny if it was another double-game. Given the timming, it was weird.

Hi, that was me....at like page 3 I think.

After reading MANY articles and looking up past case information I think it really is just a strange coincidence....and the "ties" that the girl has to the CIA are laughable at best. I'm a conspiracy believer, but at least look at the facts before screaming about the Tri Lateral Commision. lol

Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?

Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?

Also

Shumagorath wrote:

Now, is there anything not related to my opinion or theories? You're focussing on the diplomatic scandal, and hardly talking about the more monstruous things there.

Such as Assanges arrest? If he's innocent and the swedish government functions as it brags then he will be found innocent. There will probably be a lengthy attempt by the U.S. to have him tried for espionage or something similar, but that hasn't happened yet. He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him. He's likely cost the lives of several people and he's done damage to the causes of world peace and mideast security by revealing top secret military files and NATO plans.

1. I beleive he was talking about content of the leaks, like yemen missile strikes / PMC sex trade / etc.

2. "He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him" ....

3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.

4. "he's done damage to the causes of world peace" Not really, he's just bringing to light all the stuff that has already been done, sure some of this stuff is just petty but it doesent change the fact that the US did them.

(Not singling out shuma here)
Can we seriously get a discussion thats more than just "he did stuff that makes the US look bad so lets lock him up".

Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.

Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.

1. I beleive he was talking about content of the leaks, like yemen missile strikes / PMC sex trade / etc.

I mentioned the Yemen missile strikes multiple times already as a specific example of something that shouldn't have been revealed for the specific reason that it can incite violence and further weaken a government in the midst of what it considers tantamount to a civil war while Al-Queda sets it up as the new afghanistan. It's going to be a lot harder to combat international terrorist organizations in yemen now that the governments elicit approval of our activities is on everyones radar.

This is the problem, and it's something the people in this thread seem to have a hard time grasping. Revealing the PMC sex slave thing? Thats great, thats the kind of thing wikileaks should exist to do and be awarded for. Compromising security agreements and enabling terrorist recruitment and training in a war torn region? Thats the kind of thing that wikileaks should be shut down for while it's owners are put on trial. Attempting to equivocate the two shows a severe lack of understanding of current events.

2. "He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him" ....

When you state that you're releasing the "new pentagon papers" and then go on to basically say "All those things you thought you knew about afghanistan? They're still true." you're basically showing yourself to be an egotistical douche. When you impair the ability of nation states to defend themselves and endanger post cold war nuclear draw downs for "free speech" you're a maniac.

I'm combining the two.

3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.

No, they don't. Thats the crux of the issue. They are only verifying the documents for authenticity (as much as they can) they are still releasing them in full and for the most part without redaction or editing. Thats the entire point, they aren't being careful with what they release, they are just copy pasting everything onto the wiki.

4. "he's done damage to the causes of world peace" Not really, he's just bringing to light all the stuff that has already been done, sure some of this stuff is just petty but it doesent change the fact that the US did them.

I don't think you've actually read what they've released...

Can we seriously get a discussion thats more than just "he did stuff that makes the US look bad so lets lock him up".

We can try, but you're going to have to stop posting for that to happen. Or at the very least read what wikileaks has released.

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.

Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.

Yep especially if their cover has been blown, should be pretty easy to find out if an informant died after being exposed. Dont you think this is something that would be released to show that Wikileaks is responsable for it? Also if the informant has been found out why would reveling that he died because of the release affect anymore of the network? i mean if they already found the guy and noone else then the rest of the network should remain intact unless their info is revealed

Gibbsey wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.

Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.

Yep especially if their cover has been blown, should be pretty easy to find out if an informant died after being exposed. Dont you think this is something that would be released to show that Wikileaks is responsable for it? Also if the informant has been found out why would reveling that he died because of the release affect anymore of the network? i mean if they already found the guy and noone else then the rest of the network should remain intact unless their info is revealed

The CIA can neither deny or confirm. Even after Valerie Plame was outed guess what the CIA said? The CIA can neither deny or confirm. We aren't talking about whether an NFL player is being traded to another team.

Shuma... Shuma... Shuma... what are we going to do with you?

ShumaGorath wrote:

1. I beleive he was talking about content of the leaks, like yemen missile strikes / PMC sex trade / etc.

I mentioned the Yemen missile strikes multiple times already as a specific example of something that shouldn't have been revealed for the specific reason that it can incite violence and further weaken a government in the midst of what it considers tantamount to a civil war while Al-Queda sets it up as the new afghanistan. It's going to be a lot harder to combat international terrorist organizations in yemen now that the governments elicit approval of our activities is on everyones radar.

This is the problem, and it's something the people in this thread seem to have a hard time grasping. Revealing the PMC sex slave thing? Thats great, thats the kind of thing wikileaks should exist to do and be awarded for. Compromising security agreements and enabling terrorist recruitment and training in a war torn region? Thats the kind of thing that wikileaks should be shut down for while it's owners are put on trial. Attempting to equivocate the two shows a severe lack of understanding of current events.

so revealing PMC sex trade is fine, but showing a country's people that they were lied to and that there really were american bombs responsible for taking civilian lives instead of you country's bombs is wrong because it "might incite violence". These people were lied to by their government, shouldent they have a right to know?

ShumaGorath wrote:

2. "He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him" ....

When you state that you're releasing the "new pentagon papers" and then go on to basically say "All those things you thought you knew about afghanistan? They're still true." you're basically showing yourself to be an egotistical douche. When you impair the ability of nation states to defend themselves and endanger post cold war nuclear draw downs for "free speech" you're a maniac.

as has been said before in this thread being an "egotistical maniac" or douchbag is not enough to be arrested on

ShumaGorath wrote:

3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.

No, they don't. Thats the crux of the issue. They are only verifying the documents for authenticity (as much as they can) they are still releasing them in full and for the most part without redaction or editing. Thats the entire point, they aren't being careful with what they release, they are just copy pasting everything onto the wiki.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-redacted-documents?_s=PM:US

Complaits were made after the first set of documents (70,000 Afghanistan not 400,000 iraq) , so now they are redacting more information.

ShumaGorath wrote:

4. "he's done damage to the causes of world peace" Not really, he's just bringing to light all the stuff that has already been done, sure some of this stuff is just petty but it doesent change the fact that the US did them.

I don't think you've actually read what they've released...

My point was the US has chosen to do these things in the first place, what wikileaks is releasing is American documents, wikileaks did not encourage america to do any of these things

ShumaGorath wrote:

Can we seriously get a discussion thats more than just "he did stuff that makes the US look bad so lets lock him up".

We can try, but you're going to have to stop posting for that to happen. Or at the very least read what wikileaks has released.

Wow i at least have a thought out opinon instead of one that not backed up and easy to tear through, please try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.

Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.

Yep especially if their cover has been blown, should be pretty easy to find out if an informant died after being exposed. Dont you think this is something that would be released to show that Wikileaks is responsable for it? Also if the informant has been found out why would reveling that he died because of the release affect anymore of the network? i mean if they already found the guy and noone else then the rest of the network should remain intact unless their info is revealed

The CIA can neither deny or confirm. Even after Valerie Plame was outed guess what the CIA said? The CIA can neither deny or confirm. We aren't talking about whether an NFL player is being traded to another team.

The Moon is a lie! The CIA cannot deny or confirm that so we must assume it to be the case and use it as an argument!

Seriously saying the CIA cannot confirm or deny is not a reasonable argument when accusing someone of being responsible of someone elses death.

We aren't talking about general information silly boy, we are talking about the status of confidential informants. They will not disclose that information even if someones cover has theoretically been blown. Years from now they might but there isn't a chance in hell now and you know it. You are just being obtuse and calling others trolls.

Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?

Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?

Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?

Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?

Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?

Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?

Shuma... Shuma... Shuma... what are we going to do with you?

Give me a written apology for making me read this thread at all?

so revealing PMC sex trade is fine, but showing a country's people that they were lied to and that there really were american bombs responsible for taking civilian lives instead of you country's bombs is wrong because it "might incite violence". These people were lied to by their government, shouldent they have a right to know?

Since 2004, a civil war is being fought in Northern Yemen between Yemeni forces and Shiite Houthi rebels. In 2009, it spilled over into the neighbouring border region of Saudi Arabia. This conflict is increasingly becoming a danger to regional stability according to news reports by CNN[27] and the BBC[28] as various countries are said to be involved, e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.[29] The United Nations[30] and UNDP Yemen report about a growing problem of civilians fleeing from the region. Yemen is said to have more than 60 million guns.[31] The 2009 South Yemen insurgency has further destabilized the country.

If you think that it matters if the government is lying to its people in yemen about American strikes into Al Queda camps then you aren't particularly versed in current day yemen. That said, boo hoo they were lied too. You know why they were lied too? Because an islamist insurgency has griped the north of the country, spilled into other countries, and part of the effort of reunifying yemen involves not looking like it panders to western powers. You know why Al Queda is there? Because the Yemenese government can't remove them and they can find popular support for violent terrorist activity in regions effected by the insurgency.

You don't know what you're talking about if THIS is one of you're big points of praise for wikileaks, and it's really visible.

as has been said before in this thread being an "egotistical maniac" or douchbag is not enough to be arrested on

I know, I think thats why they went with molestation instead.That being said, international espionage is a big thing to be convicted for. I was mostly just insulting his character by stating those things, I figured stating that he performed acts that could (and are being) considered espionage or related to espionage meant that thats what I believed.

Wow i at least have a thought out opinon instead of one that not backed up and easy to tear through, please try again.

Excuse me? You're opinion was "This thread is getting bad, he's just showing off the US doing bad stuff LOLS!". When you actually learn a little bit about foreign affairs come on back down, until then don't walk around like some sort of man-of-the-yemen-town when you obviously have a very basic (and probably recently gained) amount of knowledge of the region and it's players as well as U.S. intelligence procedures and international law.

Ahtman wrote:We aren't talking about general information silly boy, we are talking about the status of confidential informants. They will not disclose that information even if someones cover has theoretically been blown. Years from now they might but there isn't a chance in hell now and you know it. You are just being obtuse and calling others trolls.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?

Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?

Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?

Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?

Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?

Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?

Dont you love it when a thread just comes together

My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"

My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"

That was sourced from me, and I used the term "likely" specifically because we can't confirm if it happened or not. It's just a logical inference from the release of classified documents often sourced from informants who have their names on paper unedited.

I used the word 'likely'. You even quoted me using it. Do you not know what it means?

Gibbsey wrote:
My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"

It was said they would probably lead to deaths, not with absolute certainty that they had. Though they almost certainly have, we can not prove it becuase the information is still classified. You are creating impossible levels of evidence and than using that as some form of proof. Well, the proof we have is that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Shuma... Shuma... Shuma... what are we going to do with you?

Give me a written apology for making me read this thread at all?

so revealing PMC sex trade is fine, but showing a country's people that they were lied to and that there really were american bombs responsible for taking civilian lives instead of you country's bombs is wrong because it "might incite violence". These people were lied to by their government, shouldent they have a right to know?

Since 2004, a civil war is being fought in Northern Yemen between Yemeni forces and Shiite Houthi rebels. In 2009, it spilled over into the neighbouring border region of Saudi Arabia. This conflict is increasingly becoming a danger to regional stability according to news reports by CNN[27] and the BBC[28] as various countries are said to be involved, e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.[29] The United Nations[30] and UNDP Yemen report about a growing problem of civilians fleeing from the region. Yemen is said to have more than 60 million guns.[31] The 2009 South Yemen insurgency has further destabilized the country.

If you think that it matters if the government is lying to its people in yemen about American strikes into Al Queda camps then you aren't particularly versed in current day yemen. That said, boo hoo they were lied too. You know why they were lied too? Because an islamist insurgency has griped the north of the country, spilled into other countries, and part of the effort of reunifying yemen involves not looking like it panders to western powers. You know why Al Queda is there? Because the Yemenese government can't remove them and they can find popular support for violent terrorist activity in regions effected by the insurgency.

You don't know what you're talking about if THIS is one of you're big points of praise for wikileaks, and it's really visible.

as has been said before in this thread being an "egotistical maniac" or douchbag is not enough to be arrested on

I know, I think thats why they went with molestation instead.That being said, international espionage is a big thing to be convicted for. I was mostly just insulting his character by stating those things, I figured stating that he performed acts that could (and are being) considered espionage or related to espionage meant that thats what I believed.

Wow i at least have a thought out opinon instead of one that not backed up and easy to tear through, please try again.

Excuse me? You're opinion was "This thread is getting bad, he's just showing off the US doing bad stuff LOLS!". When you actually learn a little bit about foreign affairs come on back down, until then don't walk around like some sort of man-of-the-yemen-town when you obviously have a very basic (and probably recently gained) amount of knowledge of the region and it's players as well as U.S. intelligence procedures and international law.

Shuma i have come to the conclusion that you are a troll, congratulations on being so sucessful thus far.

Although i may not be a man-of-the-yemen-town this does not change the fact that the people were lied to, like it or not in a country that is supposed to be a democracy the government should not lie to the people that it should be representing, even American air strikes on yemen approved targets would of been acceptable. Now what if americans were lied to like this? would that be acceptable in a western nation? no? then why should it be acceptable here, especially with the loss of civilian life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"

That was sourced from me, and I used the term "likely" specifically because we can't confirm if it happened or not. It's just a logical inference from the release of classified documents often sourced from informants who have their names on paper unedited.

I used the word 'likely'. You even quoted me using it. Do you not know what it means?

Hmmm likely, then maybe it shouldent be toted as fact


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:
My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"

It was said they would probably lead to deaths, not with absolute certainty that they had. Though they almost certainly have, we can not prove it becuase the information is still classified. You are creating impossible levels of evidence and than using that as some form of proof. Well, the proof we have is that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

So you present something that cannot be disprooved because the "CIA cant tell us" and when i call you out on it im "creating impossible levels of evidence and than using that as some form of proof".

My level of evidence is actually based on having some evidence, since you cannot provide that then wouldent you agree that dropping that point until some evidence supports it would be the rational thing to do?

Shuma i have come to the conclusion that you are a troll, congratulations on being so sucessful thus far.

You aren't the first one to call me that or congratulate me for it. Much like the rest though, you aren't looking very good doing it rather then answering any of the points I've raised (as you failed to do in your last post to me as well).

Although i may not be a man-of-the-yemen-town this does not change the fact that the people were lied to, like it or not in a country that is supposed to be a democracy the government should not lie to the people that it should be representing, even American air strikes on yemen approved targets would of been acceptable.

Idealism is great until you're country is in the midst of a civil war and is being used as a training camp for international terrorists. At that point idealism has basically just cost you the farm. You're quite right, they lied to their people, and by doing so they were endeavoring to protect them from themselves. This was the polite thing to do for the yemenese people, and the best thing to do for their government. We could have just told them that we were going to bomb these areas regardless of their wishes. Is that a good alternative? Or how about just letting these camps run for a few years unharassed while they plan and implement terrorist acts on civilians locally and abroad?

Good old dogmatic idealism! Getting people killed since biblical times.

Now what if americans were lied to like this? would that be acceptable in a western nation? no? then why should it be acceptable here, especially with the loss of civilian life.

The difference being that America is a western nation at peace with itself, not battling a fundamentalist insurgency and it doesn't have sizable infiltration from violent fundamentalist terrorists. The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

You are really not doing yourself any favors by calling me a troll then equivocating and making appeals to idealism that are utterly unrealistic.

Hmmm likely, then maybe it shouldent be toted as fact

If I was toting it as fact I wouldn't have used the word likely. Thats the entire point of what I just said.

ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.