View Full Version : It's another Poll! ;-) WIKILEAKS....
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 09:38 AM
Discuss...
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 09:39 AM
OK, why can't I post a poll?
EDIT: Oh look, it's there now! :compcrash:
I find most of it amusing. It's just releasing information that everyone already knows to be the case.
Some of it is slightly irresponsible I guess.
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 09:54 AM
It's just releasing information that everyone already knows to be the case
I didn't know that Saudi and Yemen had advised America to attack Iran, also didn't know that America considered a snake anti-venom factory in Oz to be of importance to national security.
Could some of the info they are releasing not be destabilising?
Dave20046
06-12-10, 09:58 AM
Sh*t stirring between armed nations might be a tad irresponsible and I didn't see the need to release these locations. I thought originally they were on a mission to release information that should be known but now they just seem to be releasing everything. Ho-hum.
OK, why can't I post a poll?
EDIT: Oh look, it's there now! :compcrash:
:eek: I think you need to lay off the polls ralph .
I don't think its destabilising as much as embarassing on the most part, as we're being exposed to just how paranoid the only remaining superpower is despite it being more than 20 years since the end of the cold war.
Dicky Ticker
06-12-10, 10:19 AM
Proves America is a bit two faced. not everybodys friend and some what lacking in their own security if it is so easy to get that sort of information.
andrewsmith
06-12-10, 10:31 AM
The leaks prove that america still thinks the cold war is happening
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 10:50 AM
I don't have a strong opinion on it. I've never looked at the Wikileaks website. My views are solely those of the BBC news ;-) so I won't comment too much. I'm just interested to see what everyone else's views are.
Paypal has apparently withdrawn it's service for Wikileak donations saying they have breached the acceptable use policy, Amazon have refused to sell them any hosting services issues saying Wikileaks breaches their policy, and their DNS provider cut them off due to the number of DoS attacks.
Somebody has a serious issue with them.
Mr Speirs
06-12-10, 10:55 AM
America has a serious issue with them!!!
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 11:18 AM
America has a serious issue with them!!!
Of course.
But is that issue well founded? Ie: Wikileaks will end up doing some serious political damage and/or end up costing American lives. Or is Wikileaks doing nothing of any real consequence, other than pulling a publicity stunt?
If Wikileaks found and published the 'secret' info. My mind thinks any country with a good espionage network would have already known about it and it's just the general ignorant public that are kept in the dark. ;)
Both.
Got to wonder how easy it'd be to slip utter crap into the information they get sent too.
Only stuff that had me wince (that I've noticed) was the China/ North Korea releases. Not that I think it'll make too much difference but I don't see the benefit of hurling dung at the wind turbine, where people are trying to make peace (to use a huge simplification) or chill a bad situation out etc. Can see it goes against there idea of no censorship as I suppose sitting on it twould throw censorship into the hands of whatever journo comes up with the scoop - and the whole who decides the greater good etc blah blah? Though isn't it something like "With knowledge comes responsibility"?
Do we really care what Prince andrew says about British Aerospace?
Celeb gossip, Intresting stuff that doesn't get published and should, and stuff it might have been better not to broadcast. Perhaps if Governments were not so secretive - or more careful they'd be less demand?
Meh - Monday
Biker Biggles
06-12-10, 12:07 PM
If Wikileaks found and published the 'secret' info. My mind thinks any country with a good espionage network would have already known about it and it's just the general ignorant public that are kept in the dark. ;)
Exactly.Which is why I generally approve of the site.If we knew a bit more about what really goes on at the top table we would tolerate far less of the carp leadership and exploitation that they get away with.
If we had more openess we wouldnt have invaded Iraq and a lot of our soldiers would be alive today who fell in Afganistan.
Just goes to show that the governments of the world are interested in privacy after all: Theirs, not ours.
Personally I find the political response sickening. There have been calls from senior politicians to have Assange assassinated, and there has obviously been considerable pressure applied to EasyDNS, PayPal, Amazon et al. Fox news (I was abroad and it was the only english language news channel I could get) are happily calling Assange a rapist (not proven, nor even charged), a terrorist, and that Obama should "go get him."
There is nothing hugely surprising so far, but confirms a number of things that you may suspect. Nobody has died, and these are not Top Secret documents so they are not likely to.
andrewsmith
06-12-10, 12:39 PM
Just goes to show that the governments of the world are interested in privacy after all: Theirs, not ours.
Personally I find the political response sickening. There have been calls from senior politicians to have Assange assassinated, and there has obviously been considerable pressure applied to EasyDNS, PayPal, Amazon et al. Fox news (I was abroad and it was the only english language news channel I could get) are happily calling Assange a rapist (not proven, nor even charged), a terrorist, and that Obama should "go get him."
There is nothing hugely surprising so far, but confirms a number of things that you may suspect. Nobody has died, and these are not Top Secret documents so they are not likely to.
Well Fox News has a proven track record of making S*** up! they made up that Bush Jr had won and everyone else followed.
Personally companies should put there weight behind Wiki leaks as it will be personal privacy and corperate privacy.
Don't boycott Amazon, boycott America they are the problem
Though isn't it something like "With knowledge comes responsibility"?
With great power comes great responsibility? :spiderman:
I think the CIA is behind it all....
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 03:12 PM
The whole thing, especially the release of the list of important US worldwide locations, reminds me of that guy who posted his sister's f**k list on facebook. If you don't want people to know it don't compile it
You cannot contain information, the only way to do so is not to tell anyone and then the information is pointless to have...
Wikileaks does more than release US secrets, it's a universal whistleblowers resource that can, and does, release information about bad private companies as well. It's only when they do something the US makes a big deal about that we hear it in the mainstream media.
All the posturing by the US with shrill calls about endangering forces or encouraging terror is, until they produce evidence to the contrary, hyperbole used to distract people from the truth that the two faced nature of the political world is being laid bare.
So, I'm a resounding "good work" vote. I do question the public good done by releasing a list such as the one they did today, but WL approached the US to agree on releasing redacted versions where national security was at risk, the US flat out refused and demanded the return of the cables so as far as I'm concerned they're now reaping the seeds they sowed through unilateral foreign policy and lax security.
Sadly, instead of doing what they promised the people who vote them into power, and encouraging transparent government, they are focussing on how they can stop such a leak happening again, the complete opposite...
davepreston
06-12-10, 04:20 PM
most of the stuff i thinks fair game eg opinions of people etc but im slightly miffed they have just anounced that everyone should come and blow up my work as its vital to the yanks, cheers for that ******** i now work in a target rich soft target area now with a big ****ing bullseye on top, at least before i could shot back now i can just duck, law to let civiy's have firearms please would be helpful
With great power comes great responsibility? :spiderman:
That's the one ...oh well... "Knowledge is power" right(?) so no bad.
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 04:42 PM
but im slightly miffed they have just anounced that everyone should come and blow up my work
BAE MAS Warton by any chance?
davepreston
06-12-10, 05:05 PM
BAE MAS Warton by any chance?
send out the hit squad this one knows to much
i work at all bae sites
MisterTommyH
06-12-10, 05:21 PM
Up until now it's ben kind or harmless, will probably **** people off, but probably stopped short of being dangerous.
Todays leaks could have real security implications as they are almost telling any terrorists who wants to cause chaos where they should attack - doesn't strike me as the brightest thing to do.
Of course if one of these places does end up getting attacked they'll deny all responsibility.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 05:34 PM
Todays leaks could have real security implications as they are almost telling any terrorists who wants to cause chaos where they should attack - doesn't strike me as the brightest thing to do.As above, I question the public good
But it's not like it was hard to figure out where to strike in order to cause chaos before though was it?
Much easier to blow yourself up in an mall full of christmas shoppers than go after a securely guarded facility just because it's on the list
keith_d
06-12-10, 06:04 PM
The more governments actions diverge from the expectations of the people who elected them, the more we need sites like this to highlight their inadequacies.
Discuss.
Wikileaks has also released a number of controversial reports and memos from the corporate world, but they're not headline news in quite the same way. Personally, I think we need this kind of accountability to act as a deterrent to some of the more odious behaviour in the military, political and corporate spheres.
Keith.
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 06:19 PM
Terrorists aren't after attacking any targets of real strategic or tactical importance, because if they did they wouldn't be facking terrorists would they?!
Any important target like that will be guarded*, and anyone serious about attacking one would be able to find out anything they needed to know anyway.
"Risking the lives of troops". Tactical movements which change on a minute to minute basis in diplomatic memos between ambassadors? I doubt it's a common thing on the Washington cocktail party circuit "Oh yes there's a hole in the wall just right for a suicide vest and a couple of RPG rounds between the mosque and the camel repair center at the 3rd watch tower just outside BASRA".
A complete load of BS with regards the risks anyway.
As for Iran "Excuse me ayatollah, it seems that Jordan doesn't like us very much" "OMG!!!11!!!"
Is anybody really that surprised?
The only people bothered are the Americans, and just embarrassed rather than worried. If they were WORRIED about the so called threat which had just appeared then they would be more interested in mending fences elsewhere than in petty vendettas against the person they see as responsible. Which IMO means they're likely to do something really stupid.
As far as I know wikileaks has been selective about what info it releases. If all this silliness with DOS attacks and as far as I can see trumped up charges** carries on then they're still holding the big hammer of releasing all the info. Only takes one guy with a DVDR and an account on any random torrent website and a few newsgroups.
Personally, the truth will out. I am all for the free flow of information especially about governments which so readily pry into our lives and lawful business.
*By davepreston, which may or may not reassure you about the state of our national security.
**FAR too much of a coincidence for him to have actually been caught by any manner of normal judicial process.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 06:38 PM
As far as I know wikileaks has been selective about what info it releases. If all this silliness with DOS attacks and as far as I can see trumped up charges** carries on then they're still holding the big hammer of releasing all the info. Only takes one guy with a DVDR and an account on any random torrent website and a few newsgroups.
There's already an "Insurance" file on TPB, encrypted...
All they need to do is release the decryption key and tens of thousands of people will have full access to what (assuming it's not a bluff) is likely to be by far the most revealing, damaging stuff
Possibly the only reason Assange hasn't been "Litvinenko'ed" yet...
Biker Biggles
06-12-10, 06:46 PM
Its very interesting to watch how the masters of the universe keep order by turning their quite considerable power against an individual who crosses them.And this is a well known person(he is now anyway)so think how awkward they could make life for a nobody who got in the way.
Time to go away and watch "Enemy of the State" again.
The Basket
06-12-10, 07:05 PM
To say we have a right to know...no we don't.
We dont need to know official secrets or info that in the hands of an enemy would be useful.
In my view Wikileaks have crossed the line...
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 07:10 PM
To say we have a right to know...no we don't.
We dont need to know official secrets or info that in the hands of an enemy would be useful.
In my view Wikileaks have crossed the line...
We do have a right to know, self-determination and democracy should mean something.
"Official secrets", as far as I was aware this material was rated as "confidential" NOT "secret". Also see my above post regarding the value of this information.
MisterTommyH
06-12-10, 07:34 PM
Democracy doesn't mean we all get to make a decision on every issue and get to know everything. It means we elect someone to represent us to, learn the facts and make an informed decision/vote.
Not everyone has the capability of making a decision on some issues, and most that do have the capability do not have the time to research all the issues sufficiently to make a fully informed decision.
Did anyone hear the owner of wikileaks has a warrant for his arrest for "alledgedly" grouping up a lady?
Was it pushed forward by the American government? Ponders...
The Basket
06-12-10, 08:11 PM
If you want free access to all info then put your bank details on the Org.
Plus any other financial info you think can be useful.
We have secrets for a reason.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 08:25 PM
Democracy doesn't mean we all get to make a decision on every issue and get to know everything. It means we elect someone to represent us to, learn the facts and make an informed decision/vote.When your informed decision is based on lies it doesn't make it that informed now does it?
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 08:28 PM
If you want free access to all info then put your bank details on the Org.
Poor straw man argument...
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 08:35 PM
If you want free access to all info then put your bank details on the Org.
Plus any other financial info you think can be useful.
We have secrets for a reason.
That's a complete f***ing numpty argument there. You can't connect those 2 at all.
See my above comment about tactical information not being released and the resulting relevance to actual operations.
MisterTommyH
06-12-10, 08:38 PM
When your informed decision is based on lies it doesn't make it that informed now does it?
Maybe I should have said based on the information available. That also means evaluating when the information is genuine rather that just accepting everything that is putting front of them.
Many people find it difficult to determine whether what they read in the papers is genuine or not (perhaps that should read some people).
Biker Biggles
06-12-10, 08:43 PM
Democracy doesn't mean we all get to make a decision on every issue and get to know everything. It means we elect someone to represent us to, learn the facts and make an informed decision/vote.
Not everyone has the capability of making a decision on some issues, and most that do have the capability do not have the time to research all the issues sufficiently to make a fully informed decision.
This is true,but if we never get to know the background information(even after the event)we will never know if our representatives are doing a good job.If we dont know that,how will we know whether to re elect them?
Also,if our representatives never have to justify their decisions how will they ever learn not to make the same horrendous blunders again and again?Refer back to previous comments on Iraq and Afganistan.
While I accept fully the need for secrecy around currently "live"operations and some tactical policy issues I think the sooner most stuff gets out in the open the better.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 08:52 PM
Maybe I should have said based on the information available. That also means evaluating when the information is genuine rather that just accepting everything that is putting front of them.
Many people find it difficult to determine whether what they read in the papers is genuine or not (perhaps that should read some people).
Still doesn't change the argument though
We elect people to represent us and do what we think they should do, if they lie and tell you they're doing what they said they'd do when they were begging for votes but in fact are doing the opposite in secrecy, how is that a healthy democratic process?
The Basket
06-12-10, 08:52 PM
I disagree.
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 08:54 PM
Come on after trying to tell us that posting your bank details online is same thing as one politician complaining to another you will have to come up with some reasons for that...
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 08:56 PM
Come on after trying to tell us that posting your bank details online is same thing as one politician complaining to another you will have to come up with some reasons for that...I disagree...
You don't have to, but if you can't back up statements with a logical idea then you've lost the argument
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 08:57 PM
Touche
MisterTommyH
06-12-10, 09:05 PM
I see your point. And yes we should know what our government is doing. But when it comes to security there is a line beyond which we cannot tell everyone anything.
As much as your argument makes ideological sense, the reality is that it's just not feasible to be open about everything. You wouldn't tell a competing business your secrets because you want to keep your customers, just like our government cannot tell it's secrets to other states and/or terrorists simply because they will have different aims and objectives to us.
The Basket
06-12-10, 09:06 PM
Have you ever dealt with sensitive info?
I bet you haven't. Otherwise your view may change.
If that info becomes public then the trust of that info becomes worthless.
The USA has a responsibility to keep things secret for its own sake and the sake of its allies.
It's not up to you or me or wikileaks to decide what is public domain.
You must understand that. If you don't then we disagree.
I don't have to win or lose any argument coz that's the way it is.
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 09:07 PM
These aren't secrets, everyone who's involved in this stuff will not be surprised by any of it.
MisterTommyH
06-12-10, 09:15 PM
Fair enough. I'm not saying he should be arrested like the Americans seems to want, just that it's not the brightest idea to stick a big red target on something and say - hit is here, it'll hurt us. And there might be people out there who want to hit an aerospace factory rather than a public building. I wouldn't want that on my head.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:18 PM
I see your point. And yes we should know what our government is doing. But when it comes to security there is a line beyond which we cannot tell everyone anything. And the proof that any of these leaks have reduced national security of the US is? Or are we just going to trust the US to be entirely objective in it's comments regarding the international humiliation they're currently getting?
And to reiterate, the US government were approached before the information was released in order to discuss redacted notes where national security was at risk. The US refused, they brought it upon themselves that the cables are uncensored...
The USA has a responsibility to keep things secret for its own sake and the sake of its allies.Should have done a better job if it was that important then shouldn't they, and yes, I have dealt with sensitive information, doesn't alter my views in the slightest
Specialone
06-12-10, 09:18 PM
I personally cant see the gain of releasing this crap, he only does it to get a reaction surely.
With the world just itching to fight against each other, i just think its something we dont need, so the Yanks should just dispose of him.
I''ve never looked at this before but as the first video i clicked came up with Amy Goodman and Democracy now I am inclined to trust the info.
Amy Goodman and Michael Moore (film maker) have uncovered quite a lot of US black projects and I know they support The Yes Men (also Journalist film makers).
If it had anything to do with Fox news (republican) or CNN (so called democratic) expecially that knob Bill Orielly then i would say it was BS.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:20 PM
I personally cant see the gain of releasing this crap...
Then you don't meet the minimum requirements for this argument dude, sorry...:(
kaivalagi
06-12-10, 09:21 PM
It's not up to you or me or wikileaks to decide what is public domain.
That's why I voted for "Wikileaks are a bunch of irresponsible muppets" because who are they (or more specifically who is Julian Assange) to make a decision on the release of secret information, not owned by them, that could have an impact on a country as a whole and affect it's people...
I agree some of the material just shows politics for what it can be and that's fine and dandy, but some of it is really quite damaging isn't it...
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:22 PM
I agree some of the material just shows politics for what it can be and that's fine and dandy, but some of it is really quite damaging isn't it...
Examples? Please include evidence of the damage caused...
Specialone
06-12-10, 09:26 PM
Then you don't meet the minimum requirements for this argument dude, sorry...:(
Enlighten me then :)
Anyway, i thought it was a discussion not an argument :smt102
I would rather see people researching info like this than sitting back in ignorance and watching xfactor!
I think the key is to keep open and do plenty of research.
We (UK) also have access to sites such as TPUC but as our system seems to follow the US I don't think we are far behind what is being uncovered stateside.
MisterTommyH
06-12-10, 09:28 PM
It doesn't matter if it has reduced the national security of the US, and they don't have to proove it. What is true is that there are people who work at these places who are not military, and tomorrow there is an increased risk for those people. Not because there is anything there worth them targetting, but because this guy said it was important to the US.
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 09:28 PM
I personally cant see the gain of releasing this crap, he only does it to get a reaction surely.
With the world just itching to fight against each other, i just think its something we dont need, so the Yanks should just dispose of him.
Nope, completely disagree. It's not for a bunch of redneck war-happy idiots to dispose of anyone.
By the way, this guy has showed SOME restraint over the release of this information, would you prefer them to "dispose" of this guy who has showed some sense, or that the information had fallen entirely into the hands of some mad 14 year old hackerz who would probably have dumped every detail into the public domain?
The world isn't "itching to fight against each other". Wars cost money and are a risky business. You think a bit of a red face is going to start WW3? Maybe in 1970...
That's why I voted for "Wikileaks are a bunch of irresponsible muppets" because who are they (or more specifically who is Julian Assange) to make a decision on the release of secret information, not owned by them, that could have an impact on a country as a whole and affect it's people...
I agree some of the material just shows politics for what it can be and that's fine and dandy, but some of it is really quite damaging isn't it...
He's a reporter/journalist it's what they do!
I think the crux of the matter is oppressive states begin and end with "if you've got nothing to hide, you're alright"*, amusingly they don't seem to like it when the scrutiny is the other way around.
*Which by the way a lot of people on this forum didn't see anything wrong with when we were discussing ID cards...
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:30 PM
Enlighten me then :)It's not an enlightenment, if you can't see the public benefit in exposing lies and corruption then there's not much anybody can do for you:(
If it makes you feel better substitute "discussion" into my previous post, it means exactly the same thing...;)
kaivalagi
06-12-10, 09:32 PM
Examples? Please include evidence of the damage caused...
I can't, badly worded and purely conjecture as a consequence. Should have read " but some of it surely is really quite damaging isn't it?".
If you don;t agree with that sentiment then can you argue to me why this is good for the countries or the people of those countries then?
Enlighten me then :)
Anyway, i thought it was a discussion not an argument :smt102
+1
It's a poll
Specialone
06-12-10, 09:34 PM
Nope, completely disagree. It's not for a bunch of redneck war-happy idiots to dispose of anyone.
The world isn't "itching to fight against each other". Wars cost money and are a risky business. You think a bit of a red face is going to start WW3? Maybe in 1970...
I have to disagree with you, north korea are looking to fight anyone who wants it, the middle east are always gonna fight, to mention a few.
You or anyone tell me why we need to be 'leaked' this sh1te, what are we gonna gain from it?
I dont know all the stuff 'leaked', but what i have heard doesnt interest me in the slightest, in fact im sure a lot of other people feel the same.
I got enough to worry about.
Not sure how much could damage things to a point where it affects national security but why bother trying to find out?
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:36 PM
It doesn't matter if it has reduced the national security of the US, and they don't have to proove it. What is true is that there are people who work at these places who are not military, and tomorrow there is an increased risk for those people. Not because there is anything there worth them targetting, but because this guy said it was important to the US.
And you think johnny explody is going to bomb an secure antivenom factory in Australia instead of a crowded public place in the US? Never in a million years would they take the former over the latter - the whole point of terrorism is to instil terror, bombing a factory on the other side of the world will not instil the terror of a good 'ol christmas hometown bombing in the US, and be much harder to pull off
There is no increased risk, unless Russia decides to start world war three 'cause the only threat to these facilities listed in one of a quarter of a million cables is another state, one with the resources and motive to try and take down the US
Chris wars don't only cost money they generate it too! it's just that the money is made by the capitolists! i.e. mega corps like DOW and EXXON.
Dave you supprise me at your choice being a fellow DRat did you not notice all the dodgy **** going on with the US intel?
Specialone
06-12-10, 09:39 PM
It's not an enlightenment, if you can't see the public benefit in exposing lies and corruption then there's not much anybody can do for you:(
If it makes you feel better substitute "discussion" into my previous post, it means exactly the same thing...;)
Wolfie, being the argumentallist (sorry discusser) you are, im not sure you know yourself what the public benefits are, otherwise you'd tell us all.
Corruption maybe, but some things are best left alone imo.
Anyway, only just come into this thread and its already boring me.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:40 PM
I can't, badly worded and purely conjecture as a consequence. Should have read " but some of it surely is really quite damaging isn't it?"
For the reasons listed above and the following...
International relations are not based on trust, otherwise there'd be no need to spy on people. The damage only comes into it when the lies unravel, whether that's by whistleblowers, slip ups, full blown arguments or whatever means, it's the lies and corruption that do the damage, not their exposition
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 09:41 PM
I have to disagree with you, north korea are looking to fight anyone who wants it, the middle east are always gonna fight, to mention a few.
You or anyone tell me why we need to be 'leaked' this sh1te, what are we gonna gain from it?
I dont know all the stuff 'leaked', but what i have heard doesnt interest me in the slightest, in fact im sure a lot of other people feel the same.
I got enough to worry about.
Not sure how much could damage things to a point where it affects national security but why bother trying to find out?
You've got your head in the sand then.
Personally I'd be quite keen on knowing if my government are about to start a war for fun.
What is to gain, information can never be a loss. And the US certainly need a slap from reality. I daresay our politicians do as well. Accountability to their words and actions. They represent us, they should not fear their words becoming known to the people they represent!
North Korea are bankrupt and thousands of miles away from us sandwiched between China (who mobilised a million troops to shovel the snow a few years ago), and South Korea who have a modern army geared up to repel an attack from the North.
Wars cost money.
The Middle East is always going to fight. True. They will fight whether the US is a bit embarrassed about something or not.
Or maybe they are mostly fat and happy on oil money and want to stay that way.
MisterTommyH
06-12-10, 09:41 PM
Lone wolf, if someone is never going to target these places then why is there even security there? Come to think of it why do we even bother having an armed guard on army bases in Northern Ireland?
Point is that, yes, there are terrorists out there who only want to scare people, but there are also any number of other people out there with any number of motives that you/I cannot begin to think of.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:41 PM
Anyway, only just come into this thread and its already boring me.
If you're not interested in the topic why ask for people to explain it to you?:confused:
Perhaps best to leave it alone...
And to reiterate, the US government were approached before the information was released in order to discuss redacted notes where national security was at risk. The US refused, they brought it upon themselves that the cables are uncensored...
To be fair, the US could hardly say "yeah, print classified information - we only classified it for fun" could they? It was PR by wikileaks, nothing more.
i just think its something we dont need, so the Yanks should just dispose of him.
The last thing I want is somebody in this country to be assassinated by any state, let alone the Yanks (you do realise he is currently living in England?). At what point does bumping off journalists that embarrass a government make us a police state?
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 09:45 PM
And you think johnny explody is going to bomb an secure antivenom factory in Australia instead of a crowded public place in the US? Never in a million years would they take the former over the latter - the whole point of terrorism is to instil terror, bombing a factory on the other side of the world will not instil the terror of a good 'ol christmas hometown bombing in the US, and be much harder to pull off
There is no increased risk, unless Russia decides to start world war three 'cause the only threat to these facilities listed in one of a quarter of a million cables is another state, one with the resources and motive to try and take down the US
I don't think Russia has any capabilities like that any more...
Chris wars don't only cost money they generate it too! it's just that the money is made by the capitolists! i.e. mega corps like DOW and EXXON.
But in the case of North Korea if they want a war they need to buy guns and tanks which needs foreign currency which they don't have.
Wolfie, being the argumentallist (sorry discusser) you are, im not sure you know yourself what the public benefits are, otherwise you'd tell us all.
Corruption maybe, but some things are best left alone imo.
Anyway, only just come into this thread and its already boring me.
If discussion that requires a bit of thought into ethics bores you then maybe stick to watching eastenders eh? :-P
You or anyone tell me why we need to be 'leaked' this sh1te, what are we gonna gain from it?
We need it leaked, because the governments are saying one thing but doing another and denying it.
I dont know all the stuff 'leaked', but what i have heard doesnt interest me in the slightest, in fact im sure a lot of other people feel the same.
The stuff leaked is fairly bland; the more interesting part is the response to it by various governments.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:46 PM
Lone wolf, if someone is never going to target these places then why is there even security there?
They have security because there is, and always has, been a risk that someone would wish to to harm to such places
In terms of whether that risk has increased in the light of a particular facility being on a US document saying they like it, the answer is minimally, because going for one of them would be a complete MO change from the terrorist norm...
Specialone
06-12-10, 09:48 PM
If you're not interested in the topic why ask for people to explain it to you?:confused:
Perhaps best to leave it alone...
Er i didnt, i asked for you to give me your thoughts as to why these leaks are good.
I am interested in this just not all the crap being spilled for virtually no gain.
In all honesty, as YC said just, im not against finding out important stuff like impending wars, corruption etc i guess what worries me is how the info is coming out and the lack of control over it and what possible damage some info in the wrong hands may do.
I think the main question should be why do governments restrict info when they are supposed to work for us?
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:50 PM
I don't think Russia has any capabilities like that any more...I think you're quite possibly right
And hence the irony, currently there is no state with the ability and motive to try and take down the US - the enemy du jour is terrorists...;)
@specialone --> See simesb's post. Pretty much sums it up, from there on in it comes down to whether you think it's OK to lie to the people who elected you in order to remain in power
I think the main question should be why do governments restrict info when they are supposed to work for us?
To keep us safe (from ourselves :confused:). Alternatively, to keep them safe from us.
kaivalagi
06-12-10, 09:51 PM
I think the main question should be why do governments restrict info when they are supposed to work for us?
Because if they don't restrict sensitive data then it will get in the hands of other nations that would be best off not seeing it...whether we as a people agree with it or not
To keep us safe (from ourselves :confused:). Alternatively, to keep them safe from us.
Would that not be a nanny state then? they are us!
Specialone
06-12-10, 09:53 PM
If discussion that requires a bit of thought into ethics bores you then maybe stick to watching eastenders eh? :-P
Rather eat my own sh1te tbh, anyway having too much fun winding people up, isnt that what most people do on here?
Seriously though, just not sure its in the peoples / worlds interest in the bigger picture.
We all have our own views i guess and bigger or smaller fish to fry, but me, you or any civi flapping about stuff aint gonna change a damn thing.
kaivalagi
06-12-10, 09:53 PM
Would that not be a nanny state then? they are us!
Yep! But some of the people in this country need a nanny...:D
Specialone
06-12-10, 09:55 PM
We need it leaked, because the governments are saying one thing but doing another and denying it.
Example, recent stuff?
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 09:55 PM
I can't get into the Wikileaks & secrecy stuff and have any credibility, I don't know enough about it, but I do disagree with this.
We elect people to represent us and do what we think they should do
We elect people not just to represent us, but also to run the country 'on our behalf', because we agree with the basic principles behind how they said they would do it, but we are not capable of actually doing it ourselves.
I'm an expert in understanding business requirements, designing IT solutions to meet those requirements, then selling them into the customer's business. I can do a better job of that than any politician! But I am not an expert in any way shape or form, in running any part of a country, so I elect somebody who understands it and can do it for me.
Amongst my customers who get it badly wrong, are those who outsource their IT to a service provider, then try to dictate to that service provider how the service should be run.
The expression "letting the kids run the kindergarten" is very valid when it comes to government, and in some instances whether we voted for the government in office or not, we have to realise that we are the kids.
kaivalagi
06-12-10, 09:55 PM
We all have our own views i guess and bigger or smaller fish to fry, but me, you or any civi flapping about stuff aint gonna change a damn thing.
+1
You could say we could have our say through the vote but.....:lol:
Yep! But some of the people in this country need a nanny...:D
lol but that nanny is a greedy bitch!!!
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 09:56 PM
Bl00dy hell it moved on three pages whilst I was typing!
kaivalagi
06-12-10, 09:58 PM
We all have our own views i guess and bigger or smaller fish to fry, but me, you or any civi flapping about stuff aint gonna change a damn thing.
+1
You could say we could have our say through the vote but.....:lol:
edit: meaning it doesn't matter which party is in we would still have these secrecy issues
Specialone
06-12-10, 09:58 PM
Bl00dy hell it moved on three pages whilst I was typing!
My fault Col :(
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 09:59 PM
Example, recent stuff?
US coercing Spain into awarding a £200m military contract to GE when legitimately it should have gone to BAE
Released today in the cables, if you were looking...
kaivalagi
06-12-10, 09:59 PM
lol but that nanny is a greedy bitch!!!
Tell me about it! She needs to work harder for the money I reckon...or take a bl00dy pay cut ;)
Bl00dy hell it moved on three pages whilst I was typing!
More writing than reading going on but I can see that people are passionate about this subject.
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 10:01 PM
yes, there are terrorists out there who only want to scare people, but there are also any number of other people out there with any number of motives that you/I cannot begin to think of.
They have security because there is, and always has, been a risk that someone would wish to to harm to such places
Terrorists by their very name go to get their way by causing terror.
Factories would need to be attacked in a very different way. Anyone serious enough to consider such an attack would need to know for sure the strategic value of the target, which if you think about it from that point of view would require a bloody sight more info than one diplomat saying it is important.
Consider a factory, or a BAE plant even. What do you blow up? This isn't 1944 where you use 20000 tons of bombs to level 10 acres. You have a small number of men and weapons, it's not possible to damage a facility like that sufficiently to make any dent in where the war with Islam is going on. One man with a grenade cannot destroy an entire supply chain.
Now consider the other option a terrorist goes for. The bomb on a plane full of women and children. Or a hijacking. Small number of men required, no particular special weapons needed (which can't be bought), MASSIVE impact such that a few of these have inconvenienced millions of people for millions of hours due to security checks.
Or, the bomb in the shopping center, successfully got labour to reduce everyone's personal freedom with various "anti-terror" legislation. Obviously a vested interest there too but you see what I mean.
Nuclear reactors... now there's a target one bloke with a bomb could cause monster damage with. Funnily enough they tend to be guarded...
Example, recent stuff?
None. But without leaks we wouldn't know. Fox has been banging on about how this could harm the "special relationship" with the US. The US cables say that the Brits are paranoid about the "special relationship." A one sided special relationship ain't that special.
I'm an expert in understanding business requirements, designing IT solutions to meet those requirements, then selling them into the customer's business. I can do a better job of that than any politician! But I am not an expert in any way shape or form, in running any part of a country, so I elect somebody who understands it and can do it for me.
They have no special skills for running the country, they are just proles like you and me who have grabbed some fleeting power. The real worry is the civil service (particularly the secret services) who are a self-serving organisation. "We need more money, but we can't tell you why because the security of the country is at stake;" I don't entirely trust them.
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 10:02 PM
We elect people not just to represent us, but also to run the country 'on our behalf', because we agree with the basic principles behind how they said they would do it, but we are not capable of actually doing it ourselves.
Better penned than I managed, doesn't change the fact that knowing a political organisation is lying to you might sway your vote somewhat though...
kaivalagi
06-12-10, 10:05 PM
Just watching BBC News and wikileaks have given info on sensitive and vulnerable locations, including ones in the UK...how is that useful and in the publics interest?
the_lone_wolf
06-12-10, 10:05 PM
Nuclear reactors... now there's a target one bloke with a bomb could cause monster damage with. Funnily enough they tend to be guarded...
Considering you could 9/11 a nuclear power station with an airliner and not cause a leak I'd disagree, but that's another argument
Totally agree with your other points though, no point planning a secured facility when you could get 10x the publicity and 1000x the fear by walking into a crowded subway/restaurant/shop and detonating
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 10:05 PM
We all have our own views i guess and bigger or smaller fish to fry, but me, you or any civi flapping about stuff aint gonna change a damn thing.
Funny really, one civvy who runs a little website has half the US government turning pink.
US coercing Spain into awarding a £200m military contract to GE when legitimately it should have gone to BAE
Released today in the cables, if you were looking...
Again no surprise to anyone, but damn embarrassing when it's proven.
MisterTommyH
06-12-10, 10:07 PM
Better penned than I managed, doesn't change the fact that knowing a political organisation is lying to you might sway your vote somewhat though...
Whichever party got into power they would keep secrets of one form or the other.
If the Lib Dems got it they wouldn't suddenly release everything, they can't even keep their promises about tuition fees (a move I happen to agree with).
yorkie_chris
06-12-10, 10:07 PM
Considering you could 9/11 a nuclear power station with an airliner and not cause a leak I'd disagree, but that's another argument
I'd say it would have significant psychological effect though.
I was more thinking about commando styleh stuff really, like people seem to think is about to happen to all those sites listed in that document :rolleyes:
You know, by all those organised, well armed, completely secret groups of fanatics stationed about the country just waiting for such an opportunity...
By the way has anyone considered this might just be a massive ruse and they're tracking anyone who downloads the file to get to know potential political dissidents... #dons tinfoil hat#
-Ralph-
06-12-10, 10:09 PM
My fault Col :(
That's quite OK mate :p
My point being that sometimes keeping secrets is for our own benefit (and sometimes you have to lie to protect a secret), and we are not necessarily well enough informed, with a good enough understanding of the issues, to know whether that info should be public domain or not.
Obviously there is a line that can be crossed when lying to your public, but Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did that, and they are no longer in office.
It's a bit of an idealistic argument given modern governments I know, but a valid one nonetheless, and we will never know better than those in office, whether or not any particular piece of information needs to remain secret.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.