It's another Poll! ;-) WIKILEAKS....

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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...

Originally Posted by SmudgeK3

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.

Originally Posted by specialone

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?

Originally Posted by specialone

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.

Originally Posted by specialone

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]

Originally Posted by Tommy H

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...

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

If you're not interested in the topic why ask for people to explain it to you?

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]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

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

Originally Posted by SmudgeK3

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 ). Alternatively, to keep them safe from us.

[kaivalagi]

Originally Posted by SmudgeK3

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

Originally Posted by simesb

To keep us safe (from ourselves ). Alternatively, to keep them safe from us.

Would that not be a nanny state then? they are us!

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

If discussion that requires a bit of thought into ethics bores you then maybe stick to watching eastenders eh?

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.