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

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

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]

Originally Posted by Tommy H

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.

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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...

Originally Posted by specialone

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.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

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]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

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]

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]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

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]

Originally Posted by specialone

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.

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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
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#

Originally Posted by specialone

My fault Col

That's quite OK mate

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.