Surprised this hasn't come up in conversation
The US embassy cables | World news | guardian.co.uk
Personally I think this is a good thing. Governments should not be able to hide what they are up to on our supposed behalf.
Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme
Is The US fighting a proxy war for the saudis?
wikileaks
wikileaks
gmc;1345293 wrote: Surprised this hasn't come up in conversation
The US embassy cables | World news | guardian.co.uk
Personally I think this is a good thing. Governments should not be able to hide what they are up to on our supposed behalf.
Is The US fighting a proxy war for the saudis?
Is it any surprise that the disparate tribes in the area are trying to use the west to fight their wars for them?
The US embassy cables | World news | guardian.co.uk
Personally I think this is a good thing. Governments should not be able to hide what they are up to on our supposed behalf.
Is The US fighting a proxy war for the saudis?
Is it any surprise that the disparate tribes in the area are trying to use the west to fight their wars for them?
wikileaks
Here's the sort of outrageous illegitimate behaviour of the US State Department and it's nothing to do with uppity Arabs, this is targetted at "Austria, Burkina Faso, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Japan, Libya, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam International Organizations: UN".
Austria? France and Japan? Mexico and Russia? The United Nations? They're classed as enemy territory these days? And it's not ancient Bush territory, it's from 31 July 2009 and it's signed Hillary. She wants the passwords and personal encryption keys of foreign government key staff. It's called suborning and blackmail. It probably explains British Foreign Policy under the last Labour administration, I can't think of much else that would account for it.
STATE 00080163 024 OF 024
information systems, networks, and technologies used by top officials and their support staffs. -- Details on commercial and private VIP networks used for official communications, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys, and types of V P N versions used. -- Telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of key officials, as well as limited distribution telephone numbers/directories and public switched networks (PSTN) telephone directories; dialing numbers for voice, datalink, video teleconferencing, wireless communications systems, cellular systems, personal communications systems, and wireless facsimiles. -- Information on hacking or other security incidents involving UN networks. -- Key personnel and functions of UN entity that maintains UN communications and computer networks. -- Indications of IO">IO">IO/IW operations directed against the UN. -- Information about current and future use of communications systems and technologies by officials or organizations, including cellular phone networks, mobile satellite phones, very small aperture terminals (VSAT), trunked and mobile radios, pagers, prepaid calling cards, firewalls, encryption, international connectivity, use of electronic data interchange, Voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP), Worldwide interoperability for microwave access (Wi-Max), and cable and fiber networks.
Countries: Austria, Burkina Faso, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Japan, Libya, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam International Organizations: UN CLINTON
US embassy cables: Washington calls for intelligence on top UN officials | World news | guardian.co.uk
Austria? France and Japan? Mexico and Russia? The United Nations? They're classed as enemy territory these days? And it's not ancient Bush territory, it's from 31 July 2009 and it's signed Hillary. She wants the passwords and personal encryption keys of foreign government key staff. It's called suborning and blackmail. It probably explains British Foreign Policy under the last Labour administration, I can't think of much else that would account for it.
STATE 00080163 024 OF 024
information systems, networks, and technologies used by top officials and their support staffs. -- Details on commercial and private VIP networks used for official communications, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys, and types of V P N versions used. -- Telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of key officials, as well as limited distribution telephone numbers/directories and public switched networks (PSTN) telephone directories; dialing numbers for voice, datalink, video teleconferencing, wireless communications systems, cellular systems, personal communications systems, and wireless facsimiles. -- Information on hacking or other security incidents involving UN networks. -- Key personnel and functions of UN entity that maintains UN communications and computer networks. -- Indications of IO">IO">IO/IW operations directed against the UN. -- Information about current and future use of communications systems and technologies by officials or organizations, including cellular phone networks, mobile satellite phones, very small aperture terminals (VSAT), trunked and mobile radios, pagers, prepaid calling cards, firewalls, encryption, international connectivity, use of electronic data interchange, Voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP), Worldwide interoperability for microwave access (Wi-Max), and cable and fiber networks.
Countries: Austria, Burkina Faso, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Japan, Libya, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam International Organizations: UN CLINTON
US embassy cables: Washington calls for intelligence on top UN officials | World news | guardian.co.uk
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
I tried to access wikileaks last week as there was news that the US was warning Canada that sensitive info was being put on the site that we might not be too happy about. Apparently you yanks have loose lips. Never did manage to get on to the site or its mirrors. Should check back.
wikileaks
Bryn Mawr;1345303 wrote: Is it any surprise that the disparate tribes in the area are trying to use the west to fight their wars for them?
Not in the least but maybe such open confirmation will make the british and American people less likely to go along with it all. People know I think but hope against all the evidence are not really the devious idiots they really are and prefer to believe they have our interests at heart.
Haven't looked at them all yet, can't wait to see what they really thought of Blair.
Not in the least but maybe such open confirmation will make the british and American people less likely to go along with it all. People know I think but hope against all the evidence are not really the devious idiots they really are and prefer to believe they have our interests at heart.
Haven't looked at them all yet, can't wait to see what they really thought of Blair.
wikileaks
Guess it was just Saturday that I was trying to access. Seems so long ago... anyway, looks like they're having site problems but it doesn't matter as the info has already been released to press. The Canada involvement is apparently that a ton of the intercepted communications were from Canadian diplomats and the language is unflattering. So we're probably being called lame ass beaver lovers... which is pretty accurate and okay by me.
With all the invasion of privacy that happened to the average US citizen with the terror hunting legislation, I'm not prone to feeling bad for them when they get snooped back. It is a reasonable concern that some of their diplomats are placed in danger but the why shouldn't be misplaced. If they've sent them on questionable missions, then the government put them at risk not the people who found out about it.
With all the invasion of privacy that happened to the average US citizen with the terror hunting legislation, I'm not prone to feeling bad for them when they get snooped back. It is a reasonable concern that some of their diplomats are placed in danger but the why shouldn't be misplaced. If they've sent them on questionable missions, then the government put them at risk not the people who found out about it.
wikileaks
The central message from all three major US leaks this year is that the moral vacuity of the USA has reached such depths that its government can no longer rely on even its own staff to protect material which in any country, at any time, would normally be considered safe from publication.
The more such releases the better, that's my opinion, and all the eyewash of "putting lives at risk" is just that - eyewash. Besides which, compared to the number of foreign lives the US government continually puts not merely at risk but actually in the realm of the dead, any such actual increase in risk to Americans abroad is a trivial cost in lives if the end result is isolationism. The sooner we reach that desirable end the better.
Apply US taxation to the direct benefit of the domestic economy and stop using it as a slush fund for international bribes in the nominal form of "aid", which it most certainly doesn't.
The more such releases the better, that's my opinion, and all the eyewash of "putting lives at risk" is just that - eyewash. Besides which, compared to the number of foreign lives the US government continually puts not merely at risk but actually in the realm of the dead, any such actual increase in risk to Americans abroad is a trivial cost in lives if the end result is isolationism. The sooner we reach that desirable end the better.
Apply US taxation to the direct benefit of the domestic economy and stop using it as a slush fund for international bribes in the nominal form of "aid", which it most certainly doesn't.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
Although I think that transparency is a good goal in government, there are some things that definitely shouldn't be made public. I mean, honestly, do you want your boss to hear some of the stuff you've said about him or her in a bad mood?
For example, how does it help anyone to tell Iran that the King of Saudi Arabia asked us to go to war with them? Even though we obviously said no, that'll just aggravate them.
I go by the old saying, "Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do that thing. (See: Burning the Koran)
For example, how does it help anyone to tell Iran that the King of Saudi Arabia asked us to go to war with them? Even though we obviously said no, that'll just aggravate them.
I go by the old saying, "Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do that thing. (See: Burning the Koran)
wikileaks
Generally, if I said something I'll stand accountable for it. I don't say things I don't mean. I have had things I've said about my boss get to them and, inevitably I talk out why I said it with them and either end up leaving as I'm not happy with the workplace or they recognize my complaint. I do, on occasion, apologize for not telling them my complaint directly. Usually when I don't it's because I felt it was something transitory that wouldn't recur.
So, that out of the way, I feel justified in thinking that governments should also be accountable for what they say and do... or step down.
So, that out of the way, I feel justified in thinking that governments should also be accountable for what they say and do... or step down.
wikileaks
"Disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters Monday afternoon.
But it's not an attack on responsible government, Mrs Clinton. It's an attack on irresponsible government. It's an attack on a government gone wild, on a rogue state, on a bunch of killers who need to be put on the naughty step and timed out for a century or two.
"There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people" she said. Indeed there isn't. Perhaps you should personally attend a few interments of innocent women and children killed by occupation forces in Afghanistan each month just to remind yourself of that fact. Perhaps you could talk your allegedly-subservient Pentagon planners into absolutely preventing such deaths, since those lives are absolutely sacrosanct as opposed to mere collateral inconveniences.
But it's not an attack on responsible government, Mrs Clinton. It's an attack on irresponsible government. It's an attack on a government gone wild, on a rogue state, on a bunch of killers who need to be put on the naughty step and timed out for a century or two.
"There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people" she said. Indeed there isn't. Perhaps you should personally attend a few interments of innocent women and children killed by occupation forces in Afghanistan each month just to remind yourself of that fact. Perhaps you could talk your allegedly-subservient Pentagon planners into absolutely preventing such deaths, since those lives are absolutely sacrosanct as opposed to mere collateral inconveniences.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
spot;1345476 wrote: "Disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters Monday afternoon.
But it's not an attack on responsible government, Mrs Clinton. It's an attack on irresponsible government. It's an attack on a government gone wild, on a rogue state, on a bunch of killers who need to be put on the naughty step and timed out for a century or two.
"There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people" she said. Indeed there isn't. Perhaps you should personally attend a few interments of innocent women and children killed by occupation forces in Afghanistan each month just to remind yourself of that fact. Perhaps you could talk your allegedly-subservient Pentagon planners into absolutely preventing such deaths, since those lives are absolutely sacrosanct as opposed to mere collateral inconveniences.
ROFLMAO! It's good to see Spot hugging himself in glee. This must be just about the best present ever for an America-hater like yourself, eh Spot?
Well... Merry Christmas!! ;D
As for me, I understand that running a superpower in the 21st century entails some behind the scenes dealing and I sleep well at night.
But it's not an attack on responsible government, Mrs Clinton. It's an attack on irresponsible government. It's an attack on a government gone wild, on a rogue state, on a bunch of killers who need to be put on the naughty step and timed out for a century or two.
"There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people" she said. Indeed there isn't. Perhaps you should personally attend a few interments of innocent women and children killed by occupation forces in Afghanistan each month just to remind yourself of that fact. Perhaps you could talk your allegedly-subservient Pentagon planners into absolutely preventing such deaths, since those lives are absolutely sacrosanct as opposed to mere collateral inconveniences.
ROFLMAO! It's good to see Spot hugging himself in glee. This must be just about the best present ever for an America-hater like yourself, eh Spot?
Well... Merry Christmas!! ;D
As for me, I understand that running a superpower in the 21st century entails some behind the scenes dealing and I sleep well at night.
wikileaks
Saint_;1345494 wrote: ROFLMAO! It's good to see Spot hugging himself in glee. This must be just about the best present ever for an America-hater like yourself, eh Spot?
Well... Merry Christmas!! ;D
As for me, I understand that running a superpower in the 21st century entails some behind the scenes dealing and I sleep well at night.
But as a citizen of said superpower don't you think you have a right to know what is being done in your name? It's similar to the leaks over the vietnam war. My understanding is the ones responsible were never charged because they had done nothing treasonable merely let the public know things that should not have been hidden in the first place. What are they going to charge the culprit with anyway? Do you guys have the equivalent of an official secrets act?
As to wikileaks itself if it was Russian or Chinese documents they would be being hailed as heroes.
Well... Merry Christmas!! ;D
As for me, I understand that running a superpower in the 21st century entails some behind the scenes dealing and I sleep well at night.
But as a citizen of said superpower don't you think you have a right to know what is being done in your name? It's similar to the leaks over the vietnam war. My understanding is the ones responsible were never charged because they had done nothing treasonable merely let the public know things that should not have been hidden in the first place. What are they going to charge the culprit with anyway? Do you guys have the equivalent of an official secrets act?
As to wikileaks itself if it was Russian or Chinese documents they would be being hailed as heroes.
wikileaks
Nobody will be surprised to hear that Chilcot was castrated:The British government promised to protect America's interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, according to a secret cable sent from the US embassy in London.
Jon Day, the Ministry of Defence's director general for security policy, told US under-secretary of state Ellen Tauscher that the UK had "put measures in place to protect your interests during the UK inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war".
WikiLeaks cable reveals secret pledge to protect US at Iraq inquiry | World news | The Guardian
Jon Day, the Ministry of Defence's director general for security policy, told US under-secretary of state Ellen Tauscher that the UK had "put measures in place to protect your interests during the UK inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war".
WikiLeaks cable reveals secret pledge to protect US at Iraq inquiry | World news | The Guardian
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
A Canadian claims he feels really "manly" resulting in calling for assassination of wikileaks founder.
In defense of Canadians, the news host seems quite shocked.
I don't know why it's shocking seeing as we Canadians are very "Alice in Wonderland" and the most oft heard phrase in that flick is "Off with her head."
In defense of Canadians, the news host seems quite shocked.
I don't know why it's shocking seeing as we Canadians are very "Alice in Wonderland" and the most oft heard phrase in that flick is "Off with her head."
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
wikileaks
Saint_;1345494 wrote: ROFLMAO! It's good to see Spot hugging himself in glee. This must be just about the best present ever for an America-hater like yourself, eh Spot?
Well... Merry Christmas!! ;D
As for me, I understand that running a superpower in the 21st century entails some behind the scenes dealing and I sleep well at night.
Doesn't it trouble you enough that your country is heading down the road towards fascism (and taking us along too) to check your knee-jerk patriotism? What I am finding the most shocking about the Wikileaks revelations is not the leaks themselves, but how they are being addressed by the U.S. Administration and other governments....not to mention their lackeys in the mainstream media that put access to important politicians ahead of real journalism!
Hillary Clinton has revealed herself to be the fascist we always knew she was, by ordering diplomats to overtly spy on others, including making attempts to steal personal items and information about them.....and she's bitching about Julian Assange! Who is putting lives in danger? The people who are violating the protocol for diplomatic immunity or the ones who are revealing the memos on the poorly defended defense internet system? The criminals are not Bradley Manning - for revealing incontrovertible evidence of war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers, or the operators of an internet site that is the only crack in the armor of a secretive system that started and has been carrying out wars without virtually any means to examine the merits of these policies. The criminals are the ones who started wars for trumped up reasons; maintained a veil of secrecy over torture policies, secret prisons, and turned the judicial system upside down, and made the U.S. just another thugocracy in the world that functions under the principle of Might Means Right.
I hope Julian Assange and other wikileakers are able to do what our media and political oppositions were supposed to be doing for the last ten years before they kill him.....which you know is the next step. They have no real legal means or it seems technical ability to shut him down, so the next step is to put out a hit team to assassinate him.
Well... Merry Christmas!! ;D
As for me, I understand that running a superpower in the 21st century entails some behind the scenes dealing and I sleep well at night.
Doesn't it trouble you enough that your country is heading down the road towards fascism (and taking us along too) to check your knee-jerk patriotism? What I am finding the most shocking about the Wikileaks revelations is not the leaks themselves, but how they are being addressed by the U.S. Administration and other governments....not to mention their lackeys in the mainstream media that put access to important politicians ahead of real journalism!
Hillary Clinton has revealed herself to be the fascist we always knew she was, by ordering diplomats to overtly spy on others, including making attempts to steal personal items and information about them.....and she's bitching about Julian Assange! Who is putting lives in danger? The people who are violating the protocol for diplomatic immunity or the ones who are revealing the memos on the poorly defended defense internet system? The criminals are not Bradley Manning - for revealing incontrovertible evidence of war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers, or the operators of an internet site that is the only crack in the armor of a secretive system that started and has been carrying out wars without virtually any means to examine the merits of these policies. The criminals are the ones who started wars for trumped up reasons; maintained a veil of secrecy over torture policies, secret prisons, and turned the judicial system upside down, and made the U.S. just another thugocracy in the world that functions under the principle of Might Means Right.
I hope Julian Assange and other wikileakers are able to do what our media and political oppositions were supposed to be doing for the last ten years before they kill him.....which you know is the next step. They have no real legal means or it seems technical ability to shut him down, so the next step is to put out a hit team to assassinate him.
wikileaks
recovering conservative;1345624 wrote: They have no real legal means or it seems technical ability to shut him down, so the next step is to put out a hit team to assassinate him.Or to frame him on rape charges. We had a Cabinet Minister in the UK, Peter Hain, who upset Apartheid South Africa's security service when he was a student and found himself on trial at the Old Bailey accused of bank robbery. America's "Defenders of Democracy" seem at least as vile and unprincipled as BOSS ever did.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
This is UK Conservative thinking at the beginning of this year, expressed by William Hague.The DCM asked Hague whether the relationship between the UK and the U.S. was “still special.” Hague said he, David Cameron and George Osborne were “children of Thatcher” and staunch Atlanticists. Speaking more broadly, Hague acknowledged that this was a hard question to answer. Politicians, in his view, “sit at the top of the pyramid” of the general public and it is unclear whether the British people will maintain the network of ties to America that has sustained the special relationship. For his part, said Hague, he has a sister who is American, spends his own vacations in America, and, like many similar to him, considers America the “other country to turn to.” Asking his Senior Advisor her views, Helic (who is Bosnian), said, “America is the essential country.” Hague said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. He added, “we want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.”
Cable Viewer
Ah well - if he chooses to self-identify with That Woman he'll generate the same social unrest as before. And we want a pro-American regime as much as we want a hole in the head.
Cable Viewer
Ah well - if he chooses to self-identify with That Woman he'll generate the same social unrest as before. And we want a pro-American regime as much as we want a hole in the head.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
And a discussion on whether "leaks cost lives"...After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents." But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.
Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake. He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak. "The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said. "The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."
BBC News - Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?
Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake. He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak. "The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said. "The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."
BBC News - Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
Assange's statement that he did it because people need to know is as blatantly absurd as Benedict Arnold's statement that he turned traitor because loyal Americans needed to know. Traitors don't just hurt or kill one or two people, they hurt an entire country and every man, woman, and child in it. It is the greatest crime possible and is equal to mass murder, since it can lead to war.
Assange is a traitor. The penalty for being a traitor is death.
Assange is a traitor. The penalty for being a traitor is death.
wikileaks
Doesn't he have to be American to be a US traitor? Cuz he isn't. In case you hadn't noticed.
-
dchistoryman
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:35 am
wikileaks
I had posted a thread "wikileaks yawn" but I will respond on here. Did no one already know or suspect any of this anyway! For God's sake it's always gone on. Just read a newspaper or listen to the news, ok you may have to read in between the lines a little but it's not that difficult. There is also really no point getting all partisan about it either on a political or national level. All governments do it, ambassadors and attaches are asked to produce a realistic assesment of how they see local situations and advise their governments accordingly. So are we to assume that all these reports would suggest that every leader is a cross between Ghandi, Mandela and Jesus and that all countries were some sort of Utopia. Wikileaks is just another tabloid.
wikileaks
Saint_;1345648 wrote: ...as blatantly absurd as Benedict Arnold's statement that he turned traitor because loyal Americans needed to know.For the record, and as you well know, Benedict Arnold said no such thing.
Wikileaks is acting on behalf of the American people and against the political cancer which controls the country these days. The only people capable of leaking information from within American government circles are Americans, after all. Daniel Ellsberg is an all-American hero, I take it you'd agree with that?
Wikileaks is acting on behalf of the American people and against the political cancer which controls the country these days. The only people capable of leaking information from within American government circles are Americans, after all. Daniel Ellsberg is an all-American hero, I take it you'd agree with that?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
dchistoryman;1345655 wrote: Wikileaks is just another tabloid.With the proviso that tabloids are notoriously unconcerned with the truth, and it would destroy Wikileaks if they produced inaccurate information. As far as accuracy's concerned they stand in the position of the old journals of record.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
dchistoryman
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:35 am
wikileaks
Spot.. The point is that a large amount of the so called leaks are personal opinions of the people who wrote them. e.g. Yes I think Russia is in the grip of the mafia and Putin maybe involved that's all there is... prove it then it has more credence. I would ask another question, do you really wish to know everything your government knows, do you think that the security and ambassadorial services should open al their files to the public?
wikileaks
dchistoryman;1345662 wrote: Spot.. The point is that a large amount of the so called leaks are personal opinions of the people who wrote them. e.g. Yes I think Russia is in the grip of the mafia and Putin maybe involved that's all there is... prove it then it has more credence. I would ask another question, do you really wish to know everything your government knows, do you think that the security and ambassadorial services should open al their files to the public?
You're discussing the Diplomatic leak. The Iraq and the Afghan leaks aren't "personal opinions of the people who wrote them", they're primary evidence from the field. The diplomatic cables are a different kettle of fish. The cables provide a snapshot of what people were thinking and what was being reported to them at the time - I'm rather hoping, for example, that when the entire set becomes available on the cablegate website there might be indications of the pressure from the Bush administration to get international support for the invasion of Iraq.
As for open government, open diplomacy and open security, the first is a good idea and the other two should have laws in place encouraging and protecting whistle-blowers who demonstrate that official public statements are misleading the public or covering up crime. Secrecy is one thing, lying is another. The one area where absolutely everything should be open to the public is the law - Presidential Orders secretly legalizing what would otherwise be criminal acts should be at the top of the list of information placed before the public. It's an outrage that they exist at all.
You're discussing the Diplomatic leak. The Iraq and the Afghan leaks aren't "personal opinions of the people who wrote them", they're primary evidence from the field. The diplomatic cables are a different kettle of fish. The cables provide a snapshot of what people were thinking and what was being reported to them at the time - I'm rather hoping, for example, that when the entire set becomes available on the cablegate website there might be indications of the pressure from the Bush administration to get international support for the invasion of Iraq.
As for open government, open diplomacy and open security, the first is a good idea and the other two should have laws in place encouraging and protecting whistle-blowers who demonstrate that official public statements are misleading the public or covering up crime. Secrecy is one thing, lying is another. The one area where absolutely everything should be open to the public is the law - Presidential Orders secretly legalizing what would otherwise be criminal acts should be at the top of the list of information placed before the public. It's an outrage that they exist at all.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
dchistoryman;1345662 wrote: Spot.. The point is that a large amount of the so called leaks are personal opinions of the people who wrote them. e.g. Yes I think Russia is in the grip of the mafia and Putin maybe involved that's all there is... prove it then it has more credence. I would ask another question, do you really wish to know everything your government knows, do you think that the security and ambassadorial services should open al their files to the public?
You're right winkileaks in this instance isn't really telling us anything most people would have realised.
As a nineteen year old soldier walks toward an IED in a village in Afghanistan do you not think he should know exactly what his government did to put him in that situation?
The documents relating to the Gulf of tonkin incident were declassified in 2005.
30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
How big a difference do you think it would have made if those responsible knew they weren't going to be able to get away with it and that the information would be made available? As an american does it not anger you that your government fabricated an excuse for war I would ask another question, do you really wish to know everything your government knows, do you think that the security and ambassadorial services should open al their files to the public
Speaking as a non american I want to know what my own government is up to because I don't trust the bastards to act in the best interests of the country you sort out yours.
Does it not anger you that american special forces were in Afghanistan training the taliban in tactics that are now being used against American forces. The SAS were also involved in the training, it's a standing joke that British troops hope they don't come up against the ones trained by the SAS as they are damn sight more dangerous than the ones trained by americans. In a very real sense american foreign policy helped the taliban to power, created the situation in Iran and have caused the rise in muslim extremism in the middle east. If you think you don't have a right to know what is going on and hold government to account I would put it to you that perhaps you miss the point about democracy and freedom. Government serves the people, your soldiers are supposed to protect the people as well and not go to war and get killed without a very good reason indeed. In vetnam it took 50,000 dead, how much sooner would people have got angry about it if they had known the reasons had been fabricated? That your government only has the best interests of the american people at heart is not one that stands up to very much examination. My country right or wrong is all very well but when you ask nineteen year olds to die for it don't you think it should be as a last resort?
Benedict Arnold? Wasn't he a true patriot shafted by his own government?
You're right winkileaks in this instance isn't really telling us anything most people would have realised.
As a nineteen year old soldier walks toward an IED in a village in Afghanistan do you not think he should know exactly what his government did to put him in that situation?
The documents relating to the Gulf of tonkin incident were declassified in 2005.
30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
How big a difference do you think it would have made if those responsible knew they weren't going to be able to get away with it and that the information would be made available? As an american does it not anger you that your government fabricated an excuse for war I would ask another question, do you really wish to know everything your government knows, do you think that the security and ambassadorial services should open al their files to the public
Speaking as a non american I want to know what my own government is up to because I don't trust the bastards to act in the best interests of the country you sort out yours.
Does it not anger you that american special forces were in Afghanistan training the taliban in tactics that are now being used against American forces. The SAS were also involved in the training, it's a standing joke that British troops hope they don't come up against the ones trained by the SAS as they are damn sight more dangerous than the ones trained by americans. In a very real sense american foreign policy helped the taliban to power, created the situation in Iran and have caused the rise in muslim extremism in the middle east. If you think you don't have a right to know what is going on and hold government to account I would put it to you that perhaps you miss the point about democracy and freedom. Government serves the people, your soldiers are supposed to protect the people as well and not go to war and get killed without a very good reason indeed. In vetnam it took 50,000 dead, how much sooner would people have got angry about it if they had known the reasons had been fabricated? That your government only has the best interests of the american people at heart is not one that stands up to very much examination. My country right or wrong is all very well but when you ask nineteen year olds to die for it don't you think it should be as a last resort?
Benedict Arnold? Wasn't he a true patriot shafted by his own government?
-
dchistoryman
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:35 am
wikileaks
I am not American I am British although I do have dual nationality.
No i don't want to know everything they do, yes we and the USA trained the Taliban and we did it becuase it suited us at the time as they were the Mujahaddin then and they were fighting the Russians whose expansionist policies in that area were considered extremely dangerous. Yes I know the gulf of Tonkin papers and i do not think the publication would have stopped the Vietnam war as the US had already brought into the "domino" theory.
I dont think that our security operations should be subject to public scrutiny for the very reason you and I are having this discussion, i.e. our opinions vary wildly. We elect our leaders and trust them to act in the best interests of the security of the country.
Allegiances shift with strategic needs and it will be ever thus.For example there were credible UK security plots to assasinate Hitler, well and good we would probably all say but at that time there was a vociferous facist minority in this country that would have raised hell about it if the plot had been put before the court of public opinion.
As far as the military goes, you sign up, you know that you will be sent anywhere to do anthing, you don't get to question it, thats luxury is for civilians I am afraid.
No i don't want to know everything they do, yes we and the USA trained the Taliban and we did it becuase it suited us at the time as they were the Mujahaddin then and they were fighting the Russians whose expansionist policies in that area were considered extremely dangerous. Yes I know the gulf of Tonkin papers and i do not think the publication would have stopped the Vietnam war as the US had already brought into the "domino" theory.
I dont think that our security operations should be subject to public scrutiny for the very reason you and I are having this discussion, i.e. our opinions vary wildly. We elect our leaders and trust them to act in the best interests of the security of the country.
Allegiances shift with strategic needs and it will be ever thus.For example there were credible UK security plots to assasinate Hitler, well and good we would probably all say but at that time there was a vociferous facist minority in this country that would have raised hell about it if the plot had been put before the court of public opinion.
As far as the military goes, you sign up, you know that you will be sent anywhere to do anthing, you don't get to question it, thats luxury is for civilians I am afraid.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
wikileaks
I don't know if anyone here has heard about the other shoe that's soon to drop in this Wikileaks story: WikiLeaks Founder Assange Plans Release of U.S. Bank's Documents Next Year, but according to an interview with Julian Assange in Forbes Magazine, he is about to do a document dump on a major U.S. bank early next year (the sooner the better!). Speculation is that it is Bank of America, since he already claimed to have a hard drive from one of their major executives last year.
So, how are the plutocrats going to spin this story? Is he endangering lives by revealing the extent of corruption in banking and finance? One thing I'm sure of, if the recent statements from U.S. politicians and right wing media signal that they are trying to take him out any way possible, just wait until he starts going after the big money!
So, how are the plutocrats going to spin this story? Is he endangering lives by revealing the extent of corruption in banking and finance? One thing I'm sure of, if the recent statements from U.S. politicians and right wing media signal that they are trying to take him out any way possible, just wait until he starts going after the big money!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
wikileaks
dchistoryman;1345655 wrote: I had posted a thread "wikileaks yawn" but I will respond on here. Did no one already know or suspect any of this anyway! For God's sake it's always gone on. Just read a newspaper or listen to the news, ok you may have to read in between the lines a little but it's not that difficult. There is also really no point getting all partisan about it either on a political or national level. All governments do it, ambassadors and attaches are asked to produce a realistic assesment of how they see local situations and advise their governments accordingly. So are we to assume that all these reports would suggest that every leader is a cross between Ghandi, Mandela and Jesus and that all countries were some sort of Utopia. Wikileaks is just another tabloid.
And where the hell was this kind of tabloid when George Bush ginned up an excuse to invade Iraq? Democrats and mainstream media played cheerleaders for every stupid idea they concocted, because they were afraid to "look soft on terrorism"........and this is why Wikileaks, and similar operations that will soon be up and running, will finally do what the press is supposed to do! Iceland is willing to do what no other government in the world apparently has the balls to do -- they are going to offer safe haven for open, transparent information: Wikileaks and Iceland MPs propose 'journalism haven'
And where the hell was this kind of tabloid when George Bush ginned up an excuse to invade Iraq? Democrats and mainstream media played cheerleaders for every stupid idea they concocted, because they were afraid to "look soft on terrorism"........and this is why Wikileaks, and similar operations that will soon be up and running, will finally do what the press is supposed to do! Iceland is willing to do what no other government in the world apparently has the balls to do -- they are going to offer safe haven for open, transparent information: Wikileaks and Iceland MPs propose 'journalism haven'
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
wikileaks
dchistoryman;1345668 wrote: I am not American I am British although I do have dual nationality.
No i don't want to know everything they do, yes we and the USA trained the Taliban and we did it becuase it suited us at the time as they were the Mujahaddin then and they were fighting the Russians whose expansionist policies in that area were considered extremely dangerous. Yes I know the gulf of Tonkin papers and i do not think the publication would have stopped the Vietnam war as the US had already brought into the "domino" theory.
I dont think that our security operations should be subject to public scrutiny for the very reason you and I are having this discussion, i.e. our opinions vary wildly. We elect our leaders and trust them to act in the best interests of the security of the country.
Allegiances shift with strategic needs and it will be ever thus.For example there were credible UK security plots to assasinate Hitler, well and good we would probably all say but at that time there was a vociferous facist minority in this country that would have raised hell about it if the plot had been put before the court of public opinion.
As far as the military goes, you sign up, you know that you will be sent anywhere to do anthing, you don't get to question it, thats luxury is for civilians I am afraid.
Allegiances and alliances may shift, but the reason why America is in the mess it is in today is because it has built an enormous and expensive military industrial complex that has to be maintained to defend a global economic empire. The U.S. wouldn't be stuck with all of these foreign intrigues that occupy their bloated State Dept. and NSA staffers if it wasn't for the hundreds of military bases and carrier fleets around the globe that project and protect the interests of large multinational corporations.
No i don't want to know everything they do, yes we and the USA trained the Taliban and we did it becuase it suited us at the time as they were the Mujahaddin then and they were fighting the Russians whose expansionist policies in that area were considered extremely dangerous. Yes I know the gulf of Tonkin papers and i do not think the publication would have stopped the Vietnam war as the US had already brought into the "domino" theory.
I dont think that our security operations should be subject to public scrutiny for the very reason you and I are having this discussion, i.e. our opinions vary wildly. We elect our leaders and trust them to act in the best interests of the security of the country.
Allegiances shift with strategic needs and it will be ever thus.For example there were credible UK security plots to assasinate Hitler, well and good we would probably all say but at that time there was a vociferous facist minority in this country that would have raised hell about it if the plot had been put before the court of public opinion.
As far as the military goes, you sign up, you know that you will be sent anywhere to do anthing, you don't get to question it, thats luxury is for civilians I am afraid.
Allegiances and alliances may shift, but the reason why America is in the mess it is in today is because it has built an enormous and expensive military industrial complex that has to be maintained to defend a global economic empire. The U.S. wouldn't be stuck with all of these foreign intrigues that occupy their bloated State Dept. and NSA staffers if it wasn't for the hundreds of military bases and carrier fleets around the globe that project and protect the interests of large multinational corporations.
wikileaks
koan;1345652 wrote: Doesn't he have to be American to be a US traitor? Cuz he isn't. In case you hadn't noticed.
Fair enough. He's an Enemy of the State, then. Death to enemies of the state.
Fair enough. He's an Enemy of the State, then. Death to enemies of the state.
wikileaks
Saint_;1345691 wrote: Fair enough. He's an Enemy of the State, then. Death to enemies of the state.
The State, as people continually point out, is the enemy of the People. Wikileaks is an indication of revolt.
The State, as people continually point out, is the enemy of the People. Wikileaks is an indication of revolt.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
wikileaks
spot;1345658 wrote: For the record, and as you well know, Benedict Arnold said no such thing.
Benedict Arnold: "In behalf of the Candid among the latter, some of whom I believe serve blindly but honestly in the Ranks I have left, I pray God to give them all the lights requisite to their Own Safety before it is too late; and with respect to that kind of Censurers whose Enmity to me Originates in their hatred to the Principles, by which I am now led to devote my life to the Reunion of the British Empire, as the best and only means to dry up the streams of misery that have deluged this country, they may be assured that, Conscious of the Rectitude of my Intentions, I shall treat their Malice and Calumnies with Contempt and neglect."
Or to translate: The best way to stand up for my principles is to let the American people know what is going on." That's almost EXACTLY what this traitor is saying too. traitors always say they ratted on a country to "do what was right."
Wikileaks is acting on behalf of the American people and against the political cancer which controls the country these days.
Where do they get the right to decide that there is a cancer at all? I happen to think the American government is doing a fine job right now. Better than many a year. It's not even their country!
As an Air Force Officer, I have a Top Secret Clearance and I guarantee you that there are things that would not only be detrimental for the public to know, but the public wouldn't even WANT to know. And rightly so. Does the public really want to know about our preparations for defense against biological warfare? Would that make everyone feel better... or worse?
Daniel Ellsberg is an all-American hero, I take it you'd agree with that?
Daniel Elsberg is a traitor. First the firing squad awaits him, then Hell yawns open for him.
Benedict Arnold: "In behalf of the Candid among the latter, some of whom I believe serve blindly but honestly in the Ranks I have left, I pray God to give them all the lights requisite to their Own Safety before it is too late; and with respect to that kind of Censurers whose Enmity to me Originates in their hatred to the Principles, by which I am now led to devote my life to the Reunion of the British Empire, as the best and only means to dry up the streams of misery that have deluged this country, they may be assured that, Conscious of the Rectitude of my Intentions, I shall treat their Malice and Calumnies with Contempt and neglect."
Or to translate: The best way to stand up for my principles is to let the American people know what is going on." That's almost EXACTLY what this traitor is saying too. traitors always say they ratted on a country to "do what was right."
Wikileaks is acting on behalf of the American people and against the political cancer which controls the country these days.
Where do they get the right to decide that there is a cancer at all? I happen to think the American government is doing a fine job right now. Better than many a year. It's not even their country!
As an Air Force Officer, I have a Top Secret Clearance and I guarantee you that there are things that would not only be detrimental for the public to know, but the public wouldn't even WANT to know. And rightly so. Does the public really want to know about our preparations for defense against biological warfare? Would that make everyone feel better... or worse?
Daniel Ellsberg is an all-American hero, I take it you'd agree with that?
Daniel Elsberg is a traitor. First the firing squad awaits him, then Hell yawns open for him.
wikileaks
dchistoryman;1345668 wrote: I am not American I am British although I do have dual nationality.
No i don't want to know everything they do, yes we and the USA trained the Taliban and we did it becuase it suited us at the time as they were the Mujahaddin then and they were fighting the Russians whose expansionist policies in that area were considered extremely dangerous. Yes I know the gulf of Tonkin papers and i do not think the publication would have stopped the Vietnam war as the US had already brought into the "domino" theory.
I dont think that our security operations should be subject to public scrutiny for the very reason you and I are having this discussion, i.e. our opinions vary wildly. We elect our leaders and trust them to act in the best interests of the security of the country.
Allegiances shift with strategic needs and it will be ever thus.For example there were credible UK security plots to assasinate Hitler, well and good we would probably all say but at that time there was a vociferous facist minority in this country that would have raised hell about it if the plot had been put before the court of public opinion.
As far as the military goes, you sign up, you know that you will be sent anywhere to do anthing, you don't get to question it, thats luxury is for civilians I am afraid.
:oMy apologies, i should be more observant. No offence intended.
My comment was aimed at what I thought was an american where it might have got a different response. As to our own troops I do know one or two nineteen yerar old soldiers that are going to Afghanistan next year. They are not being left with any illusions by those that train them and they've already been at the funerals of some who trained with them.
I dont think that our security operations should be subject to public scrutiny for the very reason you and I are having this discussion, i.e. our opinions vary wildly. We elect our leaders and trust them to act in the best interests of the security of the country.
I disagree especially when they are getting us involved in costly wars that are of dubious legality and could have been avoided with a bit of common sense. Like the US much of our policy in the middle east has been set by the need for oil. We are bankrupt and going down the toilet because we are daft enough to trust our leaders. They are not somehow uniquely qualified or better able to lead the country than you or I. They do so because they want to and someone has to do it.
As far as the military goes, you sign up, you know that you will be sent anywhere to do anthing, you don't get to question it, thats luxury is for civilians I am afraid.
Actually no it's not. If they follow orders without question and commit atrocities they are liable. For a soldier to claim they were just obeying orders is not a viable defence and has not been since the Nuremberg trials. Having said that we get good value from our armed soldiers, to see them taken advantage off by politicians - while the norm - still rankles.
posted by saint.
Fair enough. He's an Enemy of the State, then. Death to enemies of the state.
I thought you swore allegiance to the constitution of the united states not the state itself.
Don't worry though, if your government gets it's way soon you won't be able to read wikileaks, I see the us govt is trying to shut them down.
Amazon pulls the plug on WikiLeaks News - PC Advisor
When did freedom of the press end in america?
No i don't want to know everything they do, yes we and the USA trained the Taliban and we did it becuase it suited us at the time as they were the Mujahaddin then and they were fighting the Russians whose expansionist policies in that area were considered extremely dangerous. Yes I know the gulf of Tonkin papers and i do not think the publication would have stopped the Vietnam war as the US had already brought into the "domino" theory.
I dont think that our security operations should be subject to public scrutiny for the very reason you and I are having this discussion, i.e. our opinions vary wildly. We elect our leaders and trust them to act in the best interests of the security of the country.
Allegiances shift with strategic needs and it will be ever thus.For example there were credible UK security plots to assasinate Hitler, well and good we would probably all say but at that time there was a vociferous facist minority in this country that would have raised hell about it if the plot had been put before the court of public opinion.
As far as the military goes, you sign up, you know that you will be sent anywhere to do anthing, you don't get to question it, thats luxury is for civilians I am afraid.
:oMy apologies, i should be more observant. No offence intended.
My comment was aimed at what I thought was an american where it might have got a different response. As to our own troops I do know one or two nineteen yerar old soldiers that are going to Afghanistan next year. They are not being left with any illusions by those that train them and they've already been at the funerals of some who trained with them.
I dont think that our security operations should be subject to public scrutiny for the very reason you and I are having this discussion, i.e. our opinions vary wildly. We elect our leaders and trust them to act in the best interests of the security of the country.
I disagree especially when they are getting us involved in costly wars that are of dubious legality and could have been avoided with a bit of common sense. Like the US much of our policy in the middle east has been set by the need for oil. We are bankrupt and going down the toilet because we are daft enough to trust our leaders. They are not somehow uniquely qualified or better able to lead the country than you or I. They do so because they want to and someone has to do it.
As far as the military goes, you sign up, you know that you will be sent anywhere to do anthing, you don't get to question it, thats luxury is for civilians I am afraid.
Actually no it's not. If they follow orders without question and commit atrocities they are liable. For a soldier to claim they were just obeying orders is not a viable defence and has not been since the Nuremberg trials. Having said that we get good value from our armed soldiers, to see them taken advantage off by politicians - while the norm - still rankles.
posted by saint.
Fair enough. He's an Enemy of the State, then. Death to enemies of the state.
I thought you swore allegiance to the constitution of the united states not the state itself.
Don't worry though, if your government gets it's way soon you won't be able to read wikileaks, I see the us govt is trying to shut them down.
Amazon pulls the plug on WikiLeaks News - PC Advisor
When did freedom of the press end in america?
wikileaks
gmc;1345708 wrote:
I thought you swore allegiance to the constitution of the united states not the state itself.
The pledge I took states that I 'will defend the United Stated of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic" as I recall. What greater enemy is there than one that steals your secrets and gives them to your enemies?
Like I said, there are many, many things that a government knows that should NEVER be told to it's people for their own peace of mind and welfare.
When did freedom of the press end in america?
ESPIONAGE is not and never will be considered "freedom of speech!"
I thought you swore allegiance to the constitution of the united states not the state itself.
The pledge I took states that I 'will defend the United Stated of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic" as I recall. What greater enemy is there than one that steals your secrets and gives them to your enemies?
Like I said, there are many, many things that a government knows that should NEVER be told to it's people for their own peace of mind and welfare.
When did freedom of the press end in america?
ESPIONAGE is not and never will be considered "freedom of speech!"
wikileaks
Saint_;1345709 wrote: The pledge I took states that I 'will defend the United Stated of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic" as I recall. What greater enemy is there than one that steals your secrets and gives them to your enemies?
Like I said, there are many, many things that a government knows that should NEVER be told to it's people for their own peace of mind and welfare.
ESPIONAGE is not and never will be considered "freedom of speech!"
Were wikileaks releasing informnation about china in the same way would that be espionage or good journalism? Good investgative journalism is not espionage whether it be about government or a corporation however much government or corporation wouild like it to be. Especially if your government is up to something it knows it's people would object to. You need to get over this notion that people should be afraid to speak out about their government. Why do you believe a non-american should care what the US givernment thinks about anything anyway? He hasn't done anything illegal.
posted by saint
Daniel Elsberg is a traitor. First the firing squad awaits him, then Hell yawns open for him.
He has never been charged with treason and is alive and well and living in the United States. Bradley Manning has been held wthout being charged with treason. It would seem your government doesn't think any treason was commited - or not any they want think will stand up in a court of law with a properly constututed jury - or perhaps they wopuld find such a trial even more embarrassing.
Like I said, there are many, many things that a government knows that should NEVER be told to it's people for their own peace of mind and welfare.
ESPIONAGE is not and never will be considered "freedom of speech!"
Were wikileaks releasing informnation about china in the same way would that be espionage or good journalism? Good investgative journalism is not espionage whether it be about government or a corporation however much government or corporation wouild like it to be. Especially if your government is up to something it knows it's people would object to. You need to get over this notion that people should be afraid to speak out about their government. Why do you believe a non-american should care what the US givernment thinks about anything anyway? He hasn't done anything illegal.
posted by saint
Daniel Elsberg is a traitor. First the firing squad awaits him, then Hell yawns open for him.
He has never been charged with treason and is alive and well and living in the United States. Bradley Manning has been held wthout being charged with treason. It would seem your government doesn't think any treason was commited - or not any they want think will stand up in a court of law with a properly constututed jury - or perhaps they wopuld find such a trial even more embarrassing.
wikileaks
Saint_;1345709 wrote: The pledge I took states that I 'will defend the United Stated of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic" as I recall.]
Really?
The current form of the Pledge of Allegiance (which in itself is disturbing) is:- "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
That makes no mention of enemies of any kind. Also if you want to define enemies as those who disagree with US foreign policy, you'll run out of bullets first....
Really?
The current form of the Pledge of Allegiance (which in itself is disturbing) is:- "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
That makes no mention of enemies of any kind. Also if you want to define enemies as those who disagree with US foreign policy, you'll run out of bullets first....
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
wikileaks
I think Saint is referring to a pledge made when joining the military. I may be wrong though.
Meanwhile, it appears that the New York Times misrepresented an important cable making it appear that Iran has NK supplied missiles based on US diplomat's opinion and leaving out the part where the Russians disagree.
from last February released by WikiLeaks which provides a detailed account of how Russian specialists on the Iranian ballistic missile program refuted the US suggestion that Iran has missiles that could target European capitals or that Iran intends to develop such a capability. Porter points out that:
"Readers of the two leading US newspapers never learned those key facts about the document. The New York Times and Washington Post reported only that the United States believed Iran had acquired such missiles - supposedly called the BM-25 - from North Korea. Neither newspaper reported the detailed Russian refutation of the US view on the issue or the lack of hard evidence for the BM-25 from the US side.
Read more: Alexander Cockburn: Julian Assange: wanted by the Empire, dead or alive | News & Politics | News & Comment | The First Post
Meanwhile, it appears that the New York Times misrepresented an important cable making it appear that Iran has NK supplied missiles based on US diplomat's opinion and leaving out the part where the Russians disagree.
from last February released by WikiLeaks which provides a detailed account of how Russian specialists on the Iranian ballistic missile program refuted the US suggestion that Iran has missiles that could target European capitals or that Iran intends to develop such a capability. Porter points out that:
"Readers of the two leading US newspapers never learned those key facts about the document. The New York Times and Washington Post reported only that the United States believed Iran had acquired such missiles - supposedly called the BM-25 - from North Korea. Neither newspaper reported the detailed Russian refutation of the US view on the issue or the lack of hard evidence for the BM-25 from the US side.
Read more: Alexander Cockburn: Julian Assange: wanted by the Empire, dead or alive | News & Politics | News & Comment | The First Post
-
dchistoryman
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:35 am
wikileaks
GMC as you obviouly are I am fully aware of the Queens' regulations and I think you sre being a bit naughty here, of course committing atrocities etc is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a sqaud suddenly deciding to have a political debate whilst on a mission.
Con't remember who here is the ex airforce chap but he had it right. There are lots of things that if the general public knew about would cause panic, especially concerning nuclear and biological warfare.
On wikileaks and the accusations either for or against what is the difference between anyone leaking these privately to our enemies of publicly, it's the same, although a lot of it is tittle tattle some of it will be useful. Does anyone think we are weaker or stronger with these leaks? Another question do any of you as individuals feel safer or less so because of them.
Con't remember who here is the ex airforce chap but he had it right. There are lots of things that if the general public knew about would cause panic, especially concerning nuclear and biological warfare.
On wikileaks and the accusations either for or against what is the difference between anyone leaking these privately to our enemies of publicly, it's the same, although a lot of it is tittle tattle some of it will be useful. Does anyone think we are weaker or stronger with these leaks? Another question do any of you as individuals feel safer or less so because of them.
wikileaks
dchistoryman;1345748 wrote: GMC as you obviouly are I am fully aware of the Queens' regulations and I think you sre being a bit naughty here, of course committing atrocities etc is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a sqaud suddenly deciding to have a political debate whilst on a mission.
Con't remember who here is the ex airforce chap but he had it right. There are lots of things that if the general public knew about would cause panic, especially concerning nuclear and biological warfare.
On wikileaks and the accusations either for or against what is the difference between anyone leaking these privately to our enemies of publicly, it's the same, although a lot of it is tittle tattle some of it will be useful. Does anyone think we are weaker or stronger with these leaks? Another question do any of you as individuals feel safer or less so because of them.
We have a volunteer army true enough but hopefully they would question orders of ordered to commit an atrocity.
Con't remember who here is the ex airforce chap but he had it right. There are lots of things that if the general public knew about would cause panic, especially concerning nuclear and biological warfare.
The general public are not as stupid as out leaders would like to believe. The consequences of a nuclear or biological war are not as big a secret as those in charge would like us to believe. Also the arrogance behind the assumption that they know best whether the people the people should know about something or not is an arrogance that should not be tolerated in a free country. They are not our masters to whom we should touch our forelocks and just accept what we are told. I am not prepared to tolerate someone metaphorically patting me in the head and telling me it is not my concern. Wikileaks is upset as it means they will be less able to carry out clandestine operations and make foreign policy decisions for which they don't want to be called to account. So I'm afraid my response to you and to the ex- air force guy would be the same. F--k off you patronising bastard who do you think you are talking to.
We have a volunteer army and before they get killed on our behalf it is only right the reasons are very very good. The wars in iraq and the situation with iran are due to a foreign policy supposedly pursued in the interests of our nation, anyone with half a brain could have worked out what would happen if you overthrow democratic regimes because they want to nationalise the oil fields and put in dictators. You might like to think our leaders have our best interests at heart and we can trust them and therefore we should not know all the details of what they are up to. I think you are kidding yourself.
Con't remember who here is the ex airforce chap but he had it right. There are lots of things that if the general public knew about would cause panic, especially concerning nuclear and biological warfare.
On wikileaks and the accusations either for or against what is the difference between anyone leaking these privately to our enemies of publicly, it's the same, although a lot of it is tittle tattle some of it will be useful. Does anyone think we are weaker or stronger with these leaks? Another question do any of you as individuals feel safer or less so because of them.
We have a volunteer army true enough but hopefully they would question orders of ordered to commit an atrocity.
Con't remember who here is the ex airforce chap but he had it right. There are lots of things that if the general public knew about would cause panic, especially concerning nuclear and biological warfare.
The general public are not as stupid as out leaders would like to believe. The consequences of a nuclear or biological war are not as big a secret as those in charge would like us to believe. Also the arrogance behind the assumption that they know best whether the people the people should know about something or not is an arrogance that should not be tolerated in a free country. They are not our masters to whom we should touch our forelocks and just accept what we are told. I am not prepared to tolerate someone metaphorically patting me in the head and telling me it is not my concern. Wikileaks is upset as it means they will be less able to carry out clandestine operations and make foreign policy decisions for which they don't want to be called to account. So I'm afraid my response to you and to the ex- air force guy would be the same. F--k off you patronising bastard who do you think you are talking to.
We have a volunteer army and before they get killed on our behalf it is only right the reasons are very very good. The wars in iraq and the situation with iran are due to a foreign policy supposedly pursued in the interests of our nation, anyone with half a brain could have worked out what would happen if you overthrow democratic regimes because they want to nationalise the oil fields and put in dictators. You might like to think our leaders have our best interests at heart and we can trust them and therefore we should not know all the details of what they are up to. I think you are kidding yourself.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
wikileaks
Saint_;1345709 wrote: The pledge I took states that I 'will defend the United Stated of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic" as I recall. What greater enemy is there than one that steals your secrets and gives them to your enemies?
Then I expect you to apply the same standard to conservative hero - Scooter Libby, and call for his execution for outing Valerie Plame at a time when she trying to cultivate ties with Iranian nuclear scientists!
Like I said, there are many, many things that a government knows that should NEVER be told to it's people for their own peace of mind and welfare.
And how many things are there that the people should know -- like nonexistent weapons of mass destruction -- but are kept in the dark by a government that prefers to operate under the cover of secrecy?
ESPIONAGE is not and never will be considered "freedom of speech!"
It is when a nation is marched off to war on false pretenses, and is not even informed by the press -- because most mainstream news media is only concerned with access to politicians and generals, rather than asking hard questions and doing investigative journalism. Instead, they keep their secrets and fail to report offenses, even when they witness them themselves! Why did it have to fall upon Bradley Manning and Wikileaks to report war crimes by U.S. soldiers? Because unlike Vietnam, the only reporters on the scene are embedded and suffering from Stockholm Syndrome -- Lara Logan for example!
Then I expect you to apply the same standard to conservative hero - Scooter Libby, and call for his execution for outing Valerie Plame at a time when she trying to cultivate ties with Iranian nuclear scientists!
Like I said, there are many, many things that a government knows that should NEVER be told to it's people for their own peace of mind and welfare.
And how many things are there that the people should know -- like nonexistent weapons of mass destruction -- but are kept in the dark by a government that prefers to operate under the cover of secrecy?
ESPIONAGE is not and never will be considered "freedom of speech!"
It is when a nation is marched off to war on false pretenses, and is not even informed by the press -- because most mainstream news media is only concerned with access to politicians and generals, rather than asking hard questions and doing investigative journalism. Instead, they keep their secrets and fail to report offenses, even when they witness them themselves! Why did it have to fall upon Bradley Manning and Wikileaks to report war crimes by U.S. soldiers? Because unlike Vietnam, the only reporters on the scene are embedded and suffering from Stockholm Syndrome -- Lara Logan for example!
-
dchistoryman
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:35 am
wikileaks
GMC "F--k off you patronising bastard who do you think you are talking to. "
Nothing like reasonable debate eh
Nothing like reasonable debate eh
wikileaks
dchistoryman;1345767 wrote: GMC "F--k off you patronising bastard who do you think you are talking to. "
Nothing like reasonable debate eh
I know but that's how strongly I feel about it. Nor am I prepared to be reasonable. Governments use the excuse of keeping things secret for our own good to hide things they know wpuld cause outrage. If we're grown up enough to elect them we're grown up enough to know what they are up to. One of the reasons biological warfare wasn't used in ww2 was because those fighting it had commanders that had seen it as first hand. Places like gruinard island for example, was never that big a secret even in 1942. It's like trying to reassure people that bombs don't really hurt so they don't get upset
People knew vaguely what was going on at porton down but if the extent had been known there would have been an outcry - volunteers were being killed during experiments but for our own peace of mind it was covered up. the US used chemical warfare in Vietnam and didn't warn their troops about the dangers of the stuff they were using and kept denying it for years. Depleted uranium shells cause long term damage. Do you really think keeping that kind of thing secret for fear of causing public panic was justified? Forget twenty year moratoriums at most ten years should be enough before we find out what is really going on. i want to know exactly what went on between Bush and blair so we cab decide of criminal charges should be sought, what is it they don't want us to know?
Nothing like reasonable debate eh
I know but that's how strongly I feel about it. Nor am I prepared to be reasonable. Governments use the excuse of keeping things secret for our own good to hide things they know wpuld cause outrage. If we're grown up enough to elect them we're grown up enough to know what they are up to. One of the reasons biological warfare wasn't used in ww2 was because those fighting it had commanders that had seen it as first hand. Places like gruinard island for example, was never that big a secret even in 1942. It's like trying to reassure people that bombs don't really hurt so they don't get upset
People knew vaguely what was going on at porton down but if the extent had been known there would have been an outcry - volunteers were being killed during experiments but for our own peace of mind it was covered up. the US used chemical warfare in Vietnam and didn't warn their troops about the dangers of the stuff they were using and kept denying it for years. Depleted uranium shells cause long term damage. Do you really think keeping that kind of thing secret for fear of causing public panic was justified? Forget twenty year moratoriums at most ten years should be enough before we find out what is really going on. i want to know exactly what went on between Bush and blair so we cab decide of criminal charges should be sought, what is it they don't want us to know?
wikileaks
gmc;1345749 wrote:
The general public are not as stupid as out leaders would like to believe.
Really? (Saint glances out the window at a pickup with an "Impeach the Muslim" bumper sticker)
The consequences of a nuclear or biological war are not as big a secret as those in charge would like us to believe.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, there are things that would give you nightmares every single night if you knew them. I know they affected me.
Also the arrogance behind the assumption that they know best whether the people the people should know about something or not is an arrogance that should not be tolerated in a free country.
Dead wrong. It's not arrogance at all, it's called "grave responsibility." We elect people that we trust just for the reason that we know they must make decisions about our welfare without our input or knowledge. It has to be that way not only because its impossible to wait for a public discussion in many cases, but also because certain knowledge would actually be destructive for the public. (See: L.A. riots)
They are not our masters to whom we should touch our forelocks and just accept what we are told. I am not prepared to tolerate someone metaphorically patting me in the head and telling me it is not my concern.
I'll go ahead and assume that you are stable enough to handle the knowledge. But what if (IF) I told you that there was a primate-specific virus that, if released, would be 98% lethal within 24 hours and could be carried on dust particles all around the world killing everyone from the Eskimos at the North Pole to the gauchos in Argentina? Still feel OK?
Do you honestly believe that ALL of your fellow Americans are as stable and intelligent as yourself? Do you seriously think that kind of knowledge wouldn't start a panic? After what happened in the Gulf of Mexico? What effect would that have on the Stock Market and the economy?
We elect and pay our government officials to protect us from lots of things, invasions, terrorists, plagues, and yes...even knowledge that would be harmful to us.
F--k off you patronising bastard who do you think you are talking to.
Hmmmm...That doesn't sound very stable to me at all.
You might like to think our leaders have our best interests at heart and we can trust them and therefore we should not know all the details of what they are up to. I think you are kidding yourself.
I know for a fact that there are things that I know, from my time in the Air Force, that I would REALLY rather NOT KNOW. I was MUCH happier before I knew them.
To a certain extent the old saying, "Ignorance is Bliss" is true.
The general public are not as stupid as out leaders would like to believe.
Really? (Saint glances out the window at a pickup with an "Impeach the Muslim" bumper sticker)
The consequences of a nuclear or biological war are not as big a secret as those in charge would like us to believe.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, there are things that would give you nightmares every single night if you knew them. I know they affected me.
Also the arrogance behind the assumption that they know best whether the people the people should know about something or not is an arrogance that should not be tolerated in a free country.
Dead wrong. It's not arrogance at all, it's called "grave responsibility." We elect people that we trust just for the reason that we know they must make decisions about our welfare without our input or knowledge. It has to be that way not only because its impossible to wait for a public discussion in many cases, but also because certain knowledge would actually be destructive for the public. (See: L.A. riots)
They are not our masters to whom we should touch our forelocks and just accept what we are told. I am not prepared to tolerate someone metaphorically patting me in the head and telling me it is not my concern.
I'll go ahead and assume that you are stable enough to handle the knowledge. But what if (IF) I told you that there was a primate-specific virus that, if released, would be 98% lethal within 24 hours and could be carried on dust particles all around the world killing everyone from the Eskimos at the North Pole to the gauchos in Argentina? Still feel OK?
Do you honestly believe that ALL of your fellow Americans are as stable and intelligent as yourself? Do you seriously think that kind of knowledge wouldn't start a panic? After what happened in the Gulf of Mexico? What effect would that have on the Stock Market and the economy?
We elect and pay our government officials to protect us from lots of things, invasions, terrorists, plagues, and yes...even knowledge that would be harmful to us.
F--k off you patronising bastard who do you think you are talking to.
Hmmmm...That doesn't sound very stable to me at all.
You might like to think our leaders have our best interests at heart and we can trust them and therefore we should not know all the details of what they are up to. I think you are kidding yourself.
I know for a fact that there are things that I know, from my time in the Air Force, that I would REALLY rather NOT KNOW. I was MUCH happier before I knew them.
To a certain extent the old saying, "Ignorance is Bliss" is true.
wikileaks
999 posts.......upside down.....could be the Devil talking ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
wikileaks
CBC News - Politics - WikiLeaks founder calls for Flanagan charge
Assange is quite right about Canada's Tom Flanagan, though Flanagan later apologized, calling for someone's assassination is incitement to murder. Anyone who says such a thing should keep that in mind. Assassination is murder without trial and it is very illegal.
I'm of the mind to assume that FG comments calling for assassination are overly emotional tripe meant to make a point and not actually incitement to action. Anyone care to disagree?
Assange is quite right about Canada's Tom Flanagan, though Flanagan later apologized, calling for someone's assassination is incitement to murder. Anyone who says such a thing should keep that in mind. Assassination is murder without trial and it is very illegal.
I'm of the mind to assume that FG comments calling for assassination are overly emotional tripe meant to make a point and not actually incitement to action. Anyone care to disagree?
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
wikileaks
Saint_;1345779 wrote:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, there are things that would give you nightmares every single night if you knew them. I know they affected me.
Like weapons of mass destruction?
Dead wrong. It's not arrogance at all, it's called "grave responsibility." We elect people that we trust just for the reason that we know they must make decisions about our welfare without our input or knowledge. It has to be that way not only because its impossible to wait for a public discussion in many cases, but also because certain knowledge would actually be destructive for the public. (See: L.A. riots)
Say hello to fascism! We can't handle the truth, so we get to be kept in the dark by a giant convoluted military security apparatus (which is so good they couldn't seem to protect their intranet from Julian Assange) and trust them to do what's best for us......like maintaining a state of perpetual war.
Some people are just beginning to notice the shadow government that maintains uniform government policy regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is sitting in the Whitehouse. Maybe it's because Obama made such an emphasis on "CHANGE". There is no change in the way his administration is handling the wars, diplomacy, or violations of civil rights, from the last administration. The elected leaders spend their time looking for campaign donations and lobbyist gigs after they are out of office, while the shadow government operates covertly under a veil of secrecy. But after getting kicked in the teeth over and over and over again, we're supposed to believe that this is all some real life version of 24, and Jack Bauer is out there spying and torturing suspects only because it's in our best interests! Just like it's all for the best that we never discover what games they're playing behind the scenes.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, there are things that would give you nightmares every single night if you knew them. I know they affected me.
Like weapons of mass destruction?
Dead wrong. It's not arrogance at all, it's called "grave responsibility." We elect people that we trust just for the reason that we know they must make decisions about our welfare without our input or knowledge. It has to be that way not only because its impossible to wait for a public discussion in many cases, but also because certain knowledge would actually be destructive for the public. (See: L.A. riots)
Say hello to fascism! We can't handle the truth, so we get to be kept in the dark by a giant convoluted military security apparatus (which is so good they couldn't seem to protect their intranet from Julian Assange) and trust them to do what's best for us......like maintaining a state of perpetual war.
Some people are just beginning to notice the shadow government that maintains uniform government policy regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is sitting in the Whitehouse. Maybe it's because Obama made such an emphasis on "CHANGE". There is no change in the way his administration is handling the wars, diplomacy, or violations of civil rights, from the last administration. The elected leaders spend their time looking for campaign donations and lobbyist gigs after they are out of office, while the shadow government operates covertly under a veil of secrecy. But after getting kicked in the teeth over and over and over again, we're supposed to believe that this is all some real life version of 24, and Jack Bauer is out there spying and torturing suspects only because it's in our best interests! Just like it's all for the best that we never discover what games they're playing behind the scenes.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
wikileaks
On the subject of fascism, here's an interesting parallel to how wikileaks is being handled in totalitarian countries: Media in China, Arab Middle East suppressing WikiLeaks coverage, and how it's being handled in the land of the free: WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure : Site hosting leaked US embassy cables is ousted from American servers as senator calls for boycott of WikiLeaks by companies
So what's the difference?
So what's the difference?
wikileaks
posted by saint
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, there are things that would give you nightmares every single night if you knew them. I know they affected me.
As well as arrogance there is also the patronising attitude that the poor people wouldn't be able to cope with the knowledge and the delusion that science and technology is some kind of big secret that ordinary people don't know about.
posted by saint
Dead wrong. It's not arrogance at all, it's called "grave responsibility." We elect people that we trust just for the reason that we know they must make decisions about our welfare without our input or knowledge. It has to be that way not only because its impossible to wait for a public discussion in many cases, but also because certain knowledge would actually be destructive for the public. (See: L.A. riots)
What utter nonsense. I live in a free country, the days when you just trust that those in charge know what they are doing and can be trusted are long past.
posted bys saint
I'll go ahead and assume that you are stable enough to handle the knowledge. But what if (IF) I told you that there was a primate-specific virus that, if released, would be 98% lethal within 24 hours and could be carried on dust particles all around the world killing everyone from the Eskimos at the North Pole to the gauchos in Argentina? Still feel OK?
What like ebola would if it didn't kill off all it's hosts? There have been plagues that wiped out half the population of europe not to mention the flu pandemic in 1928 that killed more people than ww1? what makes you think there's anything new about any of this? Chemical warfare has actually been used in warfare over a hundred years ago, before that they used to throw corpses over the walls of cities under siege and poison water supplies. Never mind blowing up planes luckily the terrorists haven't realised that dropping stuff in the water supple - or even just spreading the rumour would cause more chaos than any number of plane explosions. So would blowing up a petrol tanker in a main street somewhere it's lucky they are not that bright and favour over elaborate bomb plots.
posted by saint
Do you honestly believe that ALL of your fellow Americans are as stable and intelligent as yourself? Do you seriously think that kind of knowledge wouldn't start a panic? After what happened in the Gulf of Mexico? What effect would that have on the Stock Market and the economy?
Actually I'm not american. It's frankly disturbing that the most heavily armed supposedly free nation on the planet has citizens that think it's OK to just let their government get on with things without knowing what they are up to and seem tom think they shpuldn't question what is done in their name. Conceivably there might be some in the bible belt that don't know such things exist and are paranoid enough to be convinced everybody is out to get them but even I as a non-American have trouble believing they are all a bunch of hysterics to thick to be trusted with the knowledge of these things. Nowadays you can go on the internet and look it up.
Porton Down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Porton Down was set up to provide a proper scientific basis for the British use of chemical warfare, in response to the earlier German use of this means of war in 1915. Work at Porton started in March 1916. At the time, only a few cottages and farm buildings were scattered on the downs at Porton and Idmiston.
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Health and Safety | Porton Down Volunteers | Porton Down - A Brief History
Chemical warfare was not used by any nation during the Second World War but as Allied armies penetrated Germany, operational stockpiles of munitions and weapons were discovered which contained new chemical warfare agents; the highly toxic organophosphorous nerve agents, unknown to Britain and the Allies.
The late 1940s and early 1950s saw research and development at Porton Down aimed at providing Britain with the means to arm itself with a modern nerve agent based capability and to develop specific means of defence against these agents. In the end these aims came to nothing on the offensive side because of the decision to abandon any sort of British chemical warfare capability.
On the defensive side there were years of difficult work to develop the means of prophylaxis, therapy, rapid detection and identification, decontamination and more effective protection of the body against nerve agents, capable of exerting effects through the skin, the eyes and respiratory tract.
Guess what drove that decision? That's right public demand.
You were a bit late in the game though
United States biological weapons program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States' first interest in any form of biological warfare came at the close of World War I. The only agent the U.S. tested was the toxin ricin.[1] The U.S. conducted tests concerning two methods of ricin dissemination, the first, involved adhering the toxin to shrapnel for delivery by artillery shell, which was successful.[1] The other method, delivering an aerosol cloud of ricin, proved less successful.[1] Neither delivery method was perfected before the war in Europe ended.[1]
In the early 1920s suggestions that the U.S. begin a biological weapons program were coming from within the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS).[1] Chief of the CWS, Amos Fries, decided that such a program would not be "profitable" for the U.S.[1] Japan's Shiro Ishii began promoting BW during the 1920s and toured biological research facilities worldwide, including in the United States.[1] Though Ishii concluded that the U.S. was developing a bio-weapons programs he was incorrect.[1] In fact, Ishii concluded that all major powers he visited was developing a bio-weapons program.[1] As the interwar period continued, the United States did not emphasize biological weapons development or research.[1] While the U.S. was spending very little time on BW research, its future allies and enemies in the upcoming second World War were researching the potential of BW as early as 1933.[1]
[edit] World War II (1941-45)
If you are daft enough to believe there is some secrets that governments should know and be allowed to keep from the people for their own good I would put it to you you have been conned somewhere along the way. In wartime there might be some justification but if they are up to things that cause conflict for no good reason they must be held accountable.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, there are things that would give you nightmares every single night if you knew them. I know they affected me.
As well as arrogance there is also the patronising attitude that the poor people wouldn't be able to cope with the knowledge and the delusion that science and technology is some kind of big secret that ordinary people don't know about.
posted by saint
Dead wrong. It's not arrogance at all, it's called "grave responsibility." We elect people that we trust just for the reason that we know they must make decisions about our welfare without our input or knowledge. It has to be that way not only because its impossible to wait for a public discussion in many cases, but also because certain knowledge would actually be destructive for the public. (See: L.A. riots)
What utter nonsense. I live in a free country, the days when you just trust that those in charge know what they are doing and can be trusted are long past.
posted bys saint
I'll go ahead and assume that you are stable enough to handle the knowledge. But what if (IF) I told you that there was a primate-specific virus that, if released, would be 98% lethal within 24 hours and could be carried on dust particles all around the world killing everyone from the Eskimos at the North Pole to the gauchos in Argentina? Still feel OK?
What like ebola would if it didn't kill off all it's hosts? There have been plagues that wiped out half the population of europe not to mention the flu pandemic in 1928 that killed more people than ww1? what makes you think there's anything new about any of this? Chemical warfare has actually been used in warfare over a hundred years ago, before that they used to throw corpses over the walls of cities under siege and poison water supplies. Never mind blowing up planes luckily the terrorists haven't realised that dropping stuff in the water supple - or even just spreading the rumour would cause more chaos than any number of plane explosions. So would blowing up a petrol tanker in a main street somewhere it's lucky they are not that bright and favour over elaborate bomb plots.
posted by saint
Do you honestly believe that ALL of your fellow Americans are as stable and intelligent as yourself? Do you seriously think that kind of knowledge wouldn't start a panic? After what happened in the Gulf of Mexico? What effect would that have on the Stock Market and the economy?
Actually I'm not american. It's frankly disturbing that the most heavily armed supposedly free nation on the planet has citizens that think it's OK to just let their government get on with things without knowing what they are up to and seem tom think they shpuldn't question what is done in their name. Conceivably there might be some in the bible belt that don't know such things exist and are paranoid enough to be convinced everybody is out to get them but even I as a non-American have trouble believing they are all a bunch of hysterics to thick to be trusted with the knowledge of these things. Nowadays you can go on the internet and look it up.
Porton Down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Porton Down was set up to provide a proper scientific basis for the British use of chemical warfare, in response to the earlier German use of this means of war in 1915. Work at Porton started in March 1916. At the time, only a few cottages and farm buildings were scattered on the downs at Porton and Idmiston.
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Health and Safety | Porton Down Volunteers | Porton Down - A Brief History
Chemical warfare was not used by any nation during the Second World War but as Allied armies penetrated Germany, operational stockpiles of munitions and weapons were discovered which contained new chemical warfare agents; the highly toxic organophosphorous nerve agents, unknown to Britain and the Allies.
The late 1940s and early 1950s saw research and development at Porton Down aimed at providing Britain with the means to arm itself with a modern nerve agent based capability and to develop specific means of defence against these agents. In the end these aims came to nothing on the offensive side because of the decision to abandon any sort of British chemical warfare capability.
On the defensive side there were years of difficult work to develop the means of prophylaxis, therapy, rapid detection and identification, decontamination and more effective protection of the body against nerve agents, capable of exerting effects through the skin, the eyes and respiratory tract.
Guess what drove that decision? That's right public demand.
You were a bit late in the game though
United States biological weapons program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States' first interest in any form of biological warfare came at the close of World War I. The only agent the U.S. tested was the toxin ricin.[1] The U.S. conducted tests concerning two methods of ricin dissemination, the first, involved adhering the toxin to shrapnel for delivery by artillery shell, which was successful.[1] The other method, delivering an aerosol cloud of ricin, proved less successful.[1] Neither delivery method was perfected before the war in Europe ended.[1]
In the early 1920s suggestions that the U.S. begin a biological weapons program were coming from within the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS).[1] Chief of the CWS, Amos Fries, decided that such a program would not be "profitable" for the U.S.[1] Japan's Shiro Ishii began promoting BW during the 1920s and toured biological research facilities worldwide, including in the United States.[1] Though Ishii concluded that the U.S. was developing a bio-weapons programs he was incorrect.[1] In fact, Ishii concluded that all major powers he visited was developing a bio-weapons program.[1] As the interwar period continued, the United States did not emphasize biological weapons development or research.[1] While the U.S. was spending very little time on BW research, its future allies and enemies in the upcoming second World War were researching the potential of BW as early as 1933.[1]
[edit] World War II (1941-45)
If you are daft enough to believe there is some secrets that governments should know and be allowed to keep from the people for their own good I would put it to you you have been conned somewhere along the way. In wartime there might be some justification but if they are up to things that cause conflict for no good reason they must be held accountable.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
wikileaks
Attention Citizens of The Mother Country
If you are still a little surprised at how governments around the world are totally disregarding all their claims of freedom of speech and democracy, to stop Wikileaks at any cost; here's the kind of "state secrets" that your government is trying to hide, or at least keep away from public attention:
According to the latest Wikileaks, British Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election last May to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year.
The leaked Embassy dispatches also reveal – in what The Guardian newspaper says is “in humiliating detail” – how US diplomats in London were amused by what they call Britain's "paranoid" fears about the so-called special relationship.
One said the anxious British attitude "would often be humorous if it were not so corrosive" and that it was tempting to take advantage of this neurosis to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance".
If you are still a little surprised at how governments around the world are totally disregarding all their claims of freedom of speech and democracy, to stop Wikileaks at any cost; here's the kind of "state secrets" that your government is trying to hide, or at least keep away from public attention:
According to the latest Wikileaks, British Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election last May to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year.
The leaked Embassy dispatches also reveal – in what The Guardian newspaper says is “in humiliating detail” – how US diplomats in London were amused by what they call Britain's "paranoid" fears about the so-called special relationship.
One said the anxious British attitude "would often be humorous if it were not so corrosive" and that it was tempting to take advantage of this neurosis to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance".