News Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

[Evo]

we kill more civilians than the insurgents do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

maybe we need to be stopped from doing that

So specifically naming innocent people so that they can become targets is ok because...?

Let's also keep the two different issues in their respective threads please.

 

[Proton Soup]

So specifically naming innocent people so that they can become targets is ok because...?

Let's also keep the two different issues in their respective threads please.

i don't think i said that. there are plenty of wrongs to go around.

yes, we've already been through this once.

 

[Burnsys]

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Click here to see The Times article, but note, it's behind a subscription firewall.

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

USG fault, for using civilians as informants. It's a war. if they are using them as informants, they know there are risks associated to it.

 

[Burnsys]

Luckily, so far nothing like that happened, but such information can easily lead to rioting mob on the street. As I wrote earlier - stupid cartoons were enough for about 100 people to loose their lives. Same could happen now. If you don't see it, you are just lacking imagination.

People has the right to mob and riot in the street.
And the people that government is representing has the right to know what their government is doing.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't find the support for the interpol warrant. That seems weird to me. Apparently Sweden has weird sex laws.

That Assange may have violated a (minor) Swedish law is one thing, but that Interpol has a warrant out for him -- apparently in violation of their charter -- is another, and speaks strongly to US interference (perhaps via the UK or other EU member). That seems quite relevant to the thread, no?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Paypal just cut off Wikileaks.

 

[Mathnomalous]

People has the right to mob and riot in the street.
And the people that government is representing has the right to know what their government is doing.

One would think this would be the case but in reality the objective is giving the common person just enough rights so they will not challenge the status quo, that is, the common person will not challenge the people in power.

In theory, diplomats represent the interests of their nation. When a Chinese diplomat meets with a US diplomat, all the Chinese diplomat needs to do is check the mood of the US public towards the particular issue the Chinese diplomat wishes to discuss with the US diplomat; so, one would expect all the cards are already on the table and the negotiation is more or less straightforward. Except that what seems to take place are a series of back room deals that we are told we cannot understand and must stay out of. Well, how do I know my interests were properly represented? Unless, of course, my interests only matter in "spirit" and only the interests of the powerful and well-connected matter.

I am appalled and disturbed by the notion that the "average person on the street cannot understand" what takes place in international politics. Using that logic, one may prove the average person on the street is also incapable of understanding global economics, politics, complex social issues of the day, etc. Driving that false notion to its logical conclusion, one may say the average person on the street is incapable of understanding what goes no in his or her life and therefore only the "elite" deserve to rule.

And this is our world today. A world where a man who presented truth is accused of disrupting "social order." A world where challenging those in power is enough justification to call for that man's execution.

 

[Burnsys]

One would think this would be the case but in reality the objective is giving the common person just enough rights so they will not challenge the status quo, that is, the common person will not challenge the people in power.

In theory, diplomats represent the interests of their nation. When a Chinese diplomat meets with a US diplomat, all the Chinese diplomat needs to do is check the mood of the US public towards the particular issue the Chinese diplomat wishes to discuss with the US diplomat; so, one would expect all the cards are already on the table and the negotiation is more or less straightforward. Except that what seems to take place are a series of back room deals that we are told we cannot understand and must stay out of. Well, how do I know my interests were properly represented? Unless, of course, my interests only matter in "spirit" and only the interests of the powerful and well-connected matter.

I am appalled and disturbed by the notion that the "average person on the street cannot understand" what takes place in international politics. Using that logic, one may prove the average person on the street is also incapable of understanding global economics, politics, complex social issues of the day, etc. Driving that false notion to its logical conclusion, one may say the average person on the street is incapable of understanding what goes no in his or her life and therefore only the "elite" deserve to rule.

And this is our world today. A world where a man who presented truth is accused of disrupting "social order." A world where challenging those in power is enough justification to call for that man's execution.

Well said.
For example,i think i have the right to know if the us gov, has a "http://46.59.1.2/cable/2007/12/07BUENOSAIRES2345.html"" who disguise themselves as "Independent journalists"

And if the "Average" people "cannot understand..." then from that to " the average people is not qualified to vote" is only a very small step.

 

[JaredJames]

I put this in the other thread in response to Ivan, I've moved it now to here as it's a bit more relevant and just linked to it:

There was a BBC news report today:

China leadership 'orchestrated Google hacking'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11920616

Now, perhaps the 'who' wasn't so well known but is this really a surprise?

This is from an article almost a year before the 'leaks', a statement from Google itself:

Google said Tuesday the company and at least 20 others were victims of a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack" originating in China in mid-December, evidently to gain access to the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-12/tech/google.china_1_google-search-engine-david-drummond?_s=PM:TECH

Chinese human rights activists where targetted. Any person who didn't think the Chinese government had anything to do with this are deluded. It was clear from the onset that it was a very specific attack and who was most likely behind it. So much so, that Google pulled out of China completely (not in that article, but they did in the end).

Aside from confirming what most of us already suspected, is this really new or shocking information?

Perhaps there are a few bits of info within the masses that are rather horrifying in content, but so far all I've seen has simply made me go "and you didn't think this was the case?".

 

[Fra]

That Assange may have violated a (minor) Swedish law is one thing

Let's just not that so far someone so claims. This isn't established.

And given how many enemies, and how much money his enemies have and what methods they are proven to use to gain their goals in other cases - I personally think the probability that someone is just trying to construct accusations is pretty high IMHO. In my eyes Assange is completely and fully innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt. Anyone accusing his is rather the prime suspect in this situation.

You can have different opinon on wether the leaks are good or bad. Clearly it has some bad effects (at least in the short term). But I'm personally more surprised how world leaders chose to react by condemning spreading of information rather than condemning what is beeing reported.

Some things that has been reported is enlightening, and the damaged admittedly caused by the release of this information, should teach us a lesson that it's really not a tenable situation to assume that it's possible to keep information from leaking. Information tend to leak, that's reality. Because of technical weakness but also because of humans involved.

So the lesson may be that a tenable development must not build on too much hidden information. A "world stability" that is conditional upon keeping certain information secret simply isn't good. It's rather a good way to construct a bomb. It's won't go off unless there is a leak, but to think that it will never leak is just not rational.

/Fredrik

 

[pftest]

I am appalled and disturbed by the notion that the "average person on the street cannot understand" what takes place in international politics. Using that logic, one may prove the average person on the street is also incapable of understanding global economics, politics, complex social issues of the day, etc.

Isnt that actually so? Most people do not understand global economics, politics, etc.

Driving that false notion to its logical conclusion, one may say the average person on the street is incapable of understanding what goes no in his or her life and therefore only the "elite" deserve to rule.

Most people do not understand programming languages either, but from this it doesn't logically follow that they have no understanding of anything in their lives. And they certainly shouldn't program software for others (that may be used in hospitals, airtraffic control, etc). Its an area of expertise that without the relevant knowledge can lead to disaster.

A hypothetical scenario:

Country A has oil, but needs metal.
Country B has metal, but needs oil.
Country C has nothing, but needs metal+oil.

A and B are enemies, and will not exchange goods.
A and B will also not exchange goods with other countries that deal with their enemies.

So country C does the following:
C secretly gives metal to A, in exchange for oil.
C secretly gives oil to B, in exchange for metal.
C charges both a bit extra, so it can keep some the goods for to itself.

Now all countries have what they want.
However, if all deals must be visible for everyone to see, none of the countries get what they need.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Isnt that actually so? Most people do not understand global economics, politics, etc.

It seems even the people who supposedly understand global economics, politics, etc. do not understand those areas well since economic collapses, political crises, wars, and other social ills continue to occur. And these people are the ones allegedly at the "helm of the ship."

Most people do not understand programming languages either, but from this it doesn't logically follow that they have no understanding of anything in their lives. And they certainly shouldn't program software for others (that may be used in hospitals, airtraffic control, etc). Its an area of expertise that without the relevant knowledge can lead to disaster.

Just because most people do not understand programming does not mean they should never receive a chance to learn how to program or at least observe how programming is done. I am not suggesting any random person off the street should be sent to Iran to talk international nuclear policy.

If someone does not understand a process, the appropriate solution is to inform and educate that person, not blocking off access or observation to said process.

A hypothetical scenario:

Country A has oil, but needs metal.
Country B has metal, but needs oil.
Country C has nothing, but needs metal+oil.

A and B are enemies, and will not exchange goods.
A and B will also not exchange goods with other countries that deal with their enemies.

So country C does the following:
C secretly gives metal to A, in exchange for oil.
C secretly gives oil to B, in exchange for metal.
C charges both a bit extra, so it can keep some the goods for to itself.

Now all countries have what they want.
However, if all deals must be visible for everyone to see, none of the countries get what they need.

Poisoned well.

You seem to assume countries A and B cannot settle their differences in a peaceful and transparent manner. You also seem to assume either country A or country B cannot come up with an alternative solution to their specific problem that does not require the resource either currently needs. Moreover, there could be a country D that solve country A's, B's, or C's problem. Given the way you present the problem, it seems that if neither country is willing to negotiate openly and transparently, then they are essentially committing "suicide."

What disturbs me is that the solutions you suggested, that country C act in a deceptive manner, is the most beneficial one. This is a very dangerous thing you do not seem to grasp, and indeed, many so-called educated people do not seem to understand: that it is acceptable to act in a deceptive manner if that means I get what I want, because, somehow, getting what I want is for the greater good.

 

[Borek]

If someone does not understand a process, the appropriate solution is to inform and educate that person, not blocking off access or observation to said process.

Nobody denies right to education, but the mob tends to react in a knee-jerk mode.

You seem to assume countries A and B cannot settle their differences in a peaceful and transparent manner. You also seem to assume either country A or country B cannot come up with an alternative solution to their specific problem that does not require the resource either currently needs. Moreover, there could be a country D that solve country A's, B's, or C's problem. Given the way you present the problem, it seems that if neither country is willing to negotiate openly and transparently, then they are essentially committing "suicide."

It is quite possible that govs of both countries A and B are well aware of what is going on, but they can't afford to speak directly, because of local nationalisms, local leaders that would prefer war instead of cooperation and so on. Yes, this is a poisoned well.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Nobody denies right to education, but the mob tends to react in a knee-jerk mode.

The "mob" generally obtains the information from the government or the news media. If diplomatic negotiations are carried out secretively, then any information the mob obtains will be filtered in one way or another.

It is quite possible that govs of both countries A and B are well aware of what is going on, but they can't afford to speak directly, because of local nationalisms, local leaders that would prefer war instead of cooperation and so on. Yes, this is a poisoned well.

That means countries A or B need to solve or minimize problems at home before they embark on international diplomacy.

 

[JaredJames]

That means countries A or B need to solve or minimize problems at home before they embark on international diplomacy.

This is all lovely mathnomalous, but it doesn't reflect reality.

I'd point out that just because the way things work is underhanded and sneaky, it doesn't mean anyone accepts it aside from those engaged in it.

I for one disagree with a great many things currently done in the UK, but I simply lack the ability to do anything about it. And as such they continue to happen, I'm certainly not accepting them.

I'm not saying we just let things continue like this and turn a blind eye, but there is a way of highlighting the current problems with how things are done and blanket revealing this data certainly isn't it.

Let's assume the above scenario is real, would publishing a mass of documents to all involved, showing the 'reality' of the situation do more harm than good? For one, it would certainly create tension and could very well be the end of trade between all three.

 

[Mathnomalous]

This is all lovely mathnomalous, but it doesn't reflect reality.

That is because this "reality" is twisted and sick. Any reasonable person understands that before taking on new challenges, present challenges must be overcome. If you can barely feed yourself, you cannot go out and buy a new car; if significant portions of your population live in poverty, you cannot go out and spread democracy to other countries.

I'd point out that just because the way things work is underhanded and sneaky, it doesn't mean anyone accepts it aside from those engaged in it.

I for one disagree with a great many things currently done in the UK, but I simply lack the ability to do anything about it. And as such they continue to happen, I'm certainly not accepting them.

I'm not saying we just let things continue like this and turn a blind eye, but there is a way of highlighting the current problems with how things are done and blanket revealing this data certainly isn't it.

Sure you can. Minimize, and eventually, cease all involvement with the current system. Show proof of the deficiencies of the system to others and convince them to take similar actions to yours. Your local public transit system enforces discriminatory policies? Boycott them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott); sure, some people might lose their jobs, but it is actually for the greater good.

Let's assume the above scenario is real, would publishing a mass of documents to all involved, showing the 'reality' of the situation do more harm than good? For one, it would certainly create tension and could very well be the end of trade between all three.

Then all three would essentially commit suicide.

Unless these countries have other options available, I fail to see how anyone benefits from ceasing all trade. What you are suggesting is that even countries act irrationally in the presence of truth, thus the system only works if layers of deception are maintained.

Apparently, diplomacy, politics, finance, and other complex systems are so unsavory, scummy, disgusting, that they must be carried out with the utmost secrecy, and any information must be filtered and cleaned before being released. That transparency and honesty will rarely get anything done because people and nations are so petty, they cannot overcome their irrational emotions.

Deception is prosperity. Honesty is misery.

 

[JaredJames]

That is because this "reality" is twisted and sick. Any reasonable person understands that before taking on new challenges, present challenges must be overcome. If you can barely feed yourself, you cannot go out and buy a new car; if significant portions of your population live in poverty, you cannot go out and spread democracy to other countries.

Yep, about that's right.

Sure you can. Minimize, and eventually, cease all involvement with the current system. Show proof of the deficiencies of the system to others and convince them to take similar actions to yours. Your local public transit system enforces discriminatory policies? Boycott them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott); sure, some people might lose their jobs, but it is actually for the greater good.

You mean the current system that provides with basic materials we require to survive? Interesting point of view. Now that is committing suicide.

Then all three would essentially commit suicide.

Commit suicide or be murdered? To commit suicide they would have to release the documents themselves. They don't, someone else does who really speaking doesn't have anything lose. They release the documents and take three countries down. Like I said, there are better ways to go about getting change. Potentially causing countries to crash and burn is not one of them.

Setting a trap and triggering it yourself, causing your own death is suicide. Setting a trap and someone else deliberately triggering it to kill you is murder. Someone else is putting these governments in this situation. Like I keep saying, there are better ways to do this than to dump a load of potentially dangerous files onto the internet.

Unless these countries have other options available, I fail to see how anyone benefits from ceasing all trade. What you are suggesting is that even countries act irrationally in the presence of truth, thus the system only works if layers of deception are maintained.

They don't, but the public could react badly if they found out the truth and it could cause problems in itself. The government doesn't have to cease trading, the public could force it.

Apparently, diplomacy, politics, finance, and other complex systems are so unsavory, scummy, disgusting, that they must be carried out with the utmost secrecy, and any information must be filtered and cleaned before being released. That transparency and honesty will rarely get anything done because people and nations are so petty, they cannot overcome their irrational emotions.

Nations are petty. They will disagree a lot. Common goals are few and far between.

If a bit of secrecy is required to help things along, so be it.

 

[Danger]

Isnt that actually so? Most people do not understand global economics, politics, etc.

Most people do not understand programming languages either, but from this it doesn't logically follow that they have no understanding of anything in their lives. And they certainly shouldn't program software for others (that may be used in hospitals, airtraffic control, etc). Its an area of expertise that without the relevant knowledge can lead to disaster.

A hypothetical scenario:

Country A has oil, but needs metal.
Country B has metal, but needs oil.
Country C has nothing, but needs metal+oil.

A and B are enemies, and will not exchange goods.
A and B will also not exchange goods with other countries that deal with their enemies.

So country C does the following:
C secretly gives metal to A, in exchange for oil.
C secretly gives oil to B, in exchange for metal.
C charges both a bit extra, so it can keep some the goods for to itself.

Now all countries have what they want.
However, if all deals must be visible for everyone to see, none of the countries get what they need.

You can just emulate the USA; make up non-existent weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to invade the country whose resources you want.

 

[pftest]

It seems even the people who supposedly understand global economics, politics, etc. do not understand those areas well since economic collapses, political crises, wars, and other social ills continue to occur. And these people are the ones allegedly at the "helm of the ship."

Just because most people do not understand programming does not mean they should never receive a chance to learn how to program or at least observe how programming is done. I am not suggesting any random person off the street should be sent to Iran to talk international nuclear policy.

Sure, theyre allowed to have the opportunity to learn it all. And after many years of such learning, they will be the politicians and diplomats that we are talking about here. And once someone has learned programming well enough, he will be allowed to program such software. Before that? No.

Poisoned well.

You seem to assume countries A and B cannot settle their differences in a peaceful and transparent manner. You also seem to assume either country A or country B cannot come up with an alternative solution to their specific problem that does not require the resource either currently needs. Moreover, there could be a country D that solve country A's, B's, or C's problem. Given the way you present the problem, it seems that if neither country is willing to negotiate openly and transparently, then they are essentially committing "suicide."

What disturbs me is that the solutions you suggested, that country C act in a deceptive manner, is the most beneficial one. This is a very dangerous thing you do not seem to grasp, and indeed, many so-called educated people do not seem to understand: that it is acceptable to act in a deceptive manner if that means I get what I want, because, somehow, getting what I want is for the greater good.

Youre missing the point: we need only 1 example of a hypthetical situation where secrecy is beneficial for those involved, to falsify the idea that all secrecy is necessarily bad.

Looking at the scenario's you describe above, it seems you are imagining a perfect world, where nations settle their differences peacefully, where everyone benefits in equal amount, etc. Sure, if everyone was always going to remain peaceful, and everyone agreed to share all resources equally, then maybe we can be completely open about everything and it will go ok. But that's just not the world we live in. A single rotten apple, let alone billions of them, and this no longer works.

Its the same as saying that 2 people should never be violent towards each other, and should always talk to resolve issues. But in the real world, one of the two might have paranoid schizophrenia and attack the other, who then has to defend himself with more than just words. Simple example, but it represents a virtually infinite amount of other factors that prevent us from living in a utopia.

 

[Danger]

But in the real world, one of the two might have paranoid schizophrenia and attack the other

And who is the paranoid schizo? His initials begin with U and S.
Evo, I hope you know that I love you more than life itself. I barely know Monique, but have always respected her intelligence and neutrality. In regard to this discussion, she is absolutely correct and your are not. I feel bad about disagreeing with you, but reality knows no borders. The man did nothing wrong other than in the minds of those with something to hide.

 

[pftest]

And who is the paranoid schizo? His initials begin with U and S.
Evo, I hope you know that I love you more than life itself. I barely know Monique, but have always respected her intelligence and neutrality. In regard to this discussion, she is absolutely correct and your are not. I feel bad about disagreeing with you, but reality knows no borders. The man did nothing wrong other than in the minds of those with something to hide.

Look at all the wars going on, all the conflicts. Its the human condition, not specifically the US condition.

 

[Evo]

And who is the paranoid schizo? His initials begin with U and S.
Evo, I hope you know that I love you more than life itself. I barely know Monique, but have always respected her intelligence and neutrality. In regard to this discussion, she is absolutely correct and your are not. I feel bad about disagreeing with you, but reality knows no borders. The man did nothing wrong other than in the minds of those with something to hide.

We can disagree. IMO, Assange's actions indicate a level of naivete equal to that of a two year old. Aside from the damage he's done to global relations, this will only force governments to become even more secretive. To think that world leaders will go "oh gosh darn, he's right, we should just all stop worrying about things and all share and get rid of borders and all cooperate and all trust each other and all just keep it all out in the open, what were we thinking?". If anyone believes this is possible, I have some stock I can sell them.

There are bad people. A lot of bad people want control of other people, they want to control counties. A lot of bad people control countries. It has always been this way and it will always be this way.

What Assange did was plain moronic, it has only made matters worse.

To the people that appove of Assange's actions, let me ask specifically what good this did for conditions in the world? Be specific. What has it fixed? Don't respond with hand waving about oh, but it's wrong to have secrets. What benefit to world relations did it have?

 

[Fra]

To the people that appove of Assange's actions, let me ask specifically what good this did for conditions in the world? Be specific. What has it fixed? Don't respond with hand waving about oh, but it's wrong to have secrets. What benefit to world relations did it have?

I think sometimes a short term conflict, may vent, and prevent longer terms larger conflicts. As I see it, the information leaked, will not lead to major conflicts (such as larger wars) right now. I think partly because somehow no one is surprised because everyone konws, everyone has secrets. That's why it's more embarrassing than surprising.

I think global democracy me be strenghetened in the long run. For democracy to work properly, as many as possible, needs as complete information as possible, in order to use their voice correctly. The fact that governments use dirty tricks under the surface to execture certain things, is IMO something that the democractic system might not approve if its was known.

It's also a big point to prove that information that shouldn't leak, did leak. This will lead to improving these problems. There are two reactions - escalation, such as in even more secrets, harder and more brutal methods to protect this! Or the insight that our actions, and diplomacy must be more clever and try to have a real dialogue with others, rather than only "tactics".

To be honest, I think both things will happen. Everyone will learn, that it is REALLY difficuly to actually KEEP secrets. So a strategy that doesn't rely too heavily (there will still be secrets of course) on secrets may be more stable, and less prone to leaks. Everyone will ALSO learn, that some things that someone for various reasons relaly need to be kept secret will be have to handled better, AND that any such act, is in fact a risk. Whatever game strategy that is played, must evaluate the RISK that information is leaked and what price it will have.

But don't blame free journalisms for publishing leaks when it occurs. It was not Assange that stole information as far as I know. Someone who was trusted with this information did reveal it. If something is the bad guy this is the one.

I think that the general respons to information is always a potentail "conflict" but as long as this conflict isn't fatal (which I don't think Assanges is - because then my opinion would differ) then it will strenghten the long term stability. Many small conflicts is part of negotiations, and may be what prevents a large fatal conflict (big world war).

/Fredrik

 

[Evo]

I think sometimes a short term conflict, may vent, and prevent longer terms larger conflicts. As I see it, the information leaked, will not lead to major conflicts (such as larger wars) right now. I think partly because somehow no one is surprised because everyone konws, everyone has secrets. That's why it's more embarrassing than surprising.

Excellent post Fra. I think what upsets me is the naivete associated with the release. People that think that they can change human nature on a global scale. I keep hearing the coca cola commercial playing in the background

I'd like to buy the world a home and furnish it with love,
Grow apple trees and honey bees, and snow white turtle doves.

OY. Forcing more transparency among the honest will just allow more dishonesty among the dishonest.

 

[Danger]

Forcing more transparency among the honest will just allow more dishonesty among the dishonest.

I agree that Fra made a good post. As to the quoted sentence, though, it is evading reality. Those upon whom the transparency was forced were obviously not honest. They are movers, shakers, liars... in short, politicians. If anyone should be assassinated, it should be them rather than the guy who released the truth.

 

[zomgwtf]

Danger with all the ******** you've been spewing uncited I'm surprised your posts have been allowed to stay. Most of the **** I've read in your post I would equate with what would come from the conspiracy theorist NWO crap.

Please go actually research what's occurring then come back to thte thread.

 

[Evo]

I agree that Fra made a good post. As to the quoted sentence, though, it is evading reality. Those upon whom the transparency was forced were obviously not honest. They are movers, shakers, liars... in short, politicians. If anyone should be assassinated, it should be them rather than the guy who released the truth.

My point is that it's not likely to have any positive effect on those in power. But it has done harm and will take a long time for that harm to be undone, probably not in our lifetime. That's why I am against it.

 

[humanino]

To the people that appove of Assange's actions, let me ask specifically what good this did for conditions in the world? Be specific. What has it fixed? Don't respond with hand waving about oh, but it's wrong to have secrets. What benefit to world relations did it have?

I must say I do not necessarily approve of Assange latest leaks. However, I think it is worthwhile to pose for a second before codemning wikileaks altogether. Have you watched
TED talk, Assange : Why the world needs WikiLeaks
?
I think it begins by answering your question "what good has he specifically done for the conditions of the world", in this case Kenya. In general, the vast majority of leaks are not really "news". They consist in backing up with references what more or less everybody already knows.

It is also possible that wikileaks already has leaked much more serious material in the infamous "insurance file", as of now the encryption key was still not released. If this is true, the non-release of this content goes against the idea they merely try to harm diplomatic relations.

 

[Danger]

Danger with all the ******** you've been spewing uncited I'm surprised your posts have been allowed to stay. Most of the **** I've read in your post I would equate with what would come from the conspiracy theorist NWO crap.

Please go actually research what's occurring then come back to thte thread.

I challenge you to disprove anything that I've posted. The burden is upon you. I have no need to cite anything, because reality is my alibi. The information is all readily available through legitimate news sources (and I mean legitimate, not Fox.) Try CBC, BBC, CTV, something from France or Greece or Germany... anything that doesn't have a US latex gauntlet ensconced in it's rectum. You will find that I am correct.
By the bye, why are you on my planet? I thought that I left strict instructions with the orbital guards.
Evo, your last post has clarified things a bit. Perhaps we are not so far apart idiologically as I first suspected. I will be glad to hear more of your thoughts upon the matter.

 

[Evo]

I must say I do not necessarily approve of Assange latest leaks.

Good point, I should clarify that it is the release of information from the military grunt that I am against. I've stated earlier in this thread that I am not against the exposure of corruption, but I feel I should add where the exposure does more good than harm.