 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Wikileaks - how embarrassing
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Arthur_itus Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:12 PM Listening to the news tonight, we are now finding out about all the things we knew about our untrusted governments. I bet there are a few people fuming under the collar tonight! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:19 PM Some highlights: *Arab leaders - including Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah - urging the US to attack Iran and end its nuclear weapons programme. *the security of Pakistani nuclear material that could be used to make an atomic weapon. *The widespread use of computer hacking by China's government is also reported. * Iran attempting to adapt North Korean rockets for use as long-range missiles * Corruption within the Afghan government, with concerns heightened when a senior official was found to be carrying more than $50m in cash on a foreign trip * Bargaining to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison camp - including Slovenian diplomats being told to take in a freed prisoner if they wanted to secure a meeting with President Barack Obama * Germany being warned in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for US Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in an operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was abducted and held in Afghanistan * US officials being instructed to spy on the UN's leadership by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton * The very close relationship between Russian PM Vladimir Putin and his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi * Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime * Yemen's president talking to then US Mid-East commander General David Petraeus about attacks on Yemeni al-Qaeda bases and saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours" * Faltering US attempts to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:21 PM More: • Officials in Jordan and Bahrain have openly called for Iran's nuclear program to be stopped by any means, including military. • Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war". • Robert Gates, the US defense secretary, warned in February that if diplomatic efforts failed, "we risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, war prompted by an Israeli strike, or both". • Major General Amos Yadlin, Israeli's military intelligence chief, warned last year: "Israel is not in a position to underestimate Iran and be surprised like the US was on 11 September 2001." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: gnu Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:23 PM Tip of the iceberg... but it will all be shoved to the back burner with the distraction of the Korean crisis... spin doctors... hopefully, they won't spin out of control. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:26 PM Yet more: Pakistan forcing Taliban militants to keep fighting, Karzai says in leaked cable Afghan President Hamid Karzai told a US envoy this year that the Pakistani government is forcing Taliban fighters to keep fighting coalition forces, according to a State Department cable released by WikiLeaks. If true, the allegation would add evidence to claims Pakistan is intentionally prolonging the war effort to ensure that any future peace settlement results in an Afghan "satellite state" of Pakistan. Discussing the arrest of de facto Taliban leader Mullah Baradar earlier this year, Karzai said Pakistan detained Baradar because he was willing to negotiate peace with coalition forces -- something Pakistan doesn't want to see, according to Karzai. The cable, published Sunday by the New York Times, is marked "secret" and dated February of this year. It describes a conversation between Karzai and Frank Ruggiero, a deputy of US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke. "Senior Taliban fighters in Pakistan may be prepared to reintegrate, [Karzai] said, but are forced by the Pakistan Government to continue to fight," the cable reports. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Arthur_itus Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:32 PM Unbeleivable |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:42 PM Unsurprising |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: gnu Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM Indeed, John... sad innit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:56 PM Canada is appearing sporadically throughout the information released so far. A 2009 cable dealing with Afghan president Hamid Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, speaks of the powerful local leader and reputed drug trafficker in Khandahar province lobbying Canada for contracts to go to his friends. "AWK is understood to have a stake in private security contracting, and has aggressively lobbied the Canadians to have his security services retained for the Dahla Dam refurbishment. Both he and the governor have tried to exert control over how contracts are awarded in the province all of which could be a significant conflict of interest in the province," the cable reads. One cable from the American embassy in Tripoli, Libya, makes reference to "Libyan Leader Muammar al-Qadhafi" and his planned trip to the United Nations. Gadhafi had planned to stop in Newfoundland on his return trip prior to the stopover being cancelled by Ottawa. According to the cable, Qadhafi has a fear of flying over water and cannot fly for more than eight hours. There are also references in several cables to American efforts to have other countries take prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay military detention site. American diplomats tried to get Belgium to take prisoners by promising that the move would help raise the country's stature within Europe while the tiny Pacific island nation of Kiribati was offered money, reported to be millions of dollars, to take Chinese Muslim prisoners known as Uyghurs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST, Richard Bridge Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:10 PM And which Royal doing what that was "inappropriate" - I have no broadband or otherwise no doubt I could find out (like the last great "royal leak" about Prince Charles being buggered by a footman) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:14 PM There's no information about that one yet, Richard. I googled it along with about six million others. The mind will have to gleefully boggle for a little longer. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:17 PM BBC understatement- some cables showing surprising 'candor'. Also heard on the BBC- the Guardian is cleaning up some statements containing 'unflattering' remarks about some leaders. I doubt that there will be a lot that hasn't already been guessed at by sharper newshawks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Nov 10 - 09:16 PM "* US officials being instructed to spy on the UN's leadership by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton" Haha - from the day the UN building opened that was happening - no news here.... move on citizen, nothing to see here... and I remember the Russians presenting a gianT US seal which was discovered to have a microphone in it.... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: andrew e Date: 28 Nov 10 - 09:52 PM http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/comidwiki.php |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 28 Nov 10 - 11:03 PM andrew e, that's a slightly funny spoof site but the problem with those kinds of sites is that there is a small number of people who don't realize that they are being duped and think that what they are reading is true. I know that's hard to believe but hey, the dumbing down of America has realized some successes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Nov 10 - 02:08 AM Bobad: "*Arab leaders - including Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah - urging the US to attack Iran and end its nuclear weapons programme." Bobad: "• Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war". Bobad:"• Robert Gates, the US defense secretary, warned in February that if diplomatic efforts failed, "we risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, war prompted by an Israeli strike, or both". Bobad:" • Major General Amos Yadlin, Israeli's military intelligence chief, warned last year: "Israel is not in a position to underestimate Iran and be surprised like the US was on 11 September 2001." These, I have posted references to, as early as last year. The one about Saudi Arabia pointing us who to engage, in the middle east, as late as within the last two weeks!....and...without the help of Wikileaks! You think that's bad, too bad you don't know the details of Iran/Contra, and 'guns'(read weapons, and systems) for hostages!..and the hokey front that was put up, as to why...versus the truth. the first time I heard about it with very fine details, I cried for my country..(true story). Nonetheless, though I think Wikileaks, is doing a disservice to our country's efforts...BUT, so is the corruption....but, nobody wants to hear it....it may offend their partisan sensibilities...(maybe that should be discussed in the 'Delusion Thread!') ANYBODY HOME, YET?? ...rolls eyes upward, and whistles a light tune..... GfS P.S. Surely there are bigger and wider things to write and compose about, than bullshit, worn out 40 year old topics, and regurgitated, processed political 'news' headlines..... ...gee, I wonder if this Dm will go with the Lindsey Lohan song?? ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 29 Nov 10 - 03:24 AM No I am not surprised about leaked secrets, we in the UK are used to all that aren't we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 29 Nov 10 - 03:48 AM Ok, in terms of exposing hypocrisy and in confirming / denying the rumour mill as it presently exists. Just one small thing; I like 99% of the planet's population would like to see issues resolved rather than perpetuate. For this, ideas need to be discussed, diplomatic points gained and conceded. A bit difficult if you are concerned that if you speak your mind, it will be all over the media at some future point? I don't condone any of the less savoury attitudes or instructions recently published, but I do worry that like in business, negotiations require a modicum of Chatham House Rules. Otherwise, discussions are strangled due to tight lips. If we work on the idea that most diplomatic discussions are in order to resolve situations, then these embarrassing leaks may make for new rules on speech. Churchill once said "Jaw jaw, not war war." Of course, there are other tittle tattle bits and if M'unlearned friend can't wait for the latest revelations about the Royal family, may I suggest he purchases a copy of Heat magazine? If you link it to a client, you can always claim it as a tax write off.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,cs Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:02 AM The funniest thing is the US going to all that trouble spying on the UN: getting fingerprints, email addresses, faxes, iris scans, DNA data, telephone numbers and all the rest of this personal data ..and then failing to cover their own tracks! Reminds me of this Peeping Tom. He liked to watch (while, ahem.. you know) the busty blonde in her garden next door from behind his net curtain. One day she was looking up at his window with a grumpy face. He got his brother to stand in the window while he looked up from the garden, and discovered his silhouette (plus hand movements) was clearly visible to her... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:03 AM Steamin' Willie: "if M'unlearned friend can't wait for the latest revelations about the Royal family, may I suggest he purchases a copy of Heat magazine?" Oh man cool!!..Where can you get me one!!!???!! GfS P.S. Now tell me, I just gotta know.......Did you get your name from reading heat magazine, or the other way around??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:13 AM Oh, I forgot. I suppose they don't sell it in Sanity or surrounding areas. They might sell it in my local newsagent I suppose. Ask Richard III, he seems to need his fix on Royal gossip, hence my wee dig at the shallowness of his enquiry. (Sometimes, you just have spell it out just in case....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Lox Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:36 AM There is, and never has been, any such thing as an accidental leak. I think this whole thing is a massive deliberate propaganda tool masquerading as "the real truth uncovered". I don't believe it for a second. We love to thik we're on the inside - like we've "blown their cover" Bullshit! This was engineered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Lox Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:44 AM . Funny how Israel and Saudi Arabia are both allegedly sending secret messages concerning Iranian terrorism. Funny how they are talking about preventing another 9/11. Duh - so therefore - Iran must be Bad ... Duh ... only - if I remember right, the official line was that the pilots of the planes that hit WTC were Saudi Arabians. And if I remember right, the two men arrrested by the new Jersay police department after running away from a van filled with high explosives on 9-11, who later, on Israeli TV, said that they were there "as observers" of the atrocity, were Israeli ... Oh - and did I mention that these "leaks" are BULLSHIT? They are nothing more than cheap, weak, intellligence insulting propaganda. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:52 AM Why are you all so outraged, and surprised. None of it is in the least bit unusual, surely you don't think that the Russkis are the only ones using hidden listening devices, or using their businessmen to collect info, when in another country. Remember the old definition af an ambassador, 'An honest man, sent abroad to lie for his country' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:58 AM >Reminds me of this Peeping Tom. He liked to watch (while, ahem.. you know) the busty blonde in her garden next door from behind his net curtain. One day she was looking up at his window with a grumpy face. He got his brother to stand in the window while he looked up from the garden, and discovered his silhouette (plus hand movements) was clearly visible to her... < Sounds like an ex-husband........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,cs Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:12 AM "Sounds like an ex-husband........" Eew! "Why are you all so outraged, and surprised." Where? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Bobert Date: 29 Nov 10 - 08:34 AM This is a tough one because we are not only dealing with the r4ightness or wrongness of someone going public with classified information but the secondary message relates to "whistle blowers" in general... Seems that over the last several years the "whistle blower" has been demonized... That, in general, is not a good thing... There are some very messed up things out there that need to come out... I just hope that in an attempt to bust the folks who do put out classified information that shouldn't have been put out that we don't make the laws so restrictive as to also bust the guy who knows the rivets that are being used at his plant making F-17s are defective, tries to remedy it within the plant and told to "shut up" and goes public... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 29 Nov 10 - 08:40 AM Openess in EVERYTHING is long overdue... Sure would make people think twice, be more honest...possibly, maybe.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Greg F. Date: 29 Nov 10 - 08:43 AM ...the US going to all that trouble spying on the UN...and then failing to cover their own tracks! Yeah, that's the C.I.A and the Department of Hopeless Stupidity in a nutshell. Sure am glad they're out there protecting me - I feel so safe & secure I could just shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Dave Hanson Date: 29 Nov 10 - 10:45 AM No response from Downing St, but there will be when Wiki release what the American Government really think of Posh Dave, Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Gervase Date: 29 Nov 10 - 11:24 AM Reading the coverage of the cables I'm left with a growing admiration for US diplomats. Previously I'd imagine them to be box-headed paperclip pushers with no imagination or world view, but the cables show them to be remarkably astute when it comes to guaging what's afoot. As for the outrage at spookery - what's the surprise? With the redactions made, the only outcome I can see is a few red faces and a little less posturing by various politicos about the 'speshul relationship'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Nov 10 - 11:30 AM BTW, when did editing/censoring, become redacting? The boys in the trenches whose letters arrived home with thick blue pencil lines through words that might give the enemy clues, didn't say bloody redactors! Or did they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Lonesome EJ Date: 29 Nov 10 - 02:53 PM While I find it refreshing that other mideast nations view Iranian nuclear development as a sword of damocles held over the region and the world, the disclosure that the Saudis urged agressive action is damaging to all of those who would work to limit the threat. Surely even our most starry eyed believers in transparency of government must understand that all nations conduct covert surveillance of enemies AND friends, and that many of those involved in covert intelligence could be fatally compromised by such disclosures. To say that such secret information is proof of sneaky behavior is like saying war is proof of violent behavior. The disclosure of this information should be considered treason, in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Rapparee Date: 29 Nov 10 - 03:08 PM Exactly, LEJ. And the US/UK/etc. should issue warranties for same and ask for extradition. But I can't be surprised, having recently seen far, far too many such telegrams and documents (now unclassified) that date back to the middle '60s. Peek at some of the stuff at this site to see what I mean. And this documentation is from 1968-69! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,cs Date: 29 Nov 10 - 03:11 PM "all nations conduct covert surveillance of enemies AND friends" I thought Hilary Clinton initiated the US programme of spying on the UN leaders in 2009? A pretty recent development for US espionage. I do hope the rest of the world are better at spying on the US, than the US is at spying on the rest of the world - as it would certainly seem to be prudent considering supposed discussions about starting WWIII. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM Lox: "There is, and never has been, any such thing as an accidental leak." I tend to agree with Lox on this one. It would seem that if this was done without 'authorization' and things were tapped, or hacked, you'd think there would be charges brought up, like espionage. Then on the other hand, we DID get promised 'transparency'....you think this is what he had in mind? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: andrew e Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:23 PM More info here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/ Scroll down |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Teribus Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:37 PM Another batch of stuff from WikiLeaks that amounts to absolutely nothing. Are they selling this crap to the likes of the Washington Post, Der Spiegel or the Guianard? Were I Editor of any of them I'd call Assange and ask for my money back. What a complete and utter non-event. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:46 PM What? Something terribly wrong here- For once, I agree with Teribus! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Lox Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:06 PM Wierd ... Q agreeing with Teribus ... GfS agreeing with me ... And people think the leaks are a surprise! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Rapparee Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:35 PM Forty years from now, when the REAL dope comes out, you'll be surprised. I'll be damned near 106 years old probably won't really give a rat's patootie. (In passing, there has never been a time when countries didn't spy on both their friends and their enemies. The UK, the US, France, Canada...everyone spies on everyone else all the time.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: olddude Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:49 PM What movie was it that Jack Nickelson playing a Marine Commander said "truth, you can't handle the truth" biggest question for me and one more troublesome, How the hell did a pfc get access to this. All communications is supposed to be encrypted double key pairs? so how the hell is he able to print this right off the system? That someone needs to answer for it is far more important then what is contained in the leaks. These are embassy transmissions. Somebody really dropped the ball as this is not the 1950's where someone manually decodes , prints then runs to the intended addressee with a piece of paper. Transmissions are in key pairs, private and public keys. The decryption is done by a private key known only to the addressee. Major breach |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:04 PM This about the purported leaker Bradley Manning: "Manning had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRNET, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level. The networks, he said, were both "air gapped" from unclassified networks, but the environment at the base made it easy to smuggle data out. "I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like 'Lady Gaga,' erase the music then write a compressed split file," he wrote. "No one suspected a thing and, odds are, they never will." "[I] listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's 'Telephone' while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history," he added later. "Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis … a perfect storm." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: olddude Date: 29 Nov 10 - 08:01 PM Amazing because my clients have secure networks also, but even if someone was able to connect and was an employee or agent they would never be able to access anything because the intended delivery of such material is encrypted for the eyes of the addressee only. Only they could decrypt the message. Unless someone wanted to spend 1000 years of computing to try and brute force it. So what this tells me is the network is secure from outside forces but everything on the network is open to those with access privilege... good grief. What company does any one of us work for that you can read your bosses emails and documents openly from another PC Good grief |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: freda underhill Date: 30 Nov 10 - 02:48 AM A Sydney paper had an article saying that several documents show that the US had in turn been providing assistance to Turkey's Kurdish separatist movement, the PKK. Founded in the 1970s, the PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation in Turkey, the US, the European Union and Australia. A report in Israel's Jerusalem Post said the US military documents refer to the PKK as ''warriors for freedom and Turkish citizens'' and say that the US had set free arrested PKK members in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Donuel Date: 30 Nov 10 - 04:09 AM I am waiting for the rest of the Wiki data dump of a quarter million documents. The more we know the more we can see how ignorant we are on a collective level. Afterall each interpretation and comment we read, courtesy of Wikileaks, the more realize that the goverment State Dept is much like a social networking site operating under assigned policy rules. How smart could we be when political appointees from the sphere of Wall St. and Military Arms sales are promoted over people who have devoted their lifetime to an education of foreign affairs, history and social/psychological sciences. The Wiki leaks associated with Mudcat PMs should be most revealing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Donuel Date: 30 Nov 10 - 05:18 AM BTW Wikileaks was blocked from a 'direct' mass data dump on the internet by a US cyber operative who used similar tactics against Islamic sites. According to hi he did it uilaterally. As a result the data dump was delayed by a week and went out to various news sources in the form of a snail mailed memory stick. FOX news devotees are crying out for indictments of traitorous espionage and treason which is hilarious considering the fact that those laws do not apply to non citizens or for information that is not classified. Even if classified the Suprerem Court decided after the Pentagon papers that such information is allowable to be diseminated under law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Donuel Date: 30 Nov 10 - 06:12 AM WOO HOOO The next Wiki dump will expose GOldman Sachs! OMG Do you realize that Goldman Sachs is the essence of the villianous enterprises that James Bond fantasies only hinted at. This is the begining of the age of the neo renaisance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Donuel Date: 30 Nov 10 - 06:44 AM BIG US BANK LEAKS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: olddude Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:26 AM Goldman has recently agreed a 550 million dollar settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle fraud charges Wow, from what I read they and all of their subsidiaries got 100's of billions from the taxpayer ...What a deal huh ... I bet they are crying. Someone may have to give up one of their private yachts. No villain in any movie could match them in real life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Nov 10 - 06:08 PM AIG received roughly 90 billion bailout, of which they paid $13 billion to Goldman Sachs to settle hedge fund losses. AIG has raised $37 billion with which to begin paying back the government. Goldman Sachs did not receive bailout money from the government. G S is the third largest U. S. investment concern of its type (See Forbes). 2009 Annual Report Income- $45 billions Expenses $25 billions Pre-tax earnings- $20 billion Taxes $6.4 bilions Profit- $13.385 billion Pref. Dividends- $1.2 billion Net Profit- $12 billion Earnings/common share- $23.74 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: olddude Date: 30 Nov 10 - 06:22 PM Wall Street Journal Goldman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: josepp Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:28 PM Wikileaks is run by US intelligence. All these "leaked" documents are planted. Then the govt feigns outrage. Don't get taken in. There isn't anything there the govt doesn't want you to see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Bobert Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:47 PM I'm with you, Donuel... I can't wait to see the Mudcat PM dump, ahhhh, release... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:24 PM Well, at least we got some NEWS!....however there is more to the story(as usual). There is NO guarantee that these 'leaks' are any different than the Daniel Ellsworth mess...where the 'leaks' we the 'story' we were being fed...there's that..and the other is guess who is funding some of this.................................for all those who said Soros, take a bow. Soros, seemingly has changed his mind about Obama, for one reason or another..I suspect certain 'progressive' media sources are going to cover the President with more criticism, than before. This may not actually be the 'fault' of the President, but rather the Soros media machine turning against him. that being said, there are things I don't like about Obama, BUT he should NOT be smeared solely because one billionaire has his 'tights in a bundle' over him! If they charge Pvt. Manning, or Assange with 'espionage', they should also look into Soros, as well, for complicity. But frankly, nothing I've heard so far, from what was in the 'leaks' has much surprised me..some I already knew!...I was interested in the 'leaks' only because everybody can't blame Fox or MSNBC or NPR for screwing with the info.....at least this time! Another thing, it is us, the Americans, who don't know a lot of this stuff....a lot of people the world over have known some of it for quite a while...remember, they are not bullshitted everyday by a lot of OUR infotainment propaganda...they have their own, that is not as concerned with keeping stuff from them! Sooner or later, once a few people get their heads pulled out, a lot of stuff I've posted is going to come to light...(some already has!), and as writers of 'topical' subjects, you might do yourselves a great service, of being AHEAD of the curve...instead of living in the past! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Dec 10 - 03:33 PM Correction: "....There is NO guarantee that these 'leaks' are any different than the Daniel Ellsworth mess...where the 'leaks' we the 'story' we were being fed." Should read: "...There is NO guarantee that these 'leaks' are any different than the Daniel Ellsworth mess...where the 'leaks' WERE the 'story' we were being fed. Sorry!(typo) GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,bankley Date: 01 Dec 10 - 03:52 PM but I'm glad Lady Gaga got put to better use |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: skarpi Date: 01 Dec 10 - 04:13 PM well , next time they will tell us about the banks .... its about time people get to know how the bankes behave like sharks and kills all common people .... I hope the banks here goes down again the corruption still goes on :O( kv Skarpi . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: gnu Date: 01 Dec 10 - 04:22 PM So, is he a criminal? a terrorist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Dec 10 - 05:27 PM josepp: "Wikileaks is run by US intelligence. All these "leaked" documents are planted. Then the govt feigns outrage. Don't get taken in. There isn't anything there the govt doesn't want you to see." So, I guess you are saying, that when we see govt officials spouting 'outrage' you say they are in on the lying cover up??? In that case, take note, of who those people are! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Lonesome EJ Date: 02 Dec 10 - 01:57 PM Or is this discussion, and in fact Mudcat Cafe itself, not a clandestine effort by the Voice of America to infiltrate and influence the notoriously liberal world of Folkies?! They know we have influence well beyond what our numbers indicate! Is there any truth to the rumor that Max is in fact an FBI operative named Marvin Meriwether, who was involved in surveillance of the Musician's Union in the mid-90s?! This entire discussion is in fact an attempt by the government to make us think that the government was behind the leaks that the government so outrageously decries!! In this effort, the posts from the entities named "Little Hawk" and "GfS" have actually been traced to a computer in Annandale Virginia! Wake up, people! Any rational person must ask the question: Why would the government release its own secret communications, then lead us to believe that the government did it on purpose?? The answer is really quite simple. Just watch The Matrix!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Donuel Date: 03 Dec 10 - 02:12 AM I expect the next dirty trick aimed at discrediting Wikileak will be a forgery of a Wiki data dump that would seemingly implicate Assange in a criminal conspiracy to commit espionage or worse. The date rape accusations went no where. The CIA should have realized it took 50 years for child raping priest stories to get traction , let alone a bachelor party accusation of nautiness. Actually a well crafted forgery could serve the US with believable misinformation that could bolster the reputation of the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 03 Dec 10 - 05:07 AM Surely (Shirley again) whoever signs the Official Secrets Act knows what they are committing to when they sign it? Which makes me wonder sometimes if some of these things lately coming to light now hasn't been orchestrated by someone somewhere paid to let this happen, in the UK too for instance for example if an individual wants to make an example of security it has been known for attention to be drawn to it by an individual who wants to make a point. Here in the UK I am thinking about a case where personal private health records and also another where private personal Bank details just dumped somewhere where anyone can lay there hands on it. Ironically a leak blew the whistle on what could have been a massive cover-up. But there shouldn't have been the need for that to happen in the first place. We are supposed to be highly security conscious, with CTV cameras, electronic passes, security checks so what is going wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Dec 10 - 05:43 AM Seems like they have been sunk temporarily, as their ISP has suspended their service. This is due to a large hacking operation, which is being carried out against them. Now I wonder who might be responsible for that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Dec 10 - 08:46 AM Not in the least bit interested thanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: VirginiaTam Date: 03 Dec 10 - 09:26 AM Wikileaks Denial of Service attack - my guess is the US government flooded it... bombarded it with so many requests at such a speed that it crashed it. Wikileaks is still reachable by IP address only: http://88.80.13.160/ and http://204.236.131.131/ http://88.80.13.160/ http://204.236.131.131/ Already the second link above seems to be down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: VirginiaTam Date: 03 Dec 10 - 09:29 AM From Scoop Undernews which keeps dropping out and in - I copied the whole article Wikileaks loses Amazon web site Zero Hedge - An update from Reuters: "Amazon.com ceases hosting services for WikiLeaks website -Senator Lieberman" and "DHS says Amazon has agreed to stop hosting WikiLeaks." Game Over It seems the days of Wikileaks are over. The question now is who will be the next Wikileaks. The website of WikiLeaks, the organization that just released a trove of sensitive U.S. State Department documents, appears to have lost or left its main Web host, Amazon.com. The main website and a sub-site devoted to the diplomatic documents were unavailable from the U.S. and Europe on Wednesday, as Amazon servers refused to acknowledge requests for data. Availability of the sites has been spotty since Sunday, when it started to come under a series of Internet-based attacks by unknown hackers. WikiLeaks dealt with the attacks in part by moving to servers run by Amazon Web Services, which is self-service. Amazon.com Inc. would not comment on its relationship with WikiLeaks or whether it forced the site to leave. Messages seeking comment from WikiLeaks were not immediately returned. Thoroughly embedded media goes after Wikileaks Glenn Greenwald, Salon - With some exceptions, we have the group which -- so very revealingly -- is the angriest and most offended about the WikiLeaks disclosures: the American media, Our Watchdogs over the Powerful and Crusaders for Transparency. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer was beside himself with rage over the fact that the U.S. government had failed to keep all these things secret from him. . . Then -- like the Good Journalist he is -- Blitzer demanded assurances that the Government has taken the necessary steps to prevent him, the media generally and the citizenry from finding out any more secrets: "Do we know yet if they've [done] that fix? In other words, somebody right now who has top secret or secret security clearance can no longer download information onto a C.D. or a thumb drive? Has that been fixed already?" The central concern of Blitzer -- one of our nation's most honored "journalists" -- is making sure that nobody learns what the U.S. Government is up to. Then there's the somewhat controversial claim that our major media stars are nothing more than Government spokespeople and major news outlets little more than glorified state-run media. Blitzer's CNN reporting provided the best illustration I've seen in awhile demonstrating how true that is. . . One's reaction to WikiLeaks is largely shaped by whether or not one, on balance, supports what the U.S. has been covertly doing in the world by virtue of operating in the dark. I concur wholeheartedly with Digby's superb commentary on this point yesterday: "My personal feeling is that any allegedly democratic government that is so hubristic that it will lie blatantly to the entire world in order to invade a country it has long wanted to invade probably needs a self-correcting mechanism. There are times when it's necessary that the powerful be shown that there are checks on its behavior, particularly when the systems normally designed to do that are breaking down. Now is one of those times." . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Dec 10 - 09:35 AM It's all such a storm in a teacup. Bloody boring too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: VirginiaTam Date: 03 Dec 10 - 09:38 AM lots more info about what happend and what is happening |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: VirginiaTam Date: 03 Dec 10 - 09:40 AM Well I don't agree John. There have been some quite revealing leaks, but what is most disturbing is the sudden crash and move of wikileaks from Amazon to 2 companies in Europe today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Dec 10 - 10:10 AM Didn't tell me anything I didn't either already know, or suspected. None of it will change the world |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: VirginiaTam Date: 03 Dec 10 - 10:28 AM Aren't you even a little bit annoyed that some one or government is trying to prevent the public from having this information? And another thing if it is such common knowledge /suspicion why would someone bother to hack in and disrupt the service? I think the blatant censoring might change something. Not sure what or how, but something will come of that alone. Also if you feel that wikileaks is a pointless waste of time, then why bother posting to this thread after you've given your initial opinion? I mean, I heard you, I respect your opinion, I am not arguing with you. Just don't understand why you brought the thread to the top again with the news about wikileaks crash and then state that you are not interested. Your deeds conflict with your words.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Dec 10 - 10:44 AM Gosh, governments trying to hide things, now there's something new. Tam, they've been doing it for years, and they will continue to do it. To put it simply, they think they know, better than you do, what's best for you. Honesty is an unaffordable luxury to those who rule us, elected or unelected. Whereas cynicism, is a necessary adjunct of daily living. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,cs Date: 03 Dec 10 - 12:04 PM 'Just don't understand why you brought the thread to the top again with the news about wikileaks crash and then state that you are not interested.' One of the most frequent posters to this thread too - "The blokey doth protest too much, methinks." (excuse the bodgery) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Dec 10 - 12:28 PM Just passing on what I thought was good news, my friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 10 - 12:33 PM Gosh, I don't think I've heard much of anything that I'd consider earth-shattering... If calling Putin and knothead is all we are getting for the $Bs we are spending on intelligence then I'll go on record of askin' for a refund.... Oh yeah, China is put out with North Korea!!! Shocking, right??? Yeah, give US our money back, thank you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Dec 10 - 01:02 PM With you there Bobs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM None of this information was unavailable to state department employees. It's just that the American people are now finding out how they've been taken for a ride by the Pentagon. The New York Times editorial (Schroeder) likes secrecy in foreign policy. Sunshine bothers him because he feels insecure with it. The N.Y. Times lied to us about Iraq and now they are doing the same with Assange. Pax Americana! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: akenaton Date: 03 Dec 10 - 04:14 PM They're back up and running ...good! expose the devious bastards! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: gnu Date: 03 Dec 10 - 04:24 PM It's daily business... except for a few things out of the norm. One might be exposing that the Saudis asked the US to bomb Iran. Perhaps that is one "tool" being plied? By whom, well, there it is. In any case, it's a game billionaires play. Unfortunate, perhaps, but there it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 03 Dec 10 - 04:43 PM Ron Paul: 'What we need is more WikiLeaks' "What we need is more WikiLeaks about the Federal Reserve," he said. "Can you imagine what it'd be like if we had every conversation in the last 10 years with our Federal Reserve people, the Federal Reserve chairman, with all the central bankers of the world and every agreement or quid-pro-quo they have? It would be massive. People would be so outraged." "In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," Paul insisted. "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/ron-paul-what-wikileaks/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 03 Dec 10 - 04:52 PM US contractor bought Afghan policemen drugs, little boys, cable reveals http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/contractor-bought-afghan-policemen-drugs-boys-cable-reveals/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Dec 10 - 12:54 AM Lonesome EJ: "..This entire discussion is in fact an attempt by the government to make us think that the government was behind the leaks that the government so outrageously decries!! In this effort, the posts from the entities named "Little Hawk" and "GfS" have actually been traced to a computer in Annandale Virginia! Wake up, people!" Are you screwed up liberal wannabees so fucked up that you've stooped to this level of boldfaced bullshit??!!?? Sit on it, Ralphie! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 Dec 10 - 04:57 AM It's on the level of coffee shop gossip, and eavesdroppings. OOh Mrs America, did you 'ear wot that Mrs China said about that nice Mr Italy? That's nuffink Mr Australia, said that Mr Japan wasn't fond of sushi! 'Ow shockin' is that then? AND, I 'ear that Mrs Germany goes for a shit every day! Amazin' innit? Why are people so niaive, they allow diplomats to work on the same principle as homosexuals in the services. Don't ask, don't tell. Then they have the effrontery to come over all self righteous, when they find they've been doing their jobs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Dec 10 - 05:33 AM The liberals fancy themselves as to liking an 'open society'..until it opens up! ..then they want it closed back up, to hide the 'little secrets', of how to get what they want, and how they have to destroy the lives of regular working folks, PROVIDING for their families! "Give them unemployment and food stamps!"..."but we don't want your fucking government handouts..we want our jobs!..WE want to care care of our own families WITHOUT the damn socialists sticking their noses into every aspect of our lives!!" Anything wrong with that??? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Teribus Date: 04 Dec 10 - 05:35 AM Just had a thought that illustrates how important these leaks are particularly in relation to the US Ambassador's "reports" and opinions are and exactly whay weighting is put upon them (They are after all completely subjective opinions) Here is what might be termed a "crucial" example from history: In 1938 FDR sent Joseph Kennedy to the Court of St.James as the 44th US Ambassador. Kennedy had a distinctly anti-Brit agenda and he was a supporter of appeasement and a complete and utter defeatist. I doubt had FDR put any faith in the judgement of his Ambassador (Who quite frankly I think should have been drowned at birth). I bet old Joe Kennedy's "secret cables" back to FDR would have made some interesting reading and thank God they were not acted upon. Joe Kennedy's "wikileaks" type moment came and resulted in his removal when AFTER of the Battle of Britain he let slip this opinion: "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here," Fortunately for the world in general FDR listened to somebody else in the UK to weigh up the situation - The CBS Head of its European Operations Ed Murrow. WikiLeaks is not delivering Fact they are delivering for the most part subjective opinion nothing more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 10 - 06:50 AM Don't lump this liberal into that mix, GfinS... I love the leaks... They really don't mean squat... And, yeah, the US prolly did allow these documents to get out... Who cares??? Ain't nuthin' in 'um all that informative... Just a bunch of name callin'... You8 know, like here in Mudville... BTW, I knew that LH was gone fir a few days but I didn't realize he was movin' in with you in Annandale... Hope ya'll got a separate apartment for Chongz 'cause he has some very bad hygiene issues... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: robomatic Date: 04 Dec 10 - 02:14 PM I have to admit to liking the leaks. First of all there is nothing there that is really surprising, other than some of our State Department people know how to write! On the whole, I think Assange and his organization have done more good than harm and I hope he isn't maltreated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Dec 10 - 03:30 PM Actually, Wikileaks are publishing cables from the U.S. Military. There is nothing subjective about these. They report. They didn't make it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Teribus Date: 05 Dec 10 - 07:09 AM The Wikileaks about the opinions of US Ambassadors in various embassies around the world on the people that they are dealing with; Karzai; Cameron; Clegg; Brown; Berlusconi; Sarkozy; Putin; Merkel; etc; etc - Are most definitely subjective opinion and nothing more. The same goes for much of the opinion of what those ambassadors think of the way any nation or government may act in certain situations. The "military" leaks range from blank statements that such and such happened to subjective opinion of what might happen. Absolutely nothing that has to date been "released" should come as a surprise to anyone who has been reading and studying what has been going on - WikiLeaks, How embarrassing? Not in the slightest a complete and utter non-event. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: skarpi Date: 05 Dec 10 - 10:49 AM I love them in Wikileaks , now the world can see what kind things nations are doing , I can´t wait for Bank info ...must good for people to see the corruption in that system .... the government s of some nation wants to get them out of the system but that is so the people can´t see what they have been doing kv Skarpi |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Donuel Date: 05 Dec 10 - 11:56 AM There are surprising temperate attitudes toward these leaks being voiced here. Gates has a temperate opinion as well. This will probably not last long since the FOX news machine is repeating every 20 seconds that Assange has commited an act of war and should be summarily executed. Gates is being attacked by the right generally and by McCain specificly as Obama's political appointee. All history regarding Gates working under Bush has been forgotten. The Bank of America is now on the hot wiki seat and is being leveraged against the attacks on his website which now include pay pal being turned off to allow donations to Wikileaks. With the decoding password gigabytes of leaks will be available to millions of people who have already downloaded the encrypted version. The encyption decoding password has not been cracked even by our best military computers. If someone opened a website called wilileakPassword.org they would certainly get millions of hits. PW EXAMPLE "Diogenesemetasecretagentontheroadandimmediatelykilledhim123withthetruth.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,PeterC Date: 05 Dec 10 - 12:07 PM The disclosure of this information should be considered treason, in my opinion. @LonesomeEJ Please explain which of the leaks was a treasonable act in Australia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 06 Dec 10 - 11:34 AM "Julian Assange will release a "poison pill" that contains a "deluge" of secret information if he is killed, arrested or his website is permanently shut down, Daily Mail reports. "Due to recent attacks on our infrastructure, we've decided to make sure everyone can reach our content. As part of this process we're releasing archived copy of all files we ever released," WikiLeaks said in a message on its site. WikiLeaks says it has another 250,000 cables it plans to gradually release over coming months -- if it can. Anticipating the US attempts to block it though, WikiLeaks has taken the precaution of posting a big, 1.4-gigabyte file encrypted with a 256-digit key said to be unbreakable." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-threatens-release-poison-pill-arrested-killed/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Dec 10 - 12:40 PM The idea that Wikileaks is opinion only is only an opinion that refuses to recognize the language in these transcripts as being official. It's sheer propaganda on the part of those who want to denigrate the important role that Wikileaks plays in keeping democracy in tact. I mistrust the assessment of anyone who gives any credence to Karzai or other dictators that the US supports throughout the world. I applaud Assange and Manning for their courage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Dec 10 - 01:33 PM Before long- Wikileaks, the movie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John P Date: 06 Dec 10 - 06:32 PM How would you all like it if every conversation you had, every venting session, every harsh word you ever spoke were splashed all over the news? I agree that there is lots of information coming out that shouldn't have been secret, but I also think that people should be able to do their jobs -- and speak openly about it with their coworkers -- without having to worry about their conversations being hacked and publicized. There's a big difference between evidence of misdeeds, which ought to be made public, and evidence that people who are working on sensitive issues talk candidly with each other. The Wikileaks should have been limited to the first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Dec 10 - 07:10 PM Lemme see: we have little green cameras all over everywhere; we have bank and credit cards through which governments can locate us; we have GPS locaters in our automobiles. Goddammit, if you are not scared and tired of this intrusive bullshit, it is time you started to be. IMO.i Bravo, Wiki. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: akenaton Date: 06 Dec 10 - 07:28 PM Bravo Brucie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 10 - 07:48 PM Yeah, bring on some more.... Actually, word on the street is that there some nudies comin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: andrew e Date: 06 Dec 10 - 08:32 PM How many here have actually read any of the "leaks"? Are most commenting on what the media has put out? Must admit I haven't read any of the originals. I don't think I would want to waste my time on it! Most of us know that heaps of stuff is hidden and distorted, and most still is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 10 - 06:26 PM What is also embarrassing, is the poor quality of some of the US info. That Aussie company, critical to the USA because it makes rattle snake venom? Well the CEO is grateful for the publicity, but rather bemused that they haven't made that stuff for over 10 years.... If that's wrong, what 'facts' else should anyone believe? A bit worrying for a country that has its finger on The Big Red Button of Armageddon ... I'm waiting for Rupert Murdoch to be arrested or assassinated for publishing the material ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Dec 10 - 10:46 PM Leakypee is unsorted, about as useful as some of the mudcat threads; a useful post or two, the rest not worth noting. I looked at a little of it and went to sleep at the computer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Dec 10 - 02:19 PM Well, if it`s all ho-hum stuff, perhaps someone should notify the government agencies who seem to be shitting their drawers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Donuel Date: 08 Dec 10 - 03:21 PM Mastercard is hacked alledgedly in retalliation for Assange's bail denial. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Dec 10 - 03:56 PM My last post was NOT directed at Q. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 10 - 09:00 PM Sorry, but I'm lovin' all this... Maybe if Wiki messed up my pudder I might change my tune but, fir now, this is what make life great... I'm just waitin' for Wiki to make public some of the stuff they have on Ms. Sarah... That oughtta be the shits... I mean, maybe some nudie pics??? Maybe Ms. Sarah tryin' to make some deals with some seedy folks??? I donno but ya' notice that Ms. Sarah ain't talkin' about this and that is not her usual self that has an opinion on everything... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Dec 10 - 11:03 PM People who foul up Mastercard, Visa or Paypal need to be apprehended and put away for a good long stretch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Ralphie Date: 09 Dec 10 - 02:00 AM GfS. Sit on what exactly? I haven't even made a comment..(or can you read my mind? Now that's scary!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Donuel Date: 09 Dec 10 - 02:32 AM I guess you haven't noticed but Comcast internet went offline for over a day first on the East Coast and then the midwest. We are witnessing a revolution that does not harm anyone but instead delays or denies banks from making big bucks. We the people are merely showing a sample of what can be done to the enemies of plain simple truth. PayPal, Mastercard and Visa seem to have a grudge against the truth? Hey BIg Corp what are you afraid of? IF you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear!! How many times have they told that to us? Yes Toobigtofail Corp. there is real blow back from the crimes and outrages you commited against the poor and middle class. The dam has a crack and is only seaping right now. PS Mark Twain said "Be leary of the person who calls for punishment in large portions before any facts are heard" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: VirginiaTam Date: 09 Dec 10 - 02:42 AM Happy that Visa/Mastercard and Paypal have been suffering mass interruptions in service, not that it hurts their bottom line. It just pisses off the customers using them. But hey it is a start at striking at the heart of corporate/capitalist complex. Love that there are groups supporting internet democracy by exercising some internet anarchy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: John P Date: 09 Dec 10 - 10:18 AM Anarchy and democracy are very nearly mutually exclusive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: mandotim Date: 09 Dec 10 - 10:50 AM Depends on your definition of democracy. There are lots of versions. Some are very close to anarchy, others exclude it. Odd, isn't it; when the powerful object to something, it's 'defending democracy', and when the powerless object, it's 'anarchy' or 'treason' or 'sedition'. This is all about maintaining the division between those who have power and money, and those who don't; the very essence of the capitalist system in fact. Trouble is, the internet has changed everything, and powerless geeks are suddenly very powerful indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Dec 10 - 01:08 PM Idiots preventing people from paying their bills on line, ordering online, and merchants from selling online. This must be stopped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 Dec 10 - 03:27 PM Cobblers. People needing to pay bills order or sell have plenty of options. Only the guilty are hurt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Dec 10 - 03:47 PM The guilty are the idiots causing disturbance to online merchandizing and fund transfers, and those that support them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 09 Dec 10 - 04:11 PM Leaked e-mail shows Fox boss tried to slant 'news' programs http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/leaked-email-shows-fox-news-boss-slant-news/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Greg F. Date: 09 Dec 10 - 06:48 PM Fox "News"[sic] is bullshit? Who knew??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,999 Date: 10 Dec 10 - 11:14 AM The Wikileaks link I wrote to received 400,000 signatures supporting the `free internet issue` in one day according to an e-mail I rec`d. I don`t know who posted that link but thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: VirginiaTam Date: 11 Dec 10 - 04:24 AM A man may be a heretic in the truth, and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy. John Milton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Naemanson Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:48 PM I just saw this AP News Story and was embarrassed, not by the leaked documents but by the implication that sending Assange to Sweden could land him in American hands where his life might be threatened. What kind of country do we live in where the rest of the world sees us as a fascist-type state? Can't the leaders of this nation see that we are no longer the beacon of freedom we once were? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Brian May Date: 12 Jan 11 - 07:46 AM 'Land of the Free' does echo and sound just a bit hollow at the moment. Seriously, for a moment, it really IS how many countries of the world view the USA now, it is a tragedy, because there has been so much good from the States, however self-serving, over the years. Now, most overtures etc are treated with deep cynicism and disdain. Well done the State Department/Oval Office - we had the liar Blair and you guys voted Dubya in. We perhaps deserve what we got for our levels of well-meaning naivety. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 02 Feb 11 - 12:23 PM Wikileaks nominated for Nobel Peace Prize OSLO - Anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian politician behind the proposal said on Wednesday, a day after the deadline for nominations expired. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/wikileaks-nominees-nobel-peace-prize/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM Good news, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:34 PM Sure sounds good to me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:40 PM Bradley Manning has been found not guilty of aiding the enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:23 PM He has been convicted of most of the charges brought against him, including five violations of the Espionage Act. He faces as much as 130 years in prison. Sentencing begins Wednesday at 9:30 am ET. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: Songwronger Date: 30 Jul 13 - 11:27 PM ...the Obama administration didn't merely go through the motions in pursuit of Manning. Military authorities imposed a charge that should have sparked far greater alarm than it did. They argued that by talking to the media, Manning had "aided the enemy" – a charge tantamount to treason, which can carry the death penalty (though this was not pursued in Manning's case). This is not so much the beginning of a slippery slope for a democratic nation as a headlong plummet. A guilty verdict would have redefined the media – from outlets such as WikiLeaks to bastions of the establishment like the New York Times – as proxies for the enemy. It would have ended any distinction between a traitor selling military secrets to the highest bidder and someone speaking to a journalist on a matter of conscience and for no reward. The prosecution of Manning was intended to send a signal. If nothing else, it has done that. It has shown that when faced with evidence of its own wrongdoing, the current US administration focuses on punishing the messenger. It shows the first amendment is easier to honour in the abstract than in reality. And it risks sending a message to nations that routinely imprison, assault or even kill journalists and activists, that when it comes to the crunch, the supposed leader of the free world is not much different. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-trial-enemy-not-guilty |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: bobad Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:41 AM George Bush vs Bradley Manning |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,CS Date: 31 Jul 13 - 05:42 PM Thanks for the updates.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Jul 13 - 05:48 PM "Empire of evil"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:03 AM "It would have ended any distinction between a traitor selling military secrets to the highest bidder and someone speaking to a journalist on a matter of conscience and for no reward." Under the terms of the USMCJ when it comes disclosing classified information to an unauthorised third party there is no distinction made with regard to who that unauthorised third party is and there is no distinction made with regard to motive (financial gain or conscience). By the way in every military justice system if you are charged you are always, always charged with the most severe offence you actions can viewed as being - the subsequent investigation then whittles those charges down as they are forbidden from increasing charges. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wikileaks - how embarrasing From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:15 AM The us of the term "spy" in this context involves a state redefinition of the word akin to the attempt to redefine torture so as to exclude torture techniques such as waterboarding. What Manning did was not an act of espionage in any sense normally used in the English language. It's an example of Newspeak. |
