Wikileaks - latest leak

rypt said:
Really?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/30/iran.nuclear/index.html?eref=edition
Click to expand...

You DO kind of have to accept it could have gone either way. When you have a regime that don't trust it's own people you can't be so sure they will suddenly roll over and play dead when they are isolated. Paranoid leaderships have before done pretty crazy things.
When cornered (as Iran are close to being as a result) there's a good chance it does end pretty. I think you're being rather narrow minded and on with the self righteous "we have a right to know" crap if you think otherwise.
 
Mercutio said:
You DO kind of have to accept it could have gone either way. When you have a regime that don't trust it's own people you can't be so sure they will suddenly roll over and play dead when they are isolated. Paranoid leaderships have before done pretty crazy things.
When cornered (as Iran are close to being as a result) there's a good chance it does end pretty. I think you're being rather narrow minded and on with the self righteous "we have a right to know" crap if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you read the leaked documents you will see that at a joint meeting between Russian and US missile defence specialists last year, the issue of Iran's nuclear programme was discussed at great length. One of the things that emerged was that neither country's experts believe that Iran has the ability to launch nuclear missiles or to develop such abilities in the next 10 years or so.

What we also know, thanks to the leak of the summary of that same meeting, is that the risk of nuclear weapons/materials being stolen/bought in Pakistan is probably the greatest nuclear threat at the moment.

In other words, thanks to these leaks, we know what is actually a danger to us and what is not, rather than relying on the politicised diet of bull**** being fed to us by the politicians through a media interested in hype and scare stories.
 
ostrich_head_in_sand.jpg
 
neo202020 said:
What we also know, thanks to the leak of the summary of that same meeting, is that the risk of nuclear weapons/materials being stolen/bought in Pakistan is probably the greatest nuclear threat at the moment.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they want you to believe, I've been saying this for over 5 yrs now on these very forums and its like banging your head on a brick wall. The real threat to world peace is Israel. Pakistan faces a very tough time ahead, since the UK/USA/Israeli alliance need to dismantle Pakistans nuclear capabilities before Israel launches its unholy war in the Middle East.

It is by absolutely no coincidence that Pakistan has been in the headlines a lot in the past year or so. One way or another Pakistan will be dealt with so it poses no threat to Israel, and then mark my words, Israel will take control of most the Middle East.

The collapse of the US dollar is also imminent and I think that will coincide with the power shift to Israel.

Outrageous eh? Lets wait and see.

*hi Tefal* ;)
 
e36Adz said:
That's exactly what they want you to believe, I've been saying this for over 5 yrs now on these very forums and its like banging your head on a brick wall. The real threat to world peace is Israel. Pakistan faces a very tough time ahead, since the UK/USA/Israeli alliance need to dismantle Pakistans nuclear capabilities before Israel launches its unholy war in the Middle East.

It is by absolutely no coincidence that Pakistan has been in the headlines a lot in the past year or so. One way or another Pakistan will be dealt with so it poses no threat to Israel, and then mark my words, Israel will take control of most the Middle East.

The collapse of the US dollar is also imminent and I think that will coincide with the power shift to Israel.

Outrageous eh? Lets wait and see.

*hi Tefal* ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not interested in ideological speculation.

As far as I can tell, these leaked cables show the thinking of leading US and international experts, not the PR version. Given how scared the US was about their release, I imagine they are authentic. If this is so, your view is not based in fact (it may still be accurate, of course, if these people a wrong which they may be) and has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion: the leaked documents and what they tell us.
 
@ neo202020 - Fair enough but seriously, leaked documents don't really mean anything do they. I didn't need any leaked documents to know the USA were committing warcrimes, that the war in Iraq was based on pure lies, that Pakistan is on the hit list etc. If you have eyes with which to see, you don't need any leaked documents to show anything because it's already quite obvious.
 
e36Adz said:
@ neo202020 - Fair enough but seriously, leaked documents don't really mean anything do they. I didn't need any leaked documents to know the USA were committing warcrimes, that the war in Iraq was based on pure lies, that Pakistan is on the hit list etc. If you have eyes with which to see, you don't need any leaked documents to show anything because it's already quite obvious.
Click to expand...

The point I would make to you (again) is that there is a big difference between what is said by politicians of all nations in the media and what they know/think in reality. The exposure of these differences is important and invaluable.

This is a totally different matter to the vague general beliefs you or I may have about the way the world is. If you look at something like "public opinion," most people don't tend to change their beliefs without specific and normally shocking evidence: it took Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to change some people's opinions about US conduct in Iraq. Telling those same people "the US commits war crimes" didn't convince them because that's just a belief which is as good as their belief of "The US doesn't commit war crimes". When you put specific and concrete evidence to them, they change their mind.

I appreciate that you are already convinced and have strong beliefs about these issues. What I would say to you is that unless they are based in fact, they're just as useful in a public debate as the exact opposite beliefs. Until you have authentic evidence, it's all just a bunch of talk. That's where these cables come in - they're the evidence.
 
If concrete evidence comes out and does sway even a small handful of people then I can't say its totally useless. I agree with you there but 'evidence' can be planted/altered or just false. What a lot of people use as evidence to show that 9/11 was an inside job, others totally reject and vice versa. Even something like G Bush admitting openly that he was watching the first plane hit the tower isn't enough evidence for some people, because they themselves make excuses for the criminals.
 
e36Adz said:
Pakistan faces a very tough time ahead, since the UK/USA/Israeli alliance need to dismantle Pakistans nuclear capabilities before Israel launches its unholy war in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Why do they?

The only way Pakistan could use it's nuclear weapons is in a smuggled out of the country and planted somewhere by ground forces to be detonated way.


They send it up in a bomber usa/coalition/Israeli air forces would rip it to pieces easily, they launch it via missile and India nukes them back into the stone age just in case it was aimed at them.
 
I think the most interesting/controversial thing about this leak isnt the information contained in the leak but what is happening around it.

Like will they sweden arrest and put away Assange because of those convenient rape charge(or maybe it is totally corroborated, and the evidence totally convincing, I'd like to see that evidence).

Thats kind of what wikileaks is about, lets not take that governments words at face value. They can make any claim they want and we have to swallow and believe. Like 45 minutes they say it and believe it so it must be true.

And the Dos attack.

I dont think people much bothered about the information contained within, its the reactions that are more stirring.
 
what wikileaks is doing is no worse than say... what the Guardian is doing/

wikileaks is an intermediary, a news agency they are just sending the news out to other outlets, who can suppress and deny the information or broadcast it to the world en masse, as the guardian is doing,

wikileaks isnt getting the data, they are being given the data, just like the other news agencies, they are just higher up the chain and closer to the source.

my issue is, why is this information suppressed anyway? in an open democratic society, how can the voter make informed decisions on how to run the country when fundamental things like this are hidden from all purposely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom