OT: Wikileaks (beat DDD to it!)

gtvlusso

probably a bit controversial....

There are some things going on between governments and organisations that I am very happily ignorant of. We all know that behind closed doors the conversations are far more blunt than the media and "faces" will admit to - But I am very happy to not know about who is selling nuclear material to some bloke in a "stan" who may be homicidal....

Is Wikileaks a real force for good, showing the true nature of the political world and something we should applaud and support - Free speech and freedom of information?

Or Is Wikileaks giving us too much information, scaremongering a globa society and possibly going to risk lives for one mans selfish beliefs?

Will Wikileaks antogonise an already divided world and push it too far?

waddlie

I would be in favour of Wikileaks if it was solely leaking information in order to hold the authorities to account. The video footage of the helicopter crew annihilating those journalists was spot on.

But I don't see what they think they're achieving with the latest release apart from pissing people off. It doesn't seem like any wrongdoing has been exposed, and the wider world really doesn't need to know the intricacies of international diplomacy.

Sewinman

I think it is just confirming the bloody obvious:

Prince Andrew is a prat
Russia is corrupt and its former KGB Prime Minister is perhaps a bit dodgey
Career politicians Cameron and Osbourne are economic light-weights
Etc etc.

dhope

Waddlie wrote:

and the wider world really doesn't need to know the intricacies of international diplomacy.

None of what's been exposed has seemed particularly worrying so far. I always assumed people were less diplomatic when talking behind closed doors, indeed I'd hope they would be otherwise nobody would ever get say anything at all if they always had to pretty it up for the media.

snooks

Isn't Wikileaks just showing everyone how two face political people really are?

Instead of the politicians taking the heat for their judgemental views, it all gets diverted to being about Wikileaks

The future US presidential runners can get pro US support by saying the founder should be executed for treason, and everyone live happily ever after.

Or have I missed something??

rjsterry

Sewinman wrote:

I think it is just confirming the bloody obvious:

Prince Andrew is a prat
Russia is corrupt and its former KGB Prime Minister is perhaps a bit dodgey
Career politicians Cameron and Osbourne are economic light-weights
Etc etc.

True, there is a lot of stuff nthat is just more frank than we are used to, but there are quite a few more worrying items, like US diplomats spying on UN officials.

Greg T

rjsterry wrote:

like US diplomats spying on UN officials.

Everyone spies on everyone.

Are you surprised?

rjsterry

Greg T wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

like US diplomats spying on UN officials.

Everyone spies on everyone.

Are you surprised?

No, but I think the significant point was that diplomats rather than spooks were being asked to do the spying, and that these orders were signed off by Hillary Clinton. The Bush administration was well known for not giving a stuff what the UN thought about anything; it seems the current one doesn't think much of the UN either.

jonginge

Greg T wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

like US diplomats spying on UN officials.

Everyone spies on everyone.

Are you surprised?

Indeed. I thunk diplomat is a synonym for spy. Isn't it?

Sewinman

They are normally called things like 'Assistant Economic attache' etc.

rjsterry

If I was American, I think I would be pretty hacked off at the billions of military aid the US is pumping into Pakistan to try and control the Taliban and al-Qaida, when large chunks of that money have been diverted into goodness knows where, and the Pakistani Army and ISI still seem to be in bed with various jihadist groups

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-us-aid-pakistan-militants

cee

Sewinman wrote:

They are normally called things like 'Assistant Economic attache' etc.

and generally have a very boring job. are most spies not really just people who can speak a couple of languages fluently, can sit as an attache somewhere, read newspapers, and perhpaps pick up on conversations in other languages in meetings etc?

i spy with my little eye...

Pep

Come on, everything that came out of wikileaks we already knew it...

Greg T

rjsterry wrote:

Greg T wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

like US diplomats spying on UN officials.

Everyone spies on everyone.

Are you surprised?

No, but I think the significant point was that diplomats rather than spooks were being asked to do the spying,

That's very underhand.......

I mean unless they look like this:



How are the baddies meant to know what they look like....



Also

Pep wrote:

Come on, everything that came out of wikileaks we already knew it...

What?

The threat of Pakistani nuclear material becoming unsecure
Iran's nuclear ambitions were a concern to other regional powers
N. Korea is a nuclear armed problem for China
Prince Andrew isn't discrete
Cameron hasn't run a country before
America's intelligence network includes diplomats
Bears crap in the woods
Sarkozy is a bit tetchy and Queeny


Was all in the public domain?

I need to get me some more current affairs reading!

jimmypippa

Well, the data was apparently restricted to only 3-million people, so I guess it was only the public that didn't know. I'd imagine that any organisation that wanted would already have that information.

And most of what I heard has been unsurprising.

A few egos might have been bruised because it is hard to pretend that you hadn't heard this, whilst one could before the leaks...

Of course the bits about North Korea could have more ramifications, as that country's leadership might take a bruised ego as reason to start shooting.

cyberknight

Funny how the founder of wikileaks is suddenly wanted on criminal charges so they can arrest him and shut him up ....................................