Wikileaks

[The Fish 10872]

chatting to that bloke who was fired for wearing a poppy, but wasn't really and it's all made up?

[Nyff 0]

If you've done nothing wrong then you've got nothing to worry about. That's what theytell us, isn't it?

[Kitman 2207]

If you've done nothing wrong then you've got nothing to worry about. That's what theytell us, isn't it?

 

yes, usually as they waterboard you in a bucket of piss

[Happy Face 29]

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it strikes me that these leaks show other governments engaged in far more hypocritical behavior.

 

Agree with this and made a similar point above. I think the leak does the US more help than harm. Getting diplomats to spy on allies is embarrassing, but not outrageous in comparison to the pressure they're apparently getting on Iran.

 

How do you think it will help the US?

 

They've been banging the war drum against Iran for donkeys and getting a lot of stick for it, It does them no harm to have it shown that everyone else wants to get in there privately, even if they won't say so publicly.

[Happy Face 29]

If you've done nothing wrong then you've got nothing to worry about. That's what theytell us, isn't it?

 

Apart from getting my balls cupped by a fella called Bubba before I board a plane.

 

We can take their word for it they've done nothing wrong though....I mean their record on human rights is second to none...except Uganda, Russia, Chad, Lebanon, Nicaragua.....

[Happy Face 29]

US and UK diplomats feared Pakistan's nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorists, the latest leaked classified US diplomatic cables reveal.

 

The documents, released by Wikileaks, warn that Pakistan is rapidly building its nuclear stockpile despite the country's growing instability.

 

There is also scepticism about whether Pakistan could cut links to militants.

 

A Pakistan spokesman quoted by AFP said the fears were "misplaced and fall in the realm of condescension".

 

Separately, Interpol has issued a notice asking for information on the whereabouts of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.

 

'Historical biases'

 

In one of the latest cables to be released by Wikileaks, senior UK Foreign Office official Mariot Leslie told US diplomats in September 2009 that Britain had "deep concerns about the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons".

 

In another cable seven months earlier, then-US ambassador Anne Patterson told Washington: "Our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in government of Pakistan facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon."

 

 

Analysis

Frank Gardner

BBC security correspondent

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

International concerns over the security of Pakistan's nuclear materials are not new, nor is Pakistan the only country to attract such concerns.

 

But the stark language used in these confidential diplomatic cables gives us the clearest picture yet of what Western governments really fear - al-Qaeda or fellow jihadist militants getting their hands on enough nuclear material from Pakistan to build a crude nuclear device.

 

This is thought unlikely to be a full-scale nuclear bomb but more feasibly a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), consisting of radioactive material wrapped around conventional explosive.

 

If detonated it could scatter dangerous material over a wide area.

 

The Pakistani media has expressed indignation in the past over any suggestion that the country's nukes are not secure. Some commentators have suggested this is deliberate scaremongering by the West so as to eventually seize control of Pakistan's strategic weapons.

 

Another cable concerning a US intelligence briefing in 2008 said: "Despite pending economic catastrophe, Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world."

 

On Wednesday, Agence France-Presse news agency quoted Pakistan foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit as saying: "Their fears are misplaced and doubtless fall in the realm of condescension.

 

"There has not been a single incident involving our fissile material, which clearly reflects how strong our controls and mechanisms are. It is time they part with their historical biases against Pakistan."

 

Ms Patterson had also said there was "no chance" of Pakistan "abandoning support for [militant] groups".

 

The Pakistan government, she added, saw militant groups "as an important part of its national security apparatus against India".

 

The US also expressed concern about tensions between the powerful Pakistani army and President Asif Ali Zardari.

 

In material from March 2009, US cables noted that army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani might "however reluctantly" put pressure on President Zadari to stop down, although he "distrusted [opposition leader] Nawaz [sharif] even more".

 

The latest cache of messages, published by the UK Guardian newspaper, shows that Russia shared US and UK concerns over Pakistan.

 

Yuri Korolev, of the Russian foreign ministry, told US officials in February that "Islamists are not only seeking power in Pakistan but are also trying to get their hands on nuclear materials".

 

"There are 120,000-130,000 people directly involved in Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes. There is no way to guarantee that all are 100% loyal and reliable," he said.

 

He said that extremists were able to recruit more easily.

 

"Pakistan has had to hire people to protect nuclear facilities that have especially strict religious beliefs, and recently the general educational and cultural levels in Pakistan has been falling," he says in the cable.

 

'Spoiled child'

 

The communications between the US State Department and its embassies and consulates around the world were sent between 1966 and 2010.

 

Wikileaks has so far posted only 291 of the 251,287 messages it says it has obtained. However, all of the messages have been made available to five publications, including the New York Times and the Guardian.

 

No-one has been charged with passing them to Wikileaks, but suspicion has fallen on US Army Private Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst arrested in Iraq in June and charged over an earlier leak of a classified video.

 

On Tuesday, Wikileaks said it was coming under cyber-attack for the second time in three days. The Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack, as it is known, works by flooding a target with too much data for it to handle.

 

The cables release is the third mass Wikileaks publication of classified documents; it published 77,000 secret US files on the Afghan conflict in July, and 400,000 documents about the Iraq war in October.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882019

 

Perhaps Pakistan should be the ones to secure US nukes. Aren't the US still the only country we know that has used them on people and lost the codes for their nukes?

 

[/anti-west terrorist talk]

 

Edited December 1, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

Cuban intelligence agents have deep involvement in Venezuela, according to a 2006 US diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks.

 

Then-US Ambassador William Brownfield wrote that Cuban spies had "direct access" to President Hugo Chavez.

 

Another cable sent in 2010 said Cuban agents controlled spying operations against the US embassy in Caracas.

 

The left-wing governments of Cuba and Venezuela are close allies and outspoken opponents of the US.

 

The secret diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks were published by the Spanish newspaper, El Pais.

 

Similar allegations of Cuban intelligence influence in Venezuela have been made by Venezuelan opposition groups, but US officials have not publicly expressed such concerns.

 

The leaked cable from Ambassador Brownfield says the ties between Cuban and Venezuelan intelligence are so close that the two countries agencies "appear to be competing with each other for the Venezuelan government's attention".

 

The ambassador wrote that Cuban spies were so close to President Chavez that they provided him with intelligence unvetted by Venezuelan officers.

 

"Cuban agents train Venezuelans on both Cuba and Venezuela, providing both political indoctrination and operational instruction".

 

The ambassador concludes that the Cuban involvement could impact US interests directly.

 

"Venezuelan intelligence services are among the most hostile towards the United States in the hemisphere, but they lack the expertise that Cuban services can provide".

 

The level of Cuban involvement in other agencies of the Venezuelan government was harder to confirm, he wrote.

 

The embassy "had received no credible reports of extensive Cuban involvement in the Venezuelan military", but there were reports that Cubans were training Mr Chavez's bodyguard.

 

But Cubans were likely to be involved "to a great extent" in agricultural policy, as well as in an identity card scheme.

 

The ambassador added that it was impossible to tell how many Cubans were working in Venezuela.

 

Cuba's biggest and most public involvement in Venezuela is in the provision of tens of thousands of doctors and nurses who provide basic health services in poor areas.

 

In return, Venezuela provides Cuba with subsidized oil.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11883465

[Rob W 0]

"Perhaps Pakistan should be the ones to secure US nukes. Aren't the US still the only country we know that has used them on people and lost the codes for their nukes?"

 

and the US have their weapons driven around by a bunch of guys who occasionally stop for a bevy or two or three or...... and a couple of years back they flew a B52 right across the States with armed missiles on board when the crew thought they were dummy rounds

 

the Brits managed to dump a whole truck load of Trident warheads in a ditch near Basingstoke in the 90's when the truck skidded on black ice - took a day to get everything back in the box

[Happy Face 29]

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it strikes me that these leaks show other governments engaged in far more hypocritical behavior.

 

Agree with this and made a similar point above. I think the leak does the US more help than harm. Getting diplomats to spy on allies is embarrassing, but not outrageous in comparison to the pressure they're apparently getting on Iran.

 

How do you think it will help the US?

 

They've been banging the war drum against Iran for donkeys and getting a lot of stick for it, It does them no harm to have it shown that everyone else wants to get in there privately, even if they won't say so publicly.

 

It seems Robert Gates agrees it's not been a harmful leak at all....

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked today about the WikiLeaks disclosures and he said this:

 

 

“Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. . . .

 

“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’

 

So it appears that the political class and its eager enablers in the media world and foreign policy community have -- as usual -- severely exaggerated national security threats in order to manipulate the public and its emotional reactions. Shocking, I know.

[Happy Face 29]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

[LeazesMag 0]

you say you get the impression that people on here would rather UK soldiers die, than terrorists. This is not true. It is, in fact, false.

 

So why exactly do you need to make up positions for people like myself? I think my position is fairly balanced, my arguments are less and less about your stand-point and more and more about the way you argue. When it's clear that people are making reasonable points, based on valid arguments, you throw an absolute curveball by accusing them of holding positions so incredible that you feel the need to defend yourself. It's honestly worthy of the ridicule you inevitably end up on the end of. But then, when you're actually being stripped apart you accuse your antagonists of being naive, or do-gooders or one of your other petty little labels.

 

You're over 50 for the love of God. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

I see, you think I'm over 50 so I should teach you all my wisdom, is that it ?

No, I think you have been around long enough that you should be able to frame your opinions in reasoned and reasonable statements, rather than project a stand point onto people who disagree with you as if you're a kid in a school yard. fwiw I don't want any British soldier to die, and I'd be delighted if every terrorist was wiped from the face of the planet with great vengeance and furious anger. However, I know that's not likely. And I know that violence begets violence, imposing ones beliefs creates an angry reaction. Whether it be calls for the sacking of a poppy wearing man, or wading into another country and presuming you can solve millennia of tribal conflicts by building a road.

 

Your arguments aren't balanced, they are one sided and ignorant. Why do you think your opinion is fairly balanced ? I think mine is too, get it ?

The point is Leazes you have no idea what my arguments actually are. You spend every post creating exaggerated positions for others.

 

You do see that you can't on one hand say I should be showing a balanced view because I'm over 50, but only when it suits you ? What sort of age are you showing yourself to be when you make such a statement ?

I genuinely have struggled to understand what this garbled sentence means, but I think you're suggesting that your statements are fair and balanced, and by my asking you to refrain from fabricating other peoples opinions I show myself to be immature? If this is the case I'd suggest you re-read you conversations on here as that's simply not a true reflection of the discussions.

 

I stand by my comment that I get the feeling some people would rather see our soldiers die than muslim terrorists. Thats not a label, its a feeling based on the constant sniping and attacks made towards the west and the US in particular.

You're confused, the fact you think people on here want to hug-a-Hussain is not the label I was talking about. It's your need to call people "naive", "do-gooder", etc.

 

You do realise that you slate the Americans on here more so than most other posters do, right? Oh and I think the attacks you perceive, aren't actually attacks on the West, nor on the US. I think they're disappointment and frustration, we're supposed to be the civilised lot, yet the people acting in our name commit acts of selfish aggression and condone torture when it suits them, decrying it when it does not.

 

This doesn't mean I think we should warmly embrace the fanatics and zealots, but we sure as shit shouldn't stoop to their level.

 

 

My over-riding point is that you simply have to stop creating a preposterous opinion for the people who disagree with your view because it makes you look addled and pathetic.

 

no response Leazes?

 

to be honest, I'm bored trying to educate some of you lot now as to the ways of the world. You asked for my "56 year old view" [like you have done re football issues] and you've got it. And just like you were in the football issues, you're wrong.

[LeazesMag 0]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

 

Seriously HF. No wind up, no "banter"....just why exactly do you spend so much of your time raking around the internet looking for all this sort of thing ?

[The Fish 10872]

you say you get the impression that people on here would rather UK soldiers die, than terrorists. This is not true. It is, in fact, false.

 

So why exactly do you need to make up positions for people like myself? I think my position is fairly balanced, my arguments are less and less about your stand-point and more and more about the way you argue. When it's clear that people are making reasonable points, based on valid arguments, you throw an absolute curveball by accusing them of holding positions so incredible that you feel the need to defend yourself. It's honestly worthy of the ridicule you inevitably end up on the end of. But then, when you're actually being stripped apart you accuse your antagonists of being naive, or do-gooders or one of your other petty little labels.

 

You're over 50 for the love of God. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

I see, you think I'm over 50 so I should teach you all my wisdom, is that it ?

No, I think you have been around long enough that you should be able to frame your opinions in reasoned and reasonable statements, rather than project a stand point onto people who disagree with you as if you're a kid in a school yard. fwiw I don't want any British soldier to die, and I'd be delighted if every terrorist was wiped from the face of the planet with great vengeance and furious anger. However, I know that's not likely. And I know that violence begets violence, imposing ones beliefs creates an angry reaction. Whether it be calls for the sacking of a poppy wearing man, or wading into another country and presuming you can solve millennia of tribal conflicts by building a road.

 

Your arguments aren't balanced, they are one sided and ignorant. Why do you think your opinion is fairly balanced ? I think mine is too, get it ?

The point is Leazes you have no idea what my arguments actually are. You spend every post creating exaggerated positions for others.

 

You do see that you can't on one hand say I should be showing a balanced view because I'm over 50, but only when it suits you ? What sort of age are you showing yourself to be when you make such a statement ?

I genuinely have struggled to understand what this garbled sentence means, but I think you're suggesting that your statements are fair and balanced, and by my asking you to refrain from fabricating other peoples opinions I show myself to be immature? If this is the case I'd suggest you re-read you conversations on here as that's simply not a true reflection of the discussions.

 

I stand by my comment that I get the feeling some people would rather see our soldiers die than muslim terrorists. Thats not a label, its a feeling based on the constant sniping and attacks made towards the west and the US in particular.

You're confused, the fact you think people on here want to hug-a-Hussain is not the label I was talking about. It's your need to call people "naive", "do-gooder", etc.

 

You do realise that you slate the Americans on here more so than most other posters do, right? Oh and I think the attacks you perceive, aren't actually attacks on the West, nor on the US. I think they're disappointment and frustration, we're supposed to be the civilised lot, yet the people acting in our name commit acts of selfish aggression and condone torture when it suits them, decrying it when it does not.

 

This doesn't mean I think we should warmly embrace the fanatics and zealots, but we sure as shit shouldn't stoop to their level.

 

 

My over-riding point is that you simply have to stop creating a preposterous opinion for the people who disagree with your view because it makes you look addled and pathetic.

 

no response Leazes?

 

to be honest, I'm bored trying to educate some of you lot now as to the ways of the world. You asked for my "56 year old view" [like you have done re football issues] and you've got it. And just like you were in the football issues, you're wrong.

 

What?! When have I asked for you 56yr old view? Show me ONE post where I've done that and I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've ignored the entirety of my post and yet again fabricated an argument instead. The irony is not lost on me.

[ewerk 30656]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

 

Seriously HF. No wind up, no "banter"....just why exactly do you spend so much of your time raking around the internet looking for all this sort of thing ?

 

Yeah, why the fuck are you looking to educate yourself on what's going on in the world?

[LeazesMag 0]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

 

Seriously HF. No wind up, no "banter"....just why exactly do you spend so much of your time raking around the internet looking for all this sort of thing ?

 

Yeah, why the fuck are you looking to educate yourself on what's going on in the world?

 

I already am thanks.

 

[tooner 243]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

 

Seriously HF. No wind up, no "banter"....just why exactly do you spend so much of your time raking around the internet looking for all this sort of thing ?

 

Yeah, why the fuck are you looking to educate yourself on what's going on in the world?

 

I already am thanks.

 

 

 

...further proof LM really doesn't have a fucking clue.....

 

ewerk and yourself.....were talking to HF.

 

stick with the program....there will be a short quiz.

[LeazesMag 0]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

 

Seriously HF. No wind up, no "banter"....just why exactly do you spend so much of your time raking around the internet looking for all this sort of thing ?

 

Yeah, why the fuck are you looking to educate yourself on what's going on in the world?

 

I already am thanks.

 

 

 

...further proof LM really doesn't have a fucking clue.....

 

ewerk and yourself.....were talking to HF.

 

stick with the program....there will be a short quiz.

 

omg. I'm used to people jumping and making comments addressed to me for no reason. Just like you have done. You can go back to Canada now, or wherever you come from.

[tooner 243]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

 

Seriously HF. No wind up, no "banter"....just why exactly do you spend so much of your time raking around the internet looking for all this sort of thing ?

 

Yeah, why the fuck are you looking to educate yourself on what's going on in the world?

 

I already am thanks.

 

 

 

...further proof LM really doesn't have a fucking clue.....

 

ewerk and yourself.....were talking to HF.

 

stick with the program....there will be a short quiz.

 

omg. I'm used to people jumping and making comments addressed to me for no reason. Just like you have done. You can go back to Canada now, or wherever you come from.

 

 

 

awwwww muffin...you sound like you need a hug

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it strikes me that these leaks show other governments engaged in far more hypocritical behavior.

 

Agree with this and made a similar point above. I think the leak does the US more help than harm. Getting diplomats to spy on allies is embarrassing, but not outrageous in comparison to the pressure they're apparently getting on Iran.

 

How do you think it will help the US?

 

They've been banging the war drum against Iran for donkeys and getting a lot of stick for it, It does them no harm to have it shown that everyone else wants to get in there privately, even if they won't say so publicly.

 

If the US wanted a war with Iran they could have instigated it already, they have had ample opportunity - see the hostage crisis around 1980.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

It was widely known for some time that Pakistan were ok with the drone attacks in spite of their public protestations; common sense really when you view how the situation has panned out. I only raise this in response to Ewerk's 'educating yourself about the world comment'.

 

eedit*

 

Not all of WikiLeaks' enemies are content to just make statements and issue press releases. The site was down for American and European visitors for several hours Tuesday, the result of what it said was a high-powered "distributed denial of service attack," in which "remote computers commandeered by rogue programs bombard a website with so many data packets that it becomes overwhelmed and unavailable." WikiLeaks says the "malicious traffic" was coming it at 10 gigabits per second Tuesday, or 28 times faster than the average denial of service attack. WikiLeaks was able to get back online later Tuesday with help from Amazon's server-for-rent service. No one has claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attack. On Sunday, WikiLeaks weathered a smaller attack by a hacker who calls himself "The Jester" and describes himself as a "hacktivist for good."

 

The Associated Press

 

 

Interpol has issued a "Red Notice" for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in relation to alleged sexual misconduct, reports the BBC. A Red Notice amounts to a request for people to contact the international police organization if they know anything about Assange's location. Assange, 39, is wanted for questioning in Sweden regarding allegations of rape* and molestation in the country in August. Assange, who remains in hiding and frequently changes location to avoid detection, has said the charges are part of a campaign to discredit him. His mother, Christine, has voiced her concern about the alert. "He's my son and I love him and obviously I don't want him hunted down and jailed. I'm reacting as any mother would," she said in a radio interview. "A lot of stuff that's written about me and Julian is untrue." If Interpol were to locate Assange, he could be extradited to the United States, although some countries might be reluctant to hand him over, given that the maximum penalty under the U.S. Espionage Act is the death penalty.

 

Read original story in BBC

 

*I thought the rape charge was dropped due to lack of evidence?

 

 

 

In an interview published Monday in Forbes magazine, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said a "big U.S. bank" would be next on the organization's list for a major leak. Now, the blogosphere is abuzz with the theory that the bank is Bank of America, based on a 2009 interview with Assange where he mentioned having "5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives." Bank of America has said there is no proof that WikiLeaks is in possession of any bank data, reports CNN. In the Forbes interview, Assange said his information could "take down a bank or two"* and that it provided evidence of an "ecosystem of corruption." Assange said the leak would "give a true and representative insight into how banks behave" including "all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices." As with the diplomatic cables released in recent days, however, some say that unethical practices at banks aren't exactly a revelation. "Anyone who follows the banking industry knows these guys are essentially insolvent," Wall Street commentator Barry Ritholtz told Fortune. "So we're not going to get surprised there."

 

CNN

 

*Let's see if he can back that up. He often sounds deluded and naive, prototypical hacker type tbh.

 

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010...julian-assange/ - Interview link

Edited December 1, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to planned drone attacks.

 

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11885588

 

Seriously HF. No wind up, no "banter"....just why exactly do you spend so much of your time raking around the internet looking for all this sort of thing ?

 

"Raking around the internet" for the top story on the BBC?

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

mus of taken you hours with that burka on

[Happy Face 29]

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it strikes me that these leaks show other governments engaged in far more hypocritical behavior.

 

Agree with this and made a similar point above. I think the leak does the US more help than harm. Getting diplomats to spy on allies is embarrassing, but not outrageous in comparison to the pressure they're apparently getting on Iran.

 

How do you think it will help the US?

 

They've been banging the war drum against Iran for donkeys and getting a lot of stick for it, It does them no harm to have it shown that everyone else wants to get in there privately, even if they won't say so publicly.

 

If the US wanted a war with Iran they could have instigated it already, they have had ample opportunity - see the hostage crisis around 1980.

 

I'm not suggesting anything like a conspiracy theory whereby the US have manipulated a leak to justify an attack though. Just that if they do decide to attack, it would be hard for the states that pushed for it in these memos to condemn it.

[Happy Face 29]

*I thought the rape charge was dropped due to lack of evidence?

 

He's never been charged with a crime to have the charge dropped.

 

An arrest warrant was issued...then withdrawn for lack of evidence.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I only said that because there is a view that the US is trying to instigate a war with Iran, based on their policy towards Iran's nuclear development.

 

I feel like writing here about a conspiracy theory crackpot where I work who has no problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons, he thinks it is a more open and free society than the 'police state' we live in (he would rather live there than here he says). Similarly he thinks this of North Korea. Stories of the regimes from those countries is just 'BBC propaganda'. We also kill 'millions and millions' of Afghans and Iraqis every year, far more than Saddam Hussein ever did, any information to the contrary is 'BBC propaganda'. When I put it to him that it may be difficult to purchase books in Iran he responded that you can't buy a book in Britain that hasn't been edited to warp your mindset to fit the police state. He loves wikileaks, he went to the student riots in Liverpool (he is not a student, though he says everything taught in universities is 'lies'. I asked him if he was protesting so he could pay less to be taught lies. He said the whole world is a big lie), and he thinks the film the Matrix is the best film ever, as it is the truth. He took the red pill he says (didn't mean anything to me), he read out a speech from the Matrix that he had saved on his phone at this point, which apparently served to prove his point that Britain murders millions and millions of innocent Iraqis on an annual basis.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt