Wikileaks

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I think it's great that the Kurds will get their own state. As for Iraq being 'taken off the board', as I have stated I attribute the lion's share for the implosion of the society and infrastructure upon Saddam Hussein's rule of terror.

[LeazesMag 0]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

that explains why you know fuck all about the football club.

 

I didn't mention there that I was born in Newcastle though. Does that change your opinion on the matter?

No of course it doesn't...

 

up to you. I'm an open minded sort of chap if you can prove me wrong in what I have said about the old board, but do it on the relevant thread in the football forum.

 

Until then, bye.

 

PS don't forget to tell us who your other username is while you're at it, there's a good lad.

Why should he disclose anything about his life, when you won't disclose even the basic information about yours?

 

his life ? haha, I'm talking about a username on a message board you clown.

[The Fish 10857]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

that explains why you know fuck all about the football club.

 

I didn't mention there that I was born in Newcastle though. Does that change your opinion on the matter?

No of course it doesn't...

 

up to you. I'm an open minded sort of chap if you can prove me wrong in what I have said about the old board, but do it on the relevant thread in the football forum.

 

Until then, bye.

 

PS don't forget to tell us who your other username is while you're at it, there's a good lad.

Why should he disclose anything about his life, when you won't disclose even the basic information about yours?

 

his life ? haha, I'm talking about a username on a message board you clown.

unlike you to pick one piece from a post and ignore all the rest...

 

(by the by, regardless of how insignificant, the choice of username is still part of his life, numbnuts)

[LeazesMag 0]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

that explains why you know fuck all about the football club.

 

I didn't mention there that I was born in Newcastle though. Does that change your opinion on the matter?

No of course it doesn't...

 

up to you. I'm an open minded sort of chap if you can prove me wrong in what I have said about the old board, but do it on the relevant thread in the football forum.

 

Until then, bye.

 

PS don't forget to tell us who your other username is while you're at it, there's a good lad.

Why should he disclose anything about his life, when you won't disclose even the basic information about yours?

 

his life ? haha, I'm talking about a username on a message board you clown.

unlike you to pick one piece from a post and ignore all the rest...

 

(by the by, regardless of how insignificant, the choice of username is still part of his life , numbnuts)

 

Laughable.

 

He refers to me on Newcastle Online, but doesn't say who he is on Newcastle Online ? You're so thick you don't see the irony...

 

Anyway, what's your problem with what I say to him, are you his Guardian Angel or something

[Park Life 71]

LM has a point as it goes.

[LeazesMag 0]

LM has a point as it goes.

 

thanks bruv

[The Fish 10857]

Laughable.

 

He refers to me on Newcastle Online, but doesn't say who he is on Newcastle Online ? You're so thick you don't see the irony...

 

Anyway, what's your problem with what I say to him, are you his Guardian Angel or something

 

 

2 things;

 

1 I never go on Newcastle Online. (Not because I'm banned for repeatedly acting the bell, but simply the chat on there is shit)

2 I just like pointing out your hypocrisy, regardless of whom is on the receiving end.

[LeazesMag 0]

Laughable.

 

He refers to me on Newcastle Online, but doesn't say who he is on Newcastle Online ? You're so thick you don't see the irony...

 

Anyway, what's your problem with what I say to him, are you his Guardian Angel or something

 

 

2 things;

 

1 I never go on Newcastle Online. (Not because I'm banned for repeatedly acting the bell, but simply the chat on there is shit)

2 I just like pointing out your hypocrisy, regardless of whom is on the receiving end.

 

eeeerrr.....as I said, are you his Guardian Angel ?

 

Referring to me on NO and not saying who someone is themselves on NO is not hypocrisy either then , according to you ?

 

As laughable as your assertion that not revealing a username on a message board is the same as telling people about your actual lifestyle/identity/occupation etc etc

 

You're mad.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

From the Guardian's recent Q and A with J. Aflange (All the other questions were soft-ball hippy nonsense):

 

Julian.

I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the

protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.

In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.

My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.

 

 

Julian Assange:

If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.

[The Fish 10857]

Laughable.

 

He refers to me on Newcastle Online, but doesn't say who he is on Newcastle Online ? You're so thick you don't see the irony...

 

Anyway, what's your problem with what I say to him, are you his Guardian Angel or something

 

 

2 things;

 

1 I never go on Newcastle Online. (Not because I'm banned for repeatedly acting the bell, but simply the chat on there is shit)

2 I just like pointing out your hypocrisy, regardless of whom is on the receiving end.

 

eeeerrr.....as I said, are you his Guardian Angel ?

 

Referring to me on NO and not saying who someone is themselves on NO is not hypocrisy either then , according to you ?

 

As laughable as your assertion that not revealing a username on a message board is the same as telling people about your actual lifestyle/identity/occupation etc etc

 

You're mad.

 

 

 

What? When did I say any of this?

 

I'm sure I said it was part of his life and at no point did I say it was "the same as telling people about your actual lifestyle/identity/occupation etc. etc."

 

You're a liar and you're insane.

[GeordieMessiah 2]

The Washington Times column on why Assange must be assassinated: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/d...sinate-assange/

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that's true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him."

 

What? What about if he was hiding in Timbuktu?

[Park Life 71]

The Washington Times column on why Assange must be assassinated: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/d...sinate-assange/

 

 

What a load of rubbish. Desperate stuff by monkeys caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

[Happy Face 29]

The Washington Times column on why Assange must be assassinated: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/d...sinate-assange/

 

 

It's telling how the Wikileaks opposition flip from "nothing new here, go about your business" to "this is the gravest threat to national security and all involved should be murdered".

 

Desparate.

[Happy Face 29]

Looking at the latest leak for instance, a lot of this information was widely known, and this knowledge went beyond a mere suspicion. Take the example of Pakistan's government allowing US drone strikes whilst outwardly protesting against them; this had been written about for a significant time in the press, by reporters who had privilege to sources from within the country's government; there was no revelation involved here. Whilst that's fine in and of itself, Wikileaks have been guilty of a severe over-egging of the quality of this latest content and the impact it will supposedly have.

 

There will be no legal ramifications regarding a lot of these e-mails and leaks and so on, and this makes me question the direction of the site and also renders the question of 'suspicion vs proof' somewhat redundant. If their ultimate goal is to expose corruption and criminal acts that have been covered up, and to affect changes in legislation and law as a result of their leaks, then why bother with this sort of content? The only thing that will be prompted by publicly embarrassing several governments is the huge pressure we're now seeing applied to Wikileaks and Aflange. Is it really worth the possible death of the site just to expose Prince Andrew's toilet habits in a leaked email?

 

I also have my problems with Aflange. His proposed goals toward the Iraq and Afghan wars were stupid, although the leaks on them have been very interesting and have helped to swing me in favour of the Iraq war. American troops have been guilty for a lot less civilian deaths than I had previously believed, and of particular interest are the details of the abuses and crimes of the Iraqi authorities - post-invasion. Aflange talks of ethics a lot and he has obviously absolved the Ba'athists, Al-Qaida, Iranian-backed militia and religious zealots for their part in destroying the society of Iraq. I can't take that step, and whilst the 'coalition of the good-guys' forces have not only made terrible errors, but been guilty of a flagrant lack of planning (although who could plan for the aftermath of such a thing?), I will not blame them for murders which they did not commit. #

 

The anti-war crowd - Aflange included - attribute the blame for Al-Qaida bombs in Iraq on the invading forces, though they cannot state with authority that Iraqi society wouldn't have descended into a scrofulous murder-zone had the war not taken place. Saddam Hussein had never been one to shy away from his genocidal proclivities, and he had proven effective in morphing Iraq into a fractious calamity, teetering on the precipice of a violent implosion. So, back to Aflange: stupid ethics, a preening mouthpiece for the hippy-hackers and a relentless sex-pest. Wikileaks have been spot-on with some of their leaks, but others have left a sour taste: the taste of a shit. It is sad to see 30-something year old men who display an embarrassing piety in their hero-worship of characters like Aflange; no man is without fault, as Zimmerman once said, "don't follow leaders, and watch your parking meters.' Ghandi was a shit also.

 

This deserved more of a response than I had time for last night.

 

On the over egging. I'd ask where that has occurred? I've not seen Sky Sports style adverts from Wikileaks hyping anything as the golden bullet or owt. They generally say what they're going to leak then leak it, making no promises on the quality of the content. That said, much of it is of value. I've repeatedly referred to the wide range of matters we weren't aware of or which hadn't previously been confirmed. I'd agree, there are many examples where all the cables do is provide evidence of what had already been widely reported. But evidence is important....it makes denials implausible .

 

Whether or not the government crush legal action against torturers or refuse victims their day in court, it informs an electorate who can see the the facts for themselves rather than balancing an argument of claim and counter-claim.

 

I see where you'r coming from on being more selective on what they release, however I can also see the argument being made that if they themselves make decisions on what the public see and what they don't then they're no better than the ineffective new media who are entirely subservient to the ruling class, more interested in towing the line in order to get access for the next story, rather than being an antagonistic check that doesn't mind breaking a few eggs in order to make an omelette.

 

Too much of the media (just about all TV news and newspapers) is about balance nowadays, there is no truth according to them, just what the right say and what the left say, that's why a lot of the coverage concentrates on Wikileaks the organisation and Assange the man rather than the leaked info...they can invite on a guest to show support and a guest to rage against them and have it out on air, providing the illusion of any debate whatsoever about the real issue. The truth of the leaks themselves gets almost entirely relegated from the agenda. Can you imagine a newsman just doing a piece to camera where he lists the facts revealed in the leaks? I've not seen it.

 

I don't think the leaks pin any blame for deaths in Iraq where they don't belong, as you suggest. Show me where the leaks blame the US for any insurgent violence or that of Iraqi forces. I think what the leaks do show on that score is that the US were keeping count (and denied it). They show that their count was a lot higher than they'd admit publicly too, and they'd mis-classify a lot of victims (whoever did the killing) as combatants when they're actually civilians.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

Laughable.

 

He refers to me on Newcastle Online, but doesn't say who he is on Newcastle Online ? You're so thick you don't see the irony...

 

Anyway, what's your problem with what I say to him, are you his Guardian Angel or something

 

 

2 things;

 

1 I never go on Newcastle Online. (Not because I'm banned for repeatedly acting the bell, but simply the chat on there is shit)

2 I just like pointing out your hypocrisy, regardless of whom is on the receiving end.

 

eeeerrr.....as I said, are you his Guardian Angel ?

 

Referring to me on NO and not saying who someone is themselves on NO is not hypocrisy either then , according to you ?

 

As laughable as your assertion that not revealing a username on a message board is the same as telling people about your actual lifestyle/identity/occupation etc etc

 

You're mad.

 

 

 

What? When did I say any of this?

 

I'm sure I said it was part of his life and at no point did I say it was "the same as telling people about your actual lifestyle/identity/occupation etc. etc."

 

You're a liar and you're insane.

 

Well, if it isn't the same, don't bother telling me I should post on here details of my "real" private life in response to me asking someone else details of a minor part of their life.

 

And, to repeat. Are you his Guardian Angel or something

[LeazesMag 0]

"News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that's true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him."

 

What? What about if he was hiding in Timbuktu?

 

maybe he is here, and posting as Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

"News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that's true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him."

 

What? What about if he was hiding in Timbuktu?

 

maybe he is here, and posting as Happy Face

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Going back to the original quote, which high value terrorist targets have we killed in the UK in the last decade like?

 

I only know of one extrajudicial killing related to terrorism in the UK in the last decade, and that hardly worked out well did it.

 

It'd hardly be treating Assange "the same" to kill him without charge.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

"News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that's true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him."

 

What? What about if he was hiding in Timbuktu?

 

maybe he is here, and posting as Happy Face

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Going back to the original quote, which high value terrorist targets have we killed in the UK in the last decade like?

 

I only know of one extrajudicial killing related to terrorism in the UK in the last decade, and that hardly worked out well did it.

 

It'd hardly be treating Assange "the same" to kill him without charge.

 

which means someone is quietly getting on with their job ie the whole idea. I expect if someone DID get killed, the namby pambys would be up in arms about not giving him the "chance to surrender" etc - do you understand the very fact you have heard nothing, is indicative of at least a degree of effectiveness of the "need to know" system. You aren't supposed to know. Shame someone doesn't just shoot someone like Abu Hamza mind, but that's another story, as I said, some people would be up in arms about him and proclaiming his innocence, or unproven guilt to put it another way.

 

FWIW I hope someone does shoot Assange, he has asked for it for what he is doing. I for one would applaud whoever did it.

[Happy Face 29]

"News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that's true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him."

 

What? What about if he was hiding in Timbuktu?

 

maybe he is here, and posting as Happy Face

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Going back to the original quote, which high value terrorist targets have we killed in the UK in the last decade like?

 

I only know of one extrajudicial killing related to terrorism in the UK in the last decade, and that hardly worked out well did it.

 

It'd hardly be treating Assange "the same" to kill him without charge.

 

which means someone is quietly getting on with their job ie the whole idea. I expect if someone DID get killed, the namby pambys would be up in arms about not giving him the "chance to surrender" etc - do you understand the very fact you have heard nothing, is indicative of at least a degree of effectiveness of the "need to know" system. You aren't supposed to know. Shame someone doesn't just shoot someone like Abu Hamza mind, but that's another story, as I said, some people would be up in arms about him and proclaiming his innocence, or unproven guilt to put it another way.

 

FWIW I hope someone does shoot Assange, he has asked for it for what he is doing. I for one would applaud whoever did it.

 

 

Advocating killing on the internets. Exactly the sort of thing you want Awlaki killed for.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

"News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that's true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him."

 

What? What about if he was hiding in Timbuktu?

 

maybe he is here, and posting as Happy Face

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Going back to the original quote, which high value terrorist targets have we killed in the UK in the last decade like?

 

I only know of one extrajudicial killing related to terrorism in the UK in the last decade, and that hardly worked out well did it.

 

It'd hardly be treating Assange "the same" to kill him without charge.

 

which means someone is quietly getting on with their job ie the whole idea. I expect if someone DID get killed, the namby pambys would be up in arms about not giving him the "chance to surrender" etc - do you understand the very fact you have heard nothing, is indicative of at least a degree of effectiveness of the "need to know" system. You aren't supposed to know. Shame someone doesn't just shoot someone like Abu Hamza mind, but that's another story, as I said, some people would be up in arms about him and proclaiming his innocence, or unproven guilt to put it another way.

 

FWIW I hope someone does shoot Assange, he has asked for it for what he is doing. I for one would applaud whoever did it.

 

 

Advocating killing on the internets. Exactly the sort of thing you want Awlaki killed for.

 

 

who cares.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

This deserved more of a response than I had time for last night.

 

1. On the over egging. I'd ask where that has occurred?

 

2. I see where you'r coming from on being more selective on what they release, however I can also see the argument being made that if they themselves make decisions on what the public see and what they don't then they're no better than the ineffective new media who are entirely subservient to the ruling class

 

3. Too much of the media (just about all TV news and newspapers) is about balance nowadays, there is no truth according to them, just what the right say and what the left say, that's why a lot of the coverage concentrates on Wikileaks the organisation and Assange the man rather than the leaked info...they can invite on a guest to show support and a guest to rage against them and have it out on air, providing the illusion of any debate whatsoever about the real issue. The truth of the leaks themselves gets almost entirely relegated from the agenda. Can you imagine a newsman just doing a piece to camera where he lists the facts revealed in the leaks? I've not seen it.

 

4. I don't think the leaks pin any blame for deaths in Iraq where they don't belong, as you suggest. Show me where the leaks blame the US for any insurgent violence or that of Iraqi forces. I think what the leaks do show on that score is that the US were keeping count (and denied it). They show that their count was a lot higher than they'd admit publicly too, and they'd mis-classify a lot of victims (whoever did the killing) as combatants when they're actually civilians.

 

1. The statement released with the last leak, "Americans are taught George Washington never told a lie, yada yada yada." I think they definately over-egged that one. Also, I find Assange in interviews to be melodramatic and his world-view - or at least my perception of it - preposterous. Ultimately, the crime of over-egging is not a serious one, and the plight of Wikileaks makes for a very interesting case in terms of freedom of information.

 

2. I think that counter-argument is kinda dumb. They do make decisions on what the public sees and doesn't see, because they only accept certain leaks that fit their criteria. This is just common sense. Even if they were to be even more selective it would be completely different from the 'new media' because they seldom release classified information. A more selective approach be more effective in terms of affecting changes in legislation or instigating legal action.

 

3. You make references to TV news which has always been shit, they go for ratings and nothing else. I disagree with, say, Noam Chomsky's assessment that the public are controlled by the media in a significant way, I just think most people aren't interested and agree with the agendas of various media outlets. There is plenty of good current-affairs coverage which is easily accessible via the internet for those who have the volition. The leaks themselves are easy to access, at least for now .

 

4. I didn't say, or intend to say, that the leaks pin the blame where it doesn't belong, rather Assange does.

 

"The anti-war crowd - Aflange included - attribute the blame for Al-Qaida bombs in Iraq on the invading forces"

 

According to Assange's ethical outlook, if the invasion hadn't taken place Al Qaida wouldn't be blowing civilians up in Iraq and therefore the invasion is to blame. I take a different view, that, "they cannot state with authority that Iraqi society wouldn't have descended into a scrofulous murder-zone had the war not taken place." When you have a genocidal totalitarian maniac running - or rather crushing - a country for decades it is inevitably going to result in widespread death and chaos.

[GeordieMessiah 2]

Ain't just Amazon distancing itself from WikiLeaks. Now, PayPal is joining in too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/0...klash-wikileaks

[ewerk 30610]

They're doing themselves no favours with this latest leak. I'm failing to see any reason to release a list of potential terrorist targets.

[manc-mag 1]

I did have a point I wanted to make about Wikileaks but then I saw Geordie Messiah's Christmas ava and instantly couldn't give a shit. How shallow is that?