1 Dec 10, 2:04 PM
Arbuthnot
UK(E), 7 yrs
 |
MaxFaust wrote:
However much excitement this or that may cause the simpletons among us, let's return to the issue at hand. I believe this detour was caused by my mentioning that the Wikileak material *might* have been leaked by the US government on purpose, in support of an agenda which is about stifling critical voices with what is the classical hallmark of a lie: Too much information.
There is nothing *new* or *sensational* about anything in the files - so what are they about? Documenting what everybody already know (or OUGHT to know)? Whereas I agree with the sentiment that it's good that *some people* take responsibility to look for whatever is "the nominal truth", I'd like to remind y'all that there is such a thing as *counter-espionage* - i.e. the practice of feeding the information market with either false or too much (counterintuitive) information.
|
I don't credit the "deliberate leak" theory. Whilst it's true that too much information is often characteristic of a lie, this isn't a lie. It's a leak, and deliberate leaks have purposes. The huge mass of this material would obfuscate and guarantee the misfiring of the usual purpose(s) leaking. MF seems to suggest the purpose was the leak itself and the content is actually fairly irrelevant. Well;
(a) It may, indeed, be mainly relatively trivial, but judgement on that should be suspended until it's all out and analysed. So far, I don't rate the fact that civilian deaths in Iraq WERE being counted as trivial at all.
(b) I don't see how any of this, even the trivial, helps in "stifling critical voices".
(c) Neither can I see much relevance to counter-espionage, except, possibly, by deflection of effort. However, the effort absorbed is likely to be journalistic and, despite what despots usually think, journalism and espionage are not the same things. Occasional overlaps, perhaps, but generally very separate fields.
No, this looks to me like a genuine leak, however significant or otherwise the content turns out to be.
Now, the truth about 9/11: There were no planes, you know. Anyone who believes there were planes is obviously one of the "sheeple" and merely serving the NWO's agenda. They may have looked like planes, but they were actually just holograms, see. Here's a free DVD which provides the "proof".*
The fact that governments and states are all low-life scum does NOT lend veracity to every mad conspiracy theory which comes along.
------------------------------
* I have several. Very useful for mixing adhesives and paints on they are, too. Edited 1 Dec 10, 2:20 PM by Arbuthnot
|
1 Dec 10, 2:14 PM
sharktooth
UK, 3 yrs |
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
Where has wikileaks gone anyway - can't seem to get to anything *other* than the war logs, and the ambassadorial tittletattle.... |
They seem to have lost interest in keeping the other, older leaks available  . Try mirror.wikileaks.info or one of the other mirrors. |
1 Dec 10, 4:17 PM
BarbieSlutLoki
UK(E), 6 yrs
|
MaxFaust wrote:
Duh. What person in his position is? I must say that I find this irrational hatred for Iran quite interesting though. What do you suppose they should do differently? Submit to the benevolent leadership of the coalition of US and UK forces?
|
Nobody hates Iran, they'd be fine without the mullahs. I don't believe anyone educated in Iran wants that nutjob in people they just happen to live in a police state where they have no real voice
The real elephant in the room though are the Saudis who whilst they don't promote terrorism still promote extremist ideologies around the world.
The first rule of Brat Club, we don't talk about Brat Club...
|
1 Dec 10, 4:24 PM
BarbieSlutLoki
UK(E), 6 yrs
|
Arbuthnot wrote:
No, it's the Mullahs who do that. He's a secular politician in a theocratic state who diplomatically keeps his nose out of all those "religious" and "moral" issues (i.e. he turns a blind eye). He has to, of course. If he crosses the Mullahs, he's out -or worse. He's little more than a hired hand and doesn't have ultimate power in the state. To put it more precisely, his power depends on doing what he's told how he's told. To use the Scots expression, his jaicket's aye on a shoogly peg. That's a theocratic state for you. His position is not in the least comparable with Hitler's.
|
The catholic church supported hitler, the mullahs support Ahmadinejad, so not comparable at all The first rule of Brat Club, we don't talk about Brat Club...
|
1 Dec 10, 4:54 PM
glx101
UK(B), 20 mths
|
interesting and relevant points you make here... and er what is Cognitive dissonance?
BarbieSlutLoki wrote:
Arbuthnot wrote:
No, it's the Mullahs who do that. He's a secular politician in a theocratic state who diplomatically keeps his nose out of all those "religious" and "moral" issues (i.e. he turns a blind eye). He has to, of course. If he crosses the Mullahs, he's out -or worse. He's little more than a hired hand and doesn't have ultimate power in the state. To put it more precisely, his power depends on doing what he's told how he's told. To use the Scots expression, his jaicket's aye on a shoogly peg. That's a theocratic state for you. His position is not in the least comparable with Hitler's.
|
The catholic church supported hitler, the mullahs support Ahmadinejad, so not comparable at all
|
|
1 Dec 10, 5:19 PM
Arbuthnot
UK(E), 7 yrs
|
BarbieSlutLoki wrote:
Arbuthnot wrote:
No, it's the Mullahs who do that. He's a secular politician in a theocratic state who diplomatically keeps his nose out of all those "religious" and "moral" issues (i.e. he turns a blind eye). He has to, of course. If he crosses the Mullahs, he's out -or worse. He's little more than a hired hand and doesn't have ultimate power in the state. To put it more precisely, his power depends on doing what he's told how he's told. To use the Scots expression, his jaicket's aye on a shoogly peg. That's a theocratic state for you. His position is not in the least comparable with Hitler's.
|
The catholic church supported hitler, the mullahs support Ahmadinejad, so not comparable at all
|
Hitler had supreme power. He wasn't a puppet having his strings pulled by the Catholic church. In fact, you could make a case that it was rather the other way round. Ahmadinejad IS simply a puppet, a functionary, who would be disposed of if he didn't toe the line. That's the difference. What I hope for is the people of Iran disposing of the lot of them -and not letting any son-of-Shah bastard back either.
Edited 1 Dec 10, 11:38 PM by Arbuthnot
|
1 Dec 10, 5:28 PM
Arbuthnot
UK(E), 7 yrs
|
Max Faust would find support for his "deliberate leak" theory here
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/12/469303.ht...
Personally, I rate it 10% sense and 90% overblown bollocks, but make your own mind up. Those depicted as players of the "mighty wurlitzer" too frequently display non-cognitive dissonance between the concepts of "brewery" and "piss up" for me to be persuaded. |
2 Dec 10, 4:43 PM
MaxFaust
NO, 23 mths
|
During this rather interesting interview with Larry King, Russia's PM Vladimir Putin indicated support for "my" position on the latest WikiLeaks: That they are deliberate, only it remains unclear what the strategy is.
| Larry King: What do you think of the leak of military and diplomatic correspondence by the WikiLeaks group?
Vladimir Putin: Some experts believe that somebody is deliberately "inflating" WikiLeaks. Building up the site's authority in order to use it to further their political ends. That is one possible theory, and this is the opinion of experts, which has some currency in our country too. I think that if this is not the case, it shows that the diplomatic service should be more careful with its documents. Such leaks have happened before, in the previous era. I don't see it as any kind of catastrophe.
Larry King: What about the statement by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that Russian democracy has disappeared and that the government is being run by the security services? What is your response to the American secretary of defence's statement?
Vladimir Putin: I am personally acquainted with Mr Gates, I have met him on several occasions. I think he is a very nice man and not a bad specialist. But Mr Gates, of course, was one of the leaders of the US Central Intelligence Agency and today he is defence secretary. If he also happens to be America's leading expert on democracy, I congratulate you. |
Christmas Bloody Christmas
|
2 Dec 10, 4:44 PM
MaxFaust
NO, 23 mths
|
glx101 wrote:
what is Cognitive dissonance?
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Christmas Bloody Christmas
|
2 Dec 10, 4:48 PM
overlap
UK(CF), 7 yrs
|
This may be something of a swerve, or even regarded as completely off-topic, but given the nature of this site and, I think, the belief of many people here that consensual sexual activity is no business of the state: Assange lawyer speaks.
|
For three months Assange had been waiting in vain to hear whether media statements by and for the two female “victims” that there was no fear or violence were going to be embellished so the charges might be carried forward due to greater seriousness. Such statements would stop a r-pe charge in any Western country dead in its tracks. R-pe is a crime of violence, duress or deception. You can r-pe someone by deluding them into thinking you are someone else or by drugging them or by reason of their young age but essentially it's a crime of violence.
...
Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange.
|
Can we at least agree that Assange is a) innocent and b) been fitted up, possibly by agents of one or more of the governments he has embarrassed.
As for the leaks themselves, I think they're wonderful. We pay for governments, we should have the right to know what they do in our name, As we consent to be taxed, we could at least be informed... Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
David Hume
|
