57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 06:17 pm
@CalamityJane,
You are using Facebook as a source?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 06:36 pm
@wandeljw,
It's WikiLeak's Facebook presence. Universities have a Facebook presence too. Should we discount what they publish via Facebook?

Don't confuse the medium with the content J.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 06:38 pm
@wandeljw,
And why not, wandel?
You are using your local paper. Wink
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 06:43 pm
@wandeljw,
Wandel, just like hingehead said, it's Wikileaks through facebook presence.
As you might know, it has become difficult for WL to publish their cables and
facebook is one of the last U.S. sources to give WL a platform.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 06:57 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

It's WikiLeak's Facebook presence. Universities have a Facebook presence too. Should we discount what they publish via Facebook?

Don't confuse the medium with the content J.


Using Wikilink's Facebook presence to describe U.S. as cynical in foreign policy is like using Dick Cheney as confirmation that Saddam Hussein possessed yellowcake uranium.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 07:07 pm
@wandeljw,
That doesn't make sense at all, Wandel.
If you can buy "DER SPIEGEL" in Chicago, they have the same info in
German.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelspecial/index-2010-1.html

hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 07:18 pm
@wandeljw,
Uh, you were denigrating Facebook as a source of information, when Wikileaks is the source and FB is only the channel. You get called on it and you spin it to say wikileaks has no credibility being cynical about US foreign policy. They have 250,000 reasons to be cynical. Cheney would have said the proof was classified and hidden it from you. Wikileaks will show you the proof.

Jane's right - you're not making a lot of sense.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:15 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

That doesn't make sense at all, Wandel.
If you can buy "DER SPIEGEL" in Chicago, they have the same info in
German.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelspecial/index-2010-1.html




Maybe I am wrong. The item you quoted via Facebook is someone's personal comments. I assumed the person commenting was connected with the Wikileaks organization:

Quote:
During trips to Central Asia the locals constantly ask me: "Why doesn't America stop supporting [insert name of corrupt dictator here] so we can kill him and free ourselves?"


Who is the "me" in the above excerpt: an editor for "Der Spiegel" or a representative of Wikileaks?

What I was trying to say is that I have the same level of trust in Wikileaks as I do in Cheney.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:26 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Uh, you were denigrating Facebook as a source of information, when Wikileaks is the source and FB is only the channel. You get called on it and you spin it to say wikileaks has no credibility being cynical about US foreign policy. They have 250,000 reasons to be cynical. Cheney would have said the proof was classified and hidden it from you. Wikileaks will show you the proof.

Jane's right - you're not making a lot of sense.


Sorry. In my original post I should have said "Wikileaks Facebook Page" rather than just "Facebook." I meant the source, not the channel. I am still unclear who the "me" is in the Facebook item that Jane posted.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:27 pm
@CalamityJane,
I don't understand this. Is this supposedly a US diplomatic cable posted on the wikileaks FB wall? It doesn't sound like one.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:40 pm
@wandeljw,
That's OK Wandel, I think I understand the confusion.
This is WL's FB presence
http://www.facebook.com/wikileaks

On their FB wall their is a link to the story CJ posted - it's not a WL story, it's a story by Ted Rall on http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/08-5

So you were right to question - it's not a WL piece, but it does cite cables published by WL.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 09:54 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
During trips to Central Asia the locals constantly ask me: "Why doesn't America stop supporting [insert name of corrupt dictator here] so we can kill him and free ourselves?"


I must have asked that same question hundreds of times.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 09:55 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
You are using Facebook as a source?


You use the US government, JW.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 10:08 pm
WikiLeaks is taking a big risk, one that they shouldn't be taking considering that people could be put in danger, even mortal danger. They should send back all the documents, and dissolve their internet presence.

Why do I say this? Because obviously the good ole USA has things in control, aided of course by its staunch lap dogs. It's using its power wisely, like it always has, to control dictators and ensure that ALL the people of the world enjoy those inalienable rights that everyday Americans get to enjoy, with little to no thought about them there dirty fereigners.


Quote:
Cables Reveal Background of Pro-Dictator U.S. Policy
by Ted Rall
NEW YORK--After the Soviet collapse in 1991 U.S. policy toward Central Asia was transparently cynical: support the dictators, screw the people.

As the U.S. stood by and watched, corrupt autocrats looted the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Dissidents were jailed, massacred--even boiled.

Well, actually, the U.S. was anything but passive. They negotiated deals for oil and gas pipelines. They rented airbases after 9/11. They poured in tens of millions of American tax dollars--all of which wound up in secret bank accounts belonging to the dictators and their families. Meanwhile, average citizens lived in abject poverty.

During trips to Central Asia the locals constantly ask me: "Why doesn't America stop supporting [insert name of corrupt dictator here] so we can kill him and free ourselves?"

Poor, naïve people. They believe our rhetoric. They think we like democracy. Actually, we're all about the looting. Dictators are easier to deal with than parliaments. One handshake and a kickback, that's all you need with a dictator.

Central Asia only had one democratically elected president, Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan. George W. Bush ordered the CIA to depose him in a coup.

Americans who care about human rights have long wondered: Is the State Department stupid and/or naïve? Or did the diplomats in Tashkent and other capitals of unspeakable misery understand the brutal and vile nature of Central Asia's authoritarian leaders?

An examination of the WikiLeaks data dump answers that question: Yes.

Hell yes.

Like those from concerning more prominent countries, the WikiLeaks cables on the Central Asian republics can be funny. President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, a U.S. "ally in the war on terror" who seized power in a palace coup following the death of Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Niyazov, is described as "the 'decider' for the state of Turkmenistan." This is true. Turkmenistan is an absolute dictatorship in which millions starve while Berdimuhamedov's inner circle feasts on the profits from the world's largest reserves of natural gas.

A December 2009 cable describes America's pet autocrat as "vain, suspicious, guarded, strict, very conservative, a practiced liar, 'a good actor,' and vindictive."

According to an unnamed source, the outwardly conservative dictator has a Russian mistress named Marina, with whom he has a 14-year-old daughter. Though Berdy's power may be limitless, his intellect is not. "Berdimuhamedov does not like people who are smarter than he is," says the cable. "Since he's not a very bright guy, our source offered, he is suspicious of a lot of people."

No one's perfect. Least of all America's allies in Central Asia.

On the other side of the steppe in Kazakhstan, President Nursultan Nazarbayev presides over the world's largest oil reserves with an iron fist. Among his greatest hits: the convenient "suicides" of his top two political opponents a few months before a presidential "election." The two men apparently shot themselves in the back of the head, then bound their own hands behind their backs and dropped into a ditch outside Almaty.

Needless to say, Nazarbayev is another valuable U.S. ally in the war on terror.

But that doesn't stop American gossip. Nazarbayev's defense minister, says an embassy staffer in Astana, "appears to enjoy loosening up in the tried and true 'homo sovieticus' style--i.e., drinking oneself into a stupor." But alcoholism isn't illegal. Graft is--and the president is public enemy number one.

"In 2007, President Nazarbayev's son-in-law, Timur Kulibayev, celebrated his 41st birthday in grand style," explains an April 2008 cable. "At a small venue in Almaty, he hosted a private concert with some of Russia's biggest pop stars. The headliner, however, was Elton John, to whom he reportedly paid one million pounds for this one-time appearance." How did he come up with all that coin? "Timur Kulibayev is currently the favored presidential son-in-law, on the Forbes 500 list of billionaires (as is his wife separately), and the ultimate controller of 90% of the economy of Kazakhstan," states a January 2010 missive.

Membership has its privileges. The U.S. has never spoken out against corruption or human rights abuses in Kazakhstan.

So it's clear: American diplomats have no illusions about their brutal allies. Interestingly, Central Asia's overlords have a dismally accurate view of corruption in the U.S. government.

"Listen, almost everyone at the top [of the Kazakh regime] is confused," First Vice President Maksat Idenov told the U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan early this year. "They're confused by the corrupt excesses of capitalism. 'If Goldman Sachs executives can make $50 million a year and then run America's economy in Washington, what's so different about what we do?' they ask."

No response was provided.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/08-5
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 10:59 pm
JTT, that's the source wandel does not accept. Fair enough, wandel.

Let's roll it up from the back. Here http://centralasia.usaid.gov/page.php?page=article-1 (government website) you can read how many billions the U.S.
Bush administration has given to Central Asian brutal and corrupt dictators. Kazakhstan's dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev had good friends in high places.
Amnesty International urged authorities to sever ties with Kazakhstan, but instead the United States poured more Aid into Nazarbayev's hands.

Tajikistan, another country that received billions in U.S. aid is "officially"
a republic, however, its venal President Rahmon and his only party have won every election due to manipulation and corruption. Here is the Guardian's
take on Rahmon http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/12/wikileaks-bleak-picture-tajikistan

The list goes on and on where one can search U.S. aids to Central Asian
dictators who rule their countries with violence and corruption. Amnesty
International is also a good source to research.

@ wandel, you might not believe the wikileaks sourse through facebook,
but if you dig a bit deeper into what's said, you'll find that most of it is backed up by data.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:05 pm
@JTT,
That's a mouthfull! I don't trust our government to tell us the truth on anything.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:07 pm
@JTT,
I agree with your opinion about endangering innocent people through the WL exposure of info, but that's the only major concern I have - for the moment.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:14 pm
@CalamityJane,
Additional information along the lines of U.S. support to corrupt Central Asian
dictators
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/12/wikileaks-us-conflict-over-uzbekistan
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 11:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I agree with your opinion about endangering innocent people through the WL exposure of info,


That was deep sarcasm, CI. I was pointing up how ludicrous such a suggestion has been and I was also trying to point up that the USA should not be lecturing people when they have taken such active steps to endanger innocent people all the time, since forever.

When the fluff that has come to light is over and done with and the real sordid perfidy of the USA comes to light, there may be repercussions, but I'd suggest that WK's people/partners might be the ones to suffer.

There could be others, of course. But when people get involved with an evil this deep, that shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2010 06:38 am
Wikileaks is back on amazon servers .... via the Danish newspaper Politiken:

http://i53.tinypic.com/96gdxy.jpg
http://79.125.3.236/cablegate/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/02/2023 at 03:01:49