WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

With a bit of effort on your part you could have found these for yourself

I tried for some time to find the cables and could not. I didn't expect that you would search for them, but since you are so intrigued by the subject I thought you could readily direct me to them.

Thank you for locating them, but don't worry, I won't ask you for links going forward.

Quote:

What does it matter what I personally think?

It matters that I be able to discern between what is factual and what is merely your opinion. Your requesting that I provide you with a link of confirmation of the tactical change to drones is proof that it matters to you what I think as opposed to what I know.

Quote:

That is an incredibly arrogant & insensitive thing to say, Finn.
I'm rather taken aback by your attitude.

Not that I am alarmed that you might think less of me, but it appears that you have misinterpreted my statement.

When I stated that only the Yemeni should be outraged, I meant as respects the Yemeni government lying about who was responsible for the attacks. Whether the Yemenis or the Americans took responsibility for the attacks they were going to be launched and whatever civilians died would have died either way. It is interesting to me that Saleh decided to deceive his people, but I'm not one of his people and so why should I, or anyone else who is not Yemeni, be outraged? The lies didn't cause the civilian deaths.

Whether one feels outrage over the death of innocent civilians, regardless of their nationality, is an entirely different matter.

As for the link I provided:

If the Yemenis taking responsibility for the attacks was a secret, you wouldn't expect the Americans to announce a change in tactics to drones would you? You would expect to hear of it from the Yemenis (see link), but as we all now know the attacks and the tactic belonged to the US.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

I think that's quite obvious why it was hidden. The US feared more terrorist
attacks from Moslem sources if it would have been known that the bombing
was initiated by the U.S. Yemen took the blame and had less repercussions to
fear from fellow Moslems.

Not quite.

The irony is that Saleh had more to fear from his fellow Muslims (specifically the tribal leaders) if it was perceived that he allowed the Americans to launch the strikes than if he took direct responsibility for killing fellow Muslims.

Obviously Saleh saw any opportunity to cut deals with al-Qaeda had evaporated and that they were clearly his enemies.

The US had been engaged in enough activities at that point to keep every Muslim in the world outraged for a hundred years. One more wasn't going to substantially raise the danger level.

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If I were a Yemeni citizen I would be outraged, but I don't see why anyone who is not a Yemeni cares beyond it being interesting.

That pretty much proves your ignorant mindset.

As yours pretty much proves your bias

I refer you to my response to msolga.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

The crux of all this, to me, is that Assange isn't the one responsible for the material being handed to him. If the State Dept can't control their data, and they can't monitor the folks who have access to it, and some of that data could cause harm to the persons named within it, then whose responsibility is it to get those names redacted?

Maybe WikiLeaks can do the right thing by returning stolen property.

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Right, so they (the State Dept) found themselves between a rock and a hard place. Work with Assange to save the folks you're most worried about and be seen as legitimizing the leaks, in general. Or, sit back and do nothing to save those same people except hurl rhetoric at Assange and WL. We can see which path they chose.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were also voices saying that Assange's motives could not be trusted, and pointing out the most sensitive items was handing him our most important secrets on a silver platter. There was no reason to trust Assange.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Right, so they (the State Dept) found themselves between a rock and a hard place. Work with Assange to save the folks you're most worried about and be seen as legitimizing the leaks, in general. Or, sit back and do nothing to save those same people except hurl rhetoric at Assange and WL. We can see which path they chose.

In my opinion, the State Department had no choice, and still managed to make the wrong one.

They knew the material would be released, had an opportunity to protect some folks, and didn't.

As much as I find Assange repulsive, I do think the State Department is at fault in this aspect of the matter.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Cute. Except, I know you've read Assange's essays on why leaks are important. His mission is to make those entities who operate under the table less efficient in their endeavors. He offered to work with the State Dept (return the names of potentially innocent people, if you will) and they refused.

You're most worried about the fate of innocent people. It doesn't appear that the State Dept shares your worry as much as they're pissed off at losing control of their secrets.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

The crux of all this, to me, is that Assange isn't the one responsible for the material being handed to him. If the State Dept can't control their data, and they can't monitor the folks who have access to it, and some of that data could cause harm to the persons named within it, then whose responsibility is it to get those names redacted?

Someone in the US government bears responsibility for allowing all of this information to be stolen in the first place. Somehow I doubt that person or persons will ever be identified.

Because the State Dept might have had the opportunity to have names redacted doesn't mean that Assange is exempt from responsibility for consequences that flowed or will flow from the release without redaction.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Odd that you should say that, JW. You tried to mislead by suggesting that the NTSB data which showed that Flight 77 was too high to have hit the Pentagon was "out of date". You also tried to mislead on the Shanksville incident, again where NTSB data revealed that the glide path of that plane was not vertical.

Have you been appointed by your superiors as the A2K Minister of Disinformation or are you doing this all by yourself out of some misguided notions of "patriotism"?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I agree, ehbeth. He put them in a lose/lose position, but I think they chose the wrong loss. Unless, as finn says, they didn't think Assange would work with them toward this end, but work against them by putting flags on certain cables.

I don't have any opinion of him, really. I'm still fairly well stuck on the fence, but leaning towards the idea that shaking up the way things are done through risk of exposure isn't a bad thing.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Yeah, it's not like the US has ever tried to hide civilian casualties from the US public.

The Junior Minster of Disinformation who is desperately trying to knock WandelJW out of his position.

0 Replies

@JPB,

I think wikileaks as a concept is good. I think it's terrific that members of the group have separated from Assange and will continue their activities.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

There was no reason to trust Assange.

Not for the US, of course there isn't. But that's like John Gotti saying there's no reason to trust the police/the justice departments.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

As much as I find Assange repulsive,

Why? Because it earns you brownie points somewhere. You find Assange repulsive!?!? but you sit silent while the USA has butchered millions around the world.

Odd sense of morality you have there, eh, ehBeth?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Because the State Dept might have had the opportunity to have names redacted doesn't mean that Assange is exempt from responsibility for consequences that flowed or will flow from the release without redaction.

Jesus, the hypocrisy! That very same State Department has been responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents around the world and yet there's this constant chatter about the "responsibility" of Assange.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Why? Because it earns you brownie points somewhere.

<snip>

but you sit silent while the USA has butchered millions around the world.

Brownie points? for what?

____

You are in no position to comment about what I do or don't do in real life.

Why? because you don't know what I do or don't do out here in the real world.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

It would be my opinion that the State Dept is red-faced but heads will roll at the Pentagon.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

This, I gotta see.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

You are in no position to comment about what I do or don't do in real life.

Why? because you don't know what I do or don't do out here in the real world.

I'm in the same position that you occupy, that is, we both have the right to remark, as we see fit, on comments made here.

You think that A2K operates in a vacuum? This too is the real world/real life.

Maybe you chalk up your brownie points here.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

I hope the right heads roll

1 Reply

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know