Wikileaks

[nkstan]

Great find KHONDAHM. Thanks. This will not be seen on any U.S. tv, thats for sure, but it should be.

After viewing the videos - especially the footage about the murderous helicopter attacks that was hidden from the public by the Bush administration among other blatant war crimes - I challenge ANYONE on this board to re-justify their case against the undeniable need for Wikileaks.

Indeed, the very fact that Wikileaks is garnering more news time than the information being exposed is proof of the utter incompetence of traditional media to focus and inform the public in democracies around the world.

As a follow up to the movie, this is another great read. Out of the millions of people who could have stepped up, Michael Moore did step up. Both will go down in history as heroes for the world in my book:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike- ... bail-money

Your extreme liberal bias really shows through KD,to denigrate one form of media,while applauding another when you know their is an agenda behind each,surprises me.Videos are clipped an edited to give the impression the presenter wants,Including your ''hero'' MM.Taking legimate mistakes and twisting them into so-called facts to support assumptions made to fit ones agenda,does not make one a ''hero''!
IMO,If you have adversaries,you should have a right to ''secret planning'' in order to accomplish your goals.Even the right to withold information that might cause erosion of your popularity.This notion,the the people have a right to know every detail,about everything,is not reasonable or a viable way to conduct business.
Somewhere,in order to have effective and decisive leadership,people have to have trust and confidence that the leadership will do what they think best for the people in their defense,which is the primary function of gov't,defending the nation!

[Laan Yaa Mo]

As is par for the course, I am in full agreement with nkstan.

By hook or by crook, you put the interests of your country first and do what you can to ensure it achieves its goals.

[jackspratt]

I doubt anyone would dispute that secrecy and trust is needed by governments under certain circumstances.

But when it is conclusively demonstrated after the event - time and time again - that the secrecy and trust have been abused, and lies told to achieve particular ends that most likely would not have been approved by the uninformed population, that trust (deservedly) evaporates, along with the secrecy.

Hence an organisation like wikileaks is born, and governments rightly squirm. But what is their reaction - certainly not a promise to do better, be more open, transparent and honest.

Nope - let's kill the messenger instead!

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Something is seriously out-of-whack with that avatar Khun Spratt. It isn't the real you.

[jackspratt]

C'mon - get with the festive spirit Uncle Tilo.

The lady will return after she has had surgery to tighten those buns.

[tigerryan]

If I were individual I would have brought General Shwartzkopf out of retirement the day after that helicopter attack and had him let the world know what our boys were up to last night going through every frame of the entire video with a pointer saying this guys a terrorist and this guys a similar colored camera man he was to close to the terrorist and he got blowed up too.
He would say funny things like the " media is going to concentrate on Bovine Scathology but I'm here to tell you how the sht went down alright.

[rufus]

Great find KHONDAHM. Thanks. This will not be seen on any U.S. tv, thats for sure, but it should be.

After viewing the videos - especially the footage about the murderous helicopter attacks that was hidden from the public by the Bush administration among other blatant war crimes - I challenge ANYONE on this board to re-justify their case against the undeniable need for Wikileaks.

Indeed, the very fact that Wikileaks is garnering more news time than the information being exposed is proof of the utter incompetence of traditional media to focus and inform the public in democracies around the world.

As a follow up to the movie, this is another great read. Out of the millions of people who could have stepped up, Michael Moore did step up. Both will go down in history as heroes for the world in my book:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike- ... bail-money

Your extreme liberal bias really shows through KD,to denigrate one form of media,while applauding another when you know their is an agenda behind each,surprises me.Videos are clipped an edited to give the impression the presenter wants,Including your ''hero'' MM.Taking legimate mistakes and twisting them into so-called facts to support assumptions made to fit ones agenda,does not make one a ''hero''!
IMO,If you have adversaries,you should have a right to ''secret planning'' in order to accomplish your goals.Even the right to withold information that might cause erosion of your popularity.This notion,the the people have a right to know every detail,about everything,is not reasonable or a viable way to conduct business.
Somewhere,in order to have effective and decisive leadership,people have to have trust and confidence that the leadership will do what they think best for the people in their defense,which is the primary function of gov't,defending the nation!

What a joke.
And this: "By hook or by crook, you put the interests of your country first and do what you can to ensure it achieves its goals."
I cannot believe that I am reading such unmitigated tripe. You are both suggesting that the interests of your country are more important than the right of that country's citizens to know the truth about their administration and the policies that come from there? If the country does not rule and govern for the people, then for whom does it do so? I suspect in both of your cases the word military might play a large part. Pathetic!

[jackspratt]

The wounded guy (obviously unarmed) crawling along the ground, and blasted again with accompanying "cowboy" comment.

And the mini bus, with no sign of any weapons (but kids inside) - just helping another wounded guy, who not was not identified as having a weapon.

What would the good general say about them?

Would it be a similar exercise as Colin Powell (to his eternal shame) went through, frame by frame, lie by lie, when trying to justify the unjustifiable?

Have another look here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6TRb40K ... r_embedded#!

[Laan Yaa Mo]

I cannot believe that I am reading such unmitigated tripe. You are both suggesting that the interests of your country are more important than the right of that country's citizens to know the truth about their administration and the policies that come from there? If the country does not rule and govern for the people, then for whom does it do so? I suspect in both of your cases the word military might play a large part. Pathetic!

Okay Khun Rufus, try this: name me one country in the world that does not occasionally hide the truth from its citizens for whatever reason? Ask yourself, why would they do this? What would happen if allies, enemies, neutrals and the general public knew everything that a particular government was doing? How many countries are totally transparent? Can you name one?

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Thanks for the reality check Jack. I always knew that your heart, and mind, was in the right place.

[snowball]

This is the General Schwartzkopf who's father helped overthrow an elected government in Iran to install the puppet Shah of Iran. That worked out well didn't it? How can anybody after so much history showing the illegal, and evil acts of the US government around the world, not condone Wikileaks for trying to stop this madness. If you are unaware of how the US government acts versus it's rhetoric, a good book to read would be "The Trial of Henry Kissenger" by C. Hitchens. Kissinger should have been shot as a traitor for undermining the 1968 Paris Peace Talks between north and south Vietnam, so that he and his boss could gain the Presidency... thus leading to the deaths of another 35,000 Americans, the illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia killing 100s of 1,000s of innocent people, thus helping create Pol Pot's horrible reign. Then they wanted to put Kissinger in charge of the 9/11 Commission hahaha what a joke America is now. I wonder why? Yes, Julian Assange is a much bigger threat to world peace then the highly respected Kissinger.

Give me a break!!

[cookie]

Nobody, including WikiLeaks, is promoting the idea that government should exist in total transparency. But the government's legitimate need for secrecy is very different from the government's desire to get away with hiding the truth. And conflating the two is dangerously unhealthy for a democracy.

several members seem to have a problem :
there is a big difference between secrets, "secret Planning",... and "LIES"
these members still don't get it:
government uses power to further the aims of those in power in the name of security and secrecy.

The WikiLeaks cables present quite a different picture. What emerges is one reality (the real one) colliding with another (the official one). We see smart, good-faith diplomats and foreign service personnel trying to make the truth on the ground match up to the one the administration has proclaimed to the public.

The cables show that the administration has been cooking the books

no secrets, but lies, lies, lies

these were words of a US president:

"We have to use technology to open up our democracy. It's no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in our history has favored special interest and pursued policy that could not stand up to the sunlight."

"Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset."

or do you want Hillary??

In authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable... technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights... As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools.

true libertarians should be applauding this freedom given to us by the internet and Wikileaks:

The more that government­s try to limit our individual rights,
and the more that the mass media provides the cover for government­s,
the WikiLeaks of the world will continue to be born.

and again a prediction:
the wikileaks cables are just a small problem for the Powers (Big Corporations together hand in hand with Big Government which is bought by the first.)
the big problem for them is the internet!!!!!
they will try everything to limit the internet freedom!!!!!
Why??
because they can't control it.
They control the media, have newspapers, TV and cable stations in their control, but internet not.
they will try to limit the access to the internet or censor it because it is uncontrollable for these Powers

[rufus]

I cannot believe that I am reading such unmitigated tripe. You are both suggesting that the interests of your country are more important than the right of that country's citizens to know the truth about their administration and the policies that come from there? If the country does not rule and govern for the people, then for whom does it do so? I suspect in both of your cases the word military might play a large part. Pathetic!

Okay Khun Rufus, try this: name me one country in the world that does not occasionally hide the truth from its citizens for whatever reason? Ask yourself, why would they do this? What would happen if allies, enemies, neutrals and the general public knew everything that a particular government was doing? How many countries are totally transparent? Can you name one?

How is that relevant?
"What would happen if allies, enemies, neutrals and the general public knew everything that a particular government was doing?"
We would be able to make a far more informed judgement at election time, wouldn't we

[cookie]

more wikileaks cables:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... gulf-spill

American energy firm Chevron was in discussions with Tehran about developing an Iraq-Iran cross-border oilfield, despite US sanctions against Iran.

Weird isn't it: this sounds criminal to me:
Chevron: aiding terrorists??????
Sue the CEO of Chevron for terrorist activities....
but no...nothing will happen

this isn't news, this is old news!!!!
We already knew the US government is in the pocket of oil corporations?
That's old news.
The US government is run by and for multinational corporations.

at least the wikileaks cables put these criminals in the spotlight.
That's why the US officials are running red-hot now!!!
Wikileaks is doing what the mainstream media never did!!!! =D> =D>
the mainstream media never talked or wrote about it



thank you wikileaks

The cables reveal that some of BP's partners in the gas field were upset that the company was so secretive about the incident that it even allegedly withheld information from them. They also say that BP was lucky that it was able to evacuate its 212 workers safely after the incident, which resulted in two fields being shut and output being cut by at least 500,000 barrels a day with production disrupted for months.

We would never have heard about BP's Azerbaijan gas leak if it had not been for WikiLeaks information leak.
thank you wikileaks =D> =D>

Other cables leaked tonight claim that the president of Azerbaijan accused BP of stealing $10bn of oil from his country and using "mild blackmail" to secure the rights to develop vast gas reserves in the Caspian Sea region.

and in one of the comments a very true remark:

Interesting that when the Gulf spill was in full swing and BP was blundering away in its approaches to fix it not one US official mentioned anything along the lines of "again" or "happened before"... does the US govt. not read it's own cables? You would think it would be a likely thing to be mentioned... weird...

[nkstan]

Us guys don't get ,cookie,right?Please tell me how you get it better than any of us!And why your at it,why don't you tell
us the ideal gov't and situation that the horrible USA should emulate?

And rufus,what would be the object of ''we'' having a better understanding or being better informed,so we could have referendums on all major foreign policy decisions?

[cookie]

times have changed indeed,
the USA used to be the land of the free home of the brave.
today it's (according to the US Representative Ron Paul): Empire of Lies & Secrecy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/us/po ... ss&emc=rss

Representative Ron Paul was applauding Wikileaks for exposing the United States’ “delusional foreign policy.”

Ron Paul, in a short general speech before Congress and now on YouTube, defended the public service nature of the recent Wikileaks revelations, and asked nine questions:

Questions to consider:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time.

watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlM ... r_embedded

for those that need help to answer these 9 questions:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-da ... 95442.html

and just something to think about before you go sleep:

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies" ~Ron Paul

[KHONDAHM]

Here's a fact that I bet many of you are unaware of or have been too ignorant to have noticed:

Of all the developed countries, the United States is the only one that does not have foreign news media (ie BBC, Aljazeera, etc.) widely available to the masses. One cannot turn on non-cable TV and watch these networks. One cannot get basic cable and watch these networks. The news that is consumed is almost entirely homegrown. In this sense, America is effectively no different than China, N Korea, and the former USSR.

Note the huge gap in concensus abot the wars. Americans were being (and still are) fed propaganda and ethnocentristic coverage while the rest of the world has the benefit of external analysis and presentation to consider.

[KHONDAHM]

As for those who persist to insist on living in some other reality where they continue to make excuses for inexcusable behavior on the part of the US government under Bush, YOU are the problem. YOU are what is wrong with the world. YOU are why Wikileaks needs to exist. For if there is a Wikileaks, the lies, misrepresentations, and revisionism as you have regurgitated here could not.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Cookie, Khon Dahm, Rufus et al, I see that none of you have yet to answer my question and name a few of the countries in this world that are completely transparent, and have made all governmental actions known to their citizens.

Khon Dahm you should avoid communist rhetoric, it's 'the people', not 'the masses'.

I am not trying to whitewash the U.S., Canada, Australia or any other country that may have committed 'crimes', I am just pointing out that all countries, not just the United States, are 'guilty' of misbehaviour, hiding 'facts' from the public, and of being less than honest/transparent. This is the way of the world.

If I am incorrect, then name a country that is completely transparent. Can you do it?

While condemning Bush and Kissinger scores brownie points, it does not answer my question.

[jackspratt]

Tilo your question has been answered (indirectly) in numerous posts on this thread - including questioning its relevance, which I agree with.

It is a straw man - put up to be knocked down by yourself. Of course no country is completely transparent, and no-one has called for that.