ZylonBane on 29/11/2010 at 16:26
I won't be the least bit surprised if actual deaths result from this.
Renzatic on 29/11/2010 at 21:41
So you're saying that politicians and diplomats play petty games, talk smack about their friends and allies behind their backs, then spy on them?
No wonder the world hates America. Oh, and Canada. And the UK. And Russia. Also China. Probably Mexico. And Japan. And like we needed another reason to slag the Saudis. Add in a few African nations as well. Oh, and those fucking Vietnamese. And what about those Javanese pricks? OH THEY MAKE ME SO MAD!
What we have here is definitive proof of what we've known since the dawn of time. The political world is basically a huge playground, where everyone's a bully. That dude over there has the best candy, and that dude over there said something about your mom. GO GET EM!
Kuuso on 29/11/2010 at 22:15
Wikileaks is pinnacle of modern media. As a to-be journalist it's great to study how electronic media and "leaking" has traveled from IRC chats from the falling Soviet Union to 250 000 files being leaked by a whistleblower site.
US have been rallying themselves as the land of the free for ages now, so obviously it would backfire on them at some point. If you try to keep a facade of "goodness" around, you shouldn't act as the world's biggest terrorist in the mean time. Since there's no jurisdiction to condemn nations (at least of US size), the media will. I do hope Wikileaks will reach critical mass and really spread awareness globally, but I am fearful that US will twist it's citizen to think they're just terrorists. Be it CNN or Fox, they're corrupt as hell. It's been proven before, when US has committed crimes against humanity and they haven't even been reported. Panama, Guatemala or pretty much most of the South America.
The funny thing is that a nation like Russia can just shrug it off, as they have. Everyone knows they're crooks, so it doesn't really dent their image one bit.
Kolya on 29/11/2010 at 22:37
Is that all you got? Wikileaks? American diplomats? Because what I've read so far is surprisingly trivial spiel by people who likely take themselves very seriously at meetings and dinner parties. There was nothing you wouldn't have assumed or known just by reading the newspapers.
That being said, I was amused to read the apt description of our foreign minister Guido Westerwelle as an incompetent yet arrogant, power-hungry attention-whore. But you could have asked around in any German pub to get that assessment.
Now all the world's governments are trying to whack Julian Assange for revealing what international politics really looks like: A very well dressed kindergarten.
Renzatic on 29/11/2010 at 22:44
Quote Posted by Kuuso
I do hope Wikileaks will reach critical mass and really spread awareness globally...
This is one of those be careful what you wish for situations. On one hand, I do believe it's the right of the media to report anything it wishes. On the other hand, I also believe it's the responsibility of the media to be careful in what it reports. Responsibility is the key word here, which is something I believe the modern media is severely lacking in as of late.
Or to put it more simply: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Wikileaks might get a ton of exposure and prestige from posting these cables, but they're obviously not too terribly concerned about the consequences that could arise from doing so.
Most of these cables consist of a bunch of he said, she said, oh we're looking at them bullshit that won't amount to much more than embarrassment to those involved. But there are a few in there that are potentially dangerous. Such as the Saudi's asking the US to bomb Iran.
Now thanks to SE's second link, we know Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't too terribly concerned about it. But what if he were to take it a little differently? Iran isn't in the best of positions, and finds itself being isolated more and more. What if he were to consider this little betrayal the final straw, thinking he has nothing to lose, and start dropping nukes on everyone from Saudi Arabia to Israel? Well...is the bloodshed and resulting crippled world economy worth your right to know that one little tidbit of information? Situations like this are probably brought up all the time in embassies around the world. Yet nothing ever comes of them specifically because they were kept secret.
Some things are secret for a reason, and some secrets, when found, should be reported with due diligence, and awareness of the circumstances.
Kuuso on 29/11/2010 at 22:54
That's exactly why Wikileaks has asked for the co-operation of goverments (especially US) to strip the cables of really sensitive information that will put lives and nations at real risk before every leak. Naturally, goverments have turned down this opportunity and then proceeded to cry about Wikileaks dangering human lives with their leaking (even though they have censored themselves really well with removing names etc.). In other words, it's just pure hypocrisy.
There's no chance Wikileaks will be the final straw for Iran or any other country. It's nonsense because a revelation like that will only work in favor of them by revealing just what kind of violent bombardment they are (or could) be receiving. I'm not exactly for the current Iranian goverment, but is it any better to side with Israel, who's cyber-attacking their nuclear plants with Stuxnet, when at the same time Iranian nuclear physicists end up dead due to tactical bombs?
SubJeff on 29/11/2010 at 23:12
No one knows who made Stuxnet come on now.
Yeah, loads of this stuff you could guess but its things like Saudi wanting Iran invaded that is interesting.
Renzatic on 29/11/2010 at 23:26
Quote Posted by Kuuso
That's exactly why Wikileaks has asked for the co-operation of goverments (especially US) to strip the cables of really sensitive information that will put lives and nations at real risk before every leak. Naturally, goverments have turned down this opportunity and then proceeded to cry about Wikileaks dangering human lives with their leaking (even though they have censored themselves really well with removing names etc.). In other words, it's just pure hypocrisy.
That I didn't know. From what (admittedly little) I've read, it seemed to me that Wikileaks grabbed the info, then sold it off a goodly portion of the cables to newspapers.
Quote:
There's no chance Wikileaks will be the final straw for Iran or any other country. It's nonsense because a revelation like that will only work in favor of them by revealing just what kind of violent bombardment they are (or could) be receiving. I'm not exactly for the current Iranian goverment, but is it any better to side with Israel, who's cyber-attacking their nuclear plants with Stuxnet, when at the same time Iranian nuclear physicists end up dead due to tactical bombs?
There's always a chance when you're dealing with sensitive information such at this. The Iranian situation I outlined is highly unlikely, but served as good hypothetical example of the dangers involved. All it'd take is for someone like Kim Jong-Il, who's tethered to reality by the barest of threads on his best days, to use some behind-closed-doors slip up as an excuse to raise some havoc.
And the Isreali/Iranian situation? Like any Mideast conflict, I find it all to be a tit for tat clusterfuck that makes it hard to side with any one country. Even Isreal, who I would've sided with 10 years ago no questions asked, has made it hard for me to feel any sympathy for, considering how dangerously close to batshit insane they've become as of late.
The only real answer to the Mideastern question would be to find an alternative fuel source as quickly as possible, then cut all political ties with the region. Just leave them to their own devices.
Yakoob on 30/11/2010 at 04:32
I'm not too knowledgeable about Wikileaks and who runs it but... how credible is it, really? I know it has a reputation for leaking true sensitive information, but what prevents it from one day "leaking" something that's not quite true at all in order to promote some agenda? I know I may be sounding a bit like a conspiracy theorist, but that's why I'm asking how does Wikileaks obtain the leak and how credible is it, really?
