William Hague likes to have sex with men lol.
Volumptuous blonde lol.
Iran oh shit, even Saudi Arabia is scared. World gonna 'splode.
lol.
― wheezy f baby (a hoy hoy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:14 (thirteen years ago) link
Great bit of essential info in the Graun this morning, of shocking exclusive news that Silvio Beezy likes to party. Wikileaks is important.
― wheezy f baby (a hoy hoy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:15 (thirteen years ago) link
Actually, the Saudis pressuring on Iran comes as no surprise to those of us who've noted a Saudi prince owns seven per cent of News International, and thus Fox.
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:26 (thirteen years ago) link
aren't there like 500 saudi princes?
i think saudi pressure on iran probably has more to do with saudi arabia being worried about iran than it does with NI
― caek, Monday, 29 November 2010 13:33 (thirteen years ago) link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:42 (thirteen years ago) link
think saudi arabia h8s iran because they are the main regional players and well there ya go #thomas_hobbes
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:47 (thirteen years ago) link
nah pretty sure it has something to do with news international
― caek, Monday, 29 November 2010 13:53 (thirteen years ago) link
I didn't say that - but al-Q's *are* high on a particularly harsh strain of Wahhabism exported from Saudi Arabia and they *are* undermining all these countries' ability to govern and trade. Rich Saudis finance them! I find the whole thing very manipulative.
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:58 (thirteen years ago) link
as i say, they are both regional players with fingers in many unpleasant pies. iran funds, you know, hezbollah, hamas...
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 13:59 (thirteen years ago) link
while i love good conspiracy, isnt p much every country in the middle east freaked out about a nuclear iran? i dont think im being a 'drumbeat to war' here
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:39 (thirteen years ago) link
+ natural shiite/sunni conflict undergirding it all
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:42 (thirteen years ago) link
ehh idk about that
wouldn't over do it
regional big dicks always hate each other -- now *that's* nature
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:42 (thirteen years ago) link
today's times implies otherwise
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:45 (thirteen years ago) link
3 Charitable activities 3.1 World Trade Center attacks
― specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 29 November 2010 15:47 (thirteen years ago) link
You've got to be cruel to be kind.
'Rude' Prince Andrew shocks US ambassador
Very weak stuff I think. Esp. for the lead story.
― specifically, the word talking (Ned Trifle II), Monday, 29 November 2010 18:48 (thirteen years ago) link
all in the perception i guess
new yorker grandee George Packer:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/11/the-right-to-secrecy.html
On the whole, the trove makes American diplomacy look pretty good. Obama’s Iran strategy of engagement-leading-to-isolation is shown to have succeeded. Bush—contrary to the impression left on every page of his new memoir—had enough self-awareness about the disaster in Iraq to put the brakes on military action against Iran. And American diplomats are capable of writing blunt, vivid, even amusing assessments of world leaders. Berlusconi is feckless, Sarkozy thin-skinned, Mugabe a megalomaniac: the accounts seem spot-on. The faceless corps of tight-lipped American embassy officials turn out to be an alert and discerning bunch.
professional insane person David Goldman ("Spengler"):
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LK30Ak02.html
American career diplomats have been telling their masters in the Obama administration that every theater of American policy is in full-blown rout, forwarding to Washington the growing alarm of foreign leaders. In April 2008, for example, Saudi Arabia's envoy to the US Adel al-Jubeir told General David Petraeus that King Abdullah wanted the US "to cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake" and "recalled the king's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program".
Afghani President Hamid Karzai warned the US that Pakistan was forcing Taliban militants to keep fighting rather than accept his peace offers. Pakistani government officials, other cables warn, might sell nuclear material to terrorists.
The initial reports suggest that the US State Department has massive evidence that Obama's approach - "engaging" Iran and coddling Pakistan - has failed catastrophically. The crisis in diplomatic relations heralded by the press headlines is not so much a diplomatic problem - America's friends and allies in Western and Central Asia have been shouting themselves hoarse for two years - but a crisis of American credibility.
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Monday, 29 November 2010 22:18 (thirteen years ago) link
id go w/ the nyers assessment on the whole: this dump has not really made the US look bad
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:23 (thirteen years ago) link
imho it's made Wikileaks look pretty bad (like, what was the point of making diplomatic docs public again? I fail to see the political angle)
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:27 (thirteen years ago) link
like this isn't stuff that's exposing abuses of power or coverups or lies really, its just y'know diplomats bein diplomats.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:28 (thirteen years ago) link
anyway how long before Assange goes to jail
*wrings hands* ffs a political point needn't be made - and that's not the goal, as far as i've gathered - like alfred said if these are indeed trivial it just goes to show how ridiculous this secrecy fetish is. and when it exists as a matter of policy it's anti-democratic
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:43 (thirteen years ago) link
eh I can see the virtue of confidentiality for diplomats - sometimes you don't want to have to show your hand to whoever you're negotiating with. is there something inherently morally wrong with that? I don't really think so.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:47 (thirteen years ago) link
Look, I'm totally in the Moynihan camp -- the US' fetish for secrecy is abhorrent -- but these latest releases, I don't know, undermine the gravity of the previous ones?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:51 (thirteen years ago) link
of course they "don't want to" show their hands, but that's not wikileaks' problem. as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:54 (thirteen years ago) link
insofar as their release makes Assange look like a petty, embittered crank without much concern for how foreign policy actually functions, I would say yeah.
xp
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:56 (thirteen years ago) link
xxp only if you think about everything like a rock critic
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:57 (thirteen years ago) link
of course they "don't want to" show their hands, but that's not wikileaks' problem. as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo
dude I don't want to know EVERYTHING the government knows. What would I gain from having access to the daily threat matrix, for example? Or other people's tax returns? Or these diplomatic communiques, which are largely inconsequential and of little interest?
and it IS kind of Assange's problem, he's responsible for his actions, and directly responsible for any fallout as well.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:59 (thirteen years ago) link
as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to?
also I dunno if you've noticed but these leaks are going to people who AREN'T voters
it's one thing for an American citizen to be able to satisfy their curiosity about our diplomatic relations, it's another thing for foreign countries to be able to satisfy that same curiosity, which has entirely different motivations.
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:00 (thirteen years ago) link
terrorists, right xp
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:01 (thirteen years ago) link
The stuff published by The NYT today was, like I wrote yesterday, entertaining but not worth the chatter. Assange has no judgment.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:01 (thirteen years ago) link
He wants to leak the stuff? Fine. But has he no advisers -- gifted lawyers and journalists who can say, "OK, this action by the American government is worth leaking"?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:02 (thirteen years ago) link
― "smokin' hot" albeit in a "Nickelback on iPod" sort of way (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:56 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
ah yes well he could have quite a lot of concern for how foreign policy actually functions, you know
but yeah according to the summaries i've skimmed, there's not a whole lot here. i am really loving all the right wing bomb iran peeps suddenly taking the word of, like, king abdullah going "see?!"
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:06 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/29/politicians_pundits_and_wikileaks
it's a bloodthirstathon!!
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:08 (thirteen years ago) link
on an only tangetially-related note i do get a sort of perverse pleasure watching people like this get worked up
Q. I’m writing regarding your decision to publish WikiLeaks documents, and my disappointment in your decision. Whereas, I acknowledge that you attempted to provide some censorship to the release of classified information. And I appreciate your gesture in forwarding documents to the Obama Administration for review. However, at the end of the day, I say, “How dare you?” How dare you decide what’s okay for release in this circumstance and what’s not! I respect the First Amendment and believe in its importance. But does it mean that a line can never be drawn, even at the risk of national security? And, what makes The New York Times the most qualified to make this decision? I work in the field that you have just aided at putting at risk, and trust me when I say that you are not aware or understand the nuances of the information in these reports as well as you think you do. Even if you found a report or cable that appeared benign to you or simply political, you really aren’t aware of the secondary or tertiary affects that your release of these documents may have. Of course you will not listen to me, because The New York Times, along with WikiLeaks, obviously perceived yourselves to know better than the President of the United States, his National Security Advisors, and the United States military leaders of the war. Well, thank you for putting those of us who attempt to protect our country and your backsides in danger. I’m sure at the end of the day, you felt compelled to release something because other news agencies were releasing information. Hopefully, you feel proud of partnering with WikiLeaks, as I have now lost a lot of respect for the editors and decision makers of The New York Times. — F. Jean Ware
I respect the First Amendment and believe in its importance. But does it mean that a line can never be drawn, even at the risk of national security? And, what makes The New York Times the most qualified to make this decision? I work in the field that you have just aided at putting at risk, and trust me when I say that you are not aware or understand the nuances of the information in these reports as well as you think you do. Even if you found a report or cable that appeared benign to you or simply political, you really aren’t aware of the secondary or tertiary affects that your release of these documents may have. Of course you will not listen to me, because The New York Times, along with WikiLeaks, obviously perceived yourselves to know better than the President of the United States, his National Security Advisors, and the United States military leaders of the war. Well, thank you for putting those of us who attempt to protect our country and your backsides in danger.
I’m sure at the end of the day, you felt compelled to release something because other news agencies were releasing information. Hopefully, you feel proud of partnering with WikiLeaks, as I have now lost a lot of respect for the editors and decision makers of The New York Times.
— F. Jean Ware
Q. I am greatly saddened by your role in this issue, and I disagree with your attempts to cloak your pursuit of readers in the context of some sort “right to know.” The fact is that these are secret documents of the United States Government, which by extension therefore are secret documents of the people of the United States. For the government to function, the simple reality, just as is undoubtedly the case in your organization, is that in order to candidly assess the situation, some items are not for public consumption. To say “it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name” is a ridiculous statement. Are you really saying that the government should make public all its information at every level? There are reasons why there is secrecy. Should we have told Hitler when and where D-Day was coming so that the “people have a right to know”? Farce, plain and simple. Moreover, in this case, the release of these documents means that people will die. It is as simple as that. I cannot say how many, but the butcher’s bill from this sorry “disclosure” will have to be met. Personally, I consider this willful release of secret documents to be treason. I am not a Tea Party fanatic, nor even a Republican. I am proud to be a Democrat and have enjoyed your publication for many years both online and in print. I fear that this relationship will now have to end. I expected better. — David Stier
Moreover, in this case, the release of these documents means that people will die. It is as simple as that. I cannot say how many, but the butcher’s bill from this sorry “disclosure” will have to be met. Personally, I consider this willful release of secret documents to be treason.
I am not a Tea Party fanatic, nor even a Republican. I am proud to be a Democrat and have enjoyed your publication for many years both online and in print. I fear that this relationship will now have to end. I expected better.
— David Stier
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 02:15 (thirteen years ago) link
You know, I'm all for making fun of these guys and stuff, but if this turns into some witchhunt where the gov't suddenly executes sweeping new censorship powers over the entire internet (which the music industry already seems to be doing) then we'll be longing for the days when we could make fun of these clowns.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 04:41 (thirteen years ago) link
We've already heard a congressperson argue for classifying them as the dreaded T word. I really hope an Internet Patriot Act isn't just around the corner...
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 04:42 (thirteen years ago) link
reading today's nytimes front section was a blast. im lovin the details tbh
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 05:44 (thirteen years ago) link
quaddafi likes voluptuous blondes! saudi king kind of looks like a badass and wants iran to lose its head like a snake! high ranking afganis are drug smugglers!
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 05:46 (thirteen years ago) link
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Monday, November 29, 2010 4:18 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this actually ... entirely contradicts the leaks? it suggests that obama's 'engaging' w/ iran was always plan A w/ a related plan B that they planned to execute from the beginning, which theyve done successfully, even getting china & russia on board. so ... .what?
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 05:48 (thirteen years ago) link
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/
Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.Is it a U.S. bank?Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.One that still exists?Yes, a big U.S. bank.The biggest U.S. bank?No comment.When will it happen?Early next year. I won’t say more.
Is it a U.S. bank?
Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.
One that still exists?Yes, a big U.S. bank.
The biggest U.S. bank?
No comment.
When will it happen?
Early next year. I won’t say more.
http://www.unconditionalconfidence.com/mt/mt-static/FCKeditor/UserFiles/Image/nervous.gif
― (ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 06:08 (thirteen years ago) link
http://i.imgur.com/U172I.gif
― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr-wS5iBv0 (Princess TamTam), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 06:10 (thirteen years ago) link
lmao
anticipating that leak tho!
― (ㅅ) (am0n), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 06:11 (thirteen years ago) link
http://cdn.7static.com/static/img/sleeveart/00/002/476/0000247624_350.jpg
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 06:35 (thirteen years ago) link
This is the greatest thing ever, as a big fan of transparency. Assange can crash on my couch for a night or two btw.
― Culture: only gays have it (King Boy Pato), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 07:33 (thirteen years ago) link
The butthurt reaction from your "liberal Western democracies" is almost as good as the confirmation that Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi are having a bromance btw.
― Culture: only gays have it (King Boy Pato), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 07:35 (thirteen years ago) link
So, thus far we've learned the following:
*Diplomats indulge in junior high-grade bitching.*Prince Andrew will not be asked to join MENSA anytime soon. AA, maybe.*China are cracking down on North Korea (I actually feel better knowing this).*Saudis are basically trolling everyone while making bank.*Bromance between hooker magnet and cub handler.*David Cameron, joek.*Some Afghani officials are drug fiends.
― Exotic Flavors of the Midwest, available in corn, bacon, or beef (suzy), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:03 (thirteen years ago) link
as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:54 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:54 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark
knowing what your govt is up to stops short of knowing the exact content of all communications between govt officials, i think
partly because you don't get to know without a lot of other people getting to know, but only partly that
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:50 (thirteen years ago) link
as a voter i'm not entitled to know what my government is up to? i'm just supposed to get all my news from what robert gibbs tells me? that's not how a demcracy should work imo xp
this is.... kind of really reductive
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:53 (thirteen years ago) link