Anonymous and others start leaking

  On 11/29/2010 at 4:43 AM, futuregirlfriend said:

Agreed. I was nothing but disappointed when I found a picture of Muammar al-Qadhafi's voluptuous blonde Ukrainian nurse.

 

she is definitely not ukrainian.

this one is:

Sure, however all my Googlings have led back to the first picture.

lol - another spokesperson on the scene for wikileaks (good rebuttals):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDi1A59vElk

  Quote

Its painful to watch CNN explain why they shouldn't report the news.

^this

So it appears Ahmadinejad is saying that the leaks are a US conspiracy to make Iran look bad. Cool.

so what did prince andrew do?

  On 11/29/2010 at 5:38 PM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

so what did prince andrew do?

He sucked off Jack Bauer

  On 11/29/2010 at 5:38 PM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

so what did prince andrew do?

he married fergie.

things like this make me doubt global conspiracies, because it seems like the entire world is run by dumbfuck children who like hurting each other's feelings.

CIA KILLED Leslie Nielsen to distract us from the leaks.

  On 11/29/2010 at 8:17 PM, Boxing Day said:

CIA KILLED Leslie Nielsen to distract us from the leaks.

yesterday there was some tiger story more important on cnn today its Nielsen. during the last leak "they got their iPads" was more important on CNN the whole time

  On 11/29/2010 at 5:38 PM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

so what did prince andrew do?

Being British.

  On 11/29/2010 at 4:11 AM, tv_party said:

 

I'm sort of the same opinion. I'm all for human rights violations, dirty deals and illegal shit being exposed but I have my doubts as to whether the diplomacy stuff going out is a good thing.

I personally think it's great but i could see how people would be bothered by it. Once again we see media organizations trying to spin this information and present it with a certain agenda. Just like the Iraq leak this 'sheds light on' Iran's bad activities. Except that just because these are internal communications doesn't necessarily mean they are true. For instance on the last iraqi leak just because the US military suspected (in internal documents) that iran was behind the iraqi insurgency doesn't necessarily add more validity to this claim. To me what it shows is that even on the inside, players are just as susceptible to propaganda as we are.

Glenn Greenwald from today

  Quote

an added irony: many of the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq and/or who support the war in Afghanistan, drone strikes and assassination programs -- on the ground that the massive civilians deaths which result are justifiable "collateral damage" -- are those objecting most vehemently to WikiLeaks' disclosure on the ground that it may lead to the death of innocent people. For them, the moral framework suddenly becomes that if an act causes the deaths of any innocent person, that is proof that it is not only unjustifiable but morally repellent regardless of what it achieves. How glaringly selective is their alleged belief in that moral framework.

another article from a couple of days ago

"Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz16hlpdggh

i gotta say awep is pwning this shit

these basic revelations have already been mentioned in this thread but somebody did a good job of ranking them in the 'top 5 most shocking'

1. Nearly every country in the Middle East wants us to attack Iran.

2. State Department officials ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on their foreign and UN counterparts.

3. North Korea supplied Iran with long-range missiles. (or should i say, internal documents show that we THINK this)

4. Iran used the auspices of the Red Crescent to smuggle spies and weapons into war zones. (internal documents show that we THINK this)

5. U.S. foreign policy relies heavily on blog-ready gossip items.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/bomb_bomb_iran_the_top_5_shocking_things_about_the.php

a little worrisome lots of people are going to use this to throw fuel on the 'invade iran' fire

what's interesting about a lot of the Iran chatter is that they are going from information based on leaders from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Those 4 countries receive more aid than any other middle eastern country from the United states besides Israel. They have been for at least 15 years, totally in bed with the united states.

seems like a big bunch of uninteresting/inconsequential information, what's the point?

  On 11/29/2010 at 10:04 PM, GORDO said:

seems like a big bunch of uninteresting/inconsequential information, what's the point?

more to come

  On 11/29/2010 at 10:04 PM, GORDO said:

seems like a big bunch of uninteresting/inconsequential information, what's the point?

so you don't think the United States would be embarrassed that hillary clinton ordered biometric data to be found for top UN officials in a spying operation?

The point meaning what are Wikileaks motivations? Or what's the point of embarrassing the united states with revelatory information?

  On 11/28/2010 at 11:07 PM, kaini said:

good live blog here, frequently updated: http://www.thenation.com/blog/156701/blogging-wikileaks-release-return-here-all-day-updates

great find, this is one of the best fair looks at this event that i have seen on the net, highly recommend checking this out

  On 11/29/2010 at 10:08 PM, o00o said:

  On 11/29/2010 at 10:04 PM, GORDO said:

seems like a big bunch of uninteresting/inconsequential information, what's the point?

 

more to come

Yeah, hopefully they've saved the juiciest stuff for last.

funny how Bradley Manning's name is still being smeared in a lot of these stories innuendo like 'most likely leaked by private bradley manning' <--- how in the fuck do they know this? The guy hasn't even been allowed to talk to the press, he's probably been psychologically tortured in prison, have some fucking sympathy and wait till he goes to trial before you keep baselessly accusing him.

a secret 2.5 million people know about? That aint a secret

  On 11/29/2010 at 10:43 PM, marf said:

a secret 2.5 million people know about? That aint a secret

what now? understood, that's part of why i don't think a lot of this information should be looked as completely factual revelatory secrets. internal propaganda, exaggerations and misinformation exist too (especially if this is going out to two and a half million people).

news orgs are reporting that this info has clearance with 2.5 million gov workers

sounds like weaksauce on wikileaks part to me. Give me some real hacker shit