Yoadm Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 The article title is a bit hyperbolic as it implies he's really just preparing for war against Gaza, Lebanon or Iran (unless I'm mistaken, Saudi Arabia gave Israel the go ahead to fly over their airspace if they wanted to bomb Iran). It simply means that while he suspects Israel could be dragged into a smaller scale war against Hamas or Hezbollah, hs is preparing for the worst (ie, a larger war).But what I found most disconcerting and a firm indicator that Ashkenzai is going to burn in the seven hells is this:So, unless I'm misinterpreting him, he's saying that the army had never intentionally attacked civilian targets during Cast Lead but won't take any precautions to prevent civilian casualties in the future. Not beyond those required by international law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Anyone interested in reading the leaks in haiku form:http://haikuleaks.tetalab.org/Instead, he gulped three cans of Coca-Cola whileinhaling his food.Chilling and informative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 WikiRebels Documentary on YouTube: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Wikileaks are so 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Wikileaks are so 2010.Tell that to President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali who just had to flee Tunisia due to Wikileak publishing cables from the US Embassy speculating about his corrupt wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Stone Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Tell that to President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali who just had to flee Tunisia due to Wikileak publishing cables from the US Embassy speculating about his corrupt wife.Isn't that the downside of corruption? The upside is the large amount of profits to be made if you can keep your corruption hidden from the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkone Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Boy I hate Assange and hope he goes to prison. I'm sorry and I believe in transparency but I heavily question this guys motives and find it laughable when a leak about himself appears and he goes all ballistic. That shows he's a hypocrite and not to be taken seriously in my opinion. Not to say all these things released are bad but I fear I haven't seen as much restraint on their part that my friends and others have claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 More things are due to be leaked today. And my government paid good money for similar information not too long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 And Great Britain didn't even get the courtesy of a reach-around.WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secretsThe US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 And Great Britain didn't even get the courtesy of a reach-around.WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secretsThe US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#LOL. This is something you would read in a John Le Carre novel. Poor old Brits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 It's a fairly odd article."Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain."There's no claim that the US handed over the detailed performance data concerning UK missiles despite UK objections - nor does it claim that the UK refused to permit the transfer of serial numbers.Now it's always possible I suppose that somewhere in the wikileaks cables there's a note that says David Cameron wept on the floor as evil Obama kicked him in the dangly parts, ripped the secret serial numbers from his hands and handed them to a grinning Putin but it's odd that they don't mention that.As written I think it's an article designed to stir up the credulous loons who infest the Telegraph's online site. Thanks for bringing it to a wider audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 How important are serial numbers, anyway? Is this just so that if anyone bombs Russia, they can identify who did it by comparing their serial-number list to any bits of shrapnel that may have escaped vaporisation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 How important are serial numbers, anyway? Is this just so that if anyone bombs Russia, they can identify who did it by comparing their serial-number list to any bits of shrapnel that may have escaped vaporisation?It's more about keeping track of where each missile is located. Doing it by serial numbers is more accurate than, x numbers there and y numbers there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Unbelievable, you don't do shit like that to your allies, to appease the gangster Russian regime no less. Revoke this piece of shit treaty and find out if any Senators knew about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Maid Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I'm still a little puzzled why the US or the Uk would agree to something like this. It just...boggles my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Unbelievable, you don't do shit like that to your allies, to appease the gangster Russian regime no less. Revoke this piece of shit treaty and find out if any Senators knew about this.Given that this shit goes back to the 1991 Start Treaty I suggest you write a strong letter to George H W Bush immediately.I'm still a little puzzled why the US or the Uk would agree to something like this. It just...boggles my mind.Because Start requires mutual disclosure. If the UK had an independent deterrent it wouldn't be affected but since the US manufactures, maintains and destroys the Trident missiles they're subject to the disclosure requirements whilst those missiles are in US custody.More generally never, ever believe something reported in the Daily Telegraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Maid Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Because Start requires mutual disclosure. If the UK had an independent deterrent it wouldn't be affected but since the US manufactures, maintains and destroys the Trident missiles they're subject to the disclosure requirements whilst those missiles are in US custody.More generally never, ever believe something reported in the Daily Telegraph.Ah, thanks for explaining; the article makes it very confusing. I had thought that was the reason behind it (the mutual disclosure), and the Telegraph was just...well. Not exactly a very good standard of journalistic integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repman Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 wikileaks is scum of the highest villainy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiko Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 wikileaks is scum of the highest villainyThank you for your extensive view. I will immediately report the reputed international media that they have been fooled by this scum.Secrets are supposed to be secrets, dammit! If I want to hunt civilians in my Apache, I damn well don't want to see the video on the internets! Those videos are meant to be aids, not something to be used by the left media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 wikileaks is scum of the highest villainy And what does that make the corporate controlled media, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.