LAtest Wikileaks Fiasco - Page 2

EpyonXero · 11-29-2010, 07:55 PM

I dont see any value in releasing this information. Its like making someones personal text messages public. The war documents released before had useful information that gave insights into Iraq and Afghanistan. I havent seen any revelations in what was released this week, most of the opinions are probably common sentiments around Washington that arent shared publicly, its just embarrassing to see this leak out.

Washington doesnt have a high opinion of the UK government: Im not surprised, Cameron ran on a platform of no longer bending to the USs will like Tony Blair.

The king of Saudi Arabia wants the US to attack Iran: Anybody who knows about the Middle East will know that Saudi Arabia are basically enemies. Iran is Shiite and Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Iran blames the West for the condition of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia relize on the West almost completely for its economy. Iran wants to to be the big dog in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the big dog because of its financial influence.

Homeslice · 11-29-2010, 07:59 PM

It pretty much goes without saying that almost every embassy is bugged, and that many "diplomats" or "trade officials" are intellgence agents. "Deputy Under-Secretary for Agriculture" yeah right.

pauldun170 · 11-30-2010, 01:56 PM

http://www.satirewire.com/content/?p=2238

KSGregman · 11-30-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldun170

http://www.satirewire.com/content/?p=2238

That site is GOLD....

goof2 · 12-01-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

They shoot spies, you know. You should be able to trust that DIPLOMATIC personnel are dealing in a fairly open way with you, not committing acts of espionage. When such happens it isn't uncommon for countries to break diplomatic ties, or simply expel the offenders. "Diplomatic Immunity has just been revoked."

I'm just guessing since I have never been involved in anything close to that field, but I would think intelligence agencies would have an exceedingly difficult time collecting information if their agents' business cards say "Covert Agent" on them. It is a bit naive to think that this isn't happening all the time.

Papa_Complex · 12-01-2010, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goof2

I'm just guessing since I have never been involved in anything close to that field, but I would think intelligence agencies would have an exceedingly difficult time collecting information if their agents' business cards say "Covert Agent" on them. It is a bit naive to think that this isn't happening all the time.

Hardly what I'm saying, at all. What I'm saying is that using a DIPLOMATIC MISSION to perform espionage is completely contrary to its purpose. It's a breach of the trust that permits such places to operate as if they were foreign soil, and it's personnel to carry diplomatic immunity. As far as I'm concerned the moment that a diplomatic mission is used to cover such purpose, the hosting nation can freely enter and search, and either expel or charge with espionage anyone within it.

If you want to perform such operations OUTSIDE of the rules for such missions, then so be it.

goof2 · 12-01-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Hardly what I'm saying, at all. What I'm saying is that using a DIPLOMATIC MISSION to perform espionage is completely contrary to its purpose. It's a breach of the trust that permits such places to operate as if they were foreign soil, and it's personnel to carry diplomatic immunity. As far as I'm concerned the moment that a diplomatic mission is used to cover such purpose, the hosting nation can freely enter and search, and either expel or charge with espionage anyone within it.

If you want to perform such operations OUTSIDE of the rules for such missions, then so be it.

Of course it is a breech of trust. How honest do you think intelligence agencies should be? Covering intelligence agents as diplomats has been going on for as long as I am aware. From the reading I have done on the Cold War there may have been more intelligence agents covered as diplomats in our embassy in the Soviet Union than there were actual diplomats. The same went for their embassy here. I suspect it was tolerated under the assumption that kind of thing played a large part in keeping the war from becoming "hot".

Papa_Complex · 12-01-2010, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goof2

Of course it is a breech of trust. How honest do you think intelligence agencies should be? Covering intelligence agents as diplomats has been going on for as long as I am aware. From the reading I have done on the Cold War there may have been more intelligence agents covered as diplomats in our embassy in the Soviet Union than there were actual diplomats. The same went for their embassy here. I suspect it was tolerated under the assumption that kind of thing played a large part in keeping the war from becoming "hot".

Which in no way excuses doing the same to your allies.

goof2 · 12-01-2010, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Which in no way excuses doing the same to your allies.

Allies change and assuming they will stay allies forever is negligent at best. Your country is one of our strongest allies and yet I'm pretty confident we not only spy on you, but have plans ready to go to invade or destroy your country if the necessary were to arise. Regan liked to use the phrase "trust, but verify" and the concept holds true for enemies and allies alike.

the chi · 12-01-2010, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goof2

Allies change and assuming they will stay allies forever is negligent at best. Your country is one of our strongest allies and yet I'm pretty confident we not only spy on you, but have plans ready to go to invade or destroy your country if the necessary were to arise. Regan liked to use the phrase "trust, but verify" and the concept holds true for enemies and allies alike.

What he said.

Sorry for your idealistic approach PC, but I'm thinking those glasses are a lil too rosy.

Diplomatic missions can pretty much be called spying missions. You are there to see how your "allies" feel about things, who else they are friends with, the position they may take in any given situation, what their weaknesses are that can be exploited, either by you or an enemy, and a million other things and report back to the powers that be. They aren't there to shake hands and drink champagne. Its a fact and information gathering tool.

11-29-2010, 07:55 PM	#11
EpyonXero AMA Supersport Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Redneck Riviera, FL Moto: 2003 VFR800f6 Posts: 2,531	I dont see any value in releasing this information. Its like making someones personal text messages public. The war documents released before had useful information that gave insights into Iraq and Afghanistan. I havent seen any revelations in what was released this week, most of the opinions are probably common sentiments around Washington that arent shared publicly, its just embarrassing to see this leak out. Washington doesnt have a high opinion of the UK government: Im not surprised, Cameron ran on a platform of no longer bending to the USs will like Tony Blair. The king of Saudi Arabia wants the US to attack Iran: Anybody who knows about the Middle East will know that Saudi Arabia are basically enemies. Iran is Shiite and Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Iran blames the West for the condition of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia relize on the West almost completely for its economy. Iran wants to to be the big dog in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the big dog because of its financial influence. __________________

11-29-2010, 07:59 PM	#12
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	It pretty much goes without saying that almost every embassy is bugged, and that many "diplomats" or "trade officials" are intellgence agents. "Deputy Under-Secretary for Agriculture" yeah right.