Your right, Aussie were getting pretty sick of it and, and like the English, have sent a clear message through: neither of the two major parties deserved to be a majority. Now rather than run Aussies off to another war, filter their internet, "reform" their labor laws without even so much as a serious debate, they'll have to run it through thinking third parties like the greens that don't just toe the party line. If you listen to some (most?) of the press you'd get the impression that hung parliaments were a bad thing... but in reality it is just bad for the status quo - here's to hoping that the future of Aussie/UK politics will see more hung parliaments than ever.
America has got no chance of being fortunate enough to get a "hung congress", unfortunately.
Answer: no, they don't, and Australia is generally getting pretty sick of it.......recent elections resulted in a hung parliament where neither of the two major parties could form a majority.
If it hasn't happened already - how long before they control the biggest botnets on the block (they being "security intelligence firm's"), to meet the Cyber-defense budget laid down by American taxpayers. Personally I prefer to setup a few spam filters on my servers over having Goverments use their shady "security intelligence firm's" to take websites like wikileaks offline.
Well, then, it's time to start donating lots of money to wikileaks. Fight money with money. There is a lot of big talk talk about ideals here so it's time to back that up with action.
This valid remark got marked Troll? Really??! I hope the meta moderators are on their toes for this story...
Yes, the world would be different. It is a pity that you've lost the context of why these interventions occurred.
Let me remind you of "context" in one word: Oil. Using the "we have to 'contain' the soviet world takover bid" marketing line to sell the move under the fear label - no different to the WMD "context" used to invade Iraq, again, for oil.
Here is more context than you can poke a stick at.. how about you start by looking up the "context" around British Petroleum's role in the US-Iran conforntation.
Simple, yes. Honey traps are one of the oldest, simplest, most reliable tools in the spy business. There are plenty of good examples. Looks like this particular attempt backfired however. It looks very bad for the powerful lobbyists in Sweden looking to undermine the Pirate Parties new found support from their union with wikileaks.
Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda?
Although the AC answered, for the record I am well aware that the research demonstrates that Murdoch's channels (much more than Fox, WSJ, Sky etc) are certainly not the only active and passive participants in blatant propaganda. Not to mention the echo chamber amplification of such rhetoric.
The REAL big picture of this story, from wikileaks: "The proposed PR strategies focus on pressure points that have been identified within these countries. For [Insert Country Here] it is the sympathy of the public for Afghan refugees and women.".
FTFA: "reality of what is happening — and what can happen — in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban’s treatment of women than ignore it.". Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel.
I will come back to the thread later, when there are several hundred comments to read.
Not much to write about an article claiming that we should be looking at the big picture while in reality deviously trying to obscure the real big picture by appealing to our emotions and instincts to care and protect. As many scientists need to know - It's hard to put emotions aside, and look at the raw numbers to see just who is hurting most and why. That is the only way to look at the "big picture", not this crap story which is doing the opposite.
BTW, here is another CIA Red Cell PR campaign, this time directed at Americans more than anyone else, appealing to the almighty $.
By the way, RWB/RSF is a French NGO to begin with.
Yeah, nice try. RWB is a US neocon propaganda front, and If you had read the references you would have seen this:
After years of trying to hide it, Robert Menard, Paris-based Secretary-General of Reporters Sans Frontieres or RWB, confessed that the RWB budget was primarily funded by “US organizations strictly linked to US foreign policy.” [6] Those US organizations behind RWB include the Open Society Foundation of billionaire speculator George Soros, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Congress’ National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Also included is the Center for Free Cuba, whose trustee, Otto Reich, was forced to resign from the George W. Bush administration after exposure of his role in a CIA-backed coup attempt against Venezuela’s democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez. [7]
As one researcher found after months of trying to get a reply from NED about their funding of Reporters Without Borders, which included a flat denial from RSF executive director Lucie Morillon, the NED revealed that Reporters Without Borders received grants over at least three years from the International Republican Institute. The IRI is one of four subsidiaries of NED. [8]
The NED, as I detail in my book, Full Spectrum Dominance:Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, was created by the US Congress during the Reagan administration on the initiative of then-CIA Director Bill Casey to replace the CIA's civil society covert action programs, which had been exposed by the Church committee in the mid-1970s. As Allen Weinstein, the man who drafted the legislation creating the NED admitted years later, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” [9]
So, stooge of the US neocon right, to be more specific.
RSF/RWB opposes Cuba's (and China's, Iran's,...) attitudes towards reporters (i.e. jailing, torturing, murdering). If that's a political agenda, if that's a bad thing, if that makes you a stooge of the US gov, then I'm afraid I'm a stooge too.
That depends on who's reporting you believe. Some say "Only 3!!!". Others say hundreds.
The point exactly... luckily we have the documents as released to see for ourselves and not depend on mainstream media spin. They are saying "thousands" of informers/collaborators at risk - but only three are listed as informers. The rest are just names, village elders, anyone they stopped at checkpoints etc inside coalition occupied territory. So the media machine is trying to pass off all these people as "informers", at risk. They might as well say that every Afghan in occupied territory is at risk if we talk to them - it's no less credible.
Given that WikiLeaks initially insisted there were 0, and now admit to 3 kinda indicates a loss of credibility on the issue.
Like you said, depends on who you believe. I beleive the raw document - three informers - possibly a few others exposed by GPS coordinates and no names, but that's a stretching the definition
The leak has exposed no new civilian deaths. All of the information, minus the naming-the-informants problem, was already reported in the media.
Again, misinformation damage control by mainstream US press - historically extremely pro War. Nothing to see here, move along.
If you think the leaks are new revelations, then you haven't been paying much attention to the war.
Or you have may not been reading outside of propaganda pieces. To pick just one overview of many available, see "The Significance of the Afghanistan War Diary"
under "What does the Afghanistan War Diary tell us? To what extent was the information therein already known? And what is its significance now?"
There is plenty more quality journalistic analysis on the content, with more being published every week provide new insights into the war - just search outside of the US mainstream media channels. Here is another example. Very hard to claim that none of that material was previously known, as you seem to have been led to beleive.
Actaully, yes they do. Every. Single. War. Ever. Since the stone age. Or are you going to pretend that carpet-bombing cities at night in WWII didn't cause any civilian deaths? That no civilian in Vietnam was mistaken for a VC and shot? That the 'road of death' in the first gulf war had no civilians in any of the vehicles? That bombing Serbia never caused a civilian death (or a Chinese diplomat's death)?
Nice straw man. I never said that civilians don't die in war. I said what's new knowledge to us about out own troops related to 20K+ civilian deaths. One example or many: Extra judicial assassinations of innocent civilian children, while they sleep. Or how about thousands civilians killed by "ricochets" - slang for shot in the head without a valid reason. Or do you claim that the US or coalition forces have always been doing that? Search "Task Force 373" exposed by the diaries, because it seems you have been hoodwinked to ignore any new material that has been exposed.
Actually, you're so busy projecting me as an evil person
I am not trying the project you as anything, and certainly not evil. All I am taking issue with is the propaganda being parroted everywhere you look in mainstream US press - so much fabricated and false information in an obvious damage control propaganda campaign - that even a cursory look at the raw data can disprove it. Shit like "Thousands of Informers and their families at risk", "Amnesty Int. Condemns Wikileaks" - all easily proved wrong lies if we stick to facts.
Even Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood confirmed that there was no authorized statement on WikiLeaks
Are you seriously trying to argue that the Taliban isn't going to shoot people who are revealed to be traitors to their cause?
Your ignoring the fact that there are only three informers names released - everything else is just Rupert Murdoch's pro-war propaganda, trying to invent some shaky moral ground to stand on by inventing thousands of them - but not being able to name even one.
Of the three informers, one died two years ago, the other was a double agent pro Taliban - the third has no further information. Are you seriously trying to argue that exposing the needless killing of 20K+ innocent civilians has no value to saving lives in the future?
Civilians die in all wars.
No, not like most of these 20K died, they don't. Shot with "warning" fire or "ricochets", school-buses full of kids strafed with machine gun fire, thousands of children in total killed, some by kill squads operating on bad intel murdering them in the middle of the night while they sleep, - and all this by the good "humanitarian" occupying force.
Actually, you haven't the faintest idea about how I feel about the war.
Given your parroting straight from Rupert Murdochs pro war media empire it is not hard to guess your feelings. You feel how you have been directed to feel: RP's empire has told you of "thousands" of informers "and their families" without being able to back it up - there is no evidence of this from the documents we all have. Even Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood confirmed that there was no authorized statement on WikiLeaks, Rupert's Wall St Journal invented the story about them in the "Human rights groups ask WikiLeaks to censor files" propaganda - again, to make YOU feel a certain way - the facts be damned. They are so effective at the damage control propaganda campaign that they have you all worried about the possibility that the Taliban might shoot someone, Vs the 20K+ who have already been killed and continue to needlessly die every day due to bad operating policy? Better check the moral ground your standing on before it gives way, or stop reading Rupert Murdock's pro war propaganda.
but it is tiddlywinks, not a subversion of the United States financial system.
Without a better explanation as to exactly why the SEC was, as Ney put it: "a complacent regulatory body", not even opening an investigation into a publicly known fraud until someone needed to coerce the firms into going electronic, then his quote: "Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry..." looks like a pretty good sum-up of the situation.
I am encouraging you to investigate the facts that are available to us, for yourself. If you can back up a better conclusion than Ney did, clean the name of the SEC - then I and many others would be all ears.
When trading their own account over both short and long periods - then of course the other side of the trade will be an open bid or ask from a "legitimate" market participant. They abused their position and access to the order book, defrauding other market participates in the process. Sounds like your still trying to apologize or make excuses for them - I'll leave you to it.
As far as your vague assertion that I don't understand what is going on, that paper doesn't make any accusations that fall outside what I described; the specialist is indeed cheating their customers, but each time they cheat, there is a genuine bid on the other side of the cheating (and as described in the inter-positioning, their are in fact two genuine orders involved in the cheating).
Your assumption is not correct. The Specialist traded their own account when it suited them - with no "genuine order" on their other side other than the Specialists trade for their own accounts. Ney and other sources have gone into this in-depth: The tactic was to absorb outstanding supply into their own account (no inter-positioning between legitimate buy/sellers) before turning prices around and riding up the instrument on reduced supply and increasing demand (due to the rising prices). At the other end, the specialists have the influence to maintain prices higher long enough to sell off their own accounts. What's more, the firms colluded on specific instruments to suck up supply, dump holdings. Worth your time reading up on.
From this part:
a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"
I am open to suggestions as to why it took the SEC so long to go after them (thirty years, possibly much longer). It certainly was not because they were not aware of the practice.
"and their parrots talking about "thousands of Informants exposed" just happen to NOT talk about the murdered 20K+ civilians." Like it never happened, right, jeff4747? Better if Wikileaks never published the facts (minus the informants names bar three), so the war could drag on another nine years, generate billions more in profits and kill another 20K+ civilians... but you don't really care about that, do you - just worried about theoretical possibility of some people being shot, and not the in-your-face facts about the actual 20K who have already been shot - and will continue to be shot going forward.
"and their parrots talking about "thousands of Informants exposed" just happen to NOT talk about the murdered 20K+ civilians." Like it never happened, right, GooberToo? Better if Wikileaks never published the facts (minus the informants names bar three), so the war could drag on another nine years and generate billions more profits, oh, and kill another 20K+ civilians... but you don't really care about that, do you.
No, they cannot prove your wrong since it is damage control - the only shaky moral ground they can invent to stand on. Notice that these shills never talk about the 20K+ innocent Afghan civilians who are already murdered - not even an apology, or feign of concern - like they want you to think it never happened.
While not necessarily directly harmful to the Allied forces, the leaks include the names of informants and those sympathetic to Allied forces.
To Shillnonymous and friends. Reality: Out of the thousands of records only three records contain a name of an "informant". One of which died and another was a pro-Taliban double agent. Not to mention that the White House also had the opportunity to redact names via the New Your Times contact, but declined to do so - they could not have cared less
All those news channels (and there are many - mostly US based) all all standing on very shaky moral ground, considering the news channels and their parrots talking about "thousands of Informants exposed" just happen to NOT talk about the murdered 20K+ civilians. What is more important - actual deaths or your self delusion/lies over thousands of imaginary Informants "and their families" dying.
The behavior talked about in the SEC link is certainly improper, but it is a little overboard to speak about it as if it is controlling society
Not sure where you got your "controlling society" spin from - all you have here is one concrete example of how the SEC did not pursue a long term billion dollar fraud against the general public until it was in someones political interests to do so. When they did pursue it, claimed damages (~20 million) and fines levied were an insult to all the citizens of the US whose retirement savings were robbed over the decades.
each of the alleged fraudulent trades likely had a genuine market order on one side of it.
I suggest you educate yourself on how the fraud is being carried out, before you start making apologies or excuses for their criminal activity.
The SEC doesn't stop fraud because it doesn't want to stop it, not because it lacks the resources.
Exactly. For those who are not convinced, a bit of reading: Five New York Stock Exchange specialists were actually charged with fraud, but it's not the justice you think it should be. Richard Ney and economist who later turned actor, wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the NY times longest running best seller, and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labelled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.
To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The DOJ finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. Those get out of jail free cards just keep coming off the monopoly pile. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's books knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 210+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behaviour was actually pursued by the SEC/DOJ.
If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the SEC and DOJ, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but they did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:
"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"
Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.
Looking at recent history, the SEC does not appear to want to detect fraud, at least where it counts.
Some NYSE specialists were charged with fraud: Richard Ney and economist who later turned actor, wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the NY times longest running best seller, and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labelled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.
To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The SEC and Department of Justice finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. Those get out of jail free cards just keep coming off the monopoly pile. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's books knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 210+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behaviour was actually pursued by the DOJ.
If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the SEC, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but the DOJ did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:
"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"
Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.
And, let be serious, if that particular person didn't go on to boast to a snitch, he probably would have had a decent chance of getting away too.
Actually, the evidence is indicating that Manning never spoke let alone boast to Adrian Lamo. Lamo just happens to work for the vigilante group Project Vigilant who monitors and logs internet conversations of over 250 million US based IP addresses per day. They picked up the chat logs between Manning and one or more MIT students, then handed them off to Lamo to take public soon after the Collateral murder video went public.
Of course ebook prices are fixed (amoungst other digital "goods") - how the hell do you price something that can be copied infinitely at next to zero cost? And therein lies the problem...
Slashdot Mirror
Your right, Aussie were getting pretty sick of it and, and like the English, have sent a clear message through: neither of the two major parties deserved to be a majority. Now rather than run Aussies off to another war, filter their internet, "reform" their labor laws without even so much as a serious debate, they'll have to run it through thinking third parties like the greens that don't just toe the party line. If you listen to some (most?) of the press you'd get the impression that hung parliaments were a bad thing... but in reality it is just bad for the status quo - here's to hoping that the future of Aussie/UK politics will see more hung parliaments than ever.
America has got no chance of being fortunate enough to get a "hung congress", unfortunately.
Answer: no, they don't, and Australia is generally getting pretty sick of it.... ...recent elections resulted in a hung parliament where neither of the two major parties could form a majority.
If it hasn't happened already - how long before they control the biggest botnets on the block (they being "security intelligence firm's"), to meet the Cyber-defense budget laid down by American taxpayers. Personally I prefer to setup a few spam filters on my servers over having Goverments use their shady "security intelligence firm's" to take websites like wikileaks offline.
Well, then, it's time to start donating lots of money to wikileaks. Fight money with money. There is a lot of big talk talk about ideals here so it's time to back that up with action.
This valid remark got marked Troll? Really??! I hope the meta moderators are on their toes for this story...
Yes, the world would be different. It is a pity that you've lost the context of why these interventions occurred.
Let me remind you of "context" in one word: Oil. Using the "we have to 'contain' the soviet world takover bid" marketing line to sell the move under the fear label - no different to the WMD "context" used to invade Iraq, again, for oil.
Here is more context than you can poke a stick at.. how about you start by looking up the "context" around British Petroleum's role in the US-Iran conforntation.
Occam's Razor, anyone?
Simple, yes. Honey traps are one of the oldest, simplest, most reliable tools in the spy business. There are plenty of good examples. Looks like this particular attempt backfired however. It looks very bad for the powerful lobbyists in Sweden looking to undermine the Pirate Parties new found support from their union with wikileaks.
Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda?
Although the AC answered, for the record I am well aware that the research demonstrates that Murdoch's channels (much more than Fox, WSJ, Sky etc) are certainly not the only active and passive participants in blatant propaganda. Not to mention the echo chamber amplification of such rhetoric.
Obviously his company & friends are getting worried that their grip is failing to bend the hearts and minds of American young'uns to their liking, at least like it used to (PDF).
FTFA: "reality of what is happening — and what can happen — in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban’s treatment of women than ignore it.". Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel.
I will come back to the thread later, when there are several hundred comments to read.
Not much to write about an article claiming that we should be looking at the big picture while in reality deviously trying to obscure the real big picture by appealing to our emotions and instincts to care and protect. As many scientists need to know - It's hard to put emotions aside, and look at the raw numbers to see just who is hurting most and why. That is the only way to look at the "big picture", not this crap story which is doing the opposite.
BTW, here is another CIA Red Cell PR campaign, this time directed at Americans more than anyone else, appealing to the almighty $.
By the way, RWB/RSF is a French NGO to begin with.
Yeah, nice try. RWB is a US neocon propaganda front, and If you had read the references you would have seen this:
After years of trying to hide it, Robert Menard, Paris-based Secretary-General of Reporters Sans Frontieres or RWB, confessed that the RWB budget was primarily funded by “US organizations strictly linked to US foreign policy.” [6] Those US organizations behind RWB include the Open Society Foundation of billionaire speculator George Soros, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Congress’ National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Also included is the Center for Free Cuba, whose trustee, Otto Reich, was forced to resign from the George W. Bush administration after exposure of his role in a CIA-backed coup attempt against Venezuela’s democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez. [7] As one researcher found after months of trying to get a reply from NED about their funding of Reporters Without Borders, which included a flat denial from RSF executive director Lucie Morillon, the NED revealed that Reporters Without Borders received grants over at least three years from the International Republican Institute. The IRI is one of four subsidiaries of NED. [8] The NED, as I detail in my book, Full Spectrum Dominance:Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, was created by the US Congress during the Reagan administration on the initiative of then-CIA Director Bill Casey to replace the CIA's civil society covert action programs, which had been exposed by the Church committee in the mid-1970s. As Allen Weinstein, the man who drafted the legislation creating the NED admitted years later, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” [9]
So, stooge of the US neocon right, to be more specific.
RSF/RWB opposes Cuba's (and China's, Iran's, ...) attitudes towards reporters (i.e. jailing, torturing, murdering). If that's a political agenda, if that's a bad thing, if that makes you a stooge of the US gov, then I'm afraid I'm a stooge too.
So?! every reporter outside any of these regimes condemns them. It is what RWB do to set themselves apart that makes them very special. Take their reporting on Georgia (country) leading up to the elections, largely acknowledged now to be US orchestrated coup, followed up with a neocon war. Oh, and now Georgia is a US puppet state, the Pipelines from Georgia to Afghanistan can't be privatized quick enough - bringing the plan together to profit from this dirty war long after it is over.
Yes, RWB is one of the worst pro war propaganda fronts out there - they are just supposed to be clandestine about it.
Reporters w/o Borders is a blatant propaganda front for the US Government. Proof & References: "Reporters Without Borders Unmasked"
"Reporters Without Borders seems to have a geopolitical agenda"
"Source Watch: Reporters Without Borders"
Reporters w/o Borders are also trying to trap potential leakers and activist bloggers in their thin veil: https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&q=Reporters+Without+Borders+shelter
That depends on who's reporting you believe. Some say "Only 3!!!". Others say hundreds.
The point exactly... luckily we have the documents as released to see for ourselves and not depend on mainstream media spin. They are saying "thousands" of informers/collaborators at risk - but only three are listed as informers. The rest are just names, village elders, anyone they stopped at checkpoints etc inside coalition occupied territory. So the media machine is trying to pass off all these people as "informers", at risk. They might as well say that every Afghan in occupied territory is at risk if we talk to them - it's no less credible.
Given that WikiLeaks initially insisted there were 0, and now admit to 3 kinda indicates a loss of credibility on the issue.
Like you said, depends on who you believe. I beleive the raw document - three informers - possibly a few others exposed by GPS coordinates and no names, but that's a stretching the definition
The leak has exposed no new civilian deaths. All of the information, minus the naming-the-informants problem, was already reported in the media.
Again, misinformation damage control by mainstream US press - historically extremely pro War. Nothing to see here, move along.
If you think the leaks are new revelations, then you haven't been paying much attention to the war.
Or you have may not been reading outside of propaganda pieces. To pick just one overview of many available, see "The Significance of the Afghanistan War Diary" under "What does the Afghanistan War Diary tell us? To what extent was the information therein already known? And what is its significance now?" There is plenty more quality journalistic analysis on the content, with more being published every week provide new insights into the war - just search outside of the US mainstream media channels. Here is another example. Very hard to claim that none of that material was previously known, as you seem to have been led to beleive.
Actaully, yes they do. Every. Single. War. Ever. Since the stone age. Or are you going to pretend that carpet-bombing cities at night in WWII didn't cause any civilian deaths? That no civilian in Vietnam was mistaken for a VC and shot? That the 'road of death' in the first gulf war had no civilians in any of the vehicles? That bombing Serbia never caused a civilian death (or a Chinese diplomat's death)?
Nice straw man. I never said that civilians don't die in war. I said what's new knowledge to us about out own troops related to 20K+ civilian deaths. One example or many: Extra judicial assassinations of innocent civilian children, while they sleep. Or how about thousands civilians killed by "ricochets" - slang for shot in the head without a valid reason. Or do you claim that the US or coalition forces have always been doing that? Search "Task Force 373" exposed by the diaries, because it seems you have been hoodwinked to ignore any new material that has been exposed.
Actually, you're so busy projecting me as an evil person
I am not trying the project you as anything, and certainly not evil. All I am taking issue with is the propaganda being parroted everywhere you look in mainstream US press - so much fabricated and false information in an obvious damage control propaganda campaign - that even a cursory look at the raw data can disprove it. Shit like "Thousands of Informers and their families at risk", "Amnesty Int. Condemns Wikileaks" - all easily proved wrong lies if we stick to facts.
Could you translate this into English?
Are you seriously trying to argue that the Taliban isn't going to shoot people who are revealed to be traitors to their cause?
Your ignoring the fact that there are only three informers names released - everything else is just Rupert Murdoch's pro-war propaganda, trying to invent some shaky moral ground to stand on by inventing thousands of them - but not being able to name even one.
Of the three informers, one died two years ago, the other was a double agent pro Taliban - the third has no further information. Are you seriously trying to argue that exposing the needless killing of 20K+ innocent civilians has no value to saving lives in the future?
Civilians die in all wars.
No, not like most of these 20K died, they don't. Shot with "warning" fire or "ricochets", school-buses full of kids strafed with machine gun fire, thousands of children in total killed, some by kill squads operating on bad intel murdering them in the middle of the night while they sleep, - and all this by the good "humanitarian" occupying force.
Actually, you haven't the faintest idea about how I feel about the war.
Given your parroting straight from Rupert Murdochs pro war media empire it is not hard to guess your feelings. You feel how you have been directed to feel: RP's empire has told you of "thousands" of informers "and their families" without being able to back it up - there is no evidence of this from the documents we all have. Even Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood confirmed that there was no authorized statement on WikiLeaks, Rupert's Wall St Journal invented the story about them in the "Human rights groups ask WikiLeaks to censor files" propaganda - again, to make YOU feel a certain way - the facts be damned. They are so effective at the damage control propaganda campaign that they have you all worried about the possibility that the Taliban might shoot someone, Vs the 20K+ who have already been killed and continue to needlessly die every day due to bad operating policy? Better check the moral ground your standing on before it gives way, or stop reading Rupert Murdock's pro war propaganda.
but it is tiddlywinks, not a subversion of the United States financial system.
Without a better explanation as to exactly why the SEC was, as Ney put it: "a complacent regulatory body", not even opening an investigation into a publicly known fraud until someone needed to coerce the firms into going electronic, then his quote: "Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry..." looks like a pretty good sum-up of the situation.
I am encouraging you to investigate the facts that are available to us, for yourself. If you can back up a better conclusion than Ney did, clean the name of the SEC - then I and many others would be all ears.
When trading their own account over both short and long periods - then of course the other side of the trade will be an open bid or ask from a "legitimate" market participant. They abused their position and access to the order book, defrauding other market participates in the process. Sounds like your still trying to apologize or make excuses for them - I'll leave you to it.
As far as your vague assertion that I don't understand what is going on, that paper doesn't make any accusations that fall outside what I described; the specialist is indeed cheating their customers, but each time they cheat, there is a genuine bid on the other side of the cheating (and as described in the inter-positioning, their are in fact two genuine orders involved in the cheating).
Your assumption is not correct. The Specialist traded their own account when it suited them - with no "genuine order" on their other side other than the Specialists trade for their own accounts. Ney and other sources have gone into this in-depth: The tactic was to absorb outstanding supply into their own account (no inter-positioning between legitimate buy/sellers) before turning prices around and riding up the instrument on reduced supply and increasing demand (due to the rising prices). At the other end, the specialists have the influence to maintain prices higher long enough to sell off their own accounts. What's more, the firms colluded on specific instruments to suck up supply, dump holdings. Worth your time reading up on.
From this part:
a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"
I am open to suggestions as to why it took the SEC so long to go after them (thirty years, possibly much longer). It certainly was not because they were not aware of the practice.
"and their parrots talking about "thousands of Informants exposed" just happen to NOT talk about the murdered 20K+ civilians." Like it never happened, right, jeff4747? Better if Wikileaks never published the facts (minus the informants names bar three), so the war could drag on another nine years, generate billions more in profits and kill another 20K+ civilians... but you don't really care about that, do you - just worried about theoretical possibility of some people being shot, and not the in-your-face facts about the actual 20K who have already been shot - and will continue to be shot going forward.
"and their parrots talking about "thousands of Informants exposed" just happen to NOT talk about the murdered 20K+ civilians." Like it never happened, right, GooberToo? Better if Wikileaks never published the facts (minus the informants names bar three), so the war could drag on another nine years and generate billions more profits, oh, and kill another 20K+ civilians... but you don't really care about that, do you.
No, they cannot prove your wrong since it is damage control - the only shaky moral ground they can invent to stand on. Notice that these shills never talk about the 20K+ innocent Afghan civilians who are already murdered - not even an apology, or feign of concern - like they want you to think it never happened.
While not necessarily directly harmful to the Allied forces, the leaks include the names of informants and those sympathetic to Allied forces.
To Shillnonymous and friends. Reality: Out of the thousands of records only three records contain a name of an "informant". One of which died and another was a pro-Taliban double agent. Not to mention that the White House also had the opportunity to redact names via the New Your Times contact, but declined to do so - they could not have cared less
All those news channels (and there are many - mostly US based) all all standing on very shaky moral ground, considering the news channels and their parrots talking about "thousands of Informants exposed" just happen to NOT talk about the murdered 20K+ civilians. What is more important - actual deaths or your self delusion/lies over thousands of imaginary Informants "and their families" dying.
The behavior talked about in the SEC link is certainly improper, but it is a little overboard to speak about it as if it is controlling society
Not sure where you got your "controlling society" spin from - all you have here is one concrete example of how the SEC did not pursue a long term billion dollar fraud against the general public until it was in someones political interests to do so. When they did pursue it, claimed damages (~20 million) and fines levied were an insult to all the citizens of the US whose retirement savings were robbed over the decades.
each of the alleged fraudulent trades likely had a genuine market order on one side of it.
I suggest you educate yourself on how the fraud is being carried out, before you start making apologies or excuses for their criminal activity.
Perhaps start with this research PDF: "NYSE Response to Specialist Misconduct: An Example of the Failure of Self-Regulation" but there are more you can easily find now you have some search keys to look it up.
The SEC doesn't stop fraud because it doesn't want to stop it, not because it lacks the resources.
Exactly. For those who are not convinced, a bit of reading: Five New York Stock Exchange specialists were actually charged with fraud, but it's not the justice you think it should be. Richard Ney and economist who later turned actor, wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the NY times longest running best seller, and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labelled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.
To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The DOJ finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. Those get out of jail free cards just keep coming off the monopoly pile. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's books knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 210+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behaviour was actually pursued by the SEC/DOJ.
If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the SEC and DOJ, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but they did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:
"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"
Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.
Some NYSE specialists were charged with fraud: Richard Ney and economist who later turned actor, wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the NY times longest running best seller, and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labelled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.
To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The SEC and Department of Justice finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. Those get out of jail free cards just keep coming off the monopoly pile. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's books knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 210+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behaviour was actually pursued by the DOJ.
If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the SEC, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but the DOJ did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:
"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"
Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.
And, let be serious, if that particular person didn't go on to boast to a snitch, he probably would have had a decent chance of getting away too.
Actually, the evidence is indicating that Manning never spoke let alone boast to Adrian Lamo. Lamo just happens to work for the vigilante group Project Vigilant who monitors and logs internet conversations of over 250 million US based IP addresses per day. They picked up the chat logs between Manning and one or more MIT students, then handed them off to Lamo to take public soon after the Collateral murder video went public.
Of course ebook prices are fixed (amoungst other digital "goods") - how the hell do you price something that can be copied infinitely at next to zero cost? And therein lies the problem...
Obviously that crappy documentary propaganda piece it did not work well - they had to setup a recruitment stall at Defcon...