wikileaks.org - effectively exposing government secrets worldwide.

kinglouisxiv

kinglouisxiv

299
10
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
http://www.wikileaks.org I had no idea this site existed until a San Francisco judge ordered an illegalshutdown of the site and made national headlines. Obviously, there are a some people in power that would rather have this wiki site shut down. It has damaginginformation on the state of the Iraq War, the U.S. military operations, rules of engagement, and equipment/weapons used including hard evidence that the U.S.has violated several international chemical weapons agreements in its use of CS gas against "insurgents."

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention About wikileaks:
Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources. We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.

Wikileaks opens leaked documents up to stronger scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency can provide. Wikileaks provides a forum for the entire global community to relentlessly examine any document for its credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity. Communities can interpret leaked documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document comes from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community and diaspora can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document arrives from Iran, the entire Farsi community can analyze it and put it in context. Sample analyses are available here.
See what you can find, NikeTalk. Discuss.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by KingLouisXIV

wikileaks.org - effectively exposing government secrets
Click to expand...

eyes.gif
 
Wikileaks is in no way affiliated with WikiMedia... it was created by Chinese dissidents following the arrest and murder of Chinese journalist Shi Tao forreleasing sensitive documents. It was kept secret until it went public in Jan. 2007 increasing its Google hits from 8 to 1,000,000 in a week. This is realstuff. Internet technology and encryption allow for government members to release classified documents they find unethical on an unprecedented level ofsecrecy.

I mean, if you live in communist China, the former Soviet bloc, or wherever else you can be killed for releasing govt. secrets this type of website is highlyvital. I think the U.S. shutdown of the site is credit enough for its legitimacy. Browse the site if you feel it may be a scam.

Here's some more HIGHLY interesing stuff:

List of U.S. military equipment in Iraq:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_(2007)

Chiquita Banana terrorist practices in S. America:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Equirer_Chiquita_1998_secrets_revealed

Classified Guantanamo Bay detention criteria:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_Guantanamo_Bay_detention_criteria_(2003)

CIA papers on Al-Qaeda threat to homeland:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/A_Col...n_Al-Qaida's_Threat_to_the_US_Homeland_(2005)
 
Hahah Im afraid to click cause I think the FBI is tracking the IP's of everyone that browses and is going to murk them off 1 by 1.
 
You know, in a day and age where giant corporations have a death grip hold on nearly every level of government I have hope in the Internet to save democracy.Sites like these spread information that should be available to the public, and I see every bit of potential in this site to make an impact. More people willflock to this site, and more secrets will be revealed... it's only a matter of time before someone really drops a bomb.
 
not even gonna click the link @ home. I'm already paranoid with the cell phones making weird beeps when I call certain people.
 
Military robots - http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_(2007)#Military_robots

And so it has begun. The war is inevitable, leading to the extinction of most of the human race. The question though is if time travel is possible(any wikileaks on this?). If so, then they (psssst, I'm talking about the robots) will send back an android to kill off the mother of the human who willlead us to victory in the future war. If not, then we will be used by the robots to make energy. Alternatively, one of the robots will become conscious andexperience emotion. This will lead to either a) Will Smith saving the day, b) Robin Williams adopting the robot (or was he the robot?), or c) a cop helpseliminate any robots trying to live amongst us.
it's only a matter of time before someone really drops a bomb.
The time is now: Meth is Dirty. Dirty is Meth.







OK, seriously.... What if you were in one of these secret organizations and privy to all their info? Would you abuse the power or what?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Some more damaging info...
Safes have played an important role for US Army in Iraq: not only for securing important documents and official funds, but also as a way to hide away largess obtained corruptly from the US federal reserve, via authorities which did not care to introduce even minimal oversight or accounting mechanisms. The October 2007 edition of Vanity Fair reports on US$12,000,000,000 in cash brought into Iraq under the auspices Coalition Provisional Authority, of which $9,000,000,000 cannot be accounted for.
Half of all equipment purchases have been diverted to dealing with home made mobile phone and radio bombs. Not since the post war nuclear build up has there been such a decisive shift in US military spending priorities. The 2007 May-July period, saw 203 US military deaths from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan, accounting for 66 percent of all US combat fatalities.[6] Those numbers have climbed steadily from the same three-month period in 2004, when 54 Americans were killed by IEDs, 31 percent of total fatalities. Since the first recorded IED death in July 2003, at least 1,509 Americans have been killed in Iraq by makeshift roadside bombs, out of a total 3,707 fatalities. The daily number of IED attacks has increased six-fold since 2003, according to the Pentagon. In response, vast expenditures are being made on advanced technology to prevent, jam, detect, and destroy such devices.

The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, or JIEDDO was predicted last year to have spent US$13,000,000,000 (13 billion) across all theaters, on detectors and robots to defuse bombs, improvements to vehicle armour, training and other means to counter home made weapons. That sum is comparable, in inflation-adjusted dollars, to what the US spent building the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, based on figures compiled by Washington's Brookings Institution.[7] The leak reveals 12,097 "Warlock" radio frequency jammers (US$1,100 million for the first 7,530), which prevent radio signals, such as from mobile phones, from triggering explosives. If we view IEDs as a rebel investment, to which the US must pay dividends in defensive equipment costs, then every insurgent dollar spent has a return on investment of somewhere around thousand fold. Significant price gouging by counter-IED defense contractors is evident. For comparison, each briefcase-sized "Warlock" IED jammer, of which is there is on average more than one per vehicle, is worth $150,000; however, as can be seen by this analysis, that is more costly than nearly every vehicle it was designed to protect. The "Warlock" producer, defense contractor EDO Corp, predicts financial year 2007 will see a 400% total revenue increase over its 2003 levels.<.b>
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
why would that picture freak you out . . .
you all read way into some of the stupidest stuff on the internet and think its all deep dark secrets. I can basically sum up for you in a few words : if youfeel your life is being threatened, remove the threat.
 
It's crazy to read how the Pentagon makes value judgements on the dispensability of 'casualties'. This also points to former Sec. of Defense DonaldRumsfeld who has been accused of war crimes by several international bodies. I know one day he will be brought to trial.
Among several interesting nuggets in the ROE, it provides indications that U.S. attacks likely to result in civilian deaths required authorization at the top of the Pentagon, by the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense). Thus, the ROE states repeatedly; "If the target is in a HIGH CD [collateral damage] area, SECDEF approval is required." And what is the definition of a High Collateral Damage area? The ROE contains a set of explicit definitions of its terms. There we find High Collateral Damage Targets defined as:

"Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability of causing collateral damage through blast debris and fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant collateral effects on noncombatant persons and structures, including: (A) Non-combatant casualties estimated at 30 or greater; (B) Significant effects on Category I No Strike protected sites in accordance with Ref D; (C) In the case of dual-use facilities, effects that significantly impact the non-combatant population, including significant effects on the environment/facilities/infrastructure not related to an adversary's war making ability; or (D) Targets in close proximity to known human shields."

Thus, all attacks, except those in self-defense or active pursuit, with a reasonable possibility of harming 30 or more civilians needed approval from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Presumably such approval would need to be in writing. The ROE thus suggest that there may exist an extensive documentary record of requests, and possibly Rumsfeld's approval or rejection, for attacks with the potential for resulting in significant civilian casualties. Congress should demand access to these documents to determine the extent to which attacks resulting in civilian casualties were authorized, potentially providing insight into who was responsible for possible war crimes committed in the course of the occupation.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by KingLouisXIV

It's crazy to read how the Pentagon makes value judgements on the dispensability of 'casualties'. This also points to former Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who has been accused of war crimes by several international bodies. I know one day he will be brought to trial.

Among several interesting nuggets in the ROE, it provides indications that U.S. attacks likely to result in civilian deaths required authorization at the top of the Pentagon, by the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense). Thus, the ROE states repeatedly; "If the target is in a HIGH CD [collateral damage] area, SECDEF approval is required." And what is the definition of a High Collateral Damage area? The ROE contains a set of explicit definitions of its terms. There we find High Collateral Damage Targets defined as:


"Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability of causing collateral damage through blast debris and fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant collateral effects on noncombatant persons and structures, including: (A) Non-combatant casualties estimated at 30 or greater; (B) Significant effects on Category I No Strike protected sites in accordance with Ref D; (C) In the case of dual-use facilities, effects that significantly impact the non-combatant population, including significant effects on the environment/facilities/infrastructure not related to an adversary's war making ability; or (D) Targets in close proximity to known human shields."



Thus, all attacks, except those in self-defense or active pursuit, with a reasonable possibility of harming 30 or more civilians needed approval from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Presumably such approval would need to be in writing. The ROE thus suggest that there may exist an extensive documentary record of requests, and possibly Rumsfeld's approval or rejection, for attacks with the potential for resulting in significant civilian casualties. Congress should demand access to these documents to determine the extent to which attacks resulting in civilian casualties were authorized, potentially providing insight into who was responsible for possible war crimes committed in the course of the occupation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a clean war. Never will be.

Actually, trying to fight a clean war, like we're doing on occasion in Iraq, only prolongs war.

Most of those yelling to clean up war have never participated in it. People think this war is dirty?

Come talk to my dad about the Soviet-Afghan war and you'll realize what a dirty war really is.


Although I'm not against the release of this type of info most of it is not surprising.
 
Originally Posted by DaJoka004

Bump. More people should be aware of this.
Click to expand...

For real I ain't gonna be the only dude to get offed by the gov. for clickin on the links.
nerd.gif
 
It's crazy to read how the Pentagon makes value judgements on the dispensability of 'casualties'.
do you think that it would be possible for decisions such as these, where they must get approval from the SECDEF, could in turn save hundreds tothousands of lives? Fighting a war is no easy task, and neither is making decisions like those.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom