I have come to the conclusion that the only real reason the U.S. Government classifies information is to make a feeble attempt to hide the fact that they are so incompetent.
Most people know the bulk of the U.S. Government is incompetent, but they hold hope that the 10% or even 1% of the people in charge know what the hell they are doing and have everyone’s interest in mind. [You can wipe the coffee off your monitor now.]
Real secrets, like how to build a nuclear bomb or the design of a high-performance aircraft, would have some merit. But even these are classified too frequenty to hide the fact that a ton of money has been spent on a system that just doesn’t work - at least not the way it was intended.
Classification appears to have more to do with misinformation than it does with any real, meaningful secret.
Apparantly former member of the Wikileaks board, John Young, resigned in 2007 claiming that they were a CIA conduit. He did later retract the statement and now supports Wikileaks again although has some reservations about their self promotion.
This is at least interesting and lends credence to Clayton and others claim that they are a red herring especially Young denunciation and later partial retraction. That could esaily be interpretated as him being leant on.
The conspiracy theory on the JFK assassination is that the CIA and LBJ contracted the mafia to perform the act. That would be along the lines of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Apparently, they tried the same thing against Castro. Any evidence of this, if any was left, is probably long gone. That tends to be the case in most of these theories.
Some information came out in major Indian English-language magazines that India does not have a single functioning nuclear weapon and never successfully tested one. It was blared out openly, and I can only imagine that the Pakistanis would have also read it. So why haven’t the Pakistanis acted on it and attacked India? Maybe they are kind and benevolent, and never wanted war. Maybe the Pakistani government also does not have a single functioning nuclear weapon.
The thing is, the threat of nuclear weapons is more powerful than the actual use. First time it was used, sure there was an impact. Since then it’s always been more about the threat.
I’d say that Pakistan hasn’t attacked India with a nuclear weapon because there really is no benefit in doing so.
A nuke is a pretty useless weapon from a practical stand point unless you’re using it to coerce others to do what you want them to do. Now if you want to do what Rome did to Carthage, then perhaps there is some utility, but these are very extreme cases.
Yes, it seems everyone had a hand in the Kennedy assassination. The CIA, the mob, the military, LBJ – Just about everyone BUT Lee Harvey Oswald. The Kennedy assassination spawned more half-baked conspiracy theories than any other crime in history. If someone other than Oswald did pull the trigger, I bet he’s been laughing his ass off for the last 47 years. There’s only one group of people more disorganized than the government, and that’s conspiracy theorists.
Things like this also deter otherwise productive Libertarians from uncovering the real conspiracies that are out there-- like who conspired to delete my original post on this thread!
I bet it was those Alex Jones people. Somebody call Oliver Stone!
Your post wasn’t deleted, it was offtopic and moved to stand alone discussion. If you continue to post offtopic I will move your posts or delete them. This discussion is about Wikileaks. You’re welcome to start new threads for new topics.
I’ve heard John Young a few times on Infowars, he goes back and forth attacking and retreating on Wikileaks, all in the same 20 minute interview. He sounds more like a guy who has a personal beef with them, maybe a disagreement on organization or tactics, than any hard evidence.
Just the other day, Alex Jones had on Webster Tarpley, who is quite the windbag, and all he did was character assassinate Assange, without one atom of evidence, but I am sure most of the listeners took what he was saying and the conclusions he was drawing as fact.
It is interesting to see the conspiracy theory establishment revolting against Assange. I suspect because while they have all played dungeons and dragons in the shadows for decades, he has just come out and gone right for the throat of the establishment, putting his life on the line, for what seems to be little material gain.
Pretty much. Most if not all Pakistani’s have family ties to India. A nuclear attack between the two of them would be one of the most ridiculous and disastrous things for both sides to undertake. Nukes do seem pretty useless as a weapon of “defense”, which is why it makes no sense for me to think that Iran wants nuclear weapons. For all the celebration when Pakistan finally became a nuclear state- they still get bombed by foreigners and are controlled by foreigners and can do nothing about it
It apparently makes perfect sense for everybody else to acquire them, so what makes Iran any more special?
All government policies without exception are essentially destructionist in nature. The incentive to acquire nuclear weapons is in perfect harmony with the interests of any State. Iran seeking nuclear weapons makes perfect sense.
The improbability of that story is the primary reason that Assange raises red flags in my mind. It’s possible. But not likely. I reserve the right to be suspicious… and I will be the first to cheer the moment Wikileaks finally reveals some real dirt on the US gov’t.
You raise a good point here. It didn’t occur to me until somebody the other day asked me: “If you consider the government to be criminal organization, then anything that Wikileaks reveals is insignificant and pointless”.
In retrospect, I think what he was trying to say is that the goal of Wikileaks makes sense only from a statist perspective. You expose the dirt so that people get angry and perhaps demand reform. But if the government is criminal by definition, then no leaked “dirt” can ever expose that. The crime is what is out in the open. It is there for people to see if they just open their eyes and choose to see it. It is not something that can be leaked.
True. However, the nature of State power inevitably leads to a hemorrhage of gross, interpersonal crime. The orgiastic crimes of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century are a perfect illustration of this.
All it would take to break the camel’s back of public opinion is one memo showing that senior brass had, in fact, authorized the torture at Abu Ghraib. The whole program of the “War on Terror” would come crashing to the ground overnight. Wikileaks obviously cannot dictate what will be leaked but surely there must be one person with a smidgeon of conscience somewhere in the vast organization of government who can get his grubs on this kind of info. It sure would save a lot of lives.
I see what you’re saying. I just means in terms of practicality(not that governments are truly interested in defense of their citizens) they don’t seem to help in stopping foreign invaders.
You know what, I’m just about tired from hearing about how when the State finallyreally crosses the line, then things will come “crashing down” or there will be revolt in the streets, etc… It’s always just one more thing that State has to do or that people need to find out about.
I assure you that that people will line up bare naked at the airport, and yes, with their children, and there will still be no such revolt and nothing will “come crashing to the ground”. It has already happend so I’m not fantasizing.
But that’s how it always happens in history. Once the public loses faith in the machinery of State, they are ripe for a revolt. Of course, revolts that result in a change of leadership are always led by the next-in-line to the throne… they are not merely spontaneous eruptions of violence, ala the LA riots.
Machiavelli, in The Prince, said:
A mature political order selects its Prince exclusively from the ranks of the nobles. When the nobles succeed too well in oppressing the people through their appointed Prince, the people become violent. The noble who is next-in-line to be Prince has an interest in fomenting this unrest and violence in a bid to overturn the reigning Prince and seize power for himself. This pattern is pervasive in political successions.
Really, have you looked into the JFK assassination? It seems that you’re actually buying the official story, “magic bullet” and all. How can you do that in good conscience?
BTW, I imagine those who initially “pulled the trigger” (i.e. ordered/planned the assassination) have been laughing their asses off… all the way to the bank.
The fact that there have been many, many conspiracy theories about JFK in no way means that there must have been no conspiracy whatsoever.