Wikileaks (17 Viewers)

Eddy

The Maestro
Aug 20, 2005
12,644
I still don't see what the big deal over the leaks is anyway. From what I've seen they are mostly stuff that was already obvious and embarrassing foreign policy decisions that are only going to hurt relations with other countries.


Good to know.
So, did you know about this ? I don't think you have. An oil company, or rather a corporation ruling a country ? Sure, you might have heard, sounds like modern U.S.A but this one is in Africa. Leaks are getting worse and worse by day. With this one however, they might get charged for murder, though we don't know yet.


WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed


The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

Other cables released tonight reveal:

• US diplomats' fear that Kenya could erupt in violence worse than that experienced after the 2008 election unless rampant government corruption is tackled.

• America asked Uganda to let it know if its army intended to commit war crimes based on US intelligence – but did not try to prevent war crimes taking place.

• Washington's ambassador to the troubled African state of Eritrea described its president, Isaias Afwerki, as a cruel "unhinged dictator" whose regime was "one bullet away from implosion".

The latest revelations came on a day that saw hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks target MasterCard and Visa over their decision to block payments to the whistleblowers' website.

The website's founder, Julian Assange, spent a second night in jail after a judge refused him bail prior to an extradition hearing to face questioning over sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Campaigners tonight said the revelation about Shell in Nigeria demonstrated the tangled links between the oil firm and politicians in the country where, despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people live below the poverty line.

Cables from Nigeria show how Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa, sought to share intelligence with the US government on militant activity and business competition in the contested Niger Delta – and how, with some prescience, she seemed reluctant to open up because of a suspicion the US government was "leaky".

But that did not prevent Pickard disclosing the company's reach into the Nigerian government when she met US ambassador Robin Renee Sanders, as recorded in a confidential memo from the US embassy in Abuja on 20 October 2009.

At the meeting, Pickard related how the company had obtained a letter showing that the Nigerian government had invited bids for oil concessions from China. She said the minister of state for petroleum resources, Odein Ajumogobia, had denied the letter had been sent but Shell knew similar correspondence had taken place with China and Russia.

The ambassador reported: "She said the GON [government of Nigeria] had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries."

Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer and the eighth biggest exporter in the world, accounting for 8% of US oil imports. Although a recent UN report largely exonerated the company, critics accuse Shell, the biggest operator in the delta, and other companies, of causing widespread pollution and environmental damage in the region. Militant groups engaged in hostage-taking and sabotage have proliferated.

The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence of Shell's vice-like grip on the country's oil wealth. "Shell and the government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin," said Celestine AkpoBari, of Social Action Nigeria. "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."

The criticism was echoed by Ben Amunwa of the London-based oil watchdog Platform. "Shell claims to have nothing to do with Nigerian politics," he said. "In reality, Shell works deep inside the system, and has long exploited political channels in Nigeria to its own advantage."

Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, said: "Shell does not control the government of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think anybody will lose sleep over it."

Another cable released today, from the US consulate in Lagos and dated 19 September 2008, claims that Pickard told US diplomats that two named regional politicians were behind unrest in the Rivers state. She also asked if the American diplomats had any intelligence on shipments of surface to air missiles (SAMs) to militants in the Niger Delta.

"She claimed Shell has 'intelligence' that one to three SAMs may have been shipped to Nigerian militant groups, although she seemed somewhat sceptical of that information and wondered if such sensitive systems would last long in the harsh environment of the Niger Delta," the cable said.

Pickard also said Shell had learned from the British government details of Russian energy company Gazprom's ambitions to enter the Nigerian market. In June last year, Gazprom signed a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) deal with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to build refineries, pipelines and gas power stations.

Shell put a request to the US consulate for potentially sensitive intelligence about Gazprom, a possible rival, which she said had secured a promise from the Nigerian government of access to 17trn cubic feet of natural gas – roughly a tenth of Nigeria's entire reserves. "Pickard said that amount of gas was only available if the GON were to take concessions currently assigned to other oil companies and give them to Gazprom. She assumed Shell would be the GON's prime target." Pickard alleged that a conversation with a Nigerian government minister had been secretly recorded by the Russians. Shortly after the meeting in the minister's office she received a verbatim transcript of the meeting "from Russia", according to the memo.

The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. "Pickard has repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government] officials because the USG is 'leaky'." She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out."

Shell declined to comment on the allegations, saying: "You are seeking our views on a leaked cable allegedly containing information about a private conversation involving a Shell representative, but have declined to share this cable or to permit us sufficient time to obtain information from the person you say took part in the conversation on the part of Shell. In view of this, we cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements you say it contains."
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Osman

Koul Khara!
Aug 30, 2002
59,288
Next one I want to hear about how Shell operatives in Sudan. Genocidal crooks (Chinese govt too) they are, and no its not obvious to the world they infact are.
 

ReBeL

The Jackal
Jan 14, 2005
22,871
INDYMEDIA: WikiLeaks ‘struck a deal with Israel’ over diplomatic cables leaks

We should obviously all support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange, who has just been arrested in Britain, in this dirty war by states around the globe against transparency and openness. But in the world of politics, sadly, things are never as innocent as they appear. According to new revelations, Assange had allegedly struck a deal with Israel before the recent ‘cable gate’, which may explain why the leaks “were good for Israel,” as the Israeli prime minister put it.

A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks “heart and soul”, as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were ‘removed’ before the rest were made public.

According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.

The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange’s “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”

In a recent interview with the German daily Die Tageszeitung, former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg said he and other WikiLeaks dissidents are planning to launch their own whistleblowers’ platform to fulfil WikiLeaks’s original aim of “limitless file sharing.” [3]

Mr Domscheit-Berg, who is about to publish a book about his days ‘Inside WikiLeaks’, accuses Assange of acting as a “king” against the will of others in the organisation by “making deals” with media organisations that are meant to create an explosive effect, which others in WikiLeaks either know little or nothing about. [4]

Furthermore, Assange’s eagerness for headline-grabbing scoops meant that WikiLeaks had not been able to ‘restructure’ itself to cope with this surge of interest, insiders add. This has meant that smaller leaks, which might be of interest to people at a local level, are now being overlooked for the sake of big stories. [5]

According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.

Indeed, the published documents seem to have a ‘gap’ stretching over the period of July – September 2006, during which the 33-day Lebanon war took place. Is it possible that US diplomats and officials did not have any comments or information to exchange about this crucial event but spent their time ‘gossiping’ about every other ‘trivial’ Middle-Eastern matter?

Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]

According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering “a big amount of money”, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a ‘war council’ meeting between American, Israeli and Lebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies. The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwards and do not contain “anything of value,” the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.

Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-struck-a-deal-with-israel-over-cable-leaks/

--------------------

Finally, I made an opinion of this idiocy called Wikileaks.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,198
Oh FFS, things only interest you if they somehow relate to Israel and show just how bad Israelis are. It's ridiculous. I bet you googled 'Wikileaks+Israel'.

Is this why you support Juventus:

JUVENTUS DUMPS ISRAEL

The tourism ministry has previously looked at tying up deals with Italian club Juventus, but this fell through after another sponsor, Libyan oil company Tamoil, opposed the move.[7] Tamoils agreement with Juventus involved an initial sum of €110 million to cover the period between July 2005 and July 2010, in exchange for which the Libyan-based oil company Tamoil will receive exclusive shirt sponsorship rights.for 5 years. A further €130 million has been agreed to cover the following 5 years, making the deal worth a total of €240 million.[8] Although the agreement did not bar Juventus from seeking other sponsors Tamoils 10 year shirt sponsorship deal gave it sufficient clout to convince Juventus to dump Israel.


http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-arsenal.html
 

ReBeL

The Jackal
Jan 14, 2005
22,871
Oh FFS, things only interest you if they somehow relate to Israel and show just how bad Israelis are. It's ridiculous. I bet you googled 'Wikileaks+Israel'.

Is this why you support Juventus:

JUVENTUS DUMPS ISRAEL

The tourism ministry has previously looked at tying up deals with Italian club Juventus, but this fell through after another sponsor, Libyan oil company Tamoil, opposed the move.[7] Tamoils agreement with Juventus involved an initial sum of €110 million to cover the period between July 2005 and July 2010, in exchange for which the Libyan-based oil company Tamoil will receive exclusive shirt sponsorship rights.for 5 years. A further €130 million has been agreed to cover the following 5 years, making the deal worth a total of €240 million.[8] Although the agreement did not bar Juventus from seeking other sponsors Tamoils 10 year shirt sponsorship deal gave it sufficient clout to convince Juventus to dump Israel.


http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-arsenal.html
:D Do you think I should care about the leaks of Belgium more than the Middle East?
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,198
The point is that your opinion about anything is influenced by how it relates to Israel. That cannot be healthy.
 

Eddy

The Maestro
Aug 20, 2005
12,644
Rebel, I wouldn't trust that site to be honest. Considering there's nothing bad about Iran in the leaks, one can also make a conclusion that "Iran paid Wikileaks off" as it's complete bullcrap. If they really did, then no one should be surprised, there always one step ahead in politics.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
Rebel, I wouldn't trust that site to be honest. Considering there's nothing bad about Iran in the leaks, one can also make a conclusion that "Iran paid Wikileaks off" as it's complete bullcrap. If they really did, then no one should be surprised, there always one step ahead in politics.
What is it with people making ridiculous conclusions like this? Out of the 250,000 messages, they've only published something like 1000 so far. What does the absence of Israel anywhere prove? That Rebel's grand theory about Israel controlling the affairs of every single country is wrong? So be it.
 

Eddy

The Maestro
Aug 20, 2005
12,644
What is it with people making ridiculous conclusions like this? Out of the 250,000 messages, they've only published something like 1000 so far. What does the absence of Israel anywhere prove? That Rebel's grand theory about Israel controlling the affairs of every single country is wrong? So be it.
Well, considering that leaks came out viewing Turkey in a not so good way, especially the Armenian Genocide blackmail, I was happy, although it wasn't something we never knew. If something like that didn't come out from Israeli leaks, I would also feel the same way as Rebel.
 
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,575
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #380
    INDYMEDIA: WikiLeaks ‘struck a deal with Israel’ over diplomatic cables leaks

    A number of commentato Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]
    :lol:

    Must say, that "leak" is a bit suspicious.

    Oh FFS, things only interest you if they somehow relate to Israel and show just how bad Israelis are. It's ridiculous. I bet you googled 'Wikileaks+Israel'.

    Is this why you support Juventus:

    JUVENTUS DUMPS ISRAEL

    The tourism ministry has previously looked at tying up deals with Italian club Juventus, but this fell through after another sponsor, Libyan oil company Tamoil, opposed the move.[7] Tamoils agreement with Juventus involved an initial sum of €110 million to cover the period between July 2005 and July 2010, in exchange for which the Libyan-based oil company Tamoil will receive exclusive shirt sponsorship rights.for 5 years. A further €130 million has been agreed to cover the following 5 years, making the deal worth a total of €240 million.[8] Although the agreement did not bar Juventus from seeking other sponsors Tamoils 10 year shirt sponsorship deal gave it sufficient clout to convince Juventus to dump Israel.


    http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-arsenal.html
    Good move by Juventus. :tup:
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 17)