• Huge leak reveals how the world's rich and powerful hide their money and dodge sanctions/taxes
    434 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Richy19;50065954]I wouldn't be surprised if they were allowing Panorama to have the exclusive within the BBC channels, then after that airs they will be talking about it 24/7[/QUOTE] Makes sense, but even Sky News isn't talking about it.
[QUOTE=Deri102;50065953]It really is incredible how no-one on the TV news are actually talking about this. I'm watching BBC News right now and they're talking about fucking "Fruit Machine Bandits" and Judie Dench. What the fuck.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/corporate-media-gatekeepers-protect-western-1-from-panama-leak/[/url] [quote] The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include Ford Foundation Carnegie Endowment Rockefeller Family Fund W K Kellogg Foundation Open Society Foundation (Soros) among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished. Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia. The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations’ sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6. What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace? That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don’t have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about? And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?[/quote]
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50065867]I'm going for logical consistency here: why is their privacy different from our privacy?[/QUOTE] as public servants, what they do with their privacy affects a larger amount of people than what we do with ours [QUOTE=Richy19;50065952]Iceland has a president AND a prime minister? :S[/QUOTE] you guys have a PM and a queen :o
[QUOTE=Richy19;50065952]Iceland has a president AND a prime minister? :S[/QUOTE] Most European countries do
[QUOTE=Thundermanz;50065963][post about the funders of the organisation managing the leaks][/QUOTE] Welp, seems that will answer the question if Soros appears in those published leaks.
[QUOTE=Droogie;50065971]you guys have a PM and a queen :o[/QUOTE] I mean, true.. But the queen doesn't really have any say in politics (she signs the papers and whatnot but doesn't make many decisions) Also, she isn't elected. I dont see how it woud work, what if you have a PM of 1 party but a president of another? Would you constantly be in a coalition?
Wikileaks just seem salty that they didn't get this one
[QUOTE=Richy19;50066008]I mean, true.. But the queen doesn't really have any say in politics (she signs the papers and whatnot but doesn't make many decisions) Also, she isn't elected. I dont see how it woud work, what if you have a PM of 1 party but a president of another? Would you constantly be in a coalition?[/QUOTE] You vote for the president, who then choose his prime minister. That's how it works in France, anyway.
[QUOTE=Richy19;50066008]I mean, true.. But the queen doesn't really have any say in politics (she signs the papers and whatnot but doesn't make many decisions) Also, she isn't elected. I dont see how it woud work, what if you have a PM of 1 party but a president of another? Would you constantly be in a coalition?[/QUOTE] In many countries a PM is nothing but a head of government appointed by the elected president.
I dunno what you guys are talking about with the mainstream media not covering this, it's in our newspapers pretty widely. A number of other publications are reporting it too?
[QUOTE=smurfy;50066011]Wikileaks just seem salty that they didn't get this one[/QUOTE] They probably have the suspicion that the leaked information could be tampered with or destroyed instead of it all being made public on a online database. Reminder that The Guardian did destroy unpublished Snowden leaks after they had been ordered to a few years ago.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50063805]I don't lie in bed worrying about these things because I know how pointless worrying about them is. That's not my argument really. I've been repeating this whole time that we should attempt to fix it first, I've never said "Dying is the preferable option" and I would like it if you wouldn't basically imply that it is. I don't think you understand what I feel like i'm communicating here. You imagine wrong. I want us to pull through and we should try until the bitter end, but if billions of people are dying around the world and we're relying solely on each other in small local communities to survive, that's not a good world, and there won't be history books written about it for a time to come, if that even happens. I would rather we avoid that and see it for what it is.[/QUOTE] If we're both saying the same thing then what the hell are we disagreeing about
[QUOTE=Jordax;50066038]They probably have the suspicion that the leaked information could be tampered with or destroyed instead of it all being made public on a online database. Reminder that The Guardian did destroy unpublished Snowden leaks after they had been ordered to a few years ago.[/QUOTE] Well the mass of data contains sensitive information about people who weren't doing anything unlawful, so yes, releasing everything as is will expose innocents. However, the very same thought opens up a can of nasty worms - who's there to decide what's fine to publish and what isn't? Keeping in mind the fact the variety of different people who are implicated in what has been released thus far, can [i]anyone[/i] be trusted with sorting through the data?
[QUOTE=Jordax;50066038]They probably have the suspicion that the leaked information could be tampered with or destroyed instead of it all being made public on a online database. [B]Reminder that The Guardian did destroy unpublished Snowden leaks after they had been ordered to a few years ago.[/B][/QUOTE] Is there any reason they didn't release all documents when they received them? It feels like they are still releasing some stuff now?
Everyones basically waiting for the US stuff to appear.
[QUOTE=Lazore;50065186]"Editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung responded to the lack of U.S. individuals in the documents, saying "Just wait for what is coming next""[/QUOTE] When I saw there was nobody from the US in the leak i was thinking it was something like this. Can't wait to see who pops up on the list. As improbable as it is, i would find it very funny if bernie sanders has a billion dollars in an offshore account he's been secretly funneling himself donation money with.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50061282]So the US is not as corrupt as we think?[/QUOTE] US offshores in Costa Rica.
i can definitely imagine donald trump being on there. what's even worse is how his voters won't stop supporting him.
it's on CNN's website now.
Now that the info about founders of that journalist organisation is mentioned i think i will have more bias toward upcoming USA part of report than before - it seems that all this is building up to somehing big, heating up of hysteria, and when someone goes soo far as to set up whole world as theater audience you can bet your ass that final act was edited by director to appeal his certain goals. Soo if information will sink somebody specific from US presidental race but miraclously avoid others i'd take entire report with salt and spice at size of Dune planet. Tif t was a simple info leak without any interference or edit they would dump it as whole rather than analyse reaction and preparing a sequel.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;50066254]Now that the info about founders of that journalist organisation is mentioned i think i will have more bias toward upcoming USA part of report than before - it seems that all this is building up to somehing big, heating up of hysteria, and when someone goes soo far as to set up whole world as theater audience you can bet your ass that final act was edited by director to appeal his certain goals. Soo if information will sink somebody specific from US presidental race but miraclously avoid others i'd take entire report with salt and spice at size of Dune planet[/QUOTE] Basically take the non-US portion as fact, be suspicious of the US part.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50066263]Basically take the non-US portion as fact, be suspicious of the US part.[/QUOTE] If us part turns out to be shit there is no certainity that other foreign information was not adjusted as it too could've been altered to aid some agenda. Expecially in a case where leak was coming not from initial source (hacker himself), but first arrived into journalist hands, and we live in a world where expecting unbias from media when dealing with something big is too naive. Soo its either a whole parade of informational justice or a turd mixed with gold grains
Unless this sinks Donald Trump, this adds more fuel to both him (I don't get why it would) and Bernie Sanders Campaign, nevertheless.
it is sad that this is totally unsurprising...
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50066288]Unless this sinks Donald Trump, this adds more fuel to both him (I don't get why it would) and Bernie Sanders Campaign, nevertheless.[/QUOTE] Imagine this hitting hard on Clinton, now THAT trully would be righteous act and mark of true journalistic effort Also, at ukraine somebody vows to impeach Poroshenko over this, watch it not happening, lol
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50066288]Unless this sinks Donald Trump, this adds more fuel to both him (I don't get why it would) and Bernie Sanders Campaign, nevertheless.[/QUOTE] That is if it manages to enter the public American consciousness. CNN and friends might be good at putting it at the bottom of the screen and talking about cats or some shit instead.
[QUOTE=GayIlluminati;50065586]I wish this would instigate larger societal uproar, but it'll probably be forgotten by most after the minute-thirty story on nbc news. Being older and less idealistic about the world fucking sucks.[/QUOTE] Its just gonna be wiki leaks 2.0
[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;50066033]I dunno what you guys are talking about with the mainstream media not covering this, it's in our newspapers pretty widely. A number of other publications are reporting it too?[/QUOTE] It hasn't even been a day, and even the most biased, goal-seeking media outlets like to vet their information before needlessly hamming it out (most of the time.) I'd be concerned if this isn't everywhere and yammered about in a week, but not in under 24 hours when it's not a literal terrorist act/shooting/mass death/tragedy/etc.
I fucking love how the list includes: Putin Poroshenko Sakaashvily It just shows how much the politics is a spectacle. Truly we are all same underneath our conflicts.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;50066360]I fucking love how the list includes: Putin Poroshenko Sakaashvily It just shows how much the politics is a spectacle. Truly we are all same underneath our conflicts.[/QUOTE] Not really a spectacle, just shows that everyone's hands are dirty. It's not like any of these men are working together; that's kind of the nature of this whole thing. It's showing just how many politicians are scum looking out for no one but themselves, exploiting the fears and confidence of the people for really petty shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.