Selective Leaks Of The #PanamaPapers Create Huge Blackmail Potential
A real leak of data from a law firm in Panama would be very interesting. Many rich people and/or politicians hide money in shell companies that such firms in Panama provide. But the current heavily promoted "leak" of such data to several NATO supporting news organization and a US government financed "Non Government Organization" is just a lame attempt to smear some people the U.S. empire dislikes. It also creates a huge blackmail opportunity by NOT publishing certain data in return for this or that desired favor.
Already some 16 month ago Ken Silverstein reported for Vice on a big shady shell company provider, Mossak Fonseca in Panama. (Pierre Omidyar's Intercept, for which Silverstein was then working, refused to publish the piece.) Yves Smith published several big stories about the Mossak Fonseca money laundering business. Silverstein also repeated the well known fact that Rami Makhlouf, a rich cousin of the Syrian president Assad, had some money hidden in Mossak Fonseca shell companies. He explains:
To conduct business, shell companies like Drex need a registered agent, sometimes an attorney, who files the required incorporation papers and whose office usually serves as the shell's address. This process creates a layer between the shell and its owner, especially if the dummy company is filed in a secrecy haven where ownership information is guarded behind an impenetrable wall of laws and regulations. In Makhlouf's case—and, I discovered, in the case of various other crooked businessmen and international gangsters—the organization that helped incorporate his shell company and shield it from international scrutiny was a law firm called Mossack Fonseca, which had served as Drex's registered agent from July 4, 2000, to late 2011.
A year ago someone provided tons of data from Mossak Fonseca to a German newpaper, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. The Munich daily is politically on the center right and staunchly pro NATO. It cooperates with the Guardian, the BBC, Le Monde, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and some other news organization who are all known supporters of the establishment.
The Sueddeutsche claims that the "leaked" data is about some 214,000 shell companies and 14,000 Mossak Fonseca clients. There is surely a lot of hidden dirt in there. How many U.S. Senators are involved in such companies? Which European Union politicians? What are the big Wall Street banks and hedge funds hiding in Panama? Oh, sorry. The Sueddeutsche and its partners will not answer those questions. Here is how they "analyzed" the data:
The journalists compiled lists of important politicians, international criminals, and well-known professional athletes, among others. The digital processing made it possible to then search the leak for the names on these lists. The "party donations scandal" list contained 130 names, and the UN sanctions list more than 600. In just a few minutes, the powerful search algorithm compared the lists with the 11.5 million documents.For each name found, a detailed research process was initiated that posed the following questions: what is this person’s role in the network of companies? Where does the money come from? Where is it going? Is this structure legal?
Essentially the Sueddeutsche compiled a list of known criminals and people and organizations the U.S. dislikes and cross checked them with the "leaked" database. Selected hits were then further evaluated. The outcome are stories like the annual attempt to smear the Russian president Putin, who is not even mentioned in the Mossak Fonseca data, accusations against various people of the soccer association FIFA, much disliked by the U.S., and a few mentions of other miscreants of minor relevancy.
There is no story about any U.S. person, none at all, nor about any important NATO politician. The highest political "casualty" so far is the irrelevant Prime Minister of Iceland Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson who, together with his wife, owned one of the shell companies. There is no evidence that the ownership or the money held by that company were illegal.
So where is the beef?
As former UK ambassador Craig Murray writes, the beef (if there is any at all) is in what is hidden by the organizations that manage the "leak":
The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”What do you expect? 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)
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) is part of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) which is financed by the U.S. government through USAID.
The "leak" is of data selected by U.S. friendly organization out of a database, likely obtained by U.S. secret services, which can be assumed to include much dirt about "western" persons and organizations.
To only publish very selected data from the "leaked" data has two purposes:
- It smears various "enemies of the empire" even if only by association like the presidents Putin and Assad.
- It lets other important people, those mentioned in the database but not yet published about, know that the U.S. or its "media partner" can, at any time, expose their dirty laundry to the public. It is thereby a perfect blackmailing instrument.
The engineered "leak" of the "Panama Papers" is a limited hangout designed to incriminate a few people and organization the U.S. dislikes. It is also a demonstration of the "torture tools" to the people who did business with Mossak Fonseca but have not (yet) been published about. They are now in the hands of those who control the database. They will have to do as demanded or else ...
Posted by b on April 4, 2016 at 4:25 UTC | Permalink
« previous page@200, no such thing as propaganda in Russia or China, those are free, open government countries. No one dies at the hand of the state, there is utmost regard for press freedom and politician are held to the highest degree of transparency.
The in the US however, which is not as complex as those countries, we have a small group of elites who rule over the masses, control the media and government and make it their mission to kill, preferably innocent children in the middle east. They are mostly Jewish, typically neo-conservatives who bleed green and love only money.
These selective leaks were meant to discredit the only legitimate institutions left which contest the coming wave (it had been coming for a long time) of world domination.
My mind is made up, and so is everyone else's on this site, no additional, contradictory information shall ever be accepted. No self-assessment, confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance analysis shall take place.
Down with the NWO!
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 17:19 utc | 202
Haha - some yanks get their panties in a twist because Russia doing the mix of public and private ownership better...all the while forgetting that it was they, the yanks, that caused Russia to declare itself open for business in its latest guise as a superpower.
On the whole, with open white collar crime the way it is in the west, The Guvna dictating to The Coporation is a good deal more preferable than The Corporation dictating to The Guvna. The yanks could learn a thing or two if they bothered to understand the Russia they helped recreate.
Good to see the yanks innovate their way into tax haven territory. A masterstroke really. "We are the reserve currency. Dump your belongings HERE!!" Then, boom, the bail-in follows. That's so awesome.
Posted by: MadMax2 | Apr 6 2016 17:29 utc | 203
The authors whine about a smear campaign, but use lurid descriptors such as "Mossak Fonseca money laundering business". They don't have enough savings to be in a position to need to send it abroad, for investment, privacy or safety (*OR* for illegal purposes). The authors are acting as an ignorant mouthpiece, shouting "criminal!".
Posted by: anami | Apr 6 2016 17:32 utc | 204
Poroscheko will probably not face any repercussions
> Legal firm Avellum, which was given the task of selling Roshen [Porschenko's Ukrainian Company], said that using a company with foreign jurisdiction was the only way to move the company into a blind trust. "Any allegations of tax evasion are groundless," ...> ... a spokesman for Mr Poroshenko said the company it set up for the president had no active assets and was part of a legitimate corporate restructure aimed at helping to sell the Roshen group. None of the three associated accounts held more than €2,000 (£1,600; $2,270), he said.
> Although the opposition called for impeachment, it is "unlikely".
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6 2016 17:38 utc | 205
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRFVljrpAEw
the funding trail revealed.
And now the real fun begins.
Posted by: ATW | Apr 6 2016 17:57 utc | 206
I still don't get @202
"Russia doing the mix of public and private ownership better...all the while forgetting that it was they, the yanks, that caused Russia to declare itself open for business... The Guvna dictating to The Coporation is a good deal more preferable than The Corporation dictating to The Guvna..."
Russia was open for business and then shut itself off by telling the 'west' dont touch Ukraine, it is not your business *wagging finger at NWO*
It has a better mix of public and private ownership? On what metric?
I get it. You want a larger more controlling government, overall. That's cool, I agree that increased regulations are important (but I think that many posters here disagree and want a libertarian type state, unless I am wrong and everyone is pro Putin).
I'm Canadian we got a pretty good mix up in here, but I understand US has issues :)
@205 Why do people keep posting that link to the Russian expose...there is no actual link anywhere.
I love this line
"In fact, what is happening is a test for society and the President. He passed an exam for the "leader of the nation", and society - for the "superpower". I have no doubt, personally, of the result. And also no doubt on the number of political cadavers that will appear soon in stupid Europe, which thought that she was taking part in the hunt for the beast, whilst the ambush was prepared for her."
Sounds like North Korea, man I love that dear leader Putin.
Soros - fucking Soros back at it again with his NWO bullshit.
Basically if no US leaks come out, I understand that sites like these will help perpetuate the myth that this Panama Papers thing doesn't matter, since implicating China or Russia doesn't matter. They are good, open, amazing, peace love and zero gay tolerance countries. My fav!
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 18:17 utc | 207
@206 I don't think throwing more dirt at Russia, N.Korea, Syria etc. really cuts it anymore. Those places have been so demonized it's almost a given that they are evil and corrupt. It's become stale and boring.
People want to see names like Blair, Clinton, Abelson & Murdoch on the list....now that would get some clicks.
Posted by: dh | Apr 6 2016 18:34 utc | 208
Hey, dun ban FunnyPeople, let study this new script that is being used.
'They' are trying to adapt to alt media and since Wiki and Snowden gets so much street cred, the idea with Panama Papers is to do a leak where we decide where the damage is... and now we have 2 of them (dempsey) using a new script to justify the new tactics.
We have come a long way from the start, that guy used a name starting with H something.
Posted by: ATW | Apr 6 2016 18:40 utc | 209
FunnyPeople says:
The in the US however, which is not as complex as those countries, we have a small group of elites who rule over the masses, control the media and government and make it their mission to kill...
This is how the moral order is validated, and American culture has always glorified violence. The slaughter of indigenous people on the other side of the world(or elsewhere) is reassuring to the proles at home. It reminds them(you) that they're on the winning side.
Posted by: john | Apr 6 2016 18:50 utc | 210
@FunnyPeople
When your government:
> manipulates the press and conducts a war on whistle-blowers;> looks the other way as billions are stolen (GFC2008)- then covers it up (Bailouts, HAMP);
> starts "wars of choice" (Iraq) by lying to its people, then conducts war by proxy (Libya, Syria) allied to countries that do not share our "values";
> negotiates trade deals that undermine democratic choice and degrades our standard of living (TTIP, TTP);
> makes corporations people and money speech so that the electoral system is a sham;
> undermines civil liberties via pervasive spying and other measures;
> refuses the wealthy and well-connected responsible for wrong-doing (IRS scandal, Corsine, Clapper, Wall Street execs, etc.);
> spends more on its military and policing than all other major nations combined and locks up more people than all other nations combined;
> refuses to be held to international standards of justice (not subject to the International Criminal Court);
> allows rampant inequality to persist to the point that super-wealthy oligarchs have undue influence with government;
> etc.
... then how "free" are you?
My perception is that most of the people here find developments in the last 20-30 years that undermine our free and democratic society very troubling. So your rants are nonsense. Few here say that Russia or China is, on the whole, better. Duh! That is just your strawman for attacking the blog.
Maybe you just need to hear it: The USA and the West in general is more free. But that is faint praise indeed. For some of us, a faux democracy that seems "better" (mostly due to better commercial opportunities) isn't enough.
Some here at MoA connect-the-dots in a way that escapes you. They see a constant push to acquire, control, conquer, and exploit is leading us toward war, environmental disaster, poverty and immiseration.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6 2016 19:20 utc | 211
@207, naa I happen to have good friends who are into this stuff have been exposed to it for awhile, I've never found any strong legitimacy to it.
I think there some points of value here but the stuff lacks evidence, rigour and is written with deep assumptions in mind. So using a basic probability model, each assertion is not actually supported by evidence thereby lowing its overall probability, but then the articles conclude on those assertions and use those conclusion them in further assertions. So it's like taking 20% x 20% and saying I'm 100% sure this is the truth, but really the probably is now 4%. You then use that 4% with other non-supported assersions to come up with the next item. It makes the entire argument very weak.
This is why there is such limited ligitimacy to any of this 'alternative media' it just fails on logical merit. still fun though. This is like RT, CNN or fox news to me, it is just fun to watch in limited quantities.
@208 no sarcasm was detected in my post ic...you know russians call US pussies cause they don't know how to just go in and kill everyone, they just wet their toes. Russians do it right (mostly cause they have no one to up hold to lol, public is jokes).
Wiki is has been hitting panama hard, on their numbers, and info. going to be interesting either way.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 19:25 utc | 212
CNN: Russia was open for business and then shut itself off by telling the 'west' dont touch Ukraine, it is not your business *wagging finger at NWO*
ACTUAL EVENT: Democracy hijacked by Empire spreading democracy. Russia says "you can have Ukraine". Crimea votes to join Russia - great real estate. Empire angry at tactical loss, employ sanctions. Empire and Europe stuck with war ravaged, indebted country.
Posted by: MadMax2 | Apr 6 2016 19:27 utc | 213
@209 Some here at MoA connect-the-dots in a way that escapes you. They see a constant push to acquire, control, conquer, and exploit is leading us toward war, environmental disaster, poverty and immiseration.
Hey 100% on board with holding your elected officials accountable, more transparent. Public officials should also be held accountable to what they say, including any promises, there should be a searchable database which showcases what each member votes on, their expenses, received donations and event attendance/fund raising and 'promises'.
I agree, the amount is faint, but depends on what, and where in the country. Like the press freedom index, it is still better than most, it is amazing? no. Should it get better yes?
As to connecting the dots, the overall probabilities fail and cause websites like these to go mostly ignored. The whole MSM argument is silly when people now have access to whatever information they want. The generations of (the 70' 80' 90' 20+) have full power on what they consume, not the other way around.
So for sure, hold your elected officials and public corporations responsible for shareholders but also to ethicial, social and environmental well being to accord.
This may mean a bigger government, since you need controls in place to regulate and that is an issue with many people in your country. They don't want a bigger government. This is something perhaps you work to convince your peers of on a regular basis. The a bigger government is not always a bad thing. Good luck though.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 19:32 utc | 214
@ACTUAL EVENT: Democracy hijacked by Empire spreading democracy. Russia says "you can have Ukraine". Crimea votes to join Russia - great real estate. Empire angry at tactical loss, employ sanctions. Empire and Europe stuck with war ravaged, indebted country.
Yo you have be a bit delusional to call those elections. the only monitors where ironically far-right representatives of political parties. That Crimea thing was a joke.
And many people in Ukraine wanted to stop dealing with Russia, Ukraine is surrounded with countries doing better than it in PPP since forever, but they sucked badly. They related that sucking to being de-facto part of Russia. Now they have to make it on their own by their own choice. That is a big thing, being able to choose your path is important for people.
It was not just CNN, there are lots of resources, including democracynow which is probably the highlight of most 'alternative news'.
Personally, I obviously like Bellingcat, as by far the greatest use of citizen journalism out there. Excellent work in my opinion.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 19:36 utc | 215
Dutch reject EU-Ukraine treaty after Panama Papers
○ Dutch Referendum: Large Majority Opposes EU-Ukraine Treaty
@FunnyPeople
Your way of thinking means a race to the bottom. Which the exceptional! flattery makes appealing to you.
If you can't see that corporate MSM like Fox News, CNN, etc. are part of the problem then you are in deep denial.
Bellingcat has been debunked for slanted coverage. Naturally, a CNN and Fox News watcher wouldn't be aware of that.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
LOL. It's fun learning listening to the punch-drunk Kool-Aid drinkers sometimes. But it gets old real quick.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6 2016 19:52 utc | 217
FunnyPeople = boggled?
boggled = Elliot Higgins of Bellingcat?
You be the judge fellow MoA-ers! See boggled's comments and discussion of bellingcat here: ConsortiumNews: The MH-17 Propaganda War
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6 2016 20:02 utc | 218
Bellend-cat has been debunked for slanted coverage.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6, 2016 3:52:36 PM | 215
IIRC, ol Mr Bellend has been caught flat-out lying several times.
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 6 2016 20:06 utc | 219
@215
"If you can't see that corporate MSM like Fox News, CNN, etc. are part of the problem then you are in deep denial."
-> yeah they are a problem, so is RT, like actual bullshit. I am aware, hence why I group them together in nearly the same category as this 'alternative media' stuff. with a 'faint' difference as has been said.
This is why it is so important to have strong critical thinking implemented in education. The same process of critical thinking should be applied to all media, including media that conforms your biases.
"Your way of thinking means a race to the bottom. " I Agreed with your bro @209 - is the thinking incorrect?
Do you disagree that strong transparency is needed on elected officials and public corporations? I assume you agree, and I assume you agree that that requires a larger government role. Cause self-regulation is what people like soros want.
So if we agree, we should also agree that many people in your country oppose larger government. I am not sure what was the issue with a lot of the stuff I wrote on this page lol
Anything in the above you disagree with?
"Bellingcat has been debunked for slanted coverage. Naturally, a CNN and Fox News watcher wouldn't be aware of that." Dude CNN and fox is ridiculous outlets with less than 60% factual correctness, which is high in comparison to RT and 'alternative media' but still very fucking bad.
I haven't seen anything debunking bellingcat effectively. he has made a ton of posts, what has been debunked? his coverage was outstanding, I hope many others take on similar work.
Do you guys really that strong of hard-on for China and Russia style politics? like is there no cognitive dissonance that kicks in at all that says "yeah, their media aid government is a corruption shit hole, ->>> as bad if not worse than ours <<<<- so whatever they say I'll apply the exact same scepticism as I do with CNN and Fox and of course since I know that I am biased towards anti-US policy based material I will always remember to check my confirmation bias!"
Do you disagree?
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 20:14 utc | 220
I get it. There is a uniform theme here across much of alternative media.
If the narrative hits Russia (or any non-NWO type place), or in anyway conforms to US based 'generic' scripts. It is immediately discounted.
If it does not, you guys will find a meta way to connect the dots. but not in any evidence driven way, you will look to sources that conform to that single view point/theme cause the rest are already discounted.
To me that means a lack of critical thinking ability, or just confusion, like some kind of hard-wired switch that says 'never'. I am more flexible, everything can change, given new information.
You know, like science?
I will take away with me many comments from here for fun - like this one paraphrased - US's political parties are driven by corporate head masters, but China and Russia are complex systems which you cannot bring down to a few ppl!
I love that argument, thank you.
Smart :)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 20:23 utc | 221
Do you guys really that strong of hard-on for China and Russia style politics?
For MoA, it would seem is probably not in what Russia and China do - its what they dont do.
It's a human thing, and so your struggle today.
The repeated invasion and bloodshed on the back of lies. Russia and China are not beautiful snowflakes - I dont believe anyone hear preaches so. They are simply not practicing military intimidation in someone elses backyard, mostly uninvited, on a global scale.
To the better part of humankind, the politics without the bloodshed is preferable.
Posted by: MadMax2 | Apr 6 2016 20:32 utc | 222
FunnyPeople says:
...you know russians call US pussies cause they don't know how to just go in and kill everyone, they just wet their toes
yeah, have another drink, bro...
'cause for sure the evolution of more resilient postulates will have to endure not only raw power and brute force for a good while yet to come, but also an incessant deluge of idiocy from asshats like you.
Posted by: john | Apr 6 2016 20:34 utc | 223
"haven't seen anything debunking bellingcat effectively. he has made a ton of posts, what has been debunked?
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6, 2016 4:14:07 PM | 218
well it only took me 10 seconds to find this
Media's Beloved "Expert" Eliot Higgins - Wrong Again And Again And Again
Eliot Higgins aka Brown Moses, the founder of Bellingcat "by and for citizen investigative journalists", is beloved by NATO media. Higgins is always able to "prove" by amateur "analysis" of open source data that the "bad guys", just as the U.S. or NATO claim, did indeed do the bad thing that happened.The problem is that Higgins is no expert of anything. He was an unemployed office worker who looked at Youtube videos from Syria and tried Internet searches to find out what weapons were visible in the videos. That is all that made him an "expert".
But Higgins claimed to prove that the Syrian government launched rockets with Sarin on Ghouta, an area south of Damascus. An MIT professor and real expert proved (pdf) that he was wrong.
and then there's this
The tragi-comedy that is “Brown Moses”
But when Eliot tries to venture beyond this things only get worse. Remember his claims to have “proved” the Russians photoshopped their satellite pics?The MSM are blurry on details of how he did this, because they are so damning to his and their credibility, and try to market his findings as marvellous but unspecified techy-magic.
But the cringe-making truth is Eliot just pasted the Russian satellite pics into FotoForensics.com and pressed “upload”. You can go there and do the same thing yourself right now if you want. It’s an open site for kids and nerds and ‘conspiracy-theorists’ to play on.And even then Eliot got his shit so wrong the guy who runs the site described his results on Twitter as “how to not do image analysis.”
How not to do image analysis" founder of#FotoForensics says about @bellingcat's "Russian fake" satellite images. https://t.co/jJZFfwai6k — TruthSeeker (@phil4truth) June 2, 2015
\\\\\\\\\
So an MIT guy actually expert in this stuff says BellingCat is a bellend, and the Image Forensics guy that wrote the software BellingCat used when peddling his lies also says Belling Cat is a bit of a retard as well as being a verifiable Bellend.
what more needs to be said?
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 6 2016 20:39 utc | 224
jackrabbit - how much are you going to energy are you going waste on fp?
Posted by: james | Apr 6 2016 20:39 utc | 225
"To the better part of humankind, the politics without the bloodshed is preferable." ahh, ok so political corruption, and press freedom is whatever.
Is there a timeline limit to the qualification? Like I assume you are rolling with post WWII to now. but not Stalin deaths.
So what you are saying, is that on a relative scale of murder, USA is number one. Which is why not matter what else, regardless of topic, timeline, government in power etc., you will hold Russia or China to higher regard.
Is this correct?
@222 Thank for the MIT link, it looks legitimate (not the MoA post lol, or the 'off guardian'/twitter handle) but I am sure that if one MIT professor disagrees there will be more evidence, so thanks. I will research into it.
One piece of possibly quality evidence is better than none! :)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 20:54 utc | 226
The twitter links direct to Dr Neal Krawitz twitter account, w
He wrote the image forensics software, and he too declares Elliot Higgins to be a complete bellend.
So the verdict is in- Elliot Higgins is a liar and an incompetent
As are you, most likely
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 6 2016 20:58 utc | 227
@james
Done. Clearly a troll.
>> Don't feed the troll! <<
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6 2016 21:00 utc | 228
So this guy -> Subrata Ghoshroy works for MIT (this item below was taken from mintpressnews - one of you buddie sites
"I also question the branding of the Postol/Lloyd study as an “MIT Report.” It is purely an analysis by one or two individuals, not an official MIT report to my knowledge. In order for a document to carry the imprimatur of a world-class institution like MIT, it has to go through many reviews. The analysis regardless of its merit was not published in any scientific journal, which would have required peer review. My analysis is posted on the MIT website http://bit.ly/1iUfWfW, but is not endorsed by MIT one way or another. It is not peer reviewed either. Not an MIT report."
So this report, while nice, is apparently not very good evidence.
Here Subrata's analysis (he doesn't give Elliot any benefit of the doubt either)
http://web.mit.edu/sts/Analysis%20of%20the%20UN%20Report%20on%20Syria%20CW.pdf
(at least the thing is on actual MIT site lol).
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 21:06 utc | 229
Nobody ever said it was an "MIT Report" - it was clearly stated to be a report by an MIT prof.
You just made that bit up so that you might look a little less incompetent. But you failed.
And as for "peer review"?
Sorry, but thats just retarded, it's a report, it does not require any "peer review", and only a retard would claim it does.
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 6 2016 21:15 utc | 230
So just to sum up
MIT guy declares "Elliot Higgins is a Bellend"
And Image Forensics Guy delares "Elliot Higgins is incompetent"
So there we have it, Elliot Higgins is an incompetent Bellend.
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 6 2016 21:22 utc | 231
MIT guy declares "Elliot Higgins is a Bellend"
- MoA articles says 'proves', clearly this is an analysis which may or may prove anything. It is but one such analysis whereas Subrata Ghoshroy and many others differ. Assign probabilities, calculate.
And Image Forensics Guy delares "Elliot Higgins is incompetent"
- possible, but many image forensics 'guys' have agreed with Elliot
So there we have it, Elliot Higgins is an incompetent Bellend. -> if this is how you prove or disprove something than you must equally take opposing weak evidence to disprove most of the stuff that is written in this blog.
But you don't. You consider certain things 'strong evidence' (which I don't get the merit) and opposing views 'weak merits'.
I get that you guys don't like any of the analysis out of bellingcat, RT doesn't either.
Either way, no confirmed my understanding of the need to add transparency, the agreement that this will grow government, and the agreement that big government inst bad (look at Russia, as one of you agreed, a government driven life is better than a corporate driven life).
So the next step, is to convince your peers in the real world to support larger government type initiatives such as regulations that increase public servant transparency requirements (basically vote Bernie).
Is this incorrect?
Also is it incorrect to assume the following: "So what you are saying, is that on a relative scale of murder, USA is number one. Which is why not matter what else, regardless of topic, timeline, government in power etc., you will hold Russia or China to higher regard."
Anyone disagrees with above statement?
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 21:44 utc | 232
Fresh of wikileaks - you guys like those right?
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717810984673484800
Claims that #PanamaPapers themselves are a 'plot' against Russia are nonsense. However hoarding, DC organization & USAID money tilt coverage
Still the probably that the US itself, listed as what a top 3 destination for tax evasion does enter your mind as a reason for lack of US names?
I urge you all to talk to your colleagues in the real world, and push for increased transparency, regulation, oversight and controls on both public servants and public companies. They should be accountable to the public, they should be held to the highest standards.
Anyone disagrees?
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 21:57 utc | 233
@192 jr
I haven't been following the Panama Papers as closely as I 'should'. It looks to me that some 'source' is said to have delivered some 2.6tb of data to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which then delivered same to ICIJ, which then did an analysis and indexing operation on same, and then provided a lot of reporters at a lot of papers a front-end to access their index and analysis? That no one but ICIJ - their 'experts' actually - has meaningful access to the raw data? Is that right?
Panama? Forget the reporter collective -- Who built the database?, as this post tries to point out. Is that the case?
Posted by: jfl | Apr 6 2016 22:17 utc | 234
"And Image Forensics Guy delares "Elliot Higgins is incompetent"- possible, "
Image Forensics guy wrote the software Higgins used, so Image Forensics guys opinion carries a lot of weight.
"but many image forensics 'guys' have agreed with Elliot"
Many image forensics guys, who you dont name cos you just made them up, didnt write the SW the incompetent Higgins used, and therefore the imaginary opinions of these imaginary image forensics guys you just invented, carry no weight whatsoever.
So Dr Neal Krawitz opinion is very strong evidence that Higgins is completely incompetent, given that he wrote the SW Higgins failed to use correctly, and your little obfuscatory shenanigans are strong evidence that you are, like Higgins, a bit of a bellend
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 6 2016 22:23 utc | 235
Troll Behavior 101:
1) Claim you accidentally stumbled upon this blog from some link somewhere else.
2) Demean the blog using standard strawman argument: Your stupid little blog isn't going to change the world.
3) Proceed to spend all day on stupid little blog you are unfamiliar with suddenly knowing the blogs positions and allies, and consuming all the oxygen through innumerable posts and shape-shiftng hypotheticals thereby effectively hijacking the thread and ending the previous discussion.
Posted by: Malooga | Apr 6 2016 23:49 utc | 236
@193 h,
I found the sentiment posted in the stream. Here goes it.
Posted by: Shadow Nine | Apr 7 2016 0:13 utc | 237
@234 Malooga
It's happened so many times before. Folks still engage and abet them though.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 7 2016 0:16 utc | 238
Malooga 234
troll 101
[4]
very thick hide.
this creep is hardcore.
Posted by: denk | Apr 7 2016 0:34 utc | 239
Malooga, jfl, denk
IMO this troll is part of a coordinated effort to legitimize the leak.
The threat of legal action could terminate additional releases (see my comment @198) - especially if jfl @232 is correct that ICIJ controls the searchable database. The trolls would need to discredit those that have criticized the leak before legal action is taken. The ol' "no one could've know / no one could've predicted ...".
Engaging this troll produced interesting info that could help in determining the truth of a coordinateed effort. The troll's support for/link to Bellingcat (see my comment @216) is very also very interesting.
Also noteworthy is Obama's remarks regarding the leak. As noted by ZeroHedge, he looked foolish in his scolding when the US is now considered a top destination for this activity. Obama and his handlers try hard to avoid looking foolish. His handlers didn't bark?
While Obama's defense of the leak is foolish, the leak itself is just like Obama. His real motto should really be: Do stupid shit - but be sure to cover your tracks.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Please take note of other ardent defenders of the leak at other blogs/websites that you visit especially using similar arguments (attacking validity/logic of the site). We can compare notes later.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 7 2016 2:12 utc | 240
Jackrabbit 238
also troll 101
[5]
i notice many empire apologists like to use this standard line
*no doubt usa has its *problems* [1], u think china/russia any better ?
well i GREW UP/CAME FROM THERE, they'r just as bad MAY BE WORSE.
[1]
a slap on the wrist, almost like an afterthought.
Posted by: denk | Apr 7 2016 2:34 utc | 241
Troll Behavior 101:
1) Claim you accidentally stumbled upon this blog from some link somewhere else.
literally cause a post was made on reddit live thread from globalresearch.ca which linked here. ive looked into globalresearch, thats why i mentioned the trippy ottawa prof who runs it.
2) Demean the blog using standard strawman argument: Your stupid little blog isn't going to change the world.
I said I wish it did, but so far since 9/11 none of similar type blogs came up with much. maybe you will. I hope you do. it appears that the 'opposite' side does produce stronger argument thus far.
3) Proceed to spend all day on stupid little blog you are unfamiliar with suddenly knowing the blogs positions and allies, and consuming all the oxygen through innumerable posts and shape-shiftng hypotheticals thereby effectively hijacking the thread and ending the previous discussion.
the blog is similar to a host of other online media (wikispooks anyone). this isn't the first time i went to read this type of stuff. ive had friends who would stumble of these things since 1996 and come up with these amazing ideas. then when we went to explore we found them to be more or less baseless.
I dont care to legitimize the leak for you. clearly based on results, things are for real. I do find it amusing you guys defend russia and china so much but i get it, no one said it but you all place the previous actions of various us admins in global killing as a preset the overrides everything else, regardless if events are independent or unrelated - you 'connect the dots'.
Your only argument is the lack of US names and the assertion as per usual theme is 'US/Soros manipulation/selective targeted release'
Which could be correct, I am not denying such a thing. it just requires evidence. On the other hand you have evidence that the US in itself is a major tax haven, including several states.
You may say - well that's not strong enough evidence to disprove my claim. but your claim isn't up for disproving. it hasn't been proven. lol
So when comparing evidence a) a complex ploy by certain group or b) simple answer, to me simple wins every time. you know Occam's razor and stuff.
But you guys keep on trucking, maybe you'll find something. Either way, no one has gone - yeah bro we gonna hold our elected reps accountable. and although you all like the Russian big gov, no one has agreed that a bigger government is needed to implement stronger controls on both elected and public corporations.
This is a big deal. Each and everyone of you, I hope in your daily lives, doesn't just talk about conspiracy theories, but plays the game at least to convince others to hold your ppl accountable and make sure to vote for a stronger government.
That is all :)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 7 2016 2:34 utc | 242
i notice many empire apologists like to use this standard line
*no doubt usa has its *problems* [1], u think china/russia any better ?
well i GREW UP/CAME FROM THERE, they'r just as bad MAY BE WORSE.
But yeah i was born in the USSR, and dude the place is a shithole still, both russia and ukraine, throw in belarus all the 'stans', moldova in there also. it is a shit show. ask some ppl from russia, especially if they had to run a business how fun 'inspections were'.
I've been back, some places are nice in the summer, sometimes people even smile. I've been to places in the US which SUUUUUUUCK (Cleveland, buffalo, downtown LA), most ppl are just at chill at canadians. overall standard of life is higher then china or russia lol. things are ok. not for everyone. I'm a white guy, things are pretty much always ok for me lol.
yeah US administration made some insane decisions, lied to you, continues to lie to you. and that is bad. and gain, you should all fucking standup and hold your elected officials to a higher standard. there is no argument there.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 7 2016 2:39 utc | 243
Boom shakalaka ->>> @PanamaPapers_ ->>> "Hillary Clinton's campaign chief linked to Russian bank listed in #PanamaPapers"
For the record, im obv pro bernie sanders. hillary is useless, status quo, Trump is an opportunist to the full extent, and Cruz is probably mentally challenged. Paul ryan is an opportunist too but he is at least more less the normal kind, like a hillary for the other side.
Bernie has done pretty much everything right his whole time in gov. I like Elizabeth warren also.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 7 2016 3:02 utc | 244
Troll behaviour 101
6) Completely ignore the fact that 1 by 1 your claims and trolling attempts are demonstrated to be nothing more than lies, and just shrug it off and move on to the next lie on your list
But stay chirpy throughout cos you are nothing if not a chipper little troll, only ever interested in turning your little troll frowns upside down
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 7 2016 3:07 utc | 245
seriously AllSystemGo - you don't agree with holding elected officials accountable, in a higher regard to transparency? or claims require evidence? or clearly this hack/leak whatever it is, even if completely and utterly biased to US interests has some great stuff in it?
Seriously? do you not like to see hillary get taken down by this? I hope so, also trump, screw em both.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 7 2016 3:11 utc | 246
241
But you are lying to us too, so we should all prolly standup and tell you to fuck off
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 7 2016 3:11 utc | 247
"but many image forensics 'guys' have agreed with Elliot"
Who?
Name names
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 7 2016 3:15 utc | 248
I think I'm obviously irrelevant to your plight. I just want to people like yourselves who are generally skeptical of everything (except Russia or your own biases) to actually go and create action.
If you like controls, get the right people elected who will bring controls and accountability. Is this not a normal thing to want?
Is it not normal to assess multiple arguments and assign a probability to each based on quality of source, logical deductive reasoning of information, testing across multiple non-homogeneous sources, without arriving to conclusion?
Am I delusional?
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 7 2016 3:17 utc | 249
Is linking "Hillary Clinton's campaign chief linked to Russian bank listed in #PanamaPapers" not friking awesome?
What am I missing??
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 7 2016 3:18 utc | 250
248
Your arguments have been tested and found to be the arguments of either a total retard, or a scripted bot.
Posted by: AllSystemsGo | Apr 7 2016 3:23 utc | 251
I wish you the best AllSystemsGo, keep on fighting the good fight, preferably by voting for a stronger, more accountable government.
:)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 7 2016 3:23 utc | 252
Dutch Snub EU in Referendum Hailed From 'Brexit' Camp to Le Pen |Dutch voters rejected a treaty between the European Union and Ukraine by a margin of nearly two to one, in a referendum that exposed the extent of anti-EU sentiment in one of the bloc’s founding members.
The Dutch government said it may have to reconsider ratifying a treaty on closer European Union ties with Ukraine after a vast majority of voters rejected the agreement in a non-binding referendum.
I've just searched this thread thread for the word Trillion and found it here...
3. According to various reports, including one by Tax Justice Network, the U.S. is one of the country's mainly responsible for tax evasion of huge corporations and multinationals, which along with U.S.-backed dictators and high-level politicians, have up to US$32 trillion hidden in tax havens.
4. Many of the roots of the current global economic crisis can be traced back to offshore financial centers located in offshore tax havens.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 4, 2016 8:13:06 PM | 98
If there was ever any doubt that greedy rich people (for whom too much money could never be enough) collect money for the sole purpose of ensuring that there's not enough for everyone else, that's it.
Q.E.D.
End of story.
And even here, on a dedicated thread, hardly anyone thinks the implications are worth pondering.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 7 2016 4:34 utc | 255
Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 5, 2016 5:42:57 AM | 119
that smear on Syria and Assad is as if they had begun their video with an antisemitic diatribe...which in effect it is. Panama papers hardly features syria all, just sode individuals..so why begin and go on with the war on syria?
This is what id expect from USAID institution...as for western journalists: theyve been demonsing president Assad for years
Posted by: brian | Apr 7 2016 12:02 utc | 256
who knows better
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 31m31 minutes ago
RT @lorenzoae Shady vid from obvious op ICIJ opens w/ cartoon & scary voiceover about "Assad's barrel bombs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6XnH_OnpO0 …
Posted by: brian | Apr 7 2016 12:40 utc | 257
One should remember that in Iceland, one of the isolated western targets of the opening MSM salvo, that The Pirate Party had already gained a lot of support prior to their PM resigning - The Panama Papers simply hastened the movement.
And, unlike other western countries, movements of the people are a lot more advanced simply due to the correct decisions made in 2009. (ironically a time when financial/political proceedings in Iceland should have been getting more MSM but did not). Icelandic people were not as blissfully unaware of the mechanics of the 2008 GFC as the rest of Europe, and so, the agendas of The Pirate Party are real and modern. And the locals are a good bit more angry than 2009 by the looks too.
To the optimist, you could hope that The Panana Papers could spark off events in other parts of Europe and help in part attempt to make good on the mistake of allowing the public to collectively take on 30years worth of debt created by the type of financial cowboys who like to to channel funds outside their country of residence - placing the squeeze on everyone else in society.
But, I am not that hopeful. Even though governments and their respective departments of public prosecutions should increase their workforce and go about debt collecting along each and every name implicated since the GFC.
Posted by: MadMax2 | Apr 7 2016 13:12 utc | 259
Re: 260
OT, but not:
Both Jeb Bush and Kasich were paid Lehman Bros.consultants. Coincidentally, State Worker Pension Funds parked at Lehman - from both Florida and Ohio - went up in smoke.
What do you suppose Carlos Slim (among world's top 5 richest persons) did after refusing JEB's plea to bail out Lehman Bros. before it crashed?
Posted by: fastfreddy | Apr 7 2016 13:30 utc | 260
The problem with propaganda stories is they can turn reality on its head.
The supporters of US terrorism in Iraq, know well that ISIS is of Iraqi origin and invaded Syria in 2011 to the satisfaction of the USA which saw an Islamic insurgency group battle the Syrian army, in accordance with the US goal of "regime change".
When the ISIS returned to Iraq in 2014, its homeland, to prop up Sunni insurgency there, threatening US interests and the Shia puppet regime of Bagdad, the US launched attacks on its positions in Iraq first and in Syria as well.
Only the clueless supporters of US terrorism like this website can turn the ISIS story upside down to suit their covert support of US terrorism in the region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rock solid blog post by David Malone, and the comments section, like at MoA are worth a look too.
Panama partners in crime
By Golem XIV on April 5, 2016 in latest
“We have broken no laws and cooperated with the government at all times.”
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2016/04/panama-partners-in-crime/#comments
Posted by: MadMax2 | Apr 8 2016 10:35 utc | 263
@100
My take also - Cameron's punishment for not toeing the US Empire's policies. It serves as a warning to others contemplating more independent actions also.
Interesting take on an article below suggesting that the Panama Papers were deigned to smear the "enemies" of the Empire (naturally Putin etc etc) but backfired when some cronies of the US Empire were exposed in the process.
US State Department admits paying journalists to hack and expose the Panama Papers - see web site below
http://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&idioma=2&id=4770781&Itemid=1
Posted by: curious | Apr 8 2016 17:49 utc | 264
Here is an example of why ‘alternative news’ sites get no credit.
Let’s start with the proposition that anything ‘non-alternative’ i.e. leaning ‘west’ is ‘bought’, ‘propaganda’ or simply ‘lies’.
Then let’s take this piece of information: http://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&idioma=2&id=4770781&Itemid=1
Let’s examine the piece of information on its quality merits. Quality merits would be things like supporting evidence, simple premises and conclusions.
This information appears to immediately fail the supporting evidence test, as nothing is linked. For example: “The spokesman of the U.S. State Department, Mark Toner, admitted that Washington financed journalists who hacked computers of a lawfirm and put on the show called Panama Papers”
Such a strong statement should be linked to the supporting evidence, the best kind being the full statement itself, on the US state department website.
a) I could not find the corresponding statement on the www.state.gov › ... › Daily Press Briefings . Maybe someone else can, please post it if you find it.
b) I could also not find the statement corresponding to “Toner argued financing came through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)”.
Again, if you find the source, please post.
So at it currently stands (and open for change if someone posts the source), the above premise is very weak as it is not supported properly. Again, we are still working with the original premise that all ‘western’ news are ‘lies’.
Next there is a discussion about ‘long negative history in latin America’, however again, no supporting evidence is linked. This also very weak.
Imagine someone said that in a court of law – it would be inadmissible.
c) Next statement “United States for their ideological campaigns against progressive political leaders and social destabilization.” This is statement provides a premise that impacted leaders are ‘progressive’. Iceland, Britain and perhaps Ukraine (one day?), but Argentina, Russia, China, Syria, Saudis, or even? I am not sure, outside of pure cognitive dissonance how that is possible to assign progressive values to those. Generally this seems like a very speculative statement at best (which is ok, the title of the article is ‘and related speculations’).
However, after providing what appears to be very weak evidence, the writer decides to conclusively conclude:
a) “the panama papers are a both job and someone in the State Depart…” -> They may or may not be, but there is nothing in this write up that provide any evidence to make such a conclusion.
b) Another conclusion is made, this one is also common across ‘alternative news’, that the “supposed main objective…to tarnish Putin”. It may or may not be.
Logical questions should be asked: Was Putin’s image not already tarnished? Was anyone surprised to learn Russia, Saudi’s, or Azerbaijan hides money in tax shelters?
Skipping the US is a tax haven, which for all intensive purposes has been a fact for a while.
c) The article continues to list conclusions as if they were facts: 30 trillion dollars, reasons behind this leak, 30 families that control the financial capital of the world and some virtual coin video camera premise.
The key here is the way information is presented, it is very weak.
I am only sharing this because honestly, as there are real strong beliefs on the above subject matters, and people like yourselves want to really educate the masses (I think) instead of sort off “high-fiving” each other in the community, a higher level of quality is needed.
Otherwise, this information continues to be, for the most part be ridiculed as somewhere between non-sense and poor quality work.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 8 2016 20:34 utc | 265
...
iceland got a beating also, for daring to put some bankers in jail.
...
Posted by: frin | Apr 4, 2016 9:34:17 AM | 37
As I said at the time ... Bullseye!
According to Zero Hedge, via Xymphora, Banksters locked up by Iceland have been released from prison. Iceland was the only country which convicted Bankers. So this makes the GFC score Banksters +100 / Decent Society -0.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 8 2016 21:26 utc | 266
266
I take it no one is bothering to read the crap posted by that utter wanker FP @ 266
Posted by: Makem | Apr 8 2016 21:51 utc | 267
@268 He's interesting to read for his inconsistency. Apparently the allegations about US involvemenmt in the leak are based on weak evidence but the allegations about Putin's hidden billions are rock solid.
Posted by: dh | Apr 8 2016 23:19 utc | 268
This would have to be the 'scenario' of the year ...
"Was The Panama Papers 'Leak' A Russian Intelligence Operation?"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-08/was-panama-papers-leak-russian-intelligence-operation
If the thesis is not true for the past, then one can be very sure that all eyes are on the future potential.
It's not just Putin/Russia that would be VERY interested in the source material, but it has also highlighted the bounty hunter value of hacking legal firms -- mining "1% data" is the new digital gold rush!
Posted by: x | Apr 9 2016 1:17 utc | 269
x
my favorite 'crackpot' dr. has been perusing ZH lately. he has some interesting ideas on the subject.
Posted by: john | Apr 9 2016 14:31 utc | 270
@268 "He's interesting to read for his inconsistency. Apparently the allegations about US involvement in the leak are based on weak evidence but the allegations about Putin's hidden billions are rock solid."
Not necessarily. I don't think I concluded that so deeply, but combining available evidence does provide us some solid foundations.
For example: did the data provided appear to be real? How do we know? well we know that individuals and banks have been implicated have thus far either a) agreed on record, b) paid fines (sometimes really small useless fines like RBC bank in Canada), or further confirmations were provided such, the Lithuanian bank that confirmed the Russian accounts.
Additionally, you have some minor validation from wikieaks (see their twitter, they posted both sides) and Snowden.
So as it stands, the data integrity has been strong. No one has come out for example and said 'no, you are wrong, this never took place and it is a lie". Russia simply turned on their media mouthpiece and China censored theirs.
Again, the crux in the allegations of US involvement is the underlying complex ideas around media ownership, global players, global drivers and of course doing so under some nefarious purpose against a particular 'enemy'.
The evidence for such a complex intention is currently weak. This is not to say that such probability is non-existent it may very well turn out to be true. However, one should apply responsibility and critical thinking to not discount the other equality if not more predominate probabilities given the quality and efficacy of available evidence.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 9 2016 21:52 utc | 271
@271 What 'we' know is what we're told. The 'data' could be rubbish from start to finish for all 'we' know.
I don’t understand why somebody who sets so little store by so-called alternative media would waste so much time and effort educating us poor fools at MOA.
Posted by: dh | Apr 9 2016 23:37 utc | 272
@271 What 'we' know is what we're told. The 'data' could be rubbish from start to finish for all 'we' know.
Yes! Great point (actually, I am not being sarcastic).
Couldn't such a great statement also be applied to information coming from 'alternative media'?
What you are being 'told' can be evaluated. like a chemical solution or a piece of food. You are told something, like hey, here is this organic apple. You can accept that statement as a fact because it is coming from a place you may trust (or others), but it may not be fact.
You, each of you, is capable to conduct additional research (understanding fundamentals of information quality such source, relevance, comparability, timeliness, bias, etc.,) to be able to arrive to a more probabilistic *current* conclusion (based on available quality evidence).
Happy hunting :)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 10 2016 1:09 utc | 273
@ FunnyPeople | Apr 9, 2016 9:09:34 PM | 273
You really need a name people can relate to; seems fastfreddy is already taken, maybe Funny Fed would be suitable enough.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Does it seem curious, corporate media instantaneously levels accusatory aspersions upon Russian President Putin without the slightest basis, and yet, neglects to mention, let alone release information about a myriad others mentioned in an enormous number of legal files? Appearances are that the plan, if it is such, is to discredit first and reveal after interest is lost. Tis a cunning plan, if that. Certainly interesting times these.
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 10 2016 13:36 utc | 274
@274
Does it seem curious, corporate media instantaneously levels accusatory aspersions upon Russian President Putin without the slightest basis,
-> i think it is useful to split this line into two parts, part (a) being "instantaneously leveling accusations" and part (b) "without the slights basis"
(a) One perspective can of course be part of the controlled media, nefarious plan against the 'enemy'. This is a possibility, but is it the only logical possibility? Is there absolutely no other possible thing that could lead to such a media selection?
I think, with applying simple reasonability, you can arrive to additional possibilities.
(b) this is factually incorrect, there is clearly a 'link'. At the very least the link can be thought as strong if not stronger as any of the links you guys make to other conclusions US government involvement. Again, we apply simple reasonability and it certainly does not seem that there is 'zero' foundation to the claim.
and yet, neglects to mention, let alone release information about a myriad others mentioned in an enormous number of legal files?
-> another statement, but before we launch to a conclusion, can we not arrive to at least 2, or maybe even a dozen of possibilities?
Appearances are that the plan, if it is such, is to discredit first and reveal after interest is lost.
-> Perhaps, this claim is an opinion, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with having an opinion. So certainly, it may be this way.
Tis a cunning plan, if that. Certainly interesting times these.
-> if it is a plan at all, maybe it is just chaos, just fucking random people doing random fucking shit and we as a human animal create these elaborate complex connections to try and explain something within the prism of our internal understanding our world.
Maybe?
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 11 2016 2:52 utc | 275
@274 ftb - 'wanker' would be a better pseudonym for fp..
Posted by: james | Apr 11 2016 3:27 utc | 276
|@ james | Apr 10, 2016 11:27:43 PM | 276
Disagree, 'wanker' is far too good a tag to use on such commentators. 'Wanker' can be far too many attributes for the likes of your designated object; fiction provides far better generic handle - 'Borg'. By now perceptive reader has easily concluded that your 'Borg' is exceedingly orthodox in their opinions, to the extent that no one else is allowed to differ from their orthodox catechism in the slightest. Furthermore this 'Borg' is in possession of a preconceived list of talking points with which to cut and paste their point of view for all occasions. Note how the 'Borg' disassembled my contribution and reassembled it into a straw-man, not having any resemblance to the original, which they could attack. No, 'wanker' is too versatile a word to use as a handle. That is why I had suggested Fed, as in the national bank, the citadel of economic orthodoxy where like the 'Borg', they have all the answers and have left no answer for anyone else to have. The heterodox are not allowed tickets to their party, everyone else have been allowed voice in "free speech zones", far from where they will be heard by the exceptional elect. 'Funny Fed', the handle, has the kind of gravitas the fool deserves, and the signal that elision is required. I do it to Penelope all the time.
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 11 2016 9:40 utc | 277
@277 ftb - okay, i see what you are saying! @278 oed wins the name prize!
Posted by: james | Apr 11 2016 15:45 utc | 279
Lol, "'Borg', they have all the answers and have left no answer for anyone else to have"
-> By asking if there are other reasonable possibilities to be noted outside of the one you so passionately want to follow? It appears that I have not suggest any answers, only the tools to properly assess alternatives.
I mean guys and gals, I am sure you are all awesome and smart, but it seems like you made up your mind completely and project that feeling on to me.
I don't have the answer, and I suggest that neither do you, unless you feel like your answer is the only one possible.
There is no need to assume that just because I am applying critical thinking to your suggest alternative that none is being applied to the other side.
Confirmation bias is a powerful little bugger and is always on my mind for things I agree with.
:)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 11 2016 17:15 utc | 280
Why is Ecuador's President Demanding the Release of all the Panama Papers?
"We must make a global campaign to release ALL the 'Panama Papers," Correa tweeted Monday night.Marina Walker, coordinator of research ICIJ said that "all the names" would be published in early May. [1]
Days later, ICIJ director Gerard Ryle told Wired that they have no plans to release the entire Mossack Fonseca database. [2]
However only a small portion of the 11.5 million documents – 2.6 terabytes worth of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database – have been released, and only certain publications have been able to access the documents.
"Now it's up to the citizens: let's demand all the information. The 'selective' fight against corruption is just ... more corruption!" Correa concluded.
Where did "all the names" come from? Did the ICIJ read all 11.5 million docs, analysing, discussing, making notes, as they went - and then populate the database with the results of their analysis that 'only certain publications have been able to access'?
Of course not. The NSA/ICIJ/Google? crafted computerized search algorithms to populate their database, then handcrafted the queries, which 'only certain publications' have been allowed to use, to produce "all the names".
The raw data has been cooked twice. Whatever's released in May - if anything - will be selected data, whether it's leftovers from the first or second sitting.
So what they've done is real ... a 'real fraud'. And their publications/allegations based upon their 'real fraud' are a 'real hoax'.
The key is sincerity, once you can fake that, you've got it made.
[1] The People and Tech Behind the Panama Papers "The plan is that we’re actually going to keep reporting—some partners are publishing for almost two weeks for sure. Then in early May we’re going to release all the names connected to more than 200,000 offshore companies ... But we’re not going to release all 11.5 million files, we’re going to release the structured data, which is the internal Mossack Fonseca database."
[2] Man behind Panama leaks a mystery 'Interestingly, ICIJ director Ryle says that the media organisations have no plans to release the full dataset, WikiLeaks-style, which he argues would expose the sensitive information of innocent private individuals.
"We're not WikiLeaks. We're trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly," Ryle says.
However, Wikileaks, which did not like being characterised as conducting "irresponsible" journalism, accused the ICIJ of being a "Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge" which "has a WikiLeaks problem". '
Posted by: jfl | Apr 12 2016 3:54 utc | 281
Why is Ecuador's President Demanding the Release of all the Panama Papers?
"We must make a global campaign to release ALL the 'Panama Papers," Correa tweeted Monday night.Marina Walker, coordinator of research ICIJ said that "all the names" would be published in early May. [1]
Days later, ICIJ director Gerard Ryle told Wired that they have no plans to release the entire Mossack Fonseca database. [2]
However only a small portion of the 11.5 million documents – 2.6 terabytes worth of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database – have been released, and only certain publications have been able to access the documents.
"Now it's up to the citizens: let's demand all the information. The 'selective' fight against corruption is just ... more corruption!" Correa concluded.
Where did "all the names" come from? Did the ICIJ read all 11.5 million docs, analysing, discussing, making notes, as they went - and then populate the database that 'only certain publications have been able to access'?
Of course not. The NSA/ICIJ/Google? crafted search algorithms run on computer to populate the database, then handcrafted the queries that 'only certain publications' have been allowed to use to produce "all the names".
The raw data is cooked twice. Whatever's realeased in May - if anything - will be selected data, whether it's leftovers from the first or second sitting.
So what they've done is real ... a 'real fraud'. And their publications/allegations based upon their 'real fraud' are a 'real hoax'.
The key is sincerity, once you can fake that, you've got it made.
[1] The People and Tech Behind the Panama Papers "The plan is that we’re actually going to keep reporting—some partners are publishing for almost two weeks for sure. Then in early May we’re going to release all the names connected to more than 200,000 offshore companies ... But we’re not going to release all 11.5 million files, we’re going to release the structured data, which is the internal Mossack Fonseca database."
[2] Man behind Panama leaks a mystery 'Interestingly, ICIJ director Ryle says that the media organisations have no plans to release the full dataset, WikiLeaks-style, which he argues would expose the sensitive information of innocent private individuals.
"We're not WikiLeaks. We're trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly," Ryle says.
However, Wikileaks, which did not like being characterised as conducting "irresponsible" journalism, accused the ICIJ of being a "Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge" which "has a WikiLeaks problem". '
Posted by: jfl | Apr 12 2016 4:06 utc | 282
@jfl
So what you are saying is that the data is a hoax, a fraud in itself. That is an interesting thought, but to give it credence, we would need evidence.
is there such evidence?
for example we have plenty of evidence that information that did leak, is in fact, very real. we know this because for the most part individuals implicated, admitted that it is true, or said that even thought it is true, they did nothing wrong.
You have the sort of 'linked' assertions, which I get why people aren't too happy about those (I am referring to 'friends' of putin) but in reality, it is not very mind-blowing to make that link.
As I mentioned before, making that link is at least as easy as linking Soros/CIA to this conspiracy.
The key is the 'selection'. Why only a 'certain' group is identified?
There is the problem, and that is the scope of this original post "selected-leak-of-the-panamapapers-creates-huge-blackmail-potential".
Here is where I keep saying that, although one alternative (and its offshoots) which is soros/cia/nefarious anti-'certain'-group, is just one of many alternatives.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 12 2016 18:45 utc | 283
For your consideration:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/trolls-trampling-political-discourse-abuse
""Political debate, a crucial element of any democracy, is becoming ever more poisoned. Social media has helped to democratise the political discourse, forcing journalists – who would otherwise simply dispense their alleged wisdom from on high – to face scrutiny. Some take it badly. They are used to being slapped affectionately on the back by fellow inhabitants of the media bubble for their latest eloquent defence of the status quo. To have their groupthink challenged by the great unwashed is an irritation.""
Since when does any commentator here OWE Funny Fart (exhibit above) an explanation? Is this troll so inept as to be incapable of reading? and the critical thinking to respond without creating self-serving straw-men? This is typical of the techniques used at Ruff's favourite Bordello to silence dissenting positions - it is here now and the site will suffer for hosting such behaviour. At no point has Funny Fart produced a coherent contribution to the proceedings, rather attacks participants whose contributions make up the motley genius often found in the commentariat. Freedom of speech does not include falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre, neither does it include that what Funny Fart excretes.
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 13 2016 12:27 utc | 284
@284 ftb
I gotta think you're the only guy who's read more than one of his posts, Formerly.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 13 2016 13:18 utc | 285
@ 285 -jfl
I'm lazy, eliding so often takes energy. Life is too short to pay attention to let alone read shite.
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 13 2016 13:26 utc | 286
Thanks for reading Formerly,
I agree, I am speaking to the wrong audience :)
Someone earlier said that making russia into as a simple state is stupid (I am paraphrasing lol), because it is complex and stuff. Which is great, cause so is everything else really.
Putin recently apologized to that German newspaper, that was interesting.
Hey, I don't want to stop you guys from living out the dream of conspricacy theory formulations and deliverance.
I am simply here to point the following:
1) it is true, we live in the Truman show and you can do nothing about it
2) it is true, we live in the Truman show and you can do something about it
3) it is not true, and you are delusional
I can't tell you the answer, but I do know that regardless of (1) (2) or (3), if you go out there and live your life, be awesome, and be an active participant in real life human change, we will live in a better world (unless it is option 1, but at least it will be awesome to live awesomely no?)
Peace in the middle east you fine humans you.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 16 2016 7:36 utc | 287
The comments to this entry are closed.
> "Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland.
Some tiny country like Ukraine ...
You really have to bend over backwards to avoid reality at a site like this. Or believe the propaganda that Putin pays the author to peddle.
Posted by: falcone1204 | Apr 6 2016 17:04 utc | 201