The Panama Papers thread

McSack said:
Seriously Xarog. Where is the article discussing the issue ? I for one would really like to read another perspective on the matter if there is one
Click to expand...
www.RT.com

https://www.rt.com/news/338270-panama-papers-corruption-report/
https://www.rt.com/news/338335-peskov-panama-leak-putin/

I for one think if you are truly looking for more perspectives that Google would be a better friend to you than I.

Edit: Screw it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...nfidence-vote-following-panama-papers-scandal

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-connections-and-why-its-now-rothschilds-turn

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ancial-dealings-some-worlds-wealthiest-people

Need more?
 
Last edited:
My whiny objection :rolleyes: , im done conversing with you.
 
 
McSack said:
Ja ... fsk man! I was hoping Xarog and Unhappy would bggrrrorf and go and start a lovefest thread for just the two of them somewhere else :p
Click to expand...
Though, I do think it's important to question exactly how impartially the information has been presented.

I for one am curious to see the extent of the source of the leaks. It's not impossible, for example, that the leak was intentionally selective. Though how one should divine that while sifting through terabytes of data is anyone's guess.
 
Xarog said:
Though, I do think it's important to question exactly how impartially the information has been presented.

I for one am curious to see the extent of the source of the leaks. It's not impossible, for example, that the leak was intentionally selective. Though how one should divine that while sifting through terabytes of data is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
With the leak being 11million files or somewhere thereabouts I doubt the leak itself could be intentionally selective
I agree with you though in considering that the journalists involved could be presenting the findings in a way that suits a particular agenda. Not saying this is the case here because the ICIJ is not just one lone journalist (or even a small group of likeminded individuals)
I do reckon the Putin story is the one we are hearing about the most because he is the biggest fish in the barrel . I'm sure if the same kind of links could have been made to Obama then that story would have been much bigger

[quick ninja edit from me there. Hit "post" while I was still busy typing my response :o .... but i see the grumpy one has quoted my original in it's unedited version .... all good :) ]
 
Last edited:
McSack said:
With the leak being 11million files or somewhere thereabouts I doubt the leak itself could be intentionally selective
You are right though in considering that the journalists involved could be presenting the findings in a way that suits a particular agenda. Not saying this is the case here, but I reckon the Putin story is the one we are hearing about the most because he is the biggest fish in the barrel . I'm sure if the same kind of links could have been made to Obama then that story would have been much bigger
Click to expand...

Correct
 
McSack said:
With the leak being 11million files or somewhere thereabouts I doubt the leak itself could be intentionally selective
Click to expand...
Why not? That leak had to come from somewhere; why do you presume that the leaker didn't get that info precisely because of their own complicity?

You are right though in considering that the journalists involved could be presenting the findings in a way that suits a particular agenda. Not saying this is the case here because the ICIJ is not just one lone journalist (or even a small group of likeminded individuals)
I do reckon the Putin story is the one we are hearing about the most because he is the biggest fish in the barrel . I'm sure if the same kind of links could have been made to Obama then that story would have been much bigger

[quick ninja edit from me there. Hit "post" while I was still busy typing my response :o .... but i see the grumpy one has quoted my original in it's unedited version .... all good :) ]
Click to expand...
People tend to find what they go looking for. For all you know Obama's involvement will still come to light... ;)
 
Xarog said:
Why not? That leak had to come from somewhere; why do you presume that the leaker didn't get that info precisely because of their own complicity?
Click to expand...
I guess there is a slim chance of that. Very unlikely though IMHO
The 40 years' worth of data is there for anyone to explore now ... to selectively leak that amount of stuff would be a mammoth task and chances of getting caught out would be pretty high (who knows , maybe something like that will still come to light)
The leak/report is also a collaboration of a whole lot of investigative journalists who (on face value) appear to conform to ethical journalist standards (if such a thing exists)
Xarog said:
People tend to find what they go looking for. For all you know Obama's involvement will still come to light... ;)
Click to expand...
You really think there aren't any number of Obummer-bashers out there just waiting to pounce on something like that , and that we would hear about Iceland's prez's wife hiding taxpayers' ammo before the US prez ?
 
McSack said:
The 40 years' worth of data is there for anyone to explore now ... to selectively leak that amount of stuff would be a mammoth task and chances of getting caught out would be pretty high (who knows , maybe something like that will still come to light)
The leak/report is also a collaboration of a whole lot of investigative journalists who (on face value) appear to conform to ethical journalist standards (if such a thing exists)
Click to expand...
Why? How will they detect if things have been quietly snipped out?

By complicity, I mean someone who was actually laundering money or whatever. Such a person could easily delete the records they needed to get rid of before passing it on.

You really think there aren't any number of Obummer-bashers out there just waiting to pounce on something like that , and that we would hear about Iceland's prez's wife hiding ammo before the US prez ?
Click to expand...
Sure. What makes you think that every culprit is equally easy to find? I mean, if the allegations about Putin is true, then nothing was put directly in his name. If Obama did the same, you'd have to find his friends, not him. And that means you'd need to be looking for the right friends, no? If, on the other hand he was even more devious about it, well, let's just say I think instant judgements are premature here.

It took months for the US diplomatic cables to be processed. Not only is this leak is orders of magnitude larger, putting the proper pieces together is a far more arduous task in general.
 
Last edited:
Xarog said:
Why? How will they detect if things have been quietely snipped out?

.
Click to expand...
Never said it was impossible ... just unlikely. That is one helluva lot of data for an individual to redact.
You take stuff out, there will be references to it somewhere else that you will need to take out ... which will have still more references. Or there won't be any direct references and you will be chasing your tail around for ages trying to uncover them
Release the data to the world and all of a sudden you have millions of people digging through the stuff and spotting inconsistencies ... like I said , we may still see this happening
 
Xarog said:
Sure. What makes you think that every culprit is equally easy to find? I mean, if the allegations about Putin is true, then nothing was put directly in his name. If Obama did the same, you'd have to find his friends, not him. And that means you'd need to be looking for the right friends, no? If, on the other hand he was even more devious about it, well, let's just say I think instant judgements are premature here.

It took months for the US diplomatic cables to be processed. Not only is this leak is orders of magnitude larger, putting the proper pieces together is a far more arduous task in general.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but if there is another big fish implicated in this leak , then I would be very surprised that they haven't been discovered yet considering the amount of attention the data has already received world-wide
Could be we see a few more startling revelations ... will be interesting to see what else comes out of this
 
McSack said:
You really think there aren't any number of Obummer-bashers out there just waiting to pounce on something like that , and that we would hear about Iceland's prez's wife hiding taxpayers' ammo before the US prez ?
Click to expand...

The press involved are all / mostly from EU countries though and have greater motivation to highlight negative press of their enemies rather than their allies.

Russia as the old favourite nemesis and Iceland as the one nation willing to go against the grain and imprison bankers for the 2008 fraud are both such enemies.

I must admit I find it highly suspect that USA as a whole is not really mentioned, never mind Obama, but nobody at all from USA? Didn't read the article posted earlier here making that observation, but just reading all the "trusted" sources (e.g. BBC, The Guardian, Süddeutsche Zeitung) and couldn't find a single mention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X