Panama Papers Leak

fran17

InTheTrees wrote: »

So to review... conspiracy theorists think that a non-profit that may or may not have hired some ex-cia members fifty years ago, may have given some cash (dont know how much though) to an organisation that runs the ICIJ.

And that leads the Conspiracy Believers to conclude that the CIA can suppress the information in the leak?

How would that work exactly? CIA spooks approach the journalists from Le Monde or The Guardian and tell them "You mustn't implicate any Americans because we gave money to the Ford Foundation that gave money to the CPI that may have given money to the ICIJ."

Seriously?

The first,and probably most important,point your overlooking is that this was not a leak but a hack.You must remove this notion of a morally upstanding whistleblower from the equation.This was no Mark Felt,Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden here but a phantom source who remains anonymous and nothing is known about who he/she/they work for/with.It's just as plausible to conclude that this data was manipulated prior to journalistic involvement as not.
There is no confusion about the Ford Foundations funding of the ICIJ,it's stated on their website.

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A "link" exists between just about every organisation, corporation and government agency in the world

Not to sound too condescending here but unless this link can be furnished I would strongly suggest that yes it can be ignored.

To be frank, these "conspiracies" emerged two days after the leaks when naturally certain portions of the internet got pissed their favorite target (the US) wasn't implicated enough and engaged in the usual whataboutery.



They reported their findings in the press. Five world leaders and up to 40 heads of state directly/indirectly implicated, as well as hundreds/thousands of private individuals who may or may not be guilty of tax evasion, money laundering, etc - as well as their stated aim of putting world attention on the activities of offshoring and these tax havens

They haven't revealed the source (at his/her explicit request) They didn't leak the story before they were scheduled to. There is nothing to imply any of this is untrue or false (unless we have world leaders and ministers quitting and being put under pressure for no reason)

What valid reasons are there to question the integrity of their work?

Again I never questioned the validity of the data.However,by their own ommission,they now seem to be a discrepancy regarding their position and what they knew on the extent of US involvement in the papers.

InTheTrees

fran17 wrote: »

There is no confusion about the Ford Foundations funding of the ICIJ,it's stated on their website.

Yes, but you're spinning it hard arent you? You're ignoring all the other donors to the CPI and are proclaiming the Ford Foundation is "funding" the ICIJ.

Thats a bit of a stretch.

You're also ignoring the CIA link. They may have hired some ex-cia employees in the 1950's. Thats the only link.

Ford Foundation has assets of of $15billion and they donate to social and progressive causes. They are one of many donors to the CPI.

fran17

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes, but you're spinning it hard arent you? You're ignoring all the other donors to the CPI and are proclaiming the Ford Foundation is "funding" the ICIJ.

Thats a bit of a stretch.

You're also ignoring the CIA link. They may have hired some ex-cia employees in the 1950's. Thats the only link.

Ford Foundation has assets of of $15billion and they donate to social and progressive causes. They are one of many donors to the CPI.

But their still deemed a threat to India's national security in 2015.Long and short of it,this story could have been an excellent example of investigative journalism exposing all,but a number of factors and the ICIJ spin has left,I feel,question marks.
But I'm more than happy to see these sort of tax avoidance schemes exposed.

InTheTrees

fran17 wrote: »

But their still deemed a threat to India's national security in 2015.Long and short of it,this story could have been an excellent example of investigative journalism exposing all,but a number of factors and the ICIJ spin has left,I feel,question marks.
But I'm more than happy to see these sort of tax avoidance schemes exposed.

India's national security??

The Ford Foundation paid for schools and hospitals and the nationalist government considered it foreign influence and banned them along with 2000 other ngo's.

They also banned Greenpeace.

I'm not following how that points to CIA influence over the ICIJ?

fran17

InTheTrees wrote: »

India's national security??

The Ford Foundation paid for schools and hospitals and the nationalist government considered it foreign influence and banned them along with 2000 other ngo's.

They also banned Greenpeace.

I'm not following how that points to CIA influence over the ICIJ?

Yes,India's national security.It was placed on the watch list for,what the Indian authorities believed to be,illegally funnelling funds to an organisation named Sabrang.Sabrang is led by a man named Teesta Setalvad who is wishes to pursue and try prime minister Modi for alleged human rights abuses in 2002.
Sure the Ford Foundation aided the Indian state in the past,I'm not doubting that.As long as India,or any nation,is a third world country ploughing their fields with oxen they are not deemed to be a threat to US hegemony in the world and the state department/CIA act as such.But with the rise of the BRICS association they are well and truly in the crosshairs.Brazil now also finds itself in dire straits but that's for another thread.

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

As long as India,or any nation,is a third world country ploughing their fields with oxen they are not deemed to be a threat to US hegemony in the world and the state department/CIA act as such.

Just so I can understand this, the CIA uses an NGO to build several schools and education centers in a country with a population of over a billion people in order to keep that country "poor"?

But with the rise of the BRICS association they are well and truly in the crosshairs.Brazil now also finds itself in dire straits but that's for another thread.

Brazil finds itself in dire straits because of internal corruption. BRIC countries are being heavily courted by many nations because they represent large emerging markets that can be traded with, e.g. the large volume of trade between the US and China, upon which millions of jobs and livelihoods co-depend.

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just so I can understand this, the CIA uses an NGO to build several schools and education centers in a country with a population of over a billion people in order to keep that country "poor"?



Brazil finds itself in dire straits because of internal corruption. BRIC countries are being heavily courted by many nations because they represent large emerging markets that can be traded with, e.g. the large volume of trade between the US and China, upon which millions of jobs and livelihoods co-depend.

Well several schools are hardly going to enlighten 1.25 billion people now.And outside of the USA we spell it centres

Yes Brazil is without doubt corrupt to the core but what is happening is in essence a coup d'état,orchestrated from both within and from outside.President Rousseff fought,was captured and tortured,against the US backed dictators which resulted from the US supported 64 coup.US policy in central and south America,since the Cuban revolution,has been the toppling of left wing socialist governments by any and all means possible.This would explain why the leader of the house and Rousseff nemesis Eduardo Cunha met with republicans,state department and wall street officials immediately after impeachment begun.Coincidence?The neoliberals in Washington and wall street want Brazil and the likes of Exxon Mobil etc. want their pre salt deposits.
The BRICS would offer an alternative economic and political association to rival the unipolar state the world has found itself in for too long now and also would bypass the US dollar.That's why Washington opposes it.

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

The neoliberals in Washington and wall street want Brazil and the likes of Exxon Mobil etc. want their pre salt deposits.

It's "neocons".

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's "neocons".

No,I belive you may be confusing both.Apples and oranges really.

Billy86

fran17 wrote: »

No,I belive you may be confusing both.Apples and oranges really.

ne·o·con·serv·a·tive
ˌnēōkənˈsərvədiv/
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.

---

neoliberalism
Also found in: Thesaurus, Financial, Wikipedia.
ne·o·lib·er·al·ism (nē′ō-lĭb′ər-ə-lĭz′əm, -lĭb′rə-)
n.
A political theory of the late 1900s holding that personal liberty is maximized by limiting government interference in the operation of free markets.

Dohnjoe

fran17 wrote: »

No,I belive you may be confusing both.Apples and oranges really.

Yup, Chomsky and Rumsfeld, peas in a pod

fran17

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, Chomsky and Rumsfeld, peas in a pod

well in the context of Latin America including Brazil,where US policy has been to destabilise and overthrow all left wing socialist governments since the Cuban revolution and replace them with US friendly dictators in an attempt to remove sovereignty,impose austerity,deregulate and privatise the markets then I'm going to stick with neoliberalism.
The US even had a school for teaching this,step by step,it was the school of the Americas.It now resides in Georgia but begun in Panama.Panama,oh the irony.

Billy86

Scroll up for the actual dictionary definitions.

Dohnjoe

New dump of information for May 9th on 200,000 offshore companies

and it will be searchable