Dawn Leaks vs UK NSC Meeting Leak.

[FalconStar]

Now compare the response and the double standards of the Western Democracies.
When Dawn Leaks happened all of them rejoiced and everybody called it freedom of speech.
Now when they are faced with a similar situation, they are ready to investigate and prosecute the culprit who leaked this information.

All those Desi-libturds who keep quoting Western Media and their cronies and their so called press freedom will stay quite on this matter.

And as many people try to compare the recent statements of IK with Dawn Leaks should understand it was not what Nawaz Sharif or whoever said. The real crime was that they leaked classified information through dirty means and hence jeopardized National Security.
The culprits of Dawn Leaks should have been given exemplary punishment, but as usual we missed that train and let them walk free and then Shahid Khaqan did the exact same thing and this has set a very dangerous precedent.

Now see how BBC, the supposedly most free State owned news organisation is covering a very similar story.

Huawei 5G row: Government 'cannot exclude' criminal investigation

The government "cannot exclude" a criminal investigation into leaks from a meeting about using Huawei technology for the UK's 5G network.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright condemned the leaks from a National Security Council meeting to the Daily Telegraph, after ministers called for a "full and proper" investigation.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said if a minister was responsible "they should be sacked immediately".

NSC meetings are chaired by the PM.

The council is made up of senior cabinet ministers and meets weekly to discuss government objectives concerning national security - with other ministers, officials, and senior figures from the armed forces and intelligence invited when needed.

Former National Security Adviser Lord Ricketts told the BBC it was the first time anyone had committed a major leak from the NSC since its inception in 2010.

He said he was in favour of a full inquiry, possibly involving MI5 investigators, "to make the culprit feel very uncomfortable".

BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said he understood an inquiry was being carried out by the government into the leak.

Theresa May's official spokesman declined to confirm it, but said: "The prime minister is clear that the protection of information on matters of national security is of the highest importance."

Responding to an urgent question in the Commons from shadow cabinet office minister Jo Platt, Mr Wright said: "We cannot exclude the possibility of a criminal investigation here and everyone will want to take seriously that suggestion."

He said that security officials "need to feel they can give advice to ministers, which ministers will treat seriously and keep private, and if they do not feel that they will not give us that advice and government will be worse as a result".

Tory backbencher Mr Grieve said there had been "some posturing around on a whole range of issues" and members of his party "preparing themselves for leadership bids".

But he said some ministers had behaved "outrageously badly" due to the breakdown of collective responsibility in cabinet.

The members of the National Security Council include the prime minister, home secretary, foreign secretary, and defence secretary, among others.

What was the leak about?
Ministers were deciding whether or not to allow equipment from Huawei to be used to construct the new 5G data network - a decision that could have long-term consequences for national security.

There are fears that giving the Chinese company a key role could open the UK network to espionage.

But Huawei has denied there is any risk of spying or sabotage, or that it is controlled by the Chinese government.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Huawei would be allowed to help build the "non-core" parts of the UK's 5G network, such as antennas.

There has been no formal confirmation of Huawei's role in the 5G network and No 10 said a final decision would be made at the end of spring.

Why does the leak matter?
By BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner

The leak from Tuesday's National Security Committee meeting is both serious and unprecedented.

Lord Ricketts, a former National Security Adviser in David Cameron's government, confirmed there had never before been a "major, deliberate leak" immediately following an NSC meeting.

He is in favour of a formal investigation while others go further, calling for a criminal inquiry involving the police and MI5.

So, just why is it so serious?

Because the NSC is supposed to be the one place in Whitehall where highly sensitive secret intelligence can be openly shared with ministers.

Those present will have signed the Official Secrets Act, clearing them to handle secret intelligence.

Breaking that "circle of trust" risks undermining the work of Britain's three intelligence agencies - GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - potentially putting agents in danger.

Historically, leak inquiries rarely find the culprit, although in this case there may be an electronic trail that would expose the leaker.

What they will do, however, says Lord Ricketts, is to put the fear of God up the culprit, thereby discouraging them from ever doing it again.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-48051999

 

[criticalerror]

Dual standards of the west are a known fact. The biggest problem is when retards on our side use their propaganda as a source of validation . Nowhere in the world is a leak from any secure meeting tolerable. They are kept behind closed doors for a reason.National security trumps freedom of speech. Tell that to our wannabe libturds.

Dawn leaks was a fustercluck of the highest order and probably NS last ditch effort to appease the west while simultaneously maligning our military. The guy then has the gall to question his treatment in prison. He should’ve been hanged by now.

 

[nahtanbob]

Dual standards of the west are a known fact. The biggest problem is when retards on our side use their propaganda as a source of validation . Nowhere in the world is a leak from any secure meeting tolerable. They are kept behind closed doors for a reason.National security trumps freedom of speech. Tell that to our wannabe libturds.

Dawn leaks was a fustercluck of the highest order and probably NS last ditch effort to appease the west while simultaneously maligning our military. The guy then has the gall to question his treatment in prison. He should’ve been hanged by now.

The difference between UK and Pakistan is that in UK elected politicians not only decide policy and own the consequences of policies

 

[criticalerror]

The difference between UK and Pakistan is that in UK elected politicians not only decide policy and own the consequences of policies

There is no difference in the situation. You can’t leak classified meeting briefs , regardless of who is in charge.

Also i am yet to see Tony Blair own his mistake in Iraq. Mere acceptance without consequences does not mean anything.

 

[nahtanbob]

There is no difference in the situation. You can’t leak classified meeting briefs , regardless of who is in charge.

Also i am yet to see Tony Blair own his mistake in Iraq. Mere acceptance without consequences does not mean anything.

Who decides what is classified and what is sensitive ?

What is sensitive about this ?
"It all started when the Dawn journalist Cyril Almeida “broke confidential minutes” of a meeting among the government and military officials on ‘national action plan’ in which the civilians reportedly apprised the military of mounting international pressure of more action against armed groups."

The British NSC meeting deals with cryptography which has always been sensitive

Is Tony Blair in power ? You make it sound like he is responsible for Iraq War. He went along for the ride which was a stupid idea.

 

[criticalerror]

Who decides what is classified and what is sensitive ?

What is sensitive about this ?
"It all started when the Dawn journalist Cyril Almeida “broke confidential minutes” of a meeting among the government and military officials on ‘national action plan’ in which the civilians reportedly apprised the military of mounting international pressure of more action against armed groups."

The British NSC meeting deals with cryptography which has always been sensitive

Is Tony Blair in power ? You make it sound like he is responsible for Iraq War. He went along for the ride which was a stupid idea.

Classified is anything that discloses the internal workings of the security machinery. You don’t need to decide something that is very apparently sensitive. It was a meeting of Pakistani National Security Council. Need I explain more how sensitive such a meeting is in the context of us being a nuclear power as well.

As for what’s sensitive, that is a long debate. The gist of which is planting false news under the pretext that it was what was said in a meeting of Pakistan NSC. Coincidentally the very same news reinforced an Indian narrative. If that isn’t controversial and uncalled for, I don’t know what is.

I see no difference with British NSC. The subject matter is irrelevant.

I brought up Tony Blair when you brought up how UK politicians own their policies and their consequences. He wasn’t along for the ride. He was a fierce supporter of the war on WMDs in Iraq.

After all the destruction, they can simply get away with “Oh, I could’ve sworn there were WMDs here. Ah well , faulty intel. What can you do. I am sorry. Let’s move on”.

Yup. Owning the consequences.

 

[nahtanbob]

Classified is anything that discloses the internal workings of the security machinery. You don’t need to decide something that is very apparently sensitive. It was a meeting of Pakistani National Security Council. Need I explain more how sensitive such a meeting is in the context of us being a nuclear power as well.

As for what’s sensitive, that is a long debate. The gist of which is planting false news under the pretext that it was what was said in a meeting of Pakistan NSC. Coincidentally the very same news reinforced an Indian narrative. If that isn’t controversial and uncalled for, I don’t know what is.

I see no difference with British NSC. The subject matter is irrelevant.

I brought up Tony Blair when you brought up how UK politicians own their policies and their consequences. He wasn’t along for the ride. He was a fierce supporter of the war on WMDs in Iraq.

After all the destruction, they can simply get away with “Oh, I could’ve sworn there were WMDs here. Ah well , faulty intel. What can you do. I am sorry. Let’s move on”.

Yup. Owning the consequences.

you dodged the question: Was Blair responsible ? He was a sidekick for the whole war

Why is support for armed groups a sensitive matter ? After all isn't the position of Pakistani state/PDFers is that Pakistan does not support any such armed groups

As for the British meeting methods and sources of intelligence are always sensitive

 

[criticalerror]

you dodged the question: Was Blair responsible ? He was a sidekick for the whole war

Why is support for armed groups a sensitive matter ? After all isn't the position of Pakistani state/PDFers is that Pakistan does not support any such armed groups

As for the British meeting methods and sources of intelligence are always sensitive

That wasn’t the debate. It was whether they are in charge of their policies and “own the consequences “. My entire point revolves around this. Of course it was George “The Cowboy” Bush who was responsible. But Blair was equally complicit. And i have yet to see him or Bush bear the consequences.

Support for armed groups is not the issue. The issue is when you bring that to the public domain and openly support the narrative of an enemy country.

As an example, I would’ve loved to see anyone support the Russian narrative during the cold war, and live to tell the tale. You don’t think the US supports insurgents and armed groups around the world. Do you see anyone blaring about it? This is always classified and related to national security.

As for every meeting of every NSC in the world, “METHODS” and sources of intelligence are always sensitive.

 

[nahtanbob]

That wasn’t the debate. It was whether they are in charge of their policies and “own the consequences “. My entire point revolves around this. Of course it was George “The Cowboy” Bush who was responsible. But Blair was equally complicit. And i have yet to see him or Bush bear the consequences.

Support for armed groups is not the issue. The issue is when you bring that to the public domain and openly support the narrative of an enemy country.

As an example, I would’ve loved to see anyone support the Russian narrative during the cold war, and live to tell the tale. You don’t think the US supports insurgents and armed groups around the world. Do you see anyone blaring about it? This is always classified and related to national security.

As for every meeting of every NSC in the world, “METHODS” and sources of intelligence are always sensitive.

George Bush was the architect. What did Blair do ? Go along for the ride.
As for the consequences Bush's party lost control of Congress in 2006 and Presidency in 2008. He was rated as one of the worst Presidents in US history. All the neo-cons are banished from public life.

During the cold war USA has been open about supporting anti-communist groups in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola. The specifics may be classified. Ditto with post Cold war activities - USA supports Syrian rebels. People who supported the Soviet narrative in the West lived to see the fall of the Soviet Union.

Pakistan's support for armed groups is the issue. The rhetoric does not match reality. It is multiple foreign states that have made multiple complaints over an extended span of time. You can go back to the mid-1990s

 

[criticalerror]

George Bush was the architect. What did Blair do ? Go along for the ride.
As for the consequences Bush's party lost control of Congress in 2006 and Presidency in 2008. He was rated as one of the worst Presidents in US history. All the neo-cons are banished from public life.

During the cold war USA has been open about supporting anti-communist groups in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola. The specifics may be classified. Ditto with post Cold war activities - USA supports Syrian rebels. People who supported the Soviet narrative in the West lived to see the fall of the Soviet Union.

Pakistan's support for armed groups is the issue. The rhetoric does not match reality. It is multiple foreign states that have made multiple complaints over an extended span of time. You can go back to the mid-1990s

Bush’s party is still in power last i checked. A slap on the wrist compared to what he did. The neo-cons are still in power as “orange is the new black”. Also if Blair was along for the ride, then what about UK politicians owning their policies. On the contrary, sounds like policies being dictated to them.

Also , no one in the world could do anything about the US being exposed having links to the said groups. Still can’t. The US doesn’t face ramifications of supporting insurgencies like other nations do.

These dual standards dictate a different strategy. Meaning even if a country hypothetically supports such a group, it is not knowledge for public consumption. It is a national security issue. Hence cannot be leaked. On the flip side, we never disavowed the Taliban in Afghanistan, as an example.

With Dawn leaks, India just wanted to reinforce the narrative of us supporting “terrorists” so their brainfarts(read surgical strikes) could be justified. They cannot subdue the legitimate struggle of the Kashmiri people , a struggle for attaining the “UN sanctioned” plebiscite. The problem with this narrative is that India through these underhanded means wants to crush the freedom struggle of Kashmir and defame it by labelling it as “Pakistani sponsored terrorism”.

 

[nahtanbob]

Bush’s party is still in power last i checked. A slap on the wrist compared to what he did. The neo-cons are still in power as “orange is the new black”. Also if Blair was along for the ride, then what about UK politicians owning their policies. On the contrary, sounds like policies being dictated to them.

Also , no one in the world could do anything about the US being exposed having links to the said groups. Still can’t. The US doesn’t face ramifications of supporting insurgencies like other nations do.

These dual standards dictate a different strategy. Meaning even if a country hypothetically supports such a group, it is not knowledge for public consumption. It is a national security issue. Hence cannot be leaked. On the flip side, we never disavowed the Taliban in Afghanistan, as an example.

With Dawn leaks, India just wanted to reinforce the narrative of us supporting “terrorists” so their brainfarts(read surgical strikes) could be justified. They cannot subdue the legitimate struggle of the Kashmiri people , a struggle for attaining the “UN sanctioned” plebiscite. The problem with this narrative is that India through these underhanded means wants to crush the freedom struggle of Kashmir and defame it by labelling it as “Pakistani sponsored terrorism”.

Trump repudiated the traditional foreign policy of his party. Not that you like any of his new policies. USA has been forced to reduce its military footprint in Iraq.

I will grant you USA gets away with support for insurgencies. you will be hard pressed to prove any direct American support for ISIS. It is open secret Turkey, UAE and KSA have funnelled men & material to ISIS. All of them are under American umbrella. Pakistan & Pakistanis may find ISIS actions distasteful. you are in no position to order any of these states - Turkey, UAE and KSA

 

[Clutch]

Now compare the response and the double standards of the Western Democracies.
When Dawn Leaks happened all of them rejoiced and everybody called it freedom of speech.
Now when they are faced with a similar situation, they are ready to investigate and prosecute the culprit who leaked this information.

All those Desi-libturds who keep quoting Western Media and their cronies and their so called press freedom will stay quite on this matter.

And as many people try to compare the recent statements of IK with Dawn Leaks should understand it was not what Nawaz Sharif or whoever said. The real crime was that they leaked classified information through dirty means and hence jeopardized National Security.
The culprits of Dawn Leaks should have been given exemplary punishment, but as usual we missed that train and let them walk free and then Shahid Khaqan did the exact same thing and this has set a very dangerous precedent.



www.bbc.com/news/uk-48051999

Excellent post. This why i hate both the neo-LibTurds and the religious extremists...

Both are enemies of the state.

 

[criticalerror]

Trump repudiated the traditional foreign policy of his party. Not that you like any of his new policies. USA has been forced to reduce its military footprint in Iraq.

I will grant you USA gets away with support for insurgencies. you will be hard pressed to prove any direct American support for ISIS. It is open secret Turkey, UAE and KSA have funnelled men & material to ISIS. All of them are under American umbrella. Pakistan & Pakistanis may find ISIS actions distasteful. you are in no position to order any of these states - Turkey, UAE and KSA

Trump repudiated all of them and replaced them with even more rednecks. Does John Bolton(almost called him Roose) look like a pacifist to you? Or Mad Dog Mattis? Trump is only following what geopolitics is dictating. Otherwise in many respects he is worse than Bush.

If you accept the fact that USA gets away with this, then you should understand that we aren’t afforded the same courtesy and why we did what we did after Dawn leaks. Even if what was planted was BS.


As for ISIS, let’s not go there and open that can of worms. Even if irrefutable proof is furnished, the USA will not be held accountable. Has it been after Hilary accepted the Taliban as their creation ? The US currently gets away with lots of stuff. Like , for example, it can deny the ICJ to probe its war crimes in Afghanistan. I am not comparing our situation to the US , but it was only used as an example.

 

[Asian.Century]

Great Analysis...this is the world we live in. Bias...coverups and destroyed by Western Media and Perceptions.