Feeds

back to article WikiLeaks' secrets weren't, says former MI5 chief

WikiLeaks' revelations of the “secrets” of global diplomacy weren't that secret, says Dame Stella Rimington, novelist and former Director general of MI5. Speaking in Australia, where she today delivered an address to the International Council on Archives conference , Rimington told The Reg that one of the issues public sector …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Of course it wasn't that sensitive

The wikileaks were interesting and full of salacious gossip but most of it was read more like the stuff a newspaper couldn't print because they'd get sued for it. Rumours, off the record chit chat between diplomats, summaries of international situations, problems between US companies and governments and so on.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Makes....

Makes no difference if they were secret or not,

In the US they will change the rules to suit them. If they had to a Law would be made that said black was white and white was black. Case close.

12
13
Gold badge

Re: Makes....

Take off your tinfoil hat there...

What Rimmington means by not secret, is that the diplomatic cables were still classified information, just of a lower classification. If they were secret, then they wouldn't have been available to so many people, i.e. extremely junior army intelligence officers.

From memory the lowest government classification in the UK is 'Restricted. So it just comes down to the terminology you choose to use. What was damaging about the leak (if there was damage, which I'd suspect there almost certainly has been), was the sheer amount of stuff released at once. Any single bit of it leaked would be a minor bit of news and soon go away.

Of course in Yes Minister government information is marked Restricted if it was in the papers yesterday, and Confidential if it'll be in the papers tomorrow...

13
0

Re: Makes....

"What Rimmington means by not secret, is that the diplomatic cables were still classified information, just of a lower classification. If they were secret, then they wouldn't have been available to so many people, i.e. extremely junior army intelligence officers."

Whilst this is true in respect of the diplomatic cables, it is also the case that the American military failed to maintain proper security measures. In many cases users had their passwords on post it notes, stuck to their monitors. Given also that they seem to have poor quarantine procedures - not fully dividing classified areas off on to reflect the need to know basis and vetting status - there appears to have been a sound basis for leakage.

Once a war room had an outer door, an inner door and strictly controlled access, with the formation headquarters operating other layered internal and external security barriers appropriate to lower categories of secret information not contained in the war room. These days slippage appears to have occurred in US formations. Hence Manning was able to use those passwords that he discovered, and non the basis of the final layer of laxity - no restrictions on writeable media - he dumped the lot onto a sufficiently small storage medium that enabled him to discreetly make away with the data.

This sort of problem is reflected in other ways, for example in the loss here in the UK of optical discs or USB sticks containing classified information that had not been encrypted, military, government and local government.

There is a need for a shake up. They have become lax, both here and in the US. I expect the same is true even of our enemies who, after all, are human. Even Assange had a leak; Daniel Domscheit-Berg gave much away to the Grauniad and other papers.

6
0
Silver badge
Windows

Re: Makes....

"'It seems to it seems to me that there was a so-called secret database was enormous and available to a huge number of people,' which means the content simply wasn't that sensitive."

This. A thousand times. It wasn't 'Secret' at all. But the question still remains: Who the HELL gave Manning his vetting? Because there is no way he should have had access to anything more sensitive than a roll of duct tape, as far as I can make out.

"Whilst this is true in respect of the diplomatic cables, it is also the case that the American military failed to maintain proper security measures. In many cases users had their passwords on post it notes, stuck to their monitors. Given also that they seem to have poor quarantine procedures"

Hmmm... well, it's impossible to state for certain what security is specifically in place around what information, but remember that there are differing levels of security for differing levels of information. What Manning leaked was hardly plans for nuclear war. Instead it was just Sensitive scrapings from a database. Manning was in no fit condition to have access to such informaiton, but remember that he didn't leak anything *worse*, which means that he clearly didn't have access to anything actually Secret or above.

3
0

A State Department representative...

...(I think it was) on Broadcasting House this weekend said that for certain a number of agents working for the US in the field had been killed as a result of these Wikileaks. A British ex-diplomat in the same interview somewhat gently demurred, but it is those US people who are pushing the case against Manning, and perhaps his accomplices. What they believe (or say they believe) is what matters in his case.

Of course, for OpSec they will not specify who or exactly how many agents were eliminated.

2
0
Gold badge

Re: Makes....

Just a quick reminder. Manning is accused, not guilty.

Even if he looks guilty as hell, the poor bugger has a right to be considered innocent until proven so.

Clearly US security here was piss-poor as well. If you're going to shove loads of intelligence on one whopping great database, then you need to make damned sure that people can't bung it onto their laptop to 'work on at home'. Or on the train...

Also there must have been some mixing of data. No-one needs to know the name and GPS coordinates of a particular informant in a village, except people who are going to talk to him. The Intel analysts shouldn't need access to that.

3
0
Silver badge

Making more sense .... and the problem is down to a basic lack of advanced intelligence

These days slippage appears to have occurred in US formations. .... Scorchio!! Posted Wednesday 22nd August 2012 09:03 GMT

If you are going to report on intelligence events, at least try to get it perfectly correct, Scorchio!!, although it is entirely possible that you don't know what you need to know, and have no need to know about such spooky, sensitive and subversive things ........ These days slippage appears to have occurred in US phormations is much the more accurate statement, off the record, for the record.

1
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Makes....

Please keep in mind that it was protected from the outside world. Assange and anonymous could not have made the breach that Manning had allegedly done.

He was the inside man who had enough access to break in from behind the outer layer of security.

Note the details presented during the Article 32 hearing. Manning had alleged conversations w Assange asking for help to break in.

If true, Manning didn't have access directly to those documents. This is a kind of important fact that will come to bite Assange in the ass.

Again it's not he publication that scares Assange, it's how he got the documents and his alleged involvement prior and during the actual theft that worries him...

0
7
Silver badge
Boffin

Yo! Sparty... Re: Makes....

You're wrong.

Assange isn't presumed guilty because Assange hasn't been charged... We were talking about potential charges against Wikileaks, right?

With respect to Sweden the innocence until proven guilty occurs at trial. Again even here he fled jurisdiction before he was going to be charged.

Jumping bail? Sorry but even a blind man can see that he is guilty of that! ;-)

I don't want to talk about the rest of your post... But clearly you don't understand the value of the data from a big data perspective...

1
4
Anonymous Coward

@I ain't Spartacus

"Just a quick reminder. Manning is accused, not guilty. Even if he looks guilty as hell, the poor bugger has a right to be considered innocent until proven so."

Here's another "quick reminder" - people can say anything they want and think anything they want. The "innocent until proven guilty" line applies only to jurors and in no way trumps the First Amendment rights of anyone.

But thanks for the platitude.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Makes....

"Just a quick reminder. Manning is accused, not guilty."

Technically yes, but given he confessed to it in great detail I really don't see any chance he is going to get away with it unless the prosecution or investigating officers screwed up so badly that somehow his confession and other evidence is ruled inadmissible and they don't have enough to prove the case.

1
0
Gold badge

Re: @I ain't Spartacus

"Here's another "quick reminder" - people can say anything they want and think anything they want. The "innocent until proven guilty" line applies only to jurors and in no way trumps the First Amendment rights of anyone."

To our anonymous friend,

Say what you want. I didn't say you couldn't. I simply get uncomfortable with statements about how someone did this criminal thing when the case is yet to be tried. It's not a platitude. It's basic politeness, and respect for others.

You have a first amendment right to say what you like. I suggest you use it both responsibly and respectfully. You're obviously free to ignore me. I'm free to say it anyway. Everyone's a winner...

Although that doesn't apply in my country. If you come to the UK and publish certain information about a trial in progress, you could end up in prison (unlikely admittedly). I suspect the internet and global media coverage will mean the sub judice laws don't last much longer anyway...

0
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Six down votes? Re: Makes....

Geez,

The irony here is that I merely talked about the evidence that was released during Manning's Article 32 hearing.

That information is easily available via Google.

Testimony against Manning showed that he tried to delete communications he had w Assange (Allegedly) and that he was asking for help on how to crack the system.

The implications are that Manning while he had access to the network, he didn't have access to the system where the data was being kept. While this may be my understanding of the facts and my interpretation of the limited facts as presented, this really is a very subtle and important point.

Some of the text of these alleged conversations has some serious implications not only for Assange but also others at Wikileaks. (I'm not going to say, but you can read the transcript and see for yourself. )

1
0
Go

Blimey

A spook (OK an ex one) talks sense. Whatever next, a politician admits that their pet policy seemed like a good idea but wasn't?

14
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Blimey

I hate to shatter your world view, but spooks tend not to be stupid. It's just the politicians who pretend to speak for them who are.

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Blimey

I hate to shatter your world view, but spooks tend not to be stupid. It's just the politicians who pretend to speak for them who are...... Psyx Posted Wednesday 22nd August 2012 09:59 GMT

Cor, Blimey, Psyx,

How stupid is that of spooks, to tolerate politicians who pretend to speak for them and who are stupid enough to think that they can reign with increasingly taxing new rules over the people rather than servering provision for them. Methinks the reality of the situation, which appears to be current serving intelligence service heads cuckolded into pathetic politically inept support action rather than smart lead, would more shatter your world view which appears to imagine them as clever cookies.

All available evidence is to the contrary. And that renders both those fields of sub-prime expertise, vulnerable to ruthless virtual exploitation ..... or rapid electronic makeover if they want to have a really bright future and remain relatively relevant in these new Wonderful Weird and Wacky CyberIntelAIgent Spaces and Surreal Enigmatic Times.

1
2
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: Blimey

"How stupid is that of spooks, to tolerate politicians who pretend to speak for them and who are stupid enough to think that they can reign with increasingly taxing new rules over the people rather than servering provision for them. "

You really know nothing of the military or the intelligence community.

Being apolitical means that you can't afford to have an opinion.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Blimey

Being apolitical...

You clearly know nothing of the US intelligence community.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Blimey

"You really know nothing of the military or the intelligence community." …. Ian Michael Gumby Posted Wednesday 22nd August 2012 14:47 GMT

Pray tell then, Ian Michael Gumby, what more important information would need to be known, other than that they be presently defaulted into continuity of self-serving and self-defeating oxymoronic conflict, to adequately explain why they are such failures at delivering/ensuring there is burgeoning peace and stability rather spreading unrest and destruction ..... or are you advising us that such is their main purpose and prime sub-prime role in the current cracked system?

And you really know not nearly enough about everything that I may know, and/but your statement above is certainly wrong, so now you definitely know that I don't know nothing of the military or intelligence communities [for there are surely many of them]

And speaking of serial stupidity, as we are, what is one to make of this provocative promiscuous bluster from a failed regime/collapsed coalition of the inept and desperate ……. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19351020

And thanks for clarifying that, IMG. It is much appreciated.

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Blimey

"How stupid is that of spooks, to tolerate politicians who pretend to speak for them"

They have to: Because they are public servants and politicians are elected individuals.

Unless you'd rather live in a country where the clandestine services do and say what the hell they want, regardless of the whims of the government and -by extension- the People?

People in the Services just get on and do their job. If they really gave a shit what politicians or others said about them, or for their own public reputations they would neither be under-paid civil servants, nor members of a clandestine community.

0
0
Silver badge
Big Brother

@Steve Knox...Re: Blimey

I don't know of any way to answer that.

You're entitled to your opinion. I know what I know and those who I know probably don't represent the entire 'intelligence community'.

Lets just say that even in a highly politically charged environment, when your role isn't a political one, you are still aware of the politics around you. However, your role exists through multiple administrations so you learn to keep your opinion to yourself.

You also learn that drawing attention to yourself isn't really a good trait either.

0
0
Silver badge

Maybe not secret from each other,

...but that's not the point. It's not the breach of information barriers between different governments. It's the breach of information barriers between the governments and the people. The US government may not care much if Russia reads that they have imprisoned some Al Jazeera journalist and tried to force him to become an informant - Russia does the same stuff and worse and no government will be shocked by RealPolitik. But the US people who consider it wrong to abduct a journalist and threaten them in this way, will care.

Stella Rimington is maybe missing the real issue here. The Wikileaks stuff is unlikely to shock or suprise other government level entities for the most part, but it can do both to a government's public. That is why it is perceived as a threat.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Maybe not secret from each other,

Good points, and maybe she was trying to hard to play down the significance of the stuff.

But I think she did do a good job of drawing a distinction between secrets (on which National Security depends) and day-to-day communications between politicians (on which only their careers depend).

So I think it was a useful speech - despite the strange ungrammatical structure of much of what was quoted.

6
1
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: Maybe not secret from each other,

"Good points, and maybe she was trying to hard to play down the significance of the stuff."

Take the tin-foil off, there. It was US cables, not UK... and she retired about 15 years ago.

It wasn't really very significant stuff. Nothing leaked has changed our world or made America a less safe place to be. Granted, some diplomats had their sniping and gossip revealed, but there was nothing of huge significance there.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Logic and Actions of the US

"“It seems to it seems to me that there was a so-called secret database was enormous and available to a huge number of people,” which means the content simply wasn't that sensitive."

If not sensitive or secret, why the very harsh treatment of this young soldier ?

5
2
g e
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

Ahhh I see what you did there, you put 'Logic' and 'US' in the same sentence. 'Because we can' doesn't need logic, in fact it abhors it.

4 out of 10 - must try harder ;o)

5
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

"If not sensitive or secret, why the very harsh treatment of this young soldier ?"

Possibly just the fanaticism of those holding him really, he is after all being held by military who being more patriotic than most people would take a dim view of one of their own breaking his oath to his country.

The other reason would be to set a deterrent against anybody doing the same thing and potentially uncovering the really secret information that will damage national security.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

It may not be sensitive or secret, but it was classified. A soldier removing classified information and passing it to foreign civilians is probably treason. I think the Army don't really care what he actually leaked, just that he committed treason in their eyes.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

"If not sensitive or secret, why the very harsh treatment of this young soldier ?"

Because those are the penalties that you agree to when you sign on the dotted line. Just read the OSA for comparison. Now -granted- he has been treated unfairly and held without court martial for a ridiculous period of time, but anything that happens to him after his guilty verdict is pretty much fair game, I'm afraid to say.

The larger question that the USAF should be asking is "why the hell did we trust this guy for a second?"

Heads should -and probably are- rolling over that one.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

Why the harsh treatment? Because whilst all eyes are on Bradley Manning, they are not on the failures of those above him in the chain of command, those who vetted him, those who allowed him access to this 'sensitive' information, those who did not put adequate protection in place to prevent its leaking, and those who allowed a bunch of not-particulalrly-sensitive information to be labelled as such in the first place.

5
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

".... why the very harsh treatment of this young soldier ?" Because he broke military laws and his oath, regardless of what he leaked. You can steal a hundred pounds or steal a million pounds, you are still a thief, and what Manning is accused of doing still makes him a traitor and a criminal if proven. And going on the evidence presented so far, he is both.

1
3
Mushroom

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

Not if he is revealing information that exposes as lies what the leaders have said, how is a democracy suppose to work if the public has nothing to go on to decide if it's government won't tell it what's going on.

1
2
Gold badge

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

Heathroi,

Firstly there was very little, if anything at all, surprising in the diplomatic cables or Afghanistan war logs. There was some damned good gossip of course, so the journos were happy. The war logs didn't reveal a great deal, no unreported massacres or anything. If you know much about world affairs, there was no blockbuster shockeroo. We learnt that diplomacy is not a nice easy job of being nice to the goodies and telling off the baddies. Did we not already know this?

Which leads to, secondly: How is it whistle-blowing to reveal all this? if the government have covered up something like a massacre, and you leak it, you're a whistle-blower. That case will be much harder to prosecute. If on the other hand you just leak huge piles of government info, some with the potential to put informants' lives at risk - you pretty much lose that defence. What was the motivation for this release?

Finally, where's the secret?

Did you need Wikileaks to tell you that Western democracies have been friendly with dictatorships for reasons of realpolitik? Did you not spot the huge debate during the Cold War, or the Bush presidency about this? Read some history. Read any newspaper with some foreign news. Subscribe to the Economist. Use your brain.

4
0
Stop

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

the stories were indeed there if people cared to look for them but even those stories(usual buried) didn't revel the size and scope of the 'incidents' and the level of which they were authorized until wikileaks did.

You claim that government may deal with unsavoury governments for realpolitick, well why the secrecy? if its mutually beneficial then surely the citizenry could see that and accept it or not on its merits. You may have noticed form from your extensive reading list you recommended that the american public seemed to repudiate the philosophies of the unsavoury Bush/ Cheney team for that nice Mr Obama in 2008 .

And if our informants are rounded up because of an expose of naughty business our government is up to then I can only hope they enjoy their 30 pieces of silver in the afterlife.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

"And if our informants are rounded up because of an expose of naughty business our government is up to then I can only hope they enjoy their 30 pieces of silver in the afterlife."

You see, although YOU might not care if those informants are killed, the US government does - and rightfully so. And if you don't care about those informants - in fact you seem to take pleasure in the idea that they will be killed - why do you care about anyone else - unless you are one of those people for whom any crushing authoritarian regime is acceptable as long as it is anti-American? Really, you could not be more of a hypocrite if you tried.

2
1
Gold badge

Re: Logic and Actions of the US

Heathroi,

"You claim that government may deal with unsavoury governments for realpolitick, well why the secrecy? if its mutually beneficial then surely the citizenry could see that and accept it or not on its merits."

Try reading what I posted. What I said was that everyone knows we deal with unsavoury regimes. It's not secret. Nothing was revealed.

For example, it's in the US government accounts, that they've been giving Egypt $2bn a year of military aid. Extensively discussed as well (even before the revolution). Not a nice regime, but they signed a peace deal with Israel, and that was part of it.

"You may have noticed form from your extensive reading list you recommended that the american public seemed to repudiate the philosophies of the unsavoury Bush/ Cheney team for that nice Mr Obama in 2008."

Well if I was being pedantic, I might point out that Bush didn't lose, he wasn't allowed to stand. I made no comment about the Bush regime, just pointed out that there was a lot of debate about foreign policy.

A point I didn't make, but will now, is that the Neocons talked about this very issue. Obviously they did a lot of cheerleading for the war in Iraq, so maybe no-one listened... But the extremely valid point that they make is that we allied with a lot of horrible regimes in the Cold War, in order to get stability. This gives a temporary stability, but in the end, repressive dictatorships (of the right or left) aren't stable. Their argument was that foreign policy should promote democracy, because it was both morally right, and in our own long-term interests. Whatever else you think about them (the lunacy of bringing democracy by force etc.), I'd have thought that bit of analysis looks pretty good. Even if I'm not sure it's actually possible to turn into policy.

"And if our informants are rounded up because of an expose of naughty business our government is up to then I can only hope they enjoy their 30 pieces of silver in the afterlife."

And here you reveal your true colours. And reveal yourself a heartless fuckwit as well.

The Afghan war logs had GPS co-ordinates of ordinary people in villages who'd given info to the US. If you're a villager in certain parts of Afghanistan, you don't want NATO or the Taliban. You had a perfectly nice life until they came along. The Taliban plant landmines in your fields, which blow up your children (this being the reason many a village has defected to NATO). NATO want to fight a war in your fields, and maybe attract more Taliban. You probably have to pick a side. Not an easy choice.

But oh no. You, from your great moral height have judged these people imperialist lap-dogs of the running-dog capitalist empire. Targets ripe for murder by the other side, who's actions for some reason are purified by their opposition to the Great Satan. You truly are a fucking idiot! They're just people trying to get along. The Taliban are as alien in most parts of Afghanistan as we are. It was a civil war for 10 years before we joined in. Perhaps you could do some of that reading, you were so dismissive of just now?

Some of the informants in the diplomatic cables were democracy campaigners. Who happen to talk to the representatives of democratic governments. I very much doubt the real agents make it onto the database.

Use your damned brain, and don't assume wikileaks don't have their own agenda, just like anyone else.

1
0
Bronze badge

"TXT messages"?

Shirley "text messages"? They are not files with a .txt extension.

4
1
Bronze badge

Re: "TXT messages"?

Either that or it should have been "txt msgs".

2
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: "TXT messages"?

Agreed, this is one of those neologisms that particularly grates, especially when capitalised like this for no discernable reason.

3
0
Silver badge

"Governments need to be able to keep secrets, especially secret services, to protect us in a difficult world"

The "us" in that quote is the government. Keeping secrets from the population is very much in their interest. Specifically, they need to hide from us all the shit they do in foreign places which stirs up trouble for us at home by supporting dictators and religious loonies and interfering in politics for the benefit of their corporate cronies.

4
8
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Robert Long 1

".....they need to hide from us all the shit they do in foreign places which stirs up trouble for us at home by supporting dictators and religious loonies......" One (alleged) case of this in the UK is the behind-the-scenes contacts with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is, by European law, a terrorist entity, so any official contact with Hezbollah is verboten. But they also happen to have a massive say in the running of the Lebanon, which means that if the UK needs to talk secretly, say about stopping heroin smuggling out of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan through the Lebanon, which is one of the traditional routes, then MI6 has to talk to Hezbollah. Whilst some members of the Hezbollah leadership want to be recognised as a respectable political party rather than a terrorist entity and want to deal with foreign countries, other parts are loathe to deal with the West. So the UK has a problem - Hezbollah is going to be around and in control for the foreseeable future which means we do need channels of communication with them, but legally we mustn't talk to them. Of course, talking to Hezbollah can't be publicly admitted, and doesn't sit well either with allies or other political groups in the Lebanon, so it is a secret that the UK government would prefer not to have openly displayed in public, and some parts of the Hezbollah leadership would react harshly to others that did maintain links with Western intelligence agencies. Truth is, sometimes we do have to deal with nasty people to stop even more nasty events happening, and having those dealings exposed could curtail our ability to stop those nastier events. It would be nice if everything in the World was black and white, but the reality is there are a lot more than fifty shades of grey involved. When you grow up and get some perspective you may even understand that.

2
1
Thumb Down

Re: Robert Long 1

No, you can't have a law to say no, never, shan't and then do it anyway when its convenient. Its like a person publicly violently decrying the gays then slipping down to the public toilets for some 'relief'.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Top Secret Stuff

There's definitely some things that are so incredibly important, private and secret that they should be sealed forever and never opened. Like president Obama's college records for example.

4
4
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Top Secret Stuff

Search the web before repeating bullcrap.

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Top Secret Stuff

The campaign seems doomed to return to personality and innuendo. In that climate, some conservatives are proposing that Romney offer a counter challenge: “I’ll release my tax records if you’ll release your college grade transcripts.” That’ll sure stir things up.

-Telegraph, 18th August 2012

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100177161/obama-demands-to-see-romneys-tax-returns-perhaps-its-time-romney-asked-to-see-his-college-records/

1
0
Silver badge

Please Note Especially to Remember and Never Ever Forget for They Always Will and Do ....

“Governments need to be able to keep secrets, especially secret services, to protect us in a difficult world,” she [Dame Stella Rimington, novelist and former Director general of MI5] said.

Dear Simon,

What Dame Stella is not at liberty to say, and it is that which renders governments the ineffectual puppets of racing master intelligence and as disposable pawns in the Newly Opened Digital Fields of Great Game Play is ..... Governments need to be able to keep secret, especially secret services, to protect them from us in a difficult world ...... with the them and us components in transparent and honest administrations decided by knowing of their every self-serving thought and practical move, with the good and smart side being masterfully creative and heavenly constructive and the dark and idiotic side being devilishly destructive and perversely wanton at extremes of control and power? [The signing of the Official Secrets Act is an excuse for such a significant omission and liberty to speak further truth unto nations denied]

Only an arrogant and/or ignorant corrupt fool, who would be as a blunt instrument of a tool would choose the Path of the Grand Folly in a World Series of Great IntelAIgent Games, ....... which do you yet realise, are played out on machines for the benefit of ............. ?.

Well, you tell me who and/or what you think is in power of control for control of power with IT Command and Control of Global Operating Device Systems, for/or is that not the workings of the present collapsing collective of exclusive and executive administrative fiat currency systems?

0
6

@amanfrommars1

Welcome to Earth, I see you are here to replenish your dying world with our natural resources of grammar and coherence.

6
1
Gold badge
Happy

Re: Please Note Especially to Remember and Never Ever Forget for They Always Will and Do ....

Have you noticed how amanfromMars has only recently started regularly posting again? Just after a laser toting tank landed on Mars...

I think we should be told.

0
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Please Note Especially to Remember and Never Ever Forget for They Always Will and Do ....

Important pedant note - its not aManFromMars, it's aManFromMars1, a clone account who is nowhere near as entertaining as the sadly no longer posting original.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.