The fact that Putin has confirmed the details in the Panama papers are correct suggests to me they are correct.

Being correct, they implicate who they implicate. I don't readily see why the Süddeutsche Zeitung would have it in for Putin, but if I were them, and I did, then I'd just release those bits of info that related to the Russians.

And i don't think there's much chance of the Panama papers destabilising Rssia, any more than they destabilised the UK. What would surprise me would be if there were any people who would be surprised at revelations about offshore money concealment and/or tax dodging by the super-rich. They may have been good at hiding it, but surely we all knew they all do it?

Whether the contents of the Panama Papers are accurate or not really isn't relevant to my point. The contents of the Pentagon Papers (note the phraseology) were largely accurate. I expect much of the stuff published by Wikileaks & Ed Snowden is similarly accurate.

This doesn't change the fact that ALL OF THEM were operations designed to achieve certain aims. Whether Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange & Ed Snowden were active participants or unwitting dupes in these operations I really can't say. The truth is such participation isn't necessary for operational success.

http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/

http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/

One point of clarification: When I said Vladimir Putin was the "primary target" of certainly the Guardian's first hit piece I'm saying so within the context of intelligence operations - which must always be considered on multiple levels.

The goal here is not to "destabilise Russia" (at least not directly but I won't pursue this line of reasoning because it gets very complicated very quickly). I certainly don't think Putin lost a wink of sleep over the release of the Panama Papers and I doubt the Russian people learned anything they didn't already know.

You have to separate the primary target of the story (Putin) from the primary target of the operation - YOU.

Your completely misplaced sense of intellectual superiority has blinded you to what was being said. I didn't express any naivety about the existence of tax-dodging, nor did I suggest that David Cameron should crusade against it now that the Panama Papers have created a dialogue; I merely commented on the hypocrisy of the situation, in that the very people who benefit most from such inequity are the people charged with creating the rules and systems that allow it to happen. That outside forces are at work when those decisions are made is patently obvious - but since I don't feel the need to demonstrate a superior understanding of every issue (even when I don't have one) it felt like unnecessary clutter; you could learn from that.

Unlike your nihilistic approach, in which everything is pointless and everyone (except you) is stupid - I think it's positive that people who might not have any real insight into what a beneficiary trust or an off-shore holding might do, are actually having a dialogue about it and asking questions; isn't that how change is created, rather than sitting in front of your computer in your underpants, shaking your first at Facebook posts and spotting patterns and conspiracies in all the events that happen around the world? I'll give you that there might even be a little naïveté in that, but what the heck, I'm an idealist; knowledge is power - but it helps if the knowledge is based on facts, as opposed to paranoid delusions.

So to be clear, you do not accept that the newspaper's stated explanation/reasons are true? Or are you referring to the "target" of someone other than the newspaper?

I'd say it was obvious that whoever was responsible for the leak must have had motives/targets/call them what you like, but isn't that stating the obvious?

If the primary target of whoever exposed the documents was indeed me, so what? You learn something new every day.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:So to be clear, you do not accept that the newspaper's stated explanation/reasons are true? Or are you referring to the "target" of someone other than the newspaper? A newspaper is not a self-aware individual. It's an organised hierarchy of people managed from the top down. If we were talking about a Murdoch paper I don't think you'd quibble if I said the newspaper's opinion is the owner's opinion. After all, Rupert Murdoch has repeatedly stated that he maintains "total" editorial control over all of his papers. It's completely counter-intuitive to think he would buy up so many media outlets if he didn't. So who do you mean? Not that it really matters once you realise the sponsors of the Panama Papers happen to be USAID - a known CIA front. There's an excellent film about the activities of USAID called "State of Siege" by Costas Gavras. You really should watch it. Although I advise not viewing if you lack a strong stomach. It's certainly a sobering experience watching USAID employees (spooks) train South American death squads in the various arts of cold-blooded murder - not to mention where best to clamp the electrodes on men and women so that they poop and mickey themselves. Quote:If the primary target of whoever exposed the documents was indeed me, so what? You learn something new every day. I've seen no evidence that you've learned anything at all.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:So to be clear, you do not accept that the newspaper's stated explanation/reasons are true? Or are you referring to the "target" of someone other than the newspaper? A newspaper is not a self-aware individual. It's an organised hierarchy of people managed from the top down. If we were talking about a Murdoch paper I don't think you'd quibble if I said the newspaper's opinion is the owner's opinion. After all, Rupert Murdoch has repeatedly stated that he maintains "total" editorial control over all of his papers. It's completely counter-intuitive to think he would buy up so many media outlets if he didn't. So who do you mean? Not that it really matters once you realise the sponsors of the Panama Papers happen to be USAID - a known CIA front. There's an excellent film about the activities of USAID called "State of Siege" by Costas Gavras. You really should watch it. Although I advise not viewing if you lack a strong stomach. It's certainly a sobering experience watching USAID employees (spooks) train South American death squads in the various arts of cold-blooded murder - not to mention where best to clamp the electrodes on men and women so that they poop and mickey themselves. Quote:If the primary target of whoever exposed the documents was indeed me, so what? You learn something new every day. I've seen no evidence that you've learned anything at all.

Not entirely fair. I have genuinely tried to see things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up my arrse.

I thought the baying facebook mob claiming he was a tax dodger was funny, but this paled next to the BBC getting humiliated live on air by a tax expert . Even the female presenter thought he had done something wrong.

Regards

King James