"This is a bad thing", "This one is a bad thing", "This is a bad thing". I don't think that kind of reasoning is the best way to question peoples ability to th

"This is a bad thing", "This one is a bad thing", "This is a bad thing". I don't think that kind of reasoning is the best way to question peoples ability to think rationally. There might be "bad things" in these leaks, but that the natural gas industry is important to Qatar and the US exports to Qatar is just as far from a secret there is. Even someone totally ignorant on Qatar as a country could find this out on wikipedia. Economy of Qatar [1]: Export goods > Liquefied Natural Gas Import goods > Machinery and Transport Equipment Main import partners > United States 13.3% Not even the facilities[2] mentioned nor the people involved[3] are even close to secret. Just because something has a "SECRET" label and is posted from an embassy doesn't mean it's damaging or that information that could be damaging shouldn't be published[4]. To me it's the people who keep repeating that everything is bad regardless of the actual content, that make it close to impossible to have a critical debate on the leaks. Qatar also has much larger security problems then "random unhappy people". For example to quote the congressional research report on Qatar[5]: "On March 19, 2005, an Egyptian national carried out a car bomb attack at a theater popular with Western expatriates on the outskirts of the capital city of Doha. [...] The suicide bomber was an engineer employed at Qatar Petroleum" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Qatar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Qatar [2] http://english.mofa.gov.qa/details.cfm?id=56 http://english.mofa.gov.qa/details.cfm?id=56 [3] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-q/qatar.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/wor... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot2_021106.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot2_021106.html?_... [5] http://opencrs.com/document/RL31718/2008-01-24/ http://opencrs.com/document/RL31718/2008-01-24/