Wili-Leaks is Israel, Like We all Didn't Know

[bardobailey]

Wintler 2 and undead,

I like to read the nice articles that are offered up on this site. Often, the following back and forth is annoying and boring. I do what was suggested to me a while back and put the tiny brains on my foes list so I don't have to read their postings. I will stop complaining and just ignore you. Although some of the assumptions in your responses were hilarious. duh! retired military! what twits!

[Montag]

I've read this over numerous times, I don't think it stinks at all. If you just say something stinks, and provide no argument it doesn't say a lot. I can't refute this man's claims... No one here has.

p.s. I read the Chris Floyd piece and didn't think much of it.

[Montag]

Btw, Veterans Today is not some uber hawkish jingoistic rag. I'm not sure what it is, I don't think (as a publication) it is a cheerleader for the U.S. military at all.

[Wombaticus Rex]

There's just no evidence or information anywhere in the article. It would be less "shitty writing" if the author posed it as a question and speculation, but insisting it's true without offering any support is just lazy and stupid.

[Montag]

There's just no evidence or information anywhere in the article. It would be less "shitty writing" if the author posed it as a question and speculation, but insisting it's true without offering any support is just lazy and stupid.

This is probably what the disagreement is over, I think you're right. I think that some people who write this way, do know something though. Wayne Madsen kind of writes like this... I mean his claims are definitely not to be taken to the bank. I think you're right though, someone without an established reputation writing like this is not very credible. I haven't seen that much questioning Assange/Wikileaks (some I thought there'd be even more), so I guess I'm quick on the trigger finger to post what I see in this vein. I'm looking for someone who knows something, this man writes very convincingly, but doesn't back his assertions (that is definitely a solid point).

[Wombaticus Rex]

Writing convincingly without backing assertions is a matter of technique, not substance or logic.

I do it for a living.

[Montag]

I've seen both with this sort of piece... Things get corroborated, or claims that become part of the dustbin of history.

p.s. My philosophy is basically read everything, pick it apart later.

[wintler2]

There's just no evidence or information anywhere in the article. It would be less "shitty writing" if the author posed it as a question and speculation, but insisting it's true without offering any support is just lazy and stupid.

'Lazy and stupid' has a huge market these days. I think its got to do with a modern inability to construct rationalisations for selfishness. Once we could all provide our own, but the truly lazy and stupid can no longer manage that creative act and so consume cheap prefabricated rationalisations that they pickup from any source in their brand cluster.

[Joe Hillshoist]

This place had a tradition of intelligent analysis and good research even if it was into tripped out subjects it still got into stuff. But this wikileaks is CIA/israel/us military psyops shit is a joke.

Really it is. Its an echo chamber going nowhere.

I disagree with you totally but off the top of my head I can think of at least a couple of angles of investigation that none of you have bothered with. One thats startlingly creepy. Tho not necessarily indicative of any dodginess. But it could be. (Re Assange, not necessarily wikileaks.)

[Jeff]

Isn't there another thread on this subject that doesn't start with a well-poisoning article?

Yes, and I'm going to lock this one.