Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby nathan28 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:33 am

Montag wrote:the CIA that did that




Did you notice that?

Sec'y H. Clinton has the State Dep't staff doing the actual intel work. In a couple of the intel-gathering cables Clinton asks for stuff like the size of Shia communities in Venezuela. That's, like, CIA factbook type stuff--why isn't the CIA doing it? In fact, the FBI and the DEA show up in cable's I've seen, but who is too cool for school?
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:43 am

nathan28 wrote:
Did you notice that?

Sec'y H. Clinton has the State Dep't staff doing the actual intel work. In a couple of the intel-gathering cables Clinton asks for stuff like the size of Shia communities in Venezuela. That's, like, CIA factbook type stuff--why isn't the CIA doing it? In fact, the FBI and the DEA show up in cable's I've seen, but who is too cool for school?


Do you understand not all of the bad guys like each other? They have their factions, turf wars, likes and dislikes and even hatred too. The fact that information is being released on the CIA, DEA and FBI is meaningless.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby lupercal » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:06 am

barracuda wrote:
lupercal wrote:barracuda, just as a point of clarification here, exactly which objections do you believe you dispatched?


I can only do so much, my friend. The drinking part is up to you.

Image

Have you lost weight?

:mrgreen:
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby nathan28 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:31 am

Montag wrote:
nathan28 wrote:
Did you notice that?

Sec'y H. Clinton has the State Dep't staff doing the actual intel work. In a couple of the intel-gathering cables Clinton asks for stuff like the size of Shia communities in Venezuela. That's, like, CIA factbook type stuff--why isn't the CIA doing it? In fact, the FBI and the DEA show up in cable's I've seen, but who is too cool for school?


Do you understand not all of the bad guys like each other? They have their factions, turf wars, likes and dislikes and even hatred too. The fact that information is being released on the CIA, DEA and FBI is meaningless.



Yes, that was an implied and tangential point. The bigger one being that the CIA has totally disappeared, probably b/c they had to go pick up a shipment, from the cables I've seen, and I've skimmed a lot. the FBI and DEA are mentioned in at least a few cables .

But are you reading any of these?
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:39 am

nathan28 wrote:
Yes, that was an implied and tangential point. The bigger one being that the CIA has totally disappeared, probably b/c they had to go pick up a shipment, from the cables I've seen, and I've skimmed a lot. the FBI and DEA are mentioned in at least a few cables .

But are you reading any of these?


Part of my analysis of Wikileaks will be to examine what they are releasing. Obviously what they specifically release is very important. Although I must say I haven't read too much of them, but people are writing about them everywhere, haha.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby AlicetheKurious » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:47 am

barracuda wrote:Wow, I'm sorry, but given the choice between standing with Electronic Frontier, the ACLU, Daniel Elsberg and Noam Chomsky versus, on the other hand, Zbigniew Brzezinski (John Young's objections having been dispatched in lupercal's thread) - is there really a contest here? What kind of a choice is that?

IMHO, Brzezinski's not a "savvy observer". He's the war criminal who instructed the CIA to invent al-Qaeda. I'm really sick of hearing his name bandied about as if to endorse his opinion gives one some sort of cred in the understanding of the Big Picture.


The thing about Wikileaks is that a number of people have noticed that it basically recycles Israeli propaganda in the form of "leaks" that may very well have been seeded into US State Dept. documents for just that purpose, just as the US State Dept itself has, over the years, been purged of highly qualified "America-firsters" in favor of poorly qualified but committed "Israel-firsters".

Is it a coincidence that the leaks spuriously "confirm" Israel's allegations about Iran? That they include claims like the one that portrays the US, rather than Israel, as the main supporter of PKK terrorists against Turkey, and conversely the claim that Turkey arms and supports anti-US Iraqi insurgents, both of which are clearly designed to disrupt America's relations with its Turkish ally? Is it a coincidence that, of all politicians, the only one that Assange has praised at all has been the sociopathic murderer, serial liar and ethnic cleanser Netanyahu? Why is Benjamin Netanyahu the only example of a "world leader" that Assange cites approvingly? Does Netanyahu's record makes him some kind of authority on what will lead to "peace"?

"[Netanyahu] believes that the result of this publication, which makes the sentiments of many privately held beliefs public, are promising a pretty good [indecipherable] will lead to some kind of increase in the peace process in the Middle East and particularly in relation to Iran," Assange said. Link


Don't any of you geniuses find it at all fishy that Assange cites Netanyahu as an authority about what will or will not lead to peace, "particularly in relation with Iran"?

Brzezinski is a wily SOB with lots of first-hand experience in the dirtiest of games, but nobody can question his absolute loyalty to the American Empire and his rare, at that level, refusal to kowtow to an Israeli agenda. It is instructive to remember that Brzezinski is a vociferous critic of the invasion of Iraq AND also of the power of Israel in Washington policy-making AND of Israel's warmongering against Iran. He has spoken out against the “simplistic and demagogic” narrative of the so-called War on Terror and described it as a “mythical historical narrative” that is leading the US into a "quagmire". He has even hinted that a false-flag attack may be used as a pretext to provoke the US into launching a war against Iran.

Now he is pointing out signs that the Wikileaks are skewed towards a specific agenda:

It's not a question of worry. It's, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren't some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship. Link


In this, he is joined by others with a military and/or intelligence background who are "America-firsters" and owe no allegiance to the foreign state of Israel, who have concluded that Wikileaks bears all the hallmarks of a Mossad psyop.

Military and Intelligence specialists in Turkey, Iran, China, Pakistan and other countries who rightly perceive that they are being targeted by the Wikileaks have arrived at similar conclusions -- not that Wikileaks is an American intelligence operation per se, but one that primarily serves an Israeli agenda, "laundered" through the US State Department or other US government agencies or the US media, as so many Mossad operations are.

I wish with all my heart that Wikileaks was indeed a force for peace and justice and freedom and truth and all the wonderful things that we are being TOLD it is. All the hype notwithstanding, so far, its purpose is clearly the exact opposite.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby psynapz » Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:23 am

Why is this still a separate thread from The WikiLeaks Qeustion?
“blunting the idealism of youth is a national security project” - Hugh Manatee Wins
User avatar
psynapz
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:01 pm
Location: In the Flow, In the Now, Forever
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby nathan28 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:31 am

psynapz wrote:Why is this still a separate thread from The WikiLeaks Qeustion?



We're doing live-fire testing of new multi-thread flamewar technologies.
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:59 pm

psynapz wrote:Why is this still a separate thread from The WikiLeaks Qeustion?


When I bumped it I explained it amigo. Some of us don't want to get on the Wikibus, we prefer this thread, than the cheerlead for Julian Assange...
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:01 pm

This is so daft.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:04 pm

MacCruiskeen wrote:This is so daft.


That contributes a lot to the discussion.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:06 pm

Montag wrote:
MacCruiskeen wrote:This is so daft.


That contributes a lot to the discussion.


You're welcome. Anyway, I was just trying to blend in with the environment here.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:07 pm

William Engdahl daft? That's a pretty serious statement that I'm going to need to see some major backing up.

Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job
by F. William Engdahl

December 10, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=22357

The story on the surface makes for a script for a new Oliver Stone Hollywood thriller. A 39-year old Australian hacker holds the President of the United States and his State Department hostage to a gigantic cyber “leak,” unless the President leaves Julian Assange and his Wikileaks free to release hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive US Government memos. A closer look at the details, so far carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international media such as the New York Times, reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to Russia to North Korea. The Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Con Job which will likely be used to police the Internet.

It is almost too perfectly-scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled “computer geek,” sifts through classified information at Forward Operating Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manning then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the documents he had contained "incredible, awful things that belonged in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, DC." The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design their security systems.

Then the plot thickens. The 250,000 pages end up at the desk of Julian Assange, the 39-year-old Australian founder of a supposedly anti-establishment website with the cute name Wikileaks. Assange decides to selectively choose several of the world’s most ultra-establishment news media to exclusively handle the leaking job for him as he seems to be on the run from Interpol, not for leaking classified information, but for allegedly having consensual sex with two Swedish women who later decided it was rape.

He selects as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel. Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should be released. Very “anti-establishment” that. The New York Times even assigned one of its top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material. Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among others.

Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a normal meeting of people, a very establishment view.

Not so secret cables…

The latest sensational Wikileaks documents allegedly from the US State Department embassies around the world to Washington are definitely not as Hillary Clinton claimed "an attack on America's foreign policy interests that have endangered innocent people." And they do not amount to what the Italian foreign minister, called the "September 11 of world diplomacy." The British government calls them a threat to national security and an aide to Canada’s Prime Minister calls on the CIA to assassinate Assange, as does kooky would-be US Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin.

Most important, the 250,000 cables are not "top secret" as we might have thought. Between two and three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of "secret" document,[1] and some 500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. Siprnet is not recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret. Another 40% were the lowest level, "confidential", while the rest were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret.[2]

Most of the revelations so far have been unspectacular. In Germany the revelations led to the removal of a prominent young FDP politician close to Guido Westerwelle who apparently liked to talk too much to his counterpart at the US Embassy. The revelations about Russian politics, that a US Embassy official refers to Putin and Medvedev as “Batman and Robin,” tells more about the cultural level of current US State Department personnel than it does about internal Russian politics.

But for anyone who has studied the craft of intelligence and of disinformation, a clear pattern emerges in the Wikileaks drama. The focus is put on select US geopolitical targets, appearing as Hillary Clinton put it “to justify US sanctions against Iran.” They claim North Korea with China’s granting of free passage to Korean ships despite US State Department pleas, send dangerous missiles to Iran. Saudi Arabia’s ailing King Abdullah reportedly called Iran’s President a Hitler.

Excuse to police the Internet?

What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken.

The process of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009 Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773). It would give the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill "would allow the president to 'declare a cyber-security emergency' relating to 'non-governmental' computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat." We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in January.

The US Department of Homeland Security, an agency created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example at http://torrent-finder.com. Over 75 websites were seized and shut in a recent week. Right now, their focus is websites that they claim "violate copyrights," yet the torrent-finder.com website that was seized by DHS contained no copyrighted content whatsoever. It was merely a search engine website that linked to destinations where people could access copyrighted content. Step by careful step freedom of speech can be taken away. Then what?

Notes


1. BBCNews, Siprnet: Where the leaked cables came from, 29 November, 2010, accessed in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11863618



2. Ken Dilanian, Inside job: Stolen diplomatic cables show U.S. challenge of stopping authorized users, Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2010, accessed in http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 6809.story
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:08 pm

MacCruiskeen wrote:
You're welcome. Anyway, I was just trying to blend in with the environment here.


Ok... Feel free to raise things to new heights anytime you're ready.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby anothershamus » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:14 pm

This is how I feel, for the most part, I reserve a little bit of my own free will to disagree if I feel like it.
from Of Goats and Men :http://ofgoatsandmen.blogspot.com/

I'm getting sick of the irrational Wikileaks detractors...
Ok, yes it's all a conspiracy to shut down the internet. They want to do that we know. So anything we do, to expose truth, gives them an excuse to shut us down. By this logic, all of us are working for them. Give me a break. But this is the thinking going into a lot of Wikileaks criticism in the alternative news world.

I could be wrong of course, any of us could be, but the more I find out about Wikileaks, the more interesting it gets.

If you want to know the milieu where some of the ideas for Wikileaks originated....perhaps we should do what John Young suggested on Alex Jones today and have a look at the Wikipedia page for Cypherpunks.

It seems like a community of rebellious scientific minds who wanted to use technology and cryptography to defeat unjust authority in different ways.

Is this such a bad thing?

Why is it deserving of attack?

Ask these questions before you join the group screaming conspiracy against Wikileaks.

There are some exciting revelations coming up if John Young is to be believed. Future items which he expects to be released by Wikileaks have to do with everything from The Vatican to Weapons of Mass Destruction and leaks from the Banks.

Do you want to just scream psy-op or maybe see what info is about to come out? It might be interesting.
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests