Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:54 pm

This was a good thread, I think, so I'm reviving it. Luper's thread on John Young saying Wikileaks is a fraud was/is similar, but I stand by this was a good thread. I feel Riddler's thread is more of a support Wikileaks thread. I just posted something there, if I find things in favor of Wikileaks I'll post them to that thread.

Wiki-Leaks and plausible lies - Where have all the critical thinkers gone?
by Joe Quinn

Global Research, December 6, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=22275

excerpt:
While the revelations in the Wiki-leaks documents about the true nature of the US government and its imperial attitude towards other nations are welcome, I find myself in the strange position of having to agree with Hillary Clinton, David Cameron et al that the leaks won't affect anyone's relations with anyone.

Our leaders are an inherently hypocritical bunch and over the past 10 years, even the most uninformed have come to understand that our leaders have a definite tendency to say one thing and do another. Who doubts that such hardened politicians fully understand that lying to each other is par for the course in the sordid game of modern global governance? As such, why should the public be overly surprised to see confirmation of this in the Wiki-leaks documents? Entertained and even intrigued, but surprised?

I am not saying that there is no value in certain aspects of the documents themselves to the extent that they provide a chance to disseminate government corruption and mendacity to a wide audience, but titillating details such as Gadaffi's buxom 'nurse' is nothing new and, much more importantly, such details are by no means the main focus of the documents themselves.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...

The Wiki-leaks documents need to be considered in a broader context. By all means, alternative news sites should continue to expose American, British and any another government inequity that the documents reveal. But where is the criticism of the rest of the documents that confirm the standard Israeli/American narrative - that Iran poses 'an existentialist threat' to Israel and to 'moderate' Arab states?

Does anyone care that these documents clearly support US and Israeli war-mongering? Does anyone else find that to be astonishing? Where is the critical thought?

The problem is that, when the dust has settled (as it soon will) over all-too-familiar US government attempts to spy on UN officials and the pusillanimity of the British government assuring the Americans that their Iraq invasion inquiry would have a pro-US bias, we will be left with some core details which, far from being refuted or covered up, are being accepted as fact. Details such as:

Iran is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East. This is a blatant lie as every alternative, anti-war analyst who has studied the facts has declared vociferously for years now. And suddenly, with a widely publicized leak, the mainstream media wants to try and shove it down our throats again? Because it is a "leak" and Assange is being "hunted down" like Osama bin Under-the-bed? What kind of truth has ever gotten this kind of press in all the years since the Fascist take-over by the unelected G.W. Bush?

Iran received missile technology from North Korea that may enable it to attack Europe in a few years. That's pure propaganda, and every one of you alt news analysts and commentators know that. Iran is making its own missiles and, in any case, Iran is entitled to defend itself. You've all been saying that for years, based on hard data and researched facts. All of a sudden, a leak appears and the mainstream media wants to convince us otherwise? And you compare it to Watergate? Did you read Fletcher Prouty's expose on Watergate, how many of the documents were created and planted to be leaked because they served the agenda of the PTB?

Middle Eastern leaders want the US and Israel to attack Iran. How can this not been seen as further US and Israeli propaganda? And what Middle Eastern country in its right mind would want that considering that the entire area will be unfit for human habitation for years afterward?

Tehran used Red Cross ambulances to smuggle arms to Hizb'allah during its war against Israel in 2006 . Even if true, Iran is entitled to help the Lebanese defend themselves against Israeli aggression just like UK helped the U.S. attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Haven't all of you people been saying this for years now?

Iran harbors 'al Qaeda'. Why would this be seen as anything other than more of the tired old US 'al-qaeda' imaginings designed to scare the masses, at home and abroad?

Iran could produce an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015. And Saddam could 'hit the UK in 45 minutes', remember?

Pakistan continues to support the 'Mumbai terror attack group'. Why no details of David Headley, the CIA agent who planned the Mumbai attacks and who, according to the CIA, 'went rogue'? Again, yeah, right!

And let's not forget previous Wiki-leaks 'dumps' of data, which included nuggets of US and Israeli government nonsense like Iraq really did have WMDs! And there you were thinking that the WMD business was a total lie! Well, guess again, thanks to some of the Wiki-leaks documents, we now know that the US was totally justified in invading Iraq and killing 1.5 million innocent civilians. And if that isn't enough for ya, then just remember...9/11! Bin Laden (who is alive and well according to previous Wiki-leaks documents) killed about 3,000 Americans that day, which leaves the US and Iraq just about even (500 Iraqi lives being equal to one American life). And don't go spouting any spurious conspiracy theories, because Mr Assange is annoyed that such 'false conspiracies" [like 9/11] distract so many people (like you).

As Phyillis Bennis wrote recently on the Huffington Post:

"If you watched only Fox News or some of the outraged-but-gleeful mainstream pundits, you would believe that the documents prove the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and world-wide support for a military attack on Iran. If you read only the Israeli press, you would think the documents provide irrefutable proof that "the entire world is panicked over the Iranian nuclear program."

Phyillis is correct, but here's the problem: a vast number of people do watch only Fox News or one of its affiliates, and what gets said in the Israeli press is very often received with a sympathetic ear across the US media.

So why is no one contesting these very dubious and much more serious claims? These are claims that could be used to justify an attack on Iran and the murder of millions of Iranian civilians?

Yes, the US government is full of two-faced creeps who spy on friend and foe alike, and if the Wiki-leaks documents help to imprint that on the global awareness, then so much the better. But what will it change in the long run? And more importantly, at what price will come the wholesale acceptance of these documents? If, by simply referring to the precise details and the dominant discourse of the documents, I conclude that some aspects serve the goals of peace and public truth but many others serve the goals of the war-mongers in Tel Aviv and Washington, does that mean I hate Whistle-blowers and want to protect the US government? This whole thing is like the well-known ploy of the psychopath to engage the sympathy of their victim by admitting to flaws and failings - even a few seemingly painful admissions - putting the target to sleep thinking they now have the whole confession, all the while they are being set up for a really big con.

Our world is run by people who lie for a living, so let's examine the situation microcosmically and then all you have to do is extract the principle and apply it on a larger scale.

"Our culture agrees on the signs of lying. Ask anyone how to tell if someone is lying and they will tell you that they can tell by "lack of eye contact, nervous shifting, or picking at one's clothes." Psychologist Anna Salter writes with dry humor: "This perception is so widespread I have had the fantasy that, immediately upon birth, nurses must take newborns and whisper in their ears, "Eye contact. It's a sign of truthfulness." [Anna C. Salter, Ph.D.]

The problem is, if there is a psychopath - or those with related characteropathies - who doesn't know how to keep good eye contact when lying, they haven't been born. Eye contact is "universally known" to be a sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of truth telling.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:22 pm

WikiLeaks, WikiDrama and WikiGossip
by Washington's Blog

December 8, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=22322

What should we make of the Wikileaks story?

Obviously, the Swedish "sex crime" charges are ridiculous, as are the death threats against Wikileaks founds Julian Assange. See this, this and this.

Some leading first amendment advocates support Wikileaks as a vital resource. For example, John Perry Barlow - founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (a great organization with a long and proven track record in fighting censorship) says:

The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops.

Likewise, the ACLU has been fighting for Wikileaks for years.

And Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky think Wikileaks is the real deal.

However, many savvy observers argue that that Wikileaks is not what it seems.

For example, former U.S. National Security Adviser under President Carter (and top foreign policy advisor) Zbigniew Brzezinski doesn’t think all the leaked information coming out of Wikileaks is a result of Army PFC Bradley Manning, and suspects a foreign intelligence service may be providing the more embarrassing leaks for their own political reasons.

As Brzezinski told PBS:

The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — WikiLeaks on this issue? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed.

***

For example, there are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.

This is clearly designed to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home…

***

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.
***

Seeding — seeding it is very easy.

I have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.

Other smart people point out that - while there is pointed information challenging the actions of other countries - the information coming from Wikileaks about the U.S. is more of the nature of gossip, and doesn't actually challenge U.S. foreign or domestic policy is a direct manner. For example, the information disclosed to date doesn't challenge the narrative of the "War on Terror" itself, the government's handling of the economic crisis, or any other central American policy.

So whether Wikileaks is a first amendment champion or an intelligence service psychological operation aiming to persuade and embarrass, so far it has mainly been a bunch of gossip in terms of leaks about America.

If you don't believe me, read some of the actual cables which have been released. While there have been some stunners about foreign countries, the ones regarding U.S. actions have been nothing but idle chatter about well-known people or events, providing interesting but wholly irrelevant details about what people were wearing or who they slept with. No breakthrough revelations which actually challenge core U.S. policy.

(Many people are saying that the disclosure that the U.S. has spied on the United Nations shows the value of Wikileaks. But it has been known for years that the U.S. spies on the U.N. See this, this and this.)

As the very mainstream, Murdoch-owned Herald Sun notes:

We're told the leaks are "explosive" and "sensational", revealing America's "dark face".

Rubbish. In fact, the WikiLeaks dump of more than 250,000 classified cables from US diplomats reveals little more than gossip on the embassy circuit.

***

These leaks expose no crime and nail no US lie.

***

Yet Assange may also have done the US an inadvertent favour, just as he did with his earlier dump of documents on Iraq, which showed there was actually no conspiracy and no war crimes being hushed up.
***

[It] all confirms the world is as menacing as the US grimly says.

***

Overall, then, there is more in these leaks to confirm the US view of this world than there is to comfort its critics.

As the head of long-time whistleblower Cryptome (and former Wikileaks supporter - John Young - argues, Wikileaks has been more hype than substance:

Cryptome does not seek publicity or media coverage. Wikileaks does by issuing press releases, taunting the media, orchestrating bombshell releases, glamourizing Julian Assange, behaving mysteriously, ... exaggerating the value of what it publishes, editorializes about its publications excessively -- all the methods used by those who believe excessive valuation is a good thing.

So far - despite the media frenzy - it's more like WikiGossip than WikiLeaks.

Don't get distracted by the WikiDrama ... Unless WikiLeaks releases something which discloses criminal behavior by a large American bank, more damning information about the government's actions than the Fed's own data release, or facts which undermine the false war on terror narrative - Brzezinski himself told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative" - such as previously unknown false flags, then it's mainly a publicity-seeking melodrama more than an authentic challenge to American power.

Remember that the corporate press tends to be pro-war. The more cynical might argue that the fact that the corporate press is publishing all of the cables released by Wikileaks could imply that the material is not fundamentally of an anti-war nature.

The more cynical also point out that many credible whistleblowers - including former high-level government officials - have been ignored over the last 10 years by the corporate media when they have disclosed facts which challenged core U.S. policy. But Wikileaks is getting 24/7 coverage. I'm strongly for whistleblowers ... I'm just not convinced that WikiLeaks is as hard-hitting as other whistleblower groups out there.

All people of good faith agree that freedom of information and freedom of speech are vital in a free society. The real question is whether this particular organization is made up of WikiHeroes, WikiPublicityHounds, WikiDupes, or WikiDisinfoAgents.

Only time will tell.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby barracuda » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:31 pm

Washington's Blog wrote:Some leading first amendment advocates support Wikileaks as a vital resource. For example, John Perry Barlow - founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (a great organization with a long and proven track record in fighting censorship) says:

The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops.

Likewise, the ACLU has been fighting for Wikileaks for years.

And Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky think Wikileaks is the real deal.

However, many savvy observers argue that that Wikileaks is not what it seems.

For example, former U.S. National Security Adviser under President Carter (and top foreign policy advisor) Zbigniew Brzezinski doesn’t think all the leaked information coming out of Wikileaks is a result of Army PFC Bradley Manning, and suspects a foreign intelligence service may be providing the more embarrassing leaks for their own political reasons.


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 most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Simulist » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:34 pm

But Zbigniew Brzezinski's daughter is so hot!
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby justdrew » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:44 pm

letting zbig anywhere near him was carters greatest mistake. I wish he would say so.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Simulist » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:50 pm

Yes, and his second biggest mistake was then wondering aloud to Brzezinski what could be done to reign in the CIA.

After that he was toast.

(With peanut butter.)
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Project Willow » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:29 am

Simulist wrote:After that he was toast.

(With peanut butter.)


That's funny!

I have nothing substantive to contribute to any of these wikileaks conversations, and for once, I'm rather proud of that. :tongout :bigsmile

Watching the reactions from individuals to well known public figures is powerfully instructive. It's sad that distrust has been nurtured to such an extent that a different kind of action or event must be categorized immediately, up or down, good or bad, that there is little room for novelty, or perhaps a tiny sliver of positive possibility.

I see over and over again a deep yearning for certainty... eh, yeah, I'm just catching up to the middle of that other thread...
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4793
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:32 am

You know Zbig is the kind who wouldn't want to let the sheople on to even the existence of psyops (of course his analysis is at least somewhat educating people on the kinds of games that are played) I'd think (groups like the ACLU and even someone like Chomsky are virtually wholly in the dark when it comes to these matters)... But I'd imagine he has some knowledge in the field of recognizing them. Or recognizing a piker (Assange) in over his head, being used liked a floatee by hardened spooks .
Last edited by Montag on Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby justdrew » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:42 am

Montag wrote:You know Zbig is the kind who wouldn't want to let the sheople on to even the existence of psyops


eh, he's got some insightful "let'in in" going on in some old books. see if you can check out:
Between Two Ages - America's Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniew Brzezinski

it's "out there" in PDF form

and mentioning that allows me to mention that from that book sprung, the Trilateral Commission.

and I believe that's conspiracy bingo for me :yay

and now since things are springing from things...
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:53 am

I mean Assange is a guy who can't see 9/11 was either let or made happen. We're talking about a real novice, somebody virtually wholly clueless here. If he is as he's portraying himself the spooks are probably more excited to go to work everyday then they've been in a long time...
Last edited by Montag on Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 12:59 am

barracuda wrote: (John Young's objections having been dispatched in lupercal's thread)

barracuda, just as a point of clarification here, exactly which objections do you believe you dispatched? Because I have yet to find a needle in any of those haystacks you posted in the "Wikileaks is a fraud" thread last night.
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby justdrew » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:59 am

Montag wrote:I mean Assange is a guy who can't see 9/11 was either let or made happen. We're talking about a real novice, somebody virutally wholly clueless here. If he is as he's portraying himself the spooks are probably more excited to go to work everyday then they've been in a long time...


oh I don't know, I think a lot of people make a tactical choice to keep their moths shut about what they really think on that score. If he'd said "9/11 was an inside job" or something he'd have been blackballed from the media entirely.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Plutonia » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:09 am

Montag wrote:We're talking about a real novice, somebody virutally wholly clueless here.
Seriously? I mean, really? You just said that?

So on the one hand he's a hardened spook, and the other he's a noob? :jumping:

Here he is speaking like neither at the New Media Days Conference in 2009.
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby Montag » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:20 am

Plutonia wrote:Seriously? I mean, really? You just said that?

So on the one hand he's a hardened spook, and the other he's a noob?


No he's not a hardened spook... I said he's being used by them. In psyops/intelligence games he's a know nothing, yes (if he is who he says he is). Zbig's field is not so much psyops as what is called the Great Game (the imperial powers manipulating and attacking one another sometimes by proxy states and via their intelligence services plotting and enacting things too, usually not psyops though I don't think that is for spooks only not National Security Advisers). Example of what I'm taking about, like when the U.S. armed the mujahadeen against the Russians, that was the CIA that did that (gave them Stinger missiles). That was the largest CIA effort ever up to that point -- I don't know if there's been a bigger one since.

p.s. I see where you could have misinterpreted what I said about Assange, I went in and edited that.
Last edited by Montag on Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning WikiLeaks Thread

Postby barracuda » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:26 am

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
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests