The Wikileaks Question

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:03 pm

I was just thinking that...where is Assange on Israeli war crimes/bad policy, and pre 9/11 information?

The FBI has done more to help expose the 9/11 coverup, as seen here
http://www.historycommons.org/news.jsp? ... 393703-423
(Yes, the same FBI that murdered scores of civil rights activists in the 1960's)
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby Jeff » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:36 pm

Is Assange an American Agent?

Editorial of The New York Sun | November 28, 2010

Part way through our afternoon’s reading in the latest document dump from Wikileaks the thought occurred to us that maybe Julian Assange is an American agent. We don’t have anything to suggest such a thing, other than the thought that when one digs through all the chaff here there’s not much that makes American look bad. There are, however, number of things that seem destined, when they start percolating into the diplomatic dialogue, to work to our advantage.

For starters, feature the disclosure that the Arabs want an attack on Iran’s nuclear program. Heretofore this point has been getting only vague focus. Via Wikileaks, however, this is put into sharp relief, with the disclosure of what the Jerusalem Post called a secret diplomatic cable from the American embassy at Riyadh about a meeting in 2008 between the Saudi king, Abdullah, and the American ambassador, Ryan Crocker, and General Petraeus.

According to the Post, the cable quotes a former Saudi envoy in the U.S., Abdel al-Jubeir, as recalling “the King’s frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program.” Quoth the king, according to Wikileaks document dump: “Cut off the head of the snake.” Ordinarily it would be awkward for American to get this kind of diplomatic cable traffic out in public. Now we have Mr. Assange to the rescue.

Or take the disclosures about the United Nations. The U.N., after all, is a body that has taken American money for years — and in incredible abundance — but has become a runaway institution. How could Americans get it through to the cynics in Turtle Bay just how low is the disrepute in which they are held by even a left-of-center American administration? Why not have old Julian Assange leak a trove of documents?

...

No doubt it is ridiculous to imagine that Mr. Assange is an American agent. But if one were trying to put into the field someone to pose as an enemy of America, who would more clearly fit the part than the earnest Australian? The key question is that old poser of forensics, “Who benefits?” The tip-off is that everyone from President Obama to Secretary of State Clinton to Defense Secretary Gates has denounced what Mr. Assange has been doing. But neither Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, nor Mr. Gates has done anything about it.


http://www.nysun.com/editorials/is-assa ... ent/87155/
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby anothershamus » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:45 pm

So he is an 'American Agent', an 'Israeli Agent' and an 'agent of undetermined origin', and a 'criminal agent'.
That about covers it. Any more spin?
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby barracuda » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:01 am

He's a fashion spy for a hair salon. Obviously.
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: The Wikileaks Question

Postby nathan28 » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:16 am

While I'm not really in the ridiculously pessimistic, self-important paranoid delusions of grandeur gang-stalking victims** that think that because they read "dangerous" information on Cryptogon from the safety of their Airstreams or McMansions they're being targeted by the gov't, entered on "The List" to get disappeared when the "DHS FEMINIST-MARXIST REPTILEAN FEMACAMPS TSHTF!!!11!", so I don't think Wikileaks is a total limited hangout or WTF you all who are crazed with your self-important (said it twice) nightmares of total-control post-reality...

...I would like to know if it's possible to browse any of the old stuff uploaded to wikileaks. Like police reports, college fraternity documents, internal white papers by autocratic regimes, etc. You know, the "everyday" stuff, like memoranda not released to the public on symbols commonly used by pedophile organizations, or white power groups, etc. Right now the only things I can navigate to from the front page are the war logs and war diaries. With google I can get to the "cables" that just broke, and that's it.

Where'd everything go? Have I just over-done my browser security settings? Is the site not compatible with chromium? Is my Google-fu that weak? Is this the new, "streamlined" Wikileaks? If it's not just me being stupid and lazy, forget paranoid ONOZ WIKILEKES IS TEH THEM I HURD IT ON WEBSTR TARPLAY OMG nonsense, this could be obnoxious corporate-style "branding" gone into PR 'scandal' overdrive.
„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: The Wikileaks Question

Postby anothershamus » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:23 am

Awesome rant nathan! It will all come out in the wash!

On edit a couple of twits:


# RT @ammar456: #WikiLeaks releases that Justin Bieber is actually male. about 8 hours ago via Tweetie for Mac

# #Wikileaks: Ahmadinejad attends a Spinning class every day at 5pm INT (Iran Nuclear Time). about 8 hours ago via Tweetie for Mac
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby hava1 » Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:53 am

I believe there is another batch of docs that should be coming, so if that's the case, perhaps its better to reserve judgement. so far, I think what came up is substantial, re our region. not "deep state" stuff, regretfully, but one veil of "mystique" is down, that's important too. key information is Mossad's plan to topple Ahmedinajad by domestic unrest, for instance. another, the urging by S. arabia and Egypt to bomb iran...etc.
hava1
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:07 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby anothershamus » Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:55 am

This was on edit but I posted a new one because this guy is so funny:

https://twitter.com/baderkamal

# RT @ammar456: #WikiLeaks releases that Justin Bieber is actually male. about 8 hours ago via Tweetie for Mac

# #Wikileaks: Ahmadinejad attends a Spinning class every day at 5pm INT (Iran Nuclear Time). about 8 hours ago via Tweetie for Mac

# "The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your opinions are." 11:05 AM Nov 27th via Twitter for iPad
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:02 am

.

nathan28, I noticed the change to the Wikileaks site too. (Previously there was a list of board members and advisers, and a lot of material from many countries you could search.) That is evidence of something going on behind the scenes there. I'm open to all sorts of ideas of what may be going on, as long as people aren't transparently jumping to their own a priori conclusions in the absence of evidence or argument.

There's also this, which is certainly true for today and at least the next couple of days if not weeks:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 93#9646406


WikiLeaks releases 250,000 classified documents...WITHOUT actually releasing them.

The future has its burdens but it also its delights, even if they are a bit rindish and sour.

Case in point: Today, the WikiLeaks organization released 250,000 diplomatic cables which will shake the pillars of international relations for decades to come.

Or did they? Well, it turns out they didn't. It turns out, what they actually released were 220 (two-hundred and twenty) documents, some only partially. You can see this for yourself on the official CableGate web page.

The Guardian, which had drawn readers in with the lure of being able to download the classified cables had a little surprise in store for the thousands of people who...well...who actually tried to download them:

You couldn't.

In fact, what the Guardian is allowing people to download is (wait for it), 250,000 dates, times & tags. No content, whatsoever. No content, at all.

The actual cables- where are they? Turns out they're no-where to be found. In every story you read today, even if you read them all, they would all say that WikiLeaks has released, dumped, leaked 250,000 sensitive diplomatic cables into the public domain when they haven't done any such thing. In fact the only actual cables can be found at the WikiLeaks site. Does anyone have the 250,000 secret cables?

Well, yes. Yes, it appears that The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, etc. all have copies of the data sets which, at least in the New York Times' case, delivered anonymously to them by WikiLeaks so they could begin their investigations. But they don't appear to be sharing, which I find interesting. I mean, release them or don't but don't say they've been released if they haven't. That sounds sensible, doesn't it? None of this tomfoolery was involved with the previous WikiLeaks releases and I don't think anyone expected this release would be much different.

Ok, why haven't they dumped the documents if this is their plan all along. It differs depending on whose page you read. From WikiLeaks' page:
The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice.


Hrm, let's say worst-case is 6 months for all of these to spool out. And let's say they release in weekly chunks. Four releases a month. That's around 10,000 documents dropped into the public's hands, per week.

Well, that doesn't seem to make any sense either. The only way they're going to get some kind of analysis on 10,000 cables a week is by crowdsourcing with the rest of the planet who are still unable to actually access these documents.

Bottom Line: The embargo hasn't been lifted, the 250,000 documents haven't been released. All there is, so far anyway, is the trumpet which heralds a mad dash by a small number of newspapers to pick and choose the stories they want to pursue, and little else.

But I don't typically trust the mainstream media for that very reason. If the current rash of stories is any indicator of their stewardship, it would appear we're in for months (at least) of stories about how much political figure X likes political figure Y. Or a salacious quote from political figure Z...the cross-referencing and further research of which will remain entirely in the hands of a select few.

PB


One response to that is that the action is supposed to happen here:
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org

Except that there is still very little there. Scratch that, it's just 52 notes total, which is ridiculous.

I'm willing to wait and see because the two prior releases were real and important.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby lupercal » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:43 am

I'm open to all sorts of ideas of what may be going on, as long as people aren't transparently jumping to their own a priori conclusions in the absence of evidence or argument.

Right. The LIHOP routine got old about seven years ago, but carry on.
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:50 am

JackRiddler wrote:
Jeff wrote:Just State Department cables, right? It's like reading a diary aloud. Embarrassing, but it hardly gives the game away. The Deep State rolls along.


Jeff, you're doing #1 from the OP. ("They aren't releasing what a given critic would consider important.")

And you couldn't buy this spin. Well, we couldn't:

WikiLeaks documents reveal Arab states' anxiety over Iran


That one's covered too: the spin belongs to others.

Spin is amazing, no? Show me the same cables, and I see corrupt US-propped dictators and kings baying for another American war on another Muslim country. How do you think their subjects are likely to react to that?.


Oh, yeah, because regimes like those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are soooo sensitive to their subjects' opinions.

Case in point: Egypt is currently mired in what are a textbook example of corrupt parliamentary elections in a police state. Violence, pre-stuffed ballot boxes and ballots thrown in the garbage, candidates threatened and their family members grabbed by police, all cameras forbidden, reporters forbidden, independent observers forbidden, satellite uplinks equipment confiscated, independent tv stations closed down, four deaths and countless beatings by heavily armed government forces as of last night, election day.

Meanwhile the official body appointed by the government to monitor the elections is reporting that on the whole, the elections have been orderly, peaceful and fair, with only minor infractions.

At least the Egyptians still have some fight left in them -- they're bloodied and battered but not broken yet. Saudis seem to be much worse off: they appear to have given up.

If these "corrupt US-propped dictators and kings" ever gave a shit for what their subjects think, you'd have a point.

As you imply, they are 100% dependent on their US patrons (who in turn bow to their zionist masters) and thus it's only the US' "reactions" that remotely interest them.

The target audience, in my opinion, is the American and Western public, who above all must be persuaded that an American attack on Iran is not just fervently being pushed by Israel, but by "the Arabs" as well.

That way, if it ever goes down, certain people will be able to defuse and divert potentially dangerous accusations that the US is doing Israel's bidding, as you have in the past, Jack, with regard to the bombing, invasion and destruction of Iraq.

The US is about as responsive to the needs and desires of the corrupt Arab regimes it props up, as these Arab regimes are to their own subjects'. After all, should they outlive their usefulness, they can be so very easily discarded and replaced with no consequences to their erstwhile handlers in the US and Israel. They certainly have no say or power to impose their agenda on US decision-makers, certainly no ability to eliminate any policy maker who does not pledge eternal, unconditional allegiance to them.

Can you say the same about the US government's attitude vis-a-vis Israel?

On edit: I was just struck by another thought: neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran are officially enemies. High-level contacts are still ongoing and both side spout saccharine diplomatic platitudes. The wikileaks description of how Saudi and Egyptian talk about the Iranian leadership to the Americans essentially says, "Psst, here, listen to the insulting and rude way they talk about you behind your back," which should make any future such meetings VERY uncomfortable and amp up the level of distrust and dislike on both sides. As the recent Syrian-Saudi rapprochement demonstrates, those damn Muslims can't be trusted to hate each other sufficiently to keep ignoring their many important common interests, and therefore need all the help they can get.
Last edited by AlicetheKurious on Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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: The Wikileaks Question

Postby Penguin » Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:27 am

nathan28 wrote:
...I would like to know if it's possible to browse any of the old stuff uploaded to wikileaks. Like police reports, college fraternity documents, internal white papers by autocratic regimes, etc. You know, the "everyday" stuff, like memoranda not released to the public on symbols commonly used by pedophile organizations, or white power groups, etc. Right now the only things I can navigate to from the front page are the war logs and war diaries. With google I can get to the "cables" that just broke, and that's it.

Where'd everything go? Have I just over-done my browser security settings? Is the site not compatible with chromium? Is my Google-fu that weak? Is this the new, "streamlined" Wikileaks? If it's not just me being stupid and lazy, forget paranoid ONOZ WIKILEKES IS TEH THEM I HURD IT ON WEBSTR TARPLAY OMG nonsense, this could be obnoxious corporate-style "branding" gone into PR 'scandal' overdrive.


That is a good point, one that some other commenter brought up yesterday (I forget where it was).
Where is all the old data? They took it down at some point, and it does not seem to be accessible at the moment - at least not easily from the site itself. Why not?
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:13 am

Michael Rivero has posted a very concise and pithy guide to Wikileaks for "complete idiots" who might otherwise miss the increasingly obvious:

    THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO WIKILEAKS LATEST DOCUMENT DUMP

    Michael Rivero


    Image

    Wikileaks, following much media fanfare (reason for suspicion right there) has just released a huge number of documents supposedly leaked to WikiLeaks and no other websites. The media is denouncing this as a threat to the United States while US politicians wring their hands and wonder when they will be free of the curse of the First Amendment and all that troublesome nonsense about Freedom of Speech. Many observers think this is a propaganda set up and that neither Julian Assange or WikiLeaks should be taken at face value. After all, Julian Assange keeps insisting there was no 9-11 conspiracy and the 9-11 truth movement a "distraction." Apparently Julian Assange has patented conspiracy and nobody else may expose one except himself!

    Of course, there is really not that much that is new in this latest dump. Like prior WikiLeaks dumps, most of it is old news mixed with some rather dubious claims. In his last such dump, Julian Assange included a claim that Osama bin Laden is still alive and controlling Al Qaeda. Of course, it is well documented outside the United States that Osama bin Laden has been dead for many years and that Al Qaeda itself is a fake front group created to hoax Americans into endless wars of conquest, much as the fictional Emmanuel Goldstein was used in George Orwell's "1984."

    As for the present batch of documents, again it is a rehash of stories already known to the blog-o-sphere. Even those people who did not know US diplomats spy on their United Nations counterparts did not find it surprising or in any way a new idea.

    So what is the real purpose of Assange's little charade? Propaganda.

    Propaganda is like rat poison. 95% of it is tasty, healthy food. But the purpose is to get you to swallow the poison. The same is true of the WikiLeaks document dump. The bait are all these old stories which we already knew about, used to convince us that the entire pile is "tasty, healthy food," except that it isn't. Buried in the pile of delicious, albeit past the expiration date morsels are the bits of poison which the US Government knows you will no longer accept at face value from the controlled media, but hope you will eat if handed to you by a con artist posing as hostile to the government.

    So, given that 95% of the current WikiLeaks is really old news, as a public service I will point out the bits of poison that Julian hopes you will eat.

    1. Iran is bad so you should all want to kill them.

    2. Saudi Arabia is bad because they are funding Al Qaeda so you should all want to kill them.

    3. North Korea is bad because they gave really long range missiles to Iran for Iran to put their nuclear warheads in, so you should all want to kill them.

    4. China is messing with your computers, so you should all want to kill them.

    That about sums it up.

    Funny thing about rat poison. After a while the rats learn to eat the food and leave the poison behind. Link
"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: The Wikileaks Question

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:22 am

    Sunday, November 28, 2010
    Wikileaks Claims Osama Bin Laden Still Alive


    In proving to be one of the most useful tools for the Pentagon, Wikileaks resurrects "Bearded Time Lord" Osama Bin Laden and places him as one of the key masters of the resistance to U.S. occupation in Afghanistan. This assertion is made despite the fact that 92% of the population in Afghanistan have never heard of 9/11.

    Wikileaks documents claim that Osama Bin Laden has been personally overseeing the use of suicide bombers and roadside bombs targeting U.S. troops since the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. According to documents "leaked" by Wikileaks, Osama Bin Laden has been conducting monthly meetings with up to twenty people at a variety of locations. Apparently, the Pentagon's intelligence network discovered each monthly meeting after they occurred and have never been able to gain foreknowledge of these meetings to capture Bin Laden, who was known to be on kidney dialysis in 2001.

    As stated in the Telegraph, these documents provided by Wikileaks contradicts CIA director Leon Panetta's position that there had been no intelligence on the al-Qaeda leader since the “early 2000s”. Wikileak documents also contradict a number of credible sources (including Pakistan's President Musharrof and Afghan President Karzai ) for Bin Laden's death in December, 2001. Link
"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: The Wikileaks Question

Postby Hammer of Los » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:34 am

Simulist wrote:When Julian Assange dismissed 9/11 as a "false conspiracy," he tipped his hand a bit too much, as far as I am concerned.


I've assiduously avoided each and every wikileaks thread until this morning. I've just quickly scanned a few now. I enjoyed the above comment from Simulist.

It seemed to me to be blindingly obvious, just from what I hear on the mainstream radio news, that Wiki Leaks was fishy.

The Sky News desk this morning told me that Iran's neighbours all fear it's nuclear ambitions, and would support war.

They didn't actually say which neighbours. Just neighbours I guess. You know, concerned folks in the vicinity.

The banging of the Iran war drums began on 911 and have never ceased.

I'm not sure there will be war with Iran. Israel is the wild card. We'll see, I guess.

One week after 911 I told my father in law that the bushies were planning three wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, based on my reading of PNAC documents etc. He told me that was absolutely absurd. He may have been right. They may have never really planned to assault Iran. I'm not sure now.
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests