Cryptome founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"

[barracuda]

barracuda, I know you have only the best intentions, but I see in your comments on Alice's brilliant analysis the familiar collection of willful misreadings and dubious assumptions leading to the unsupported conclusion that you've exposed some error of thinking that make me skip over much of what you post on this as not worth niggling over. Which is to say if Alice doesn't do the boring job of patiently unpacking and correcting your every slip I'll understand why.

Just as I understand exactly why you have no interest in refuting anything I say, except to say I am mistaken.

[lupercal]

^ I suppose you're right about that. At a certain point it becomes counterproductive, but the many errors I've already corrected can be seen by reviewing previous pages of this thread. It's nothing personal, just a comment.

p.s. I'll give a couple of illustrations to show you what I mean. You say:

But WikiLeaks has been damaging and embarrassing to a variety of targets: the mulitnational oil companies, the Lebanese Minister of Defense, the US Secretary of State, the state department itself, the installed and corrupt quislings in Afghanistan, the Saudi royals, the banks of Iceland, the "Collateral Damage" video, Hosni Mubarak, etc. It is the responsibility of the citizenry to use that information to create change, no one else's.

The Secretary of State and State department, yes, obviously they were targeted, as one would expect from a rival agency whose mission is to assure an ever-greater flow of federal funds to US defense and oil industries. But what evidence of "damage" is there to any oil companies, apart perhaps from US rivals, which would fall under the purview of this operation? And how is the "Collateral Damage" video a target? In other words this list doesn't make a lot of sense. And then here's one pertaining to me:

You may wish to re-read the OP here, in which lupercal states rather explicitly:

...we'll soon see a quiet release or disappearance or maybe "suicide" or "murder by deranged illegal alien" or Ken Lay attack and our brave little albino will disappear into an Afghan cave to await his next cue.

I can't read this as anything but a preemptive justification of some future harm which might befall Assange.

If that's the only way you can read that sentence, then your reading is hopelessly solipsistic and emotionally clouded, meaning there's not much point reasoning with it because it won't do much good. So I hope that helps.

[barracuda]

You may wish to re-read the OP here, in which lupercal states rather explicitly:

...we'll soon see a quiet release or disappearance or maybe "suicide" or "murder by deranged illegal alien" or Ken Lay attack and our brave little albino will disappear into an Afghan cave to await his next cue.

I can't read this as anything but a preemptive justification of some future harm which might befall Assange.

If that's the only way you can read that sentence, then your reading is hopelessly solipsistic and emotionally clouded, meaning there's not much point reasoning with it because it won't do much good. So I hope that helps.

It doesn't really. I'm not sure how you're assessment of my reading abilities helps clarify the meaning of your statement in any way that is useful, no matter how smug and self-satisfied it comes off sounding. But feel free to take this opportunity to let me know in what way my interpretation is off the mark. Because I don't think it is, or obviously I wouldn't have said so. As usual, you argument here is simply to say "is not!" and leave it at that.

oil companies

Previously dealt with, the response was deafening.

[Simulist]

I'm really not sure why WikiLeaks' detractors don't simply take a deep breath for now. I too have suspicions, both about Assange and WikiLeaks — and have had from the very beginning — but until I have proof, then that's all any data points really amount to: suspicions. Contained in numerous threads here (and numerous pages in those numerous threads) is not one shred of proof that Assange is an intelligence operative or that WikiLeaks is anything other than it claims to be.

Does that mean that I trust WikiLeaks and Assange? No, not at all. But why the rush to "certainty," either way? There is more to practically every story than what is immediately seen — and we're only at the very early stages of this story.

[JackRiddler]

[hanshan]

....

Children who are able to tolerate ambiguity have much in common with those
who are independent in their judgments or who deal well with novelty.
They are willing to keep trying and experimenting although they
are not sure if they are right.

pg. 122, 2nd paragraph


Creativity in the classroom: schools of curious delight By Alane J. Starko


....

[seemslikeadream]

[quote="JackRiddler"][/quote]

[lupercal]

Okay as long as everybody's having such a good time here's a couple of funny scenes from the Buñuel movie I was talking about a couple of posts ago:




The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)

[compared2what?]

In the case of Wikileaks, even assuming that the cables have not been seeded or filtered, the source is undeniably highly partisan and biased.

Agreed.

Other than the gossip "noise", the so-called intelligence consists almost entirely of uncorroborated claims that amplify the zionist-dominated US State Dept.'s propaganda against its prime targets like Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China and its newest target, Turkey, among others. Israel's gleeful reaction to the Wikileaks' "corroboration" of what Israel has been saying all along thus makes perfect sense in that context.

I honestly don't see how anyone who'd read the ones released so far could make such a case, by a reasonable-person standard. Assange's stated mission, verifiably supported by his actions, is to make written material available to the general public so that they can read it. If they don't, can't, or won't, that's not his responsibility, fault or failure.

I'd also like to add one small gloss on one big and very essential point:

What you say about the value of the so-called intelligence is, if not totally and indisputably true, true enough for practical purposes. IOW, since the so-called intelligence is pretty much exclusively so called by American diplomats and those who root for their interests, it's unsurprising that it's actually partisan spin. As you observe yourself.

The hard intelligence, on the other hand -- eg, the names of the persons, places, things, and entities mentioned in the cables as engaged in a wide variety of cooperative activities -- is fundamentally sound, per my examinations of it so far. As it is in the cases where there's discoverable verification of something roughly akin to the cooperative activities in which they're said to be engaged.

And by "discoverable," I mean: Anyone who searches the unique terms in the hard intelligence will not be able to avoid discovering it.
_________________

NOTE TO WINTLER2:

I didn't really say as much earlier wrt the Mossad thing because I expected it to make anyone who wasn't already reading the cables interested in doing so. I said it because it's both notable and true. What people do is up to them, not me. As are their criteria for doing it. I mean, I fight to win, not just to fight. When I can. And as stated elsewhere, if people aren't free to decide (a) what to do; and (b) why to do it for themselves (within the obvious reasonable parameters), there's no way left to win short of violence.

__________________

More in a moment. After which, I'm sorry to say, I'm pretty much outta here, possibly barring one or two insubstantial details.

[compared2what?]

Not necessarily.

I agree. That cuts both ways, though. Because there's more than one reason why he might have thought it necessary to go to a party at that embassy. Including none.

But since I've already mentioned several reasonable possibilities that meet the same circumstantial criteria you use for the hypothetical following that "Not necessarily," there's not really any need for me to repeat them. I'll just assume that as a rational woman, you've basically stipulated to their possibility by incorporation just by using the same criteria that they do.

So there's no particular reason to dwell on the already-explicitly-stated further, as far as I'm concerned.

WikiLeaks builds case against Iran

That's like me accusing my neighbor, whom I've been harassing and threatening, of stealing my lawnmower, without any evidence, and then somebody using the same accusation written in a private letter I wrote to my mother as corroboration for my claim. In both cases, I am the only source, I am biased, and there is still no credible evidence.

Again, I agree. Or, as we like to say around my place, "That's like an opinion piece by CNN contributor, David Frum."

If you could point to an expression of opinion by Julian Assange that was similarly underhanded wrt to cherry-picking examples of so-called intelligence in order to make a specious, objectionable and dangerous political argument, I'd be very much obliged to you, though. Because as far as I'm aware, there is none.

So the problem with the contents of the Wikileaks is that where they echo the US/Israeli propaganda, they have low to no credibility, but they are hyped as "explosive", "corroboration", "proof", etc., something that has been pointed out by a great number of analysts but oddly enough, not Assange himself, who continues to insist that the leaks represent a blow against "American imperialism" and "the globalist agenda".

Citation?

Because searches both for "Assange," "American imperialism," and "the globalist agenda" and "Wikileaks," "American imperialism," and "the globalist agenda" bring up the same Prison Planet forum comment as the first result on a list that runs to less twenty entries in both cases.

(ON EDIT: None of which quote Assange insisting any such thing, either in those terms or in any terms, let alone doing so continually.)

Despite the fact that the leaks have on the contrary been used to promote both more war and more global intervention against the very targets that make up the neocons' wish-list

By the same people who've been using anything, everything and nothing to promote the exact same thing for years (and, in some cases, decades) by now.

Assange has, tellingly, not made one peep of protest.

Dude, you do recall that for the first couple of days he was laying low for his own safety while prominent and powerful people all across the world called for his assassination, right?

And that ever since then, lasting right up until a few hours ago, he's been in a cell on a disciplinary block at Wandsworth Prison in solitary confinement 23 hours a day with few (if any) communication privileges?

Good. Also: "Tellingly"? Really? How so?

The smoking gun here is NOT that the warmongering propaganda media has used the cables in that way, but that Assange has not seen fit to protest this AT ALL.

Ibid.

As you say, neither you nor I know for a fact whether all this is a show or not. All we can do is notice that Assange's treatment as the maverick star of a media circus simply does not fit the usual pattern of how whistle-blowers and other inconvenient people are treated, who are usually quietly kidnapped or suicided or have strange car or plane or home accidents under cover of media silence or terse media coverage. David Kelly, Gary Webb, Mordecai Vanunu and of course, William Colby come to mind. Neither do the charges against him fit the usual pattern of spurious associations with "al-Qaeda" or other "terrorist" groups or other accusations that specifically target his ideological motives and Wikileaks' credibility. None of this is conclusive in any way, but it's one among other factors that are worth keeping in mind.

See c2w, in re: "Not necessarily," supra.

Nathan, you are misrepresenting the argument. What I and others are saying is that the Wikileaks so far looks exactly like a textbook example of a limited hangout.

If that is indeed what you and others are saying, I'd advise you and others to amend that part of your argument to:

"The response in the mainstream media and elsewhere to the cables posted byWikileaks so far looks exactly like a textbook example of a limited hangout."

After that, if you feel like it, you could also try re-reading "Politics and the English Language." Because I'm not so sure that it would really be a textbook example even then, per the sources you cite.

But that's a trivial matter, really. So suit yourself. I personally find that essay to be a pleasure to read, each and every time, which is what makes up more than at least fifty percent of my motivation for mentioning it at all. And more like somewhere above the ninetieth percentile wrt you, specifically. Or....Maybe I mean somewhere below the tenth? Hmm. I don't think I can see any easy way to resolve that particular ambiguity. Although there probably is one.

In any event, what I mean is: I'm sure that you hardly need me to tell you what a pleasure that essay is to read, barring the unlikely eventuality of your never having read it. And that likewise, you hardly need to read it in order to get your skills up to par when it comes to the effective use of language in a political context. Because they're first-rate already.

And that pretty much covers it.

My compliments, as always. And my fondest and best wishes, too.

[nathan28]

The hard intelligence, on the other hand -- eg, the names of the persons, places, things, and entities mentioned in the cables as engaged in a wide variety of cooperative activities -- is fundamentally sound, per my examinations of it so far.

Agreed, there's at least one instance I'm aware of non-public domain info being accurately represented in the cables.

[Searcher08]

I just watched an almost 1hour film about Wikileaks from SVT, the main Swedish TV channel. One gets a good sense of Assange from this. The arguments and fights taking place within the organisation would be very familiar to folks around the Open Source software side - much ego, much throwing of toys out of pram and development of new 'forks' in this case OpenLeaks. Assange comes across as being extremely articulate, focused, doing it his way and wanting to open the doors of information secrecy wherever they are. I found it riveting - it even shows the Pirate Bay server room. FTW!

http://neurobonkers.com/?p=1047

[Ben D]

I mean, I fight to win, not just to fight. When I can.

Yes it's been noticed. Perhaps it is a result of your legal training, a lawyer's career would be pretty dismal if they had a poor win record,..and it seems to me that there are many who would not let the spirit of truth get in the way of winning. But I'm not suggesting that's your style.

Respectfully, Benji

..sorry, back to topic..

[AlicetheKurious]

...it seems to me that there are many who would not let the spirit of truth get in the way of winning.

Suffering from an acute shortage of time today, I just want to say one thing then go. There are very few issues on which I am very knowledgeable and am absolutely sure about the rightness of one side or the other. This is not one of them. I appreciate the contribution of all the members who have argued using sound evidence and logic that Assange and Wikileaks are the real thing; I've read them carefully and learned a lot. As some people have pointed out, however, there are enough unknowns, ambiguities and inconsistencies to warrant serious caution and an alert skepticism, and those who argue the other side rigorously are performing an equally valuable function by helping to ensure that nothing is "given" until it's been critically examined. I think that where it counts, we are all in perfect agreement: we all hold the same basic values and hate the reversal of all the advances that humanity has made in terms of international law and the universal code of human rights, we all are sickened by the normalization and even glorification of hypocrisy and lies and bullying that have so cheapened human life and so degraded human dignity and made freedom a luxury enjoyed by so very few. Our disagreement in this case is specifically about whether the Wikileaks and Assange phenomenon is part of a clever manipulation devised by the oppressor to consolidate and expand his dominion or the vanguard of a global anti-fascist and anti-imperialist intifada.

I believe that when each side in this debate tries to "win", as long as they're somewhat balanced in terms of reason, tenacity and the will to gather and critically analyze the other side's evidence, we all ultimately win, as does "the spirit of truth". In other words, if "my side" is wrong, nobody will be happier than me. If I'm right, then we'll have the dubious advantage of not having fallen for it hook, line and sinker. It may not save the world, but it would at least be consistent with the limited but worthy purpose of this discussion board.

[compared2what?]

I mean, I fight to win, not just to fight. When I can.

Yes it's been noticed. Perhaps it is a result of your legal training, a lawyer's career would be pretty dismal if they had a poor win record,..and it seems to me that there are many who would not let the spirit of truth get in the way of winning. But I'm not suggesting that's your style.

Respectfully, Benji

..sorry, back to topic..

I was just going to say "Bye, everybody! Love you! Bye!"

But that kind of calls for a clarification. First of all:

(1) I AM NOT A LAWYER.

(2) I don't think that there are many....Wait. Do you mean "many lawyers"? Oops. I misread you. Yeah, there are. Many good ones, too, though.

(3) Of course you're not.
__________________

But much more importantly than any of that:

I didn't mean that I fought to win in a debate.

Either here or elsewhere. Like Alice (or "like-Alice-as-I-understood-her, anyway; I wouldn't want to put words in her mouth), primarily, I debate to learn. I also say what I think, to the best of my ability. I mean, I might say only the part of what I think that seems called for by what are basically situational and social factors. Of course. And that can sometimes edge right up to the boundary separating honest statements from deceptive ones, I suppose. But not very often. And I do my best to stay on the right side of that line anyway.

I just meant that I'm politically serious, basically.

IOW: I'm not saying this stuff just to be saying it, I'm saying it because vital freedoms are under attack, and because I regard the defense of Julian Assange's first and fourth and eighth amendment rights as exemplary of a fight that it's urgently necessary to have and to win for everybody's benefit in as winnable a form as I'll likely see in my lifetime. So I want to see the fight for them joined and won, and advocate for it on those grounds.

That's all.