Question about WikiLeaks

[Erin]

Posted by ponda (here)
This might explain why the governments appear to already know what the WikiLeaks release might contain.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AN5HL20101124

Quote from the article:

Sources said three international news organizations which previously published stories based on classified U.S. government documents acquired by WikiLeaks -- the New York Times, Britain's Guardian newspaper and the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel -- were given access the documents some time ago by Julian Assange, the Australian-born computer hacker who says he is WikiLeaks' founder and leader.

Two of the sources said Assange has also made the documents available to at least two other European publications -- the newspapers El Pais of Spain and Le Monde of France.

They did this for prior releases, too (the Iraq War logs, anyway). It was so the MSM could prepare pieces on the information so the public could get a gist of what they were all about, since most people don't have the time to sift through 400,000+ documents.

[ponda]

Posted by cosmiclagoon (here)
They did this for prior releases, too (the Iraq War logs, anyway). It was so the MSM could prepare pieces on the information so the public could get a gist of what they were all about, since most people don't have the time to sift through 400,000+ documents.

Yes cosmiclagoon but people are insinuating that Wiki is a ptb puppet show purely because the u.s. government appears to already know all about the upcoming info release.They probably already know because the info has been leaked to them by the newspapers etc and not because wiki is a front for the ptb.

[Erin]

Posted by ponda (here)
Yes cosmiclagoon but people are insinuating that Wiki is a ptb puppet show purely because the u.s. government appears to already know all about the upcoming info release.They probably already know because the info has been leaked to them by the newspapers etc and not because wiki is a front for the ptb.

Exactly.

I mean, I guess I wouldn't be totally ~shocked~ if evidence came out that it is a PTB puppet show, but for the moment, given what I've gathered about it now, I feel like that's probably not what it is. That doesn't mean they can't be hijacked to serve that purpose, though.

[ponda]

Posted by cosmiclagoon (here)
Exactly.

I mean, I guess I wouldn't be totally ~shocked~ if evidence came out that it is a PTB puppet show, but for the moment, given what I've gathered about it now, I feel like that's probably not what it is. That doesn't mean they can't be hijacked to serve that purpose, though.

Yeah i agree with you.Anything is possible these days.

What happens after the release should be interesting.How the media handle it and what the reactions are.The Iraq and Afghanistan releases seemed to have faded from the spotlight fairly quickly with little or no repercussions for anyone as yet.

[HURRITT ENYETO]

Posted by nerV (here)
I agree with your first sentence. As to the other, what infinite powers do you think they have over web sites? Project Camelot and Project Avalon, as well as numerous other sites that confront the establishment are still up and running. In my opinion, as long as the public eye is fixed on something, they can not just "remove" it. It would create an effect that would be worse for them.

Yes but there is a BIG difference between doing interviews like Bill and Kerry and actually producing documents and classified material proof, I bet Bill would tell you himself thats a surefire way to get dead. With regard to what power do they have over websites, its amazing what a bullet in the head can do to stop the running of a website.

[Malcolm Linus]

Posted by HURRITT ENYETO (here)
Yes but there is a BIG difference between doing interviews like Bill and Kerry and actually producing documents and classified material proof, I bet Bill would tell you himself thats a surefire way to get dead. With regard to what power do they have over websites, its amazing what a bullet in the head can do to stop the running of a website.

Until I see evidence of this bullet in the head of truth speakers, I will continue to believe that the PTB don't have that much power anymore, especially regarding public information where the source is well-known. They fear the public eye, in my opinion.

[Celine]

I agree they are not as powerful as they used to be ...but that can make them even more dangerous, desperation leads to some pretty fanatical behavior...

[bluestflame]

like the legend of the old lion who knows his end is near , having nothing to lose

[Zook]

Good morning Ponda, the Earth says hello!

Posted by ponda (here)
Yes cosmiclagoon but people are insinuating that Wiki is a ptb puppet show purely because the u.s. government appears to already know all about the upcoming info release.They probably already know because the info has been leaked to them by the newspapers etc and not because wiki is a front for the ptb.

'...leaked to them by the newspapers, etc...'

Assange leaks info/disinfo to newspapers (e.g. mainstream print media); the US government obtains this leaked info/disinfo from said newspapers (as if Canada or Israel, or get this, itself couldn't??) ... to wit, the US has garnered a method of manipulating the news without actually being held accountable for disseminating disinfo. How convenient.

Please study the model of Al Jazeera and try and understand how that CIA pipe was/is being used to shape the regional news according to western geopolitical interests. Wikileaks is the same model. But how can we be sure? Easy. Ask Julian Assange for his views on 9/11/2001. If his views smell half-baked; toss 'em back in the oven! IMO, Assange's views are establishment-grade. Given that, nothing independent and/or truly genuine can be expected from his pipes (either from his natural voicebox or his artificial one, Wikileaks).

But here's Assange according to another Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

************ beginExcerpt ********************************
Arrest of Bradley Manning
Main article: Bradley Manning

A 22-year-old US Army intelligence analyst, PFC (formerly SPC) Bradley Manning, was arrested after alleged chat logs were turned in to the authorities by former hacker Adrian Lamo, in whom he had confided. Manning reportedly told Lamo he had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video, in addition to a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to WikiLeaks.[172][173] WikiLeaks said "allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect."[174] WikiLeaks have said that they are unable as yet to confirm whether or not Manning was actually the source of the video, stating "we never collect personal information on our sources", but that they have nonetheless "taken steps to arrange for his protection and legal defence."[173][175] On 21 June Julian Assange told The Guardian that WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning but that they had not been given access to him.[176]

Manning reportedly wrote, "Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed."[177] According to the Washington Post, he also described the cables as "explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective."[178]
*********************** end ******************************************************

There are many red flags in the article. You'll have to use a fine discerning lens. I added the above excerpt because it speaks to the risk faced by those trusting Wikileaks to be what Assange and his supporters claim it to be, rather than what it most certainly is. Again, all doubts should be removed when you consider Assange's dumbfounding - but eye-opening - claim that 9/11/2001 was a false conspiracy. Question begs, do you believe it was a false conspiracy? Or a real one?

[ponda]

Zook

When the current batch of info is released we will be able to discern what it means a little more accurately until then it's all speculation.I don't believe that the establishment is behind wiki or controlling them but i could be wrong.Maybe it's just another conspiracy...

In regards to trusting wikileaks i have seen several recent news articles that said that wikileaks revealed peoples names in the recent Iraq and Afghan war documents releases BUT i seen an interview with Assange on the mainstream tv and when questioned about the release of the names he strongly denied it and said that wiki went through the info thoroughly and removed ALL of the names before they released the info.

As for 911...does ANYONE really know exactly what happened and who or what was really behind it ? If Assange said that he thought that it was a false conspiracy then i would ask him to define his meaning of a false conspiracy before jumping the gun and judging him.

[Celine]

this is reminding me of old vulcan theology (yes yes im a trekker) ...

IDIC

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination

[HURRITT ENYETO]

Posted by Céline (here)
this is reminding me of old vulcan theology (yes yes im a trekker) ...

IDIC

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination

There's nothing wrong with that Celine *Blushes*

[norman]

Posted by zookumar (here)

......garnered a method of manipulating the news without actually being held accountable for disseminating disinfo. How convenient.......

Precisely, and add to that the dynamic impact of quantity over quality.

[Chris411]

Julian Assange: 9/11 was not a conspiracy !!!!!

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/21...eps-no-secrets

About the man who thinks 9/11 was no conspiracy and that the Bilderberg Meeting participants are merely networking retired people looking for a complement of their pensions as Wal-Mart door greeters.
No time to waste anymore with the millions of "leaks" promoted by his website.


Julian Assange tells Matthew Bell why governments fear Wikileaks

There are not many journalists who, when you ask them if they are being followed by the CIA, say "We have surveillance events from time to time." Actually it's not a question I've ever asked before, and Julian Assange does not call himself a journalist.

But the answer is typical of this 41-year-old former computer-hacker: cryptic, dispassionate, and faintly self-important.

As the founder of Wikileaks - a website that publishes millions of documents, from military intelligence to internal company memos and has, in four years, exposed more secrets than many newspapers have in a century - Assange has become the pin-up of web-age investigative journalists. The US has wanted him for questioning since March, after he posed a video showing an American helicopter attack that left several Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists dead.

Understandably, he now avoids the US, and keeps his movements secret, though it's thought he operates out of Sweden and is spending time in Iceland, where a change in the law is creating a libel-free haven for journalists. But if the CIA spooks wanted him that badly, couldn't they have turned up, as a hundred adoring student journalists did, to hear him talk at the Centre for Investigative Journalism 10 days ago?

Perhaps it's just as well they didn't, as Assange is not a natural public speaker. He is more at home trawling data or decrypting the codes that mask it. His philosophy is that the more a government wants to keep something secret, the more reason to expose it.

No journalist could argue with his essential belief in shining a light on malpractice, but shouldn't governments be entitled to keep some secrets? "Sure," he says when we speak after his talk, "That doesn't mean we and other press organizations should suffer under coercion."

What if publishing a document would threaten national security? "This phrase is so abused. Dick Cheney justified torture with it. Give me an example." What about the movement of US troops? Would he publish a document that jeopardized their safety? "We'd have to think about it." So that's a yes? "It's not a yes. If that fit into our editorial criteria - which it might, if it was an extremely good movement - then we'd have to look at whether that needed a harm minimization procedure. We'd be totally happy to consider jeopardizing the initiation of a war, or the action of war. Absolutely."

He may speak like a robot, and have a politician's knack at ducking straight answers, but in the flesh he could be a forgotten member of Crowded House, all ripped jeans and crumpled jacket, his distinguished white hair framing a youthful face. His grungy look ties in with his outsider status: he has a deep-rooted mistrust of authority. It has been speculated this comes from a youthful brush with the family courts after he divorced the mother of his son, though little is really known about his early life.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news."

What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

Assange likes to see Wikileaks as a neutral platform for distributing information, and fends off criticism by saying it always follows its openly stated policies. But no news organisation is free from personal input, as he reveals when talking of Bilderberg, a shadowy annual conference of the influential. "I understand the philosophical rationale for having Chatham House rules among people in power, but the corrupting nature, in the case of Bilderberg, probably outweighs the benefits. When powerful people meet together in secret, it tends to corrupt."

Spending time with Assange, it's hard not to start believing that dark forces are at work. According to him, everyone's emails are being read. For that reason, he encourages anyone planning to leak a document to post it the old fashioned way, to his PO Box. It's ironic that an organisation bent on blowing secrets is itself so secretive, but Wikileaks couldn't operate without reliable sources. Except that, amazingly, Wikileaks does not verify them. "We don't verify our sources, we verify the documents. As long as they are bona fide, it doesn't matter where they come from. We would rather not know."

After we talk, he is off to a safe house for the night and after that, who knows? He never stays in one place more than two nights. Is that because the CIA wants to kill him? "Is it in the CIA's interest to assassinate me? Maybe. But who would do it?" Isn't he brave to appear in public? "Courage is an intellectual mastery of fear," he says. "It's not that you don't have fear, you just manage your risks intelligently."

[ponda]

Here's another perspective of WikiLeaks.It says that Wiki is controlled by Israel and is trying to undermine the u.s government.


http://www.sott.net/articles/show/21...tench-of-AIPAC

[witchy1]

Ive been thinking out this, and I put this up as another alternative. Perhaps in the beginning ja had all the best intentions, then as we can only guess as to what has transpired since - maybe he did a deal with tptb in exchange for his life or of those nearest and dearest that if he gave up on 9/11 and agenda 21 and military spending and ET;s they would allow him certain privilages in creating an illusion of 'truth leaks'. Really what damage has been done - other than prove what we all thought - that we have a bunch of childish imbeciles running earth. He said this and then he said that, is really quite pathetic, and what about - oh they dont like those people, and oh I think they could be trouble, you'd better keep them in line!!!!! (I have only seen what little has come out at this time, and was hoping for disclosure of ANY form) Like we dont know all this goes on. Having said that it might be good for those with blinkers on.
A storm in a teacup to be honest and probably a diversion of some sorts. Eyes wide open. Odds on the govt has passed a couple of new laws by tomorrow. Any takers
Pftttt
PS - He might just turn up trumps to.

[RedeZra]

Posted by ponda (here)
Here's another perspective of WikiLeaks.It says that Wiki is controlled by Israel and is trying to undermine the u.s government.


http://www.sott.net/articles/show/21...tench-of-AIPAC

tnx for the link

Gordon Duff is a Vietnam veteran and an Editor at 'Veterans Today'

he has written some interesting articles about the AIPAC Agenda (Israel's lobby)

[Kulapops]

All the same.. this is an interesting story to follow. I was reading also that wikileaks can guarantee anonymity to any source because their servers carry no records, which means whistleblowers can feel free to post.

I do however wonder about three things :

1) Governments are either good at keeping secrets, or they're not. This didn't come out of the blue, the American govt tried to 'stop' the leak. If you can't stop something of this magnitude happening, it's either cause you want it, or you're cr*p at your job. Now if the us govt was cr*p at its job, we'd have a lot more info floating around on everything that we do. (So yes, Zook.. my first thought was perhaps this is intentional.. and why MSM so involved? They don't carry Jones, Icke, Camelot et al...). So if it's intentional, what's really going on just now??

2) Like the UFO problem. Got a decent picture ? Must be fake . No? The decent picture is actually a real UFO? Wow... looks too good, no one would ever believe it. that's why grainy pics, and half lit blobs fare so much better on the UFO circuit , than the pixel perfect photoshopped ones. Hey, that vid could be real.. and get lost in the noise. Even if this stuff were true... no one will believe it or take notice.. or it can get dismissed easily

Did I say three ? See, you can't trust anyone to tell the truth....

[morguana]

who knows kula, but what ever the intention or truth behind it one think for sure is the backlash from the middle east is not going to be some little blip
m

[rhythm]

plot counter plot
double spies
tangled webs
mad mind at
work big time
god not at home