Is Wikileaks a psyop or the real deal?

There's a lot of speculation about Wikileaks from various places, what i want to do is dissect it a bit and find out

the opinions of ATS'rs.

for example here's Video about whether or not one corner of the net thinks but is it meant to make us question more the reality of what's going on in the world? A psyop within a psyop?

Wikileaks began on Sunday November 28th publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into US Government foreign activities.

The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February this year, contain confidential communications between 274 embassies in countries throughout the world and the State Department in Washington DC. 15,652 of the cables are classified Secret. 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. The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.

This document release reveals the contradictions between the US's public persona and what it says behind closed doors -- and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what's going on behind the scenes. Every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington -- the country's first President -- could not tell a lie.

If the administrations of his successors lived up to the same principle, today's document flood would be a mere embarrassment. Instead, the US Government has been warning governments -- even the most corrupt -- around the world about the coming leaks and is bracing itself for the exposures.

The full set consists of 251,287 documents, comprising 261,276,536 words (seven times the size of "The Iraq War Logs", the world's previously largest classified information release). The cables cover from 28th December 1966 to 28th February 2010 and originate from 274 embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions.

a reply to: Encryptor

Alright!

So my biggest concern would be verification of validity. Now according to Wikipedia:

Verification of submissions[edit]

WikiLeaks has contended that it has never released a misattributed document and that documents are assessed before release. In response to concerns about the possibility of misleading or fraudulent leaks, WikiLeaks has stated that misleading leaks "are already well-placed in the mainstream media. WikiLeaks is of no additional assistance."[76] The FAQ states that: "The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinise and discuss leaked documents."[77]

According to statements by Assange in 2010, submitted documents are vetted by a group of five reviewers, with expertise in different topics such as language or programming, who also investigate the background of the leaker if his or her identity is known.[78] In that group, Assange has the final decision about the assessment of a document

Basically 6 "pros" have the final say on the validity. Also, it's worth noting that even if one document is found to be fraudulent it would jeopardize their entire organization.

It could be possible, but there would need to be proof.

Is Wikileaks a psyop or the real deal?

Wikileaks is Wikileaks.

They leak stuff.

You have only ever been the sole critic of what they "leak".

How's there a real question here?

a reply to: Dan00

Considering the source of information is always a real question.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Encryptor

Alright!

So my biggest concern would be verification of validity. Now according to Wikipedia:

Verification of submissions

WikiLeaks has contended that it has never released a misattributed document and that documents are assessed before release. In response to concerns about the possibility of misleading or fraudulent leaks, WikiLeaks has stated that misleading leaks "are already well-placed in the mainstream media. WikiLeaks is of no additional assistance."[76] The FAQ states that: "The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinise and discuss leaked documents."[77]

According to statements by Assange in 2010, submitted documents are vetted by a group of five reviewers, with expertise in different topics such as language or programming, who also investigate the background of the leaker if his or her identity is known.[78] In that group, Assange has the final decision about the assessment of a document

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically 6 "pros" have the final say on the validity. Also, it's worth noting that even if one document is found to be fraudulent it would jeopardize their entire organization.

It could be possible, but there would need to be proof.

hm or it's possible that much of it is actual evidence and valid, but being manipulated on purpose by two rival factions fighting for control of what's being leaked. I doubt it began that way though, but now there's that rival thing going on like mafia factions.

They seem to 'want' to leak certain information i just don't know why. To drive the public mad and slowly brainwash them into not responding to it anymore. There are a few probabilities it would seem.

I'd have a teeny tiny bit of respect for Hillary if she accepted responsibility. But that'll never happen.

Instead? They'll try and blame Russia, say things are fake and deny-deny-deny.

And, in the mean time? Her shills will attack Wikileaks. Ridic.

a reply to: JinMI

Considering the source of information is always a real question.

Not when you have no real resources to consider it with.

a reply to: Dan00

All answers are in need of a real question. A human question. Why do they leak it, The purpose being...

I'm human and i'm asking it.

a reply to: Encryptor

Why do they leak it

Your guess is as good as mine, Encryptor.



ETA: I'm not the guy asking questions. What resources do you turn to in order to understand what is leaked?

originally posted by: lovebeck
I'd have a teeny tiny bit of respect for Hillary if she accepted responsibility. But that'll never happen.

Instead? They'll try and blame Russia, say things are fake and deny-deny-deny.

And, in the mean time? Her shills will attack Wikileaks. Ridic.

Yup i concur.

Russia is always blamed when this sh't happens. It's getting old now.

I appreciate your input, just trying to analyze it from every angle here

a reply to: Dan00

Perhaps one day we'll find out.

ETA: I don't have all the answers either, like you i'm curious and still doing a bit of searching myself.
If i had all the answers, now that would be a damn good headline wouldn't it?

a reply to: Encryptor

Perhaps one day...

Count on it.

Hindsight's a bitch.

a reply to: Dan00

It sure as hell is a b*tch!

a reply to: Encryptor

I'm leaning towards psyop.

When you consider the information thayve released, most of it confirms what many have already speculated or has been discussed in the alternative media.

Some of it is just pure propaganda.

For example. theres another thread which references Hillary's knowledge of Saudi Arabia funding ISUS.

Is this leak meant to be a deflection?

Its common knowledge that ISUS is a creation of the US. McCain actually traveled to Syria and met with the "rebel" leaders who would go on to form ISUS.

Our CIA armed and trained them after which they were openly supported by the Obama administration.

But I suppose its more believable that some other nation is supporting them (which may also be true) when we implicate one of our own leaders.

It is a psyop. The information might be the real deal, but there is an agenda behind it being spread to the general public.

I am 100% certain that if WIkiLeaks was indeed regular whisleblowing, Assange would be long gone. Don´t believe for a second that he and his cohorts wouldn´t have been shot/poisoned/abducted ages ago if the US really viewed him as an enemy to the state.

One of the more dangerous lies is that intelligence agencies are unintelligent.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Agreed! It does seem to lean that way heavily when you weigh it. On the one hand they're being funded by what should be considered an enemy to all things Western, on the other hand, it's the same monster, different arm.

a reply to: honeybadger

Yup that's true, Assange i've never been totally sure about. It's a mouse and cat game and it's dangerously going off to left field now.

a reply to: Encryptor

You're using Wikipedia as a source.. Where that's not good either.
It's users like you and me submitted material... Much could be wrong or completely inaccurate..

a reply to: Encryptor

There's no "psyop" needed. Just drama, chaos, and the dangling carrot of promise of yet more of the same. And people eat it up like a pack of fat kids turned loose in a Krispy Kreme with the "Hot Now" sign lit up. Pavlov's sheep.