Highly suspicious Wikileaks bashing

Originally posted by Gakus
Let's be honest here, the man has provided nothing really "new." A few videos of civilians being killed is hardly "ground breaking" considering everyone and their mother already knew such things were happening.

He hasn't provided anything "earth shattering" and I highly doubt that site ever will. You act as if the man has provided video of Obama and other world leaders meeting with an Alien or something.

Maybe a "few videos of civilians being killed" isn't groundbreaking. And you're right, maybe that's because it's not shocking. But why is that?

Is it because pointless wars with vacancies in the reason box perpetuate such attitudes?

Is it because you certainly won't find these videos discovered and reported on on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC and other quasi-legitimate news/commentary sources? [And reporting on Wikileaks' leak of the video isn't quite the same as reporting the leak itself.]

Has ANY significant news actually been reported from out of the Middle East in the last 5-10 years other than death tallies and American indications of how well or not it's going?

I'm not that old, but believe it or not, the "mainstream media" really did use to investigate things and report actual news stories. They made news by figuring stuff out, strategically interviewing people and reporting findings. They were not simply amplification devices for the government/military/patriots.

Wikileaks' leak was important because it revealed, without commentary, what is going on. Yes, it may be going on every day, but if it is, we wouldn't know it. Nobody's talking to us. Whether that's because they don't think we care or because we actually don't care, is irrelevant. And if it is going on every day, we need to know about it.

1st big respect to hadrian. truth

where has the news gone? now its all about covering news up or strategically only covering one or two stories to death. msm is one of our problems.

let me ask the posters of this thread a question.

is wired compromised? just another facet of the msm?

wouldnt be surprised

Originally posted by mav0360
1st big respect to hadrian. truth

where has the news gone? now its all about covering news up or strategically only covering one or two stories to death. msm is one of our problems.

let me ask the posters of this thread a question.

is wired compromised? just another facet of the msm?

wouldnt be surprised

Wired allowed it to be published, so to me they backed it. Why they backed such a biased opinion seems to indicate they have an agenda against wikileaks, or they are terribly uninformed and unable to see two sides to every story.

tsk tsk tsk wired.

Originally posted by Vildbasse
reply to post by LurkerMan

 

"wikileaks is a cia front."

Evidence please!
And btw, i made a hitler/wikileaks satire

www.youtube.com...

how about you show me evidence that its not?

ill be glad to change my opinion

i provided my thinking behind the answer. lets hear yours.

Originally posted by Boomer1941

Originally posted by LurkerMan
wikileaks is a cia front.

Why would then the CIA publish that video of the two reporters being taken out?

so everybody automatically thinks they are legit?

the juicer the "leak" the easier it is to gain everybodies trust. what do they lose by releasing it? abunch of people mouthing off on the internet? OH EM GEE!!!! =0!!!

keep in mind the idea is to quell FUTURE leaks...you know...the ones that would actual matter..the ones they are actually worried about.


all i have seen them release is a video of soldiers killing innocent people in Afghanistan. i could have told you that was going down....it isnt exactly the years greatest revelation.

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by Gakus
Let's be honest here, the man has provided nothing really "new." A few videos of civilians being killed is hardly "ground breaking" considering everyone and their mother already knew such things were happening.

He hasn't provided anything "earth shattering" and I highly doubt that site ever will. You act as if the man has provided video of Obama and other world leaders meeting with an Alien or something.

Maybe a "few videos of civilians being killed" isn't groundbreaking. And you're right, maybe that's because it's not shocking. But why is that?

Is it because pointless wars with vacancies in the reason box perpetuate such attitudes?

Is it because you certainly won't find these videos discovered and reported on on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC and other quasi-legitimate news/commentary sources? [And reporting on Wikileaks' leak of the video isn't quite the same as reporting the leak itself.]

Has ANY significant news actually been reported from out of the Middle East in the last 5-10 years other than death tallies and American indications of how well or not it's going?

I'm not that old, but believe it or not, the "mainstream media" really did use to investigate things and report actual news stories. They made news by figuring stuff out, strategically interviewing people and reporting findings. They were not simply amplification devices for the government/military/patriots.

Wikileaks' leak was important because it revealed, without commentary, what is going on. Yes, it may be going on every day, but if it is, we wouldn't know it. Nobody's talking to us. Whether that's because they don't think we care or because we actually don't care, is irrelevant. And if it is going on every day, we need to know about it.

american news isnt the only news in the world.

al jazeera has been showing these "War crimes" since we invaded iraq. plenty of other material on the net, you obviously dont look very hard.

Originally posted by LurkerMan

Originally posted by Vildbasse
reply to post by LurkerMan

 

"wikileaks is a cia front."

Evidence please!
And btw, i made a hitler/wikileaks satire

www.youtube.com...

how about you show me evidence that its not?

ill be glad to change my opinion

i provided my thinking behind the answer. lets hear yours.

I'm pretty sure your brain is manufactured of a particularly odiferous strain of colby cheese and a little bratwurst. Prove to me it's not.

(I say that not as a commentary of your intelligence - so tempted - 'cause I wouldn't know, but as a commentary on the ridiculous pseudotactic of attempting to toss the burden of proof onto the person with the default position. Kinda like deists insisting that atheists must prove there is no god.


[edit on Jul 02, 2010 by Hadrian]

reply to post by Hadrian


way to sidestep the question .

im not here to prove anything, i couldn't really care any less whether you believe me or not. i gave my opinion, and why i believe it.

another ats members test of submitting material to wikileaks was proof enough for me.

why dont you try using the search feature and finding it yourself, and actually reviewing the past threads


inform yourself, im not going to do it for you..for free.


as for the 'burden of proof', that would be everything after the line in my post that you quoted. if thats not good enough for you, well i dont really care as my opinion requires no proof.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by LurkerMan]

reply to post by and14263


I'm shocked this is coming from wired as this magazine was once run by people who valued the freedom of information. The fact they are out there criticising wikileaks is really worrying.

The question the author should have asked is this, would you prefer tons of useless information or 12 releases of quality information? Wikileaks has continued top output information despite being under massive scrutiny both from the media and from governments. I wonder how long wired would last if they had people at the pentagon trying to shut them down.

Wired also seems to be behind the times when they criticise wikileaks TOR submission system being down. TOR has now been infiltrated by the US and other governments, they have set up a great many nodes and i am quite sure it is why wikileaks abandoned the network.

We'll see what happens, but no matter what occurs i am glad wikileaks exists.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


yeah, and the other thing is ... i mean, i know no one really bothered to evaluate Wired as some sort of touchstone of ethical journalism - there just was little need considering their subject matter, but there is certainly an appearance of impropriety:

the original Wired writer has an interesting background that would already bring up conflicts of interest, especially considering his relationship (whatever that may be) with Lamo;

Lamo has all kinds of red flags in his background;

the union of the two is, itself, a huge issue;

the follow-up article was obviously written with such broadstroked prejudice and bias (for some unknown reason) against Wikileaks that it really begs the question to the reader "what in the world is Wired's problem with Wikileaks?" And since it does that, you gotta ask the question "what's up?" because why would a relatively mainstream magazine output an article that had such a dramatic and insistent bias unless there was something going on behind the scenes?

I dont know, WikiLeaks could def. be a disinformation a campaign.

I say this because of the 9/11 texts. Not one good thing in them except for a lot of bad memories. I really doubt .gov would just let them stream some real info into hands so nicely wrapped about bush.cheney.bin laden having lunch at the four seasons in New York the night before or something.

I still think even if it is real, nothing has been "blockbuster", IMO at least. Although if true definitely worth being displayed.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
I dont know, WikiLeaks could def. be a disinformation a campaign.

I say this because of the 9/11 texts. Not one good thing in them except for a lot of bad memories. I really doubt .gov would just let them stream some real info into hands so nicely wrapped about bush.cheney.bin laden having lunch at the four seasons in New York the night before or something.

I still think even if it is real, nothing has been "blockbuster", IMO at least. Although if true definitely worth being displayed.

Have you read all of the wikileaks stuff? Some of it really is blockbuster, their leaks are not just about the US government you know, they have outed private institutions as well. Their leaks regarding the Icelandic banks caused some serious trouble, as did leaking the membership list of the BNP. The second one was national news in the UK and even saw some international reporting.

If it's a covert operation then it's a deeply complicated one because at the moment all it is doing is causing various governments, including the USA a lot of trouble. Of course intelligence operations have a track record of being complex but it's difficult to see an end game for this one. The majority of the sources are completely anonymous so if it's an attempted rounding up of intelligence leaks then it's not very effective.

Their figurehead is also a bad choice unless they have something on him of course. The man has lived a life like a ghost, skipping around various countries with intermittent addresses and difficulty in finding people who know him well. I think wikileaks really is just what it says it is.

The other reason for them shutting down various services may simply be money, in February sources reported wikileaks was short around 150,000 euros. It seems they managed to gather this cash in but no doubt they're struggling again.

That makes this Wired article even stranger because they criticise the donation button being up when it is clear wikileaks is struggling with funding. I smell an agenda.

Originally posted by LurkerMan

american news isnt the only news in the world.

al jazeera has been showing these "War crimes" since we invaded iraq. plenty of other material on the net, you obviously dont look very hard.

no no no that is the point exactly! all american news is showing right now is the oil spill. let me repeat that cause its really important. all american news is showing right now is the oil spill. all american news is showing right now is the oil spill! thats not a stretch. thats not blowing it outta proportion. thats the dead on truth. american news is all false flags and sleight of hand. there IS nothing else happening as far as our dumb a***s know.

we're spoon fed the same s*** day in and day out. oil spills and cute kitties. and now how the hurricane will affect it. wtf people? we're really letting this happen?!

reply to post by mav0360


not sure i follow you, ive seen plenty of msm coverage of wikileaks. i mean its not anywhere near what the oilspill is but...i think thats because the oil spill is a much larger issue?


and on another note: that other stuff somebody said about wikileaks taking down big private corporations in other countries. i suppose it gives a little more credibility to them, if its true.

i mean dont get me wrong folks i dig their whole cause (obviously or i wouldnt advocate cryptome) im just skeptical at the constant shroud of suspicious inconsistencies that wont add up.ill keep a foot on the fence

All this is, is an attempt to discredit a good site for doing good things badly.
The article was biased and the writer is clueless.

People who say "wikileaks is a cia front" can't prove it. Wikileaks has done more harm to CIA objectives then good, so that makes no sense at all. Some sheeple are just paranoid.

Originally posted by xtcsx
reply to post by Gakus

 

Just a few innocent civilians killed? The video Wikileaks released was United States troops committing a warcrime. Sure it wasnt ushering Jews into a concentration camp oven and flipping a switch... but it was a clear violation of the rules of engagement at best and at worst just cold blooded murder.

It really shows the apathy our society has when it comes to this. Our video games don't approach the subject as deep as 'the rule of law' when your gunning down silhouettes of people from an AC-130.

Although I take it personally that you think this way, I think this is the attitude of the American public pacified into an oblivion that has had the luxury of not sacrificing anything for needless wars and endless aggression for resources.

You really need to learn to stop posting over discussions you have such a deep emotional commitment too, or at least learn to take a few moments before posting to calm down.

Your entire argument is centered around emotion thus making the entire post irrelevant.

I am not a wikileaks fan. I am not a fan of Julian. Or his criminal history. He loves awfully well and manages to say his company is suffering for money.

He slants his material in an extreme manner. He refuses to just air a video, he has to color it with his slant.

I do not approve of leaking classified material. I think the harm he causes outweighs any good he does. And eventually he's going to cost some americans there lives.

And the wired article is less slanted than most of the material wikilinks releases. He's going to eventually leak something that has no business in the public arena that is so severe that he will probably be dealt with severely.

reply to post by DrJay1975


You don't agree with leaking any classified material? So if a country ran an operation to assassinate several high profile political targets and frame several others for crimes they haven't committed, on behalf of a large corporation then you don't think it's the duty of a decent person to make that information public?

That's an extreme example but you said you don't agree with leaking classified information so i want to know where your line is.

Unless that's classified of course

Originally posted by DrJay1975
I am not a wikileaks fan. I am not a fan of Julian. Or his criminal history. He loves awfully well and manages to say his company is suffering for money.

He slants his material in an extreme manner. He refuses to just air a video, he has to color it with his slant.

I do not approve of leaking classified material. I think the harm he causes outweighs any good he does. And eventually he's going to cost some americans there lives.

And the wired article is less slanted than most of the material wikilinks releases. He's going to eventually leak something that has no business in the public arena that is so severe that he will probably be dealt with severely.

I saw his recent video of the plane crash and i didn't see any colouring or slanting. All i saw was translations. Seems your slanting your opinion to your own personal goals which isn't a good way to debate an issue to find its truth.

All i see here is opinions about this site, no proof or even constructive critism on either side. Some just hate wikileaks and want to bash it, i personally think it does a service to human beings and hope it prospers.

Wired use to be pretty good stuff, but 12 years ago. I used to be subscribe to it, but stoped in 2003. Today, I could'not whipe my "ringny" with-it !

Ryan Singel booo you !!! Does Wikileak have something about Wired the could be scarry ? That would be funny !

Julain Assange and wikileak, keep up the amazing work !



[edit on 4-7-2010 by truthy-bird]