Support for WikiLeaks Evaporates as New Release of War Documents Looms

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Keyhole

 

Even when Colbert presses him in that interview, Assange gives in by saying "yes, i lied to get my agenda through"

Assange didn't say that. Colbert was saying how trimming the video to only the shooting and giving the video the title "Collateral Murder" will 'properly manipulate the audience' into the 'emotional state he wants' before revealing that specific part of the video to them. And Colbert says "That's journalism I can get behind." Then Assange says yes, only 1 in 10 people went on to view the full length video, and Colbert says so 9 out of 10 people accepted that it was Collateral murder, congratulations.

And here is the Colbert interview to prove it: Interview With Assange




[edit on 15-8-2010 by againuntodust]

He is free to release whatever he likes. He is also free to reap the consequences of that action....

reply to post by Darkrunner

He is free to release whatever he likes. He is also free to reap the consequences of that action....

I'm afraid Assange is not the one releasing these docs - that credit goes to the original leaker/whistleblower. Assange - and Wikileaks - is only the medium, it's like blaming the Internet for releasing them.

The twists and trickery are getting more impressive by the day now.

The manipulation has been amazingly effective through intentional ineffectiveness.

Changing Heroes to Villains, and Villains to godlike saviors.

Impressive.

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Keyhole

 

To answer your question, i pretend to speak as Assange and I paraphrase

WHY?

Why "pretend" to be someone else and then pretend they said something they didn't?

And you really shouldn't take people's words out of contexts, say something they didn't say or even imply, and call that "paraphrasing"!

"We edited to video to show the parts that would have the maximum political impact"

Okay, this is what Assange says and you take this statement and, somehow, read into it as a confession that he LIED?

No where in there does it say "We edited the video to fit time requirements, and told nothing but the truth"

Didn't know it was a requirement to have to state that when you edit a video, there's probably a lot of video's that have been edited out there that haven't heard of that requirement either.

Even when Colbert presses him in that interview, Assange gives in by saying "yes, i lied to get my agenda through"

I guess this is you "paraphrasing"!

Some people really shouldn't "paraphrase".

to which Colbert, in his classic sarcastic mannerism, replies "Now THATS journalism *I* can get behind"

Colbert wasn't even CLOSE to implying that Assange was lying.

YOUR link once again, ...

Wikileak's Assange Says Iraq Footage Framed for "Maximum Impact"

Wikileaks also posted a 39-minute version of the events that it says is unedited that lacks the Orwell intro. On Colbert's show, Assange told the host, "Our promise to the public is that we will release the full source material so that if people have a different opinion, the full material is there for them to analyze and assess." Colbert was unconvinced, in a sarcastic way.

"Well, actually, then, I admire that," said Colbert. "I admire someone who is willing to put 'collateral murder' on the first thing that people see, knowing that they probably won't look at the rest of it." The crowd laughs, as does Assange. "That way you've properly manipulated the audience into the emotional state you want before something goes on the air. Because that is an emotional manipulation -- what you're about to see

is 'collateral murder.' Now look at this completely objective bit of footage your about to show. That's journalism I can get behind." Assange conceded that "only one in ten people did look at the full footage."

Of course, triggering emotional reactions to shape the interpretation of experiences that follow -- something psychologists called priming -- is part of what media does. It's why Colbert comes onstage to screeching bald eagles and waving American flags. And it's why headlines in newspapers and on blog posts read the way that they do. What Wikileaks is up to is, as Colbert put it, editorial, and Assange comments on Colbert's show suggests that he knows it. Perhaps not for nothing is Wikileaks parent organization called Sunshine Press.

They edited the video, there is NO scenes in the video that are not from the original video, just narrating that was imposed on the video to "triggering emotional reactions".

Again, I just don't see where where Assange implies that he lied.

Here's the two videos, the edited version and the raw footage, I'll imbed them here because I know that some people are "too lazy", ...

Here's the edited version, ...

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq


And here's the unedited, 39 minute version, ...

Wikileaks leaked video of Civilians killed in Baghdad - Full video


Find where they edited this video in order to represent a lie, I couldn't find one.

How many people do you think would have actually watched the whole 39 minute video compared to only having to watch a 17 minute video?

And of course the shorter version is going to have quite an "emotional impact" on people since you cramming the worst of an almost 40 minute video into only 17 minutes.

But, there is no convincing someone who does not want to be convinced.

I know how you feel!

Only in this case, the guy who's leading the organization is telling you' he's lying. And you still willingly give in. Says everything I need to know.

If you can actually find a lie in any of this edited version of the video, of course by comparing it to what actually happened in the unedited video, or how it could be construed as not representing the truth, or exactly when Assange tells us "he's lying", without "paraphrasing" I will be very surprised.

[edit on 8/15/2010 by Keyhole]

wrong topicccc!!! aaaa

[edit on 15-8-2010 by metodex]

There they go again lying and trying to make our minds up for us. What a crock. Go WikiLeaks!

reply to post by againuntodust



Since when could we trust fox news with the opinion of the public?

Every time they mention it, its strangely something they agree with.

I finally watched the Colbert interview...thanks for posting it.

Anyone who thinks that Stephen Colbert doesn't know how to spin his own content (and actually dissuade insight through the use of humour) really has no idea what they are talking about here.

That is all...

Edit for clarity.

[edit on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:29:15 -0500 by MemoryShock]

Fox news is nothing more than a COMPLETE CIRCUS consisting of either HALF-TRUTHS or FULL LIES. That combined with the never ending right-winger propaganda nonsense, makes Fox the biggest JOKE in media.

Unfortunantly, there are still Neanderthals living among us that beleive all this nonsense that Fox news spews.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


As always

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Snarf

 

I wonder if the Apache gunner had the little HUD icons for children pop up when he was targeting the van. Did it also zoom in real close to see the kids? No one here has yet answered me that question and I wonder why. Did the gunners have little icons pop up showing which guy is the alleged reporter? Now does this look like a camera to any one?



Even in the opening video you can see physically at least three Aks and possibily an RPG. i've never seen cameras looking like AKs and RPGs.

What so many people forget here is that hidesight is 20/20. Its SO easy to go, OH! the murdered children on purpose and they laughed about it. No, nothing like that happened. I heard no mention of children by either pilot, gunner, or any observers. I saw a legit attack on legit targets. I've never seen someone shoulder a "telephoto lens" like an RPG before, and I've never seen someone carry a camera like an AK-47.

Are you kidding me? Did you watch the video?

The image you show as an "RPG" in the video is swung around as casually as a child waving an umbrella.

You really think anyone would be stupid enough to handle such a weapon in such a manner?

AK-47's and RPG... WOW...

The Soldiers reported to HQ they were taking fire....

NOT!!

That the dying men and the innocent civilians in the van where trying to "collect the weapons"

No weapons, no firing... nothing just a bunch of bored kids thinking they are playing a game of Call of Duty looking from some action....

Don't take my word on it.. Listen to another soldier who was there first hand blowing the whistle....

Collateral Muder Confirmed By Soldiers Present At Apache Attack

and more...





Only when we can begin to think critically will our minds be opened to question authority and seek the truth.

One last note... As far as Fox news polls... I seem to recall an election between Obama and McCain and... we all know how their polls turned out in that one.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by alexhiggins732]

Wikileaks has lost all credibility with me. I view it as an Al-Qaeda propaganda operation. All of the leaks are one sided and apparently there is no concern for loss of innocent lives. The perp.s need to be arrested and tried for treason or murder depending on the countries of origin.

Not surprisingly the knee jerk anti-American voices here love Wikileaks. If you love radical Islam and communism so much why not move to N. Korea or Pakistan?

Originally posted by SevenThunders
All of the leaks are one sided and apparently there is no concern for loss of innocent lives.

Don't you think it's easier to have leaks from a large army, with records of the transmissions, than from a smaller, divided in very small cells (or so they tell us), in which the communications don't have a defined path (as far as we know)?

reply to post by MemoryShock

Anyone who thinks that Stephen Colbert doesn't know how to spin his own content (and actually dissuade insight through the use of humour) really has no idea what they are talking about here.

So your proposal is that Colbert is just a half-witty comedian and his interview was worth nothing?


Colbert only does the spinning AFTER the wikileaks guy admits to doctoring the tape in order to further a political agenda.

But, as i've said before in this thread, there is no convincing someone who doesn't want to be convinced. You either see wikileaks for what it is, or you hate the government so much that you're willing to believe anything wikileaks says - even after they admit to lying to you.


[edit on 16-8-2010 by Snarf]

I've never had real cause to doubt WikiLeaks - until now. So many people keep posting about how they "know" or "feel" that WikiLeaks isn't kosher and usually offering nothing in the way of proof.

But now, a case has been built against WikiLeaks by Scott Creighton of American EveryMan that even I can understand.

An Open Letter to Potential Whistleblowers: Wikileaks May be a State Department “Honeypot”- You Have Other Options (Part 1)

An Open Letter to Potential Whistleblowers: Wikileaks May be a State Department “Honeypot”- You Have Other Options (Part 2)

For a taster, here are the key exhibits:

exhibit ”A”: John Young, former advisory board member of Wikileaks

I am certainly not the first person to conclude that Wikileaks is nothing more than a CIA operation. John Young came to this conclusion years ago. Young was brought in as Wikileaks was created in order to give them some instant credibility; Young already ran a site called Cryptome which published material the globalists generally didn’t want people to read.

exhibit “B”: Subject Matter

These documents were not high-level secured top-secret documents in fact they were nothing of the sort. They almost read AS IF they were intended to be leaked in the first place. Instead this seems like a cheap PR campaign parody of the Pentagon Papers written by people who THINK they are smarter than everyone else.

exhibit ”C”: Slim Shady and the Snitch Cover

In order for the leaker honeypot trick to work, you must have a couple of things. The first thing is a “proven” track record of leaking sensitive material that gets a lot of attention and thus far, the typical MSM outlets have played along nicely in the fabrication of that illusion so far. Hell, they even got 3 complicit media organizations to play along right off the bat: the New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel.

The next thing you need to do is to fabricate a “plausible” narrative explaining how the whistleblower got caught WITHOUT being sold out by the honeypot: ie… SNITCH COVER. This is important because without it, no one would trust the honeypot and all the previous efforts are for naught.

Enter “Slim Shady”.

exhibit ”D”: Wikileaks Not Protected by Swedish Law

But their servers are housed in Sweden which means they could easily be shielded under that country’s protections… but guess what? They aren’t. No one at Wikileaks has bothered to fill out the paperwork that would protect them and more importantly… their sources.

In conclusion

The evidence shows that from the very beginning Wikileaks is and has been a manifestation of the State Department and the CIA. It’s a honeypot designed to sucker potential whistleblowers in, take their info, and then dispose of them or the story in whatever manner they so chose.

This is only a taster and to really judge the validity of the case, you must read Part 1 and 2 in full. Then bookmark a link to the site so you can read Part 3 when it's published.

Personally, I'm now officially opposed to WikiLeaks. Call me fickle!

Originally posted by JohnJasper

The evidence shows that from the very beginning Wikileaks is and has been a manifestation of the State Department and the CIA. It’s a honeypot designed to sucker potential whistleblowers in, take their info, and then dispose of them or the story in whatever manner they so chose.

For anyone to make such definitive conclusions based on evidence FAR from being anything incontrovertible, tells me that they are in no way interested in finding the real truth, as they are just trying to sell their preconceived, biased opinions.

And that alone is enough to give me the sneaking suspicion that they are the ones more likely to be doing 'hit-pieces' as to discredit a major threat posing against the likes of the CIA.

That's not to say I'm unable to place my ego aside and have a change of mind for the sake of truth... but I remain largely unconvinced.

[edit on 16/8/10 by Navieko]

reply to post by Navieko

Originally posted by Navieko

For anyone to make such definitive conclusions based on evidence FAR from being anything incontrovertible, tells me that they are in no way interested in finding the real truth, as they are just trying to sell their preconceived, biased opinions.

And that alone is enough to give me the sneaking suspicion that they are the ones more likely to be doing 'hit-pieces' as to discredit a major threat posing against the likes of the CIA.

That's not to say I'm unable to place my ego aside and have a change of mind for the sake of truth... but I remain largely unconvinced.

I wouldn't want you to accept the authors opinion or mine unquestioned. I posted this reference because it contains what I feel are well-presented arguments based on a number of sources. I've read plenty from other sources on both sides of the fence and been left with a feeling of "Sure - whatever!" by all of them.

You didn't make it clear whether or not you actually read the source documents. If you did and you still came away unconvinced, I'd be interested to know why as it's certainly possible that my reading wasn't critical enough.

reply to post by ArMaP


Certainly. So where are the leaks from the Russian or Chinese army? How about corruption leaks from the governments of countries like, Turkey or Brazil. Are they large enough?

Apparently only America is killing civillians and doing bad things. I guess they are just more corrupt than everyone else, according to Wikileaks.

These guys have an agenda, and it's the typical sort of globalist brainwashing. America bad, third world country good. Two legs bad, four legs good. If we just get rid of America and Israel and other hyper nationalistic countries we will all join together in peace and harmony and the world government will bless us with their enlightened rule.

When that happens, the real killing begins. Mark my words.

reply to post by SevenThunders


American soldiers were caught murdering civilians in cold blood, what does that have to do with Al-Qaeda and Communism..i means seriously...communism? Where the hell did you pull that from? (although i have a good idea already) The sad fact is that innocent civilians becoming 'collateral damage' has become the norm, we only get to see the tip of the iceberg.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Solomons]