The Danger of WikiLeaks: Why the organization could be doing more harm than good

Richard Spencer Richard Spencer is one of the Daily Telegraph's Middle East correspondents. He was China correspondent for six years before moving to Dubai, where he lives with his wife and children, last year. Is Wikileaks a front for the CIA or Mossad?

blogs.telegraph.co.uk... pencer/100065816/is-wikileaks-a-front-for-the-cia-or-mossad/

By Richard Spencer World Last updated: November 29th, 2010



Peace

reply to post by airspoon


Good analysis.

I admit I have not read all 10 pages so if someone has said this before - forgive me.

Let us all think back to when we were kids.

Remember playing with a ball with your friends? You were all having such fun. Laughing, running and jumping. Throwing the ball. Then suddenly one of the kids broke a window with the ball. Everyone saw him throw at the window. Nobody except him really knew if he was just playing around, if it was an accident or if he meant to do it.

The a door opened. An angry adult came out and yelled at everyone and took the ball away and locked it up.
Then you could only play with the ball how the adult wanted. You had to be careful, you couldn't play certain places and certain times, there were a whole list of rules. Access to the ball became more controlled.

Now then.. remember those days when the adult took the ball away because they thought you or your friends were being destructive with it?

Well....

We are still the kids...

The internet is the ball...

Julian / Wikileaks is the kid that broke the window..

TPTB are the adult..

Guess what's coming next.

Bye bye ball.

reply to post by Frogs

They can't turn off the internet.
So throw some truth around and break some lying windows.

reply to post by Stewie


its more like internal networks , and yes majority of it / them can be shut down , and what your left with is intra nets if you have them set up ,

bush wasent that far off when he said its a series of tubes , its a series of terminals and shut them down and all you are left with is your local lan network , .

reply to post by zerbot565


Yup, if not shut down then parts shut down and / or the whole thing way more tightly controlled or filtered than it is now.

Heck many countries already limit what sites their populace can go to.

Oh yes, the ball can be taken away or made to be only played with under strict supervision.

If the net becomes too big a headache for TPTB they will restrict it more.

Wikileaks next target is Big Business >

www.couriermail.com.au...

"Wikileak's next target will be a major American bank, he said.

"It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms," he told Forbes magazine, adding: "For this, there's only one similar

"It's like the Enron emails."

Assange also said he was sitting on a haul of damaging data on pharmaceutical, finance and energy companies."

Wow what an evil, evil man ! trying to spread the truth like that !!

Thanks airspoon. You state the disnfo case impeccably.

Whenever I try to imagine the scope of control the Engineers of Reality have over us I start off by remembering that when Joseph Stalin first came to power, his business agent was Standard Oil. That's also pretty much when I stop, too.

reply to post by airspoon


S & F

Airspoon, your threads are always insightful.

I believe wikileaks to be a 'limited hangout'

A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details. It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.

A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.

Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

i will start believing in the legitimacy of wikileaks, if they start releasing documents that connect 9/11 to mossad, or international banking corruption, or climate gate, or UFOs, or underground bases etc etc...

Over the past few years wikileaks has provided documents of war arocities (are you really surprised?) and that the American government is riding a high horse, and looks down to much of the world. This really shouldnt be new information to anyone.

The recent releases of wikileaks tie in nicely together with the MSM questioning and beilving that 9/11 was an inside job. Glenn Beck, Geraldo Rivera etc. Its all a false revolution, its all misinformation... all designed so that uninformed people blame the chess pieces, instead of the hands that move them.

Great Post.

Why we should 'Raise a Glass to Wikileaks'
Craig Murray is a political activist and former ambassador to Uzbekistan

Raise A Glass to Wikileaks

The well paid securitocracy have been out in force in the media, attacking wikileaks and repeating their well worn mantras.

These leaks will claim innocent lives, and will damage national security. They will encourage Islamic terrorism. Government secrecy is essential to keep us all safe. In fact, this action by Wikileaks is so cataclysmic, I shall be astonished if we are not all killed in our beds tonight.

Except that we heard exactly the same things months ago when Wikileaks released the Iraq war documents and then the Afghan war documents, and nobody has been able to point to a concrete example of any of these bloodurdling consequences.

As these are diplomatic telegrams, we have also had a number of pro-secrecy arguments being trotted out. These are arguments with which I was wearily familiar in over twenty years as a British diplomat, six of them in the Senior Management Structure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

It is seriously argued that Ambassadors will not in future give candid advice, if that advice might become public. In the last twelve hours I have heard this remarkable proposition put forward on five different television networks, without anybody challenging it.

Put it another way. The best advice is advice you would not be prepared to defend in public. Really? Why? In today's globalised world, the Embassy is not a unique source of expertise. Often expatriate, academic and commercial organisations are a lot better informed. The best policy advice is not advice which is shielded from peer review.

What of course the establishment mean is that Ambassadors should be free to recommend things which the general public would view with deep opprobrium, without any danger of being found out. But should they really be allowed to do that, in a democracy?

...

This is probably the best blog entry I've read so far addressing these issues.

Also of interest is some background on the Saudi/Arab propagation of the possible war on Iran.

Guardian: US Embassy Cables: Middle East
View

The latest batch of WikiLeaks revelations give the impression that it is the Arab states that are most energetically pressuring the US to attack Iran. That's definitely putting the cart before the horse.

In the first place, the Arab governments mentioned as being hostile to Iran – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates – are all undemocratic, unpopular regimes that depend on US support to stay in power. As such, they seem to have absorbed the US claims that Iran is the region's greatest threat to peace.

A completely different view, however, is held by these governments' own subjects, among whom Iran's independent stance is hugely popular. According to a recent poll that asked Arab people in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates to name two countries they thought were the greatest threat to the region, 88% stated Israel, 77% stated the US and only 10% mentioned Iran.

Of course, no Arab country has the military capability of launching a serious attack against Iran. Only Israel has that ability in the region, but Israel is dependent for its continued existence on its $3bn in annual US subsidies and its US-supplied diplomatic firewall in the UN security council. There is almost no way Israel could attack Iran unless it had first been given a green light from Washington or because it had calculated the US would have no choice but to back it up with military force.

...

To me it seems kind of a waste of time to even try and speculate on wether or not Wiki leaks is good or bad, when the whole dam system is corrupt to start with. Even if a little of the darn Truth got out it would be a miracle, and the people in general are so stupid in most cases, they would not believe it if you hit them over the head with it or stuck it up their assets and made it explode, they still would not believe it.

The question you ask is something you would ask if in the fairy tale land most people live in. How far does someone have to have the wool pulled down over their eyes before they realize, most the people they listen to to and believe are full of crap.

The Truth will come out sooner or later, but the people of this time period will be laughed at for being so stupid, if the world last long enough to have anyone left to laugh about anything.

If our dead heros really knew what they died for, they would all be rolling over in their graves.

When is the World going to mature enough to say No More Wars, and put alll these Crooked Bankers, and War Mongers in prison, it's all about Money, Greed.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by airspoon

 

Airspoon...
I'm just curious where your feelings really lie in regards to these leaks..

You have this thread pointing out they could be dangerous disinfo etc.

Then you start another thread accepting them as facts..The Saudi thread..

Where are you, you're all over the shop..????

edit on 29-11-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

Repost because you obviously missed it last time Airspoon..

Originally posted by googolplex
To me it seems kind of a waste of time to even try and speculate on wether or not Wiki leaks is good or bad, when the whole dam system is corrupt to start with. Even if a little of the darn Truth got out it would be a miracle, and the people in general are so stupid in most cases, they would not believe it if you hit them over the head with it or stuck it up their assets and made it explode, they still would not believe it.

The question you ask is something you would ask if in the fairy tale land most people live in. How far does someone have to have the wool pulled down over their eyes before they realize, most the people they listen to to and believe are full of crap.

The Truth will come out sooner or later, but the people of this time period will be laughed at for being so stupid, if the world last long enough to have anyone left to laugh about anything.

If our dead heros really knew what they died for, they would all be rolling over in their graves.

When is the World going to mature enough to say No More Wars, and put alll these Crooked Bankers, and War Mongers in prison, it's all about Money, Greed.

I agree about the last part, but I'd question your wisdom in the incendiary comments on others living in 'fairy tale lands', remember that a lot of people are not interested in the reasons WHY things are how they are, or HOW to change them. All they care about is getting their next paycheck, or who's banging who and who said what. There's nothing wrong with speculative theorizing, but a lot of the people of the world just want to be left alone to do their business and live their lives, and don't particularly care for any ideology (political or conspiracy) apart from an excuse to pass a few minutes over in discussion.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by airspoon

 

Airspoon...
I'm just curious where your feelings really lie in regards to these leaks..

You have this thread pointing out they could be dangerous disinfo etc.

Then you start another thread accepting them as facts..The Saudi thread..

Where are you, you're all over the shop..????

edit on 29-11-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

Repost because you obviously missed it last time Airspoon..

It's okay, he forgot me too. Kind of a bummer, considering I actually wrote down an equivalently elegant article.

I'd say TPTB have more to gain from this than we do. I'd expect a false flag related to the release of such info as a call to limit the internet and perhaps give rise to an information czar. The military will just bury their info deeper with approval of new systems and spending of course. The boogy man wins again. I heard fox news refer to the leaking of this information as a terrorist act. Media is stirring the masses towards the information as being possibly harmful and dangerous. I have yet to hear of the value of Truth by MSM.

Media may be 'stirring the masses', but it is up to those that believe that Wikileaks is a legitimate cause to argue the case. Faux can't call everybody terrorists.

I'm not sure about this guy Webster Tarpley. Good? Bad? I was googling Soros and Asange and found this.

May not be legit but who knows anymore.

Its off of Alex Jones show so take it with that in mind. WT is asking some good questions? Who is paying JA?


www.youtube.com...#!

Originally posted by felonius
I'm not sure about this guy Webster Tarpley. Good? Bad? I was googling Soros and Asange and found this.

May not be legit but who knows anymore.

Its off of Alex Jones show so take it with that in mind. WT is asking some good questions? Who is paying JA?


www.youtube.com...#!

There are several profiles on Assange such as this, this and this but I think that it's generally understood that he is funded from his own investments and interests. Now I do hope he doesn't dig into the WL support fund for lunch money!

Truth hurts! Especially when it comes back on the liar… If even half of the Wiki leak files are legit, then these assholes in government that we call our leaders are the main problem of our system and we should be calling them the “Terrorists”… In my option, It’s time to spill the secrets no matter what…

Really enjoy your efforts on 9/11 but have to respectfully disagree on this one, airspoon....


if the US is this top-notch disinfo 'machine" how have they got their disinfo so horribly wrong regarding 9/11??

reply to post by airspoon


great post airspoon.
as usual.

reply to post by airspoon


reply to post by airspoon


Good post...however, I feel that more damage is done and being done by people in governments who think that no one is watching, listening or observing them.

"People" generally speaking, are so pacified right now, they dont want to see or to be involved or to make the effort to ensure governmental accountability...so they get away literally with murder....and worse.

If my government is hiding things from the people it is in service to, I want to know so I may demand that accountability. If they take my sons under our hard earned flag into battle on false pretenses and lies, I want to know so I can act in opposition.

If they act against the conventions and resolutions or commitments - the learned lessons of the past- as laid down by multinational agreement, I want to know. I want to say " not in my name" and stand accountable for that choice.

If they lie to gain edges and maniplate the truth to the demise of other peoples and harm to millions of children and the yet-to-be-born ( such as in the use of DU weapons), I want to know so I may say to those same people with clear conscience - I did not agree and stood for the opposition.

If I am to be held accountable, either indirectly at the end of my days or directly through the return venom of the snakes my government is toying with that will inevitably fight back, I need to know so I can prepare myself and my children for the onslaught to come.

If my government in the eyes of our friends and foes is presuming to speak for me as an individal - I want the right to seperate myself from my governement entirely and stand alone if necessary when they act in a manner that goes against my own conscience.

Permissive secrecy in goverment means the people who are governed have a direct moral liability and literal culpability for each and every decision made and action take "on their behalf".

If your government is 'over there' murdering indiscriminantly and you are doing nothing 'back here' then you DO deserve whatever it is that you get when victims, (of your apathy and ignorance as much as your unrestrained government,) do become enraged and fight back .

This is why claiming a *personal responsibility* to overthrow governement who is acting in tyrannical fashion was written into the US constitution! You cant complain when someone holds up that consitution and calls it 'just' a peice of paper when you yourself, as an individal pick and choose which parts you would like to follow...or ignore it on the big issues where its YOUR responsibility not the governments being called into question.
Its easy to value and enshrine something as more than a 'peice of paper' when its demanding other people do the work, do the right thing, do the hard things..but its harder when that same 'bit of paper' demands that yolu have to get off your butt and take the risks and cop the consquences.

Choosing apathy and ignorance, is still a choice that " we the people" are accountable for....and we need only see Germany 1938 for the results of that choice....and better still..see the longer term results in the psyche of the German people today for its lingering stench.

To those who are truly bothered I can only say, that if you dont want anything nefarious to come out - then dont DO nefarious things. It really is as simple and as difficult as that.

And I know what you're most likely thinking reading that..but Yes _it is_.

To say it isn't is to provide excuses for laziness, avenues for diversion, to permit a lie to cover the truth....again.
Worse though, it is to willfully and knowingly be complicit in that cover up.

And you will be held accountable...as, if only eventually, *everything* will be revealed.

It is not difficult not to murder, not difficult not to lie or to manipulate, or not to steal. Not difficult at all.
I have witnessed people with nothing, starving, still refuse to kill, manipulate, steal or lie to gain food.
So if they can, we can...and if we can, so too can governement made up of the 'we'....suposedly acting on behalf of or for the 'we'.

The truth is always simple, and this time, the truth being revealed here is not that globally threatening...it is simply that _it is time for all goverments to grow up_.

If the WL founder can aid in that maturation process..so be it and good luck to him.

As I saw writen somewhere once - You either believe in freedom of speech inclusive of those you despise, or you dont really believe in freedom of speech.
IOW..its either an intrinsic value of a truly free world and society that you really believe in...or you just want it for you, and everyone else has to shut up and listen to you. You cant uphold a right for yourself you deny to others.....well you can I supose...but there are some pretty serious consequences.


I agree that the possibility of this being a Mossad bait and switch is high, it certainly stinks of that form of deceptive ruse and abuse... but until Assange's real sources step forward..there's not much anyone even informed can do but listen , watch and observe. When the time for action comes there will be no doubt.




Rosha.