WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground

originally posted by: boncho
Assange redacted the CFR Speech data (Council on Foreign Relations for the uninitiated), he also blocked Tony Blair comments, and buried other stuff. Assange is a tool. A propaganda tool. Nothing more.

He's controlled. Simple as that.

Either that or he is saving that information for when it is most useful.

You use words like integrity and moral high ground as adjectives of wikileaks.

a reply to: cuckooold

At least they leak stuff. Who else does?

In the swirling sea of subterfuge that makes up this electronic world of secrets, half truths, and outright lies, it puts a big question mark on what information can be trusted, and what cannot.

By "It", you mean the detractors in the western main stream. Go figure...

The 'state of secrets' is the western main stream media.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Yeah so reports Russia Today

Oh and Mediate.
So there you have it.
It wasn't the Russians. Even though the rest of the intelligence community say they are highly confident it was Russia.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Who cares who it was? Instead of address the outright corruption that was exposed they just point their fingers.

"It was them! Look away!"

LOL and we're having a conversation about who's got the moral high ground...

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Here's an idea. Let's here on ATS hatch a plan to falsify some documents about Trump and send them to Wikileaks.

Then we can just sit back and watch with a bag of popcorn. The results will prove how much of a shill Assange is.

Unnecessary; we know Wikileaks has not released any emails that make Trump look bad. The DNC traffic would almost certainly have contained references to Trump's poor record on immigration and ties to organized crime. Somehow, these did not get "leaked."

Trump isn't part of the same government process as Hillary. She represents the status quo, the original gangsters that started the wars in the middle East, burdens Americans with enormous debt, bailed out the banks and corporations, moved jobs overseas, etc.

Trump isn't the threat. The 'crimes' you say he committed are benign. But thanks for sounding off for Hillary.

Let's see here Julian Assange is an international criminal based on what he leaked. Has lately leaked harmful info to the liberals. Wired.com is a liberal site with a speculation piece. Yep, I know which one I trust.

a reply to: cuckooold

Wired suggests that perhaps the Russian FSB is using Wikileaks to release the DNC emails to try damage the Clinton campaign.

Could be any intelligence agency.

Intelligence and counter-intelligence.


put in place a situation where information might get leaked, that info sole purpose is to be leaked to create disinfo.

Being leaked and supposedly secure info many would take it be true when in fact its all just a cat and mouse game played by intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Everything they have leaked has been correct.

As far as you know, so far.

That's all the high ground they need as far as I'm concerned.

And if they are deliberately concealing important facts?

Not much point in discussing maybe's.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The rest of the intelligence community you say?

Surely you're not referring to the cabal of agents in the shadow government, are you? You know, the ones that have been #ing us for decades? The Neocons?

# them. If they are hating on Trump it's because they're afraid they will loose their handle on the POTUS.

I called it. I knew as soon as he started releasing dirt on Democrats, the narrative would flip.

originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: cuckooold

Putin have nothing to do with Assange or Snowden.. he said so himself.

And Putin would never lie.

originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: cuckooold

Putin have nothing to do with Assange or Snowden.. he said so himself.

Yes, I always believe everything that comes out of Putin's mouth as he's proven so truthful in the past.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: cuckooold

At least they leak stuff. Who else does?

Let me see.

The New York Times, Daniel Ellsberg, The Intercept, Edward Snowden.

Wikileaks don't have a monopoly on leaking information.

Isn't it interesting what happens to journalists who leak stuff about Putin in Russia? Perhaps not interesting, but actually quite frightening.

originally posted by: TheBulk
I called it. I knew as soon as he started releasing dirt on Democrats, the narrative would flip.

How has the narrative flipped?

The Trump/Putin apologists are still here in droves, and excusing what appears to be a breach of national security because you know, it's Trump, not Clinton so that makes it ok.

The narrative has definitely flipped.

Democrats are actively whining because Trump does not war with Russia. We are actually seeing the Republican party be the party of peace.

Putting something in the platform, something the US would never honor and all it would do is create bad blood is pointless. The crimea was/is 2/3 ethnic russians, and was a special autonomous territory as it was. That port is very important for Russia and is of no importance to the US.

Hillary is just mad because her ISIS pawns got pwned by the russians in Syria. Russia stopped the cycle of US overthrow of middle east governments.

originally posted by: DJW001
And Putin would never lie.

Of course Putin would lie if it's beneficial.
Probably the best reason to doubt Putin as the source.

Wikileaks has 100% accuracy.

I don't see how they could verify the documents as true if they came from Putin.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Of course Putin would lie if it's beneficial.

Correct.

Probably the best reason to doubt Putin as the source.

Lying about Russia being responsible for the leak would be beneficial, so he's probably lying.

Wikileaks has 100% accuracy.

We have no way of knowing that. Just because some of the leaks have been verifiable does not mean that some of them are not fabrications. That is how black propaganda, disinformation, works. Publish a little truth to makje the lies more convincing.

I don't see how they could verify the documents as true if they came from Putin.

What makes you think they bother to verify anything? The premise of this thread is that they are not committed to objectivity or even truth.

a reply to: jellyrev

Democrats are actively whining because Trump does not war with Russia. We are actually seeing the Republican party be the party of peace.

Trump wants the peace of capitulation. He wants to let Putin continue to terrorize his neighbors, while violating America's long standing treaties with its allies.

Putting something in the platform, something the US would never honor and all it would do is create bad blood is pointless.

Exactly! So why has Trump said he will let Putin keep the land he has been stealing?

The crimea was/is 2/3 ethnic russians, and was a special autonomous territory as it was.

That does not make it okay for Russia to send armed troops in and hold a mock referendum. The fact that Trump finds that acceptable is a good indicator of his lack of scruples.

That port is very important for Russia and is of no importance to the US.

It is extremely important for Ukraine... and its NATO neighbors. This makes it important for the United States. The Black Sea fleet is a potential source for attacks on US allies. Russia is welcome to use it if Ukraine allows.

Hillary is just mad because her ISIS pawns got pwned by the russians in Syria. Russia stopped the cycle of US overthrow of middle east governments.

Хорошо сказанный, товарищ. Вы заработали премию.

a reply to: cuckooold

Thats a lame hit piece.

Sorry, moving on. The sad and pathetic strategy of "blaming russians" is just retarded.

Yeah. The DNC is in a downward spiral.

a reply to: cuckooold

I AM AMUSED BY THE IMPLICATION THAT WIKILEAKS ONCE HELD " MORAL HIGH GROUND "

a reply to: tadaman

Sorry, moving on. The sad and pathetic strategy of "blaming russians" is just retarded.

So what if Wikileaks' founder has a TV show on state run RT? So what if Wikileaks has published secret US State Department cables but has never published secret Russian Foreign Ministry cables? That must be because Americans are disloyal, but Russians love Putin so much they would never leak state secrets. It certainly can't be that the American "leaks" were actually provided by Russian intelligence, because, unlike the NSA and GCHQ, the FSB and GRU never hack into other governments' communications.

Nothing to see here, move along.