Why is Wikileaks lying?

Whew man, when are folks going to learn that WL ain't out here for the "greater good". They have their own agenda. Lately, their contacts have been burned and since governments have them on a "dont let me catch you on the street list", I wonder if they have anything at all that can change the status quo or the pursuit of justice.

Hell truth be told, it could be a an elaborate scheme to get dirt on anyone and use it to futher the goals and/or aims of an unknown individual(s).

They've been given dirt, are shifting through it and are working with the gov about what to publish. Pizzagate is the only hit so far that has made a difference, but that's just my opinion.

a reply to: cenpuppie


Please provide information about which contacts that "have been burned" and how they got "burned". First I ever heard of this "burning", whatever it is you mean by that.

Thank you in advance.

originally posted by: MostlyReading
a reply to: cenpuppie


Please provide information about which contacts that "have been burned" and how they got "burned". First I ever heard of this "burning", whatever it is you mean by that.

Thank you in advance.

The Clinton Cartel doesn't seem to leak things to Julian anymore for some reason........

a reply to: Chadwickus

Good find, thanks for sharing. Looks weird, doesn't it?

The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.

www.nytimes.com...

We should find that document then. Perhaps Wikileaks didn't get the memo? Who knows.

But I'm thinking something else: Wikileaks fundraiser. I don't know how broke they are, but an attack on a MSM outlet and this years old Dixiecat administration looks like an appeal to their fanbase in order to melk them dry.

Lame "leak", innit? So what? The NYT has stories radacted for national security reasons? No sh!t, Sherlock!

a reply to: pavil


Unless you are Julian Assange himself I doubt very, very much that you have the even slightest clue about just who the leakers/sources have been or what "Cartel" they may or may not have belonged to.

Also, if WikiLeaks ever openly outed a source, it would be professional suicide and the end of their publishing organisation. No whistleblower would ever trust them with information again.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If we are being honest, WL obviously has a political bend to it. They trickle out information to insinuate a narrative, while witholding information that would be relevant. Basically, they seem to be using the information they have as a weapon against targets of their choosing, and not people who commit injustice against the people. Meaning their motives have no relationship to truth, justice, or your well being. I wouldnt be so quick to have any faith in Assange.

Yes I agree. Yes information released from WL is often done so in a way to gain as much publicly and impact as possible.

This is an information war and the the msm will not take WL leaks n and share it out in bite size chunks the public. Infact as much as possible they do the opposite. If you want to get heard this is the way to do it.

:-)

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: purplemer

If we are being honest, WL obviously has a political bend to it. They trickle out information to insinuate a narrative, while witholding information that would be relevant.

Basically, they seem to be using the information they have as a weapon against targets of their choosing, and not people who commit injustice against the people. Meaning their motives have no relationship to truth, justice, or your well being. I wouldnt be so quick to have any faith in Assange.

absolutely... i can't help but laugh when i see people paint assange as an impartial warrior for truth and justice. it's as credible as when some posters claim they're not political, they just want the truth.

>_>

a reply to: fiverx313

Why excactly is it not credible to you that some people (like me) just want to know the truth? What a strange and dismissive statement.

Unless you know these people personally, me included, you have zero reason to make assumptions. What is sure is that you don't know anything about me, for one.

originally posted by: MostlyReading
a reply to: fiverx313

Why excactly is it not credible to you that some people (like me) just want to know the truth? What a strange and dismissive statement.

Unless you know these people personally, me included, you have zero reason to make assumptions. What is sure is that you don't know anything about me, for one.

i didn't call you out, did i? i'm sure there are plenty who are impartial. but there are others who are clearly not, by their posts... and yet when they are called out specifically, they devote paragraphs to proclaiming how impartial they are.

a reply to: MostlyReading

And to add...

What is sure is that you don't know anything about me, for one.

Which is why it's hard to decide if you really want the truth or not.
It's not dismissive to advise for caution, it should be common sense to remain vigilant.

Welcome to ATS, btw!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Well, perhaps both you and Fiver are right about being vigilant. Point taken from both of you.

And thank you for your welcome.

originally posted by: MostlyReading
a reply to: pavil


Unless you are Julian Assange himself I doubt very, very much that you have the even slightest clue about just who the leakers/sources have been or what "Cartel" they may or may not have belonged to.

Also, if WikiLeaks ever openly outed a source, it would be professional suicide and the end of their publishing organisation. No whistleblower would ever trust them with information again.

My points exactly. Wikileaks for their entire history has only disseminated info, not created it. They have done a very good job of protecting their sources. The only probable Clinton related leaker who had contacted WL is dead.

The OP of this thread is nothing more than look WL is releasing more evidence.

i'll take wiki seriously when assange and wiki openly start printing dirt and talking trash about Russia...until then, it's just another foreign source bashing America and other pro-democracy nations....

a reply to: MostlyReading

With Obama's modification of the Smith-Mundt act, why should anyone trust Wikileaks?

If they were a threat to us, they would be a grease spot.

a reply to: jimmyx

Wikileaks have also published leaks about Russia, it looks like many people are not aware of that.

It seems that I can not link directly but if you go to Wikileaks dot org and click "Leaks", you will for instance see a box with the words "Spy Files: Russia". Don't know if those leaks are "dirty" and "trashy" enough for your liking, though, I admit that I have not looked into them myself.

originally posted by: DJW001
It is the garbage from "QAnon" and other 4Chan hoaxers that you keep pushing that is, to use the Kremlin's buzz word. fake.

I’ll give DJ this, that’s for sure. The trick is to make it look like mostly credible news organizations are really not credible at all and that stuff like Qanon, which is concentrated disinformation, are extremely credible.

I guess one way to do this is by magnifying faults in those media outlets shown in the picture from the Fox News broadcast while ignoring the flaws with Qanon.

As far as Wikileaks lying, I’m uncertain about that.

a reply to: Mandroid7


I can of course only answer for myself, but I trust WikiLeaks because of their 10 year long record of never having published anything that has been proven false, fabricated, manipulated or tampered with in any way. And that is a lot more than I can say about most of the so called "trustworthy" MSM sources.


Hope this clears things up for you.

a reply to: MostlyReading

I agree with you about trusting WL. Thank you for your post and all the best in the coming year to you..

a reply to: purplemer


Thank you!


And the same to you.

a reply to: MostlyReading




100% accuracy isn't suspicious enough for you?