WikiLeaks founder: Site getting tons of 'high caliber' disclosures

Originally posted by JohnySeagull



I must say this is a very childish remark. If this is directed at me, I can say I do not hate anyone. With this comment you are implying that there is anger in my comment. I am merely questioning Wikileaks operation. I am not angry at them or I do not hate them.

I wasnt directing it at you, but summarizing in general a lot of the anti Wikileaks posts, which you can read for yourself all over ATS. Which can be summarized much as I did. "Well at first I thought he was good, but if he has all this information and is taking this long to leak it, I dont like him anymore." It is childish. It is immature. Adults supposedly have the ability to delay gratification to some degree.

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
By using comments like this I believe that you are the person with anger and hatred.

You are entitled to believe anything you want. Anything at all. I DO get angry with people. I am no saint. It annoys me no end that adults who have the capacity to reason choose not to. While that comment was directly generally at the tone of the criticism against Assange, and not towards you personally, a more personal criticism is that you didnt apparently read and consider what several others in this thread had already pointed out about the time it takes to validate and decrypt information.

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
This is happening all too often when you question something that some people are loyal too they take it as a personal attack?

The reason I even replied to your post was because you were not in the same level of mindless attacking of Wikileaks as some of the others who have posted here. You are incorrect that I care at all that you might disagree with me. I have often friended people who DO disagree with me, and are very vocal about it. I dont believe "liking" someone has anything to do with being a mirror of that persons beliefs or opinions. (Though I am aware some do, and I have lost friends for disagreeing with them)

What bothers me is not disagreement. It is lack of thought and reasoning. I could care less if the other person is coming to a different conclusion than I do. I do care if it is clear they are not reasoning through a problem at all. We are in this current political mess because the mass of people are refusing to think, to ask themselves, "does this make sense?" "is this logically consistent?" and then spend a few quiet minutes contemplating that, and looking at it internally.

I dont feel the least bit guilty for not pretending its ok for us not to be thinking critically here. We are in trouble. Not just Americans, citizens of democratic nations around the world, we are all in trouble. Whether you believe aliens are doing it, reptilians, Illuminati, whatever, (I personally think it is just economic powers, the wealthy elite trying to re-institute a system that worked well for them before this little outbreak of democracy world wide) there is a group of powers who are trying to dismantle representative governments that act on behalf of majorities, in favor of a more "efficient" system that acts on behalf of the powerful.

Damn right I get mad at people who refuse to think. But you are wrong that I care WHAT you think. I would love to have someone show me a logical explanation for what is happening world wide that doesnt end with us being no more than "resources" for the wealthy. I kinda liked being considered a person.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

I personally hope that he releases information on advanced top secret technologies that are being suppressed. As well as top secret information that reveals the fact that pharmaceuticals have suppressed cures for most human diseases in order to ensure high profits and business longevity.

Those items would in fact have the ability to radically change our world.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander



Fair enough and points taken.

I really hope you are right but I am not at a point where I can have the faith in wikileaks that you have.

Maybe you are connected or know people that are connected to them. Fine. I have just let some doubts creep in about their motives.

To end on a positive note.

I had a look at the Washington Post site today regarding Top Secret America. A lot of people are dismissing this as nothing new and nothing special. This is giving out very basic information about how intelligence gathering is been done in the US. Its showing the huge numbers invovled. So many people invovled yet nobody really has a view of the whole picture. Its simply explaining the whole setup. So many people.There is a reason for everything. Every cause has an effect. Every effect has a cause.

In one of Assanges latest interviews he eluded to a disclosure regarding a lot of people being decieved. It almost looks like the Post could be setting this up for Wikileaks? Are the people being decieved, the actual intelligence gathers, thinking they are working for the good of America when the truth is somewhat different?

I think this is a perfect fit. We shall see.

Originally posted by JohnySeagull

In one of Assanges latest interviews he eluded to a disclosure regarding a lot of people being decieved. It almost looks like the Post could be setting this up for Wikileaks? Are the people being decieved, the actual intelligence gathers, thinking they are working for the good of America when the truth is somewhat different?

It has occurred to me that if Assange has some really explosive information, someone is going to have to be pegged to take the fall for it. (So that the whole system can escape blame) The "one bad apple" strategy. It has been used countless times, like when Cheney got that woman killed, or the Iran Contra scandals, Abu Ghraib, etc. Deflect top down corruption by pretending the lower levels are doing things you didnt want them to.

That to me is the nice thing about what the Washington Post is doing is that it is implying that NO one is to blame. That the whole system is just so big and complex and unsupervised that none of our leaders can really be blamed for what happens, or what the people below them do. Sure, we can scold them for allowing the monster to grow out of control, but we cant assign purpose, or intent, or malice to them. Some lower level person can be pulled out, once again, and sacrificed on the altar of public discontent, and no one in power really gets more than a little dirt on them, AND they might even get a bonus of votes for their "quick and decisive action" on the "offender" (who may well have been just following orders.)

We will see. The main tone I got from the Washington Post article was one of delfection. Sure, ring the bells of waste and mismanagement, but it reinforces that this was intended to make us "safer" and that its failures are systematic and not really any one person in charges fault. They were also good enough to make clear that supervisors sometimes were kept in the dark.

Honestly, I am watching it. I always look for motives, and if Assange has some really damning stuff that could threaten to really expose malice on the part of our leaders towards us, I would have to suspect that this is part of the damage control. The way the article is worded suggests to me it isnt meant to be a tool to help us pinpoint who is screwing us, but to deflect blame out onto lower levels and "the system and its complexity." Which is unacceptable. If our leaders are admitting they are not in charge of what is going on in our country, they should be fired just as quickly as if we caught them red handed bending us over. In this case, I suspect we are going to catch them at both.

The question is, will we do anything about it?

Originally posted by Violater1
Look, war is hell! Nobody likes it.
What I don't get is when the taliban captures our boys, wrap rope tightly around their wrists and ankles, video tape this and hack our people to pieces. Where is the uproar on this?! Where was milk toast Assangle when this happened?
AssAngle is nothing but a self notoriety seeking, *snip* punk that get's his jollies by dividing the people of countries into the "likes and dislikes."
When this punk disappears and is never heard from again, I'm opening up a bottle.
Good riddance assangle.
Further more, no star, and no flag for supporting this dirt bag!
But I'll give you this

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Violater1]

Look, i get yer point. But you cannot blame a man for not knowing something when he relies on others to disseminate this information.

Further, given the propensity for the government to lie, even about how our soldiers are dying (reference Pat Tillman), then whose to say that the Taliban is who did it? There are any number of other possibilities that are all equally possible. It is sad to say that Uncle Sam is such a notorious liar that I am unable to believe anything. I almost will exclude as a possibility anything that they say, just because you KNOW that it can't be true.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I actually believe it could be bigger than this. I can see the system collapse.

I think the quote on twitter by wikileaks regarding the WP is very significant.

reply to post by Alien Mind


Canada, as it has the highest per capita net immigration rate in the world. The Gulf states have the highest percentages of migrants in the labour force, with countries like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar sitting somewhere around 90%.

If you want to talk about WW2, again that was only at TPTB's behest after they allowed Pearl Harbour to happen. You are also aware that the Bush family were one of the Nazi party's biggest sponsors? Yup, I'm sure everything is well and good in your bubble of blind patriotism and ignorance.



Back to the original post, I applaud Assange and see no reason to perceive WikiLeaks as a CIA front as of yet. What evidence do the naysayers have exactly?

If Wikileaks wanted to be useful or effective, they would STFU and release stuff instead of editing and trying to hype stuff. The last "leak" was so edited and misleading that, for me, wikileaks has lost all of its credibility.

They can talk about how much they receive as much as they want or how juicy it all is. It's run by a bunch of clowns who are going to take this information and box it into a circus act. Truth will typically come out from a release of all the information, let the people decide for themselves. When you edit and narrate something you influence the opinion of the viewers (your circus act).

What a shame.

Wikileaks - good concept, poor implementation.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Man... I wonder what other type of information this brave man has...

Brave??????

There's NOTHING brave about admitting to editing your videos to get "The maximum political impact that we were going for"

HE admits to doctoring videos and withholding evidence so that you will believe HIS AGENDA..and you turn around and idolize him for it?

Thats remarkably pathetic.

Originally posted by Angry Danish
If Wikileaks wanted to be useful or effective, they would STFU and release stuff instead of editing and trying to hype stuff. The last "leak" was so edited and misleading that, for me, wikileaks has lost all of its credibility.

They can talk about how much they receive as much as they want or how juicy it all is. It's run by a bunch of clowns who are going to take this information and box it into a circus act. Truth will typically come out from a release of all the information, let the people decide for themselves. When you edit and narrate something you influence the opinion of the viewers (your circus act).

What a shame.

Wikileaks - good concept, poor implementation.

I do agree with you here. Wikileaks should be a medium to LEAK information. It does make me wonder why the founders of WikiLeaks feels it is their duty to "filter" the information that is disclosed to them. It makes them really no better than many governments or the MSM.

They should just immediately release the information, protect and completely shield the identities of those that do so, and if it is of interest then the public and other media outlets will investigate it more thoroughly and verify the legitimacy of the information.

He may want the information to be released through so called official channels because of it's sensitivity?

Disclosure of information could create chaos and like they say: "knowledge is the bomb" and he's sat on it..
Mr Assange is all in at the Poker table and calling their hand,
I don't know how good his hand is but I definitely know that he's an aggressive gambler.

reply to post by JohnySeagull


It could be. I admit I am skeptical of the Washington Post because I have caught them running flat out propaganda before.

But, it is a logical fallacy to believe that just because something was true in the past means it will always be true. They could very well be having a change of heart, and not running propaganda now.

Personally, the way the article is worded I have trouble believing that. But at the present it is just speculation on my part. Not something I would say is true, 100% true, and nothing but the truth.

Originally posted by DJM8507

Originally posted by Angry Danish
If Wikileaks wanted to be useful or effective, they would STFU and release stuff instead of editing and trying to hype stuff. The last "leak" was so edited and misleading that, for me, wikileaks has lost all of its credibility.

They can talk about how much they receive as much as they want or how juicy it all is. It's run by a bunch of clowns who are going to take this information and box it into a circus act. Truth will typically come out from a release of all the information, let the people decide for themselves. When you edit and narrate something you influence the opinion of the viewers (your circus act).

What a shame.

Wikileaks - good concept, poor implementation.

I do agree with you here. Wikileaks should be a medium to LEAK information. It does make me wonder why the founders of WikiLeaks feels it is their duty to "filter" the information that is disclosed to them. It makes them really no better than many governments or the MSM.

They should just immediately release the information, protect and completely shield the identities of those that do so, and if it is of interest then the public and other media outlets will investigate it more thoroughly and verify the legitimacy of the information.

You both seem to fail to understand Wikileaks' mission. If it simply automatically released all info given to it without the vetting process then not only would it cease to have any credibility (as it would then simply be seen as a clearing house for any garbage that anyone wanted to put out) but it would also be justifying the claims of those who seek to ignore and/or obfuscate its releases. The more stringent their quality standards remain regarding verifying the authenticity of info before release, the more those who seek to ignore and/or shut them down simply expose themselves to be mis/disinfo agents, whether willingly or unwittingly. Besides, if the mainstream media can continue to ignore its releases when they are handed to them, fact-checked, on a silver platter, then how much easier will it be to ignore the released information when it is simply a raw flow of data which still requires fact-checking and tons of time to sift through all the crap?

Furthermore, to Angry Danish, unless I'm missing something here (perhaps you are referring to an example I am unfamiliar with?), the helicopter massacre video was released in both the edited w/commentary version as well as in its raw form. Personally, I have never actually seen the edited version, I simply decided to watch the raw footage and made up my own mind (which just happened to be pretty much in line with how Assange apparently characterised it). The reason for supplying an edited version, one would presume, is the same reason why politicians all talk in sound bytes now: that the MSM will only pick up on something if it already fits into their ridiculously dumbed down format (circus act anyone?). When was the last time anyone has seen over 10 minutes straight of raw, unedited footage on any major news network other than an election debate or sports event? It (quite unfortunately I would agree) simply does not happen anymore (if it ever even did).

So, again folks, please try to approach this topic with reasonable expectations. I would love to see a lot of the suggestions here implemented as well, but these things take time, resources and popular support. Personally, I believe the world is FAR better off with Wikileaks as it is today rather than without Wikileaks or even with Wikileaks as a raw disclosure clearing house with no quality control.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by dangerouslogic]

Also, just to add to the above post (ran out of space):

It has been suggested above that Wikileaks should be trying to release info on UFOs and secret technology, etc. Do you believe that the UFO disclosure movement would be better served by a site which simply posts all the crap that anyone submits to it (like Wikipedia) or a Wikileaks which has maintained its high level of credibility and can then lend that credibility to such a disclosure? If they scrapped their quality controls and thus destroyed their credibility, any such disclosure would simply be ignored or dismissed as are any related threads here on ATS, even if the disclosure happened to be genuine fact. Thus, scrapping the vetting process defeats the ENTIRE PURPOSE of Wikileaks' existence: as a source of secret government information which CANNOT be summarily dismissed or ignored (although, of course, the three-ring circus acts that are the MSM do their darndest!).

Originally posted by dangerouslogic
Also, just to add to the above post (ran out of space):

It has been suggested above that Wikileaks should be trying to release info on UFOs and secret technology, etc. Do you believe that the UFO disclosure movement would be better served by a site which simply posts all the crap that anyone submits to it (like Wikipedia) or a Wikileaks which has maintained its high level of credibility and can then lend that credibility to such a disclosure? If they scrapped their quality controls and thus destroyed their credibility, any such disclosure would simply be ignored or dismissed as are any related threads here on ATS, even if the disclosure happened to be genuine fact. Thus, scrapping the vetting process defeats the ENTIRE PURPOSE of Wikileaks' existence: as a source of secret government information which CANNOT be summarily dismissed or ignored (although, of course, the three-ring circus acts that are the MSM do their darndest!).

X2
well said dis info agents please realize we have seen the white paper dicussing how to dis credit wikileaks and your showing a lack of knowledge that is willfully miss leading or just stupidity go back to harassing the ufo crowd

wistle blowers WILL bring down the corrupt

XPLodER

reply to post by Subjective Truth


ill second that.
what have they given us?
the thing with the chopper was nasty by all means - but there's more damaging material out there for sure...
makes PERFECT sense to create a place where whistleblowers could come and get snuff'd systematically
and then give it tons of attention and PR with the whole rape charge.. Twice was it?
Just after this people in here started calling him a hero.. Risking his life for our sake... pffffff
if you ask me its the same with that alex jones character..

if this assange fool posed any REAL threat to TPTB he would be looong gone already.
would make just as much sense to post your goodies in here.

on the other hand I'd love to be proven wrong though.. So surprise me and release some of the good stuff..

play nice all

AD

Pentagon's Wikileaks War Room Readies for New Document Dump
www.abovetopsecret.com...

nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others are at work—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the frontlines of the government’s secret war against WikiLeaks.

After reading some comments on here and other Wikileaks threads it's evident that certain individuals have an agenda against Wikileaks and are more than likely part of this secret war against Wikileaks. Just something to keep in mind. Propaganda ministers are everywhere!!