I don't know whether Wikileaks is disinfo or not. And it doesn't seem like anyone else does either. On ATS and other conspiracy-minded sites,
progress on any subject is aborted by the inability to believe any
thing because of the every
However, I, for one, have never seen any evidence that Wikileaks is disinfo. People love
to talk about it and talk about the so-called
evidence (i.e., baseless innuendo), but I've never seen it. It seems it's just become a real issue by virtue of it being repeated by Internet forum
posters ... over and over.
I choose to call a spade a spade until I've looked at the device, compared it to pictures in a Sears catalog and finally realized that, in fact,
it's actually a hoe.
The point of Wikileaks being disinfo because they're being covered by the MSM: Huh? How can you win when half the people are criticizing the
quality of the leaks as being insignificant? When the MSM thinks it's important enough to cover in the "actual" news, you must be disinfo.
The information is important and a big deal ... except for the issue of the jaded (particularly American) public who just really does not care about
these wars or the fact that highly illegal, unethical and inhumane things are going on ... and basically that everything is a lie.
I don't expect Wikileaks (and I don't think it's in their mission statement) to "make" people understand and value the information released.
Wikileaks' giant Achilles' heel is that they're too late - humanity's collective attitude is one that doesn't care enough. Apathy is pervasive.
Imagine the release of the Pentagon Papers today. I question whether they would bring down a president.
Also, I question blaming Wikileaks for the disclosure of Manning's identity. My understanding is this was 100% the result of Lamo. If a hacker
identity is what discredits Assange, perhaps we should look into the past of Lamo (which you can do, a little bit at
my Manning-Lamo thread
). His record, in my view, is far from sterling.
[edit on Jul 29, 2010 by Hadrian]