Wikileaks: Disinfo?

Originally posted by Hadrian

Well, it seems to me that Wikileaks offers context-free information that is real data. To me, this is not propaganda.

The propaganda is the info itself. Suggesting Iran is supporting the Taliban is the main item of the wikileaks documents that I am the most skeptical of
http://w ww.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7910926/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Iran-accused-of-supporting-Taliban-attacks.html

This info is very timely as the drumbeat for war with Iran is picking up. Info that Iran is supporting Taliban attacks being released via wikileaks is much more effective than the Pentagon simply having a rep announce it on CNN. This info was labeled secret so it is extra "cool." There doesn't need to be context for it to be Propaganda.

The documents also Indicate that Osama Bin Laden is still very active. This is also proganada because many in the world have pretty much assumed he has been dead for some time or only capable of making crappy audio tapes yet now all of sudden he is not only a live but very active in the attack planning on the troops. Why in the world would this info be secret. This is the type of info the Pentagon would shout from the rooftops. Yet it is "secret" and leaked? Gimme a break. The argument that they haven't got him yet so they kept it secret doesn't fly either because this war is 9 years old and it never stopped them before.

It is impossible to prove that any of the data is real. I agree with you and said in my post that I do not know for certain if Assange is a fed or if wikileaks is disinfo but it is very feasible that the Pentagon could very easily plant disinfo in the documents and then leak them themselves. There is a clear advantage to having wikileaks disseminate the info as apposed to the standard whitehouse press conference.

reply to post by Theylive1776
Hi they live,
This is an international site and not just America. There may well be the SS's about on ATS using disinfo' in the form of posters, but I don't see any particular pattern in the dates they have registered, as in my paranoia I see some who have been around a long time, and many who register en masse if the needs be.

reply to post by Theylive1776


It really bothers me when I see a post like this where a member believes that they will be banned for what they believe.

I seriously doubt you can be banned here for your belief that ATS is run by the feds, there are a lot of reasons you can be banned here, and none of those conflict with what you have posted.

Its your right to believe what you want, as it is mine to believe what I do and everyone else here.

The day ATS bans you for that, they need to ban me and everyone else here.

Sure there are feds on ATS, why wouldn't they be here?

I seriously doubt that the feds own or run ATS as the site owners and staff fight and work too damned hard to keep this site alive for that to be the case.

But that is just my opinion.

I could go through any thread on ATS and point out any number of posts from members that could be propaganda posted by a disinfo agent.

I could be one ( ) you could be, anyone here could be, if they are really good at what they do we would likely never know for sure.

I know that I am not, heck I am someone that has pissed off a lot of feds, and to be called one, I am sure pisses them off even more.

In this information and internet age it is going to become increasingly difficult to find truth in anything, that is why I believe ATS is very important, even more so going into the future and in these uncertain times.

ATS is a collaborative collective of like minded people (who don't always agree) from all over the world and, through discussion of topics can find ways collectively to get to nuggets of truth, and dismiss lies, inaccuracies, hoaxes and even propaganda.

Hang around a while longer, don't get banned and see what can happen here.

Maybe you are right, perhaps you should start a thread on it?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Fractured.Facade]

When I first heard of WikiLeaks, I felt a little concerned. After reading the developing stories of the Pentagon and White House downplaying many classified documents, with logistics and superficial intel made me wonder.

What was even more suspicious was that they arrested PFC Manning, but have not taken any action, or at least indicating any action against Assange.

Also note that Manning is only being arrested for a video that he released some time ago, not releasing the "thousands" of documents that has been the talk of the internet. Coincidently, I found an article from MyFox Boston today stating that PFC Manning is going to be tried in Washington DC.

I have drawn a few conclusions:

1) Assange is either being offered to turn for the US or already has been. I assume the latter.

2) PFC Manning is going to get a show trial/Court Martial.

3) Even though investigators found that PFC Manning released the video, nobody has been charged for vomiting up a treasure trove of documents - "The Afghanistan War Diary," which nobody seems to care about on the government side. This is suspect at the very least.

To answer the question "Is WikiLeaks a platform for disinformation?" Certainly. The next question would be "Is it a government plant of some sort?" Very possible. Interesting that Wikileaks goes from money problems to suddenly being self sustainable, isn't it?

Originally posted by Beefcake

Originally posted by Hadrian

Well, it seems to me that Wikileaks offers context-free information that is real data. To me, this is not propaganda.

The propaganda is the info itself.

It is impossible to prove that any of the data is real. I agree with you and said in my post that I do not know for certain if Assange is a fed or if wikileaks is disinfo but it is very feasible that the Pentagon could very easily plant disinfo in the documents and then leak them themselves. There is a clear advantage to having wikileaks disseminate the info as apposed to the standard whitehouse press conference.

I kinda realized I pretty much agreed with most of your post (theoretically) after I had responded to you. But that's why I put the caveat in there about arguing that the release of any information can be deemed "propaganda" by anyone, for any reason ... 'cause I figured that's where you were coming from and I don't disagree with that.

I reject, though, the admonition of Wikileaks simply because certain parties may or may not benefit from the leaked information. Somebody is going to benefit, somebody's not. It's the nature of this kind of relevant information.

Wikileaks is a whistleblower site. Any information they release is obviously going to be relevant; otherwise, they wouldn't bother releasing it. That the information Wikileaks has released in regard to Iraq, Iran, et. al., is advantageous to some, disadvantageous to others is a given.

What if there was information suggesting Osama was dead? Wouldn't people be arguing that's propaganda and somebody wants us out of Afghanistan? So he's not dead ... what? is that propaganda that we must redouble our efforts? Either way, it works as propaganda, so to me, that minimizes the sureness in questioning Wikileaks' motives.

Information that didn't fit into some scope of propaganda wouldn't seem to have the relevancy to release it, would it?

I disagree with assuming that Wikileaks sponsors some sort of hyper-political propaganda platform simply because they have released information. Is it possible? Of course, but again, I have seen zero evidence that Wikileaks is anything other than what it claims to be. So, neither do I contemplate Wikileaks' cooperation with the NSA, CIA, Pentagon, whatever. When evidence shows this to be the case, then I'll believe it (and be very sad ... but it won't be the first time).

By the way, I trust you saw the thread about the Pentagon claiming CIA-involvement in Wikileaks?

reply to post by antonia


I would also have to question what is a PFC doing with 'Secret' Clearance. This whole thing smacks of another False Flag event to enable the Feds more control of the Internet among other things. Look at the CIA and Google and their latest planned venture which has probably already been functional for some time now. They say it's for the greater good, ya ok give me a minute here to get stupid and I'll believe that crap.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a new thread that relates to this.

I've looked at a lot of their stuff and it's crap. Page after page of it.

So, with so much cloak and dagger stuff going on around the globe today it's always wise to ask the question "who benefits"?

This is all obviously egg on the face of the US military and State Department, so who benefits from stirring up the sh*t in that area of the world?

Funny how it always seems to be most advantageous to our staunch ally (gag, wretch!) Israel. You know, our buddies who tried to sink the USS Liberty.

For my money Wikileaks is a Mossad operation. My only question is whether Assange is a willful player or a dupe? Either way he's just as dangerous.

I know our military and intelligence agencies do rotten stuff and have for a long long time. This isn't "news" and it's certainly no secret so what's the big deal? Call me weird but this isn't what disturbs me.

What disturbs me is that we've reared a generation of miscreants that can fly around in gunships turning fellow human beings into hamburger with 30mm Gatling guns laughing and joking the whole while.

Assange may be brilliant and for all I know sincere but the bottom line is that he's a lazy drifter who's found a way to make an easy buck and jet around the world as the 007 type Spy Who Shagged Me- scratch that last and insert "Saved Me". Well, wait a minute, I may have been right the first time.

Assange's a bum and his leaks are garbage.

reply to post by butcherguy


Thank you very much. That is indeed an interesting turn of events.

reply to post by Theylive1776
So an alternative news/conspiracy website is government controlled because they want to control everyone, however wikileaks is not?
It sounds like you are throwing wild assumptions around with the only proof being a generalized opinion about unnamed people being banned for contributing to ATS and your other bit of proof is the look of a man's eyes to trust wikileaks.
I don't mean to sound combative, but those are some pretty wild accusations with literally no basis.

reply to post by antonia

Some things are non sequitors ("it does not follow") Such as I had a cold. I ate chicken soup and the cold went away, therefore, chicken soup cures colds. Eating the soup as the cold clears is a coincidence not a direct result. The assertion that something is disinfo because the security seems lax is laughable. You need more evidence than someone having less security than a superpower government before you call BS on someone. My two cents.

Originally posted by antonia

The most glaring problem? The lack of security for it's informants. Both the source for the leaked documents and the massacre video were arrested after the leak. Both of these sources were outed by hackers. Wikileaks does a very poor job of protecting it's sources. Is this on purpose?

I think you're misinformed.

Bradley Manning got outed because he started discussing what he did with Adrian Lamo, a snitchy-minded script kiddie. Lamo then turned around and told everyone in their mom about what Manning did.

Really had zero to do with Wikileaks not protecting him. In fact they maintain they don't even know exactly who the source was for that military video.

So with that first point basically wrong and the fact that there are thousands of people who have blown the whistle and submitted documents and stuff to Wikileaks (big ones too, remember Swiss banking fraud and Iceland banking stuff?) without reprisal, I'm gonna call no go on the rest of your points as well.

I also tend to believe that Wikileaks is just one of many social experiments being run on the people of the world.

Originally posted by EternitysDream
I also tend to believe that Wikileaks is just one of many social experiments being run on the people of the world.

That has crossed my mind. I don't know what to make of it. Can't decide if this is all a charade or it's genuine. Seems too obvious to be genuine.