It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Danger of WikiLeaks: Why the organization could be doing more harm than good

page: 11
123
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I do not agree with you on this issue, but must congratulate you for producing another quality thread. Your ability to present information in such an eloquent fashion is admirable. Your stance on this issue is surprising, considering your viewpoints expressed on some other threads. Perhaps you are more Enigmatic than I assumed.


edit on 30/11/2010 by Dark Ghost because: reworded




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
I am always weary of stuff like this...mostly because of disinformation and not the "threat to national security" It isnt like they are releasing detailed information on training and tactics of the military and federal law enforcement agencies.

But when it comes to disinformation...that is something that always floats in the back of my mind. It is the: If the government does not want you to know it, why do they not cover it up? Of course plausible deniability floats into the scene...which creates layers upon layers of lies and some truths....making it impossible for me to actually know for sure what is what.

And like you said, the media seems to have an interesting amount of attention focused on them and its the media...a well known propaganda tool. So what angle are they playing? Who knows for sure.

But there are plenty other organizations and movements out there that do not get media spotlight and thus are not really known to the general public unless they themselves stumble upon it. I for one first found out about wikileaks THROUGH THE MEDIA. Go figure? It is the organizations that most of us do not know about that we should be looking at. And beyond organizations it can be simple things as ideas and philosophies that are also more important than we give credit too. (Likely because they do not have a high tech complex / secret base etc)....yet they are the main pushers of social change.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
The only threat these leaks pose is to gross over-abundant profiteering of a small, dark, controlling controlling group that exist at the expense of world population. We should stop pointing fingers at Wikileaks and start pointing fingers at the crooks and liars they expose.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


It should frustrate most to see the Clintons assume office for the primary purpose of defending the actions of their past of which were largely instructed to them by the tyrants that be.

They are here to defend themselves and actions rather than to defend the republic or the people.
This is truth whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not.

I could provide many links for the above though would rather allow themselves to be the victims of the 'system' they found themselves dependent on.....for their very lives.....their very existence, their very meaning.

What a waste.
What a shame.
Yet, they still have a choice.
I hope they choose 'wisely', from here forward.

Freewill is what it Is as are the consequences.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Perseus Apex because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
well i guess we know now who the government (dis)information operatives are in ATS.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
S&F airspoon for such an eloquent post...

Some of us have considered the angles, as you posit in your OP. I think an essential attribute of the modern truth-seeker, infowarrior or what have you is to take any information in with a grain of salt...

I for one was eagerly awaiting the leak, expecting evidence of complicity in prisoner transfers, violations of the Geneva Conventions, etc. Like you say, we have no way of knowing if or if not the whole thing is a disinfo op, and likely never will.

As other posters have stated, the whole thing seems to reinforce the agenda of TPTB...I find myself looking elswhere and wonder what the purpose of the show is, what I am missing elsewhere.

Like you stated, i find myself WANTING to believe the whole WL fairytale...and thus I am wary...

edit on 30/11/2010 by quietone77 because: edit to add



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietone77
S&F airspoon for such an eloquent post...

Some of us have considered the angles, as you posit in your OP. I think an essential attribute of the modern truth-seeker, infowarrior or what have you is to take any information in with a grain of salt...

I for one was eagerly awaiting the leak, expecting evidence of complicity in prisoner transfers, violations of the Geneva Conventions, etc. Like you say, we have no way of knowing if or if not the whole thing is a disinfo op, and likely never will.

As other posters have stated, the whole thing seems to reinforce the agenda of TPTB...I find myself looking elswhere and wonder what the purpose of the show is, what I am missing elsewhere.

Like you stated, i find myself WANTING to believe the whole WL fairytale...and thus I am wary...

edit on 30/11/2010 by quietone77 because: edit to add


Of course they reinforce the agenda of 'TPTB' for the most part, because they are reports from ambassadors that believe in the same stuff that America does. You wouldn't be saying this if it was, say, the Chinese cablegate or the Iranian, would you?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by arufon
well i guess we know now who the government (dis)information operatives are in ATS.


Well... its funny how wikileaks seems to have shaken a lot of people lately - thumbs up for wikileaks.

Now the question in my mind is... are people really afraid of that "national security" stuff and all that has being said or are people actually afraid of being free, of living in a world without people in charge commanding their daily routines, telling us what to do... are we so dumb right now, that we fear a world without gods?

Seems like the human race no longer knows how to live without the strings. Thousands of years always under the rule of something or someone can do that to a person...

But fear not... good or bad, humanity will learn to walk again; we'll just need some physiotherapy.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Baldur
 


True enough, but what bothers me is that I do not see any dissenting opinion in the cables.
For instance, there seems to be a chorus of Arabic countries calling for the demise of Iran...but we do not see any opinion from the opposing view/friendly countries?
edit on 30/11/2010 by quietone77 because: Poor pronoun



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


The only reason the US State Department is running scared is because of all the Lies and Deceit of the American Government to the World. If the Government was honest with respect to their Foreign Policies they would have nothing to fear but fear itself. This is basically what Osama has been saying all these years. It's not that the Leaks are False, but that the Leaks are True that the State Department is getting Paranoid. If Julian Assange was an American, I'm sure he would have been picked up by the spooks by now and never heard from again. As for Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Press, only applies to everyone except the US Government. Who is a Bigger Theat to the US Government Bin Laden or Assange, unless I'm mistaken Assange, he has a Pen and he's prepared to use it.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
This thread is bogus and the fact that you are being aplauded shows the ignorance of the members. WikiLeaks is the only organization that provides a safe haven for leakers and because of its succes a wide distribution capability is possible. The leaks that have been leaked atm have been embaressing at the most and sometimes act as evidence for activity's many people have suspected ie torture etc...

WikiLeaks is able to provide this information and scare goverments and businesses into being more carful and sometimes more ethical. If a lie is never exposed due to the fear of the results it might have on a corrupt business that lie will keep living on and keep corrupting the business, if on the other hand such lies are exposed the business or country is forced to act more ethicly in the future. This is a dogwatch, something journalist should be doing but arn't. Keeping countries and busnisess on their tippy toes.

If you are against wikileaks you are against free speech journalism, read the leaks and nothing we didn't know has been leaked, it has just confirmed it. No national security threat will exist if the US starts acting more truthfully.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Your very right, and I hope many more people will take the side of free journalism instead of scared nationalistic cowardism.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by quietone77
 


Because the US:
1) Doesn't care about dissenting opinion. When you split a diplomatic job up into pieces, with each member knowing the ultimate goal, every member will push for maximum effect. Likely ambassadors are just ignoring dissenters, or actively working against them using Machiavellian tactics.

2) In the Saudi/Arab example specifically, but also applying more generally too is the fact that the US ARE NOT TALKING TO THE PEOPLE. They are talking to state leaders and corporate interests, in this case rich old Saudis who just want to make more money. These Saudis are dictators, and don't represent the will of the people. Check my thread on Iran for more details, including opinion polls of the Middle-Eastern public - they don't agree with their dictators.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Baldur
 


I didn't forget anyone. Not only am I going between 3 or 4 threads (with 2 of them over 100 unique replies), but I also have a RL (real life), which includes both work and children. If I don't respond to everyone, it isn't because I forget or because I am over-looking anyone, rather it's because I'm sort of prioritizing. I can assure you that I am reading every post. Some posts I'm not going to respond to at all because either the member didn't read the OP or the point clearly sailed way over their heads.

As far as your post here, I read it and even responded, I just don't even know where to begin and frankly don't have the time to explain it to you personally, as I have reiterated my point in this thread numerous times. You cleary didn't understand the point or neglected to weigh the subject matter objectively. Also, much of it is irrelevant and doesn't require a detailed response, as it doesn't pertain to the logic in the OP. Any concerns or misunderstandings you may or may not have, are addressed in the many numerous posts authored by me and others in this thread.

For instance, you ask me to clarify what I mean by 'way of life' and then you go on to tell me the ideological arguments against the 'American way of life', which honestly has nothing to do with the thread or the point made in the thread. Whether people agree or disagree with the 'American way of life', matters not in the context for which the term was used, nor the main points of the thread.

Your whole post there is sort of all hay, so it's not as if I forgot you or I am ignoring you, it's just a path of reasoning that matters not to the point made in the OP.

The point made in the OP was not to prove or disprove that WikiLeaks is disinformation or a government operation. Instead, the point of the thread was to point out the potential dangers associated with such an organization, especially one that operates in the 'dump method' such as WL. The point was to point out the apparently not-so-obvious dangers that exist with an organization such as WL. For instance, the very real danger that WL could be spreading disinfo, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Also, the real danger that people miscalculate the scope of effectiveness of such an organization. I can't tell you how many times in the past 24 hours alone (since this latest dump), that I have heard people say that the government isn't up to anything particularly bad because WL would have exposed it. That is a danger presented by WL, as it misinforms people of the level success or effectiveness that WL has with creating transparency in government.

So, unless you can debate the point of the thread, such explaining to me how there is no way that disinformation can make it through WL, how we can trust WL in spite of the very real threat of disinfo or misinfo, or how the organization overall is more of a benefit to society, than a burden (in spite of the fact that they seem to be a distraction by misleadingly exaggerating their scope of effectiveness), then a viable response from me is unlikely, past this one here.

What I believe is happening, is members are allowing their emotions to dictate a response, as opposed to objectively weighing the information of the OP. The only thing people seem to be seeing, is that an argument is being made against WL and so they go into the typical defense mode, while not even being relevant in that defense of WL. I'm not arguing against making information public or creating transparency in government, as I believe those things need to happen. Rather, I'm arguing the method of approach by WL and the effectiveness that it may or may not have, along with the benefits and/or burdens of that effectiveness, both perceived and real.

Have a wonderful day.


--airspoon


 




reply to post by backinblack
 



Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by airspoon
 


Airspoon...
I'm just curious where your feelings really lie in regards to these leaks..

You have this thread pointing out they could be dangerous disinfo etc.

Then you start another thread accepting them as facts..The Saudi thread..

Where are you, you're all over the shop..????
edit on 29-11-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


Repost because you obviously missed it last time Airspoon..




First of all, I have made no claim as to the authenticity of these leaks, rather I have argued the potential for disinformation to be rooted through WL. Again, If I had to put money on it, I would say that disinformation would be mixed in with real information, but that is only my educated opinion (the logic an explanation of that opinion can be read in the OP, here).

Secondly, that thread was not accepting this "leak" as fact alone and even in that thread, I clearly state that the content of that cable is unknown, as is it's level of truth. However, as was pointed out in various posts and threads authored by me (on ATS), I have often pointed out that Saudi Arabia is apparently equipping our enemies. with that particular thread, pointing out a cable that may or may not be completely accurate that points to such a notion.

Again, it's important to note that nowhere have I ever suggested that all of the info coming from WL is disinfo and in fact, I don't even make the claim that it certainly is disnfo, only that there is a huge potential for disinfo and that much of it is probably disinfo, in my opinion and according to the very easy ability of government to exploit a channel such as WL for that purpose.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out by me and many others here, if you are going to spread disinfo, it would be foolish to spread only lies, as you can easily be figured out that way. Instead, you would seed that disinfo in real accurate information, some of it to even embarrass you, though which wouldn't give you any serious consequences, just as the information seems to be that is leaked through WL. Think I'm wrong? Tell me about it. Debate me with an argument that the information leaked will really have serious consequences for certain corrupt officials in government, because as of yet, nobody has been able to find any. Instead, all of the embarrassing information is superficial at best and will create no serious consequences to enact change to the status quo, just the kind of accurate information that a disinformation campaign would put out to gain credibility, so that the disinformation would be hard to identify.

So, to be clear, even if WL was spreading disinformation (either intentional or unintentional), it would most likely be mixed in with truth, truths that hold no real consequences for government or people within government, but would rather only gain the information some credibility.

Also to be clear on the Saudi thread (found here), I never once vouch for its authenticity and instead, I only add my opinion to it, most of which is corroborate through other information that I have. It is completely irrelevant to the point made in this threat, as was also pointed out by others.

Please read my response to Baldur (particularly the last paragraph), as it applies to you as well.

I also wish you to have a wonderful day.



--airspoon



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baldur
reply to post by quietone77
 


Because the US:
1) Doesn't care about dissenting opinion. When you split a diplomatic job up into pieces, with each member knowing the ultimate goal, every member will push for maximum effect. Likely ambassadors are just ignoring dissenters, or actively working against them using Machiavellian tactics.


Maybe, maybe not. But from what I see, an individual at a diplomatic post is given free reign to report on the breadth of an issue candidly. I would expect no less from a subordinate if I was SECSTATE. Are you implying a kowtowing of the 'party line' at every diplomatic post abroad? *shudders*



2) In the Saudi/Arab example specifically, but also applying more generally too is the fact that the US ARE NOT TALKING TO THE PEOPLE. They are talking to state leaders and corporate interests, in this case rich old Saudis who just want to make more money. These Saudis are dictators, and don't represent the will of the people. Check my thread on Iran for more details, including opinion polls of the Middle-Eastern public - they don't agree with their dictators.


Again, I operate under the basic premise that not all people are evil/greedy/insane. These aren't opinion polls, these are (purportedly) assessments/debriefings by people that are depended on to be objective in the same.

I reserve judgment on WL until everything is out, but the (implied) spin on what is out kind of stinks.
edit on 30/11/2010 by quietone77 because: bad html



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Baldur
 


For instance, you ask me to clarify what I mean by 'way of life' and then you go on to tell me the ideological arguments against the 'American way of life', which honestly has nothing to do with the thread or the point made in the thread. Whether people agree or disagree with the 'American way of life', matters not in the context for which the term was used, nor the main points of the thread.

Your whole post there is sort of all hay, so it's not as if I forgot you or I am ignoring you, it's just a path of reasoning that matters not to the point made in the OP.


Admittedly, the first 1/3rd or so is pretty vague. That's probably the point I searched up 'american way of life'! I didn't edit or pre-write it - it was a one-run thing, so I was just getting into mode. To be fair your post isn't exactly top sec either, hence 'equivilently eloquent'




The point made in the OP was not to prove or disprove that WikiLeaks is disinformation or a government operation. Instead, the point of the thread was to point out the potential dangers associated with such an organization, especially one that operates in the 'dump method' such as WL. The point was to point out the apparently not-so-obvious dangers that exist with an organization such as WL. For instance, the very real danger that WL could be spreading disinfo, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Also, the real danger that people miscalculate the scope of effectiveness of such an organization. I can't tell you how many times in the past 24 hours alone (since this latest dump), that I have heard people say that the government isn't up to anything particularly bad because WL would have exposed it. That is a danger presented by WL, as it misinforms people of the level success or effectiveness that WL has with creating transparency in government.


Yes, if you read my thread you'd see that I agreed with you, in a way. Although I did provide evidence that I don't believe it's a disinfo campaign, your post equally doesn't provide any evidence it is. We're talking about possibilities, and I'm saying that the possibility of Wikileaks BEING disinfo is very remote for multiple diplomatic reasons I went into. I did read your thread and took the time to respond to your points.


So, unless you can debate the point of the thread, such explaining to me how there is no way that disinformation can make it through WL, how we can trust WL in spite of the very real threat of disinfo or misinfo, or how the organization overall is more of a benefit to society, than a burden (in spite of the fact that they seem to be a distraction by misleadingly exaggerating their scope of effectiveness), then a viable response from me is unlikely, past this one here.


Any information provided to WL is vetted and examined thoroughly. They have multiple methods to check sources and legitimacy because their credibility is EXTREMELY important. In fact, it's the most important thing to WL - therefore, when in doubt they wait to get more information on documents if they are unsure of the factuality.

Then again, they don't generally check if there are any ulterior motives for the leakers. There is one exception to this that I know of, the whole oil company incident, but what you call 'disinformation' would not be factually incorrect (if it's been vetted correctly) so therefore is not disinformation, you understand? It's information, albeit perhaps presented for propaganda reasons. IF IT'S WELL VETTED AND THE KNOWN TRUTH, IT'S NOT DISINFORMATION OR MISINFORMATION.

And the last few lines are just speculating injected with your own beliefs and musings.



What I believe is happening, is members are allowing their emotions to dictate a response, as opposed to objectively weighing the information of the OP. The only thing people seem to be seeing, is that an argument is being made against WL and so they go into the typical defense mode, while not even being relevant in that defense of WL. I'm not arguing against making information public or creating transparency in government, as I believe those things need to happen. Rather, I'm arguing the method of approach by WL and the effectiveness that it may or may not have, along with the benefits and/or burdens of that effectiveness, both perceived and real.


There's nothing objective with what you've said. If you disagree, I'll take the time to dissect your post and show you, but instead of that just try reading it again. You're especially not objective, as you're American and have a vested interest in this information because it is related to your country and diplomatic relations. You're also a conspiracy theorist, prone to your own set of cognitive biases. If anybody is allowing their emotions to dictate, sir, I'd say it was you - trying to pass opinion off as fact or objective analysis.

Read my post again, I agree that you do bring up a few good points but my argument is that the chances of those points being applicable are remote due to them not making any political sense. Understand?



Have a wonderful day.


--airspoon


Hell yeah, you too



Originally posted by quietone77

Originally posted by Baldur
reply to post by quietone77
 


Because the US:
1) Doesn't care about dissenting opinion. When you split a diplomatic job up into pieces, with each member knowing the ultimate goal, every member will push for maximum effect. Likely ambassadors are just ignoring dissenters, or actively working against them using Machiavellian tactics.


Maybe, maybe not. But from what I see, an individual at a diplomatic post is given free reign to report on the breadth of an issue candidly. I would expect no less from a subordinate if I was SECSTATE. Are you implying a kowtowing of the 'party line' at every diplomatic post abroad? *shudders*


Of course! Think about it - if somebody detracts from the party line they get reported higher-up as a person of interest. Did you see the German and Chinese ambassadors that did that? They got profiled by the ambassadors of the government that they were discussing with, profiles that can be used later in bargains and threats. If Obama heard about a politician in the Middle East saying we should be bombing the Israelis and not the Iranians, he'd have the guy out of the country faster than you can snap your fingers.

There's also plenty personal bias for Ambassadors to toe the party line - brownnosing! The more you stick to your job's official role, the more information you gather and the better tactics of dubious morality yet large effect you develop all play a part of deciding if you get to be the next one to go on a fully government-funded trip to the East where rich aristocrats toss $100 bills at child dancers and blocks of gold are exchanged as gifts, where drunken champagne-drinkers ride around on jet-skis and discuss the latest fashions.

Surely you can see the incentive?



2) In the Saudi/Arab example specifically, but also applying more generally too is the fact that the US ARE NOT TALKING TO THE PEOPLE. They are talking to state leaders and corporate interests, in this case rich old Saudis who just want to make more money. These Saudis are dictators, and don't represent the will of the people. Check my thread on Iran for more details, including opinion polls of the Middle-Eastern public - they don't agree with their dictators.


Again, I operate under the basic premise that not all people are evil/greedy/insane. These aren't opinion polls, these are (purportedly) assessments/debriefings by people that are depended on to be objective in the same.


Of course not all people are greedy/evil/insane, at least not on purpose. One of our problems with the current system is reflected on a drone gunner - a guy works 9-5, goes to work in a suit and has an American wife and family he comes home to every night, but by day he emotionlessly shoots people in a drone control booth designed to look like a videogame. Or the bankers that siphon money from the top of the system as bonuses, with their big houses and pseudo-intellectual table talk about popular psychology. The same people that own 18 cars and 4 properties, perhaps using 1/2 the rooms of one property. Or the British royal family's dinner party - check what the Prince said in one of the cables about investigative journalism.

Are these people evil? No. Are they out of touch? Yes.

But as for the Saudis, you can check any news story you like on Saudi princes. You'll find that they are essentially legitimized warlords that come from an oppressed country and are supported not by their people, but by the American government.



I reserve judgment on WL until everything is out, but the (implied) spin on what is out kind of stinks.
edit on 30/11/2010 by quietone77 because: bad html

edit on 30-11-2010 by Baldur because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baldur


Of course! Think about it - if somebody detracts from the party line they get reported higher-up as a person of interest. Did you see the German and Chinese ambassadors that did that? They got profiled by the ambassadors of the government that they were discussing with, profiles that can be used later in bargains and threats. If Obama heard about a politician in the Middle East saying we should be bombing the Israelis and not the Iranians, he'd have the guy out of the country faster than you can snap your fingers.

There's also plenty personal bias for Ambassadors to toe the party line - brownnosing! The more you stick to your job's official role, the more information you gather and the better tactics of dubious morality yet large effect you develop all play a part of deciding if you get to be the next one to go on a fully government-funded trip to the East where rich aristocrats toss $100 bills at child dancers and blocks of gold are exchanged as gifts, where drunken champagne-drinkers ride around on jet-skis and discuss the latest fashions.

Surely you can see the incentive?


I do, but I don't buy the premise. These people don't hold political office, but diplomatic post. There job is to give an unbiased account of significant conversations and occurances that may be of interest to the State. Whilst the 'brown-nose' or political bias may show in some, maybe even most, I would not expect ALL. It defeats the purpose of diplomatic intelligence...and I therefore find it suspect.




Of course not all people are greedy/evil/insane, at least not on purpose. One of our problems with the current system is reflected on a drone gunner - a guy works 9-5, goes to work in a suit and has an American wife and family he comes home to every night, but by day he emotionlessly shoots people in a drone control booth designed to look like a videogame. Or the bankers that siphon money from the top of the system as bonuses, with their big houses and pseudo-intellectual table talk about popular psychology. The same people that own 18 cars and 4 properties, perhaps using 1/2 the rooms of one property. Or the British royal family's dinner party - check what the Prince said in one of the cables about investigative journalism.

Are these people evil? No. Are they out of touch? Yes.


I agree what you say, and I read the cable you cite, but your logic is flawed...do you argue that all US diplomats are 'out of touch'? Maybe it's just me with my Canadian 'Alice in Wonderland' view of the world, but I think at lease SOME report back with objective opinion/reports.



But as for the Saudis, you can check any news story you like on Saudi princes. You'll find that they are essentially legitimized warlords that come from an oppressed country and are supported not by their people, but by the American government.


Agreed, but I fail to see how this bears the topic at hand. Again, surely there are Iranian-friendly countries in the ME with US diplomatic posts attached. I would have expected to see their viewpoints in cables, even though I would expect a blackwashing therein...



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Baldur
 



Although I did provide evidence that I don't believe it's a disinfo campaign, your post equally doesn't provide any evidence it is. We're talking about possibilities, and I'm saying that the possibility of Wikileaks BEING disinfo is very remote for multiple diplomatic reasons I went into.


I have provided evidence that WL is spreading disinfo, however circumstantial that evidence may be. Furthermore, I'm not claiming that I know it is disinfo. Instead, I'm claiming that there is a very great likelihood that disinfo would be spread through WL, effectively calling the operation into question. Would you get into a boat with a huge hole in the bottom? Just like with a boat, where it's effectiveness relies on whether it can float, WL's effectiveness relies on whether we can run with the information provided by them. Now, what if the majority of people who were getting onto that boat with a hole in the bottom, couldn't see the hole? That boat then becomes dangerous. The boat looks like a good thing (especially if you are trapped on an island), but it becomes ineffective because it has a hole. I wouldn't get onto that boat. Shoot, the boat might float with that hole. I'm not trying to claim that I know it won't float. I'm just trying to say that generally speaking, boats with holes in the bottoms, usually don't float and that it would be dangerous to get on that boat.

Then, you have people piling on this boat and I'm trying to tell them about this hole. The hole in the bottom of WL's boat is the very real potential for disinformation, regardless of whether they are aware of the disinformation or not. We now have people believing that they have a boat, when they don't realize the huge hole. They also don't realize that the boat isn't nearly sturdy enough for ocean travel so even if by getting on this boat and for some odd reason it doesn't sink due to the huge gaping hole in its hull, the likelihood that it could traverse the ocean is silly, thus giving the people false hope in their escape from the island and a distraction from what is necessary for not only survival on the island, but rescue too. So, while people could be concentrating on other methods to get off the island -or even survive the island- they are all focused on this boat which not only has a gaping hole in the hull, but also isn't capable off getting everyone to the safety of the mainland.

Again, I'm not arguing that I know this boat will sink (that WL is disinformation), only that it has a hole and that it has a very real possibility that it will sink (spread disinfo). Also, that even if for some odd reason it doesn't sink due to the hole, it still isn't an effective vessel to get everyone off the island (transparency in government), in spite of the fact that many people believe it will and thus are devoting their time to this boat.

Due to the simple fact that WL, or an organization such as WL, doesn't have the access to deeply classified material, it makes their boat ineffective at traversing the ocean, even if it did float in spite of the gaping hole in the bottom.


and I'm saying that the possibility of Wikileaks BEING disinfo is very remote for multiple diplomatic reasons I went into.


How can you say that it is a remote chance? Your basing your assumption on flawed logic. Your basing your assumption, presumably so, on the idea that it would all have to be disinfo, as opposed to disinfo seeded in accurate information. If I was going to spread disinfo, I would have to seed it with real and accurate info, as to give some credibility to that disinfo and I would have to add some embarrassing things to myself, though of which would not garner myself any real or expensive consequences.

Furthermore, with the "embarrassing" information released thus far, no real diplomatic consequences will be realized. Sure, if diplomatic ties relied on the superficial, such as friendship, however that is completely negating the fact that other nations have diplomatic ties with the US out of necessity. Ambiguous name calling, will not cause diplomatic ties to sever. These are business men who have learned through a lifetime of raking in money, that personal feelings and profit should be separated.

If I was to spread disinfo, I would do so by releasing embarrassing information such as what was released. In fact, the embarrassing information that was released, couldn't be any better for the task of spreading disinfo, as none of it has any real consequence past slight embarrassment.

Think about it. If all of the information released only made out the government in a good light, nobody would believe its authenticity.


Any information provided to WL is vetted and examined thoroughly


How do you know? Because they say so? That's a faith based assumption.

Furthermore, their vetting process is only effective at keeping normal people, as opposed to the government itself, from attention seeking by filing false information. So, even if they are telling the truth and they are vetting this information, you have to think how they are vetting it. How do you vet classified information? Really the only way you can do that, is to identify where and who it is coming from and if the government wanted to covertly spread disinformation, that kind of vetting process wouldn't catch it, as it would be coming from the government. You could maybe corroberate it with other leaked information, but only on a small portion and the corroboration is with the entity that is possibly spreading disinformation. So, if WL itslef was intentionally spreading disinformation as a disinfo campaign, they could simply be telling you that they are vetting their info.

If WL is unintentionally spreading disinfo, then their vetting wouldn't be able to catch this, as they would be vetting it through the source (government), which is spreading the disinfo. That is the major flaw (or whole in the hull) of the method for which WL operates, a dump site.


therefore, when in doubt they wait to get more information on documents if they are unsure of the factuality.


That is the flaw because the only way they can check on government information, is through the government itself. Think about it. If the government was effective at tricking the Soviet Union (or even the Mafia) with disinformation (such as an undercover operative/agent), then they would surely be able to do the same for WL. It all boils down to WL having to vet their info through the government and if the government is the one spreading disinfo, then their vetting process would not be able to expose disinformation coming from the government.

Do you think they have some magic method of vetting classified information that would bypass the government. Do you really put that much faith in organization run by some dude? Come on and snap back to reality.


Then again, they don't generally check if there are any ulterior motives for the leakers. There is one exception to this that I know of, the whole oil company incident, but what you call 'disinformation' would not be factually incorrect (if it's been vetted correctly) so therefore is not disinformation, you understand? It's information, albeit perhaps presented for propaganda reasons. IF IT'S WELL VETTED AND THE KNOWN TRUTH, IT'S NOT DISINFORMATION OR MISINFORMATION.


First of all, that is again flawed logic (see above). Again, the only way that WL can confirm this information, is to identify the source and his/her access to the information, unless of course they are government sponsored, in which case one has to wonder if they are intentionally spreading disinfo. If it is the government spreading the disinfo, then of course their source will be confirmed as having access to this information.

It sounds like you have been watching too many movies or you are simply putting too much faith in the word of someone, which is the problem with the government lying in the first place. Many people seek the truth because they are not willing to blindly put faith in someone's word, exactly what you are doing here. Why would one argue that they shouldn't have to put faith in the word of government, then turn around and put faith in Assange or WL?

Again, it all boils down to how or where WL can vet this information and since it is classified government information, the only place they can vet it, is through the source and identifying his/her access to this information, in which case the government could easily exploit this to spread disinformation. That is of course if they are even telling the truth and you want to put faith in their word to begin with, but then you are simply shifting faith from the government, to someone else. Even if you do or can put faith in their word, that still doesn't speak for their ability to effectively vet this information from government exploitation.


There's nothing objective with what you've said


The logic in my post is objective, obviously my opinions are not. My opinions are clearly labled as just that, opinion. However, the reasoning is objective. I would want nothing more than for an organization to come along and expose government corruption, however when one does, I'm going to objectively weigh the scenario or operation and pick out any flaws. Clearly, WL can not viably comfirm whether classified information coming from the government, is not disinformation, as the government would be the only ones to have this information and so their vetting process would be superficial in terms of government itself. Sure, their vetting process would be effective at weeding out joe-shmoe from trying to reap some reward money, but it would be ineffective at stopping the government from spreading that disinfo, especially considering the resources of both parties.


You're especially not objective, as you're American and have a vested interest in this information because it is related to your country and diplomatic relations.


You can weigh something objectively, while not having an objective opinion. In fact, that is the hall mark of intellect and scientists and academics do it all of the time. I'm a historian/author by profession and weigh information objectively all of the time, though my my opinions are just that, opinion and they reflect my biases. Being American or having a vested interest in the outcome of a scenario, does not mean that one automatically lacks the ability to weigh something objectively. If that were the case, then we would hardly have any intellectual advancement.


You're also a conspiracy theorist, prone to your own set of cognitive biases.


Everyone is a conspiracy theorist, as everyone believes in theories involving conspiracy. In fact, I would say that the degree to which I theorize about conspiracies is much less than even the average person which doesn't frequent these sites.

For instance, if you believe in the 9/11 OS, you are a conspiracy theorists, as that is a theory regarding a conspiracy. You would be just as much a conspiracy theorists as someone who believes the government did it or that aliens did it. To demonstrate my level of theorizing on conspiracies, I have no conclusion as to who committed 9/11 and I offer no theory about it, only evidence, as I need proof before coming to a conclusion, unlike most who apparently believe in the official conspiracy theory. So, if you are calling me a conspiracy theorists in regards to my threads on 9/11, you are wrong, as I am one of the rare people who weighs the subject objectively and doesn't conclude without undeniable proof. I have my opinions, but that is completely seperate from my research, as is the case here with WL.


Read my post again, I agree that you do bring up a few good points but my argument is that the chances of those points being applicable are remote due to them not making any political sense. Understand?


Your arguments have been effectively debunked and deflated. See above arguments.


--airspoon



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Baldur
 


I have provided evidence that WL is spreading disinfo, however circumstantial that evidence may be.


I see no hard evidence, whatsoever, that Wikileaks is spreading disinformation. If you look at the definition of disinformation that you quoted, it said 'spreading inaccurate/false information deliberately' or similar which Wikileaks has not and is not doing. All I see in what you have written is flawed logic and personal opinion.



Furthermore, I'm not claiming that I know it is disinfo. Instead, I'm claiming that there is a very great likelihood that disinfo would be spread through WL, effectively calling the operation into question.


Again, I'm not arguing that I know (that WL is disinformation), only that it has a hole and that it has a very real possibility that it will (spread disinfo). Also, it still isn't an effective vessel to [cause] (transparency in government), in spite of the fact that many people believe it will and thus are devoting their time to [wikileaks].

Due to the simple fact that WL, or an organization such as WL, doesn't have the access to deeply classified material, it makes their boat ineffective at traversing the ocean, even if it did float in spite of the gaping hole in the bottom.


Stripping out most of the entertaining - but entirely meaningless - naval allegory, you are now saying that your argument is that it is POSSIBLE that Wikileaks could be used as a medium for spreading disinformation, so therefore people shouldn't devote their time to it. You go on to state that because Wikileaks doesn't have access to the most classified material, they're not worth bothering about.

Yes, it's entirely possible that Wikileaks could be used to spread MISLEADING information, but I doubt it could be used to spread DISINFORMATION. Misleading information meaning information that is true, but draws the reader to an incorrect conclusion due to the reader only knowing part of the story. Wikileaks releases material in raw format, attributed to it's creator - a political figure could, for example, leak an email saying that he knew Iran had nuclear missiles, without providing any factual evidence.

Maybe Americans don't check the facts, but in almost every other country I've been to, they do. I don't really know much about America aside from what I learn from American media, but it does seem like they skew every piece of information to reflect a position and refuse to investigate 'second-hand' info. This is why you guys got us into the Iraq war, right?

As I repeatedly say, Wikileaks have an excellent vetting procedure - if there is doubt that a document is legitimate, they won't publish it. On the other hand, if they publish something which contains information which may not be true, yet the information is a true depiction of a country's/person's OPINIONS and INTELLIGENCE (ie. These cables) then Wikileaks is under no obligation to reassure people that 'they might be wrong or right'. Wikileaks releases the information so the news orgs and people can do the research. They were already lambasted over providing context and editorial on the Collateral Murder leak.

Wikileaks is an organization that releases raw information, not a news corp that provides editorials. Do you not have investigative journalism in America?



How can you say that it is a remote chance? Your basing your assumption on flawed logic. Your basing your assumption, presumably so, on the idea that it would all have to be disinfo, as opposed to disinfo seeded in accurate information. If I was going to spread disinfo, I would have to seed it with real and accurate info, as to give some credibility to that disinfo and I would have to add some embarrassing things to myself, though of which would not garner myself any real or expensive consequences.


No, to me it's you that's basing the assumption on flawed logic. I'm not suggesting 'all or nothing' - you're setting up straw men, in fact I've criticized others that have argued such a thing in this very thread.

What I'm saying, is that I:

A) Trust in Wikileaks to confirm that documents come from the place that they state. So I trust that the cables are US government cables, until proven otherwise. (In fact, from the US's reaction you can infer that they are real)

B) Do not believe that Wikileaks should provide editorial or criticism in views expressed within those documents, or choose to censor documents that do not align with their political views.

It's honestly quite naive to say 'I don't like what these documents say - they're not conspiratorial enough, so let's shoot the messenger because the delivery method may or may not be flawed and they're not secret enough to warrant release'



Furthermore, with the "embarrassing" information released thus far, no real diplomatic consequences will be realized. Sure, if diplomatic ties relied on the superficial, such as friendship, however that is completely negating the fact that other nations have diplomatic ties with the US out of necessity. Ambiguous name calling, will not cause diplomatic ties to sever. These are business men who have learned through a lifetime of raking in money, that personal feelings and profit should be separated.


That's pretty much my point. However, the diplomatic damage caused if the US retaliated towards WL instead of fixing the problem at it's source (securing their IT systems and diplomatically becoming more honest and transparent) would be immense.



If I was to spread disinfo, I would do so by releasing embarrassing information such as what was released. In fact, the embarrassing information that was released, couldn't be any better for the task of spreading disinfo, as none of it has any real consequence past slight embarrassment.

Think about it. If all of the information released only made out the government in a good light, nobody would believe its authenticity.


'If I, I would' doesn't apply to countries, for exactly the reasons you supplied in the last paragraph. I'm betting you would only agree with Wikileaks if they provided all the rubbish you apparently want to be told. Information depicting the US government as diabolically evil would obviously be skewed, as would information depicting them as angelically good. It's very likely they are somewhere in the middle, like every other country in the world. WL has proved that.

And you'd be surprised who would believe what. Remember Iraq again? I think you should start speaking for yourself, as opposed to making sweeping generalizations on what you think the public would and would not believe - that kind of discussion leads nowhere, because there are no answers.



How do you know? Because they say so? That's a faith based assumption.


And how do you know it isn't? Because they didn't say so? That's a stupid assumption. If everybody just assumed that everything else was not what it said it was, we'd be living in a world of dangerously insane people. Remember why courts judge people as innocent until proven guilty.



Furthermore, their vetting process is only effective at keeping normal people, as opposed to the government itself, from attention seeking by filing false information. So, even if they are telling the truth and they are vetting this information, you have to think how they are vetting it. How do you vet classified information? Really the only way you can do that, is to identify where and who it is coming from and if the government wanted to covertly spread disinformation, that kind of vetting process wouldn't catch it, as it would be coming from the government. You could maybe corroberate it with other leaked information, but only on a small portion and the corroboration is with the entity that is possibly spreading disinformation. So, if WL itslef was intentionally spreading disinformation as a disinfo campaign, they could simply be telling you that they are vetting their info.

If WL is unintentionally spreading disinfo, then their vetting wouldn't be able to catch this, as they would be vetting it through the source (government), which is spreading the disinfo. That is the major flaw (or whole in the hull) of the method for which WL operates, a dump site.


It's a possibility that in a speculative scenario, a government could provide information that was factually incorrect and pass it to Wikileaks. As I've said, however, Wikileaks' job is to CONFIRM that the information has come FROM THE SOURCE specified. So once it had established that a piece of information had come from the government archives and from a government leaker, they would leak it. It's not their job to check the information itself is correct - just that it comes from the correct source. The media's job would then be to publish the info on a mass scale, and provide context and editorial - I'm sure they would quite quickly pick up false info, whether it was buried in real info or not. That's why investigative journalists are called 'investigative'.



That is the flaw because the only way they can check on government information, is through the government itself. Think about it. If the government was effective at tricking the Soviet Union (or even the Mafia) with disinformation (such as an undercover operative/agent), then they would surely be able to do the same for WL. It all boils down to WL having to vet their info through the government and if the government is the one spreading disinfo, then their vetting process would not be able to expose disinformation coming from the government.

Do you think they have some magic method of vetting classified information that would bypass the government. Do you really put that much faith in organization run by some dude? Come on and snap back to reality.


Reality is where it's at. Come check it out, sometime. Maybe you misunderstood - I'm not suggesting that WL confirm every little piece of info in the documents, I'm saying that from my knowledge, they release things. They check the things come from the source, that they are from the place specified, but not the accuracy of the documents themselves. Do you think WL can reasonably do that? And still leak anything? I expect if it was something extreme, they may attempt to get a bit of a clearer picture as to what is going on, but I'm sure they have ways of doing that. You don't think any of the WL volunteers are government agents? Or know government agents? Or other, indrect ways of communicating with local and foreign governments to verify information, aside from knocking on the door?

There's a world of ways to do it, but I won't speculate too much. Suffice to say you should check out that WashPo article from a while back on Top Secret America and see how many Americans are TS cleared.



First of all, that is again flawed logic (see above). Again, the only way that WL can confirm this information, is to identify the source and his/her access to the information, unless of course they are government sponsored, in which case one has to wonder if they are intentionally spreading disinfo. If it is the government spreading the disinfo, then of course their source will be confirmed as having access to this information.

See above. Why the hell would the government want to spread this information? Discounting everything else, you're also making judgement based upon 290 cables - there's another 249,600 or so to go, yet!



It sounds like you have been watching too many movies or you are simply putting too much faith in the word of someone, which is the problem with the government lying in the first place. Many people seek the truth because they are not willing to blindly put faith in someone's word, exactly what you are doing here. Why would one argue that they shouldn't have to put faith in the word of government, then turn around and put faith in Assange or WL?

Again, it all boils down to how or where WL can vet this information and since it is classified government information, the only place they can vet it, is through the source and identifying his/her access to this information, in which case the government could easily exploit this to spread disinformation. That is of course if they are even telling the truth and you want to put faith in their word to begin with, but then you are simply shifting faith from the government, to someone else. Even if you do or can put faith in their word, that still doesn't speak for their ability to effectively vet this information from government exploitation.


I don't have blind faith in Assange and Wikileaks, by any means. By what they have demonstrated, though, with a history of big leaks, they release a lot more information than any investigative journalism I've ever seen. I hope they both work in perfect tandem, investigative journalists tackling individual-scale corruption while WL challenge large companies and corporations.

The reason I, personally, don't put faith in any government is that they are constrained by the elective process. Members of government invariably push for more VOTES, not better treatment for their people. Selfish careerists! In the end, governments lack the capacity of making decisions on moral and ethical issues, especially since the system itself is corrupt due to the massive amount of overlap between corporations and government.



The logic in my post is objective, obviously my opinions are not. My opinions are clearly labled as just that, opinion. However, the reasoning is objective. I would want nothing more than for an organization to come along and expose government corruption, however when one does, I'm going to objectively weigh the scenario or operation and pick out any flaws. Clearly, WL can not viably comfirm whether classified information coming from the government, is not disinformation, as the government would be the only ones to have this information and so their vetting process would be superficial in terms of government itself. Sure, their vetting process would be effective at weeding out joe-shmoe from trying to reap some reward money, but it would be ineffective at stopping the government from spreading that disinfo, especially considering the resources of both parties.


I'll stop repeating myself, now. Ach, one last time: It's not WL's job to verify information contained in leaks, they just verify their sources. It's not a flaw in Wikileaks that'd cause any issues, it'd be a flaw in the media system when they claim 'American documents leaked saying Iran has nukes' means 'Iran has nukes'.



You can weigh something objectively, while not having an objective opinion. In fact, that is the hall mark of intellect and scientists and academics do it all of the time. I'm a historian/author by profession and weigh information objectively all of the time, though my my opinions are just that, opinion and they reflect my biases. Being American or having a vested interest in the outcome of a scenario, does not mean that one automatically lacks the ability to weigh something objectively. If that were the case, then we would hardly have any intellectual advancement.

Everyone is a conspiracy theorist, as everyone believes in theories involving conspiracy. In fact, I would say that the degree to which I theorize about conspiracies is much less than even the average person which doesn't frequent these sites.


I disagree. I won't go into fallacy, but I do suggest you do a little research in cognitive biases and fallacies and you might find your opinion changes a little. Apologies for the whole 'you americans' thing, it can just be pretty frustrating to have a discussion where our very concepts of reality are different.



For instance, if you believe in the 9/11 OS, you are a conspiracy theorists, as that is a theory regarding a conspiracy. You would be just as much a conspiracy theorists as someone who believes the government did it or that aliens did it. To demonstrate my level of theorizing on conspiracies, I have no conclusion as to who committed 9/11 and I offer no theory about it, only evidence, as I need proof before coming to a conclusion, unlike most who apparently believe in the official conspiracy theory. So, if you are calling me a conspiracy theorists in regards to my threads on 9/11, you are wrong, as I am one of the rare people who weighs the subject objectively and doesn't conclude without undeniable proof. I have my opinions, but that is completely seperate from my research, as is the case here with WL.


No, my point is that you are dismissing Wikileaks as 'flawed', suggesting it's findings are suspect due to a perceived vulnerability in the system. You're not criticizing the information itself, or the parties responsible for causing the problems that the information describes, you're simply stating that Wikileaks is 'flawed' so therefore nobody should support it. I find it quite irritating that a self-affirmed conspiracy theorist refuses to support the only large organization pushing for large-scale transparency whilst providing evidence of widespread corruption. My point is, they may not be perfect, but they're the best we've got and we should help them because if WL loses support and is shut down, the movement will lose momentum and we'll be looking at another few centuries of secrecy and insecurity.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
"Whoever shall trade a little liberty for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both" --Ben Franklin

"Give me liberty and give me death." --Patrick Henry


Here is something you have failed to consider:

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
-George Orwell

Maybe instead of knowing more about the government workings the public should be used to this kind of information

edit on 30-11-2010 by Sheol because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
123
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join