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: 12
123
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
ASSANGE on the Interpol's wanted list as of today. Exactly after the release of the cables. Motive? "sex crimes"

I believe you can rule out the dissinfo agent theory. Link




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
It's important to note that nowehere in the OP have I ever suggested that Wikileaks should not release information. Furthermore, nowehere have I suggested that the government shouldn't be more transparent, even if someone or some entity has to force that transparency. Instead, I just think there are some major red-flags with WL and what's more, their method of approach is ripe for exploitation by government or those who influence government to propagate disinformation.

What's even worse, I'm sure that a lot of fence-sitters, people who were beginning to think that the government is all corrupt and getting us into war for economic or corporate reasons, will now start to believe that government isn't that bad after all. Case in point: post by Odessy


Originally posted by Odessy
bleh... The administration should be more open and honest. In fact, the last batch of Wikileaks allowed agencies to see that Iran crossed the border in order to arrest those hikers... so that was useful.


"Wikileaks now says..." so then it must be true. This poster just underscores the point made in the third section of the OP and even underlines the danger mentioned in the second section.

If it is disinformation, then it is already extremely effective. Again, more harm than good. Too bad we can't have a trustworthy organization forcing our government to be more transparent, or at least an organization where we can have the smallest amount of confidence that the information is real.




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



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

Originally posted by airspoon
It's important to note that nowehere in the OP have I ever suggested that Wikileaks should not release information. Furthermore, nowehere have I suggested that the government shouldn't be more transparent, even if someone or some entity has to force that transparency. Instead, I just think there are some major red-flags with WL and what's more, their method of approach is ripe for exploitation by government or those who influence government to propagate disinformation.

What's even worse, I'm sure that a lot of fence-sitters, people who were beginning to think that the government is all corrupt and getting us into war for economic or corporate reasons, will now start to believe that government isn't that bad after all. Case in point: post by Odessy


Originally posted by Odessy
bleh... The administration should be more open and honest. In fact, the last batch of Wikileaks allowed agencies to see that Iran crossed the border in order to arrest those hikers... so that was useful.


"Wikileaks now says..." so then it must be true. This poster just underscores the point made in the third section of the OP and even underlines the danger mentioned in the second section.

If it is disinformation, then it is already extremely effective. Again, more harm than good. Too bad we can't have a trustworthy organization forcing our government to be more transparent, or at least an organization where we can have the smallest amount of confidence that the information is real.




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


There's people that will draw illogical conclusions about everything, the important thing is that the majority of people start to think for themselves. So let me get this straight:

A) You don't trust the government's side, you think they're doing more than they are letting on (so therefore you don't trust FOIA reqs or official media?)
B) You don't trust Wikileaks because of inherent flaws in their system
C) You want a 'trustworthy organization' to force your government to be more transparent

So what, then, do you suggest as a trustworthy system? Cryptome? Alternative media? Some guy off the street? Some random website aggregating obscure news stories from publications you've never heard of?

And as for disinfo (which, remember, is not synonymous with misinfo) is there anything in particular that seems incorrect to you? If you point something out, I'll be happy to research it. We can do it bit by bit through all the cables!

Or a well established website that has a proven track record of bringing governments to account, whilst keeping excellent source protection (one alleged source, that'd be Pvt Manning, apparently discussed information with an outsider/agent by the name of Adrian Lamo, which is why he was accused). I'm not saying Wikileaks are airtight, I'm saying that they are the best the people have. If you have real concerns about their operations or security you should contact them through their email address on the website.

Also remember that real life is not black and white, it's mixed - your government may have done some bad things, and some good things. It's your opinion on what's bad and good that matters, and you should take that to your local representative
.

One of the big problems with conspiracy theory is that it's demonized in the general public. Now that a few conspiracies have been proven true, don't you think that it's time to start taking it mainstream!? I think the world would be a much better place in general if people would talk more about their views on things, without fear of being stigmatized for perfectly normal and healthy skepticism.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Baldur because: disinfo bit



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
and the winner is.....................

The U.S. of damn A

Sweden after diplomatic pressure has asked interpol to issue an arrest warrant for J.A. of Wikileaks because he is a rapist.

No presumption of innocence, he is a rapist!¬!¬!¬!

There's the answer boys and girls. Wikileaks is genuine, Assange is (look away if you do not like descriptive words)f u c k e d totally raped up the asss by the usa and her allies. I am disgusted by Sweden. Neutral? Neutral? My left bollock is more neutral on a Saturday night after 16 pints a kebab and a tasty sheil sitting on my sofa discussing philosophy with me!!!
edit on 1-12-2010 by spacedonk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


I reckon these charges were cooked up in Clintons Office, because they can't shut the site down
and can't get him on tax. It's not the First Time the US Government has made up stories to support
a action.

When was the last time every Police Dept in the world, Embassy, Interpol notifed to arrest
a suspect on-site. And why aren't there are details of these charges, perhaps Hilary hasn't
finished that chapter yet.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by spacedonk
 



Genius! I would have done it too. Interpol is in on it because its bad for everyones security... This guy needs to stop. He's gonna cause some worldwide trouble. And to the OP F & S
edit on 1-12-2010 by ZELDAR because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2010 by ZELDAR because: obvious reply



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Could he be in fact a horseman of the apocalypse who pretends to be the saviour but in fact is the devil for when he first came on the scene wikileaks was considered the champion of truth but now it's probably going to bring about some conflict. WW3 perhaps



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ragsntatters
Could he be in fact a horseman of the apocalypse who pretends to be the saviour but in fact is the devil for when he first came on the scene wikileaks was considered the champion of truth but now it's probably going to bring about some conflict. WW3 perhaps


If the information did bring around some sort of doomsday scenario or apocalypse (very, very unlikely) then it'd be America's fault for interfering with other countries.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
It seems that Bank of America could be the start of another assault from Wiki. Perhaps this could mean big business in general, and god knows where that could lead to,

www.dailyfinance.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Just because Interpol is looking for Assange, doesn't mean that he is legit. Remember back in June when the Pentagon was supposedly hunting him down too? Yet, in spite of their hunt, he was doing a publicity tour through the States. All it took was a google search and I found him, yet the Pentagon was having no luck? Give me a break! Smoke and mirrors. I'm sure he will be doing another Interview on CBS or CNN (in studio too).

--airspoon


 


reply to post by Baldur
 



A) You don't trust the government's side, you think they're doing more than they are letting on (so therefore you don't trust FOIA reqs or official media?)


There is a huge difference, but to answer your question, I don't completely trust anything that can't be verified. The difference is that you have to know what you are going for in an FOIA request, then you go directly to that particular agency, not anonymity required. I certainly don't trust the official media. Are you kidding me? Have you been listening or is your head clouded by you obvious biases?


B) You don't trust Wikileaks because of inherent flaws in their system


Absolutely, flaws that create a very well likelihood that WL can easily be exploited by government or elements within government to propagate disinformation. I also don't trust WL for many other reasons, to include their lack of integrity when projecting the scope of effectiveness that such an organization would have. I also don't trust the entire subject, as they have been cradled by both the media and government.


C) You want a 'trustworthy organization' to force your government to be more transparent


I want transparency that can be verified. Transparency that can't be verified does absolutely no good. It does just as much good as say the 9/11 or Tower Commissions. In fact, not only doesn't it do good, but they often tend to do much more harm than good could ever be imagined.


So what, then, do you suggest as a trustworthy system? Cryptome? Alternative media? Some guy off the street? Some random website aggregating obscure news stories from publications you've never heard of?


There are a plethora of different methods in which to make that a real possibility, none that I will mention here as it is completely off-topic.


And as for disinfo (which, remember, is not synonymous with misinfo) is there anything in particular that seems incorrect to you? If you point something out, I'll be happy to research it. We can do it bit by bit through all the cables!


You fail to comprehend what has been clearly spelled out for you in post after post. Are you serious? Are you truly being serious? This thread, nor my point, was to claim that I know particular leaks are disinfo, only that it is a very real likelihood. Even if I did start pointing out various cables, what are you going to di google and consider what you find as proof? You have now got to be kidding me!


If you have real concerns about their operations or security you should contact them through their email address on the website.


It is a fundamental flaw that they are aware of, as anyone with two brain cells left to rub together could figure that out. It really isn't rocket-science here. Which is another red-flag, in my opinion anyway.


Also remember that real life is not black and white, it's mixed - your government may have done some bad things, and some good things. It's your opinion on what's bad and good that matters, and you should take that to your local representative .


It's not about what I view as good or bad, it is what is legal or illegal. I could care less about ethics until it becomes illegal and yes, legislation itself can be illegal, so it isn't just about legislated crimes. Look, I don't care if Obama or Bush has a boner for this or that person. I care about the law, the rule of law and the stability of my country, to include liberty, freedom and justice. WL, even if completely honest and the government, even if not taking advantage of this huge opportunity to exploit WL, you still have WL exaggerating the scope of effectiveness. They know damn well that they don't have and couldn't get access to classified material beyond the very low level stuff. Yet, they continuously try to exaggerate their effectiveness, which is counter-productive to their stated intentions.

Everything beyond the very top layer (low level) classified documents, are not accessible via a jump drive or burned CD, as the controls are heavily emplaced. Then, due to compartmentalization, most secret information is broken up and tracked extensively, meaning that if someone were to leak something, it wouldn't be complete and the government would pretty much know who it is.

Yet, we have WL making extraordinary claims and the general public believing these claims.


One of the big problems with conspiracy theory is that it's demonized in the general public. Now that a few conspiracies have been proven true, don't you think that it's time to start taking it mainstream!?


I don't think you are grasping the magnitude of damage caused by disinformation. Absolutely not would I want it to go mainstream, unless we are absolutely certain that it is disinfo free. And, with the system that WL has set up, we will never be able to be certain, though we could be certain that it would be very easy for them to be exploited as such, either intentional or unintentional. The potential of damage is far greater than the potential benefit.

Look, if WL itself wasn't created for the purpose of propagating disinfo, then there is absolutely no reason that the government or intelligence agencies wouldn't exploit it as such, unless of course the government is 100% honest and the CIA is only a figment of our imaginations.

The problem that we now have, is WL has gone mainstream and many people are so blinded to the unbelievably high odds that disinformation is either being spread or will be spread through WL. So far, WL is only confirming what the government has been telling us all along. Now of course, this could mean that the government is just sound in their honesty, but when you add that to the very real possibility and good likelihood that disinformation is being propagated through the organization, it's unlikely that the government is really on the up and up that WL seems to suggest.

Look, one of my main arguments against proponents of the 9/11 official conspiracy theory (the OS) is that it requires faith in those giving you the story, to believe in that theory. The same thing here and just like the OS, this one starts to have fundamental flaws when you can objectively weigh the data.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Unless the government has no real interest in keeping things secret by spreading disinfo, even though precedent suggests otherwise, then WL will most likely spread disinfo, whether intentionally done by them or unintentional. There would be nothing stopping the government from exploiting WL, that is if WL wasn't their creation to begin with, which there are many anomalies suggesting that might be the case.

I was about to say that I can't believe that so many people are so willing to just accept WL at face value, even if the face of all these red-flags and fundamental flaws, but then again I'm not surprised at all. People are so gullible and so willing to let others do the thinking for them, that they are willing to throw out reasonable logic for something they want to believe. It's like the people who look up into the sky and want to believe so bad that ET is here, so they convince themselves that a bird or plane is ET. They believe what they want to believe and apply absolutely no objectivity or reason to their thought processes.

I'm no longer surprised at the gullability of the public and their willingness to blindly trust whatever comes along and agrees with their wishful thinking.





--airspoon



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


You are going too far trying to defend your position my friend. Just because it is possible that Wikileaks is a tool for the CIA doesn't mean that it is; at least at the current moment. The content of the leaks so far and the reactions of Clinton et al is sufficient to suggest that the ones we've seen so far are in fact legitimate.

In the future they may not be if the CIA decides to exploit the possibilities, but I don't think it will be that hard to discern the difference.

My hope is that Wikileaks soon has lots of co-conspirators, or even competition for the spotlight. We, as with every other form of media, will have to be diligent in examining everything with a sufficiently large grain of salt, because the possibility is always there for deception. That does not negate, however, that the possibility for truth is also there. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Just because Interpol is looking for Assange, doesn't mean that he is legit. Remember back in June when the Pentagon was supposedly hunting him down too? Yet, in spite of their hunt, he was doing a publicity tour through the States. All it took was a google search and I found him, yet the Pentagon was having no luck? Give me a break! Smoke and mirrors. I'm sure he will be doing another Interview on CBS or CNN (in studio too).

--airspoon


A google search and you found where he has been or is said to have been, not where he currently is this very moment. He himself has said that all the agencies likely know where he is, but I highly doubt that you do. Of course, you seem to be suggesting that just because the government knows where he is, and isn't attempting to arrest or assassinate him means that WL isn't legit? Do you think the government is going to send agents to just storm into a newsroom and arrest Assange at gunpoint, or even drag him into a car and drive him off? You know what people would say about that? That kind of behavior may be normal to one such as you, who throws accusations such as this around lightly, but any normal person would be disgusted at the idea that somebody could be kidnapped without any proof or evidence of any illegality. Besides, at the time the American media loved Assange.





A) You don't trust the government's side, you think they're doing more than they are letting on (so therefore you don't trust FOIA reqs or official media?)


There is a huge difference, but to answer your question, I don't completely trust anything that can't be verified. The difference is that you have to know what you are going for in an FOIA request, then you go directly to that particular agency, not anonymity required. I certainly don't trust the official media. Are you kidding me? Have you been listening or is your head clouded by you obvious biases?

A huge difference in what? If you trust the government, you trust that they are conveying an accurate depiction of events. If you don't trust the government, you believe there is more to the story than what they let on ie. that they are lying, if by omission. I'm not suggesting you completely trust anybody, that's just stupid, I'm saying that Wikileaks have proven themselves trustable so far yet, quite oppositely, the governments have been proven to be untrustable quite frequently. It's a simple matter of track record. And we all have biases, you're a paranoid skeptic and I'm a trusting idealist, so what? Doesn't mean we can't communicate or learn from each other, though we don't have to agree.



B) You don't trust Wikileaks because of inherent flaws in their system


Absolutely, flaws that create a very well likelihood that WL can easily be exploited by government or elements within government to propagate disinformation. I also don't trust WL for many other reasons, to include their lack of integrity when projecting the scope of effectiveness that such an organization would have. I also don't trust the entire subject, as they have been cradled by both the media and government.


You think they are naive enough to be easily exploited? And you perceive them as having a lack of integrity in projecting the scope of effectiveness of a large-scale leaking organization. How do you know what 'scope of effectiveness' they have 'projected? How can you prove a lack of integrity? I wouldn't call international arrest warrants and calls for assassinations 'cradled'. I've watched American news recently, deranged spittle-leaking elephantine mental dinosaurs in suits, raging about perceived attacks on American world dominance. Perhaps some think that calling for extreme, extrajudical measures against Assange will please the government enough for them to be let in to the inner bargaining circles in which they can broker Karzai's drug money for Russian aircraft for the Saudi totalitarians, or siphon off some more defense spending to encourage 'activists' (terrorists) in 'enemy' (non-subservient) countries. Why don't they just add Assange to the Axis of Evil and wait for a convenient laptop to arrive from the Israelis with all the details of Assange's massive stash of WMDs and nukes? You start to see how America is perceived outside it's borders? And why that is? And why so many country's newspapers are lauding this as an excellent example of investigative journalism on a large scale? I just don't see, reasonably, why the American government would want to purposefully create that image of itself for whatever reason. It's literally got no historical precedent.




C) You want a 'trustworthy organization' to force your government to be more transparent


I want transparency that can be verified. Transparency that can't be verified does absolutely no good. It does just as much good as say the 9/11 or Tower Commissions. In fact, not only doesn't it do good, but they often tend to do much more harm than good could ever be imagined.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the government to invite you in for a full reveal, showing you every piece of info in their DB and you'd still claim it was a set up.

WL have a track record of releasing good quality legitimate leaked documents. There's no sign that this is any different.




So what, then, do you suggest as a trustworthy system? Cryptome? Alternative media? Some guy off the street? Some random website aggregating obscure news stories from publications you've never heard of?


There are a plethora of different methods in which to make that a real possibility, none that I will mention here as it is completely off-topic.


So you know plenty, you're just not telling us? Why not start another topic? And I thought you said 'a possibility' of a trustworthy system isn't good enough for you? Either give evidence that there are 'a plethora of different methods' or don't say stuff like that if you can't back it up.



And as for disinfo (which, remember, is not synonymous with misinfo) is there anything in particular that seems incorrect to you? If you point something out, I'll be happy to research it. We can do it bit by bit through all the cables!


You fail to comprehend what has been clearly spelled out for you in post after post. Are you serious? Are you truly being serious? This thread, nor my point, was to claim that I know particular leaks are disinfo, only that it is a very real likelihood. Even if I did start pointing out various cables, what are you going to di google and consider what you find as proof? You have now got to be kidding me!


My point is that they have not demonstrated any misdeeds in that direction so far, so you're misguiding people into believing that there is a 'very real likelihood' whereas I am providing evidence that the contrary is true, there is a very real likelihood (backed up by concrete evidence and logic) that Wikileaks is not being used as a medium for disinfo. And no, but I can contact historians, academics, sources and even the agencies involved. You know, like journalists do? There's this thing we have in other countries where news is sourced - it means it is generally taken from somewhere else, then it's verified by contacting companies or individuals involved. If they don't comment on an article, that's noted. I've not seen that happen all that much in American news, over there it seems more editorial than anything else (by 'editorial' I mean 'editor's opinions').




If you have real concerns about their operations or security you should contact them through their email address on the website.


It is a fundamental flaw that they are aware of, as anyone with two brain cells left to rub together could figure that out. It really isn't rocket-science here. Which is another red-flag, in my opinion anyway.


So they are aware of it? How do you know? Have you asked them?




Also remember that real life is not black and white, it's mixed - your government may have done some bad things, and some good things. It's your opinion on what's bad and good that matters, and you should take that to your local representative .


It's not about what I view as good or bad, it is what is legal or illegal. I could care less about ethics until it becomes illegal and yes, legislation itself can be illegal, so it isn't just about legislated crimes. Look, I don't care if Obama or Bush has a boner for this or that person. I care about the law, the rule of law and the stability of my country, to include liberty, freedom and justice. WL, even if completely honest and the government, even if not taking advantage of this huge opportunity to exploit WL, you still have WL exaggerating the scope of effectiveness. They know damn well that they don't have and couldn't get access to classified material beyond the very low level stuff. Yet, they continuously try to exaggerate their effectiveness, which is counter-productive to their stated intentions.


'Legal' and 'illegal' are representations of policies within governments, they don't translate to morality in any way (not anymore, at least). Legislation cannot, itself, be illegal unless you are talking about certain systems such as the American hierarchal constitutional system, in which a lower level law might conflict with a higher level law. These don't translate to the stability of the country and are nothing to do with liberty and freedom (though justice is the application of law). You don't know what WL knows, or can do, so anything you claim about that is simply invalid unless you're A: psychic or B: WL has stated that it knows everything about the US. Just because YOU are saying WL doesn't know everything about the US government doesn't mean THEY have stated that they do. The inference is subjective - it is YOU that has inferred the suggestion, not WL. If I was going to speculate as to WL's opinion, I would suggest that they might argue that it is the FREE PERSON's choice to make the decision, as to whether they believe that is all the information or not. Besides, it's common knowledge that A) there is a level of secrecy above that which is included in the cables, TS (Top Secret) and B) that all the information included in the leak was freely available to many, many armed forces personnel, civilians and intelligence agencies. The system was supposed to ensure that sensitive information could be shared between different agencies, not to share TS info (which is very likely in internal, isolated networks).



Everything beyond the very top layer (low level) classified documents, are not accessible via a jump drive or burned CD, as the controls are heavily emplaced. Then, due to compartmentalization, most secret information is broken up and tracked extensively, meaning that if someone were to leak something, it wouldn't be complete and the government would pretty much know who it is.

Exactly.



Yet, we have WL making extraordinary claims and the general public believing these claims.


Sorry, what? Show us these claims, please.



One of the big problems with conspiracy theory is that it's demonized in the general public. Now that a few conspiracies have been proven true, don't you think that it's time to start taking it mainstream!?


I don't think you are grasping the magnitude of damage caused by disinformation. Absolutely not would I want it to go mainstream, unless we are absolutely certain that it is disinfo free. And, with the system that WL has set up, we will never be able to be certain, though we could be certain that it would be very easy for them to be exploited as such, either intentional or unintentional. The potential of damage is far greater than the potential benefit.

How is anybody going to ever be certain? How can I be certain that I ate breakfast this morning, that my memories aren't infallible or altered? How do I know you're not an alien?

Common sense. We already had an idea of how American government worked, now it's shoved under our noses and you're arguing about it because you don't like what you're hearing, and because it's not secret enough info for you.



Look, if WL itself wasn't created for the purpose of propagating disinfo, then there is absolutely no reason that the government or intelligence agencies wouldn't exploit it as such, unless of course the government is 100% honest and the CIA is only a figment of our imaginations.

It's possible they will try, whether they ever succeed is down to WL's abilities. We'll see, anything else on the subject is purely speculative.



The problem that we now have, is WL has gone mainstream and many people are so blinded to the unbelievably high odds that disinformation is either being spread or will be spread through WL. So far, WL is only confirming what the government has been telling us all along. Now of course, this could mean that the government is just sound in their honesty, but when you add that to the very real possibility and good likelihood that disinformation is being propagated through the organization, it's unlikely that the government is really on the up and up that WL seems to suggest.

WL has been mainstream for years, it's only now that they're starting to get properly demonized, stigmatized and attacked by every half-bit hacker or half-wit politician with a chip on their shoulder. In some cases the WL leaks have correlated with the government version of events, in others it hasn't - seems reasonable to me. Check 10STATE17263 for a threat assessment on Iran/DPRK done by Russia, and other cables have American threat assessments. You'll see that they do, at times, contract each other - remember these are communications written by a wide variety of ambassadors and state officials, each with their own opinions and you even get glimpses (such as in the cited report and in the China reports) of other country's opinions, which seem fairly accurate when compared with the actions and words of those countries. See above for rebuke to disinfo claims.

And where does it say government is 'really on the up and up'? I don't see that stated anywhere. You think that just because you believe government is on the 'down and down' (presumably the opposite of 'up and up') it automatically should be? I'm afraid you're biased, yourself, putting unrealistic expectations on the information confirming your own world view.



Look, one of my main arguments against proponents of the 9/11 official conspiracy theory (the OS) is that it requires faith in those giving you the story, to believe in that theory. The same thing here and just like the OS, this one starts to have fundamental flaws when you can objectively weigh the data.

I haven't seen anything objective so far. Objective would mean weighing both our views, alongside any inbetween or more extreme.



I was about to say that I can't believe that so many people are so willing to just accept WL at face value, even if the face of all these red-flags and fundamental flaws, but then again I'm not surprised at all. People are so gullible and so willing to let others do the thinking for them, that they are willing to throw out reasonable logic for something they want to believe. It's like the people who look up into the sky and want to believe so bad that ET is here, so they convince themselves that a bird or plane is ET. They believe what they want to believe and apply absolutely no objectivity or reason to their thought processes.

I'm no longer surprised at the gullability of the public and their willingness to blindly trust whatever comes along and agrees with their wishful thinking.

The funny thing is, you've pretty much drawn the perfect analogy for why I think you are utterly wrong. You're actually being overly skeptical and are attacking and downplaying something extremely positive which has no precedent in scale and size.

If even the conspiracy guys aren't supporting Wikileaks, what's going to happen? If they get alienated, they're not going to be able to release ANYTHING else, are they? They'll just be brushed under the carpet until the next generation of conspiracy theorists, who will likely see it as a conspiracy that Wikileaks was so summarily dismissed and this'll end up all happening again in a couple of years. Why don't we call our governments into account now, for the sake of our children more than anything else? You don't have to think that Wikileaks is flawless, but as long as you agree with their principles (transparency, liberty, freedom essentially) they are doing the right thing.

edit on 1-12-2010 by Baldur because: removed some extra 'replied to's and 'more's


edit on 1-12-2010 by Baldur because: added a quote tag




posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


very well put..........

it would seem that airspoon would want us to throw out the baby with the bath water??/

airspoon, do you really believe that the average american is not able to distinguish the important from the mundane in the reports??

do you feel we cannot be trusted to judge when something in the leaks is not moral, and or legal???

is it your position that we should just completely ignore wikileaks??

where would you propose we get any info from???



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Baldur
 


amazing post!!

I hope we get some answers with proofs, this post has been almost all speculation and opinion since it started.

thank you Baldur!!


STAR!!
edit on 1-12-2010 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Baldur
 


First, you need to fix your quote tags, as you are quoting yourself, then using my answers as if they are yours.

Moving along...


A google search and you found where he has been or is said to have been, not where he currently is this very moment


That's not true. He actually had his schedule posted about where he was going to be, well in advance of him actually going to these events. What's more, is that these events were right here in the States. If they know what cave Taliban leaders are in Afghanistan (which they do by the way), then they surely will know where a guy is who is traveling on his own passports, in the US mind you.

Refer to this news sefment (which this video took all of two seconds to search for through google):



Again, it appears as if you are allowing your biases to influence the data. When you want something to be true bad enough, you will often overlook the glaring the evidence in front of you. This is why people see balloons as UFOs and believe the 9/11 official conspiracy theory, even after they see the contradictory evidence. People become satisfied with only part of the story and that's called "ignorant bliss".


He himself has said that all the agencies likely know where he is, but I highly doubt that you do.


This really isn't about what he says or doesn;t say. This is about the Pentagon not even able to hunt him down, when he makes his schedul well known and is even in the States, on his own passport mind you.

The point is, that the authorities have bogusly claimed that they were looking for Assange before, so this time would make it no different. The notion that "just because they announce interpol is now looking for him, he must be legit", is ignorant at best. The fact that they are supposedly looking for him again, could be a piece of disinformation in of itself.

Furthermore, even if Assange himself is legit, that would make no difference to the cold stone fact that government could easily exploit WL to propagate disinformation, with or without Assange's knowledge.


A huge difference in what?


I can't believe I have to explain to this. You don't know what the difference between an FOIA request and whistle-blower dump is? When I file an FOIA request, I'm requesting information in out in the open and the government can either ablige or not. If the government so chooses to ablige, then whatever worker in whatever dept gets clearence to provide the information and it's done, out in the open. With WL, the dump is not done out in the open and there are no formal hearings or anything. Basically, the only way that WL has to confirm whether information is authentic, is in authenticating that it came from the government and the person leaking the info actually has access to that info. If the government wants to pass along disinformation, then they could clearly do so without WL knowledge and their vetting process (if they do vet as they say they do) would not be able to catch on. Any corroberation would also have to be done through the government or with government sources, completely behind the shades of their sources. Furthermore, it would be foolish to think that corroberation is even a requirment for publication, as very few things are able to be corroberated, though corroberation doesn't matter anyway.

Are you really telling me that you think WL has some magic ability to vet this information past source checking? You can't be serious? It's hard for me to even take you seriously.


I'm saying that Wikileaks have proven themselves trustable so far


How on Earth do you think that WL have proven themselves trustworthy? Because they released an Iraq video? If it is a disinfo campaign, then that would have been the purpose of releasing that info. Surely you can comprehend that, right? Do you really think that if the government was going to create a credible disinformation campaign, they would spread only disinfo with out any information to make themselves appear credible? That is so niave. In fact, you would expect a disinfo campaign to release just the kind of information that WL has released. Information that triggers peoples' emotions, without any real consequences for government. So no, WL has not been proven to be trustworthy, as they have not done anything that a disinformation campaign wouldn't do.

Furthermore, they have not been proven trustworthy on their ability to block disinformation, if in fact they aren't a disinformation campaign. They have not proven their ability to keep themselves free of disinformation, even if it isn't propagated from them. As I have said many times before, if they weren;t created to be a disinfo campaign, then there is no way for them to avoid being a disinfo outlet, if of course the government decides to exploit such an easy way to dissimenate disinformation.

All in all, they have not been proven to be trustworty and in fact, I would say the exact opposite. Just their method of operation leaves them vulnerable to disinformation, of course if they weren't created for that very purpose.

Out of context - This is nothing different from what I have been saying all along. You are either ignoring the point, side-stepping it or it is just sailing right over your head, most likely due to blind faith that you have in the organization.


It's a simple matter of track record.


How do you know that the information so far has a good track record? Faith? Yeah, pretty much faith, which is absolutely crazy and a shame too.


And we all have biases, you're a paranoid skeptic and I'm a trusting idealist, so what?


First of all, I'm not a paranoid skeptic, I'm a logical skeptic who needs something comfirmed before throwing my trust in it, as the lack of ability for most in that trait, is what has lead us this far down the path of corruption. Trusting idealist in your part, maybe but again, that's what has gotten us into this trouble in the first place, which utlimately creates a void in which WL became so popular. I think it is absolutely foolish to think that people would so easily throw their trust behind some organization that pops up with so many red-flags against it, but then again it shows perfectly well why we are where we are.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan) and so far Assange's extraordinary claims lack any kind of extraordinary evidence and in fact, the evidence (regardless of circumstance) points away from his extraordinary claims of being able to force transparency in government.


Doesn't mean we can't communicate or learn from each other, though we don't have to agree.


If we were on the same page, sure. However, it has become apparent that you aren't comprehending the logic (regardless of whether you agree with it) that has been in every single one of these posts. It's like debating the benefits or burdens of automobiles and your opponent is focussed on the paint job of a certain vehicle and whether that paint job looks nice.


You think they are naive enough to be easily exploited?


It's not naivity, it's common sense. Yes, the government could very easily exploit WL to send disinformation through them and regardless of whatever magic abilities you think WL has, it wouldn't be able to be detected.

Take this scenario for instance:

The government wants to propagate disinformation about the war effort in Adghanistan, something as simple as say a report about Taliban presence in Hellmand Province. They would simply get a government employee to leak this information to WL. WL would then only be able to confirm that this person is in fact a government employee that has access to this information.

Spy movies and Hollywood would have you believe that you could easily use some gadget to extract information, then pass it along to your handler, but remember that this is only hollywood and they are modeling handlers with the resources of nations, not some non-profit organization.

IF WL is an honest organization, then it probably works something like this. They have a secure dump method, where anyone with information to leak can do so by uploading this information. For vetting purposes, they would have to leave specific details, such as who they are and where they work, maybe even proof that they work they, which would pretty much stop a lot of people from leaking information through WL. It is after all illegal for people to be doing this and it would take a lot of trust or a lot of stupidity, which would ultimately drive a lot of people away. So, knowing that, it would be extremely easy for the government to send an agent to leak disinformation and WL can check all they want about this person's access and they will find that he does in fact have access.

How do you think they can vet the information coming through? Do you think they have some secret gadgets and have penetrated the highest levels of government, in spite of the fact that they don't even have a fraction of the resources of another state? Furthermore, if that was the case, then it would not only be illegal for Assange to publish this info, but it would literally be an act of war. There would be no question about it. This is not even to mention that such a scenario plays out in Hollywood, not RL.

Again, I'm curious as to how you know their process of vetting andd how on Earth you think they can vet something past confirmation of the source?


And you perceive them as having a lack of integrity in projecting the scope of effectiveness of a large-scale leaking organization.


Yes, WL and Assange makes their leaks out to be earth shattering, when they aren't at all. Remember the Collateral Murder video and their supposed leak that would "change the world"? Then you have Assange on almost every major News Network pretending like he has the ability to expose the government's deepest, darkest secrets. First off, if it is even a legit organization, then he would only have access to the most loosely guarded secrets and he would know this. In fact, he would know this by the sources who leak the information and their access to said information.

It is clear to anyone who has ever worked in government or knows how the government classifies or compartmentalizes information that Assange is exaggerating his effectiveness, big time. It would be one thing to make simple claims that you have a whistle blower and would like to expose their information, even if this whistle blower stays anonymous. It's something else entirely for you to claim that you are forcing transparency in government, when you aren't, not even by a long shot.


How do you know what 'scope of effectiveness' they have 'projected?

Because it isn't like Assange stays in the shadows. No, he is about on just about every news network and MSM outlet, projecting the scope of his effectiveness and operation, making it out to be something that it isn't.


How can you prove a lack of integrity?


I don't have to prove lack of integrity. It is up to the person making the claims to earn the trust. Furthermore, integrity is only an issue in your splitting hairs.


You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the government to invite you in for a full reveal, showing you every piece of info in their DB and you'd still claim it was a set up.


Transparency is no good if you can't verify the transparency, as it isn't really transparency. In fact, even the government claims to be transparent, and we all see where that leads. Transparency makes no difference if the information can't be verified. You are literally at square one.


WL have a track record of releasing good quality legitimate leaked documents. There's no sign that this is any different.


Are you serious? How would you know the quality and legitamcy of their leaks? You don't, as it requires faith. What's even more suspicious, is the only things that are obviously correct, such as the collateral damage video, are fit the perfect criteria of what would be released in a disinfo campaign for credibility. You would expect that exact kind of information in a disinformation campaign. However, lets just say that that was honestly leaked by WL. You still can't account for any of the other information.

Here is another thing that is convincing me that WL is all smoke and mirrors. It is policy for the government to not deny or confirm leaked classified material, yet the government is confirming this information. That right there should be case closed!

The point is, you don't know WL track record, rather you only have faith that their track record is good. You have no idea whether the majority of information leaked is true or not.



My point is that they have not demonstrated any misdeeds in that direction so far, so you're misguiding people into believing that there is a 'very real likelihood' whereas I am providing evidence that the contrary is true, there is a very real likelihood (backed up by concrete evidence and logic) that Wikileaks is not being used as a medium for disinfo.


First of all, you have not provided any evidence. You have stated your opinion, an opinion based on faith. It's like those zealots who say that their faith oin Jesus Christ is proof that he exists. It is a fact that there is a very real likelihood that government could easily exploit this oppurtunity to "leak" disinfo. Your claim is that they have some unknown magic ability to effectively vet all the information coming through, in an effort to keep disinformation out. This is eventhough advanced industrialized empires like the USSR didn't even have that ability and they had almost unlimited resources.

 


I might respond to the rest of it after a dinner meeting I have. I really shouldn't as it doesn't really make sense, it completely out of context or is strawman arguments.

The main point, is that you are basing your opinion on faith and thus your argument is no more valid than those claiming that the government is perfectly fine, tranparent and good hearted. The fact of the matter is that you don't know WL track record and you don't know how true the information that has been leaked thus far is. You only know what they tell you. In fact, ultimately only the government knows how true or accurate this information is.


--airspoon



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 



airspoon, do you really believe that the average american is not able to distinguish the important from the mundane in the reports??


No, I don't. Most Americans still think that the government is on the up and up, relatively speaking. Some people still believe that there are WMD in Iraq. Regardless, most Americans still believe that they have at least some control over government or that government is looking out for their best interests. Most Americans believe that the 9/11 commission was a true and independent investigation and that it released a solid report, same with the Tower Commission. Most Americans have never even heard of Building 7 or the USS Liberty.

However, that point is mute and doesn't really matter. If they can't they can't and there is nothing you can really do about it. Whether someone can tell that a report is mundane or not, hardly matters to the alleged scope of WL. If I had a nickel for everytime I now hear someone say that the government is no longer capable of keeping secrets because of WL, I'd be able to retire. Just run a search for here on ATS, as many people are now saying that they can agains trust government as it looks like they have been telling the truth with the major stuff such as Iran - or that 9/11 couldn;t have been an inside job because WL would have exposed it. Same thing with UFOs (and I don't even believe in ET), though I'm so foolish to think that just because WL hasn;t exposed it doesn't mean that they don't exist.


do you feel we cannot be trusted to judge when something in the leaks is not moral, and or legal??


It's not up to me to judge anyone, nor do I care about what morals you may or may not have. This has nothing to do with legalisties or moral leaks, I could care less. I could also care less whether people think Assange is Jesus reincarnate.

This isn't about whether the information is legal or moral, it's about whether it is true or false. Whether it is disnformation or the likelihood that it could be disinfo.


is it your position that we should just completely ignore wikileaks??


I don't advicate ignorance of any kind, so no, that is not my position. My position is that WL should be regarded with extreme prejuduce. skepticism and suspicion, as chance are very good that a lot of the information could actually be misleading disinformation, hidden with accurate but realtively unimportant information (for credibility).


where would you propose we get any info from???


I honestly could care less where anyone chooses to get their information, though I do care about people being taken advantage of, which ultimately hurts my country and Constitution. We have the right to know what our government is up to and we have the right to be protected from being mislead - or fed disinformation.

If it doesn;t affect me, then I don't care if you get your information from covert radio waves through a tin-foil antenna. However, when people start to blindly believe an apparent disinfo campaign or outlet (such as the 9/11 Commission), then I'm going to alert people and try to educate them. It's called denying ignorance and it's something that some of us here on ATS try to do and help other try to do.

It's pretty sad but people look at the title of thread, maybe read the first paragraph and autmatically assume that since it I'm not praising WL, that I think information should remain secret or that it's wrong to expose government in their corruption. I have no problem with that. My problem lies in the flaws with WL, along with the red-flags that point it being a disinfo operation. If it isn't intentionally spreading disinfo, then the chances are extremely high that government or elemts within government would exploit the opurtunity to spread disinfo through WL (without them even being able to know).


--airspoon.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Baldur
 


First, you need to fix your quote tags, as you are quoting yourself, then using my answers as if they are yours.

Moving along...


What?! That's just a lie. Everything you said is within quotes, everything I've said is in quotes within quotes (Quoted in your parts) or in the post outside all the quotes. Unless you mean the one bit I missed, which I fixed in an edit, well before your reply.




A google search and you found where he has been or is said to have been, not where he currently is this very moment


That's not true. He actually had his schedule posted about where he was going to be, well in advance of him actually going to these events. What's more, is that these events were right here in the States. If they know what cave Taliban leaders are in Afghanistan (which they do by the way), then they surely will know where a guy is who is traveling on his own passports, in the US mind you.

Refer to this news sefment (which this video took all of two seconds to search for through google):



And you can refer to this article to confirm that that point is moot. Though Assange did say he was going to the confrence, he later retracted that and decided not to because of security concerns.


He was scheduled to speak Friday in Las Vegas at an Investigative Reporters and Editors conference. But the group’s executive director, Mark Horvit, tells The Daily Beast that Assange canceled the appearance—he was on a panel to discuss anonymous sources—within the last several days as a result of unspecificed “security concerns.” Horvit said he communicated with Assange through email and did not know where he might be.




Again, it appears as if you are allowing your biases to influence the data. When you want something to be true bad enough, you will often overlook the glaring the evidence in front of you. This is why people see balloons as UFOs and believe the 9/11 official conspiracy theory, even after they see the contradictory evidence. People become satisfied with only part of the story and that's called "ignorant bliss".

And other people are only satisfied if stories are always convulted conspiracies involving secret organizations, aliens and the Illuminati and NWO. Now we're basically both convinced the other is tripping balls. Let's leave it at that, and stop echoing it back at each other.




He himself has said that all the agencies likely know where he is, but I highly doubt that you do.


This really isn't about what he says or doesn;t say. This is about the Pentagon not even able to hunt him down, when he makes his schedul well known and is even in the States, on his own passport mind you.

The original creation of this cable system was to solve things like that - it was supposed to be a system for all the agencies to share intelligence with each other. Due to inefficiency and bureaucracy, things rarely work out that way - you're a lot more likely to see different agencies competing with each other, and failing to read or follow up on important reports. Here's why, if you're interested.



The point is, that the authorities have bogusly claimed that they were looking for Assange before, so this time would make it no different. The notion that "just because they announce interpol is now looking for him, he must be legit", is ignorant at best. The fact that they are supposedly looking for him again, could be a piece of disinformation in of itself.

Woah, wait a minute! When did we establish that the authorities lied about looking for Assange? It's pretty clear Assange is is pretty clearly being smeared via Interpol/Sweden, however you wrap it up. They can't make up their mind if he's accused or not, and apparently it's quite a convulted legal system regarding rape over there, anyway.



Furthermore, even if Assange himself is legit, that would make no difference to the cold stone fact that government could easily exploit WL to propagate disinformation, with or without Assange's knowledge.

We have established that there is a possibility that the American government, or another, could submit a fake leak to Wikileaks, but we've not established this as a fact as we don't know the full details of Wikileaks vetting structure.




A huge difference in what?


I can't believe I have to explain to this. You don't know what the difference between an FOIA request and whistle-blower dump is? When I file an FOIA request, I'm requesting information in out in the open and the government can either ablige or not. If the government so chooses to ablige, then whatever worker in whatever dept gets clearence to provide the information and it's done, out in the open. With WL, the dump is not done out in the open and there are no formal hearings or anything. Basically, the only way that WL has to confirm whether information is authentic, is in authenticating that it came from the government and the person leaking the info actually has access to that info. If the government wants to pass along disinformation, then they could clearly do so without WL knowledge and their vetting process (if they do vet as they say they do) would not be able to catch on. Any corroberation would also have to be done through the government or with government sources, completely behind the shades of their sources. Furthermore, it would be foolish to think that corroberation is even a requirment for publication, as very few things are able to be corroberated, though corroberation doesn't matter anyway.


There are plenty other ways that come to mind. I'm betting that WL have some great engineers and tech experts for forensic analysis and human confirmation, for one. Wikileaks hasn't let us down with disinfo yet.



Are you really telling me that you think WL has some magic ability to vet this information past source checking? You can't be serious? It's hard for me to even take you seriously.

And your overt disbelief at everything a trusted organization says doesn't do much for you, either, to be honest. Maybe Wikileaks do actually know more than you about source vetting? I'd expect so, seeing as they work with professional journalists on an everyday basis and are basically the most prominent investigative journalists of our time?




I'm saying that Wikileaks have proven themselves trustable so far


How on Earth do you think that WL have proven themselves trustworthy? Because they released an Iraq video? If it is a disinfo campaign, then that would have been the purpose of releasing that info. Surely you can comprehend that, right? Do you really think that if the government was going to create a credible disinformation campaign, they would spread only disinfo with out any information to make themselves appear credible? That is so niave. In fact, you would expect a disinfo campaign to release just the kind of information that WL has released. Information that triggers peoples' emotions, without any real consequences for government. So no, WL has not been proven to be trustworthy, as they have not done anything that a disinformation campaign wouldn't do.


Ignoring the rant parts, before this breaks into a spat... It's a really paranoid behaviour, beyond skepticism. As I said before, all you are saying is that you're not willing to trust them - or give them a chance, really, because you're convinced they are disinformation peddlers just because of a lack of immediate consequences to government. It's simple: these things take time, people take time to adjust to knowledge like this. Maybe months, maybe years, but a whole lot more time than 3 days, anyway - you're not going to suddenly see massive amounts of people flocking to your local government HQ with pitchforks, nor are you going to see hundreds of people running to support your pet conspiracy just because it's 'all too convenient'.



Furthermore, they have not been proven trustworthy on their ability to block disinformation, if in fact they aren't a disinformation campaign. They have not proven their ability to keep themselves free of disinformation, even if it isn't propagated from them. As I have said many times before, if they weren;t created to be a disinfo campaign, then there is no way for them to avoid being a disinfo outlet, if of course the government decides to exploit such an easy way to dissimenate disinformation.

There has been no disinformation to block, as far as we know. As has been stated repeatedly, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



All in all, they have not been proven to be trustworty and in fact, I would say the exact opposite. Just their method of operation leaves them vulnerable to disinformation, of course if they weren't created for that very purpose.

As I said, what's the better alternative system? I'm sure they'd love to hear it.



Out of context - This is nothing different from what I have been saying all along. You are either ignoring the point, side-stepping it or it is just sailing right over your head, most likely due to blind faith that you have in the organization.

And I've been repeating myself too. I won't play ad hominem anymore, but I have no 'blind faith' in the organization, I trust in them for the moment because they've been true to their word so far about leaking classified documents as far as I can tell, and they are working towards a cause I believe in - transparency in governance.




It's a simple matter of track record.


How do you know that the information so far has a good track record? Faith? Yeah, pretty much faith, which is absolutely crazy and a shame too.

Nope. I've simply surveyed the available information, and because the last leaks have been true (Trafigura, Julius Baer, etc just to name the more prominent ones) and the video was true (as verified by every source/contact involved, including the soldiers themselves) that the rest of the information is true, too. I'll hold this justified belief (I suggest you look that up) until I'm proven otherwise. 'Belief' and 'paranoia' themselves aren't unhealthy, unless they are completely unjustified by the available evidence.




And we all have biases, you're a paranoid skeptic and I'm a trusting idealist, so what?


First of all, I'm not a paranoid skeptic, I'm a logical skeptic who needs something comfirmed before throwing my trust in it, as the lack of ability for most in that trait, is what has lead us this far down the path of corruption. Trusting idealist in your part, maybe but again, that's what has gotten us into this trouble in the first place, which utlimately creates a void in which WL became so popular. I think it is absolutely foolish to think that people would so easily throw their trust behind some organization that pops up with so many red-flags against it, but then again it shows perfectly well why we are where we are.

It seems you want it proved beyond a doubt before you will accept any possibility of legitimacy, to me. And I think it's foolish to disregard and deride a group that has such a good track record for pointing out serious problems and injustices.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan) and so far Assange's extraordinary claims lack any kind of extraordinary evidence and in fact, the evidence (regardless of circumstance) points away from his extraordinary claims of being able to force transparency in government.

Actually, to me the concept of 'extraordinary' perfectly fits your conspiracy (for multiple reasons, which I have stated throughout my posts) so I'd require extraordinary evidence to convince me you were right.




Doesn't mean we can't communicate or learn from each other, though we don't have to agree.


If we were on the same page, sure. However, it has become apparent that you aren't comprehending the logic (regardless of whether you agree with it) that has been in every single one of these posts. It's like debating the benefits or burdens of automobiles and your opponent is focussed on the paint job of a certain vehicle and whether that paint job looks nice.

Um, I do comprehend the logic. My point is that that logic contains a lot of jumping to conclusions and taking shortcuts, out of fear of being too trusting of anything. I know plenty people like that.




You think they are naive enough to be easily exploited?


It's not naivity, it's common sense. Yes, the government could very easily exploit WL to send disinformation through them and regardless of whatever magic abilities you think WL has, it wouldn't be able to be detected.

Take this scenario for instance:

The government wants to propagate disinformation about the war effort in Adghanistan, something as simple as say a report about Taliban presence in Hellmand Province. They would simply get a government employee to leak this information to WL. WL would then only be able to confirm that this person is in fact a government employee that has access to this information.

Spy movies and Hollywood would have you believe that you could easily use some gadget to extract information, then pass it along to your handler, but remember that this is only hollywood and they are modeling handlers with the resources of nations, not some non-profit organization.

IF WL is an honest organization, then it probably works something like this. They have a secure dump method, where anyone with information to leak can do so by uploading this information. For vetting purposes, they would have to leave specific details, such as who they are and where they work, maybe even proof that they work they, which would pretty much stop a lot of people from leaking information through WL. It is after all illegal for people to be doing this and it would take a lot of trust or a lot of stupidity, which would ultimately drive a lot of people away. So, knowing that, it would be extremely easy for the government to send an agent to leak disinformation and WL can check all they want about this person's access and they will find that he does in fact have access.

How do you think they can vet the information coming through? Do you think they have some secret gadgets and have penetrated the highest levels of government, in spite of the fact that they don't even have a fraction of the resources of another state? Furthermore, if that was the case, then it would not only be illegal for Assange to publish this info, but it would literally be an act of war. There would be no question about it. This is not even to mention that such a scenario plays out in Hollywood, not RL.

Again, I'm curious as to how you know their process of vetting andd how on Earth you think they can vet something past confirmation of the source?


Well, firstly, you can't go to war with a person. Secondly, I work with computers - I know exactly what is feasible and what is not, and there are no magical gadgets that confirm information (though there are methods to do it, using technical techniques [ie. hacking, something Assange is infamous for] and human techniques [ie. social engineering, a lot of hackers use these methods]). Governments utilize collections of people and collections of computer systems, they are not impenetrable. Other ways include diplomacy and getting expert opinions through government officials (Wikileaks are in contact with several).




And you perceive them as having a lack of integrity in projecting the scope of effectiveness of a large-scale leaking organization.


Yes, WL and Assange makes their leaks out to be earth shattering, when they aren't at all. Remember the Collateral Murder video and their supposed leak that would "change the world"? Then you have Assange on almost every major News Network pretending like he has the ability to expose the government's deepest, darkest secrets. First off, if it is even a legit organization, then he would only have access to the most loosely guarded secrets and he would know this. In fact, he would know this by the sources who leak the information and their access to said information.

It is clear to anyone who has ever worked in government or knows how the government classifies or compartmentalizes information that Assange is exaggerating his effectiveness, big time. It would be one thing to make simple claims that you have a whistle blower and would like to expose their information, even if this whistle blower stays anonymous. It's something else entirely for you to claim that you are forcing transparency in government, when you aren't, not even by a long shot.


That's simply marketing and PR. How many media organizations do exactly the same thing? All of them. It's delivering and framing information for maximum impact, to ensure that the info can't be buried by 'interested parties' and right-wing media.




How do you know what 'scope of effectiveness' they have 'projected?

Because it isn't like Assange stays in the shadows. No, he is about on just about every news network and MSM outlet, projecting the scope of his effectiveness and operation, making it out to be something that it isn't.

Which is just your analysis of his behavior.




How can you prove a lack of integrity?


I don't have to prove lack of integrity. It is up to the person making the claims to earn the trust. Furthermore, integrity is only an issue in your splitting hairs.

I thought integrity of Wikileaks was THE issue with your post?




You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the government to invite you in for a full reveal, showing you every piece of info in their DB and you'd still claim it was a set up.


Transparency is no good if you can't verify the transparency, as it isn't really transparency. In fact, even the government claims to be transparent, and we all see where that leads. Transparency makes no difference if the information can't be verified. You are literally at square one.

I was just establishing that with you. There's no realistic way your expectations are ever going to be fulfilled, I'm afraid: there's a realistic point of view.




WL have a track record of releasing good quality legitimate leaked documents. There's no sign that this is any different.


Are you serious? How would you know the quality and legitamcy of their leaks? You don't, as it requires faith. What's even more suspicious, is the only things that are obviously correct, such as the collateral damage video, are fit the perfect criteria of what would be released in a disinfo campaign for credibility. You would expect that exact kind of information in a disinformation campaign. However, lets just say that that was honestly leaked by WL. You still can't account for any of the other information.

No, it requires good research skills and the ability to read between the lines. They may fit your perfect idea, but I simply don't see how that kind of information could fit any reasonable explanation of America's agenda. It'd be the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot, again... and again... and again... and you think they are going to suddenly come out with a master plan when they proverbially can't walk?



Here is another thing that is convincing me that WL is all smoke and mirrors. It is policy for the government to not deny or confirm leaked classified material, yet the government is confirming this information. That right there should be case closed!

And? 'Classified material', up until recently, meant small fry. This is a whole lot bigger. Remember, your gov needs to admit it before they have any chance of prosecuting Bradley Manning. Besides, they've already apologized to every government in advance, so they obviously knew it wasn't going to paint them in the best light. They admitted it before the cables were even released!



The point is, you don't know WL track record, rather you only have faith that their track record is good. You have no idea whether the majority of information leaked is true or not.

See above.




My point is that they have not demonstrated any misdeeds in that direction so far, so you're misguiding people into believing that there is a 'very real likelihood' whereas I am providing evidence that the contrary is true, there is a very real likelihood (backed up by concrete evidence and logic) that Wikileaks is not being used as a medium for disinfo.


First of all, you have not provided any evidence. You have stated your opinion, an opinion based on faith. It's like those zealots who say that their faith oin Jesus Christ is proof that he exists. It is a fact that there is a very real likelihood that government could easily exploit this oppurtunity to "leak" disinfo. Your claim is that they have some unknown magic ability to effectively vet all the information coming through, in an effort to keep disinformation out. This is eventhough advanced industrialized empires like the USSR didn't even have that ability and they had almost unlimited resources.

Not faith, justified belief. I believe Wikileaks is telling the truth, the evidence being the fact that they've not lied to the public about leaks yet. Simple.

 




I might respond to the rest of it after a dinner meeting I have. I really shouldn't as it doesn't really make sense, it completely out of context or is strawman arguments.


And yours is logical fallacy, you got a few of your own strawmen in there, too.



The main point, is that you are basing your opinion on faith and thus your argument is no more valid than those claiming that the government is perfectly fine, tranparent and good hearted. The fact of the matter is that you don't know WL track record and you don't know how true the information that has been leaked thus far is. You only know what they tell you. In fact, ultimately only the government knows how true or accurate this information is.


--airspoon


My opinion is justified belief. You don't know any of these details, as you admit in the last paragraph. Ultimately, your posts are hypocritical due to the nature of the argument - as are mine - we are arguing over opinion, and that's getting us nowhere. Let's just admit that we are at an impasse, any discussion beyond this is pure opinion.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiberx
I am very wary of my government (U.S.), but I have to say that, the more of these releases I read, the more I think WL is misguided.

Also, ironically, the more I read the more I am feeling that I should be more on board with my government. The honest view of events brings more of a human touch to what is usually very a dry representation given in the press or alternatively a very biased and confusing mess presented by my fellow Americans, or foreigners that have alternate view points and motives.

I do not like a lot of things that U.S. has done, especially in the last decade, but opening these windows into the human relationships going on behind the scenes and letting some of the secret info out of the bag has made me realize that I can not know all the details and that being the case, i can only offer a partially valid opinion.

I have actually become more of a friend to my government and less of a fan of WL. Not the reaction they are looking for me thinks. Unless it's a CIA operation of course. If it is, they are freaking geniuses.


You have pointed out one of my concerns for wiki leaks precisely - that it is being used to create sympathy for the scum and US govt. You think they are 'geniuses' for manipulating you this way? Nope - to me its seems likely, and would be an obvious way to get the most from a disinfo source.

I agree and disagree with airspoon - I agree it is extremely likely that wiki leaks will be used for disinfo, i disagree that it is a bad thing.

Some truth must always be mixed in - deceit can be incredibly complex with vast amounts of info - and small errors may unlock larger secrets.

The problem is not with information - nor with sources - the problem lies with a mass of people in the world who are unwilling to think critically, and who trust others more than they trust themselves.

If wiki leaks seems credible - then such people will simply believe it all - this is purely a problem with the way people use their minds.

It doesnt matter if it is wiki leaks - or some other source - we will always be bombarded by a mixture of data and intentional deceit - it is the province of every mind to navigate the darkened waters and find the path that seems credible to them.

I feel the more there is a conflict of voices, the less any single authority will stand out - and the more people will be forced to use their own reasoning, and trust their own judgment - I say bring on the cacophony of disinformation and from it will emerge minds that trust their own judgment over and above the voices of authority that might be trumpeting their infallibility from the mountain tops.

Airspoon - all of your concerns are quite justifiable, and well stated - however, I am of the opinion that what we need is more confusion and less clarity - where confusion reigns, people have no recourse but their own minds - when they rely on themselves, they are not so easily lead by some idiot claiming to have all the answers.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

Originally posted by Fiberx
I am very wary of my government (U.S.), but I have to say that, the more of these releases I read, the more I think WL is misguided.

Also, ironically, the more I read the more I am feeling that I should be more on board with my government. The honest view of events brings more of a human touch to what is usually very a dry representation given in the press or alternatively a very biased and confusing mess presented by my fellow Americans, or foreigners that have alternate view points and motives.

I do not like a lot of things that U.S. has done, especially in the last decade, but opening these windows into the human relationships going on behind the scenes and letting some of the secret info out of the bag has made me realize that I can not know all the details and that being the case, i can only offer a partially valid opinion.

I have actually become more of a friend to my government and less of a fan of WL. Not the reaction they are looking for me thinks. Unless it's a CIA operation of course. If it is, they are freaking geniuses.


You have pointed out one of my concerns for wiki leaks precisely - that it is being used to create sympathy for the scum and US govt. You think they are 'geniuses' for manipulating you this way? Nope - to me its seems likely, and would be an obvious way to get the most from a disinfo source.

I agree and disagree with airspoon - I agree it is extremely likely that wiki leaks will be used for disinfo, i disagree that it is a bad thing.

Some truth must always be mixed in - deceit can be incredibly complex with vast amounts of info - and small errors may unlock larger secrets.

The problem is not with information - nor with sources - the problem lies with a mass of people in the world who are unwilling to think critically, and who trust others more than they trust themselves.

If wiki leaks seems credible - then such people will simply believe it all - this is purely a problem with the way people use their minds.

It doesnt matter if it is wiki leaks - or some other source - we will always be bombarded by a mixture of data and intentional deceit - it is the province of every mind to navigate the darkened waters and find the path that seems credible to them.

I feel the more there is a conflict of voices, the less any single authority will stand out - and the more people will be forced to use their own reasoning, and trust their own judgment - I say bring on the cacophony of disinformation and from it will emerge minds that trust their own judgment over and above the voices of authority that might be trumpeting their infallibility from the mountain tops.

Airspoon - all of your concerns are quite justifiable, and well stated - however, I am of the opinion that what we need is more confusion and less clarity - where confusion reigns, people have no recourse but their own minds - when they rely on themselves, they are not so easily lead by some idiot claiming to have all the answers.


I may not agree with you on your feelings about WL, but I certainly agree with your point about people thinking for themselves. I think that's the most important thing we can learn from this.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


"Hey, i don't like wikileaks, i want our goverment to keep things from us, so that that rich corrupt americans and people of the world can continue to take advantage of the working class, Let's all jump on the wikileaks smear campaign for trying to bring out the truth"
edit on 2/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
123
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join