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: 13
123
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
what danger ? ohhhhh people are all sleeping

In every normal country when goverment is working for the people when document go out like story of Hillary Clinton orders to spy on UN stuff .. things starting to happens like this for example :First Clinton will immediatlley resign,second Obama will forming commision to investigate the case ,then Senate and Kongress hearings ,District attourney will be involved too etc etc and this is only from one document from 250000

but this is not happening ,so the conclusion is : US is not a normal country and goverment is not working for the people simple as that




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 





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


This is very good.
Can we apply this to the TSA?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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)


Hi Awake,
You are not so soft, or "gullible" either. You see that the thread title is at odds with the OP's content, as I do.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
OK - I should clarify my position a bit here - for fun and controversy, and also because I support the OP more than I might have made clear before.

Its seems from the content that I have been reading of the 'leaks' that it is purely for the benefit of the US - there is no real useful data, and it is causing friction between nations the US wants to destabilize - namely Pakistan and Saudi for a start.

I'd say its almost certain that wikileaks is of no further use in revealing useful information in a direct manner, it is however useful in revealing the agenda of the scum - ie it reveals the idea's that they want people to believe. It is now a covert branch of the MSM.

While that seems the obvious conclusion - I am still open to the idea that it might produce something useful - but I will be looking at each piece of data on its own merits - as anyone should do. The source is never important - if it fits a pattern then it probably belongs in that model - at the moment it looks like disinfo.

The collateral murder video's gave it a great deal of credibility - but what was the outcome? Not much - I will keep an eye on the data - but as always - an open mind and no prior bias is the way to assess new information.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I find it funny that the main media outlets have stated the "Taliban" are looking for him.....

Why? Because he's showing what the US and other power hungry world powers are actually like, surely the Taliban would support him?

I just find this whole smear campaign hilarious.

Julian Assange supports everything i stand for, if you knew what you're were saying about yourself by condemning him, you'd soon change your mind, some people may not.
edit on 4/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Julian Assange supports everything i stand for, if you knew what you're were saying about yourself by condemning him, you'd soon change your mind, some people may not.
edit on 4/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


You are making a whole range of assumptions here, all unfounded and inaccurate.

Let me restate my position clearly, although if you had considered my post critically I would have no need to do so.

I have no opinion on J Assange, I do not know him personally and I do not yet have enough evidence to make a judgment - I certainly do not condemn him. I am merely interested in the released data, which I analyze critically - with no respect to its source.

If J Assange is what he says he is - then he represents an ideology I completely support - I listen to what he says, however I reserve the right to judge it critically with respect to the data released and what impact it actually has.

Elements within the US government have abused its privilege of secrecy, and therefore any and all secrets are fair game to be released to the public - in order to try and create some checks and balances - as those stipulated by the Constitution of the US have been routinely ignored.

The so called 'secrets' released by wikileaks latest offering though are in no wise any revelation - they seem to me to be either wholly concocted, selected for their trivial nature - and in many cases to serve the interests of the power brokers.

In short - if there were real leaks - then they would make this offering look like some trite cover story - which I feel is the likely reality.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Pure Nationaism..We really need a ATS for US and another ATS for the rest of the world...



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I think that wiki leaks is a good thing. You can see from the governments reaction, however subtle it is(sarcasm) that they have other things that they do not want people to see. Its so obvious, they are saying that it puts their national security at risk. How? The whole american government is corrupt (in my opinion) and would lie through their teeth just to show us the lie which is the american dream.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Great thread, S and F.
I do have a few points to make though.
It seems that you have burdened Wikileaks with being either good for society or bad.
This is irrelevant IMHO.
It could be argued that the level of secrecy amongst our leaders is a much greater threat to our society than the pain associated with the revelations of the entire truth.

Wikileaks is what it is. It simply releases information.
What we do with that information is another story. Which leads me to my next point.
You mention that people may have hope, or interpret the fact that Wikileaks has not released 9/11 material as an example.
Again, this has nothing to do with Wikileaks. It simply releases information. You could apply the exact same logic to the MSM or any other point that distributes information to people.
By this I mean, people will have expectations in relation to them too, does this make them inherently bad for society? Purely because people have an expectation in relation to the content it should provide or people hope it will provide?
I don't think it does.

What I find great about your post is that we should be applying this level of consideration in relation to exactly what it is that wiki does, what it gives to us, and how we use it.

These are interesting times, you mention these leaks threaten national security, it will be worth watching to see how governments and legislators behave in relation to Wiki, the regulation or censorship of the internet, and issues of national security.
That would certainly raise eyebrows about Wiki and False Flags.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 



It seems that you have burdened Wikileaks with being either good for society or bad.
This is irrelevant IMHO.


I get your point, however I only burden them with being bad for society and "either or" option was not a necessary criteria for the organization.


It could be argued that the level of secrecy amongst our leaders is a much greater threat to our society than the pain associated with the revelations of the entire truth.


I do not disagree with here. I believe that the abuse of secrecy is one of the most dangerous things that our society is facing in our modern times. I do however believe that some secrets need to remain secrets and I don't think that too many people disagree with me there.

With that being said, there are certain criteria that WL is not meeting to escape from equally burdening us.

  • There is nothing to assure us that the information coming through WL is genuine or that WL itself isn't a disinformation campaign. The only thing that people have to go on, is what Assange is telling us and a few smoke and mirrors. Why is this important? Well, because people have a tendency to just buy whatever people are telling them, hook, line and sinker. This has dire consequences for the rest of us, seeing how the truth is usually only secured through popular opinion.

    It's funny, I have the same arguments with WL supporters, as I do with government supporters. They both claim that their respective source is telling us the whole truth and that neither one would lie to us. They both stay steadfast in their assumption that we are getting the truth from their respective source and neither source is more reliable than the other.

  • There is nothing to stop WL from being used as a disinformation outlet, even beyond their control. This is important for the same reasons as the first bullet. Many people who now think they have the truth, are more fast asleep than the people who put their faith in government. Before, when we started to have some momentum with dissent and people were demanding accountability with government, that momentum is now being dissipated or reflected.

  • WL is exaggerating their scope of effectiveness and ability to force transparency in government. This ultimately leads people to believe that the secrets released by WL is the extent of the situation. This makes people now yield to WL, which makes us even more susceptible to bullets one and two. People are now distracted with the information coming out of WL, that may or may not be true (with no way of knowing).

    Think about. We need to cross the ocean and so I explain to you that I have a boat to do it. I tell you that my boat will certainly take you across that ocean and that it is sea-worthy, not mentioning the gaping hole in the bottom which compromises the integrity of the craft, or that it is made for the river, not the ocean. It simply doesn't have the capabilities to traverse the ocean, though I exaggerate its capabilities and make you believe that it is. Many people believe me whole-heartedly because they are blinded by the rare opportunity to finally cross the ocean, something they have been dreaming about and working hard for. When this boat fails to cross the ocean, they will only realize the huge mistake they made when it is far too late.

    So, while we could have been building a huge boat to traverse the ocean, everyone abandoned that effort to trust this turkey who made wild claims. Sadly, it takes a lot of people to build this large boat, so when people abandoned this effort to follow the character who claimed he had a solution, it essentially put us back to square one.

    WL doesn't have the capabilities to do what Assange says it does. At best, WL only has the capabilities to maybe expose very low level secrets. In government secrecy, there are a plethora of different levels with each level having a more difficult approach to expose it. WL would not have access to the information that the government really wants to keep secret or that the status quo absolutely needs to keep secret, yet we have Assange basically exaggerating his ability and making many believe that he does have that capability.

    I mean, look at the kind of information that has been released thus far.

    Of course, even for this to be all or even relevant, it would mean that WL is intentionally or unintentionally spreading disinfo, which is a very real possibility. Why would it not be used for disinformation purposes? If the government is up to the things that we suspect, then why wouldn't they create a disinformation campaign with a fake organization such as WL? Lets give that a 50/50 possibility. WL could have good intentions or it could be an intelligence operation (from the US, an ally of the US or both). There really is no way for us to tell.

    If that scenario has a 50/50 chance of being true, then this next scenario has a 99/1 chance of being true, if that. Lets just suppose that WL is genuine and they have good intentions. There is then nothing stopping the government from covertly leaking information to WL, in order to mislead the masses, in other words, disinformation unbeknownst to WL. Why would the government not exploit this opportunity?

    If I was a corrupt government official with the power to influence government, I would certainly jump at the chance to exploit WL and beat them at their own game. I would use the organization to further my agenda, without them even knowing. I would leak information that I wanted out. I would leak disinformation. WL would think they are getting genuine information, publish it and the people will buy it, as it is being leaked by WL. This is of course if I or my colleagues didn't create WL in the first place, which is also a very real possibility.

    So there you have it. There is nothing stopping the government from propagating disinformation through WL one way or another.

    Do people really not find it a little funny that:

  • Assange was able to publish this information, when people like Sibel Edmonds were effectively and easily silenced? The government could have easily prevented Assange from releasing this information on legal grounds. The government could have easily used the courts to prevent this information from being leaked on national security grounds, as they have done many times before with other information.

    Instead, the government looked to be only putting on a display through smoke and mirrors. It basically amounted to the government publicly opposing WL and huffing and puffing (probably to give it a little credibility. In fact, if WL is a disinformation campaign or outlet, that kind of response would be expected by the government.

  • The MSM gave WL a lot of attention. This is a very obvious red-flag, as the MSM is famous for simply ignoring information like this. Had the MSM simply ignored WL, then no-one would really even know about it. It would go the route of other organizations that came before and dissolve into the background.

    Think about this for a moment... The MSM ignored a scientific journal publishing a peer-reviewed study on controlled demolitions being found in the WTC dust. This means that a consensus (100%) of scientists and experts who have looked for evidence of controlled demolitions, have actually found that evidence, then published it to a respected scientific journal through the peer-review process, yet the MSM didn't even so much as burry the information. Instead, they completely ignored it. Now it doesn't matter whether you agree with that scientific paper or not. A consensus of the world's experts in that particular do agree with it and it is surely news, yet the MSM didn't even mention it all.

    Then you have whistle blowers like Sibel Edmonds, the FBI analyst who became a whistle blower. The MSM almost completely ignored her too. Most Americans have no idea about her or her story. Not only did the government gag her, but the media ignored her.

    You would then have to ask, why would the MSM build up this story? That's what they did. The built it up and ultimately it is due to the MSM that WL is widely known. In fact, it was the media who even built the character of Assange. They repeatedly mentioned how Assange was the shadowy figure, like a free-agent spy who is capable of bringing corrupt governments to their knees. This is the media's circus, as it was hyped up by the media.

    The media won't give the time of day to anyone else with information about government, yet they seem to flock to Assange. As usual, it is only RT (Russia Today), the MSM outlet not based in the west, who is taking a step back and seeing this for what it is.

  • The information leaked thus far, has no real consequences to government. In fact, most of it seems to confirm what the government has been telling us all along, mixed in with some superficial info that would seem to embarrass, in what looks like a small effort to garner emotion and give credibility.

    WL came onto the scene with a splash. They released a video entitled "Collateral Murder" that basically gave them credibility from the get-go. This video had no real consequences for government or government officials, though it did yank at the emotions of the public. Just the kind of information that a disinformation campaign would love to release for the sake of credibility. This would fool many people into thinking that the operation was sincere, while not harboring any consequences for government.

  • The government or Pentagon claimed that they were "hunting" Assange over the summer. That is what the media was reporting. It helped give credibility to Assange and WL. The government then claimed they couldn't find this shadowy figure, yet he was giving public appearances and touring the MSM circuit giving interviews. They could have easily gone to google to find his very public schedule that included public speeches. They could have also got him whenever he went through customs on his passport. How do I know he was travelling on his own passport? Because it is a crime not too and the government could have had an excuse to arrest him and throw him in jail for a long time if he hadn't. Anyone who travels overseas would know the hoopla you have to jump through at customs. They could have easily picked up this guy upon entering any country, not just the US (which is where he was). They could have also picked him up at any number of the public appearances he gave or the MSM interviews (in studio). However, the Pentagon allegedly couldn't find him. You have got to be kidding me if anyone believes this hocus-pocus.

  • The government seems to be applying just enough opposition to make WL seem sincere. First a few superficial allegations of rape, which by the way could have easily been staged to make it appear as if he is being slandered. Then the government huffing and puffing but not taking action.

    You mean to tell me that the government can initiate plane crashes on a foreign head of state, yet they wouldn't do that to Assange, who supposedly poses more of a threat? They can initiate assassinations of bloggers, through the smoke-screen of child-porn charges, then shooting them in the back of the head during the raid, yet Assange is going public with allegedly much more dangerous information and he is walking around scot-free.

    Remember, it is only the MSM who bucks Assange up to be some mysterious figure who is able to hide in the shadows and avert officials through his craftiness. However, I can assure you that this isn't the case. You can't really hide yourself as you are touring the MSM circuit (in studio, have you) and speaking publicly to large audiences. Even more damning, you can't really stay in the shadow as you are moving through the various customs of the western world or American empire. So, this image that the MSM has built up of Assange is mostly just hype. It was a character created by the MSM and bought hook, line and sinker by many, even those who claim to be awake. Even to this day people are claiming that there are interpol arrest warrants for Assange, yet he remains allusive. I call BS.

    The above list is certainly not all-inclusive.


    Wikileaks is what it is. It simply releases information.


    Again, you don't know that for sure and such an assumption requires faith. It also requires one to ignore the very real possibility that it publishes disinformation, as opposed to information. That assumption is a faith based assumption and sadly, faith is worthless and often dangerous, concerning this subject matter.

    There are many people who have that same kind of faith in the what the government is telling them and we all know where that lead. Lets see, we are in two wars, starring down the barrel of another and we are being robbed blind, while our liberties are being taken away. Do you see how dangerous faith can be, concerning this subject matter?


    Again, this has nothing to do with Wikileaks. It simply releases information. You could apply the exact same logic to the MSM or any other point that distributes information to people.


    This does concern WL and the same logic is applied to the MSM. However, many people who waking up to the realities of the MSM and government propaganda, are knowing falling victim to WL. All this momentum is now being lost through WL and we will soon be back to square one.

    When you are seeking the truth, disinformation is the most dangerous foe you will encounter. It is your number one enemy. Sadly, many people who think they are awake, are sadly going to go back to sleep now, though instead of sleeping through the propaganda coming directly through government or the MSM, they will be sleeping through WL. For others, it is just another layer of confirmation that there is nothing to see and that government is doing what they are supposed to. It's another layer of affirmation that all is well for us to sleep tight. Now instead od people believing that media is keeping a check on government and keeping them honest, they now think WL is doing the same thing.


    These are interesting times, you mention these leaks threaten national security, it will be worth watching to see how governments and legislators behave in relation to Wiki, the regulation or censorship of the internet, and issues of national security.


    No, I mention that these leaks could danger national security. I was simply being thorough with all of the dangers that WL could potentially pose. The thread was mainly about the last section, though with sections 1 and 2 to be thorough. However, I mistakenly believed that most people here would try to deny ignorance, which many have. I had no idea how many people on ATS would swear to the authenticity and integrity of WL based solely on faith. So, as the thread progressed, I started to focus more on the second section and the very real possibility of WL being a disinformation campaign or outlet. I think that is the biggest threat, especially when people refuse to look at this situation objectively. It would seem that many people are simply trusting that WL is sincere or that they are invincible to disinformation and as the rest of us know, "trust" is extremely dangerous in this game.


    Have a wonderful day.


    --airspoon


    FWIW, nothing in this post is different from almost every other post here in this thread of mine, only reworded. It would seem as if people are getting stuck on the "wkileaks = bad" and ingoring the rest of the info. Or, they simply focus on the first paragraph of WL possibly hurting national security, when that was only a reference. That is not the focus of the thread and if one would read the thread beyond the first few paragraphs, that would become abundantly clear.



  • posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:10 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by OddTimeSignature
    reply to post by airspoon
     


    Pure Nationaism..We really need a ATS for US and another ATS for the rest of the world...


    It appears airspoon did not respond - so i will - 99% of airspoons concerns are nothing to do with nationalism - so I think your criticism is knee jerk, and you should reread his post.

    I personally have no concern for protecting US assets, personnel civilian or military - so I would be happy to see real secrets revealed - all and everything - however, it appears to me that wiki leaks is not the real deal - it appears seriously compromised.



    posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:19 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Dark Ghost
    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


    you are reading my thoughts ?
    exactly the same point i was thinking about airspoon and this thread


    i give the flag and star immediately after reading the OP ....this is rare situation for me ..i strongly disagree with OP but i like the OP
    edit on 5-12-2010 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:33 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Amagnon

    Originally posted by OddTimeSignature
    reply to post by airspoon
     


    Pure Nationaism..We really need a ATS for US and another ATS for the rest of the world...


    It appears airspoon did not respond - so i will - 99% of airspoons concerns are nothing to do with nationalism - so I think your criticism is knee jerk, and you should reread his post.

    I personally have no concern for protecting US assets, personnel civilian or military - so I would be happy to see real secrets revealed - all and everything - however, it appears to me that wiki leaks is not the real deal - it appears seriously compromised.


    Now you are making assumptions, as they appear to you. The only thing compromised might be Wikileaks ability to continue in existence, but I don't think so, that would entail the shutdown of the entire web. As for having no concern, you should be, even on the basis of the cables so far, since you/we do not always know the authors, or what innuendos is being applied between knowing parties, although I would go for the basic tittle-tattle. But then that is me so far, also making assumptions. Now't so simple!



    posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:07 AM
    link   
    Yes I think should be more leaks, I'm not really a 9/11 freak, but I'm unable to understand why they never released the pircture of the plane that hit the Pentagon.
    I would release the picture just to shut people up, something is wrong this government needs to be more open.

    Like where are they getting their good drugs from now adays, I know back in the Iran-Contra days they were getting them from South America, I Know the CIA had the best stuff. What about now?

    Assange does not seem much on the UFOs, the BAnks should be good.



    posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:06 AM
    link   
    reply to post by airspoon
     

    Thank for taking the time to reply to my post.


    I get your point, however I only burden them with being bad for society and "either or" option was not a necessary criteria for the organization.

    I understand that, but again, it is simply information(regardless of how you label or value it), what we do with that will inherently give it a value. That was the point I was raising. I hope that clarifies my point.



    I do not disagree with here. I believe that the abuse of secrecy is one of the most dangerous things that our society is facing in our modern times. I do however believe that some secrets need to remain secrets and I don't think that too many people disagree with me there.

    Obviously there are things that should be kept secret, most individual identify with a need to protect certain information, because we all do it ourselves.
    But think about this, the only reason why Wiki actually exists, is because in this day and age, secrecy and the elimination of freedom has increased greatly. It is the level of secrecy itself placed on information that makes Wiki releases important.
    Take as an example, the Video released concerning the killing of civilians and journalists. The fact that incidents like these are not shared with the public(even as an incident reported to the public, never mind the actual video), but are secreted away, makes Wikileaks what it is.
    If the level of secrecy, the continued effort by governments to control the flow of information(the wars are perfect example) as well as the media, and any other forms of scrutiny that creates a need for Wiki like organizations.
    I think my point is that Wiki is a symptom related to a much larger issue, that being the way governments tend to create so much secrecy and over classify material these days, and especially after 9/11.


    With that being said, there are certain criteria that WL is not meeting to escape from equally burdening us.

    I see your point, but why does wiki have to qualify for anything. As I mention before, do you apply this much scrutiny or demand that other sources of information so as to qualify them as not being a burden?
    The following criteria are a false IMHO, as I will endeavor to explain. Your criteria relegates ALL sources of information as a burden to us all merely because you speculate that it can become compromised in some way.


  • There is nothing to assure us that the information coming through WL is genuine or that WL itself isn't a disinformation campaign.

  • Wiki has a history of information that was released, that is genuine.
    The fact that they have released video information tends to add some credibility to the sites claims in relation to the material it leaks. It has also released information related to GFC collapse in Europe, as well as the War Diaries. Some of the leaks have been validated by third parties involved in the incidents(soldiers involved).
    So when you state that there is nothing to assure us, I think you may be ignoring certain issues.

    But the fact you seem to expect some kind of assurance from a site like Wiki seems absurd.

    Am I assured that every thread I read on ATS is without a bias, false information or in fact is not a deliberate attempt to dis-inform me?
    Am I assured FOXnews will present views that are Fair and Balanced?
    Am I assured that MSNBC is without a liberal Bias.
    Am I assured that the government will reveal vital information to all voters, voters who may support wars but remain ignorant in relation to incidences of the like that Wiki released?
    Am I assured any of that?

    I ask these questions because I want to highlight that we can never be sure or assured in relation to the many sources of information we receive.
    We could practically label most sources of information as a burden to society if we apply your criteria in this fashion.
    That is why we must view Wiki in light of other evidence that may support it, or validate it. Like we would with other sources of information.


    The only thing that people have to go on, is what Assange is telling us and a few smoke and mirrors. Why is this important? Well, because people have a tendency to just buy whatever people are telling them, hook, line and sinker. This has dire consequences for the rest of us, seeing how the truth is usually only secured through popular opinion.

    Who cares what Assange says.
    Judge the info as that is what Wiki claims is its essential service.
    Once again, you seem to be saying that Wiki should be responsible for what people believe!
    That is OUR responsibility in relation to ALL information we receive for ALL sources we use.
    Again, we can apply your fears to EVERY source of information.


    It's funny, I have the same arguments with WL supporters, as I do with government supporters. They both claim that their respective source is telling us the whole truth and that neither one would lie to us. They both stay steadfast in their assumption that we are getting the truth from their respective source and neither source is more reliable than the other.

    Then simply show that the releases are false, rather then generating a list of "fears" you have.
    This would seem like the most logical way to dismiss those people you find amusing.
    In fact, you would have to ask this question: "Why has no one ever argued that the material wiki released is false?"
    It has been consistent with its claims in relation to its leaks and that it is merely a source of information.
    I view Wiki as a source of information. That is all it is.
    I view its trend in information as being consistent with what it states it objectives are.
    What I support and like about Wiki is that it is highlighting many flaws in the relationship between populations, governments and traditional watchdogs like the media. I also like that it seems to be having the effect of making Governments acutely aware that some people care, and are watching what they do.
    I like that Wiki is a potential source for whistleblowers , it does not take much to research just how damaging it is to be a whistle blower, and even someone who offers descent against governments.
    So, I think Wiki offers another alternatives.

    What I don't like about Wiki is the juxtaposition that Wiki likes to cherish its own secrecy and covert nature whilst declaring it is hoping for greater transparency between people, the media, business organization and governments.
    I understand the claim that they wish to protect information and sources, so do other media organizations, corporations, police organizations, intelligence agencies, etc.
    But I think the doubt you express is a result of Wiki being rather "smoke and mirrors, cloaks and daggers". Perhaps if they were as transparent as they would like governments to be, you would be able to tick some of the criteria you want them to fit.


  • There is nothing to stop WL from being used as a disinformation outlet, even beyond their control.
  • No there isn't, and Wiki make no such promise. So judge it on the material.


    Many people who now think they have the truth, are more fast asleep than the people who put their faith in government. Before, when we started to have some momentum with dissent and people were demanding accountability with government, that momentum is now being dissipated or reflected.

    Once again, you seem to be placing the responsibility of individuals consumption of information released by wiki, onto Wiki.
    When did "Caveat Emptor" become "Information and Media sources must babysit the consumer in order to make them feel safe about the information they are consuming".


  • WL is exaggerating their scope of effectiveness and ability to force transparency in government.
  • How so? I have never seen them state that they want to "force" transparency.
    What I have seen is that they state they are a venue, or outlet for whistleblowers. I have heard Assange say that he hope to create greater transperancy from the leaks.

    WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.

    So far, I would say that they are achieving that scope.


    This ultimately leads people to believe that the secrets released by WL is the extent of the situation.
    I have never seen Wiki state that the release of their material are the entire extent of any situation. Never.

    This makes people now yield to WL, which makes us even more susceptible to bullets one and two. People are now distracted with the information coming out of WL, that may or may not be true (with no way of knowing).

    If you yield, that is your own fault. Once again, you seem to think that your "fears" that people won't or can't think for themselves are Wiki's responsibility and a valid reason to place Wiki in the context of a burden.
    THIS IS WHAT A GOVERNMENT THINKS LIKE.
    "We know what best for you, you can't think for yourself, so be afraid of this, it could be dangerous".


    We need to cross the ocean and so I explain to you that I have a boat to do it. I tell you that my boat will certainly take you across that ocean and that it is sea-worthy, not mentioning the gaping hole in the bottom which compromises the integrity of the craft, or that it is made for the river, not the ocean. It simply doesn't have the capabilities to traverse the ocean, though I exaggerate its capabilities and make you believe that it is. Many people believe me whole-heartedly because they are blinded by the rare opportunity to finally cross the ocean, something they have been dreaming about and working hard for. When this boat fails to cross the ocean, they will only realize the huge mistake they made when it is far too late.

    Your analogy is false.
    Firstly, Wiki is not promising anything as a result of its releases.
    Second, point out the hole in Wiki that it has not been mentioned.
    Thirdly, if you are dumb enough to sit in a boat with a gaping hole in it, you better be smart enough to ask were the life jackets are.
    And finally, you are placing the claim on Wiki, then manufacturing a scenario pointing to Wiki's inability to fulfill that claim, and now you expect it to be a valid reason to see Wiki as a Burden.


    On Sunday 28th Novembre 2010, Wikileaks began publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into the US Government's foreign activities.


    That is it.
    And it is all true.
    They released the cables.
    It was the largest ever released.
    It was unprecedented insight.
    That people around the world were given.
    That is your boat, and your ocean and your opportunity to cross it.

    Point out the hole.




    So, while we could have been building a huge boat to traverse the ocean, everyone abandoned that effort to trust this turkey who made wild claims. Sadly, it takes a lot of people to build this large boat, so when people abandoned this effort to follow the character who claimed he had a solution, it essentially put us back to square one.



    Seriously.
    If you want to accuse Wiki of possibly robbing us of a genuine chance at something better and larger that is a solution to a more open relationship between Governments, Corporations and citizens, then simply point it out.
    The reason why Wiki is so huge at the moment is because the "bigger boat" you present, simply does not even remotely exist as a reality or even a potential reality save for Wiki itself.
    In fact, it could be argued that Wiki exists because it if filling the need you state above, and that before we build big boats, we start of with the small ones first. I think that is worth considering


    WL doesn't have the capabilities to do what Assange says it does. At best, WL only has the capabilities to maybe expose very low level secrets. In government secrecy, there are a plethora of different levels with each level having a more difficult approach to expose it. WL would not have access to the information that the government really wants to keep secret or that the status quo absolutely needs to keep secret, yet we have Assange basically exaggerating his ability and making many believe that he does have that capability.


    Wiki is only releasing what it is given.
    They state that.
    So your point about access is irrelevant.
    As with all levels of material that leaks, it is reliant on the level of the person who acts as the leak and not the "access" of the person who provides a venue to publish that leak.


    I mean, look at the kind of information that has been released thus far.
    Exactly. No go back and rethink "the danger to national security".
    The cables are important in the respect that they highlight a flaw in the way the US tied its information systems together. The reason why Manning was able to get diplomatic cables was because of a FLAW by the US.
    The US is its own national security risk. To use your "hole in the boat analogy". The US, and you also OP, are effectively looking at the water in the boat and saying: "look, water, this water is dangerous". But no one is pointing at the hole, are they?
    Why is that?
    Have you asked that question?
    Why was Manning able to access foreign diplomatic cables from the U.S. Defense network in Iraq?
    Because the US government introduced a data sharing network.
    Let me ask you another question?
    If Manning did indeed take the data, do you really think he would have held on to it if Wiki leaks had not existed?
    Maybe he would have chosen ATS, or 4chan or CNN.


    Of course, even for this to be all or even relevant, it would mean that WL is intentionally or unintentionally spreading disinfo, which is a very real possibility. Why would it not be used for disinformation purposes? If the government is up to the things that we suspect, then why wouldn't they create a disinformation campaign with a fake organization such as WL? Lets give that a 50/50 possibility. WL could have good intentions or it could be an intelligence operation (from the US, an ally of the US or both). There really is no way for us to tell.

    Actually, there are many ways for us to gage Dis-info.

    Usually dis-information has the agenda of suppressing the truth or clouding a truth.
    So, if you believe Wiki is dis-info we need to ask, what is Wiki trying to suppress or cloud, that is true?


    If that scenario has a 50/50 chance of being true, then this next scenario has a 99/1 chance of being true, if that. Lets just suppose that WL is genuine and they have good intentions. There is then nothing stopping the government from covertly leaking information to WL, in order to mislead the masses, in other words, disinformation unbeknownst to WL. Why would the government not exploit this opportunity?

    This fear is present in any situation relating to any source.
    You might as well stop looking at any information mate.
    Because all information can be corrupted and manipulated. You might as well give in and just accept what ever the government tells you, because your fear can be analogous to everything.
    At some stage, you have to place faith in your own ability to discern the value of information and ultimately not rely on just one source.


    If I was a corrupt government official with the power to influence government, I would certainly jump at the chance to exploit WL and beat them at their own game. I would use the organization to further my agenda, without them even knowing. I would leak information that I wanted out. I would leak disinformation. WL would think they are getting genuine information, publish it and the people will buy it, as it is being leaked by WL. This is of course if I or my colleagues didn't create WL in the first place, which is also a very real possibility.

    You make a great point. And scenario's can be alluded to endlessly in order to point out the fears associated with a source of information.
    You are free to ignore the source. That is your choice, especially if you feel it is a burden. Problem solved.


    So there you have it. There is nothing stopping the government from propagating disinformation through WL one way or another.

    Yes there is.
    People like Me and You.
    The minute you empower governments and inflate their ability to undermine your confidence in something that directly challenges that power, then they no longer need to create dis-info.
    Think about that.
    You are already afraid that Wiki is dis-info.
    They have already won.




  • Assange was able to publish this information, when people like Sibel Edmonds were effectively and easily silenced? The government could have easily prevented Assange from releasing this information on legal grounds. The government could have easily used the courts to prevent this information from being leaked on national security grounds, as they have done many times before with other information.

  • If Wikileaks had of existed in the early 2000's, Sibel could have been leaking it there. Anonymously.
    That is the difference, Assange is not the leak, Wiki is the outlet that the leak uses.
    It is a significant difference.
    Plus, Assange is not Wiki. Stopping Assange will not stop Wiki.

    How often does the Government silence Media organizations when they leak a story?
    They mostly target the whistleblower, personally, and not the organization or the resource they use to leak the story.
    Add to this though, that if they go after Assange, then they have to go after all the Media that reported on the information. As Wiki has effectively reported on a leak, so have numerous others.

    Remember when you stated this:

    I mean, look at the kind of information that has been released thus far.
    Wiki may be vetting the information so as to ensure that more delicate information is withheld. This gives them an Ace to play if they need to bargain whilst also being responsible about releasing secrets that are far more significant than the material you are talking about. Most Media sources have an obligation to exercise this kind of discernment in relation to national secrets and security. Wiki may be acting in a similar manner. I think it is worth considering as it may explain the nature of the material.


    Instead, the government looked to be only putting on a display through smoke and mirrors. It basically amounted to the government publicly opposing WL and huffing and puffing (probably to give it a little credibility. In fact, if WL is a disinformation campaign or outlet, that kind of response would be expected by the government.

    Yes, because the Government is not going to discuss the nature of the hole in the boat that lead to the leak are they?
    Who want to discuss how the US defense network was easily corrupted and the nature of the data sharing protocols they introduced post 9/11 actually created a greater security risk.
    Which is what Assange has exposed.
    Who wants to discuss that hey?


  • The MSM gave WL a lot of attention. This is a very obvious red-flag, as the MSM is famous for simply ignoring information like this. Had the MSM simply ignored WL, then no-one would really even know about it. It would go the route of other organizations that came before and dissolve into the background.


  • Actually, you missed what the MSM did.
    Wikileaks is not the subject is it!
    Assange is.
    Wikileaks is useless to the MSM. It has broken the story, the MSM missed the boat so to speak.
    So they create a story themsleves. That story is Assange and the conflict that now exists.
    Look at the MSM.
    Really, look at what they report. By focusing on Assange they can generate the Narrative, they build the story on Conflict: Assange vs USA. It is a story they can tell, and control and this is were the dis-info campaign will be waged and is being waged. Focus on Assanges rape allegations, interpol, US seeking his arrest, Leader around the world condeming the releases.
    Little is given to how such a leak occured, or why, or what it means.
    The actual leaks are useless to the MSM because unless they can derive conflict, fear or danger from them they rarely use them.
    The leaks speak for themselves. They don't need an editorial or a narrative. You can read them yourself on Wiki and decide for yourself. This is useless to the MSM. They want to generate opinion.


    Think about this for a moment... The MSM ignored a scientific journal publishing a peer-reviewed study on controlled demolitions being found in the WTC dust. This means that a consensus (100%) of scientists and experts who have looked for evidence of controlled demolitions, have actually found that evidence, then published it to a respected scientific journal through the peer-review process, yet the MSM didn't even so much as burry the information. Instead, they completely ignored it. Now it doesn't matter whether you agree with that scientific paper or not. A consensus of the world's experts in that particular do agree with it and it is surely news, yet the MSM didn't even mention it all.

    I know, it makes me sick.
    Perhaps they should have used Wiki.
    When the Collateral Murder video was released, I didn't see an MSM newspaper article in my country for two days. Eventually some services discussed it, but I thought it would have been a breaking story.
    Buts as I mentioned before, the MSM are lapping up the conflict involved now, and the "hunt" for Assange.


    Then you have whistle blowers like Sibel Edmonds, the FBI analyst who became a whistle blower. The MSM almost completely ignored her too. Most Americans have no idea about her or her story. Not only did the government gag her, but the media ignored her.

    I know.


    You would then have to ask, why would the MSM build up this story?
    It is a running conflict now. The MSM is a funny beast.
    Plus, the issue is global in context, and the leak is massive with material that is a personal insight into a political world many of us would never be exposed to. Plus, much of the Media I have seen have simply focused on the leaks as tabloid type gossip about world leaders. It is perfect fodder for the MSM.



    That's what they did. The built it up and ultimately it is due to the MSM that WL is widely known. In fact, it was the media who even built the character of Assange. They repeatedly mentioned how Assange was the shadowy figure, like a free-agent spy who is capable of bringing corrupt governments to their knees. This is the media's circus, as it was hyped up by the media.
    That is because the actual news and story was already broken by Wiki.
    So the only story the MSM could tell was one about Assange.
    Think about it, Wiki is doing what traditional journalism once did, that was break stories from inside sources. This left the MSm redundant in relation to the actual information, so they instead create news by focusing on Assange.
    The MSM cannot control the leaks, manipulate it or distort it in order to control the story as it is what it is. But the can do all of that to Assange. And they are. If you look at the trend in the Tale of Assange, he has slowly shifted from "hero" and "advocate" into a shifty, mysterious, shadowy character, on the run, wanted by interpol for sex crimes, and putting nations at risk.


    The media won't give the time of day to anyone else with information about government, yet they seem to flock to Assange. As usual, it is only RT (Russia Today), the MSM outlet not based in the west, who is taking a step back and seeing this for what it is.

    How do you discern between MSM sources, when you define one source as seeing it for what it is?


  • The information leaked thus far, has no real consequences to government. In fact, most of it seems to confirm what the government has been telling us all along, mixed in with some superficial info that would seem to embarrass, in what looks like a small effort to garner emotion and give credibility.

  • It has a massive consequence for he Government. You just can't see it.
    The USA has had its national security breached in the greatest manner in its entire history, and it is not over yet.
    How did it happen?
    Why?
    How easily?
    How many times?
    By how many other people?
    Has this problem been fixed?
    And, if foriegn diplomatic and intelligence cables were accesible from an defense network in Iraq from data sharing, what else was accesible?
    Have you seen the MSM asking those questions?
    Because, Assange is the last thing I would be worried about in relation to national security. Assange is simply the water, you need to fix the hole.


    WL came onto the scene with a splash. They released a video entitled "Collateral Murder" that basically gave them credibility from the get-go. This video had no real consequences for government or government officials, though it did yank at the emotions of the public. Just the kind of information that a disinformation campaign would love to release for the sake of credibility. This would fool many people into thinking that the operation was sincere, while not harboring any consequences for government.

    Actually, the released material before that, that verified that they were the "real deal" as a whistle blower.
    They have released material on corrupt oil companies, cables related to GFC in europe as well as the videos and war diaries.


  • The government or Pentagon claimed that they were "hunting" Assange over the summer. That is what the media was reporting. It helped give credibility to Assange and WL. The government then claimed they couldn't find this shadowy ............ at any number of the public appearances he gave or the MSM interviews (in studio). However, the Pentagon allegedly couldn't find him. You have got to be kidding me if anyone believes this hocus-pocus.

  • I don'rtbelieve the government. It was rhetoric. They cannot arrest him. They have no legal right too. He has broken no laws and they know it.
    To get him on espionage charges he need to pay for the material. It was given to him.
    wiki leaks use journalists to vet the material first, this gives Wiki protection under international laws.
    The man simply knows what he is doing. The US is posturing, as you would expect from a Superpower that has had its pants pulled down.
    The DDOS attack should indicate to you the the US knows that it has to try and subvert Assange.


  • The government seems to be applying just enough opposition to make WL seem sincere. First a few superficial allegations of rape, which by the way could have easily been staged to make it appear as if he is being slandered. Then the government huffing and puffing but not taking action.

  • Dude, what do you want.
    Assange hung, drawn and quartered on TV just to prove himself. Even then you would probably state that he was sacrificed in order to make Wiki credible.
    The man did nothing wrong.
    Instead of imagining why it is that governments have not arrested him, I suggest you learn the national and international laws associated with the release of this material so as to show he broke the Law.
    It is that simple.
    Then you can ask why it is that Assange is still free.



    You mean to tell me that the government can initiate plane crashes on a foreign head of state, yet they wouldn't do that to Assange, who supposedly poses more of a threat? They can initiate assassinations of bloggers, through the smoke-screen of child-porn charges, then shooting them in the back of the head during the raid, yet Assange is going public with allegedly much more dangerous information and he is walking around scot-free.

    Did I tell you that?
    No I didn't.


    Remember, it is only the MSM who bucks Assange up to be some mysterious figure who is able to hide in the shadows and avert officials through his craftiness. However, I can assure you that this isn't the case. You can't really hide yourself as you are touring the MSM circuit (in studio, have you) and speaking publicly to large audiences.
    Right, so blame the media then for creating a myth, not Assange. It is typically what they do.


    Even more damning, you can't really stay in the shadow as you are moving through the various customs of the western world or American empire. So, this image that the MSM has built up of Assange is mostly just hype. It was a character created by the MSM and bought hook, line and sinker by many, even those who claim to be awake. Even to this day people are claiming that there are interpol arrest warrants for Assange, yet he remains allusive. I call BS.

    It is a character you have bought hook line and sinker.
    I know the MSM have focused on Assange.
    I already said that.
    I agree with you.
    But you are actually using the MSM as a source to discredit Assange by refering to a "character" you admit seems fictitious and a machination of a MSM you do not trust. Yet you want to use this as the difinitive that Assange and Wiki are highly questionable.


    Again, you don't know that for sure and such an assumption requires faith. It also requires one to ignore the very real possibility that it publishes disinformation, as opposed to information. That assumption is a faith based assumption and sadly, faith is worthless and often dangerous, concerning this subject matter.

    I do know that for sure.
    I know for sure that Wiki releases information. It is really that simple.
    The nature of that information it another thing. That is up to us, individually to decide.
    Wikileaks releases information.
    It is that simple.
    The fact that you think it may be disinformation does not change that fact.


    There are many people who have that same kind of faith in the what the government is telling them and we all know where that lead. Lets see, we are in two wars, starring down the barrel of another and we are being robbed blind, while our liberties are being taken away. Do you see how dangerous faith can be, concerning this subject matter?

    Just point out the hole in the boat, instead of creating "scenario's" and "possibilities".
    Here are some possibilities for you.
    What if Wiki are credible?
    What happens if they release information that you WANT to hear?
    Like say Wiki release Government cables admiting information relating to the 9/11 paper you refered to earlier is all true, or they release information showing Sibel Edmonds was deliberately targeted to discredit her post her whistleblowing.
    I bet you won't be running through your scenario's of Govt. Dis-info, will you?

    I bet if the scenario above happened, and I started a thread detailing your lists and criticisms, stating that the release was a burden and presented a danger to national security you would be calling me a dis-info agent.
    Of course you will protest, but thats different.
    And of corurse it is different. The difference is that it is information you want to hear, and already believe.

    I think you should prepare yourself for the possibility that Wiki may just release information that you want, and that you will then have to confront all that you have dreamt up in your post that is aimed at merely brewing mistrust. A mistrust based in what is possible, and not related in any way to the reality that Wiki presents to you.
    That reality being.
    Wiki merely presents information.
    It is that simple.



    This does concern WL and the same logic is applied to the MSM. However, many people who waking up to the realities of the MSM and government propaganda, are knowing falling victim to WL. All this momentum is now being lost through WL and we will soon be back to square one.

    What have they fallen victim too.
    Simply point it out.
    Wiki is what it is. The information is freely available. Point out what we are the victims of?


    When you are seeking the truth, disinformation is the most dangerous foe you will encounter. It is your number one enemy. Sadly, many people who think they are awake, are sadly going to go back to sleep now, though instead of sleeping through the propaganda coming directly through government or the MSM, they will be sleeping through WL. For others, it is just another layer of confirmation that there is nothing to see and that government is doing what they are supposed to. It's another layer of affirmation that all is well for us to sleep tight. Now instead od people believing that media is keeping a check on government and keeping them honest, they now think WL is doing the same thing.

    Your number one enemy is fear. Fear is what you detail. Fear of Governments, and the Media, and Wiki.
    Wiki is not keeping Governments honest.
    That is our Job.
    Wiki simply releases information from whistleblowers.
    Has the release of the collateral murder video effect the US's activities in the war on terror?
    No.
    Why?
    Because no one really cared enough to demand any kind of change, no one was motivated enough by the images of civillian being killed.
    The war diaries detail many incidents of unjustified use of force. What has happened?
    Nothing.
    Wiki simply releases information.
    It is up to us to decide what to do with it.



    No, I mention that these leaks could danger national security.
    If they are a danger, then surely they constitute a threat.


    I was simply being thorough with all of the dangers that WL could potentially pose. The thread was mainly about the last section, though with sections 1 and 2 to be thorough. However, I mistakenly believed that most people here would try to deny ignorance, which many have.
    Your post does not deny anything. It presents maybe's and could be's that you then use to generate scenario's in order to present a predetermined opinion of Wiki.
    The simple method to show wiki is dealing in mis-information, is to simply show that.
    Instead you have to insert speculation and inuendo based on loosely correlated relationships between the government, the MSM and Wikileaks.


    I had no idea how many people on ATS would swear to the authenticity and integrity of WL based solely on faith.

    Dude, just show the material is false. It is that simple.
    The answer is though, that you cannot. So you asinine inference that people may or may not be merely placing "faith" in Wiki's is the by far the weakest argument you have posted.
    Was the Vieo fake?
    Are the cables Fake or fraudulent?
    Have they used any of this material to present misleading statements, editorials or propoganda?
    Have they?
    No, they haven't.
    They have simply released information.


    So, as the thread progressed, I started to focus more on the second section and the very real possibility of WL being a disinformation campaign or outlet. I think that is the biggest threat, especially when people refuse to look at this situation objectively. It would seem that many people are simply trusting that WL is sincere or that they are invincible to disinformation and as the rest of us know, "trust" is extremely dangerous in this game.


    I cannot believe you state that we need to look at the situation objectively as you rely on speculation, could be's and maybe's, inuendo regarding the behavior of the MSM and Government and imagined scenario's.
    Unbelievable.

    Objectively.
    LOOK AT THE MATERIAL THEY RELEASED.
    Now.
    Show me that it is presented in a false, misleading, distorted, manufactured or altered in a fashion so as to mis-inform, dis-inform, misguide or deliberately lie to people.
    Because, objectively speaking, that would be the best way to discover that Wiki is indeed as dangerous as you state.




    Have a wonderful day.


    --airspoon

    Actually I did, it was a georgeous summers day today.
    Thanks, I hope you did too, or you will.
    Thanks again for your reply.



    posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:00 AM
    link   
    reply to post by atlasastro
     


    what a great post ,couldn't agree more
    second line



    posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:58 PM
    link   
    reply to post by atlasastro
     


    A great post Atlas, and I would be supportive of Wikileaks in the rationale, although it does have an agenda and stated, toward more open/transparent government, which I would also agree with.




    top topics



     
    123
    << 10  11  12   >>

    log in

    join