Julian Assange Discussion

[anart]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

Guardian, you really seem to be quite identified with this Assange person

According to all evidence currently available, a NETWORK of Norse and Asian geeks are trying to stop the mass slaughter of Indigenous People in Afghanistan, with the murder of children being specifically highlighted.

Could you share this evidence? Who are the Norse and Asians to which you are referring? It might be important to realize that not all Norse are necessarily good.

My passion for the project comes as a surprise to you because? ;)

I'm not surprised, I'm simply trying to point out that your passion is hindering your vision - no matter the outcome.

Of course that's always possible, but it's also equally possible that I'm just sick and tired of people who spew completely baseless slander before they even bother to TRY an "look at this situation with fully open eyes?"

'Sick and tired' is emotional thinking. Emotional thinking will blind you.

Anything else at this point is pure speculation devolving into baseless accusations.

Exactly! Or baseless idol worship. I'm glad you agree! ;)

It is not to vilify Assange,

Could have fooled me. :(

That's because your emotions are blocking you from seeing the reality of what is going on here. I have no reason to lie to you. I'm explaining exactly what is - objectively - going on here, yet - you do not see it because your emotions have been triggered. Emotions do that.

nor is it to defend him.

I will defend him as long as I believe he is trying to help bring a truth to the world. I would do no less for any one of you.

You are defensive in general. That's okay, I understand - but the point I am trying to make is that defending someone due to an emotional attachment is a disservice to them. It's also important to realize that Assange needs no defense in this venue. That is an objective fact. The possibility that you think he needs defense here again points to the fact that you are thinking with your emotions and not seeing things the way they are. This is not at all unusual, I'm just trying to give you an opportunity to consider that this is the case.

When a person is just so sure that someone is a 'good guy', they can no longer see things as they ARE.

When a person is just so sure that someone is a 'bad guy', they can no longer see things as they ARE either.

No one here is sure of anything. That seems to be the major point you keep missing - due to your emotional identification. No one here is sure he's a 'bad guy' - I certainly am not. This has been explained a few times, yet, you persist in your impression. It might - just might - be worth looking into why that is. Or not - it's up to you.

 

[Guardian]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

It's pretty clear from your posts in this thread that you are pretty emotionally involved in this.

Yes, I choose to be emotionally involved in this. You got something better than piles of mutilated and/or dead children to be emotionally involved in?

we're all trying our best to understand what information we have in front of us given our own personal limitations and such.

If this is true, then why not actually read what information you have in front of you, as opposed to engaging in endless speculation regarding Julian's motives for giving it to you?

There is certainly some slander out there directed at Julian, but there are also a number of criticisms, which are not baseless.

Really, and you know this how...mainstream media...magic 8 ball? I've seen some of Julian's research and documentation ...where's yours?

I don't consider it unobjective or accusatory to consider all of the possibilities of "how?" or "why?" or "who benefits?" from the AWD.

"Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks"

This Topic is blatant a lie....one of MANY being told about Julian and Wikileaks all over the net. I've seen him called a "Villain" "Traitor" "Zionist puppet" etc. etc. by people who'd never heard of him before the Collateral Murder video. This is such a classic case of "Kill the Messenger" it would be funny if Julian's life was not on the line.

Why does he need to be defended?

Because people who are trying to tell the truth about what is actually happening in the world are in endangered species.

Wouldn't it make more sense to defend the Truth?

Exactly how do we get the truth once we've destroyed everyone who tries to publish it?

We have to get to the bottom of what the Truth is here to be able to do that and sometimes that means seeing past our own emotional attachments and sacred cows.

The Truth here is that 10's of thousands of PEOPLE are being slaughtered by the US and its allies in Afganistan....don't need to barbique Bessie to see that.

 

[Gonzo]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

It can often be difficult to separate the messenger from the message, especially when we really want the message to be delivered. But the end cannot justify the means.

My concern, Gaurdian, is that you are so attached to the outcome that you are willing to overlook whatever clues that might exist within the person. In the end, there may be nothing there, but the point is to be open minded, to have eyes to see and ears to hear.

The very fact that Pakistan and Iran are heavily tied into this is perfect timing. Up to this point, analysts have maintained that the differences between Iran and the Taliban were so great that they would never work together.

But now we have this push to further the notion that Iran is indeed building a nuke, even though all science says they can't, and providing weapons to the Taliban, even though they don't get along.

It has long been a plan for the US to march through Pakistan and invade Iran and the selective release of information that provides the reason is beyond coincidence.

Regarding authenticity, many of the reports that were leaked were written by first responders in the field and subsequent reports contradict them.

We have an issue in Canada where the reports say a few Canadian soldiers were killed by friendly fire, an American bomb accidentally dropped on their location, which contradicts what the soldiers' families were told.

I caught myself instantly assuming my government lied, having told the families that these soldiers died in battle with Taliban forces. But several witnesses have come forward, writing into various news agencies, wikis, blogs, etc., saying that the reality was the bomb never exploded and that the troops were holed up in a building fending off a massive attack to which they eventually succumbed. Radio transcripts verified this. So, how many other records are unintentionally false?

Surely you are more interested in getting to the objective truth, no matter how awful it might be.

Your obvious emotional investment is interfering with your objective thinking, the Work, and ultimately makes for fine dining for the very entities that have created the horrors you fight against.

I hope you can step back, recognize Anart's comments as truth and see how your filters don't allow all light into your field of perception.

Gonzo

 

[Gimpy]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

It's pretty clear from your posts in this thread that you are pretty emotionally involved in this.

Yes, I choose to be emotionally involved in this. You got something better than piles of mutilated and/or dead children to be emotionally involved in?

we're all trying our best to understand what information we have in front of us given our own personal limitations and such.

If this is true, then why not actually read what information you have in front of you, as opposed to engaging in endless speculation regarding Julian's motives for giving it to you?

Let me try the statement a different way: Does it matter who you dance with when the building is on fire? ;)

Motive is everything.

Here's how I see Julian and what he is doing:

1. He's a geeks geek.
2. Geeks love information and getting data.
3. Comb the data for threads and see where they go.

If his motives can't be discerned right off the bat, then he bears observing to suss those out. Meantime, there's a lot of data that needs combing through, and maybe that is what needs to be done, without investing a lot of emotion into the man himself.

Just my 0.2 centavos.

 

[Guardian]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

No one here is sure of anything. That seems to be the major point you keep missing - due to your emotional identification. No one here is sure he's a 'bad guy'

Really? Then why would a SOTT Editor post that Julian is a "Villain" (and other rude slander) on my Facebook page today after I decided to just ignore this thread?

 

[Guardian]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

Let me try the statement a different way: Does it matter who you dance with when the building is on fire? ;)

Nope...as long as whoever's leading is heading for the door ;)

 

[Gimpy]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

Let me try the statement a different way: Does it matter who you dance with when the building is on fire? ;)

Nope...as long as whoever's leading is heading for the door ;)

"Well, THERE'S your problem!"--Jamie Hynamen, of Mythbusters

Never dance with anyone if the building is on fire, and in the case of these leaks, I wonder if there's enough time to comb the data before its used for all the wrong reasons and house comes tumbling down.

 

[Guardian]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

Never dance with anyone if the building is on fire, and in the case of these leaks, I wonder if there's enough time to comb the data before its used for all the wrong reasons and house comes tumbling down.

It's raw data Good people will put it to good use, and evil people will put it to evil use....all while the world watches.

 

[go2]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks


Maxamillian Forte takes a balanced look at the Wikileaks Afgan War Diary.

Assange told Der Spiegel that he enjoys “crushing bastards,” and he later told CNN’s Larry King that by “bastards” he meant U.S. forces in Afghanistan The problem is that the news media have already made the question of who is a “bastard” more complicated and ambiguous, for showing the atrocities which the reports allege have been committed by the Taleban.
…………………………….
Julian Assange of Wikileaks has now repeatedly asserted what he told Der Spiegel in an interview: that the source of the leaked records went through his “own harm-minimization process” (we do not know what that process was, nor the identity of the source). Assange added: “We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.” Suddenly, the person who declared he enjoyed crushing the bastards, is very concerned about their protection, but he says little about protecting the identities of the many Afghan sources who are named and whose locations are revealed in the records. Assange says, “we identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.” However, I have seen absolutely no evidence to support his claim. First of all, when someone edits an original document, you must indicate in that document something like this: “name deleted,” or “section deleted” or simply black out the text to show that portions are being kept from view. I have seen none of that. Second, the names of Afghan informants have been retained and are in full public view. This subjects them to the possibility of being executed by the Taleban, and it will be thanks to Wikileaks.

The raw data of combat operations is being used in a PSYOP deception called the limited hang out. The soldiers become scapegoats deflecting responsibility and attention from those who manipulate the levers of power from behind the scene onto low level combat soldiers. Those truly responsible are not named or considered in this low level data dump. It is worthless for prosecution of war crimes, except combat soldiers. Julian Assange wants to crush the bastards. His bastards are the US Forces ordered into combat on the far side of the world. Who gave those orders? Cui bono? The War in Afghanistan is the fruit of the false flag attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 and the master slave mythology loose on this planet for millennia. The truth and the remedy is larger than the details of a few combat operations.

When we clap for Wikileaks limited hangout operation we may be complicit in this deception and human sacrifice. Naïve idealists are often the easiest minds for intelligence agencies to vector. They understand our fear and the false self’s absolute necessity to sacrifice truth and humanity to maintain the false self image. We cannot bear the truth of our nothingness. They give us a hero and a few details to hide the dirty, bloody truth of their crimes* within our own psyche. Move on, nothing to see here, except some cold blooded American soldiers. We will crush the bastards and you can go on feeling good about yourself.

Edit: *of their crimes.............added in the morning

 

[Laura]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

Really? Then why would a SOTT Editor post that Julian is a "Villain" (and other rude slander) on my Facebook page today after I decided to just ignore this thread?

What editor and what was posted?

 

[Laura]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

Yes, I choose to be emotionally involved in this. You got something better than piles of mutilated and/or dead children to be emotionally involved in?

We've been dealing with those issues for years now, trying to find the right ways to get inside the heads of the larger public to awaken some sense of response-ability for what is going on here on the BBM. It has been a largely thankless task that has drained many of us to the point of death a time or two, and we have had to take time off from facing it every day just to recover any energy to keep putting one foot in front of another. But here, I'm talking about sott, not necessarily this forum which has many members who are not working on sott; they are just here to try to wake up (or other agendas unknown).

We've tried forcing people to look at the results of their lack of care for where their tax money goes, the wars, the horrors and the result of that was that we were accused by a Jewish group of publishing "pornography" for publishing images of dead and mutilated babies and children. Our paypal account was frozen, money that we needed to live on was unavailable to us, and we had a heck of a mess to get out of just to keep sott going.

We've dealt with flaming, defaming, direct attack, being called in by the police, interrogated, warned, intimidated, my children have been physically harmed, my dog poisoned, threats made, and on and on and on. And in these situations, we have had to learn that being emotional about it can blind us to being smart about the objective.

As Ark says, it is results that count. If our emotionality gets us shot and taken out of the game, we can't do any of those dead babies any good at all. If we get so enraged at what we know happens, and allow it to direct our actions (which we have a time or two with very bad results), we are dead in the water.

We've also had situations where we have had our emotions incited which have driven us right into the arms of the manipulators. That's how I got involved with Vinnie Bridges and gang. Emotional manipulation... my desire to do good was incited and I was blinded by it.

So, all of that is necessary to keep firmly in mind. If there is an emergency situation and we do not keep a cool head, we are mincemeat. And if we are mincemeat, we can do nothing to help anybody, least of all piles of dead and mutilated babies.

we're all trying our best to understand what information we have in front of us given our own personal limitations and such.

If this is true, then why not actually read what information you have in front of you, as opposed to engaging in endless speculation regarding Julian's motives for giving it to you?

See above. We have a LOT of experience getting taken in by emotions, by wishful thinking, by wanting to believe, and then finding that it was all a trap.

We are not "engaging in endless speculation regarding Julian's motives." This discussion can be CRUCIAL to understanding what is going on and how best to react to it. We have a responsibility not only to each other, but to our readers AND to those "piles of dead and mutilated babies" to NOT get taken in. Just because Julian claims to be this or that, just because his organization claims to want to do this or that, doesn't mean it is so!

The fact is, there are plenty of pathological people on the planet who claim to be the good guys who are NOT, in fact, the least bit interested in the fate of babies. They say all the right things in the right ways at the right times, and you then find out that in their secret lives, they are doing everything they declaim against. We ain't excepting Julian from scrutiny!!! Nor any of the other players in this game.

Coming closer to home, think about a relationship between two people where one person in the relationship is restricted from talking about certain things because they are emotional triggers for the other person. What kind of relationship is that? It can never be free and honest because the one person will always have to be thinking "Oh, I can't say that even if I am thinking it because so-and-so will get upset..." This network is all about normal people being able to speak freely about what they are thinking without being told they ought not to say it because one individual has an emotional trigger. (Notice that I say "normal" - pathologicals are excluded at the start.) In other words, it feels like being set up to only be able to speak partly openly, to feel guilty about asking normal questions, to think that this is one area/person that is off limits to scrutiny and discussion because one person has declared Julian Assange as "above reproach" and certainly everything he claims he is and we are supposed to take your word for it.

So, tell us, do you know him personally and for a long time? Have you spent time with him, observing him and making certain that you can vouch for him without reservation? Are you completely certain of your "reading" of the situation? Are you always successful in reading people? You've never been taken in? All your choices of action and belief in people turn out to be correct?

If that is the case, we need to know it now and we can just ask Betsy and forget about the idea of a network being needed to get an objective view of reality.

 

[Joe]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

A friend recently asked me what I thought of the wikileaks business. The person said that they were still a little idealistic perhaps, and hoped that there are still some "good guys" out there who can really make a difference. I wondered, in terms of the wikileaks business, precisely what kind of change was hoped for? After all, we are talking about documents that describe US military activity in Afghanistan, in all their gory and criminal details. I presumed then that the difference that so many are hoping that the wikileaks documents (and their purveyor, Julian Assange) will make, is nothing less than the halting of the American Empire's unholy crusade across the Middle East and S.E. Asia. Now THAT would be nice!

My friend correctly noted that we were talking about war crimes here - the exposure of the dirty details of the illegal US occupation of Afghanistan and the slaughter of innocents. Now that Assange had made it safely into the arms of the mainstream media, surely this evidence of war crimes could effect a mass awakening among the world public who might yet stand up and take down the evil doers.

At this point I couldn't help but remind my friend that, over the past 10 years, and indeed, over the last few decades of last century, the mainstream media has regularly enough exposed crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity, lies, deception and skullduggery of all sorts on the part of the leading lights among the defenders of international freedom and democracy.

Remember Saddam and 9/11? What about the threat of the UK being obliterated in a mere 45 mins by WMDs? What about the banking scandal? And more recently BP? What about Judge Goldstone's report that war crimes were committed by Israel in Gaza last year in the form of 1400 murdered civilians, 30% of them children?

What about 'extraordinary rendition', where the CIA abducted innocent people off the streets of foreign nations and spirited them away to be tortured for 6 months? What about Guantanamo? You all know that the Bush government knew well that 90% of the tortured souls there are innocent? If you don't then you haven't been reading the mainstream media. Isn't torturing 600 innocent people for 5 years a war crime? In fact, I believe it constitutes genocide given the ethnic origins of the inmates.

More to the point, what about My Lai in 68-69? Or Kissinger and Cambodia? I could go on, but you get the point. The hasn't exactly been a shortage of mainstream media coverage of the crimes of our leaders, even if they reported only a fraction of the totality of those crimes. Throughout it all, the public remained largely caught in the head-lights, angry perhaps, but unable or unwilling to act.

So, for me personally, from this perspective alone, I couldn't bring myself to join in the excitement around the wikileaks documents. My apathy turned more towards cynicism however when I got wind of Assange's personal story. "On the run" moving location every two days to stay one step ahead of the hounds of hell that were assumed to be on his heels. Finally, he makes it to a safe haven, in London of all places, and into a 'bunker' in the UK Guardian building where his story will be transformed into revolutionary news-bites by editors from the New York Times. Very intriguing, heck, it could be made into a movie starring Matt Damon as 'Jason Bourne'. In fact, I think that's where this story really belongs. After all, in such movies, the hero can easily outwit the powers that be who want him dead. In real life however, if the organistations that supposedly have most to lose from the leaking of these documents wanted Assange dead, he would have expired, from natural causes of course, long ago.

 

[Gonzo]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

Hi Guardian,

In terms of the Work, this thread should give you ample evidence of at least one style of sacred cow you might want to put out to pasture: the black and white, us and them thinking whenever dealing with certain issues related to war, the environment, animal rights (those are a few I can find from previous postings in various threads).

What will it take for you to realize how you are reacting? It has been pointed out by at least one senior member and Laura, not to mention all of the other members who have put their effort into helping you see an important side of you for which you appear oblivious.

If you look at how you have reacted, the devices you have used were angry and sarcastic, which come across as arrogant, rude and insulting.

Surely you think more of all of us, especially the mosts senior members who are most likely further along in the Work.

Why are you even on this forum if you aren't here to grow and change, to leave your sacred cows and emotional thinking at the door.

I hope you are able to get beyond your defensiveness so you can see.

It might help to remind yourself that the very movements you identify strongly with have undoubtedly been infiltrated to subtly create more us and them for the overall divide and conquer strategy. It is hard for humanity to stand together when they focus on the differences in ideals just as hard as it is to stand together when we focus only on each other's good points.
Objective analysis is the only way to separate those who are for humanity and those who are against humanity.

We all have a long row to hoe, but with each other's help, we will be able to weed as we plant and reap a better harvest sooner.

Gonzo

 

[Guardian]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

Really? Then why would a SOTT Editor post that Julian is a "Villain" (and other rude slander) on my Facebook page today after I decided to just ignore this thread?

What editor and what was posted?

It was Joe..and I deleted the post so you'll need to ask him for the exact wording.

 

[Guardian]

Re: Soldier Betrayed by Online Informant with Wikileaks

This thread was started with an extremely misleading (and well proven) lie about Wikileaks. I've seen VERY little of the alleged "objectivity" applied to them. What I have seen is a bunch of folks rushing to write a review of the movie while the opening credits are still rolling, with total disregard for the people they're so quick to vilify.

Of course I know I could be wrong about Julian/Wikileaks...I believe I said that on the first page. I also know I could be wrong about this group/Fellowship. Of the two, I've known about Wikileaks MUCH longer. By Perceval's logic, if you are what you say you are, you shouldn't still be alive...and neither should I, or a dozen other folks I know. Anyone who actually manages to come up with a way to shine a light on any of the multiple horrors around us should be dead? That standard kinda reminds me of the old Witch Ducking stool.

No Laura, I'm not sure about Julian, any more than I'm sure about you, or ANYONE else for that matter. Even if I was "sure" today, new information could make me not so sure tomorrow. There are some weeks when I change my opinions more often than I change my underwear

What I do know, with absolute certainty, is that it's wrong to trash anyone's efforts to improve the human condition until I'm sure they're running a scam. Laura, Julian and any other voice in the wilderness deserves my respect and protection for trying to speak out....until I KNOW there is a hidden intent.

I really don't see any difference between what's been done to Laura & Ark and what's currently being done to Julian, on a much larger scale. Are all the insults, nasty names, and baseless accusations that have been hurled at Laura and Ark justified because people are just "examining all the possibilities?"

Maybe, just maybe, Julian and the rest of the folks at Wikileaks have feelings too.