Divide by Zero
The Living Force
Laura said:
Interesting, makes most sense. Also, if they wanted him dead, it would have happened long ago and looked "normal".
Julian Assange Discussion
- Thread starter ocean59
- Start date
Interesting, makes most sense. Also, if they wanted him dead, it would have happened long ago and looked "normal".
As wikieak fad skyrocket , things becoming little fuzzier. Ron Paul is saying he wants wikileak in Fed on Fox News. Of course what he meant is some body who exposes to be on Fed. but it sounded like he is endorsing wikileak.
Ron Paul: "What We Need Is More WikiLeaks On The Federal Reserve"
Ron Paul: "What We Need Is More WikiLeaks On The Federal Reserve"
seek10 said:
The thing is, the idea of Wikileaks is great in principle and that's what makes this so darned difficult: Assange is the spokesperson for an idea whose time has come, but the leaked material he is representing and making such a big production about (or is being helped to make a production about) is not worth the hoopla.
Geeze, it's like the Emperor's New Clothes.
People are being put in an impossible situation. If you come out in support of Assange, you are supporting lies in the leaks, the drive to war, etc; but if you don't support him, you are basically acting against the principles of free speech, transparency in government, the "little guy" against the Fascist behemoth, etc.
Knowing what we know about spin, it's very hard to tell when the MSM is putting words in his mouth or not reporting exactly what he says and the context. On the other hand, with Wikileaks itself, and his "reprsentatives," he does seem to have ample outlets for getting his thoughts and ideas across and when that happens, he is not terribly attractive as a spokesperson.
It's pretty clear that the Swedish prosecution is a cooked up load of harassment and he deserves protection from that nonsense, but on the other hand, Assange does come across as pretty careless and a bit revolting in that scenario and one doesn't want to defend a libertine.
GRiM
The Living Force
They are really pushing this topic now, and peoples buttons. Most news-aggregation sites are absolutely loaded with wikileaks-stories now.
Then there is _http://wikileaks.razor1911.com/ One of the most famous Cracker-groups (remove copy-protection from software) that I've personally never seen taken intrest to politics now deciding to host wikileaks.
and
I wonder how this will play out.
Then there is _http://wikileaks.razor1911.com/ One of the most famous Cracker-groups (remove copy-protection from software) that I've personally never seen taken intrest to politics now deciding to host wikileaks.
and
I wonder how this will play out.
http://uruknet.info/?p=m72568&hd=&size=1&l=e
WikiLeaks: What, really, is the problem?
By Alan Hart
Some commentators, bloggers and other writers, were quick to jump to the conclusion that the avalanche of documents being released by WikiLeaks is part and parcel of an Israeli/Mossad deception strategy. One implication being that WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange is, knowingly or not, manipulated by Zionism.
On the basis of the first two or three days of the Wikileaked revelations as reported by the mainstream media, in America especially, there most definitely was a case for saying that the agenda best served by the leaked diplomatic cables was that of the Zionist state of Israel, its lobby in America and its many stooges in Congress. The essence of the case was in the message that Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world not only because the Israelis say so but also because Arab leaders agree with them.
In my last post I quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, as saying he thought it was possible that Wikileaks was being fed and manipulated by intelligence services. And I stated my own belief of the moment that the question of whether or not this is so was worthy of investigation.
But as the flow of leaked cables increases, and with time for reflection, I no longer believe that such an investigation is necessary.
The problem is not the manipulation of WikiLeaks by any foreign intelligence service but, in effect, the manipulation by key players in the mainstream media, in America especially, of the material WikiLeaks is providing.
And here's just one example to make the point.
When it learned from Wikileaked diplomatic cables that Arab leaders were at one with Israeli leaders in wanting the U.S. to attack Iran, journalism with integrity would have asked something like the following question. "Is Iran really the threat to the region and the world it is alleged to be by Israeli and Arab leaders?"
If that question had been asked, the honest answer would have been "No, of course it isn't!"
As I and others have pointed out a number of times, even a nuclear-armed Iran would not pose a threat to Israel's existence or that of the states of the impotent and repressive Arab regimes which are more or less content to do the bidding of America-and-Zionism. To really believe otherwise (as opposed to not really believing but saying so for propaganda purposes) is to assume that a nuclear-armed Iran would at some point launch a first strike. That would never happen because Iran would be inviting its own complete destruction.
If Iran does end up with a nuclear bomb or several, it will be for the purpose of deterrence only. (As I said in my last post, if I was an Iranian, even one who hated the regime of the mullahs, I would feel more secure in the face of Israeli and American threats if my country did possess a nuclear bomb for deterrence).
Though much of it was confirmatory for informed journalists and politicians, the Wikileaked information is new but the real problem is not. It is (generally speaking) the mainstream media's lack of integrity, in America especially; a lack of integrity which, in its reporting of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, manifests itself in one of two ways - in some cases by knowingly peddling Zionist propaganda, in other cases by self-censoring the truth about Israel's crimes out of fear of offending Zionism too much or at all.
In my view Assange has damaged his own cause by releasing details of facilities around the world which U.S. authorities regard as being vital to America's national security. By doing so he has given his enemies in governments everywhere what they did not previously have - a fig leaf of justification for their efforts to silence him.
If they succeed, the threat to what passes for democracy in the Western world, in America especially, will be even greater than it currently is.
WikiLeaks: What, really, is the problem?
By Alan Hart
Some commentators, bloggers and other writers, were quick to jump to the conclusion that the avalanche of documents being released by WikiLeaks is part and parcel of an Israeli/Mossad deception strategy. One implication being that WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange is, knowingly or not, manipulated by Zionism.
On the basis of the first two or three days of the Wikileaked revelations as reported by the mainstream media, in America especially, there most definitely was a case for saying that the agenda best served by the leaked diplomatic cables was that of the Zionist state of Israel, its lobby in America and its many stooges in Congress. The essence of the case was in the message that Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world not only because the Israelis say so but also because Arab leaders agree with them.
In my last post I quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, as saying he thought it was possible that Wikileaks was being fed and manipulated by intelligence services. And I stated my own belief of the moment that the question of whether or not this is so was worthy of investigation.
But as the flow of leaked cables increases, and with time for reflection, I no longer believe that such an investigation is necessary.
The problem is not the manipulation of WikiLeaks by any foreign intelligence service but, in effect, the manipulation by key players in the mainstream media, in America especially, of the material WikiLeaks is providing.
And here's just one example to make the point.
When it learned from Wikileaked diplomatic cables that Arab leaders were at one with Israeli leaders in wanting the U.S. to attack Iran, journalism with integrity would have asked something like the following question. "Is Iran really the threat to the region and the world it is alleged to be by Israeli and Arab leaders?"
If that question had been asked, the honest answer would have been "No, of course it isn't!"
As I and others have pointed out a number of times, even a nuclear-armed Iran would not pose a threat to Israel's existence or that of the states of the impotent and repressive Arab regimes which are more or less content to do the bidding of America-and-Zionism. To really believe otherwise (as opposed to not really believing but saying so for propaganda purposes) is to assume that a nuclear-armed Iran would at some point launch a first strike. That would never happen because Iran would be inviting its own complete destruction.
If Iran does end up with a nuclear bomb or several, it will be for the purpose of deterrence only. (As I said in my last post, if I was an Iranian, even one who hated the regime of the mullahs, I would feel more secure in the face of Israeli and American threats if my country did possess a nuclear bomb for deterrence).
Though much of it was confirmatory for informed journalists and politicians, the Wikileaked information is new but the real problem is not. It is (generally speaking) the mainstream media's lack of integrity, in America especially; a lack of integrity which, in its reporting of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, manifests itself in one of two ways - in some cases by knowingly peddling Zionist propaganda, in other cases by self-censoring the truth about Israel's crimes out of fear of offending Zionism too much or at all.
In my view Assange has damaged his own cause by releasing details of facilities around the world which U.S. authorities regard as being vital to America's national security. By doing so he has given his enemies in governments everywhere what they did not previously have - a fig leaf of justification for their efforts to silence him.
If they succeed, the threat to what passes for democracy in the Western world, in America especially, will be even greater than it currently is.
Jeremy F Kreuz
Dagobah Resident
The cherry would be of course that Wikileaks reveals government documents that prove that 911 was not an inside job. Maybe that is the trump card the powers behind Wikileaks still hold close to the chest.
Gonzo
The Living Force
Well, with respect to the payback DDOS hack attack on the Swiss bank, I have to say, if hactivism was in need of a cause, they may have found it in the attempts to silence or otherwise attempt to immobilize Assange.
Laura points out the tough decision one faces with respect to supporting Assange and I couldn't agree more.
But when some feel the choice for the hactivist is between openness and secrecy, they may very well err on the side of openness, warts and all. The principle is bigger than Assange and I imagine there are many that regard WL as a symbol of openness in an era of increasing secrecy.
I was thinking of tipping points lately, and wonder if society has been pushed too far, taken too much for granted and tipping points occur at what may appear to be the most minor of infractions to the PTB, but to society it's the straw that broke the camel's back. Perhaps a tipping point is building or has occurred with the impending arrest of Assange.
Hackers can do incredible damage when they focus their collective energies on specific targets.
As a side note, WL was marketed as a whistle blower website but I have a hard time seeing the point, from a whistle blowing perspective, of some of the documents that have been dumped.
Instead of whistle blowing, it is more of a publicizing of information that was allegedly secret and by virtue of its secret classification, makes it tantalizing.
Having not been able to find the time to pour through the data this time around, I cannot say whether anything in there is blowing a whistle on bad behaviour, so I can only comment of what has been reported in the MSM and alternative press.
But I have to ask how is society served by publishing so many documents when there is so much bad behaviour going on in the world that needs to be brought into the light of public scrutiny and yet remains secret?
I would be far happier to see memos from department of defense to private security firms giving instructions to cause fear in Afghani villages or messages to operatives to plant IEDs. Of course, I'm sure such examples have no paper trail, but you get the idea.
Gonzo
Laura points out the tough decision one faces with respect to supporting Assange and I couldn't agree more.
But when some feel the choice for the hactivist is between openness and secrecy, they may very well err on the side of openness, warts and all. The principle is bigger than Assange and I imagine there are many that regard WL as a symbol of openness in an era of increasing secrecy.
I was thinking of tipping points lately, and wonder if society has been pushed too far, taken too much for granted and tipping points occur at what may appear to be the most minor of infractions to the PTB, but to society it's the straw that broke the camel's back. Perhaps a tipping point is building or has occurred with the impending arrest of Assange.
Hackers can do incredible damage when they focus their collective energies on specific targets.
As a side note, WL was marketed as a whistle blower website but I have a hard time seeing the point, from a whistle blowing perspective, of some of the documents that have been dumped.
Instead of whistle blowing, it is more of a publicizing of information that was allegedly secret and by virtue of its secret classification, makes it tantalizing.
Having not been able to find the time to pour through the data this time around, I cannot say whether anything in there is blowing a whistle on bad behaviour, so I can only comment of what has been reported in the MSM and alternative press.
But I have to ask how is society served by publishing so many documents when there is so much bad behaviour going on in the world that needs to be brought into the light of public scrutiny and yet remains secret?
I would be far happier to see memos from department of defense to private security firms giving instructions to cause fear in Afghani villages or messages to operatives to plant IEDs. Of course, I'm sure such examples have no paper trail, but you get the idea.
Gonzo
Be Like Water
Padawan Learner
So now we have UFO's thown into the mix:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40491489/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
So he won't touch 9/11, but will touch ufo's?
I am thinking it is just a ploy for authenticity, but there could be something deeper here.
So maybe some of these logs do actually contain american troop observations of ufo's. This would be an interesting turn of events, not sure what to make of it.
EDIT - spelling
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40491489/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
So he won't touch 9/11, but will touch ufo's?
I am thinking it is just a ploy for authenticity, but there could be something deeper here.
So maybe some of these logs do actually contain american troop observations of ufo's. This would be an interesting turn of events, not sure what to make of it.
EDIT - spelling
Freelancer
Jedi
mechanimated said:
Now that's an interesting turn of events.
However, because of Assange's questionable motives for what he's doing, I would say that his info on UFO's will probably be selective and / or corrupted.
It could be a ploy for authenticity as you say, it certainly looks like it...
Jeremy F Kreuz
Dagobah Resident
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
I think the new SOTT article is an excellent analysis of the WikiLeaks drama. Everyone should read it!
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219199-The-Baby-and-the-Bathwater-Wiki-Leaks-and-the-Principle-of-Truth
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219199-The-Baby-and-the-Bathwater-Wiki-Leaks-and-the-Principle-of-Truth
Tigersoap
The Living Force
Deedlet said:
Yes it is really interesting !
Thank you for the article Sott team.
I am wondering anxiously on which side this will end up.
As far as I noticed many governments are working fast to be able to censor the net at will but I really don't know, it's all really confusing to me and understandably so.
It makes sense to stand up for the truth whatever what really wikileaks is.
Tigersoap said:
Thanks for this SoTT team....its really helped me gain an overview of the situation. Hopefully an overview that can be applied to future situations too.
Having that overview.....it sure is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Gonzo may be right in that this could be some sort of tipping point. It is especially interesting to see what the hacktivists are doing.
*edit* to add.....I'm reminded of climate gate.....a similar sort of overview.....hmm
Seraphina
Jedi Master
considering that something doesn't feel right with Assange...as much as I love the idea of wikileaks...I'm wondering if the PTB will use Wikileaks to bring out their brand of UFO disclosure.
I'm in agreement that the leaks haven't been earth shattering...I feel that some climax is yet to come to further manipulate the masses. Everything with this feels staged to me...even the "ethical" hacker that claimed responsibility for the attacks on wikileaks' site...like it was purposefully obvious that it was really CIA???
I'm in agreement that the leaks haven't been earth shattering...I feel that some climax is yet to come to further manipulate the masses. Everything with this feels staged to me...even the "ethical" hacker that claimed responsibility for the attacks on wikileaks' site...like it was purposefully obvious that it was really CIA???