Anonymous and others start leaking

i'm not of the belief that Wikileaks got bought off, but i do think to a certain extent Wikileaks has sacrificed some of their principals in response to smear attempts by the media.

for instance, why have we not seen the Afghanistan massacare video where apparently 50+ civilians die? why sit on this for almost a year?

  On 1/9/2011 at 1:04 PM, zazen said:

 

The problem for them is: Wikileaks has access to restricted info we've never seen before, and although it shows various types of dodgy behaviour that we all suspected (collusion between goverment and corporation, misleading coverups of milirary ops etc), it doesn't show anything totally hardcode-conspiracy-theory-like like 'shadowy X-files type cabal running everything' or '9-11 was planned by bush' or 'secret plan to micro-chip everyone'.

 

The people that do believe in 'secret plan to micro-ship everyone' etc then have to make Wikileaks part of the conspiracy. As in 'nothing they have released backs up our point of view' therefore 'they must be part of the conspiracy'.

 

My life would be so much simpler if I was as intolerant of doubt, nuance and critical thinking as those people.

the documents are pretty much the lowest level of classified internal information available when working for government, only labeled 'secret'. We'd be seeing a lot different types of information here if it was actually the classification of 'top secret' information. Information that could very well make someone with your 'nuanced' way of thinking nauseous.

there are no conspiracies anywhere in this world, they don't exist at all. like the conspiracy to cover up murder of prisoners by our trained Iraqi army or the conspiracy to make Gaza's economy collapse through blockades.. oh wait nevermind those were actual conspiracies revealed in the leaked cables.

  On 1/10/2011 at 9:02 PM, Awepittance said:

 

there are no conspiracies anywhere in this world, they don't exist at all. like the conspiracy to cover up murder of prisoners by our trained Iraqi army or the conspiracy to make Gaza's economy collapse through blockades.. oh wait nevermind those were actual conspiracies revealed in the leaked cables.

Just to clarify: I totally believe that those things happen, and understand how they are allowed to happen - thats stuff that is well known to people who read up on world events, and it carries on because the mainstream media don't get outraged about it or write it off as one-off problems. What Israel have been doing to Gaza has been obvious the whole time for those that cared to pay attention. When I talk about hardcore conspiracy theorists, I'm talking about the leaders-of-the-world-are-lizards type stuff. The stuff that would rely on thousands of people keeping secrets for hundreds of years. I'm not down with that. I agree with Chomsky a lot (e.g. see this: institutional analysis) but very rarely with David Icke. David Icke fans will have been very disappointed by Wikileaks so far, hence they will conclude its part of the conspiracy.

I have hung out with people who really believed that most world leaders were shape-shifting lizards. I've spent a while thinking about why people end up believing things like that. A lot of it is to do with preferring tidy certainty over complicated doubt.

thanks for the clarification, i respect people like Chomsky, Hedges, Scahill, Palast who do actual investigative journalism to uncover real conspiracies but people like Icke and Alex Jones followers already think Wikileaks is a CIA front job anyways, anything they can't explain inevitably become some kind of conspiracy

  On 1/10/2011 at 9:00 PM, Awepittance said:

i'm not of the belief that Wikileaks got bought off, but i do think to a certain extent Wikileaks has sacrificed some of their principals in response to smear attempts by the media.

 

for instance, why have we not seen the Afghanistan massacare video where apparently 50+ civilians die? why sit on this for almost a year?

I think there is a system in place in hope to have maximum exposure when they do release certain things. Perhaps they don't want to appear solely focused on one area... might be better to wait till the prior video has had all of its impact, then when its basically dropped off the radar, release the next one.

  On 1/10/2011 at 9:00 PM, Awepittance said:

i'm not of the belief that Wikileaks got bought off, but i do think to a certain extent Wikileaks has sacrificed some of their principals in response to smear attempts by the media.

 

for instance, why have we not seen the Afghanistan massacare video where apparently 50+ civilians die? why sit on this for almost a year?

I'd say they did, they sacrificed Assange! (academi-lol)

you have to wonder about the iq of someone who uses youtube videos as their basis for conspiracy knowledge. a friend of mine is like that and i just silently shake my head when he starts showing me. considering how editable and easy it is to make something fake in this day there's no reason to take any of them seriously.

  Quote

Assange is planning to appear at a London press conference on 17 January in support of Rudolf Elmer, who will face charges in a Swiss court two days later on posting confidential banking documents to WikiLeaks, Dagens Næringsliv reports.

 

Elmer was the former head of Swiss private bank Julius Bär's Caribbean operations when he decided to send the documents on its Cayman Islands activities to WikiLeaks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jan/10/the-us-embassy-cables#block-5

was that already mentioned? seems like the bank leak is about to get started soon

that's about an old leak i think.

  On 1/9/2011 at 1:04 PM, zazen said:

My life would be so much simpler if I was as intolerant of doubt, nuance and critical thinking as those people.

yeah I uh read something a while back somebody theorized that all the Alex Jones stuff (as in the people who just blindly believe in vast conspiracy that is so deep and so secret nobody will ever solve it) is just some psychological response to maybe not lack of religion but less feelings of SPIRITUALITY in year 2010 and New World Order has properties of both God and the Devil at the same time, as in it made the world as it is and is very very evil (likes to eat babies and stuff). So yeah I think you're extra right to be critical of youtube conspiracy people because essentially you are watching a religion being born

and yeah to support my claim what institution also hates doubt, nuance and critical thinking almost as much as youtube conspiracy theorists?? llol

yo ragnar, what the hell is that in your avatar?

I'm not doubting all conspiracies ever but the whole unfathomably powerful unfathomably evil incredibly super-secret nature of the Alex Jones stuff is just yeah

  On 1/13/2011 at 10:46 PM, Bread said:

yo ragnar, what the hell is that in your avatar?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/sep/17/scotland-art-big-man-walking

new Frog Pocket cover

FUCKING LOL

Obama admin lets something leak about Wikileaks http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN1816319120110118?ca=rdt

  Quote

Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.

 

A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. . . .

 

"We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging," said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials. . .

 

But current and former intelligence officials note that while WikiLeaks has released a handful of inconsequential CIA analytical reports, the website has made public few if any real intelligence secrets, including reports from undercover agents or ultra-sensitive technical intelligence reports, such as spy satellite pictures or communications intercepts. . . .

 

National security officials familiar with the damage assessments being conducted by defense and intelligence agencies told Reuters the reviews so far have shown "pockets" of short-term damage, some of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.S. intelligence and defense operations, however, is unlikely to be serious, they said. . . .

 

Shortly before WikiLeaks began its gradual release of State Department cables last year, department officials sent emails to contacts on Capitol Hill predicting dire consequences, said one of the two congressional aides briefed on the internal government reviews.

 

However, shortly after stories about the cables first began to appear in the media, State Department officials were already privately playing down the damage, the two congressional officials said.

  On 1/19/2011 at 6:59 PM, Joyrex said:

FUCKING LOL

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Hahahahahahaha. Excellent, the best thing to come out of wikileaks in 2011.

lol

  On 1/20/2011 at 3:32 AM, Awepittance said:

Obama admin lets something leak about Wikileaks http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN1816319120110118?ca=rdt

 

  Quote

Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.

 

A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. . . .

 

"We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging," said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials. . .

 

But current and former intelligence officials note that while WikiLeaks has released a handful of inconsequential CIA analytical reports, the website has made public few if any real intelligence secrets, including reports from undercover agents or ultra-sensitive technical intelligence reports, such as spy satellite pictures or communications intercepts. . . .

 

National security officials familiar with the damage assessments being conducted by defense and intelligence agencies told Reuters the reviews so far have shown "pockets" of short-term damage, some of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.S. intelligence and defense operations, however, is unlikely to be serious, they said. . . .

 

Shortly before WikiLeaks began its gradual release of State Department cables last year, department officials sent emails to contacts on Capitol Hill predicting dire consequences, said one of the two congressional aides briefed on the internal government reviews.

 

However, shortly after stories about the cables first began to appear in the media, State Department officials were already privately playing down the damage, the two congressional officials said.

the thought that Assange somehow is coordinated with the Obama Administration to publicly out corporations and banks (which have basically caused a lot of the recession) is always a possibility that i ignored, until reading this. i'm not knocking it though, this country needs to build some type of integrity somehow, imo. the only real way is to shove it in peoples' faces.

An Inside Look at why the Guardian and Times campaigned against WikiLeaks | Spiegel http://is.gd/WM6ucQ

Pretty interesting read about the fights going on behind curtains during cablegate

i thought the one about trafficking child sex slaves was pretty revealing, no? or did i read that out of context?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMIaISlIKd0&feature=player_embedded

US military PR spinsters issue several vieled threats to the Whitehouse press corp if they report on this story without 'being careful'

  On 1/28/2011 at 11:02 PM, o00o said:

An Inside Look at why the Guardian and Times campaigned against WikiLeaks | Spiegel http://is.gd/WM6ucQ

 

Pretty interesting read about the fights going on behind curtains during cablegate

see also: Dealing With Assange and the WikiLeaks Secrets (nyt)

Gawker's response, actually quite good:

Julian Assange Is a Skipping Little Nancy Boy

  Quote

Mostly, for Keller, Assange was a whiny little thrower of tantrums, full of empty threats and an inflated sense of his own importance.

 

Which is all true! But there's something unseemly about Keller attacking him so openly and gleefully. This is the man, for better or worse, whose effort and innovation made possible the little e-book Keller is hawking. He had accomplished reporting feats—in terms of sheer breadth and volume—that no one at the Times ever had, or ever will, match. He had something that the Times desperately wanted, and shared it with them, for free. The fact that he's also an asshole doesn't mean Keller ought to go on braying about it, especially after two of his reporters had already done an exceptional job of revealing him as such. At one point, according to Keller, Assange lamely demanded of the Times, "Where's the respect? Where's the respect?" Reading Keller's snide take evisceration of a guy who, in the end, did him a massive and invaluable service, you kind of get his point.

Thats's an pwn if ever there was one.

article about the hack: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12380987

lol