WikiLeaks is at it again!

have you guys ever read their intelligence reports?

they're kindof a joke. not sure many serious people take them seriously.

  On 2/29/2012 at 6:21 AM, GORDO said:

have you guys ever read their intelligence reports?

 

they're kindof a joke. not sure many serious people take them seriously.

Stratfor generally had good analysis - but as I said, it was nothing that anybody with a subscription to the Economist/CFR/Foreign Policy couldn't piece together themselves.

They didn't have nay exclusive information - and the idea of them being a "spy outfit" is fucking hilarious.

he can see my post when you quote it

using "they" is a convenient way to simplify the whole issue and basically to end all discussion. power is relative, ever changing and it's everywhere (foucault i think), as are the interests of the powerful people and bodies. it simply doesn't make sense to bunch powerful people into one body most of the time.

popular internet is not a new thing anymore, pretty much everyone in the west around early 20's grew up alongside internet, it's a pretty big bulk of population that has a different idea on acquiring information.

regarding stratfor i think ya'll underestimating them, they've got their informers and networks. check the russia-georgia-israel-mexico uav thing for example, that's something you wouldn't have found freely.

i would bet that most americans watch and believe "corporate" news simply because the news stations/sites tell them to (and they are lazy). they advertise everywhere and since there are several outlets for these (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, HLN, NYTimes, WPost, Huffpost), people assume that these corporations are competing. i don't think that's the case as their single goal is for you to watch their network. quantity/quality of info doesn't matter when your business model depends on ratings.

but as to why americans specifically eat that shit up, i would say it's a blend of laziness and ignorance. i could go on and on about why the US education system helps cultivate this attitude, but that's where the problem starts. if critical thinking is never taught or encouraged (perhaps as an afterthought), how can we expect that from a populace?

Eugene - the only source for that is an anonymous informant - and if Russia had the codes, then why would they have shot down a drone? If Russia also knew that Israel was willing to sell the codes to their drones away, why would they purchase more drones from Israel?

Of course Google results are all poisoned now.

are you talking about the wikileaks email or something else ? it doesn't say that the russians shot down the drone, quite the opposite, it was most probably disabled by the russians because they traded codes with israel. it doesn't say that russians were buying israeli drones either. i agree that one anonymous source is a bit weak but it's still much more than merely analyzing printed/web press.

  On 2/29/2012 at 4:05 PM, eugene said:

he can see my post when you quote it

using "they" is a convenient way to simplify the whole issue and basically to end all discussion. power is relative, ever changing and it's everywhere (foucault i think), as are the interests of the powerful people and bodies. it simply doesn't make sense to bunch powerful people into one body most of the time.

popular internet is not a new thing anymore, pretty much everyone in the west around early 20's grew up alongside internet, it's a pretty big bulk of population that has a different idea on acquiring information.

 

regarding stratfor i think ya'll underestimating them, they've got their informers and networks. check the russia-georgia-israel-mexico uav thing for example, that's something you wouldn't have found freely.

Ive never seen a more inaccurate portrayal of Foucault's power-relation theory in my entire life.

there is no singular enemy, eugene is right about that, and they are constantly shifting. the difference is that there is a current through which these men are vetted via both conscious and subconscious methods of institutional manipulation. ill just stop there.

where did you see a portrayal of any theory ?

i just wanted to point out that the last snippet ("power is everywhere") that i liked a lot is by foucault. i have no idea where it's from originally, just saw it in some book.

  On 2/28/2012 at 7:42 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

  On 2/28/2012 at 4:37 PM, azatoth said:

The growing anti-intellectualism in the US is a worrying phenomenon. The again, a dumb populace is easier to control by catering to their emotions.

 

This, especially in the age of soundbites and vanishing attention spans. As a whole it's in a nation's best interest to have a well educated and informed society, yet this is does not align with the interests of those entities controlling wealth and power. When it comes to something like wikileaks I reckon the population breaks down something like

75% (don't give a shit / not bright, shiny or sexy enough)

15% (knee-jerk reaction that whatever it is, it's treasonous, and treason is bad)

5-9% (interested/disturbed enough to notice, but lack the attention span to connect the dots)

 

Bye Eugene, I hope you enjoy throwing stones from your glass house, tis a shame I won't be able to see any of them!

 

seriously a smart move on your part

  On 2/29/2012 at 7:01 AM, chenGOD said:

 

They didn't have nay exclusive information - and the idea of them being a "spy outfit" is fucking hilarious.

i thought you said you didn't read any of the emails, including the Coca-cola one which involves being offered a classified FBI file that involved spying? either way your psychic abilities are off the charts!

do you seriously not see the difference between downright offering an fbi file on peta to coca cola and what went on in that exchange ?

  On 2/29/2012 at 8:21 PM, eugene said:

are you talking about the wikileaks email or something else ? it doesn't say that the russians shot down the drone, quite the opposite, it was most probably disabled by the russians because they traded codes with israel. it doesn't say that russians were buying israeli drones either. i agree that one anonymous source is a bit weak but it's still much more than merely analyzing printed/web press.

Russians to purchase Israeli drones

Russian jet shoots down drone

You do any search for Russians hacked georgian drone - the only results you get are that stratfor leak.

Robbie - are you talking about this?

http://wikileaks.org...coca-cola-.html

Someone postulating that the FBI has a file on PETA is hardly the same thing as - "here is the FBI file"

Stratfor was always about earning revenue - remember from the glossary about the briefer - "upsell standard news reports as if they are something new and exciting to get repeat contracts." (paraphrase, but that's the gist)

And then this:

http://wikileaks.org...re-we-are-.html

Where they basically cop to creating a hedge fund to maximize revenue.

They analyze news, and sell it to suckers customers.

Look at this on Argentina-Falklands as an example

http://wikileaks.org...falklands-.html

Also - if they were a serious security firm, they wouldn't have left credit card info on a web-facing server, unsecured!

And here are two articles that describe it well:

Stratfor is a joke and so is wikileaks for taking it seriously

Wake me when Wikileaks releases the illuminati e-mails

pretty much what I said.

  On 3/1/2012 at 4:24 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 2/29/2012 at 8:21 PM, eugene said:

are you talking about the wikileaks email or something else ? it doesn't say that the russians shot down the drone, quite the opposite, it was most probably disabled by the russians because they traded codes with israel. it doesn't say that russians were buying israeli drones either. i agree that one anonymous source is a bit weak but it's still much more than merely analyzing printed/web press.

 

Russians to purchase Israeli drones

Russian jet shoots down drone

 

You do any search for Russians hacked georgian drone - the only results you get are that stratfor leak.

 

well, that's explainable in a way that wont contradict the wikileaks email. the russians shot down the drone in april 2008 according to bbc, but there's no specific date for the code swap with israel in the email, just before july. so it is possible that the russians realized that they really needed those codes after april. there wouldn't be a news report about a disabled drone.

other possibility is that the russians didn't want to reveal to georgians that the drones are compromised by disabling one at that time.

regarding uav sales there could be many possibilities, perhaps there are technological means of guaranteeing that the drones won't be compromised or just a clear mutual realization that if they israelis sell the codes to someone the russian will also do something nasty like that. besides, if the russian drones get compromised there's basically only one address to send complains to, that removes the trust issues.

It doesn't make any sense from any point of view to purchase weapons that you know could be compromised - it doesn't matter if you know there's only one source - if a drone is compromised, you could never know - and thus the enemy could be looking at what you're looking at, figuring out how to fuck with your intelligence gathering. The Stratfor e-mail is dated February 2009 - so the window is not great.

If a Georgian drone had been taken down by hacking measures, you can be sure they would let the world know - Georgian-Israeli relations were ok, but after the war ended in 2008 and Israel started selling UAVs to Russia, Israeli stock took a hit in Tbilisi. Additionally - Georgia has become much friendlier with Tehran since the end of the war. Something that is sure to displease the Israeli government.

I'll admit - I could be wrong - but I would definitely need to see something more than "a shady mexican source who works for jane's" as info worth coughing up a lot of money for.

There's one thing the Huffpo distincts itself from outlets like Fox though. And that is labeling opinions as such. Sure the Huffpo is not perfect (and are in the copy-paste business like the rest of the stereotypical outlets), but at least they are open about things being just an opinion.

edit: ok, make that "more open"

  On 3/1/2012 at 10:46 AM, goDel said:

There's one thing the Huffpo distincts itself from outlets like Fox though.

whoah

just a little counter to those outside and inside this thread who are bending over backwards to say 'nothing to see here'

  Quote

This perplexes me: To advertise a complete lack of interest in the inner workings of a major private intelligence firm, whose corporate clients (who pay up to $40,000 for Stratfor's services) include companies like Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America – seems, to say the least, rather

un-journalistic.

If Stratfor is a joke, what does that say about the government agencies like the C.I.A. and other intel shops that supply Stratfor with employees. And if WikiLeaks – an organization that 's pulled off a few of the biggest coups in the history of journalism – is a joke, whom, exactly, is the joke on?

 

Read more:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228#ixzz1o5gD9Tvq

  On 3/1/2012 at 11:25 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 3/1/2012 at 10:46 AM, goDel said:

There's one thing the Huffpo distincts itself from outlets like Fox though.

whoah

sorry for being a non-native english speaker and fucking up my engrish from time to time. thanks for the constructive feedback. you're awfully nice.

  On 3/3/2012 at 10:14 PM, Awepittance said:

just a little counter to those outside and inside this thread who are bending over backwards to say 'nothing to see here'

 

 

  Quote

This perplexes me: To advertise a complete lack of interest in the inner workings of a major private intelligence firm, whose corporate clients (who pay up to $40,000 for Stratfor's services) include companies like Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America – seems, to say the least, rather

un-journalistic.

If Stratfor is a joke, what does that say about the government agencies like the C.I.A. and other intel shops that supply Stratfor with employees. And if WikiLeaks – an organization that 's pulled off a few of the biggest coups in the history of journalism – is a joke, whom, exactly, is the joke on?

 

 

Read more:

http://www.rollingst...8#ixzz1o5gD9Tvq

wow. i never thought i'd agree with a rolling stone article, but there you have it.

yeah at this point, the political writings are about the only good thing about the magazine. The article where the guy printed all the ridiculous shit General McChrystal said is what caused him to 'resign', and the army got mad later saying that the magazine wasn't supposed to print all those things, that they 'crossed a line'. Well sorry bros but that's what real journalism is supposed to be, not candy coated bullshit you hand to a reporter. But i could see that if you are used to that, when a reporter does his real job it becomes 'offensive'

  On 3/3/2012 at 10:14 PM, Awepittance said:

just a little counter to those outside and inside this thread who are bending over backwards to say 'nothing to see here'

 

 

  Quote

This perplexes me: To advertise a complete lack of interest in the inner workings of a major private intelligence firm, whose corporate clients (who pay up to $40,000 for Stratfor's services) include companies like Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America – seems, to say the least, rather

un-journalistic.

If Stratfor is a joke, what does that say about the government agencies like the C.I.A. and other intel shops that supply Stratfor with employees. And if WikiLeaks – an organization that 's pulled off a few of the biggest coups in the history of journalism – is a joke, whom, exactly, is the joke on?

 

 

Read more:

http://www.rollingst...8#ixzz1o5gD9Tvq

None of the e-mails that I've read so far indicate anything except analysis of current affairs. the coca-cola e-mail regarding an "fbi file" is simply speculation.

Frankly I'm a bit insulted by your insinuation - that because I'm saying this is not a major coup I must be some sort of stooge of the government, or some sort of ignoramus ready to swallow all the lies of the government.

The fact that they employ ex-CIA is not significant. One of my professors is ex-CIA, members of think tanks are ex-CIA, journalists regularly consult ex-CIA. Are all investigative reporters spies?

The significant thing here is that Stratfor was able to sell this information at tremendously inflated prices, and that they were able to convince corporations to continue purchasing it.

The thing that interests me is the way the intelligence industry looks like and functions. Especially because there's a private institution like Stratfor, but also instances like Thomson Reuters. It's a market and, to me at least, it's unclear how it's regulated. And as with banks, these institutions work all over the world, so they're in a position to cherry-pick among the various regulations they have to cope with. So in a way they are like the Robin Hoods of intelligence.

But what isn't clear are their interests. Normally/ideally I'd expect them to present their customers with the best intelligence they can offer. But what would they do when, say, the US Government pays Stratfor for intelligence on Assange? Do they see WikiLeaks as a competitor? And one which is bad for business? I wonder what happens in the thick grey cloud between factual information and interpretation which these companies are specialized at. And especially in circumstances where these companies are (indirectly) tied to the subject itself, like Assange/WikiLeaks, it's interesting to see whether they can keep their integrity.

Or in other words, does the intelligence market have natural balances against monopolies and/or cartels? It's probably not regulated (almost sounds silly). And monopolies/cartels might even be quite common (we'll never know, innit?). The only natural balance I can think of at this point is (obviously) an instance like WikiLeaks. But is that enough?

I wish Rubicon didn't get canceled :/

  On 3/4/2012 at 10:37 AM, thanks robert moses said:

I wish Rubicon didn't get canceled :/