29 December 2010

Wikileaks Rest in Peace

The original Wikileaks initiative is dead, replaced by a bloated apparatus
promising 260,000 cables at slower than a snail’s pace. At the rate of 20 cables a
day it will take 13,000 days to finish—some 35 years.

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-rip.htm

Who is Behind Wikileaks?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389
by Michel Chossudovsky

[...]

While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and
concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables
have been carefully “redacted” by the mainstream media in liaison with the US
government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8,
2010)

In a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner The New York Times, which has consistently
promoted media disinformation is now being accused of conspiracy. For what?
For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the truth?

[...]

To get an idea of the full conspiracy amongst government and MSM agents against Wikileaks please see Glenn Greenwalds excellent article.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/28/cnnn/index.html

fearnolie,

It is indeed appropriate to examine the MSM for its agenda as indicated by selective releases and focuses on issues it wants to promote.  I have no problem with such a post as this one.  However, it is precisely the reason I have a problem with your selective presentation of Anti-Wikileaks propaganda, while claiming to be a source of unbiased information.  Undeniably disingenuous yes?

By the way, I think one of the most confirming aspects of the legitimacy of Assange is the systematic cutoff of financial conduits for contributions to Wikileaks.  I have no doubt you will come up with some conspiracy theory excuse to explain this development.  I guess he does not need the money since he is being financed by the Israelis and the CIA right?

PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks
documents by the Corporate Media
NYT Reporter Defends Publishing WikiLeaks Cables

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22378

Global Research Editor’s Note

The following transcript points to the involvement of the corporate media
including the New York Times in the Wikileaks project.

What interests are being served?

Michel Chossudovsky, December 12, 2010

TRANSCRIPT - link: http://tinyurl.com/2fv4u9s
National Public Radio (NPR), Fresh Air, December 8, 2010
NYT Reporter Defends Publishing WikiLeaks Cables

interview sample:

[...]

GROSS: Now, on the one hand, the New York Times is contextualizing the
information in the WikiLeaks documents. On the other hand, can you make the
argument that the New York Times has really been a megaphone for this leaked
information and is making it a much bigger story than it otherwise would have
been?

Mr. SANGER: You know, Terry, I think you could argue that the New York
Times is making this a much more subtle story than it otherwise would have
been because by contextualizing it, to use your word, we are explaining what’s
new here and what’s not. We’re explaining what’s important here and what’s
not. And we’re filtering it out to try to avoid the greatest harm to individuals,
ongoing operations and so forth.

[...]

RE: [...] I will not post references…shut the fuck up! [...]

        style suited only to bar room polemic - we’re done here

Fearnolie
You repeat yet again the disingenuous contention that you have no opinion regarding Julian Assange.  Yet you post hundreds of one sided opinions and innuendo by a Gordon Duff that assassinate the character of Julian Assange on the flimsiest of innuendo.  If you have no opinion what motivates you to such activity?  There is zero proof of anything you/Duff try to suggest about Assange and I will not post references that play the absurd game of trying to prove a negative.  You are the one pushing an agenda claiming Assange is some sort of counter counter counter Zionist psyops agent.  Put up irrefutable or even some semi-reasonable evidence or shut the fuck up!  Have you no shame for seeking to cause damage to what appears to be a well intentioned human being?

RE: By glider, December 28 at 5:11 am Link to this comment fearnolie,

Any scientist will tell you it can be extraordinarilly difficult to prove a negative. You are safely asking for citations that prove Julian Assange is not a government agent. Rather, you should be asking what is the most reasonable explanation given the available data. However, your MO is to take an outlier theory and to argue that it must be valid because no one is able to prove otherwise. Sorry, but that is no way to get at the truth in a consistent fashion. I frankly find it disgusting that you choose to ignore the more obvious explanation regarding Assange/Manning/Wikileaks and instead, on the basis of the flimsiest of information, elect to engage in the character assassination of a man that is likely a modern day hero. That to me shows a complete lack of moral character on your part and is the basis of my posts slandering you.

WOW! incredible in the purest sense of the word…

DU is not a ‘red herring’ - it was mentioned in my posting, not yours and I never suggested you introduced it. It was suggested in your posting that I was ‘disingenuous’ because I claimed that I offered no ‘opinions’ about anything - ergo: nothing to defend; so, I did offer my opinion about DU Poisoning, which I had referenced in one of Gordon Duff’s articles and offered another article from Global Research to support it, then simply asked if anyone (you in particular) could find a ‘leaked’ cable about this explosive-by-any-standards issue.

I also asked if you ever intend to offer any supporting citations for any of your ‘opinions’. All we ever get are opinions. If you wish to offer the ‘most reasonable explanation given the available data, that prove Julian Assange is not a government agent’, by all means do so. I’ve yet to read anything from you but your opinions, in particular those about of how ‘disgusted’ you are with me… who cares about me, I’m nobody?

To be clear, the main reason I don’t offer my ‘opinion’ is simply because I don’t think their worth much. The articles I cite add far more to the discussion than would my mere ‘opinion’ - clearly not la mode du jour, ici

I never suggested that the lack of a particular ‘leaked’ cable proved anything. If it can’t be found, fine; though, it is such an explosive issue, one would expect something. Nevertheless, I’m not reporting feelings of ‘disgust’ because no TD Members can come up with one.

Moreover, I have never accused Assange of being anyone’s agent, nor engaged in anything like ‘character assassination’. I question the ‘official’ scenario and point to contradictory online info. I point to Gordon Duff’s articles because it appears he’s digging deeper than anyone on the Wikileaks issue. However, I’ve yet to see you cite anything in particular from his articles. If you take exception, fine do so. But, attacking me personally is useless. I’m nobody.

Of course, Dear Sir, you are free to slander anyone you like. It’s doubtful anything posted on the internet (simply because we’re all anonymous, thank goodness) is grounds for any sort of litigation. What’s amazing is how some become so exercised over so few words in the blogosphere - bits and bytes - oblivion… utterly specious medium through which to judge ones ‘moral character’ for goodness sake - is your every word a two-bit toss off?

again, incredible in the purest sense of the word

fearnolie,

Did I ever make any comment on DUP?  Please stop with the Red Herrings.

Any scientist will tell you it can be extraordinarilly difficult to prove a negative.  You are safely asking for citations that prove Julian Assange is not a government agent.  Rather, you should be asking what is the most reasonable explanation given the available data.  However, your MO is to take an outlier theory and to argue that it must be valid because no one is able to prove otherwise.  Sorry, but that is no way to get at the truth in a consistent fashion.  I frankly find it disgusting that you choose to ignore the more obvious explanation regarding Assange/Manning/Wikileaks and instead, on the basis of the flimsiest of information, elect to engage in the character assassination of a man that is likely a modern day hero.  That to me shows a complete lack of moral character on your part and is the basis of my posts slandering you.

By Conden, December 27 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment
Fearnotruth, you aren’t giving “citations,” you are just posting whole articles,
which are someone else’s opinion, and doesn’t substantiate what you say any
the more.  Just giving your own perspective is much better than spamming
articles under the impression that appealing to “authority” makes you look
better.
___________

the ‘citations’ (excerpts if you prefer) are rarely, if ever, ‘whole articles’ -
moreover, though opinionated,  they are generally ‘analysis’ with plenty of
‘facts’ - cited because both are better than what’s found here (IMHO)

purpose is not how I ‘look’ - ‘better’, ‘worse’ ? who cares? - means nothing,
especially here - as for ‘substantiating’ what ‘I say’; in fact ‘I say’ very little

lecturing on how one should post here is, to put it politely,
presumptuous - if you prefer to ignore my posts - there’s a
button for that in your profile settings

______________
______________

I agree with gilder on this point, I think with most right wing conspiracy
theorists (especially as regards antizionism, which is morphed into something
that has nothing to do with Palestinean solidarity, but rather some abstract
bilge-burg ideology for you to spend all day in front of your computer with
instead of taking action) the real motives and ideas are hidden under the
surface.

_______________

agree with anyone you like - however, the rest is quiet a lot to assume -
nevertheless, it seems to very well illuminate your issues at the heart of this
exchange - since I propose no ‘ideology’ (the focus of your ‘critique’ of my first
post in this thread), you’ve taken it upon yourself to impose one

why would you do that? of course one can only guess - my best is that arguing
with someone’s ideology is, for you, easier than contesting the substance of
what’s being brought to the discussion

to be clear, we’re all just pissing in the ocean here; ideologies are ice-berg-
size propositions, the tip of which is about all most ever learn of them - having
said that, getting me to argue with you about ‘ideology’ will never happen - if
you’d like to discuss substantive issues around the topics offered on TD, that’s
reasonable

as for ‘all day in front of your computer’ - ‘all day’ might be what it would take
some to find and post this stuff… depends primarily on skill, equipment, intuition - trust
me, I’d never spend as much time on this stuff as it would probably take you

finally, as for ‘my activism’ and how I choose to ‘spend my days’, that’s
nobody’s business but mine - I would no more presume to tell you, how to go
about your activism than I would accept your telling me how to go about mine

Fearnotruth, you aren’t giving “citations,” you are just posting whole articles, which are someone else’s opinion, and doesn’t substantiate what you say any the more.  Just giving your own perspective is much better than spamming articles under the impression that appealing to “authority” makes you look better. 

I agree with gilder on this point, I think with most right wing conspiracy theorists (especially as regards antizionism, which is morphed into something that has nothing to do with Palestinean solidarity, but rather some abstract bilge-burg ideology for you to spend all day in front of your computer with instead of taking action) the real motives and ideas are hidden under the surface.

RE: How disingenuous can you get? You offer no opinion? Give me a fucking
break!!

OK, you got me - yes, I hold a strong opinion on
Depleted Uranium Poisoning and I will share it,
as usual, with citation (below) - opinion: It’s bad.

btw, gloader, should we expect ever to see a citation
of source material from you, in support of your disagreement
with sources I choose to cite, or just not hold our breath
while you expend yours on opinion and opinion only?

and in case the issue of DU Poisoning seems impertinent;
shouldn’t we all be interested in seeing the ‘leaked’ cables
addressing the explosive issue of DU poisoning?

please add to the discussion by finding one article
that cites any ‘leaked’ cable addressing DU poisoning.

11,000 US soldiers dead from DU poisoning

Heads roll at Veterans Administration Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU)
scandal blamed

by Bob Nichols 2/2/05 S.F. Bay View

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=443

Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can
truly be called a nuclear war.

Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline.

fearnolie,

“if you follow my postings, you’ll see that I rarely offer my own personal opinion -questions are posed and relevant sources cited”

Translation: do not hold me accountable for the constant stream of completely one-sided misleading unsubstantiated absurd innuendo and drivel that I post daily.

How disingenuous can you get? You offer no opinion? Give me a fucking break!!

RE:   Call me naive, but all the snide implications of Gordon Duff don’t seem reasonable or
accurate.  He has other axes to grind—at least so it seems to me.

_____________________

agreed - Gordon Duff has axes, many more than one: 
9/11; AIPAC; DU/GB/GF = Gulf War Syndrome

e.g. http://tinyurl.com/273zo8d

“118 FIRST RESPONDERS HEARD EXPLOSIONS…..”
December 9, 2010 By Gordon Duff
STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor Veterans Today

“I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when
all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” - Julian
Assange

_____________________

e.g.  http://tinyurl.com/245l6zb

Iraq is a Self Cleaning Oven
November 27, 2010 Veterans Today
posted by Bob Nichols
Soldiers – Ours, Theirs. Civilians.  It makes NO Difference!

(San Francisco) – American Expeditionary Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan use only the best
weapons money can buy and American ingenuity can dream up. For twenty years that meant
weaponized uranium poison gas and aerosols, a.k.a. “DU,” according to the Pentagon,
weapons contractors, university weapons researchers and the political leadership of the United
States.
_____________________

e.g. http://tinyurl.com/2f95ot3

Gulf War Illness Proof of Real Physical Damage
November 20, 2010 Veterans Today
posted by Denise Nichols

Gulf War 90-91 Veterans are the Ghost Veterans not seen in large numbers during Veterans
Day and the answer is because they are ill and need urgent attention!  The doctors at the VA
need educational programs on this situation past tense.  For twenty years the veterans of the
gulf war 1990-91 have come to the doors of the VA to receive less than adequate care and this
is totally unacceptable!  This is not about compensation alone but more so about health care
and treatment answers!  Their neurocognitive executive functions are damaged and this is not
AGE Related!  There are visual problems that need attention.  There are neurological,
endocrine, immunological problems that have gotten worse over twenty years.

_______________

e.g. http://tinyurl.com/2ee23ze

HAS AIPAC MADE THE FBI THE “FBE,” FEDERAL BUREAU OF ESPIONAGE?
November 23, 2010 By Gordon Duff
STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor Veterans Today

AIPAC is a sham.  The group has, over the years, destroyed
anyone who has tried to have it named what it really is, a
dangerous foreign lobby and nest of spies.  AIPAC is the most
feared organization in Washington and most powerful, above any
law.  A former employee of AIPAC, Steve Rosen, who AIPAC
claims was a spy, more appropriately a “caught” spy, now claims
his former employer does nothing but spy.

The way I understand it, Assange gave the WikiLeaks releases to the public by way of key wellknown news papers is that he knew they would (maybe even asked them to “vet” the leaks further so they would release the most information with the least amount of embarrassment and/or risk in case WikiLeaks’ previous editing missed things.
  If anybody at all bothered to read Assange’s statement of why he released the docs, they would be inclined to believe that he had a serious but not malignant purpose in mind:  He wanted people generally to know how international diplomacy—and particularly U.S. foreign policy—was undermining openness, fair dealing and honest so that people living in a democracy could have hald a chance to influence their government for the better. Whether we will use that power or not is the question before us. He also wanted to prove that the internet works toward openness, not secrecy.
  As to nefarious reasons and deception regarding the Israel mess and all that, I strongly doubt such allegations.  The leaked materials appear to not be seriously damaging, but only embarrassing to people who know they should be performing international policy less manipulatively, more openly and more for the sake of making peace than making money.
  Call me naive, but all the snide implications of Gordon Duff don’t seem reasonable or accurate.  He has other axes to grind—at least so it seems to me.

RE: The ideology doesn’t work very well when you expose the truth alongside it.

sorry for the confusion

no ideology is at issue, only encouragement toward a deeper examination - if the citations
appear contradictory; again, consider them more deeply - and consider this:
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” -
William Colby - Director of the CIA (1973-76)

citation 1) from a confirmed interview -  http://tinyurl.com/3x6kgqg
citation 2) analysis by Gordon Duff - http://tinyurl.com/28co7w2

not my ‘opinion,’ - rather cited as worthy of consideration - if you take exception with Duff’s
analysis, he’s wide open for critique - posting below his articles is dead simple - no account set
up required - and, he responds personally, unlike most other sites, TD included

if you follow my postings, you’ll see that I rarely offer my own personal opinion -
questions are posed and relevant sources cited

fearnotruth, I think it’s pretty ridiculous that first you post an article saying that the new york time and other mainstream newspapers were the ones who refused to release israel documents, than you post one that backs up the obnoxious, stupid zionist conspiracy theory that Assange is a member of mossad when he just promised in the other article to release the documents.  The ideology doesn’t work very well when you expose the truth alongside it.

RE: ... redacting of materials before release by WikiLeaks and by a number
of unbiased editors before publication.

~~~~~~~~

“unbiased editors” (?) needs investigating, e.g.  http://tinyurl.com/3x6kgqg

WikiLeaks to release Israel documents in six months
Thursday, 23 December 2010 01:41

DOHA: WikiLeaks will release top secret American files concerning Israel in the
next six months, its founder Julian Assange disclosed yesterday.

In an excusive interview with Al Jazeera, Assange said only a meagre number of
files related to Israel had been published so far, because the newspapers in the
West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were
reluctant to publish many sensitive information about Israel.

“The Guardian, El-Pais and Le Monde have published only two percent of
the files related to Israel due to the sensitive relations between Germany,
France and Israel. Even New York Times could not publish more due to the
sensitivities related to the Jewish community in the US,” he [Assange]
added.

~~~~~~~~~~

and from Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor at Veterans Today

http://tinyurl.com/28co7w2

ASSANGE ADMITS WIKILEAKS A FRAUD RUN BY PRESS FOR ISRAEL

“sensitivities,” a word that undoubtedly came from a
committee of advisors juggling emails between New York and Tel
Aviv is simply lying and cheating to the rest of us.

The only reason we needed Wikileaks in the first place is that the
press failed so utterly.  Is it any secret that Assange turned total
control of Wikileaks over to the press, the people who gave him
“rock star” status?

An important battle is going on throughout the world now, thanks to Manning and Assange.  That battle is not only over the freedom of information and the future of the internet, but is also a battle between repression and justice.  Assange is seeing adequate defense and the beginning of fairness in the UK, whereas Manning is suffering repression and persecution in a military camp in the U.S.
  Neither has been legally accused yet of any crime except for the clouded (and once thrown out of court) allegations against Assange for rape in Sweden last August.
  The WikiLeaks releast of classified State Dept. cables has not done any actual damage to anyone so far, due to careful redacting of materials before release by WikiLeaks and by a number of unbiased editors before publication.  Nevertheless, the two are being held in prison, Manning in solitary confinement under rigid military standards, and more likely to be victimized.
  Worldwide pleas for common sense are needed for both,  rather than cries for revenge because the cables put the noses of powerful people out of joint.