Agreed, this [latest wikileaks expose] smells funny, to say the least.
My uninformed guess; the organization has already been “compromised” by CIA or similar. Assange has been “gotten at”. [Surprise surprise].
Chris Floyd [ Empire Burlesque blog], has an excellent piece on this, titled " Leaky Vessels: Wikileaks “Revelations” Will Comfort Warmongers, Confirm Conventional Wisdom", in which,among other things he notes:
"…these reports are being treated as if they are the “grim truth” behind the shining picture of official propaganda. But what do these stories in the NYT and Guardian actually “reveal”? Let’s see:
That the occupation forces kill lots of civilians at checkpoints and botched raids, then lie about it afterward.
* That these killings make Afghans angry and fuel the insurgency.
* That elements of Pakistani intelligence are involved with some elements of the many resistance groups known collectively (and incorrectly) in the West as the Taliban.
* That the Americans are using more and more robot drones to kill people.
* That the Americans are running death squads in Afghanistan aimed at Taliban leaders.
* That Afghan officials are corrupt, and that Afghan police and military forces are woefully inadequate.
Is there anything in these breathless new recitations that we did not already know? …"
It is just two pronged damage control. There are the politicians with their “nothing to see here, move along” shtick saying this isn’t really important because it is only confidential rather than super duper extra secret to try to make you lose interest in it. And then there is the MSM going with the “those damn Pakistanis” angle, because it is mayor news and so they have to cover it or else they lose credibility and this “stab in the back” is the only vaguely pro-war angle that can be found. You shouldn’t fall for it. This is very damaging - or would be if people gave a damn and/or didn’t fall for countermeasures - and there is stil more on the way.
Nevermind Wikileaks, this Bradley Manning guy is sitting in a dungeon right now, you should probably take a look at what he sacrificed his freedom for to get out.
I’d say, anything that could potentially convert a neocon to being antiwar. That means, images of middle eastern children being murdered need not apply since, to the neocon, that was simply a way to prevent future terrorists.
Quote by:“Daniel Muffinburg"I’d say, anything that could potentially convert a neocon to being antiwar. That means, images of middle eastern children being murdered need not apply since, to the neocon, that was simply a way to prevent future terrorists.”
I always wondered why articles like this usually aren’t even enough to convert someone to being antiwar.
Anything that could put military brass in jail or force the Joint Chiefs/SecDef/POTUS to come before Congress and justify their decisions. Anything that describes the torture and murder of innocents in US black sites, extraordinary rendition, etc. You get the idea.
Although the questions raised about Wikileaks here are good ones, no one in this thread has presented a single shred of factual evidence substantiating their hypotheticals. Do some more research guys. Find out Wikileaks funding sources, etc. then get back to us.
Until then, I’m prepared to believe the hostility towards Wikileaks by mainstream media and government is REAL.
@Sukrit: Well, note that in my OP, I only stated that I’m not buying it anymore… I’m not putting out a general recommendation (yet) that no one buy into it. I have no hard evidence of any kind, but it smells fishy to me.
The hope of the brave soldier who sent 92,000 secret U.S. documents to Wikileaks was that their disclosure would prompt public revulsion and increasing political pressure on Obama to seek with all speed a diplomatic conclusion to this war. The documents he sent Wikileaks included overwhelming documentary evidence – accepted by all as genuine, of:
the methodical use of a death squad made up of US Special Forces, known as Task Force 373,
willful, casual slaughter of civilians by Coalition personnel, with ensuing cover-ups,
*the utter failure of “counter-insurgency” and “nation building”,
*the venality and corruption of the Coalition’s Afghan allies,
*the complicity of Pakistan’s Intelligence Services with the Taliban,
why animal cruelty does not convert people to vegetarianism? Same principle
Sorry no, big difference. Animal treatment is a technical matter, human rights are natural. The difference lies in the ability to reason with other humans, while not with animals.
why animal cruelty does not convert people to vegetarianism? Same principle
why animal cruelty does not convert people to vegetarianism? Same principle
why animal cruelty does not convert people to vegetarianism? Same principle
why animal cruelty does not convert people to vegetarianism? Same principle
why animal cruelty does not convert people to vegetarianism? Same principle
“All governments are on a continuum of tyranny,” he said. “In the US, a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt. In the US, we don’t have censorship but we do have collaborating news organisations.”
Assange never claimed that any of these documents were anything there informed did not know from other sources… Nor does it really fuel any more “hatred for the occupation” in Iraq and Afghanistan, since the people there witness the events described in the leaks first hand daily and so is nothing new. Still, any outlet for information is a net gain in my opinion.
