Continued from [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/victims-had-hidd....
WikiLeaks Accusations - Part Deux
Tue, 2010-12-14 22:36
#1
WikiLeaks Accusations - Part Deux
(Copied over from the previous thread).
ABC News has expanded its piece on WikiLeaks financial situation. (Full version [url=http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=12394736]here[/url]).
The Icelandic MP has more to say. (She comes off as more critical):
(And note that it isn't actually Jonsdottir who is saying WikiLeaks is paying the laywers. It is a statement by the journalist writing the article. I assume a journalist wouldn't make a blanket statement like that unless he had solid proof).
The former second-in-command of WikiLeaks (now starting OpenLeaks) was also disillusioned by the treatment of Manning:
There are also comments from another early WikiLeaks member that Assange was money and fame-hungry:
Then the article ends with this bombshell:
There is always the possibility, however, all these people are stooges in the employ of the U.S. government and are intent on smearing Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks project. Best to keep that in mind.
You keep printing this trash. That is completely at odds with what Courage to Resist says. If you gave a shit about Bradley Manning (which you most definitely do not) you would stop spreading internet gossip and slander about an organization that Courage to Resist, considers the main reason they get any donations at all.
Face it, you don't give a rats ass in hell about Courage to Resist or Bradley Manning. He is just some hobby horse you are riding to help you deal with your low self-esteem.
Actually there is a thread already open on this topic, here: Drive by smears...
The circus aspect of the WikiLeaks phenomenon and whether Julian Assange is an asshole or not is clearly a distraction and diversion from the main event which was and is the contents of the database now released. Many will be led to forget that by the circus that is only just beginning to ramp up looks like.
WikiLeaks Founder Granted Bail But Remains Incarcerated
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/assa-d15.shtml
"They clearly will not spare any expense to keep Mr Assange in jail. This is really turning into a show trial.' The Assange case amounts to a parody of legal procedure..."
The WikiLeaks Cables and the US-Australia Alliance
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d15.shtml
"Through a web of secret informants and agents, who are active in every parliamentary party, the trade unions, the media and the various state institutions, the US government and intelligence agencies function as active participants in political life. The primary conduit for these forces is the Australian Labor Party - the party that postured throughout the past century as the representative of the working class but which has played the most critical role in subordinating that class to the Australian capitalist state."
as always there are Canadian similiarities..
Babblers may want to avoid accessing the WikiLeaks.org domain with their browsers. It is being hosted by a notorious Russian criminal ISP. From [url=http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665]Spamhaus[/url]:
Other WikiLeaks mirrors appear to be okay, and not yet under the control of criminals (though who knows what Anonymous has planned for the future).
RoFlz. You are begining to come off like a shill who picks up his talking points from the state department every A.m..
I wonder how long the board is going to allow all this "concern' Trolling to go on.
Yes, no one should discount the possibility that I too am a stooge in the employ of the U.S. government. Anything is possible...
An Update on the Spamhaus allegations.
Guess what? For warning people of the possibility of Malware on WikiLeaks.org, Spamhaus is threatened with an Anonymous-style DDoS (scroll down to bottom of the original [url=http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665]post[/url]):
Like I warned before, the Anonymous pro-WikiLeaks hacker movement is allied with serious criminality.
Ooooh....serious criminality.
Where else do you think they're supposed to host it? Spammers host their servers where they're hard to take down. Imagine that, that wikileaks mirrors have to be hosted in "dangerous neighbourhoods" (lol) so that they're out of hte reach of the authorities. Who, of course, would shut them down. Wikileaks is hosting their servers where they can.
I wonder if the focus on "dangerous neighbourhoods" with "lots of crime", the "blackhat" network full of "Russian cybercriminals" would contravene babble policy.
You realize that anyone who's ever downloaded a single song or video without paying for it is a cybercriminal right? I suspect everyone on babble, including you, is a cybercriminal. It doesn't really bother me.
Your scaremongering is now approaching caricature. SERIOUS criminality. People sending out email spam for viagra. Really.
Stooge? Hardly. Dupe. Stooges get paid. You just believe everything all the State Department spin shovel fed to the MSM. I can respect a stooge. They get paid for selling out, and rely on the gullibility of dupes to keep themselves in chips and beer. You just don't know what side your bread the butter is on.
For example, you are advising people to support an unknown media start up, with absolutely no track record, entirely on the say-so of someone you read about on the Internet in the last week. In the meantime, there is Wikileaks with years of track record of protecting its sources, but also producing verified leaked facts.
I have been following wikileaks since I first discovered it three years ago, and I have to find a single case where they failed to produce the real goods.
As with your other disinformation and false associations this one, yet again, is without substance.
Even the somewhat alarmist Spamhaus which you (for a change) link has this disclamer:
and post their approved wikileaks mirror link.
but your modus oprandi of "guilt by (false) association" is your trademark.
From wikileaks.org:
http://wikileaks.info/press/spamhaus-false-allegations-against-wikileaks...
Here is the latest Google Safe Browsing advisory of wikileaks.info
Does this clean bill of health mean that it can NEVER have malicious code exploits? Of course not.
Almost NO website of any private or corporate entity is perfectly safe and can be hacked by persons or groups and have malicious code inserted.
All web browsing should be done with and effective firewall,site checker, patched programs, and antivrus capable of snagging most 0-day exploits.
That is common sense, you might have heard of it
I think you are labouring under a misunderstanding of how spam reaches your inbox.
Spammers don't operate servers. They hijack your computer and turn it into a server (linked up to a larger botnet of other hijacked PCs).
You can google this issue (try "spam" + "botnet"). Here are some [url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/botnet_spam_deluge/]stats[/url], however, compiled in 2008:
Note that the largest spam botnet was reckoned at 35k bots in 2008.
This is almost exactly the same size as the criminal botnet observed in the WikiLeaks/Anonymous DDoS against PayPal (30k in that case). It is not a stretch to assume that it was a standard criminal spam botnet that was turned against PayPal. This conclusion is given further credence by the migration this week of WikiLeaks.org to a notorious Russian ISP with well-documented criminal links.
The complete ignorance (to put it pointedly) of the technical issues involved in the WikiLeaks DDoS attacks is what I've been trying to address. Any way you slice it, there is serious criminality involved.
This is almost old news now, but this is a great article by Michael Moore:
Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange
John Pilger: GLobal Support for WikiLeaks is 'Rebellion' Against US Militarism, Secrecy (and vid)
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/15/john_pilger_journalists_must_supp...
Attorney: Swedish Case is a 'Holding Charge' to get Julian Assange Extradicted to US (and vid)
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/15/lawyer_alleged_swedish_sex_crime_is
Raelians hail Julian Assange!
The Raelians have [url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/raelian-movement-julian-assange-... John Pilger, Michael Moore, Bianca Jagger and the entire editorial staff of the Grauniad in declaring Julian Assange an Honorary Guide of Humanity:
The Raelians are a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raëlism]UFO religion[/url] who believe Jesus came to earth in a spaceship. They also have a thing for free love (and are based in Quebec, though I don't think the two points are related).
Personally, I [url=http://www.raelpress.org/news.php?item.147.1]prefer[/url] them to the dour and [url=http://www.queerty.com/scientologys-homophobic-backlash-crash-director-p... Scientologists. Definitely a mark in Assange's favour.
Amazing! You really have to dig deep to come up with bullshit.
Here is what Julian Assange says about UFO freaks:
As relevant as all your other flatulant smears by false association. I guess trolls get immunity from banning simply by admitting they are trolls.
Economics of Slaughter
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27051.htm
"It really is us against them..."
Ok, that's enough -=+=-. You've exhausted your quota of Concern Trolling: The Gathering cards. Please refrain from posting in any Wikileaks or Julian Assange threads from now on.
Well, at least I went out in style
. Bye all.
I'll step back in when all this over and say I told you so.
I noticed that the 9/11 inside job people, who initially embraced Julian Assange, have made a hard turn against him and are now accusing of being an Israeli agent and working for the Rothschilds.
What? Working for the Twin Powers?
Incredible powers of fabrication, and precognition as well. Why do I get the feeling that no matter what happens, it will still be "I told you so?" I mean why not? After all, with the so far exhibited skills at guilt by association and fact cherry picking, Julian Assange could walk on water, and he would still be the devil.
Apparently they felt that the smoking gun incriminating evidence was supposed to be conveyed though diplomatic cable, and when no such thing appeared they decided that Assange was in on the job.
I can't resist. The obvious accusation against a walking on water Assange is that he can't swim.
Around these parts in December, the accusation is that he can't skate.
like I said upstream, the circus designed to manufacture of consent for the get Assange agenda is just beginning.
Protect Assange; Don't Abuse Him - by John Pilger
http://www.countercurrents.org/pilger151210.htm
"vast numbers of decent people all over the world have rallied to Assange's support: people who are neither misogynists nor 'internet attack dogs' to quote Libby Brooks, and who support a very different set of values from those espoused by Charles Reich. They include many distinguished feminists, such as Naomi Klein, who wrote:
'Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake Up!'"
Hell Hath No Fury Like an Empire Mocked - by Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL16Ak02.html
"And all this after Assange had sent a message to the world via his mum Christine, relayed to the Australian news site Seven News. In it Assange didn't fail to drop a bomb shell:
'We now know that Visa, Mastercard and PayPal are instruments of US foreign policy. It's not something we knew before.'
Now that's a front page, if ever there was one. Instead of following the - granted, gripping-made-in-Scandanavia sex saga, the whole world ought to be discussing the really key issue of the times. Who is bound to benefit the most from crucial information leaks? Will it be the relentlessly hegemonic hyper-capitalism and its minions? Or will it be democratic anti-hegemonic global social movements - in sum, people power?"
AHEM!!! - mods - I have been personally told on at least one occasion, and I recall others being told the same thing, that we are NOT to mention 911 anywhere other than an official 911 thread. Am I to assume, given the above posts, that drive-by 911 smears are allowable at any time, although noting something that tends to provide 'en passant' evidence that the 911 official conspiracy theory is a pile of crap is not allowed?
Heh. I guess that is a "Gotcha!" moment.
You're apparently somewhat uniformed about the idea of 'manufacture of consent', a phrase and idea which dates to Walter Lippmann in the early years of the last century, and popularized more recently amongst the minority of those of us who understand what they are talking about by Chomsky and Herman.
Essentially, it means the flooding of all communications channels by a certain line of propaganda, in order to create consent amongst the general population for things the rulers want to do that the people might otherwise resist for various reasons.
In the instance of Wikileaks, very obviously the mainstream media (in this case all of the so-called major alternative media outlets are showing just how much a part of the mainstream they actually are with their promotion of all things wkileaks) are the ones doing the 'manurfacture of consent' to get people to accept the things Wikileaks 'reveals' as pretty serious stuff. Those of us who question whatever the mainstream media seems most insisentent about everyone accepting as 'gospel' are not in any way trying 'manuracture consent' by our questions - we are, indeed, doing quite the reverse, in suggesting to people they be a little less susceptible to such efforts to get them, by sheer weight of overload, consent to the urgings of everyone in the mainstream and so-called 'althernative' mainstream media. We are lonely voices in the wilderness trying to speak a bit of common sense - to accuse us of trying to 'manufacture' anything is simply ludicrous.
The people running our society are quite adept at twisting reality in this way when it suits their purposes in just this way, however - for example, the general feeling amongst 'the population at large' that we get our information from a 'lefty-liberal' media is just one such complete twisting of reality to support the neocon agenda. I don't pretend to have any answers about why they are so persistent with this Wikileaks stuff, but it is certainly taking a lot of attention that might better be directed elsewhere these days - for instance, they are currently robbing western democracies blind, to very, very little press attention, or attention from anyone else about getting to the bottom of this. (One other thing we are seeing once again demosntrated here is that if the mainstream media is not talking about it, even so-called 'progressives' or lefties don't see an issue as important. Which is one reason the neocons are winning, and will continue to win.)
But you missing the main theme of manufactured consent, in that manufactured consent is a very abstract and general process. It works thematically, as opposed to specifically. It's not about lacing a bunch of diplomatic cables with specific pieces of disinformation designed to propagate specific outcomes, its about generating a consent for the overt actions of the ruling elites through setting the agenda.
It's method is playing up certain themes, facts and ideas, and downplaying other themes, facts and ideas, not manufacturing facts.
If you think in terms of chess, the concept behind manufacturing consent, is that it generates acceptance of the general rules of the game. It is not about individual tactical maneuvers on the board itself.
So, for example, the reason that the cables themselves seem to fit so practically into the overweening aims of the powers that be, is because the cables themselves are part of the internal process through which consent is manufactured in the state department, and between administrators. We see this clearly in the cables relating to Canadian visits by American presidents. These cables are not meant to be "informational", they are designed to give the president talking points that he will use in Canada to play his part in manufacturing consent.
It is not about lacing diplomatic cables with information about the opinions of certain Arab leaders about Iran. Those basic facts can be manipulated variously through spin, as we saw. Chomsky was quite good on this when these leaks first came out. He took that information at face value, and contextualized it differently outside of the main frame of the manufactured consent, and de-spun it, by pointing out that Clinton was wrong to suggest that these opinions represented "Arab" opinion, because they are really only the opinions of US supported dictators, and not popular opinion.
But Clinton spins it differently, and here we see consent being manufactured by the prioritizing facts, themes and ideas that fit within the world view that suits the powers that Clinton represents. The whole point of manufacturing consent is not to put together elaborate puzzle palaces of hidden conspiracies, but to get people to accept the overt conspiracies that they can see boldly in the face, in the public record.
I think you can take it both ways - your 'big picture' view that the 'manufacture of consent' is basically creating a society which accepts the rulers' "right" to rule is certainly part of it, but in the included smaller way, it also speaks to the creation of consent for certain policies through 'full spectrum propaganda'. The Wikileaks stuff would be the second kind - but the first kind has created the kind of citizenry that is more than able and willing to be told what to think by the mainstream media.
I don't see any arguement for "full spectrum propaganda" in the theoretical analysis of "manufactures consent" as laid out by Chomsky that includes large scale manufacturing of facts. Chomesky religiously avoids anything that is not existent in record, and never engages in extrapolative conjecture.
Doupble Post.
JA is out on bail. Moving to a friend's estate in the country. Will this be a target for US drone attacks?
It will be a target of a successful "terrorist attack" with a note saying he did something to offend Allah. He then gets to be not only neutralized but also becomes a martyr for the empire.
Audio: Julian Assange speaks of his relief at being freed
Video of Julian Assange's Statement etc
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/video-of-julian-assanges-sta...
scroll down for vid statements by Mrs Assange and Tariq Ali
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/16/assange-real-fear-is-extradition-to-us/
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/17/us-offering-manning-deal-to-testify-a...
Sounds to me like the Obama Administration is just making shit up, and bribing Manning to go along with it. I'm curious to see where this goes.
The story I linked suggest Manning will resist:
But I'm not so sure he could hold out, given the psychological/physical torture Manning is subjected to:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/ind...
If Assange is extradited to the US, (by either Britain or Sweden) I'd expect his isolation treatment for "national security" reasons to be similar to that of Manning's in the military system.
It might result in a Wikileaks release of the encript code for the massive "insurance" file that apparently thousands have downloaded already.
Also, of the 250,000 US cables that WL has provided select mainstream newspapers, I think only about 1% so far have been joint released publically in redacted form by WL&newspapers. A complete unredacted dump of the files might happen.
This of course would not help Assange's situation once his tormentors get their mitts on him.
http://www.france24.com/en/20101215-insuranceaes256-julian-assange-conti...
Can I say I [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden]told you[/url] so, [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-anonymous-hierarch...?
No, -=+=-, you cannot. You've lost the privilege of posting in Wikileaks threads forever. It seems I can't convince you of that. How's this: if you post in a Wikileaks thread again, including this one, I'll ban you.
From what I've read, the encript code is set up as a "dead man" feature. Assange must contact WikiLeaks within a certain time every day. Failure to do so would automatically enact the code which in turn, automatically releases the information: documents, cables, video, etc.
The Guardian has 400,000. The truth is out there. I hope it's all released some day.
Supporters Liken Bradley Manning's Detention to Torture (and vid) - by David Edwards
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/supporters-bradley-manning-detention-...
"Coleen Rowley, a former special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division, told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Wednesday, that it appears Manning is receiving the same type of harsh treatment reserved for terrorism detainees"
Let us hope there is maximum international pressure directed at the American psychos to ensure Manning is supported as much as possible and not abandoned in the way Canada did Omar Khadr.
Manning Within His Rights If He Gave Secrets to WikiLeaks - by Sherwood Ross
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Manning-Within-His-Rights-by-Sherwood-R...
"As the US [and Canada] is now an international aggressor, do Americans [or Canadians] still owe it allegiance? If citizen releases information about crimes [Canada or] the US commits, Can he or she be legally punished? These questions arise with the arrests of Australian Julian Assange and PFC Bradley Manning.."
It looks like the cruel and inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning could be a means to soften him up to make him more amenable to a plea bargain deal:
A more personalized insight into Bradley Manning's life behind bars:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-17/bradley-mannin...
Sherwood Ross lays it out nicely - the US criminal empire has done plenty to justify leaking it's diplomat's cables.
Those diplomats no longer operate "in the name of the people". Elected officials or officially appointed, the government that claims in it's constitution that it is "by and for the people" cannot go beyond the limitations of morality or legality that the people of that nation would approve of.
And if they do, there is justification to leak their private cables.
I think if they have 400,000 docs to leak..Leak them!
It seems the longer they pussy foot around the more they open themselves and a lot of innocent people who are willing to fight for freedom of speech to US and CIA threat...and the smearing etc.
Are they pussy footing because they want to keep it in the news for an extended period of time or for leverage when the US makes a move and arrests Assange....hence using the leaks as a bargaining chip....in which case accusations of lies will result, which will negate many of the leaks as revenge and that's all.
Leak them NOW!
rabble seems to be behaving strange today
Pages