wikileaks - too good to be true?

Cueball wrote:

It is not a theory. The evidence is right there, in the public view, all the time.

When I use "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative, I don't simply mean "powerful people doing bad things", or even "powerful people doing bad things in secret". That's just run-of-the-mill politics.

What I would mean by "conspiracy theory" is something that alleges the alignment of power is radically different than what is commonly understood. So, for example, the following would NOT be a conspiracy theory...

"Kennedy, the CIA, and right-wing Cubans plotted to overthrow Castro in the early 1960s".

I don't consider this a conspiracy theory, because it's generally known that Kennedy, the CIA, and right-wing Cubans didn't like Castro. So the statement, even if contains allegations about something done in secret, is only adding a little more detail to the existing understanding of how things worked. On the other hand...

"The USSR encouraged the arab countries to attack Israel in 1967, because all those Jews in the politburo knew the arabs would lose, and they(the politburo Jews) wanted Israel to get more land".

I would call this a conspiracy theory, because it's not only alleging that there are backroom dealings, but that everyone assumed to be on one side is secretly on the other side, by virtue of connections through some shadowy network unknown to the general public(except for the enlightened conspiracy theorists). This goes considerably beyond claiming that one group that is known to dislike another group is planning for bad things to happen to the group they don't like.

By the way, the "Jewish politburo" theory of the 1967 war is taken directly from an anti-semitic tract I once read on the topic. The same book also alleged that the movement for sanctions against South Africa was motivated by Communist Jews in the ANC, who calculated that sanctions would somehow benefit South African Jewish businessmen.  

voice of the damned wrote:

Cueball wrote:

It is not a theory. The evidence is right there, in the public view, all the time.

When I use "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative, I don't simply mean "powerful people doing bad things", or even "powerful people doing bad things in secret". That's just run-of-the-mill politics.

What I would mean by "conspiracy theory" is something that alleges the alignment of power is radically different than what is commonly understood. So, for example, the following would NOT be a conspiracy theory...

"Kennedy, the CIA, and right-wing Cubans plotted to overthrow Castro in the early 1960s".

I don't consider this a conspiracy theory, because it's generally known that Kennedy, the CIA, and right-wing Cubans didn't like Castro. So the statement, even if contains allegations about something done in secret, is only adding a little more detail to the existing understanding of how things worked. On the other hand...

Your definition may work for you, but I think it is incorrect. Any plot to achieve some end that is undertaken behind the scenes of the context is a conspiracy. A theory about a conspiracy suggests that the conspiracy itself is not common knowledge. Otherwise it would simply be a statement of fact, or a statement describing a well-known conspiracy, i.e., Watergate.

Cueball's example is not a conspiracy, since the plot is not to ruin the environment for the sake of ruining the environment, it is simply to extract profits with little care for the effects this has on nature and people.

Maysie wrote:

ravenise, you're spamming babble with your super-long posts. Stop it or you will be banned.

What?  Long posts are offensive now?

Geez, you should have been around here when Markbo posted.

votd wrote:

When I use "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative, I don't simply mean "powerful people doing bad things", or even "powerful people doing bad things in secret". That's just run-of-the-mill politics.

What I would mean by "conspiracy theory" is something that alleges the alignment of power is radically different than what is commonly understood. So, for example, the following would NOT be a conspiracy theory...

Good point.

I've been soundly criticised elsewhere hereabouts for using the term,"conspiracy theorist," and have subsequently come up with the more accurate "conspiracy fetishist," as it acknowledges the lack of theoretical grounding necessary for a decent hypothesis, and instead goes to the heart (if you will) of the matter; that seeing conspiracies everywhere satisfies an emotional need to explain away one's sense of powerlessness.

jas wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Cueball wrote:

It is not a theory. The evidence is right there, in the public view, all the time.

When I use "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative, I don't simply mean "powerful people doing bad things", or even "powerful people doing bad things in secret". That's just run-of-the-mill politics.

What I would mean by "conspiracy theory" is something that alleges the alignment of power is radically different than what is commonly understood. So, for example, the following would NOT be a conspiracy theory...

"Kennedy, the CIA, and right-wing Cubans plotted to overthrow Castro in the early 1960s".

I don't consider this a conspiracy theory, because it's generally known that Kennedy, the CIA, and right-wing Cubans didn't like Castro. So the statement, even if contains allegations about something done in secret, is only adding a little more detail to the existing understanding of how things worked. On the other hand...

Your definition may work for you, but I think it is incorrect. Any plot to achieve some end that is undertaken behind the scenes of the context is a conspiracy. A theory about a conspiracy suggests that the conspiracy itself is not common knowledge. Otherwise it would simply be a statement of fact, or a statement describing a well-known conspiracy, i.e., Watergate.

Cueball's example is not a conspiracy, since the plot is not to ruin the environment for the sake of ruining the environment, it is simply to extract profits with little care for the effects this has on nature and people.

No part of the definition of conspiracy requires it to be unknown or behind the scenes. It only has to be unlawful. The fact that it is unlawful, usually means that it happens behind the scenes. In the modern world many things that are considered to be unlawful go on right in the public view, or even made legal.

A good example would be Stephen Harper undermining the authority of parliament by prorogation. In the case of the Tar Sands project, many illegal and immoral things are being done right in the open, and the perpetrators know they can get away with it because no one will prosecute them.

Another example, George Bush's conspiracy of the "willing" to invade Iraq, something that was plainly illegal under international law. The list is endless.

James Laxer has this rather good piece about this -- Wake up: Arbitrary rule is all around us.

A lot of people are confused on this point about Fascism. Fascism is not characterized by extreme authoritarianism expressed through law, but by extreme authoritarianism expressed through lawlessness: Arbitrary rule at the whim of the elite. Witness the consternation that the former director of CSIS expressed to the US embassy about rule of law and his distain for the courts.

You mean the same people who think we should talking is a better solution than killing are the same people who think government should be accountable?  So what?

I want effective diplomacy and I think the war hawks who are always pushing for more wars and more killing are the ones inhibiting it.  Get real Sven.

People have a tendency either to forget, or maybe just not know, that Wikileaks has been involved in the leaking of all sorts of material in the past which is entirely unrelated to the American empire.  They've released things such as Scientology texts, the British National Party membership list (resulting in the dismissal of at least one British police officer), Australia's Internet censorship list, and information on Kenyan political violence.

I'm deeply troubled by this idea that there is "nothing new" in what we've seen so far from these cables.  I understand when I hear that kind of statement come from places like the Washington Post - they have a political agenda which makes it necessary for them to minimise the impact of challenges to the dominant cultural narrative that they help to push.  But when I hear it from people on the left, I find it disheartening.

Is there really anyone here who genuinely knew that the US was trying to steal the e-mail passwords, credit card numbers, and biometric information of top UN officials?  Was anyone aware that Israel was trying to stir up ethnic tensions in Iran?  Did anyone know that the British trade envoy was actively promoting corruption and neo-colonialism to US diplomats?  Or that China is growing tired of North Korea and is hoping for reunification?

When I ask these questions, I don't mean "Did your world view tell you that these things were likely?"  I mean did you actually know those things, as in - did you have solid empirical evidence which made these things clear and generally indisputable?  Some people may have simply decided that they know "how the world works" and have convinced themselves that whatever they want to believe is true.  But for those of us who genuinely value things like truth, and evidence, and honesty, the fact that we now have solid physical proof of things that we had long figured were likely to be true, is actually a very big deal.

It's easy for some people to forget, maybe, that there are a lot of people who do buy the dominant narrative in the mainstream media.  There are people who really believe, for example, that police forces, intelligence services, etc. are run by noble, honest, trustworthy people.  So when we can show them proof that the former CSIS director was going to American politicians complaining that the Canadian public is stupid and doesn't know what's best for it, that's important for us to grab hold of!  And my impression of why some people on the left dismiss this information as "nothing new" is because they actually hold the same condescending views of their country as the CSIS director does - they think people are too stupid to know any better, so who cares what these cables say, everyone else isn't as smart as me and they just don't get it.

The fact that we now have a constantly expanding amount of proof that our viewpoint is in fact accurate is extremely important.  Less than 1% of the cables have been released so far, but I've already amassed 15 or 20 cables that I think provide valuable information or evidence about political issues that I consider important.  I read something a while back, I think it was by Michael Albert, who said that he couldn't understand why the left would give up Truth to the right.  The right has money, power, influence, military strength, etc., but the only thing the left has on its side is Truth.  And if we ignore the fact that the recent Wikileaks releases (the war logs and the diplomatic cables) provide us with considerable truth to back up our beliefs, that they show that we're right, then all we're doing is giving up the one thing that we have in our favour.

I like it when people take the time to write thoughtful and intelligent posts like that.

Cueballs: "And you expect information about "false flag" operations to be transmitted by diplomatic cable?"

@Cueballs: No.

Catchfire: “wrong thread”

@Catchfire: Post somewhere right.

Dingles said:

“It's as if some people want Wikileaks to provide a smoking gun document that says "we sure did a good job on that WTC operation. Be sure to thank those Mossad guys when you see them. Signed: GW Bush".

Ain't gonna happen. ”

Congratulations, you just basically repeated what I said... and yes indeed any sane human being wants to see leaks, and the people behind 911 behind bars, I do not expect an Israeli/US intelligence front to leak information about their own false flag operations through Wikileaks. Intelligence analysts have proven many documents are fraudulent.  Every piece of intelligence that was leaked was carefully sifted by elements within the US government, and the Israeli government before Zioleaks leaked it.  I am confident that there are people in or affiliated with the intelligence community who haven't sold their souls, and that there are people with evidence and documents proving these connections... it doesn't have to be the “MOSSAD.”

Jingleswrote:

Like Assange said, people are so busy manufacturing elaborate conspiracies when the real ones, the dangerous ones, are right in front of them the whole time. 

@Dingle: Then start a anti-tar-sands organization if that is your specialty.  The 1.3 million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Palestine...  and the endless wars and conquest that could lead potentially to nuclear war because of a lie isn't dangerous to you? Don't answer that.   The conspiracy theorists peddling the official 9-11 delusion are predictable and outraged at the fact that not everyone out there are sheep and lobotomized half-wits that couldn't tell the "truth" from a hole in the ground filled with molten steel. Once you get over that hump... follow the money, follow the star: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esi6L0HchUQ

@Jingles Assange is a poster boy who should be in prison, but magically jumps from tv show to tv show and never gets caught. Assange is most definitely a CIA/Mossad/ perhaps MI6 asset... and weather or not his current masters let him get away with great leaks in the past, wikileaks has been OUTED!... anything else is a joke and a conspiracy theory.

Catchfire wrote:

There is something poetic in conspiracy theorists who have such elegant explanations for every minute and accidental detail. It warms my heart.

Also, stop insulting babblers. That's a warning.

Or what? You will censor my account because you don't agree with what I say? So you can demonstrate you have no regard for freedom of speech on this public forum?  Listen Sir, I deal with conspiracy facts and I love a good debate. If you wish to challenge me with your conspiracy theories I am all for it.  I am not insulting people, just noting the obvious, and if you can't handle the obvious then tough luck.  It can be very frustrating watching everyone chase their tails.  Sometimes a little friction is necessary... but I will do my best to treat you with respect. 

They don't call him Censorfire for nothing.

I said what I said and if you cant understand it I cant help you.  Dig through some of the links I provided, they may help.  For example, this one I just ran across here: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=15333 

This wikileaks thing is turning into a fabricated media frenzy psy-op, a conquer and divide kind of thing, and a distraction from more important things going on in the world.  Wikileaks is compromised and can no longer be trusted.  Don't wast your time.  Wikileaks and Assange have been outed... they work for Israeli firsters in the west... AIPAC/Mossad.... Israel, and the bank, how ever high up the totem you can imagine.  I have made my point and I'm moving on although I might pop on now and again if there are any big revelations I come across.  Thanks for your time.

Here is an excellent interview:

The Ugly Truth Podcast Nov 30, 2010
 • November 30th, 2010

Jeff Gates of www.criminalstate.com joins the program to discuss the latest wikileaks controversy as an Israeli intelligence operation aimed at getting the US involved in war with Iran.

I see. Well that writer thinks that because he is completely clueless about history.

Here is why: The Royal families of both Saudi Arabia and Jordan are and always have been clients of western Imperialism Both owe their thrones to the powerful empires that put them their. First Britain, and the USA when it became the inheritor of the British Empire.

On the facts, he should know that the reason the Hashemites came to power in Jordan and Iraq (until 1959) is because they were awarded them as part of the deal where they fought against the Turks on the British side during WWI. You may recall Lawrence of Arabia. He was the bagman for the empire in that region during those days. In any case, the Sharif of Medina and Mecca (Hussein -- no relations to Saddam) were given the throne in Amman and Banghdad in exchange for their co-operation in the war against Turkey. For a brief while they were also supposed to be given Damascus, and Syria but France reneged on that part of the deal.

They thought they were going to be royal family of all of the Arabs, other than the Egyptians.

There was no way that the British were going to allow such a powerful (Pan-Arab) block to form, and so the King of the Hashemite (Sharif of Medina) was rudely unseated from his traditional lands in the Hejaz by the Saudi princes between 1930 and 1933. A move that was backed by the British, and so came into being the Saudi Royal family, and their control over what we now call today Saudi Arabia.

This deal even included some insider trading with Israel, when Jordan was theoretically at war with Israel in 1948. In fact no such thing happened. What happened was that Jordan occupied the West Bank as part of a deal between Israel and Jordan brokered by the British. There was some fighting around Jerusalem.

In fact both of these kingdoms entirely depend on the support of the American empire and support its goals 100%, because without that support they would almost certainly be overthrown in pretty short order, because Iran is the main supporter of their internal enemies. They most certainly do consider Iran to be the greatest threat to their power. The fact that they don't talk about it is because 80% of Arabs completely disagree with this view, and believe that Israel and the USA are the main threat to them, and not Iran.

This is partly because they are being repressed by dictatorships funded by the USA.

Their fear of Iran is an "open secret" and it is precisely because of this threat that these regimes were the main supporters of Saddam Hussien's war against Iran in the 1980's. In fact even the Iraqi dispute with Kuwait that resulted in the invasion of 1990 is directly linked to this issue because Kuwait was one of the countries that loaned money to Iraq so it could fight the war against Iran, and Kuwait was refusing to help Iraq deal with its economic issue by helping "fix" the international per barrel oil pricing.

So, to me the fact that we have the Hashemites and the Saudis secretly telling the US ambassador that they would like the USA to take out Iranian nuclear capability confirms the authenticity of the cables, because this is completely normal and predictable for these power elites to say those things. I would be highly suspicious of these cables if they said something other than Iran is the main enemy.

These regiemes entirely depend on the maintenance of the status quo in order to hold on to their personal political power (not to mention loads and loads of loot). The reason that they can not say these things publicly is because it would make these regimes even more unpopular than they already are with their people, because the people think Israel and the USA are the main enemies of the Arab people.

So for me these revelations about the views of the Arab kingdoms is no surprise at all. Therefore, it does not convince me that there is a plot to create consensus for an attack on Israel, but rather that Netanyahu is spinning this to his advantage. He cares not very much for how the Saudi princess are feeling, and is free to spin whatever story he likes.

The people who this harms is the government of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, because now if the USA or Israel actually does attack Iran, they can not escape blame for encouraging this and selling out the Arab's to the interests of imperial powers, yet one more time.

And one other point in reference to Siddiqui's column:

Quote:

The leak of 251,287 cables from America's 274 diplomatic posts spills no military secrets...

Why would you expect military secrets in diplomatic cables? The Afghan and Iraq war logs published earlier this year, on the other hand, did reveal a few things the military would have preferred remained secret.

I'm amazed at how many professional journalists and pundits are suddenly commenting as if [i]WikiLeaks[/i] only sprang into existence last weekend. Some of them write as if the previous document dumps didn't happen. Others write as if WL should be able to magically conjur up documents on request. Still others criticize them for not doing what the journalists themselves should be doing: taking the raw info in the leaked documents and putting it into context.

It fails for the same reason that the Arab leaders dare not say in public what they say in private about Iran. The

Quote:

monarchs and dictators know that their people do not consider Iran a threat.

That's also what Chomsky said although he labelled it as a profound hatred of democracy to consider only what the dictators think when making policy. 

America As A Way of Life: WikiLeaks Amid the 'Godless People'  -  by Phil Rockstroh

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Amnesia-As-A-Way-Of-Life--by-Phil-Roc...

What the Wiki-Saga Tells Us  - by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12022010.html

"The reaction to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange tells us all we need to know about the total corruption of our 'modern' world which in fact is a throwback to the Dark Ages..

The average [north] american reporter and editor must be very angry that his/her cowardice is so clearly exposed by Julian Assange. The [north] american media is a whore.."

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

What the Wiki-Saga Tells Us  - by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12022010.html

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

Anyone who believes the US government about anything is the epitome of gullibility.

He can say that again.

And while some still arguing about whether the wikileaks is a zionist plot or imperialist plot etc, governments and corporations are coordinating their efforts under the radar to shut it down. Shame on us.

BTW is it time to boycott Amazon?

WikiLeaks fights to stay online

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/ap_on_hi_te/wikileaks

Quote:

Wikileaks struggled to stay online Friday as corporations and governments moved to cut its access to the Internet, a potentially crippling blow for an organization dedicated to releasing secret information via the web.

The American company that directed traffic to the website wikileaks.org stopped late Thursday after cyber attacks threatened the rest of its network. WikiLeaks responded by moving to a Swiss domain name, wikileaks.ch — and calling on activists for support. Two companies host the Swiss domain name, one of which is in France. The other is in Sweden.

On Friday, France moved to ban WikiLeaks from French servers...

It can be located at http://213.251.145.96

From the yahoo article:

Quote:

"Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases," Assange said on the Guardian's site.

WikiLeaks' Swedish server host, Bahnhof, confirmed that the website had been hit by a cyber attack just before it leaked thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables.

"The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops," Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow said in a tweet reposted by WikiLeaks to its 300,000-odd followers.

wikileaks.ch is down. They are taking it off DNS servers.  use the IP address.

The Persecution of WIKileaks Julian Assange

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d03.shtml

"He is the target of an international manhunt for his role in lifting the lid on the lies and criminal operations of imperialist powers the world over - above all, in the United States..'

It's not a movie if the pictures don't move.

Look, what you've got is somebody droning on and on about paranoid bullshit.  What a waste of bandwidth.

It's interesting to watch different people look at the same documents and come to diametrically opposed conclusions about what they say and what they mean. The common thread seems to be: the cables don't reveal what I want them to reveal so the entire exercise must be bogus. But the expectations being projected on the leaked documents are simply unrealistic.

In fact, we're dealing with cables written by American State Department employees for other American State Department employees with the knowledge that they'll ultimately be posted to a system for which 2-1/2 to 3 million other Americans have clearance to access. The vast majority of them are likely to be relatively mundane. And certainly no State Department employee who wants to keep his job is going to write a scathing expose of American foreign policy -- or Israeli policy or actions given the current political climate in the US -- and send it home to the boss or classify it in such a way that it would end up on the system it was leaked from. It's just not going to happen.