- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Nameless OneParticipantI am well aware that VeteransToday writers often include opinions as often as they include facts, which is what I was referring to by saying that there is some good information in the bottom half of that specific article, since it seemed to touch on more facts than the first 1/3 or 1/2 of the article. Particularly, I find Mr. Netanyahu's supportive statements about Wikileaks (why is he supportive of Wikileak's attacks against his American ally?), and the lack of reports regarding Israel in the Wikileak's releases (as Xeno mentioned earlier), suspicious at the very least, especially considering that the UN has filed multiple reports documenting well-known Israeli Military abuses of Palestinian civilians. (see the UN report here: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/report/A_HRC_12_37.doc ) You would think there would be some type of documents in these massive leaks which shed light on Israel's abusive military tactics, yet for some reason, the documents released have been cherry-picked in such a way that there are virtually no documents (if any) that paint Israel in bad light, but plenty of documents which push for war in Iran, based on what I have read from multiple sources (not just VT).
1) They've released about 0.5% of the cables they have obtained. WikiLeaks has been massaging the mainstream media to obtain maximum exposure. You can expect some big revelations in the future, now that the world's attention has been drawn to their operations.
2) Diplomatic cables are not a straight-forward presentation of information. You can bet the subject of Israel has come up in meetings with all sorts of different national representatives. But you can't expect the diplomats to wire that kind of information back home… the special relationship with Israel is an aspect of the central dogma of American foreign policy. There is, in other words, a selection bias involved here. The State Department does not want to hear criticism of Israel but it certainly wants to know more about Iran. The contents of the cables released thus far reflects this bias.The conceit under which you and VT seem to labour is this notion that the cables available to (and so far released by) WikiLeaks represent a full account of what is really going on behind the scenes… and the lack of certain types of information indicates that this is one big conspiracy to manifest a crackdown on Internet freedoms, a war on Iran, or some other nefarious goal. This isn't logical nor plausible. If forces within the US government are all but omnipotent then there are any number of other schemes that they could execute to incite war with Iran without fucking up diplomatic relationships with all kinds of different nations, allies included. Yes, I understand this idea that “it's so crazy they'd never do it” is a great cover, and a common trope in conspiracy literature, but it is applied indiscriminately within that same culture, and there is absolutely zero evidence for such a position.
You can always count on counterculture to revolt against anything that captures the popular imagination, no matter how sound or unsound. War with Iraq, environmentalism, or WikiLeaks – whatever it may be – reactionaries will always be able to manufacture some kind of paranoid fantasy completely at odds with what seems to be going on. Of course, sometimes we are entirely correct to be paranoid, but the 5% of times where paranoia proves to be correct does not validate the 95% of times where the theory advance is complete bullshit, as it clearly is in this case.
PookztAMemberYou can always count on counterculture to revolt against anything that captures the popular imagination, no matter how sound or unsound. War with Iraq, environmentalism, or WikiLeaks – whatever it may be – reactionaries will always be able to manufacture some kind of paranoid fantasy completely at odds with what seems to be going on. Of course, sometimes we are entirely correct to be paranoid, but the 5% of times where paranoia proves to be correct does not validate the 95% of times where the theory advance is complete bullshit, as it clearly is in this case.
first, a few articles of many discussing one of the concerns regarding Wikileaks:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/898653
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS1K420101129
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=234101another reason i am skeptical of Wikileaks is because of Assange's comments about 9/11. Anyone with half a brain (maybe even less) can figure out that the official story of 9/11 is a lie, for there is an overwhelming sum of easily verifiable physical evidence which contradicts our government's explanation. so for Assange to refer to 9/11 as a “false conspiracy” makes me very suspicious of him and Wikileaks:
His (Assange's) obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? “I believe in facts about conspiracies,” he says, choosing his words slowly. “Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news.” What about 9/11? “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.”
Again, anyone with half a brain can figure out that the official story of 9/11 is a lie, as there is an overwhelming sum of easily verifiable physical evidence which contradicts the official story. Since Assange doesn't seem to be a dumbass, I am curious if he is covering for someone or some group. Hopefully, the truth will shine through eventually…
PauldoMemberYou just edited your reply as I was writing my out my response! You originally started off with Pauldo, instead of how it is now (Mr. Doyle). What else did you change? Why do you do that?
PauldoMemberYou just edited your reply as I was writing my out my response! You originally started off with Pauldo, instead of how it is now (Mr. Doyle). What else did you change? Why do you do that?
Ha…this wasn't in your original reply to my post either:
“Who are you trying to fool by clipping out such relevant information?”
Don't you get it that it's kind of unethical to go back and change your posts once someone else has responded?
PookztAMemberDon't you get it that it's kind of unethical to go back and change your posts once someone else has responded?
no one had responded yet, notice the time stamp… the last edit of my reply to you was before the next post was made…
My last edit on that post was at 08:16:13 PM, and the next post, which came from Xeno, was at 8:21:09 PM.
So, please stop making stuff up Mr. Doyle… I thought I wasn't going to need to reply to you again, but I guess I just did 🙁
Also, I already explained to you (long ago) why I often edit my posts after making them, due to a scrolling issue, in case you were in the process of typing up a reply while I was still editing.
I have to get back to studying, cya
-Abe
PauldoMemberDon't you get it that it's kind of unethical to go back and change your posts once someone else has responded?
no one had responded yet, notice the time stamp… the last edit of my reply to you was before the next post was made…
My last edit on that post was at 08:16:13 PM, and the next post, which came from Xeno, was at 8:21:09 PM.
So, why are you making shit up Mr. Doyle? Why are you falsely claiming that I edited my post after someone had replied to it, when that is not the case? Why do you lie so much?
Furthermore, I already explained why I often edit my posts after making them, due to a scrolling issue, in case you were in the process of typing up a reply while I was still editing.
Adios,
-Abe
Oh my bad, I didn't check the time stamps. I jumped to the conclusion this one time based upon your past practices (not going to pretend you haven't gone back and factually changed your posts after someone has replied over the past number of years). You DO admit though to going back and factually editing your reply to me? Your just not editing your posts for spelling and grammar. Why change the greeting from Pauldo to Mr. Doyle at all? Why add in “who are you trying to fool”?
So you like typed out your whole reply, hit the Post button and then decided you needed to sound more stern by calling me Mr. Doyle? “…trying to fool”…I can't even imagine what your thinking on the need to add that was. Can't you type out your response in notepad first and copy/paste once you are satisfied with your response. 1. I just kinda find it weird that you do this. Going back to edit spelling and grammar is one thing. Yeah I understand your past explanation about how this happens. 2. It's annoying. When replying to people I try to hit the majors points the other person has made. Annoying when those points have changed in-between reading someone's post and typing out your response. 3. It's intellectually weak to go back and edit the points, language, style after you have published it where others can read it. If you someday get published in a medical journal do you think you can go back and make factual/stylistic edits once it's been published? I try to stick to the practice of not going back and editing my posts at all once I hit that Post button. Even if I embarrassingly misused a word or when I re-read my post and it's completely nonsensical once I hit Post it stands and is now part of the public record.
I just found a nonsensical line I wrote:
>>”You just edited your reply as I was writing my out my response!”
“…writing MY out MY response”. Whetever Pauldo, you dumb ass. Take my advice or not, it's just bad form to go back and edit. You can easily find a work around to your browser problem.
Another intellectually weak thing to do is to re-post articles that you haven't read in full and that you only skimmed through. If I re-post something I have definitely read it in entirety. Don't you see your posts as a direct reflection of yourself? Don't you feel a responsibility for the truthfulness of what you re-post? And I'll bet you anything that you only skimmed through those 3 articles you posted for the word ISRAEL and anything negative about ISRAEL. Once you determined the article fit with your world view you turned around and re-posted it. You have obviously had a bug up your bum about Israel for a number of years now. If you only subscribe to RSS feeds from sites that fit your world view then you're only going to see articles that fit your world view. I'd love to read the list of sites you feed on.
This Vet Today site isn't just biased; it's made up of complete conjecture. Sourcing and quoting articles and information from countries that happen to be Israel's enemy doesn't give them much validity. Here's another Israel article from Vet Today:
>>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/11/did-pm-netanyahu-get-a-lethal-dose-of-du/
Have you read about the devastating forest fire that recently ravaged Israel's last forest? 42 people dead. The article opens with talk of this tragedy and then the author uses that as a launching pad to go on a rant about nuclear Israel and ends up talking about some theory regarding the sperm count of Israeli men. WTF. Bizarro world! …where everything is opposite of how it really is in the normal world. Did you watch Super Friends as a kid?
Lastly, I would love, absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE to have a public discussion about how you have come to the conclusion that “(I)…lie so much” and what exactly it is that you think I have lied about. Let's hear it! List out the lies as well as any perceptions you have of me. We'll take it head on and get clear about that.
p.s. Ha! Ha! I knew that wasn't going to be your only response to me. 😛
cosmicvibrationsMemberOh boy. Anyway. ::) Wikileaks.
This is a really huge deal. I hope people are following it, I know I am. As Xeno said, some tiny percentage of the cables have been released, and the releases won't stop. As far as I can gather, the only way to stop the releases is to physically kill everyone involved in WL. And even then, who knows what measures they have in place. Short of that, it sounds like the world will be sitting, watching, and waiting for quite some time.
This is an unusual case where government power is failing to assert the control it wants.
Nameless OneParticipantfirst, a few articles of many discussing one of the concerns regarding Wikileaks:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/898653
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS1K420101129
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=234101another reason i am skeptical of Wikileaks is because of Assange's comments about 9/11. Anyone with half a brain (maybe even less) can figure out that the official story of 9/11 is a lie, for there is an overwhelming sum of easily verifiable physical evidence which contradicts our government's explanation. so for Assange to refer to 9/11 as a “false conspiracy” makes me very suspicious of him and Wikileaks:
His (Assange's) obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? “I believe in facts about conspiracies,” he says, choosing his words slowly. “Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news.” What about 9/11? “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.”
Again, anyone with half a brain can figure out that the official story of 9/11 is a lie, as there is an overwhelming sum of easily verifiable physical evidence which contradicts the official story. Since Assange doesn't seem to be a dumbass, I am curious if he is covering for someone or some group. Hopefully, the truth will shine through eventually…
Your argument:
1) WikiLeaks has published diplomatic cables that fail to criticize Israel, and
2) Julian Assange considers 9/11 to be a “false conspiracy”
THEREFORE
WikiLeaks is covering for the US government! CONSPIRACY!Is that about right?
No real need to pick this one apart…
PookztAMemberXeno,
It amazes me how frequently you demonstrate your lack of evidence-based thinking by making unscientific, inaccurate generalizations about my opinions. (twice in this thread alone)
Not only are you wrong about my opinion, but furthermore, you look rather silly (in my opinion) after drawing such false conclusions based on your misinterpretation of two or three very brief posts of mine.
I won't bother correcting you, for I could careless whether you truly know what my opinion is, but I just wanted to point out that you are wrong, just as you were with your belief in the official story of 9/11 (and many other things).
Have fun discussing Wikileaks.
See ya,
-Abe
_eNdo_Guest::)
cosmicvibrationsMemberUmmm, alrighty, well, thread magically cleaned up I see. Anywho. Wikileaks and stuff. M'kay?
PauldoMemberWow, a couple anti-Israel Wikileaks released this week. Duh, I guess they just didn't release them until now with so many documents to go through.
PookztAMemberJust wanted to share my opinion quickly…
Those articles are weak and hardly incriminating in comparison to the well-documented human rights violations the UN has released regarding Israel (and no 'leak' was required for the UN) and to the information Wikileaks has released on illegal and/or dishonest US military events, but still, good to see that they have been released. My concern that Wikileaks was taking it easy on Israel was just one of my concerns (which still stands), and it was a minor one anyway.
My major concern with Wikileaks is Assange's lack of tackling 9/11 and his absurd claims that 9/11 is a “false conspiracy that distracts people away from true conspiracies”, especially considering that the true nature of 9/11 is now so blatantly obvious to such a large audience that even FOX News is starting to do 9/11 “Truth” segments (lol). In addition to people like Gov. Jesse Ventura (ret.) and Noam Chaumsky speaking out, as well as FOX News' Glenn Beck, Judge Napolitano, and various guests they have had on, Geraldo Rivera just recently joined the club by having a special 9/11 “Truth” segment on one of his broadcasts, but of course, to push the unscientific 'explosives did it' it theory.
It seems as if the true terrorists are setting up a straw man argument, so that if they are ever threatened with prosecution, they can easily falsify the 'explosives did it' story which is not supported by the evidence, and they will go free forever due to Double Jeopardy.
My concerns with Wikileaks still stand, because they are not tackling the most important issue affecting the world today, which is 9/11. It started the wars, drives the wars, involves energy security, drives policy changes here at home and abroad, and contributes to distrust and tension throughout the world.
I am glad that Wikileaks helps bring more truthful information to the table, but as long as they avoid the very obvious issue of 9/11, I am concerned that they may be just another distractor and blame-shifter in my opinion.
My 2 cents 🙂
-Abe
Nameless OneParticipantThey don't write the cables you know…
PookztAMember -
AuthorPosts
