Skepticism is healthy.

So is 5 fruits and veg :)

I didn't know that one... Touche mon frere.

Mindless skepticism isn't. Its sad when the leaking of conspiracies is a conspiracy, in the eyes of our contemporary conspiracy theorists. They'll never be satisfied.

I think Assange is intentionally drawing attention to himself with the hero-narrative in order to deflect attention from all the anonymous volunteers who do most of the job. It works; mainstream media seems to be completely unaware that wikileaks is not the work of a single man.

As for “it all suits the US agenda”… There’s plenty of incriminating stuff already, such as further documentation on civilian murders in Iraq. But I suggest you sit back and wait for the more juicy bits to be released :)

Juicy bits have been released. But nothing world-changing as of yet. That's why I don't trust wikileaks. All this data. But it never seems to get to the point.

True revolutionary? Classic shill? I remain unconvinced either way.

The (stated) point is not to prove crimes and make government seem guilty (which, as we know, changes nothing; see the (lack of) reaction to the Collateral Murder video). The point is to make government so paranoid of leaks that they will be forced to change the way they operate.

Here’s an article on Wikileaks’ purpose. Briefly, they believe an authoritarian government must operate as a conspiracy (for authoritarian plans would be opposed if they were open). But the conspiracy cannot be too secretive, or it will have trouble functioning. So they find a happy medium, away from public view but still with efficient information flows. The purpose of Wikileaks is to ruin that nice balance and disrupt the flows. By making government too cautious about leaks it will start to fear itself, and hopefully this will give incentive to stop with secretive, and thus authoritarian, actions (a bit optimistic, I know). The audience they really want to reach is government; the public opinion, mainstream media etc. are just means to an end.

I feel like you're expecting some kind of plot twisting curveball, but that's not how this world works. The information that has been released is incredibly juicy, but it sounds like you're not as informed as you think you are.

The information that has been released is incredibly juicy

You got any juicy bits that weren't already known, or which actively damage US interests, rather than merely being an embarassment?

I found this cable to be extremely juicy, showing the real attitudes of the british royals WRT shady business dealings and Russia:

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/29/prince-andrew-uk-us-western-europe-back-in-the-great-game/

Well, I agree that it's juicy to have a confirmation for an obvious supposition, but who actually believes that bullshit about "fighting terrorists" anyway?

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the British royals are engaged enough to inhabit some kind of reality.

If the MSM actually did their job, then we'd be debating the real issues, such as this one, not the bullshit propaganda that is fed to us every day.

I don't see the juicy factor here. This is only interesting if take the media as your point of reference. This attitude was quite open a couple of decades ago, it was well accepted that the world was polarized and that the west was on the side of good and must conquer all with democracy capitalism etc. The media of course down plays that.

As far as I know the major western nations colonized most of the world at one time or another and if you really pay attention, nobody has apologized or had reason to change their attitude about their intentions. It is out in the open in history - which maybe people missed for various reasons but there is no evidence that the world domination games has ended - there's a book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman which is far juicier than this.

My high expectations are based on what I read in released classified documents on historical events.

Ah, it's true, there is some juicy stuff in history.

This is where you are missing the point of everything wiki leaks stands for, they are not putting this information so that you can read it and think "hey, this isn't that great, I had a feeling this would happen". They are putting this information up so that the initiators (the ones who act), can actually make that happen. And do you know who those initiators are? The answer is simple really: it's everyone, you! You have to act for the facts! For what is hidden around us is truth, and truth is the power of the people, it is why the us government is fighting so hard to stop the leaks, because it is slowly giving people (you), more power! Harness this power my brothers, for we are the ones capable of tearing into the lies (juicy parts) that are holding us all down!

the cables were easy to get ahold of. its really just a bunch of internal boring office memos. 100,000 people have security clearance for that stuff. the iraq/afghan war report also have very widespread clearance. so its just not likely to have that much info in there.

its not like they would have cables saying "Bush here. Kill that David Kelly guy, make it look like a suicide. Stop."

at least the iraq/afghan war reports detailed actual war crimes and events that people should be prosecuting over. instead we are wasting our time debating if prince andrew is a snot.

the over-reaction by the US is what's interesting, and as leoboiko points out below, that's entirely the point.

Yeah I bet Assange has almost nothing to do with the day-to-day stuff.

There IS no Julian Assange.

What bothers me is that Wikileaks has an "insurance policy" of information that is probably far more eye-popping than what they've released to date. If they truly care about sharing the whole truth with the public, they need to bite the bullet (perhaps quite literally) and release that information too. To withhold anything makes them nothing more than blackmail artists at best and gatekeepers at worst and even if it ensures their safety, it means that we're missing potentially earth-shattering truths. Moreover, they're playing right into the government's desire to put controls on the internet.

It also bothers me that the releases they've made often fit the US foreign policy agenda quite nicely. First off, they still claim Bin Laden is alive, which is utter BULLSHIT. Also, just as Pakistan falls apart, we learn from Wikileaks that they support the Taliban. Now, as we ramp up tensions with Iran, Wikileaks reports that Lebanon supported an invasion which obviously shatters Iran's alliances. Wikileaks also claims China is ready to abandon North Korea, even as we have an embedded CNN reporter aboard the USS George Washington.

If they were to destroy the career of even a single head-of-state of a western nation (that's in good graces with the US), it would go a long way toward legitimizing Wikileaks. As long as their revelations continue to include tidbits about "terrorist" nations while showing not much beyond mild bickering between the US and its allies (gee big surprise... we're not too fond of Merkel), I'll have to assume they're just a psy-op to appease a public that is running away from the MSM spin machine in droves.

One last point regarding the pending big-bank release... the public has been clamoring for Wall Street heads on stakes for years now, and to date we've gotten nothing but Madoff who was compelled to own up as his Ponzi scheme collapsed. Ever since, the Madoff clones that are endemic to Wall Street have been sheltered by government bailouts. I suspect that the last election sent a message to Washington that we want our pound of flesh, but they can't jeopardize their corporate election-cash gravy train by defending the public interest. What if, however, a 3rd party that's "beyond their control" exposed the corporate malfeasances of a few particularly dirty CEOs of banks that are destined for collapse anyhow?

This way, the government saves face with its corporate masters while giving the public its pound of flesh since the Wikileaks "revelation" commands that something be done, all while staving off the collapse of the next Ponzi scheme by taking the company into receivership (aka "pulling an AIG") before it all comes crashing down? If I were a CEO of a major bank or investment firm, I'd definitely be suspicious of Wikileaks' motives and origins.

Also, don't forget this guy believes 9/11 exactly as its told by Washington

Maybe because he has information from the Saudis proving their government were the ones actually responsible?

I dont know who was behind that but that my soul burn in hell if the wtc did not have explosives

Also if he has information he should give it to the fbi since they have not charged anyone (not even bin laden) with that crime

Let's not forget that he doesn't only release information about the US. His organization works around the world, and affects many countries.

Edit: Downvotes for truth eh? Man said so himself! Why's everyone think he cares only about the US?

The US government works around the world and affects many countries, so what exactly is your point? Certainly, the US government cares about more than just the US as well, right?

My point is, the US isn't the only country they affect. Don't forget that the man's organization has affected many countries in comparably larger ways than just US foreign policy. Ending the career of a head of state in a western nation no more legitimizes them than making large steps toward ending corruption in Kenya - it just makes them play ball on our court. Just because you live here, doesn't mean that him helping other countries delegitimizes them, or doesn't legitimize them enough.

They've got a pretty awesome mission: take down dickheads. He's not just about us, the US though. Do I trust him and his organization? Moreso than our own media, sure as fuck I do. Do I think he's got alterior motives? Well, he's human, so it's quite possible. But I'm not going to start judging him because he's got a secret file just yet. I'd like to see it play out a bit, find out a bit more about what he's doing. Like Lincoln said, give a man some power to see his true character (paraphrased). He's got some now, what with people coming to him left and right with some sensitive info, so let's see where he goes with it. That's what I'm saying.

[deleted]

Good disinformation contains truth mixed in with lies. It's suspected that fake cables are mixed in with true ones and you will never know. They also select and edit them. The selection we get to see tells you who is behind this.

There is genuine embarrassment from the US government so a lot of it is true.

loads of people still watch cnn while their work is neither important nor useful

Those loads of people are looking to be entertained rather than informed, unfortunately.

no see that's exactly it. If wikileaks was so bad for policy, it would be positively simple for the government to widely discredit them. They could simply upload tens of thousands of bogus documents alleging some scandal that could be soundly disproved.

the avalanche of hatred is from the media is expected, but the hatred from the government is kind of strange I think. What if the government outrage is just posturing to give wikileaks an air of credibility? It's a great mouthpiece - a way to make certain information public without taking the blame. take this last round - America got to blame all the middle eastern countries for meddling, creating discord among them, without actually outing their "allies." It's all wikileaks fault, not ours!

What if the government outrage is just posturing to give wikileaks an air of credibility?

This.

the avalanche of hatred that has descended around their ears.

It's rather like the avalanche of hatred that descended upon Israel when it started building new settlements in the West Bank.

All talk, no action.

That's simply not enough. Wikileaks is now the high profile leak publisher - obviously the hatred gives it credibility. But with all that information going to one place, it's a matter of when not if Wikileaks becomes a way of censoring high profile leaks. There is a real obvious intelligence motive for having wikileaks.

We win by going to war, not by what happens at the end.

The only thing Assange can do is wake the people up to the reality of life. I don't think there is any piece of info that can be released that will be 'that' damaging. One day we will have to wake up and figure out that the world is not a pretty place and everyone gets their hands dirty, even us. Our problem as a nation is that we don't see ourselves as bad guys. It's because the people of any nation are wholeheartedly good. This is what every major government hinges on and it works like a charm. The only way to win the battle is to realize that it's not us versus Afghan's or us versus the Chinese, but rather everyone versus the tyranny of evil. Evil exists everywhere and we need to stop chasing it. We need to stand still with the power of knowledge and information, not go to war chasing imaginary enemies.

Skeptics and conspirators need to start getting along because the world isn't getting any better.

More than I trust my government.

A 3rd possibility exists, that Wikileaks is authentic and some or all of those leaks are purposeful to serve a US or somebody else's agenda.

If Wikileaks really is principled then it wouldn't filter the leaks to try to shape the agenda, making it a useful tool, just do the filtering yourself, leak to them, and create the impression of unfiltered raw information. Also, if Wikileaks is compromised, and you've leaked anonymously or by proxy (say, put a big dump of juicy documents in front of a bunch of people internally, one may leak it), then there's no connection back to you.

Yes the biggest problem is that Wikileaks edits and selects what to leak. They have an agenda an let out things according to this agenda.

They would have been credible if they just put everything they have on a server/bittorrent for downloading. As it is now they are not credible but looks more and more like a very clever disinformation campaign.

I think somewhat in addition to this why would it make sense for there to be one single source for releasing leaks - it's just more dangerous that way.

Exactly. Wikileaks has been described as a honey pot for whistleblowers. They encourage people to leak and steal secrets. Once Wikileaks gets them they see if they want them out, otherwise they hunt down the leaker. At this moment we don't know who "they" are, the people behind Wikileaks.

It's pretty clear that Wikileaks have an agenda though and a real truthful leak site should not have an agenda more than to disperse any information to as many people as possible.

They edit for names (or at least make a damn strong effort to prevent people from getting hurt or killed), and they try to select things that have more importance. Who's to say what's more important? Them. Because they're the ones receiving the leaks.

They should black out or redact names but they should publish every single thing they have instead of only showing us what they want us to see. We don't know who these people are and we don't know their agenda.

We can guess their agenda from what they have released:

• They support Israel
• They hate Pakistan
• They hate Iran
• They want to embarrass the US

Well, if they just blacked out names, there is a lot of information that can be gleaned from context. IE: [REDACTED] was at so and so, doing such and such, and reported that [REDACTED] said XYZ. Doesn't really help that much, in keeping safety.

You can redact things so that it's impossible to figure out who's behind something. This is done all the time with documents they have to release.

You're right back to where you said, that their biggest problem is that they edit and select what to leak. They edit out things that can get someone killed, but that's their biggest problem. So, you really can't have your cookie, and eat it too here.

And who are they disinforming? The Kenyans, who had a soon to be elected leader who was corrupt as fuck, but a leak given to wikileaks allowed them to end that set of corruption? Because if that's disinformation, sign me right the fuck up.

You must think outside of your own country - they do work all around the world. Their agenda involves things that we don't even ever hear about. Did you watch the TED interview? Almost all of the things they talked about never happened to be broadcast in our news scope. I was blown away. I thought they were an Anti-US corruption organization until I watched that - they're just an anti-asshole organization.

The disinformation is for you. You are falling for it. Any good disinformation campaign contains truths mixed with lies.

There is a clear agenda behind these leaks. It's purpose is to embarrass certain countries and push certain agendas.

If Wikileaks wanted to do this without an agenda they would publish everything at once and let the whole world draw their own conclusions. Now they portion out talking points to push very specific talking points.

About editing. There is really nothing to edit in these cables. The editing was important for the intelligence reports from Iraq and Afghanistan since the names of collaborators and others at risk were in there. That's not the case with the diplomatic cables.

they've never really won a war since Korea basically

Wat? The US hasn't won a war since the Spanish-American War. Korea was a tie at best.

why would the US want to look this stupid, and this incompetent?

The US wouldn't. That's why you can trust Wikileaks. What's the problem here?

None of this makes any sense to me.

Welcome to the chaos that is reality.

[deleted]

The fall of Saigon can hardly be called a win. When you win a war you're not rushed off a rooftop in a helicopter as locals crash through the gates of your embassy trying to kill you. That would be like Saddam sitting in his hole and saying, "They may have chased me out, but I won!".

[deleted]

I see what you mean, but our motivating objective for fighting in Vietnam was to defeat Communism in the Asian region. Setting aside the pure insanity of going to war over different economic systems, China and North Korea are still communist. So, we didn't get a win by driving communism from the region either. Vietnam didn't become communist because the other communist countries didn't see enough potential or natural resources to heavily invest in it after the war. The people of Vietnam didn't have the luxury to care about politics after the war as much as feeding their families, so they never embraced communism. The only reason capitalists invested in Vietnam is because it's a cheap labor market. The local communists countries already have a cheap labor market, and more people than they can handle.

[deleted]

So sad and true. They can't sell us the new bombs unless we have some half-baked reason to explode the old ones.

[deleted]

What has that market economy gotten us? Vietnam is a speck compared to what we outsource and import from China, their communist neighbor. Not only is it insane to fight a war over economic systems, but we didn't even win the war on which system can provide faster economic growth. If we did, Vietnam would have shot past China to be our biggest supplier. We lost 50,000 people, and won not a patch of foreign territory, no new access to a natural resource, nor a competitive advantage in any way. Find me the win.

Controlled opposition. Wikileaks is here only to create the illusion that some important information is "leaked" to the buplic, while all the real evil stuff is getting unnoticed. Truth really is hidden under layers of disinformation. Wikileaks is just one layer. You can see the democraphic they're after with all this. People smart enough to question stuff, but scared of the social stigma of being labeled as a "conspiracy theorist". So wikipedia is advertised in the media as the goto authority of truth. Julian Assange is the Steve Jobs of counterintelligence. This charismatic represantive of "opposition". But in reality, all this opposition is just the watered down truth. In the end it's purpose is nothing but divert you from the real issues. It is fucking sad though. These people know what theyre doing, and theyre good at it.

If the government didn't want those "cables" to be released they would have stopped it, this is all a plan to cover their asses and get laws against internet freedoms to pass, all in the name of safety and security.

I made a post a few minutes ago that has been fileterd by this subreddit, I hope you can join in as well and discuss my idea.

Many problems with this statement. Assange had already sent the cables to several media outlets to release in the event that wikileaks went down (which it did; it got DDOS'd). They couldn't have stopped that release because enough people had the data. Also, remember that "insurance file" that was made available to everyone? Yeah, that's why Assange isn't dead and his progress isn't impeded.

The government Is stuck between a rock and a hard place and the only thing they can do is hunker down on data security and try to censor further leaks. Which they are doing and will continue to do.

You could be right, do you think that he could be a rouge elite?

I would love to see what's inside that insurance file.

From what it looks like, Assange was the brains behind wikileaks but he's too much of an idealist to be a rogue elite. His blog contains a lot of anti-authoritarian content and it looks like he wants to dismantle "the establishment", as it were.

As for that insurance file, it's got military grade encryption, and the key, supposedly, would be released upon the event of his death. It must contain some pretty substantial material! An idea I read the other day suggested that he sent the file to key figures in the body politik just to show then what he's got on them - I personally think this is likely.

I've met Daniel Schmitt. there were a bunch of really smart people involved. disagreements arose about direction and technology (and egos), but not about the goals involved.

he said that right from the start they talked about it not being just one site, but many, a whole movement learning from each other's actions.

[deleted]

currently: http://www.gov20.de/

Ooof I really hope that file is opened, the repercussions could change the world.

If Assange's goal is to destroy the Old World Order then he could be an Illuminati, from what I've read their goal is to destroy the old rule and bring a new enlightened age for humanity.

But that's all conspiracy, if he is just who he says he is and there is no conspiracy to it then he has some massive cojones and should be looked as a hero.

Assange's death wouldn't change anything tho, he's just media figure.

That's true; Wikileaks is much more than just him - no man could do that job alone anyway.

The MSM would probably declare his death to be a victory though.

They didn't even know their cables were in other hands for several months, and given that we're only aware of one person in the organization that had access to them it's incredibly naive to think that we would be able to stop them from getting released, aside from maybe taking down the entire Internet.

Yes, that is what they claim. Although I find it quite interesting that no red flags were activated by the system immediately after thousands of pages of classified info were accessed and copied.

They are either running incredibly shitty security software or it was allowed to happen.

They've already explained how this happened. They stored the cables in standard PST files.

If you needed information coming from a certain area, or about a certain person, you would search through a PST file containing tons of these things, look for what was relevant to you, and that was that.

The entire system was designed so that you had to dig through tens of thousands of these things at a time (or more) in order to get at the information you wanted.

http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/wikileaks-one-analyst-so-many-documents-20101129

But please, continue with the downvotes.

Wasn't me, I didn't downvote you.

Anyways, I'll read through the article from what I see it probably was shitty security.

There certainly doesn't seem to be anything in the last release which embarrasses the US or Israel - It just embarrasses, or makes look stupid, every other county on the planet.

But this could be a planned leak by the CIA or whoever - to further their own agenda.

It doesn't Necessarily mean wikileaks are the bad guys, just that they got duped.

what about the stuff that incriminates Hillary Clinton?

When I open up reddit and see this:

"Wikileaks releases video of CIA planting explosives in the WTC"

on the front page then and only then will i completely trust wikileaks....

lol

We didn't win Korea, it was a tie.

I'm starting to trust them more, but I'd really love to see them leak something about the manipulation of gold/silver prices. And they have to have some dirt on Israel... they are up there with the US in the amount of shady shit they do.

Israel leads the world in wiretap and surveillance technology. The US goes to them for our own technology. If anyone knows better how to keep a secret and to keep their private info away from prying eyes, it would be them.

Keep in mind those are only the cables which the MSM has chosen to discuss. So, of course it looks biased. Look through the release yourself and you'll feel better.

Nope, for the simple reason that i efuse to believe that your average intelligence schmuck can download that much data without any checks and audits....no fucking way!

The people working with the data work in secure computing facilities, you aren't just able to pull the stuff up on your home computer.

If you pay attention to how BM was caught, he got searched on his way in and out of the facility he was using, but snuck his data past the guards because he had it disguised it as a music cd that he pretended to listen to.

Given the fact that you can't read raw data with your eyes, the fact that he was searched by his peers, and the fact that the pentagon acknowledges this is what happened, I don't know why anyone would believe an elaborate conspiracy over this.

The world's governments are running in an old paradigm. Basically: stupid, old, white men. I agree that it's healthy to question everything; however, it's amazing what a loaded thumb drive can do in this day and age.

Also, it's odd that interpol is now looking for him for essentially, raping two women. Why only now, after the "diplomatic 9-11" has begun? He had consesual sex w/ these two tramps who are now looking for their 15 minutes of fame & obviously, someone from the government "got to them". When have you ever heard of one guy raping two women at the same time? Please ...

Whatever people's individual views, it doesn't change the fact that at this moment Wikileaks has more credibility than probably any other organization in the world. It's natural to be suspicious of that, and only prudent to question the truthfulness and completeness of the information being delivered, but the conduit through which it is being delivered is currently as close to being beyond reproach as anything ever gets. The real test is if they can maintain and build that credibility even further.

it doesn't change the fact that at this moment Wikileaks has more credibility than probably any other news organization in the world.

FTFY: I think that this makes more sense

Besides aid and human rights organization, which is mostly a different arena, almost no one can claim a similar level of credibility. The fact that Wikileaks' information doesn't fit any one particular narrative enhances their credibility, not diminishes it. Everyone is frantically trying to show that the leaks vindicate their views and no one else's. It's turmoil like that that shows Wikileaks is doing its job right.

I don't understand where this so-called "credibility" is coming from.

Wikileaks has only been existence for a few years, and nobody really knows who is supporting it.

The leaks it has so far released seem quite legitimate, but what leaks have they suppressed?

It gives the appearance of being a credible organization, but only time will tell.

You think the US won Korea?

Hey, I just thought of something interesting too.....how the hell did Alex Jones, who is probably the most popular conspiracy theorist on the planet, get into the Bohemian Grove?

[deleted]

Wow, this looks like a great read. Thanks for the link. One thing of interest: " They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years ahead. It appears that "UFO's and Aliens" are being primed to fulfill that role for the future."

Hmmm, it will be interesting too see whether they go through with a plan like this, and if they do, whether it will work or not. But I guess we'll see.

JP: WikiLeaks findings vindicate, don't damage, Israel http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=197131

No. There's something fishy about Wikileaks. Perhaps they (the hierarchy enslaving you) is using it to cause the chaos they need to build a new world order (order out of chaos).

I'm sorry but you're way off. To believe that they're counter intel would be to label Noam Chomsky with the same brush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWd-pgiU4Co

This guy has been a leftist activist for decades, one of the most intelligent men the world has ever known, and he worked on the releases of the Pentagon leaks.

Wikileaks is real. Either that or Noam Chomsky is a disinfo agent, and I don't believe that for a second.

To believe that they're counter intel would be to label Noam Chomsky with the same brush.

That's a classic deflection.

What does that even mean? This is just nonsense. Someone has suggested that WikiLeaks shouldn't be trusted because it's CIA/MOSSAD/SOMTHING and I've suggested this is silly because of Noam Chomsky's fantastic track record.

I'd be happy to look at some evidence to support these claims, maybe some relationships between Assange or other WikiLeaks staff and an intelligence agency, anything, but we've seen nothing.

Someone has created an idea that we shouldn't trust them, and there's no evidence for it at all. That's a classic deception.

Someone has suggested that WikiLeaks shouldn't be trusted because it's CIA/MOSSAD/SOMTHING and I've suggested this is silly because of Noam Chomsky's fantastic track record.

But they don't have anything to do with each other!?

Noam Chomsky is a guy who has been saying the same rational things for years.

Wikileaks is an organization which sprang into existence a few years ago, started off sober, but then had a massive change of style for no apparent reason, is not accepting leaks, has a colourful figurehead with a shady past who globetrots and gets charged for sexual assault in what looks like an obvious setup, and now the world is shouting at it without actually doing anything.

It makes you wonder.

I've been pondering this. What if it's just disinformation.

I don't trust wikileaks.

When they started, they were almost religiously clean-cut and formal, and provided a safe interface for submitting leaks. Their analyses were balanced and sober, as Amnesty used to be.

It turns out that most of their earlier leaks were by scanning the Tor network, which anyone could have done.

Then they had this "funding glitch", at which point their appearance changed.

Then it was flashy Julian Assange, outrageously opinionated analyses, and no actual ability to submit leaks to the website.

Since then, it has been one song and dance after another, and the world has stepped up to say how much of a "traitor" he is without ever being able to take him out.

That's interesting. How do you know they scanned the Tor net?

Here's a link:

WikiLeaks Was Launched With Documents Intercepted From Tor

Thanks I did not know that. The first leaks were not even leaks.

wikileaks is a limited hangout/honeypot/information flow controller. assange works for 'them'. he says 9/11 is a 'false conspiracy'.

the massive dumps of documents are the equivalent of what lawyers do when they ship confusing file cabinets full of records to the other side during discovery. it is confusing and distracting.

what actual operation are they covering up with this mainstream media blitz on wikileaks?

Prep for war with Iran is one plausible explanation of many.

I trust wikileaks in the sense that I don't think that the data presented is a total lie. But on the other hand wikileaks for me aren't the rebels that the media is trying to portray them to be. The leaks that they submitted are barely news. The counter intelligence connections that some have drawn seem much more plausible to me. Ultimately I don't trust them.

I think you'll find that it all fits the ISRAELI agenda. Nothing about the Dubai assassination, nothing about the flotilla murders, nothing about 9/11, nothing about Israel trying to sell nukes to apartheid South Africa. EVERYTHING about attacking Iran, but maybe it's just a coincidence that Iran is Israels strongest enemy.. LOL

This is the most logical answer. Though the CIA could be involved. Who knows honestly and we will never know the truth.

If wikileaks was legit, they would release everything and not sift through it and give it a stamp of approval. You can't tell what is real intel and what is false intel. Just release it all and it be read and distributed. I like http://cryptome.org

Though they could be controlled like alex jones

The question is not so much whether you trust Wikileaks, but if you trust the leaked information.
For exmple, I found it odd that Qatar signed a defense-cooperation agreement with Iran in February (and expressed their support for Iran's nuclear programme), only to be cited by H. Clinton (with the leaks supporting her) as one of many allies in the region that don't trust Iran and think it is a dangerous country and fully support US policy towards it. Here too, the leaks are supporting her statement.
I admit that all this may have just been her spinning the leaks and trying to make the best of it; or that the Qatari-Irani agreement might have just been part of the usual foreign policy ruses that countries tend to play (perhaps in anticipation of war).
Now, while it seems a little far fetched that all of the material was planted, some might, in anticipation of a leak. It would be downright stupid for an intelligence agency worthy of that name not to try and exploit this opportunity of free, worldwide, and almost instant (dis-)information dissemination.

Trust:

Wikileaks>Government

[deleted]

Admittedly my answer is ambiguous, but is matched well to the question. Do you trust Wikileaks? Trust what about Wikileaks? Assuming we are all on the same page and the unsaid is "Do you trust the information we get from Wikileaks?" Trust it over what? Other information sources I have to draw from are those of the State, about its policies and those of the mainstream media about State policies. I am not speaking at all about the separation of the two, although that would be an interesting debate in itself. So given that "trust" is a "moral" value I think we are on the same page. I now understand that the unsaid question to be "Do you trust the motives of Wikileaks and the information that they provide in the context of why they provide it, or do you trust the motives of your Government and the information they are working to suppress?"

[deleted]

They are sexier.

Glad this is in r/conspiracy. Otherwise I'd be ripping straight in to your un-substantiated use of the term "they" right from the outset.

I'll humour you...

If Wikileaks were organised and run by the US administration or secret services there would have to be a big gain. I think you are suggesting PsyOps.

Lets look at this: The US has used propoganda since WWII calling it Public Relations and has done well at controlling what information the media has access to and also (to a degree) what spin can be put on it. The spin is often determined by keyword injection or framing of arguments.

There is no evidence that the US ever stopped this manipulation of the media and indeed it became ever more widespread in other nations that had something to hide or spin they wished to create.

So, Why switch from the established model and create a high-profile independent organisation to leak the big, more juicy shit from? What is to gain?

I think you can combat the "o dearism" in many people by releasing lots of big juicy news all at once.

It also puts massive pressure to resolve the issues that have been given the light of day (unifying Korea, acting on Iran/Pakistan etc).

I think as part of this healthy skepticism it's important to consider the following - Massive negative repercussions out-weighing any positive outcome. Eg, N.Korea, Iran and Pakistan decide to act. Collectively, even supported by Russia in an attack against the US. Dwell on that.

Personally I think Julian and the team are legit. Heroes of our time.

[deleted]

So lots more speculation...

Final point before I get of this crazy pen:

Evidence?

[deleted]

I'm as entertained by a conspiracy as the next guy... but that's just how I judge things - through evidence.

If you're saying "they'll" never allow hard evidence to get out - define who "they" are.

Also - what are you looking for to help prove this to yourself?

The thing that makes my tin foil hat buzzer go off is that Wikileaks/Assange has been interviewed and profiled by every major news network + interviewed at TED - ie. has had an absolute ton of mainstream media exposure.

I tend to think that a lot of this has to do with simply damaging the reputation of the US as it's economy begins to falter, overall weakening it's position globally.

I mean, it's an all out assault these days on how ridiculous the idea of the US as a superpower has become.

I trust Wikileaks as much as I trust hearing the regurgitated news that is spewed from all media channels. With that said, I slightly trust Wikileak’s a little more than the news organizations. Why?

Well from my limited experience working in a Provincial ministry in Canada, all mid to senior executives know that “Freedom of Information Act” is a constant concern. That means that any organization can request information from the government about a certain topic. Documents get pulled, different drafts of documents get pulled and entire email strings get pulled. There is very little “redacting” that happens, other than trying to protect a citizen’s privacy, or something of that nature. Now most executives don’t write anything down electronically, and some are even paranoid about leaving candid voicemails. Every decision that happens wither it’s political or logistical that goes through the government has some sort of bureaucratic process. I can imagine that the military is no different than working in social services.

Another reason to believe this Wikileak’s story a little more is that as you mentioned above, look at the character smear going on at the moment. Being listed on Interpol’s most wanted for “sexual assault”? How many women did he inappropriately touch? 1000?

Do not trust wikileaks, see my comments above...

Sure, in general a culture of openness is better than a culture of secrecy.

No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXHvbwUzUkw&feature=recentu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYIC2BMhE5A

http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/11/wikileaks-touch-of-assange-and-stench.html

Just because what's IN the documents is bullshit, doesn't make the systems of releasing them to the public any less honest.

As gone over in the clips, dishonesty has also come from him.

http://www.daily.pk/cia-mossad-and-soros-behind-wikileaks-19280/

No. Here's the story they are selling: we have to give up certain civil liberties (TSA story) because of these rogue nations (North Korea attack); and if anyone gets out of line and speaks up, we'll hunt you down (Assange on most wanted list). It's all part of a bigger storyboard...

I'm convinced that it's just more hypaganda - very sophisticated - and that we're all being taken for a ride. This entire thing seems too "movie-like".

That said, I don't think the contents of the leaks are made up. It's just the "reason behind it" that I am suspicious about.

He said himself "I am the front figure of WikiLeaks, I take all the credit and all the heat."

Well, I trust that wiki's info is better than any major new media corporation out there now, hands down. They're really not even in the journalism game really, they're in the you've got secrets that you claim you don't have (Obama claims to have a transparent, open government, but why then, the outcry when that shit actually comes to light?).

He's not a hero to the radical folk, anymore than he is a hero to normal, intelligent people who wonder just what the fuck our government is doing.

He may have committed sex crimes. Personally, I believe it is really fishy, considering that he's offered to submit to questioning multiple times (excepting that they were more on his own terms, and less on government terms), and they didn't take it then. He's not playing the game on their terms, and they dislike him for that.

The US really is incompetent. We've got a system of "it matters where you sit at the lunch table" middleschool type government philosophy. Pair that with a paranoid as fuck intelligence branch, and a warmongering fearmongering homeland security branch, and that's a recipe for disaster.

See, you're thinking of the wars we're in as some type of WWII style the-enemy-is-the-Germans type war. A clearly defined enemy, with clearly defined aspects. We don't fight those wars anymore. We fight the-enemy-could-fucking-be-anyone wars now. Everyone is a terrorist until proven otherwise war. We created the Taliban. The fucking CIA built them from the ground up. The association between Al Qaeda and the Taliban is intentional. Many people don't realize that those are two separate entities.

Personally, I think he's just an intelligent man on a mission to expose secrets. True accountability starts with finding out what's going on. He's pissing people off because what he's releasing shows that our place is filled with idiocy. People in power don't like to be seen as a bunch of retards. But then again, they probably aren't, and are allowing it to happen such that they can gain more control over the internet. See, if he had some really important stuff, he'd have been disappear'd a long time ago.

He's changing the status quo. He's essentially making more old rich white fucks in power question themselves. Which is a good thing in theory, but they'll never change, there's too much money involved to change. Don't trust wikileaks. Trust yourself. Not what others think. But sure as hell, be open to listening/reading it, and decide for yourself. Me, I think he's doing a good job at what he does because of all the people that fear him. I mean, when you've got our whole government out to get you, because you've got some talking points to bring to light, it means he's striking a chord. I like that.

[deleted]

How do you mean?

The US is highly competent.

It's just that they're not doing what you want them to do.

[deleted]

Indeed.

I wish I could play.

The USA man...never...even...existed!

Jewikileaks.

Assange was a hacker who got busted and he stayed out of jail somehow. Now hes the 007 international man of mystery. Its to take the spot light off of israel and to use USA as the scapegoat for the wars and global economic meltdown.

You mean this a conspiracy spun to cover up a bigger conspiracy that was hiding behind the conspiracy that wikileaks are trying to uncover?

Trust is not an issue for me.

I respect the mission of Wikileaks.

I DON'T TRUST ANYONE

Wikileaks is an Israeli psy-op.

Gordon Duff pretty much sums up what it truly is: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/30/gordon-duff-selling-wikileaks-selling-hate-for-america/

Funny how Israel and it's proponents feel vindicated and say "I told you so!" each time a new swath of "leaks" comes out.

[deleted]

True, Duff does sometimes go overboard with putting all the blame on Israel, but he's not too far off base. I could point out many other references from various sources that essentially reverberate the idea that the Israeli propaganda engine is embedded throughout all levels of our government and media, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kureFeGmoDI

However, the particular article I mentioned above did a good job of exposing Wikileaks for what it is, and calling out yet another Israeli propaganda hit piece.

Also, if you do a simple google news search for "Israel Wikileaks", the results are very telling. For example, this one (be sure to note the domain name): http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/israel/israel_no_damage_wikileaks

FTA "...Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu downplayed expectations of embarrassment for Israel by predicting that the surprising revelations would come elsewhere in the Middle East."

Of course his prediction was accurate...

[deleted]

Well for that my friend, you need only to consult the Quigley Formula...

Why do you think the US would be behind it?

[deleted]

Iran is not a threat to the US but to Israel. The US is not against Pakistan but Israel does not like them since they are a Muslim country with nukes. Also, the US was embarrassed by these leaks. The only country that has had only positives come out of the leaks and no negatives, is, you guessed it, Israel. That's why many people think they are behind this.

On the other hand, your reasons for having the US behind this are very lame. Lamo probably works for the Mossad if anybody. He might not know it though as they do a lot of false flag stuff.

[deleted]

What are your sources for this?

Why do you think the real threats are China and Russia?

the US was embarrassed by these leaks

Not much.

Really? Why not? It will be very hard for the US to be told secrets since people will not trust the US to keep them secret. I'd say they were very embarrassed by this.

You have made claims that the US is more likely behind this than Israel with only lame reasons that don't hold water.

[deleted]

What are your sources. I'm trying to have a discussion with you. Why are you so evasive?

[deleted]

You can easily find sources if you have read them and want a discussion. I'm starting to believe that you're just trolling and shilling here. I saw other people express that opinion but I decided to give you some slack and prove that you were not. I was wrong.

[deleted]

You throw out a bunch of statements neither of which you can back up in anyway, except for being "incredibly mainstream", which they are not. I was trying to have a discussion with you but don't seem to be here for that at all. Why are you here then?

[deleted]

You are changing subjects now. Should I take it that you want to deflect from discussion on what we talked about?

It's obvious there is competition between the worlds largest economical powers and countries. There is nothing "mainstream" about this.

[deleted]

That's a different discussion. We were talking about who is behind Wikileaks. Remember?

[deleted]

No, dude, we were talking about who is behind Wikileaks. You claimed the unlikely US and not the more likely Israel and I asked you why.

Why do you think the US would be behind it?

whereby you started talking in vague terms about "long-term geopolitical strategy." which is both changing the subject and irrelevant.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/eegy1/ask_conspiracy_do_you_trust_wikileaks/c17ke5x

[deleted]

I asked you and still ask you to provide any shred of evidence for what you are claiming. So far you have produced nothing.

The most likely scenario based on many analyses from many different independent people point to that the most likely power behind Wikileads is Israel. If this is the case Wikileaks probably don't even realize it themselves as it's likely run as a false flag operation.

On the other hand, you are claiming that the US is behind it but you have so far produced neither an argument or any reference to anybody else having made that claim.

Then I see some slander from you on sites that are very serious in their analysis. You are a shill aren't you?

[deleted]

Again you have provided neither argument nor sources of any kind to back the ideas you throw out. This is why people call you a shill.

It's also possible that Tahiti is behind the leak, don't you think? Anybody claiming that would have to present evidence why we should listen to him. You so far have not. So why should we listen to you?

Then of course we get to the ad hominem because you have been exposed as a shill. Thanks for playing.

Yes

Do I trust them? Absolutely not.

It's not the government, it's George Soros that has his hands in wikileaks.

Yes

You raise some good points. I just don't know at present. If he releases a truckload of incriminating evidence on banking corruption, then I'll be able to side with him more easily.

since the issue of trust is so subjective, here is my personal 10-band scale:

0 - international bankers, imf, wb, bis, intelligence agencies, big oil/pharma, major fundations/think tanks, vatican, cfr

1 - us/uk/eu/israeli governments, hollywood, msm, g8, g20,

2 - bric + other governments, un (ipcc, who, etc)

3 - police

4 - my personal enemies

5 - unknown random pople on the street

6 - less trustworthy people i know

7 - more trustworthy people i know

8 - my partner

9 - myself

i would put wikileaks at 4

Until reason to believe otherwise, more so than I trust those whose documents they are leaking.

Wait until the timed release of the insurance package.

Aside from circumstantial stuff, what is it exactly that makes you distrust the information they've released? What would be the motive for a conspiracy here?

Distrust began after the Iran info. Some didn't like that. Anything that goes against their beliefs, is then questioned. It is the easiest way to explain away something, they don't want to hear.

You are all paranoid

Speculation.

[deleted]

Too bad it is not based on evidence.

they've never really won a war since Korea basically

Oh I'm pretty sure they won the wars quite handily. It's the years of occupation that didn't go so well.

They are trying to arrest him because he might be a pervert, People idolize him because he is a media whore.

No conspiracies here, think harder is all.

no, I don't trust them, here is why

yawn

I don't trust wikileaks based on two very important principles: first, they are not an unbiased media organization. They paint us the pictures they want us to see, and just because they contrast the picture our administration paints for us doesn't mean it's less biased; it's just biased in the other direction. For example, the video from a helicopter attack that was posted all over online as collateral murder? Well, analysis of the full video showed that there were terrorists spotted by the pilot and gunner that were carrying ak's and rpgs. were photojournalists at the scene shot at when they carried stands for their cameras? yes. did that van carrying a family get shot at when they tried to evacuate the injured? yes, because it was mistaken for a insurgent vehicle evacuating injured guerillas. They were a few blocks from an actual firefight, so the helicopter pilots thought they were shooting at reinforcements. But wikileaks, in its attempt to make the US army look like monsters, edited out all that information and put the up five minute clip of a helicopter gunner shooting journalists and a van filled with children.

So what does that have to do with the iraq and afghan war diaries and the recent diplomatic cables? Well, are we supposed to believe that all the sudden, wikileaks is concerned about releasing everything they have to make sure we innocent civilians have the entire picture? Bull fucking shit. They've edited and shortened releases in the past to paint a skewed narrative, and we have no reason to believe they are doing anything differently now.

Secondly, as the time has gone by, wikileaks tactics have changed. They've gone from trying to paint themselves as anti-dictatorship rogues to legitimate independent news organization being hounded by 'the man'. Let me tell you, Julian Assange is a fucking namefagged hacker. He's not hiding behind his handle, and any interview he goes in he comes off as the egotistical titan. He's TRYING to draw attention to himself as the top dawg of wikileaks. Sure, the dudes behind the scenes sorting through this nonsense are benefiting from having attention drawn from them, but you have to ask yourself; is wikileaks doing this intentionally? Or were the reports of internal struggles at wikileaks actual symptoms of a power struggle as julian assange took total control?

So first, they're willing to post up videos and reports making the US look bad. Then, they set up an 'insurance' file as soon as the iraq and afghan war diaries hit and julian assange takes centerstage as the spokesman and leader of wikileaks. whose ass is the insurance file covering? Julian assanges, of course; if it was covering wikileaks whole ass, they would have dropped the insurance file's code as soon as the DDoS hit to show they were meaning business, and put together another one (because who puts ALL of their dirt in one bombshell?) Now, they want everyone to download this insurance file, ostensibly to protect it from a DDoS, saying they'll release the code later. We have no idea what's in that encrypted file. All we know is, it's some heavy shit. So, we don't know what it is, but what if we're being told to open it because julian assange had an all-night bender and passed out in a ditch causing his cronies to panic and release the code? Oh, look, it's an EXECUTABLE FILE. Remember how I said he was a hacker? Do you remember what fucking trojans are? Or viruses? What if julian assange had access to one gigantic fucking botnet? What the hell kind of guarantee do we have that the entire file isn't just one big 'fuck you, i'm too awesome for this world' from julian assange?

So, no, I don't trust wikileaks. Is the stuff they're releasing legitimate? In the proper context, yeah. It's also common sense in many cases, or just raw data containing information that we already knew at least through pure reasoning. But i don't trust their intentions for releasing the info, nor do i trust julian assange.

TDLR; I'm either a conservative, or a geo-ego patriotic nut who doesn't like the USA looking bad. AMERICA FUCK YEA!

communist, actually. he's making mother russia look bad.

Few, thus far, of the cables released are damning. Even if they were look at who they're about? Politicians. People who are two faced as a rule, it's called diplomacy. Change will not come because foreign policy, business or political is based on mutual gain. The fact that one has an opinion about the other is irrelevant and doesn't alter relationship. We aren't friends with countries because they're nice people, if that were the case we wouldn't have any dealings with them in the first place.

Governments keep classified material because it's in the best interest of the government to remain in power. If the populace knew all the shenanigans the U.S. government did they wouldn't be the government. It's purely self serving where the benefits to the people are a seemingly satisfying bone thrown into the legislation to make us think they're doing what we want them to do.

Republicans are only concerned about businesses so if you own a business you vote for them. Democrats are concerned with taking away all the privileges given to rich people by the Republicans so if you're not rich you vote for them. If you vote otherwise you're stupid.

eh, he did call for hillary's resignation.

Wow. In a subreddit where anything and everything gets posted, vetted, argued for, and believed, wikileaks' veracity is being skeptically doubted.

Just wow.

You clearly misunderstand the core concept.