4 ms·
WikiLeaks: ISIS Tunnels Blown Up by MOAB Were Built by CIA
- mejari 10y agoWikiLeaks quotes a 2005 NYTimes article in a tweet that tunnels exist that were financed by the CIA and fabricates idea that the exact tunnels involved in the recent strike were directly built by the CIA. Nothing coming from an actual leak WikiLeaks is releasing.
- sergiotapia 10y agoWikileaks has a 100% (one hundred percent) truth record. I trust them more than any other news source in the world. The truth is ugly and people need to face it.
- tradersam 10y agoIs this suppose to be /s? Because Wikileakes does not have 100% reliability and has proven to be biased.
- na85 10y agoPlease link to WikiLeaks articles or releases that were untrue.
- ivraatiems 10y agoIt is possible for something to be true, yet dishonest in its presentation or as a result of bias. Wikileaks is a political organization with political goals, most of them anti-American. While you probably can take what they reveal as fact, you cannot take their interpretations, their existence, or their stated goals as such.
- sergiotapia 10y agoLink to untrue leaks please. They're not 70% accurate, not 89% accurate, not 99.999% accurate - they're 100% accurate. Without this they are nothing.
- lstamour 10y agoHow do they verify leaks to ensure no part of the leak is made up? If they can't, it's just a leak. Authenticity can only be confirmed by further leaks (unlikely) or newspapers and other organizations work in fact checking after release.
- linkregister 10y agoWere there any document dumps shown to be inauthentic? I don't think it's in dispute that Wikileaks is biased; it has an overt anti-American military/foreign policy stature. This is informed from Assange's experiences and upbringing. Assange shouldn't be expected to release documents that contradict his narrative. We don't get mad at RT.com for failing to expose Russian corruption or Voice of America for failing to report on U.S. bombings of noncombatants. I agree WL's press releases and Tweets are inaccurate and opportunistic.
- natecavanaugh 10y agoI do get mad at those publications, though. I hate that people who claim moral/ethical authority act contradictory to those morals and explain it as either a means to justify some "greater" end (as if moral consistency wasn't hard enough for our species) or as some reason why their standards don't apply in their situation. Yet Wikileaks seems to be in some weird guerilla moral territory that basically every corporation seems to occupy. They provide some necessary good, and because of it, many of us ignore the bad. I don't think we should though. For anyone :/
- linkregister 10y agoYes, none of the leaked docs on Wikileaks have been repudiated to my knowledge. Their press releases and Twitter posts do not have the same track record; you can see refutation of Wikileaks Tweets in their replies.
- mejari 10y agoThis isn't a WikiLeaks release, though. They're just quoting an article and making up a connection. You should treat WikiLeaks as a source of information, same as any other, and shouldn't trust unsupported claims they make.
- pasquinelli 10y agoWas it a secret, (anytime recently), that the cia funded the muhajadeen's fight against the soniet invasion? What's the connection between the muhajadeen and isis? This leak is lame.
- mejari 10y agoIt's not even a leak, it's just a tweet from WikiLeaks quoting a public article from 2005.
- aphextron 10y agoDoes WikiLeaks have a shred of credibility left at this point? I thought it had become very clear by now that Assange is in bed with Putin and that WikiLeaks is simply an arm of his propaganda machine.
- GhostVII 10y agoThey were built by the CIA in the 70's/80's... Pretty misleading title.