5 ms·

Of course you wouldn't know - this is why these sites are operated clandestinely, and you - the American people - will never know what your government is doing

Of course you wouldn't know - this is why these sites are operated clandestinely, and you - the American people - will never know what your government is doing in your name at these sites. Just like the people of the UK don't know what is being done, in the name of their ruler, in sites such as Belmarsh. Those who find this incredible, might want to look - for themselves - at Belmarsh's long history of being a used as a programming site. The idea of Assange becoming the subject of mind control procedures in Belmarsh is, unfortunately, not un-realistic. The UK and its master, the USA, has a long history of these kinds of activities in cases where it is politically expedient .. if this is unreal to you, I suggest you have a milquetoast view of the intelligence community. Read the Wikileaks.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
So where does the real end and the incredible begin, in your opinion? If it appears on Wikileaks it's going to be the truth? Does it end at what's on Wikileaks? What's your requirements for proof to accept incredible, non-milquetoast claims?
- fit2rule 8y ago
  The American people should work to de-classify the black sites, and close down Gitmo - only then will the incredible actions of America's ruling elite intelligence classes become fully understood. Yes, read the Wikileaks. Investigate for yourself and move outside the comfortable safety bubble of mainstream mediathink, which makes such acts 'too incredible to be true'. It starts with Wikileaks, but ends with effective use of political power by the American people to ensure these heinous acts are revealed to the world. That is, entirely, the point of Assange in the first place - that Americans are being swindled by their governments secrecy into being complicit in crimes against humanity and war crimes. Or, is your standard "we have been told we are all the good guys, so - no matter what 'mah Russians' have to say about it - we are the good guys"?
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    I didn't get a great answer in regards to your requirements for burden of proof - you didn't expand upon the other evidence or your requirements for accepting these items. I understand and accept that there's a rift between mainstream reporting and what's actually happening, I'm sure we are all aware that not everything is above board, and their IS absolutely secret stuff happening, but if it appears on Wikileaks, do you treat it as the absolute truth, knowing that it is also has a completely opaque vetting process? The exact same sort of obfuscation that you claim is being used to pull the wool over the mainstream could be being used on those who see the "truth", couldn't it? If the message was modified to appeal to your ideals, why is Wikileaks a source that's in any way more trustworthy than the mainstream?
    - fit2rule 8y ago
      Wikileaks is not the one torturing people, dropping bombs on innocent people, committing war crimes on a regular basis. The people of America, are. Wikileaks are also not the only ones reporting on all of these acts. Certainly, one must seek multiple sources. Read the Wikileaks - START there. But then follow up with Amnesty International, AirWars.org, and any one of a number of other non-state/non-corporate organs of Americas military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex. >why is Wikileaks a source that's in any way more trustworthy than the mainstream? "Mainstream" American media is owned by the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex, who stand to profit greatly from media coverup of its crimes. It doesn't take much work to discover that truth. EDIT: Where has Wikileaks ever lied? It has only ever released the facts. Its up to you whether you like those facts, or not .. of course, that depends if you have the temerity to face up to the criminal behaviour that Wikileaks has exposed ..
      - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        I understand we have reason to distrust the mainstream monolith, but I don't see why I should trust Wikileaks. You're not providing evidence for, just arguments against. "Because it's not mainstream" gains it nothing. So is Infowars.
michaelcampbell 8y ago
> Of course you wouldn't know - this is why these sites are operated clandestinely, and you - the American people - will never know what your government is doing in your name at these sites. And yet, you seem to.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  I don't have any particular emotionally charged programming against informing myself about and investigating America's crimes against humanity using multiple sources, since I don't live in the American hubris bubble. Of course, Americans may argue 'this just makes me prejudiced against America', to which I can only respond "my prejudice against America is based on direct familiarity with America's victims of its criminal wars - i.e. the armless orphan children in the local refugee camp" .. but most Americans wouldn't know anything about the victims of their wars. Too painful for them to know anything, at all, about it - especially when there are so many GoT episodes to complain about...

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

So where does the real end and the incredible begin, in your opinion? If it appears on Wikileaks it's going to be the truth? Does it end at what's on Wikileaks? What's your requirements for proof to accept incredible, non-milquetoast claims?

fit2rule 8y ago
The American people should work to de-classify the black sites, and close down Gitmo - only then will the incredible actions of America's ruling elite intelligence classes become fully understood. Yes, read the Wikileaks. Investigate for yourself and move outside the comfortable safety bubble of mainstream mediathink, which makes such acts 'too incredible to be true'. It starts with Wikileaks, but ends with effective use of political power by the American people to ensure these heinous acts are revealed to the world. That is, entirely, the point of Assange in the first place - that Americans are being swindled by their governments secrecy into being complicit in crimes against humanity and war crimes. Or, is your standard "we have been told we are all the good guys, so - no matter what 'mah Russians' have to say about it - we are the good guys"?
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  I didn't get a great answer in regards to your requirements for burden of proof - you didn't expand upon the other evidence or your requirements for accepting these items. I understand and accept that there's a rift between mainstream reporting and what's actually happening, I'm sure we are all aware that not everything is above board, and their IS absolutely secret stuff happening, but if it appears on Wikileaks, do you treat it as the absolute truth, knowing that it is also has a completely opaque vetting process? The exact same sort of obfuscation that you claim is being used to pull the wool over the mainstream could be being used on those who see the "truth", couldn't it? If the message was modified to appeal to your ideals, why is Wikileaks a source that's in any way more trustworthy than the mainstream?
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    Wikileaks is not the one torturing people, dropping bombs on innocent people, committing war crimes on a regular basis. The people of America, are. Wikileaks are also not the only ones reporting on all of these acts. Certainly, one must seek multiple sources. Read the Wikileaks - START there. But then follow up with Amnesty International, AirWars.org, and any one of a number of other non-state/non-corporate organs of Americas military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex. >why is Wikileaks a source that's in any way more trustworthy than the mainstream? "Mainstream" American media is owned by the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex, who stand to profit greatly from media coverup of its crimes. It doesn't take much work to discover that truth. EDIT: Where has Wikileaks ever lied? It has only ever released the facts. Its up to you whether you like those facts, or not .. of course, that depends if you have the temerity to face up to the criminal behaviour that Wikileaks has exposed ..
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      I understand we have reason to distrust the mainstream monolith, but I don't see why I should trust Wikileaks. You're not providing evidence for, just arguments against. "Because it's not mainstream" gains it nothing. So is Infowars.

michaelcampbell 8y ago

> Of course you wouldn't know - this is why these sites are operated clandestinely, and you - the American people - will never know what your government is doing in your name at these sites. And yet, you seem to.

fit2rule 8y ago
I don't have any particular emotionally charged programming against informing myself about and investigating America's crimes against humanity using multiple sources, since I don't live in the American hubris bubble. Of course, Americans may argue 'this just makes me prejudiced against America', to which I can only respond "my prejudice against America is based on direct familiarity with America's victims of its criminal wars - i.e. the armless orphan children in the local refugee camp" .. but most Americans wouldn't know anything about the victims of their wars. Too painful for them to know anything, at all, about it - especially when there are so many GoT episodes to complain about...