3 ms·

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 intellige

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.
    - fit2rule 8y ago
      What has Wikileaks released that ended up being false? EDIT: Just because you don't like what they have released, doesn't mean it is factually incorrect. It is factually correct, based on real evidence, that the United States of America has committed war crimes for which it has not prosecuted the perpetrators. It is factually correct that America has been involved in the destruction of sovereign states all over the globe. It is factually correct that Clinton is duplicitous. Just because you don't like these facts, doesn't mean that Wikileaks cannot be trusted.
      - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        You're telling me everything Wikileaks has ever produced has proven to be demonstrably true? Because I don't know how you'd prove many extraordinary claims false. It's hard to prove the negative.
        fit2rule 8y ago
        Got an example of something that Wikileaks has released that ended up being 'false'? Because Wikileaks isn't in the business of releasing 'opinions' or 'speculation' - it releases data and material facts, for the general public to make its own conclusions. Ask yourself this question: why is it so hard for you to consider that Wikileaks never lied to you? Who has convinced you that it is an organization that cannot be trusted?
        SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        I'm extraordinarily concerned if someone believes any source above reproach. Has every wikileaks leak been proven true, is it that there are a ton of unproven ones, and a handful of verified? What's the ratio?

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.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    What has Wikileaks released that ended up being false? EDIT: Just because you don't like what they have released, doesn't mean it is factually incorrect. It is factually correct, based on real evidence, that the United States of America has committed war crimes for which it has not prosecuted the perpetrators. It is factually correct that America has been involved in the destruction of sovereign states all over the globe. It is factually correct that Clinton is duplicitous. Just because you don't like these facts, doesn't mean that Wikileaks cannot be trusted.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      You're telling me everything Wikileaks has ever produced has proven to be demonstrably true? Because I don't know how you'd prove many extraordinary claims false. It's hard to prove the negative.
      - fit2rule 8y ago
        Got an example of something that Wikileaks has released that ended up being 'false'? Because Wikileaks isn't in the business of releasing 'opinions' or 'speculation' - it releases data and material facts, for the general public to make its own conclusions. Ask yourself this question: why is it so hard for you to consider that Wikileaks never lied to you? Who has convinced you that it is an organization that cannot be trusted?
        SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        I'm extraordinarily concerned if someone believes any source above reproach. Has every wikileaks leak been proven true, is it that there are a ton of unproven ones, and a handful of verified? What's the ratio?