fbenario 4 Sep 19 2010, 06:26 PM wrote:
Any thoughts on this, guys?
Yes, Fbenario - I have these thoughts:
Firstly, let me say that our grassroot activity (and philosophy) has zero kinship with that of Wikileaks. To even hint at a parallel between the Wikileaks gang and our lot is quite frankly offensive. Wikileaks is a comedy of a gatekeeping operation designed to gather an 'underground', youthful popular fan base. It is said that 'Chinese and Australian dissidents' are behind it - yet Wikipedia tells us that "the creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified
"...Oh, right: so we're asked to believe that Wikileaks can hack tons of classified Pentagon documents, or even upload damning videos of American combat choppers zapping Reuters news reporters and whatnot...and all this while the worldwide Intelligence apparatus remains helplessly unable to find out WHO THE WIKILEAK FOUNDERS ARE?
Gimme a kind, merciful break.
Evidently, Wikileaks is ultimately designed to "highlight the perils of irresponsible young hackers which may compromise the safety of the valiant troops fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan" - and so forth. Expect a crackdown on independent internet infos justified by the "Wikileaks security threat" precedent. The tacky sex-scandal media hype around that bleak Assange fellow are ample proof of this sleazy affair being just another low-life propaganda stunt.
As for Wikileaks' stand on 9/11
, well let's talk about it. As you may recall, their "big 9/11 scoop" was their release of 'half-a-million' pager text messages. Anyone who had the patience to scour them will have noticed the many text messages to the tune of "Hey, Jim! I just saw a plane crashing into the World Trade Center"
- and so on and so forth... Now here are some excerpts of an article published on the Wikileaks site (about the pager text messages - but also
about the "horrific" TV coverage):
FROM THE WIKILEAKS WEBSITE
By Matt Gurney
"The [pager] texts make for fascinating reading, and provoke some good discussions of the cliched, "Where were you when it happened?" variety. But a source I've found even more interesting, if chilling, is the Sept. 11 Television Archive ( http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive).Here, you can watch television coverage of the event as it happened, starting even before the attacks began. The videos cover the major American broadcasters -- CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox --as well as the BBC. The passage of time has not dulled the horror. It's still as much a kick in the gut as it was eight years ago."
"There are other fascinating moments in the footage. The very genesis of many of the wackier 9/11 conspiracy theories can be found in the confused, panicky broadcasts (Was it a bomb? A missile? No, it was a plane, but a small plane!). It's also interesting to compare how the anchors responded to the attacks. CBS's Bryant Gumbel seems completely overwhelmed, unable to grasp that the collisions were deliberate, despite detailed reports from eyewitnesses who make it clear that the planes manoeuvred directly into the towers."
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_morning_o ... ad_changed
As you know, Fbenario, I actually tried to publish that important TV coverage of all those networks on Youtube ("SYNCHED OUT"). No cyber-hacking involved whatsoever: it was all public domain material from the TV archives. Yet, it was promptly banned by Youtube for no valid motive. Has Wikileaks ever had their "top secret and security-threatening"
material banned from the internet?