or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › WikiLeaks + Bin Laden - what is going on?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WikiLeaks + Bin Laden - what is going on?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
So WikiLeaks is in trouble - rather then the US authorities - for leaking classified documents. Never mind what they contain or what the ramifications of it might be - WikiLeaks is the bad boy for leaking it.

We can discuss that issue but one thing strikes me as interesting and I would welcome comments.

Bin Laden. Apparently the Intel reports have been tracking him.

Quote:
In August 2006, a US intelligence report placed Bin Laden at a meeting in Quetta, over the border in Pakistan.

It said he and others - including the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar - were organising suicide attacks in Afghanistan.

The targets were unknown, the report said, but the bombers were carrying explosives from Pakistan.

So, the questions would be:

Was the US lying when it has consistently it had received no reliable information on him in years?

Why did they not act on this info about him in Pakistan?

Should they be tracking him? Are they tracking him? Or is he free to roam Afghanistan and Pakistan as he pleases and for one reason or another they just don't care?

BBC
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post


So, the questions would be:

Was the US lying when it has consistently it had received no reliable information on him in years?

Of course.

We are talking about the intelligence section of an army. How can you possibly be surprised it doesn't tell us a thing.

To expect otherwise would be absurd. Why would they admit they had information? If they were serious about capturing or killing him, why would they compromise their sources, raise expectations, put their target on his guard, and so on?

While I understand your disappointment, the intelligence section of the American military is not setting new standards for transparency and disclosure. This isn't exactly surprising.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Why did they not act on this info about him in Pakistan?

How do you know they haven't? Lord knows the American armed forces have been blowing up dozens of civilians on the way to their meagre victories. They seem to be pretty busy to me, and that's just the operations we get to hear about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post


Should they be tracking him? Are they tracking him? Or is he free to roam Afghanistan and Pakistan as he pleases and for one reason or another they just don't care?

He's a wanted mass murderer. Why on earth would they not want to catch him? The PR coup if they did would be a bonanza.

It seems to be pretty likely to me that he's been dead for years, as it happens. But I'm sure in about fifteen minutes some very dull conspiracy-minded people will be claiming these leaks are a deliberate act of obfuscation.
post #3 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

So WikiLeaks is in trouble - rather then the US authorities - for leaking classified documents. Never mind what they contain or what the ramifications of it might be - WikiLeaks is the bad boy for leaking it.

We can discuss that issue but one thing strikes me as interesting and I would welcome comments.

Bin Laden. Apparently the Intel reports have been tracking him.



So, the questions would be:

Was the US lying when it has consistently it had received no reliable information on him in years?

Why did they not act on this info about him in Pakistan?

Should they be tracking him? Are they tracking him? Or is he free to roam Afghanistan and Pakistan as he pleases and for one reason or another they just don't care?

BBC


"Was the US lying when it has consistently it had received no reliable information on him in years?"

Maybe the leaked document wasn't considered reliable information? A big problem with these documents is that there is really no way to evaluate their reliability. I have to laugh when I hear liberals out of sorts because a spy agency hasn’t been transparent. It's a freaking spy agency!
post #4 of 13
The recent wikileaks data dump re. the war in/on Afghanistan looks like (I am not saying it necessarily *is*) a case of "limited hangout", the classic technique employed by government agencies and the military of assigning themselves *some* element of blame for wastage, crimes, screw-ups, security beaches, outrageous actions, No organization runs perfectly, because they consist of fallible human beings, and people are subconsciously aware that nothing is flawless. This psi-technique covers two essential areas in deceiving the public: (a) promotes "credibility" to an agency/.organization in admitting that they are not perfect while pursuing the "right thing", and (b)
admitting a relatively small amount of incompetence/wrongdoing to distract from far greater atrocities, which subsequently don't get investigated, thus letting the perps off the hook.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #5 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I'm sure in about fifteen minutes some very dull conspiracy-minded people will be claiming these leaks are a deliberate act of obfuscation.

.....
post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

.....

You're wrong! See! This proves it! You're always wrong. It wasn't fifteen minutes. It was six hours and 21 minutes! Nyah, nhah nyah nyah nyah!
post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 
One thing I've never understood - not even remotely: why some so called liberals are more anti 'conspiracy theories' (ie in quotations - the term used as a pejorative) than the right-wingers.

Essentially this position is the same as saying: "everything is ok...everything is EXACTLY as it appears to be. Those in authority over us would NEVER be dishonest. NEVER collude to commit crime. NEVER be corrupt. EVERYTHING is exactly as it appears to be and MUST be this way and you are insane to think otherwise."

Why would a liberal think like this?

Especially when those in positions of power are more often than not anti-liberal?

This position is essentially exactly the same as the position of all who uphold the status quo, of all who do not wish authority to be questioned.

You can tell this also because it is not just politics where they think like this - it extends into many other areas: literary scholarship, Shakespeare Studies, Fortean phenomena....and in all cases it serves to uphold the status quo in whatever form it manifests and ONLY to uphold the status quo.

There is no other point to it. Makes you wonder......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #8 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

One thing I've never understood - not even remotely: why some so called liberals are more anti 'conspiracy theories' (ie in quotations - the term used as a pejorative) than the right-wingers.

Essentially this position is the same as saying: "everything is ok...everything is EXACTLY as it appears to be. Those in authority over us would NEVER be dishonest. NEVER collude to commit crime. NEVER be corrupt. EVERYTHING is exactly as it appears to be and MUST be this way and you are insane to think otherwise."

Why would a liberal think like this?

Especially when those in positions of power are more often than not anti-liberal?

This position is essentially exactly the same as the position of all who uphold the status quo, of all who do not wish authority to be questioned.

You can tell this also because it is not just politics where they think like this - it extends into many other areas: literary scholarship, Shakespeare Studies, Fortean phenomena....and in all cases it serves to uphold the status quo in whatever form it manifests and ONLY to uphold the status quo.

There is no other point to it. Makes you wonder......

Very well said!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

One thing I've never understood - not even remotely: why some so called liberals are more anti 'conspiracy theories' (ie in quotations - the term used as a pejorative) than the right-wingers.

Essentially this position is the same as saying: "everything is ok...everything is EXACTLY as it appears to be. Those in authority over us would NEVER be dishonest. NEVER collude to commit crime. NEVER be corrupt. EVERYTHING is exactly as it appears to be and MUST be this way and you are insane to think otherwise."
.

But this is absolute horseshit.

To reject preposterous arguments as preposterous is in no way to say "everything is ok...everything is EXACTLY as it appears to be. Those in authority over us would NEVER be dishonest. NEVER collude to commit crime. NEVER be corrupt. EVERYTHING is exactly as it appears to be and MUST be this way and you are insane to think otherwise."

No.

On the contrary. It is to say "For fuck's sake, get your head out of your anus and stop wasting time on this studenty 'Lord of the Rings' approach to reality and let's focus on the real dangers and problems we face, because they REALLY ARE urgent."

For example. George Bush and Darth Cheney were not honest. They really were corrupt, and they really were unethical liars, and the Gulf War really was fought on a fiction.

And all the energy that Truther dickheads spent on fighting their 9/11 battle was energy wasted on fighting a battle that should never have been fought, because it was preposterous, and served to discredit and frustrate others.

Let's think about the Birthers. Their beliefs have as much to do with reality as yours do, Segovius, on 9/11. Like the Truthers, they want to win a political fight. Like them, also, they don't know what reality actually is, and they discredit and embarrass the American opposition.

We have real battles to fight, and, of course, we're being lied to, and the rot is systemic.

And all the time people indulge their student proclivities to discuss conspiracy nonsense, our planet is dying. Why don't you stop wasting your time on this fantasy and fight for action on climate, Segovius (if you're not)? I've been doing that, where I live. Why don't you you stop wasting your time on nonsense and fight for sustainable growth, or an alternative to growth? So we can feed people and stop pollution and imagine what happens after capitalism?

What about South African democracy, or the actions of petrol companies on the Niger Delta? Can't you pick a fight where your energy will be useful?

Why don't you stop living in this role playing A.R.G. world, face reality, and try and make a difference?
post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=Mumbo Jumbo;1687566]But this is absolute horseshit.[/quote}



Quote:
To reject preposterous arguments as preposterous is in no way to say "everything is ok...everything is EXACTLY as it appears to be. Those in authority over us would NEVER be dishonest. NEVER collude to commit crime. NEVER be corrupt. EVERYTHING is exactly as it appears to be and MUST be this way and you are insane to think otherwise."

True, rejecting preposterous arguments is fine - but that's not what happens is it? The concept of Conspiracy Theories is what is generally rejected - as you did for example above - way before Sammi Jo actually arrived with a 'theory'.

Also there is the issue of what exactly a 'preposterous argument' actually is - if it is seen as 'all and every Conspiracy Theory that is possible or what I deem to be one' then my argument holds good.

Quote:
On the contrary. It is to say "For fuck's sake, get your head out of your anus and stop wasting time on this studenty 'Lord of the Rings' approach to reality and let's focus on the real dangers and problems we face, because they REALLY ARE urgent."

Ok....I can see that. There are certainly far more urgent issues that those that concern most Conspiracy Minded people BUT then again, if they were true then they would be or grear concern also wouldn't they some of them?

Quote:
For example. George Bush and Darth Cheney were not honest. They really were corrupt, and they really were unethical liars, and the Gulf War really was fought on a fiction.

And all the energy that Truther dickheads spent on fighting their 9/11 battle was energy wasted on fighting a battle that should never have been fought, because it was preposterous, and served to discredit and frustrate others.

That's true. And of course many of the people under that banner are right-wing strangely who opposed Bush because he was not right-wing enough presumably - or for some other unfathomable reason.

If you look at the two most influential 'conspiracy' sites:

Rense .com

What Really Happened

Then you see something interesting- both of these were extreme anti-Bush and anti-war, still are.

But Rense is a racist who is obsessed with Hitler and WRH is now focussing on the 'conspiracy' of Global Warming and opposing Obama's health reforms.

That's not my point though: it is important to be able to think that things are possibly the opposite of what they are presented to be.

That is a sort of freedom: freedom from manipulation by advertising, by the media, by Nationalism....

Quote:
Let's think about the Birthers. Their beliefs have as much to do with reality as yours do, Segovius, on 9/11. Like the Truthers, they want to win a political fight. Like them, also, they don't know what reality actually is, and they discredit and embarrass the American opposition.

True...but a lot of this must be seen in a cultural context.

There are sections of American society that - how can I say this correctly, ahem - are not perhaps the sharpest tools in the box but also enjoy a cultural position where they see this is an asset.

I'm thinking of the sort of people who cheer outside executions and write signs with 'morans' written on them. These people of course will come up with insane positions - it's what they do and have always done - the internet merely gives them a platform and the 'Conspiracy Movement' (for want of a better word) give them a constituency.

These people are not rational - but that does not discredit the concept of CTs anymore than it would make me one of them if we eat the same breakfast cereal.

Re 911 though and my views on it: there are anomalous aspects of 911 just as their are insane theories about it.

THis, imo, is because they don't tell you the truth about it. That doesn't mean the truth is 'aliens' or 'explosions' or even 'collusions' - it is probably something boring and prosaic but that is not the point...the point is that they don't think we need to know the truth and that we need an 'official version'.

As I say, this does not mean the truth is spectacular or odd - it just means our 'leaders' want to obscure how they actually act and think we are not worthy of knowing how that is. Or perhaps we would object.

Almost every piece of news or political event could be seen as a Conspiracy. It just is never a spectacular one nine times out of ten so no-one cares.

Quote:
We have real battles to fight, and, of course, we're being lied to, and the rot is systemic.

That's kind of what I'm saying in a more long-winded way!

Quote:
And all the time people indulge their student proclivities to discuss conspiracy nonsense, our planet is dying. Why don't you stop wasting your time on this fantasy and fight for action on climate, Segovius (if you're not)? I've been doing that, where I live. Why don't you you stop wasting your time on nonsense and fight for sustainable growth, or an alternative to growth? So we can feed people and stop pollution and imagine what happens after capitalism?

It's a good question. I suppose the simple answer is I am conflicted about it. On the one hand I am very sceptical that the individuals running the world can be dislodged - and so we have these characters denying climate change and essentially killing us.

I know for sure that if they succeed - and there seems to me an almost odds-on chance they will - then their last words as we all die screaming would be some rationale as to why they were right.

So, for a few years I have been wondering 'how then to live' in the light of this. Give up? Live for oneself? I don't know.

It makes me angry also - for a long time I felt that at a certain tipping-point I would resort to direct resistance and perhaps form some sort of group but lately I have realized the futility of violence so that's out. I don't have any answers.

I involved myself with a project for the last couple of years which aimed to help people through social change but it turned out to be not what I thought it was going to be and didn't make any change at all.

I still believe in change though.

I just think you need to see beyond to the reality - Obama's 'change' and 'hope' would be a classic example. I never bought into it. That was what I call a CT too...it's not all about aliens and moon-landings.

Quote:
What about South African democracy, or the actions of petrol companies on the Niger Delta? Can't you pick a fight where your energy will be useful?

You fight your battle where you are attacked no?

If you're not being attacked then thank God, settle down and relax where you are and be ready to respond if it happens while supporting those fighting elsewhere.

Quote:
Why don't you stop living in this role playing A.R.G. world, face reality, and try and make a difference?

Reality is what you can get away with as Robert Wilson used to say. There are versions of it.

I face my version pretty often - but it is malleable.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Of course.

We are talking about the intelligence section of an army. How can you possibly be surprised it doesn't tell us a thing.

To expect otherwise would be absurd. Why would they admit they had information? If they were serious about capturing or killing him, why would they compromise their sources, raise expectations, put their target on his guard, and so on?

While I understand your disappointment, the intelligence section of the American military is not setting new standards for transparency and disclosure. This isn't exactly surprising.



How do you know they haven't? Lord knows the American armed forces have been blowing up dozens of civilians on the way to their meagre victories. They seem to be pretty busy to me, and that's just the operations we get to hear about.



He's a wanted mass murderer. Why on earth would they not want to catch him? The PR coup if they did would be a bonanza.

It seems to be pretty likely to me that he's been dead for years, as it happens. But I'm sure in about fifteen minutes some very dull conspiracy-minded people will be claiming these leaks are a deliberate act of obfuscation.



I've often thought he's been dead for years. The guy was not in good health and a diabetic. It's a little difficult to conjure up a vision of him living the hard life in a cave shooting insulin. And notice we haven't seen reliable stuff ( other than taped messages ) for years. I could be wrong but it would make sense to be a mass murderer like him and know you were never going to go to trial anyway.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I've often thought he's been dead for years. The guy was not in good health and a diabetic. It's a little difficult to conjure up a vision of him living the hard life in a cave shooting insulin. And notice we haven't seen reliable stuff ( other than taped messages ) for years. I could be wrong but it would make sense to be a mass murderer like him and know you were never going to go to trial anyway.

The last reasonably reliable sighting of OBL, with multiple witnesses, was in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on the night of September 10, 2001, in the hospital wing of a military/intelligence facility jointly staffed by Pakistani and US personnel. A link to story here:

Prior to this sighting, another widely reported story refers to OBL being visited by CIA station chief Larry Mitchell and 2 other agents in a hospital in Dubai, where (OBL) was being treated for kidney disease.

Naturally, there have been stories circulated on the media/internets that "allege denial of OBL's visits and treatment". After all, OBL and his image is a major part in the huge and ongoing ($$$trillion) investment on the part of the past and current administration in (their) "justification" to maintain a state of perpetual war against people of certain "unapproved" racial/ethno/genotypes and religious traditions. Investments of this size are to be protected at all cost, and any effective method might be employed.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #13 of 13
Sweden drops rape accusation against founder of WikiLeaks:

Quote:
Swedish authorities say they have revoked an arrest warrant that had alleged rape against the founder and editor of the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.

Assange is "no longer wanted" and "is not suspected of rape," Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne said in a statement posted on the agency's official website Saturday. He is also no longer arrested in absentia, the statement said.

Apparently the US government tried to send a message to Julian Assange: Don't Fuck With Us!

Scumbags.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › WikiLeaks + Bin Laden - what is going on?