WikiLeaks: Syria Files

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jul 12, 2012 14:45

..and enough should stick. Was it not LBJ who answered a campaign worker who protested that an accusation against an opponent was without a word of truth...' Sure...but lets hear him deny it..'.

And if you think Goebbels even had a wet dream about totalitarian information management ...check this for full spectrum dominance.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31838

Relax..and let us do your thinking for you.

by pat c Thu Jul 12, 2012 13:54

People need to be reminded, even if its only a rehashing. Too many people now believe that there is something to the rape accusations.

by skrypt_kyddie Thu Jul 12, 2012 13:46

I'd just be rehashing the counterpunch stories, but maybe there is a need to remind the public at this juncture that it was likely all really just a smear campaign and a honey trap operation by the CIA.

The main object of which was probably to get the words "sex offender/rapist" continually repeated in the same sentence as "wikileaks/julian assange" over a protracted period so the public could not think of one without thinking of the other.
Pure media Goebbels 101

by pat c Thu Jul 12, 2012 13:08

Thanks for those links, they make the Ardin situation very clear.

You seem to be clued in to this aspect of things, how about doing a story on it?

by skrypt_kyddie Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:45

Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater here, That documentary is pretty biased.

The big question is, Are they a deliberate misinformation viral marketting group from the word go, or are they just being used to pass off some information that serves Imperialist interests sometimes. I go with the latter explanation.

And whatever you may think of Julian assange, they have no right to torture him in some US black prison over a few leaks. He should be free to flee to Ecuador without the US punishing them economically. They have destroyed that place enough over the years.

The woman involved, Anna Ardin, is a CIA anti castro asset. Its well known.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/14/assange-beseiged/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/12/03/julian-assange-w...live/

And NOBODY is ever extradited for simple questioning...a quick trip to guantanamo awaits on the other end

Lets not forget that the real enemies here are the imperialists and their nefarious secret services and their complete disinformation matrix and their savage never ending wars on poor brown people purely for huge corporate profits

We need anonymous and wikileaks and loose (low orbit ion) cannon hackers and people like bradley manning , even if occasionally they are fed information that imperialists themselves want to leak. We just need to be more careful what we swallow and allow for some of it entering the stream deliberately to further imperialist goals. The alternative is that we know absolutely nothing about what is going on. We still need to support the hackers.

So lets just remind ourselves how all this started again shall we?:

Caption: Video Id: 5rXPrfnU3G0 Type: Youtube Video
collateral murder video that started it all

by ACP Thu Jul 12, 2012 09:55

Pretty simple really - I can see numerous versions of it at the moment - one of them is bound to work

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Wikileaks+...Lies&

DIY mate, D.I.Y. - always best :-)

by ACP Thu Jul 12, 2012 09:51

here's the info hash for a working, and fast DL-ing, torrent of it - 67AB4A84C0FB8B5001B0758AB80D4C02AEC238A5 - simply search for a torrent with that info-hash and you can DL it

by Eager would be viewer Wed Jul 11, 2012 23:02

It says - This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

by ACP Wed Jul 11, 2012 22:35

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnykYaJU26I

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXonNKnfEAM&feature=relmfu

Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amznFBAOYUY

Caption: Video Id: EnykYaJU26I Type: Youtube Video
Wikileaks - Secrets and Lies

by ACP Wed Jul 11, 2012 21:43

Never said I agreed with all of it but he does make some interesting points regarding the Iran Psy-op

AND unlike some here I don't demand that others agree with everything I link to

I agree with you that most of the Black-bloc types at various protests are not Agent Provocateurs , but certainly a few of them are bound to be, as Canadian protesters found out a couple of years ago

by skrypt_kyddie Wed Jul 11, 2012 21:25

"Don’t think any other country is safe from this operation either. Like I said, this same group is at the root of Occupy & Anonymous. Think any of those Molotov throwing cyberwar waging anarchists in London or Greece are being trained by a different covert operation? Think the Molotov throwing cyberwar waging terrorists in #Bahrain or #Syria are being trained by a different covert operation? Think the Molotov making cyberwar waging OccuAnarchists in Chicago are being trained by a different covert operation? Of course not… don’t be ridiculous… it’s all the same thing."

thats a quote from COJ opwatch. In other words, he believes occupy wall street and the protesters in bahrain are evil. Now having been involved directly in occupy and having noted the media suppression of info on bahrain, I think thats horseshit.

I agree with him about the fake "green revolution" in Iran and the co-opting of other grassroots unrest to build the fake arab spring where nothing much really changed for the poor.

The world is indeed a murky place and many information channels want us to believe their particular stream of lies, but the truth lies somewhere in between COJ and the MSM.

Regarding wikileaks, I give my support to some extent but I have a nagging question which still troubles me a lot:

WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THE HUGE 5GB BANK OF AMERICA LEAK???? HMMMMM!!!!

by WIKI Wed Jul 11, 2012 20:16

New Release: The relationships between the Syrian Communist Party and the Italian and Spanish communists.

http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/releasedate/2012-07-11....html

by WIKI Wed Jul 11, 2012 20:12

New releases: from Spanish Young Communists to Syrian comrades: we don't trust Spanish media, tell us the truth.

http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/releasedate/2012-07-11....html

by WIKI Wed Jul 11, 2012 19:54

It should be noted that Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat. Assange is still under threat, he needs suppor.

_______________________________________
While Obama administration spokesmen and the Australian government continue to insist that Washington is “not interested” in prosecuting WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence head, Dianne Feinstein, has issued another call for the Australian citizen to be put on trial.

“Mr Assange should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act [of 1917],” Feinstein told the Melbourne-based Age last week. “I believe Mr Assange has knowingly obtained and disseminated classified information which could cause injury to the United States. He has caused serious harm to US national security, and he should be prosecuted accordingly.”

US Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd told the newspaper that “there continues to be an investigation into the WikiLeaks matter.”

Assange is currently inside Ecuador’s embassy in London, pending a response to his June 19 application for political asylum in that country. Ecuadorian embassies in the US and Britain reported last week that they had received over 10,000 email messages in support of his application.

Assange’s decision to seek asylum followed the recent UK Supreme Court rejection of his legal appeals against extradition to Sweden. The WikiLeaks editor fears that if removed to Sweden, Washington will intervene and extradite him to the US. There he would face trial, on trumped-up charges, for the “crime” of publishing hundreds of thousands documents exposing war crimes by Washington, and the intrigues of the major powers.

The latest statements from Feinstein and the US Department of Justice, along with other evidence of grand jury moves against WikiLeaks and its personnel, confirm Assange’s warnings. The Senate committee that Feinstein heads oversees the leading US intelligence agencies, including the CIA, National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

More http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jul2012/juas-j09.shtml

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 11, 2012 16:15

A nice complement to the work of gene sharp which gives them the actual tools to do the job once the leaks about their corrupt governments enrage them enough to act.

here's an run down of the conspiracy theory relating to Anon and Occupy and the ridiculously titled 'Arab Spring' which I found interesting enough http://calloutjoe.wordpress.com/- the author sees all 3 as being merely different faces of the same nefarious BS used to co-opt any upswell of discontent so that it can be nullified ASAP -

Can't say I agree with ALL of it but he does raise some interesting points and actually seems to have spent a LOT of time gathering 'evidence' from Twitter feeds in real time as the Iran Election Psy-Op was getting into full swing

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 11, 2012 16:08

Long established leak site cryptome thinks the syria files are a CIA psyop too!

yes I'm aware of John Young's thoughts on Assange and Wikileaks.

Young is annoyed because he trusted Assange at the start and actually allowed his name to be used on the registrant DB for Wikileaks originally. but then ihe says Assange and Wikileaks started actring in ways that YOung considered to be highly inadvisable, YOung now appears to think that Assange was mainly in it for the fame and the money - and there certainly DOES appear to have been SOME of misuse of WIKI-funds by Assange and his inner-circle - which is also why some have claimed there have been quite a few defections form the original group of Wikileaks organisers

But I decided not to post a link to it as it would only have given the child another opportunity to start ranting about ""conspiracy!!!" and probably cause him to post a few more moronic jpegs as a substitute for not having anything intelligent of interesting to say on a subject he appears to have a very weird emotional attachment/fetish for - and no one really needs to be subjected to another bout of that, do they?

But since you have now brought it up there's little point in me avoiding linking to Mr Young's site

anyway - here's a few links, for anyone that is interested, from Young at his Cryptome site, on wikileaks and Assange

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-series.htm - series of article related to Assange Wikileaks and credibilty

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/whos-who-wl.htm which links to this : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=22437&context=va where one can see the original board of Wikileaks - surprisingly there's quite a few Gov't connected individuals there as well as several Chinese 'Dissidents' which is what started Alarm Bells ringing for SOME people regarding Assange's bona fides and the possibility that the whole Wikileaks operation is little more than a US/NATO psy-op designed to provide an obstensively more credible dis-information dissemination channel, now that most intelligent people no longer believe most of what is published by Mainstream News Orgs

Personally I'm prepared to give Wikileaks itself (i.e: the majority of those involved in it) the benefirt of the doubt - but as to Assange himself, I'm a little bit sceptical as to his own personal honesty, and am still open to the possibility that he may be nothing more than a US/NATO operative

by skrypt_kyddie Wed Jul 11, 2012 15:42

Long established leak site cryptome thinks the syria files are a CIA psyop too!

http://instantnowherekorporation.blogspot.ie/2012/07/wi....html
http://cryptome.org/

Of course they go even further and say that wikileaks itself is a fake leak site run by the CIA etc to leak information which helped their plans along such as the stuff which helped trigger the tunisian revolt etc.

A nice complement to the work of gene sharp which gives them the actual tools to do the job once the leaks about their corrupt governments enrage them enough to act.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 11, 2012 15:18

"Culture persists even if individuals don't!"

Fair enough - I'll accept that the 'culture' exists, anbd concede that Anonymous is not TOTALLY as loose an 'org' as I earlier stated - BUT again the problem is that since it's ALL anonymous no one knows who makes up the mob on any given 'mission' - and few if any really know who calls the missions and what THEIR real agenda might be - so as you say CIA - or Insert-3-letter-Acronym-of-your-choice-here - infiltration IS a given. But curiously when I mention that here, certain childish individuals, that very obviously know little or nothing about this stuff, have a compelte tantrum and throw their rattle right out of their pram - see various posts abouve by 'Wiki' :-)

"You are just stating the obvious."

Not at all obvious to the child arguing against me, going by the name of 'Wiki', though, is it?

Nor particulaurly obvious to RT by the looks of it either

"You seem to think everyone but yourself is an idiot. You are one short I think!!! ;-)"

Not at all - the only 'idiot' I encounter around here is the the child calling himself 'Wiki' that has been endlessly repeating himself without adding anything new ;-)

But you do have a point in that I DO generally consider peoiple that do not read what is written, before dashing off an usually fact-free hysterical reply, to be quite idiotiic indeed, and there's plenty of evidence of their idiocy on this thread alone :-)

by skrypt_kyddie Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:59

"here's the thing though, and I'm not attacking you here, but what most people fail to understand about the whole concept of 'Anonymous' is that:
There is NO one Anonymous - there are MANY Anonymous
And to make the presumption that todays Anon has ANY connection to tomorrows ANON or yesterday's ANON, is dangerous - and to launch personalised attacks on anyone taking the time to point that out is quite frankly idiotic"

You are wrong. Of course there is a connection. Certain things in hacker / script kiddie culture carry on and have inertia. Ideas propagate quickly in internet cultures and become part of a set of beliefs. Many of these persist even if some members leave and new ones arrive on the scene

anonymous evolved loosely from a site called 4chan. I knew about that and visited it long before anonymous ever appeared. Any asshole can go there and plant seeds/ ideas or leak something if they like. CIA could easily infiltrate. It's a puerile site full of kids making in jokes, some with hacker skills.

You are just stating the obvious. Of course there is no one anonymous. However there are internet "water cooler" sites and IRC channels that "members" frequent. And there is a culture and a set of shared beliefs which quickly propagate. Even if some people drift away and others join in, these still have inertia.

You seem to think everyone but yourself is an idiot. You are one short I think!!! ;-)

by Wiki Tue Jul 10, 2012 19:03

I accept that I might be wrong, you are unable to do that. You post multiple comments to drown out any opinion other than your own. You do the same in your postings on climate change threads. You live in your little world, a pocket universe ruled by yourself. You are the emperor in your own mind and no one has the right to challenge you. You are a true solipsist.

You will derail threads because its all about you - in your head.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 14:39

"Anonymous often seem like they are cool and have it all sussed,"

here's the thing though, and I'm not attacking you here, but what most people fail to understand about the whole concept of 'Anonymous' is that:

There is NO one Anonymous - there are MANY Anonymous

And to make the presumption that todays Anon has ANY connection to tomorrows ANON or yesterday's ANON, is dangerous - and to launch personalised attacks on anyone taking the time to point that out is quite frankly idiotic

The Anon you might hear about today is most likely got nothing to do with ANY other Anon you may ever heard of.

Which is why the whole notion of Anonymous is a double-edged sword and relying on them based on past 'Anonymous' actions will eventually blow-up in the face of anyone that does not realise what Anonymous is and is not

"The fact is this release could easily have been the result of intelligence services monkeying about then anonymously feeding their results through a "reputable" outlet to give it credibility, and it's timing is quite interesting. "

PRECISELY - and it's a fairly simple-to-understand point - which is why the childish vehemence contained in the postings of the person arguing against me is so ridiculous

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 14:27

And scepticism should be applied to any News Orgs reports in time of war, irrespective of who they are - ESPECIALLY when based on ANONYMOUS sources -

SOME people around here seem to have a hard time understanding the need for scepticism, preferring instead to launch personalised rants instead of engaging their brains in an excersize in critical thinking.

Not all of the people commenting here are prepared to just open their mouths and just swallow something because it appeared on RT. That that seems to immensely irritate others, is their own problem, not mine

"Everything They’re Telling Us About Syria….is False?" http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/07/08/everything-theyre-tell...alse/

Note the question mark - implies doubt, not certainty ;-)

excerpt:

"Friday, we read in the New York Times and elsewhere about one of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s most important supporters and allies having defected. The impression one gets is that Assad’s government is in a state of collapse— and this gives credibility to those pushing for Assad to turn over power.

But what the media are not mentioning is that Brigadier General Manaf Tlass did not defect directly from the Assad inner circle. He had already fallen into disfavor early in the uprising and lost his command in May 2011—14 months ago. If you had that additional piece of information, you would interpret the news reports in a totally different way.

When a piece of evidence that contradicts the overall impression is absent from the reportage, the reportage itself is almost worthless.

As are reports of horrific events without adequate fact-checking and follow-up. Remember the Houla massacre? Who carried that out?

Houla Whoops

The media told us that more than 100 people, including women and children, were brutally slaughtered at close range in the village of Houla in late May. The bloodshed, reported around the world, was ascribed to a militia, the Shabiha, which is loyal to Assad. Here’s an example, from the BBC website:

Survivors of the massacre in Syria’s Houla region have told the BBC of their shock and fear as regime forces entered their homes and killed their families….

[snip]

Most witnesses who spoke to the BBC said they believed that the army and shabiha militiamen were responsible.

“We were in the house, they went in, the shabiha and security, they went in with Kalashnikovs and automatic rifles,” said survivor Rasha Abdul Razaq.

Later, a dribble of accounts cast doubt on this, since the people killed were, by and large, themselves supporters of Assad. But few heard about these. The BBC report did not say who Rasha was, or provide any evidence that she actually was there, or that if she was, she had any basis for saying that the killers were identifiable as to their affiliation. BBC quoted one other source, who did not provide a name. Despite the thinness of this material, the BBC story was picked up all over the world, and became perhaps the definitive account.

Hence, you probably were unaware of an article from the Frankfurter Allgemeine-Zeitung, a traditional and serious German newspaper for whom I’ve written in the past. It published a report a month ago from a correspondent who got eyewitness accounts from people who he says had visited the Houla area. The correspondent, Rainer Hermann, says that these eyewitnesses were Assad opponents, yet discovered that government backers were not responsible for the massacre.

Hermann’s sources described the events as follows: anti-Assad rebels attacked army roadblocks just outside Houla, which had been intended to protect villages, where the majority are members of Assad’s Alawi sect, from Sunni militias. The soldiers at the roadblocks, overwhelmed, called for backup, which led to a 90-minute battle, in which both sides sustained extensive fatalities.

It was in this time frame that the unidentified militias entered Houla.

As Hermann wrote June 7:


“According to eyewitness accounts…those killed were almost exclusively from families belonging to Houla’s Alawi and Shia minorities. Over 90% of Houla’s population are Sunnis. Several dozen members of a family were slaughtered, which had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. Members of the Shomaliya, an Alawi family, were also killed, as was the family of a Sunni member of the Syrian parliament who is regarded as a collaborator. Immediately following the massacre, the perpetrators are supposed to have filmed their victims and then presented them as Sunni victims in videos posted on the internet.

…”Their findings contradict allegations of the rebels, who had blamed the Shabiha militias which are close to the regime.”


Thus, Hermann seemingly was able to do something that most of the Western reporters have been unable to do: find opponents of Assad who nevertheless may be willing to provide accounts that do not serve their own interests.

Of course, we could do with more information on Hermann’s sources. How do we know they were really in Houla? How do we know they are really opponents of Assad, not just pretending to be? Their story of inter-communal strikes makes more sense than the one that went around the world and turned so many people who had not been paying attention into supporters of toppling Assad. But nevertheless, everyone needs to provide more detail so we can try to ascertain what is true.

Almost all of the accounts in major news organization stories are characterized as being from the opposition, almost all portray everything as caused solely by the regime, and almost all add the disclaimer that the information “could not be independently verified.”

Talking Turkey

Though conventional journalism likes to advertise that it is “objective” and doesn’t take sides, I don’t recall hearing much from the Syrian regime’s point of view, beyond general and unconvincing denials following reports of regime wrongdoing. One almost gets the impression that the Syrian government does not wish to be heard.

But that turns out not to be the case."

Winston Churchill said "The first casualty of War is always Truth."

Churchill also said "In wartime, the Truth is so precious that it should always be surrounded by a bodyguard of Lies."

But to be honest I doubt you'll understand the significance of any of what I have just written

by skrypt_kyddie Tue Jul 10, 2012 14:06

as a person reading this, Its clear that ACP has a good point here.

RT are generally good on their syria coverage and provide a good counterbalance to the deluge of shite coming from US co-opted tv stations on world events.

However anonymous have a weakness. stuff can easily be fed to them.

Anonymous often seem like they are cool and have it all sussed, but we need to remember that half of them are probably just a bunch of young kids with no deep understanding of what is really going on in world events. They see the so called arab spring as "the revolution", people trying to get freedom from their oppressive governments. Yay! then they hop onboard and start hacking.

Reality is often somewhat more cynical and nuanced and the naive optimism of such "script kiddies" can easily be co-opted.

The fact is this release could easily have been the result of intelligence services monkeying about then anonymously feeding their results through a "reputable" outlet to give it credibility, and it's timing is quite interesting.

The question to ask is "whose interests does it serve best"

On the whole so far, I don't think it is Assad's

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the NSA/CIA were up to their balls in this

Sure, for all we know, in desperation, Julian might even have cut a deal with the US so they don't execute him.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 13:31

I have used the phrase "It's highly unlikely" several times too - again this implies doubt - you of course ignored that too - so it's pretty clear who here has conmsidered the possibility that they may be wrong, and who has not

It's also pretty clear that only one of us actually takes the time to read what the other has written before dashing off a reply -

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 13:24

You cannot countenance the possibility that you could ever be wrong. In your head Wiki and RT have become dupes of the CIA. Its always the same with you: if you don't like what someone says then they are either CIA agents or dupes.

Now your just palin lying - had you bothered to actually spend the time to calmy read (like a normal person might do) and calmy and rationally consider what I have said you might have noticed that I used phrasses such as

• 'possibly'
• 'probably'
• "seems dubious to me" etc etc

- all of these phrases actually REALLY do imply an element of doubt - but you in your ridiculous haste to post equally ridiculous personalised rants, seem to have missed the significance of any of that.

you are just projecting your own mental pathology on to others in a weak attempt to hide the fact that you're unwilling to address any of the points raised. There were many and you have made many comments here but so far not one of them has addressed what I actually wrote

rather mystifying that you spend so much time avoiding actually addressing what has been said,

It almost looks like you have some weird emotional attachment to RT - dude it's just a News Org, not your best friend or a lover, ok?

the inclusion of silly graphics does nothing to dispell the notion that you're utterly unable to think critically or react rationally when someonelse, with some actual knowledge of computers and security, dares suggest a more plausible altenative narrative.

by Wiki Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:53

I have made that clear.

You cannot countenance the possibility that you could ever be wrong. In your head Wiki and RT have become dupes of the CIA. Its always the same with you: if you don't like what someone says then they are either CIA agents or dupes.

Eventually you'll begin to suspect yourself.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:28

"I realise that I might be wrong."

Clearly you don't

At no point so far in your previous rants attacking me personally have you ever even mentioned or considered that possibility

so it's rather implausible that you are now claiming that "I realise that I might be wrong."

It would be fairly clear to any neutral party reading these exchanges that the possibilty that you might be wrong has never crossed your mind - or if it did you rejected ity entirely

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:21

you still are ignoring almost everything I've written on this subject so far, somehting you have made a habit of - all you are doing is simply uselessly repeating yourself

RT's 'credibilty' in the past can't do anything to hide the fact that all they have done in this instance is simply regurgitate an ANONYMOUS press release with out applying the most rudimentary critical analysis of such claims

Other than uselessly endlessly repeating that YOU trust RT you have not said anything relevant to the subject so far

by Wiki Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:16

I realise that I might be wrong.

You carry on as if you are the sole custodian of absolute truth.

RT and Wiki have more credibility than either of us.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:16

I'd be equally scathing were RT to just blindly accept MY commentary on this and post it as a 'NEWS' story, under the Headline "Claims in ANONYMOUS Press Release deemed 'Implausible'"

I expect a credible News Org to critically Analyse such claims - especially ANONYMOUS claims contained in an ANONYMOUS Press Release found on the internet.

Such claims require more that mere regurgitation - otherwise RT comes off looking no better than the worst of the Western Propaganda merchants that masquerade as purveyors of credible NEWS stories

This is not 'NEWS' - the way RT have not bothered to critically analyse these ANONYMOUS claims is nothing but mere stenography - essentially they are reporting ANONYMOUS claims as 'NEWS' when they are nothing of the sort - these claims have no more validity than if I released a Press Release saying "I did it!!" - in which case I'd expect RT, or any News Org worthy of the name, to actually examine critically such claims - something RT failed to do in this instance

At no point in the RT report do they appear to take the time to critically analyse the content of the ANONYMOUS Press Release.

At no point do they even appear to consider the possibility that this particular ANONYMOUS hack was possibly/probably the result of a hostile Mil/Gov't action, despite the fact that cracking Mil-Grade encryption requires the resources that only a State Agency (or a seriously powerful private commercial computing entity) can bring to bear.

And THAT is seriously sloppy journalism

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:37

"We're both just anonymous posters "

Seriosuly this is getting embarassing, watching you refuse to apply critical thinking

I higlighted several times the fact that all of this comes from an ANONYMOUS (in EVERY sense of the word) 'Press Release' found on the internet

So, before one reads the content, my commentary on it is no more or less valid - my commentary only obtains or loses validity once the CONTENT is considered - something YOU have so far stridently refused to do. - but curiously you place a whole ton of credibility on an ANONYMOUS (in EVERY sense of the word) 'Press Release' found on the internet while disparaging me for questioning it while also remaining anonymous - seriously?

Have you never heard of 'cognative dissonance' - logically what you are saying makes no sense and is self-contradictory

I choose to remain anonymous - others can judge my words and ideas on thier own merit alone - they can either decide to agree or disagree based on the content alone -

I read the ANONYMOUS press release and found the content to be implausible, based on what I already know about computers and security - I stated clearly why Iit was so, so that others might then themsleves use some critical thinking - and rather than reply to the content, addressing the arguments made therein, you choose to instead to become highly offended that others might have an opportunity to think for themselves

It's rather mystifying why others having an opportunity to think for themselves might offend you so much

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:19

Anyone who doesn't agree with you in every little detail is either a CIA agent or is being used by them.

Sorry but you seem to have read something other than what I wrote - you appear to make a habit of that.

I know more than enough about computers, security and encryption to confidently state what I have stated about the liklelihood of this being a state action.

And since you ignored EVERYTHING I wrote about computer and security, something tells me computer security and encrytpion is not something you're particularly well-versed in - I even suspect that you did not even bother to consider for one moment what I wrote before you started ranting about accusing others of being CIA agents.

Personally speaking if I disagreed with someone I would address what they actually said rather than just launching personal attacks

Ever consider that you might not always be the sole custodian of thee absolute truth?

I'm not making any claims of that sort, again that is something you just decided to make up out of thin air in an attempt to hide the fact that you refuse to adress any of the points I made earlier - you are just looking for reasons not to consider what I have said - no one is forcing you to keep replying - you disagree with me on this and have stated so - but other than basically saying "I trust RT" you have not addressed anything I have said on the subject.

It never seems to occur to YOU that RT may be wrong on this - it actually appears to be something you are putting a lot of effort in to refusing to consider. As I said ear;lier it's pretty obvious that RT have no other 'sources' on this and are just regurgitating an ANONYMOUS (in EVERY sense of the word) Press Release they found on that internet

Unlike you I have laid out the reasoning on this - and irrespective of what you say it IS a reasonable argument -

We're both just anonymous posters on Indymedia.ie.<

Yes and one of us knows a fair bit about this subject - and one of us made a coherent argument, laying out their reasoning over several paragraphs. The other of us decided to ignore all of that, refused to actually adress what was actually written and just started launching poersonal attacks and ranting.

RT and Wikileaks have got track records.

So?

unlike you I don't just swallow what others feed me, irrespective of their track record

Unlike you I take each individual case and examnie it on it's merits alone - not on the previous actions of any of the parties involved. That would be foolish IMHO - THAT is a fine way to get taken for a ride - uncritically accepting anyones word for something, as you are doing here, is just iddiotic.

I simply apply what I already know about computer security, to what is claimed in the ANONYMOUS (in EVERY sense of the word) Press Release and decided that their story was fairly implausible.

Unlike you I'm not just going to take the word of some ANONYMOUS (in EVERY sense of the word) Press Release posted on the internet - nor am I going to accept it just because RT have swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker.

Unlike you I decided to apply some actual real live critical thinking to this Press Release.

That you have chosen to suspend whatever criticial thinking facilities you may posess, in this instance, is hardly my fault.

Like I said earlier you appear to be doing your damndest to make this a personal issue between us - and I'm a little mystified why you would choose to do that, other than as a rather desperate-looking attempt too try and discredit anyone that disagrees with the slavishly accepting stance you have taken in regard to the likely validity of an ANONYMOUS (in EVERY sense of the word) Press Release posted on the internet

So why don't you stop ranting and just let others decide for themselves?

We've read your disapproval of me daring to excersise my critical thinking skills -

we all get that you disapprove of me excersising my critical thinking skills -

but unless you are actually going to take the time to address specifically what I have said, something you appear particularly loathe to do, then all you are doing is pointlessly repetitivly ranting out your disapproval of someone else actually daring to think for themselves.

by WIKI Tue Jul 10, 2012 09:54

Anyone who doesn't agree with you in every little detail is either a CIA agent or is being used by them.

Ever consider that you might not always be the sole custodian of thee absolute truth?

We're both just anonymous posters on Indymedia.ie.

RT and Wikileaks have got track records.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 10, 2012 01:19

"Not demanding that people shouldn't question RT"

Actually that's exactly what you did - seriously - it's there in black&white on the page - when you tell someone that questioning something is 'A dangerous road to go down' you ARE essentially telling them not to question something - I'm surprised I even have to say that, to be honest

"Just pointing out that RT have a record of covering Syria from an an anti-imperialist perspective"

well IMO that wasn't all you were doing, but yes I certainly agree that thus far they do have a good record - but the past has nothing to do with this particular instance - you seem unable to grasp that very very simple point

"Its staffed by serious experienced journalists who weigh a story in the balance before publishing it."

nobody said otherwise, though to be honest "weigh a story in the balance before publishing it." is just a bloody cliche and has little meaning generally, and in this particular instance means nothing at all - to use your own phrase: they looked at the press release " weighed it in the balance" [whatever THAT means] "and then published [most of it, the technical bits anyway]"

But such statements really have again got nothing to do with what I am talking about -

You are taking all this very personally from what II can see - this really has nothing to do with RT and or it's general credibility - other than that they appear to have just c&p'd a lot of the Anon 'Press release' - their report on the matter contains little detail that didn't come straight from the Press release' -

"Also, no journalist worth their salt would reveal their confidential sources. "

What 'sources' are you talking about -you're being very presumptuous - from what I can see all they did was regurgitate an ANONYMOUS press release - there's no other 'sources' involved here - you seem to have conjured up some little scenario right out of a hollywood blockbuster wherein some hunk/hunkette of an RT reporter phones up his/her own personal ANON Hacker Insider contact and asks "did you guys do this?" and some deep-throat voice at the other end says "Yes we did Mr Intrepid RT reporter, we most certainly did"

I hate to break it to you but there's no ANONYMOUS HQ which RT can phone up to confirm this stuff - there's no ANON Press Officer, no ANON CEO etc etc

Virtually every News org reporting this is reporting almost exactly the same thing, and any specific actual details being reported are simply just regurgitations of the contents of the press release - there really is no sign of anyone having any 'sources' other than the press release -

I'll accept RTs judgement on this rather than yours.
Well good for you - unlike you I haven't told anyone else here what to do or think - but me I'd rather think for myself

Here's what you are not understanding

Both you and RT appear to be suffering form a complete inbability to understand the nature of 'Anonymous' - it is not so much a 'movement' as an 'anti-Movement' -

Anyone, even (or especially) a Gov't Security Service could attack a nations/Orgs servers and claim "This was done by 'Anonymous'" and a whole bunch of people would instantly presume that the same or similar people that launched a DDOS on VISA in defence of Assange, were responsible for breaking Syrian Gov't encryption - a highly dubious notion, at best

Prior to this the majority of Anon 'missions' were simple DDOS attacks - anyone can do that, no skills required - all you need is the numbers and LOIC to make it possible

But what RT, via a completely ANONYMOUS (in EVERY sense of the word) 'Press Release' found on the internet, are alleging here is something completely different - essentially it's at the compelte opposite end of the spectrum from a simple DDOS

the idea that this was carried out by a bunch of civilian Hacker Heroes seems dubious to me - Military grade encryption is easy to obtain these days - And certainly the Syrian gov't has Mil-grade encryption and to crack that stuff one need serious computing power - super-computers at the very least - and THAT is simply not something that Non-State actors have access to.

Otherwise encryption would be broken every day by script-kiddies sitting in there bedrooms - sorry but it's not plausible that this was carried out by anyone other than a State with access to super-computers

It's highly unlikely that the contents of Syrian gov't servers are sitting there unencrypted - the fecking MAC Os even has the ability to encrypt the contents of a HD - feckin useless Windows even has it too - so even if you got in the front door of the server accessing, the files on HD's is your real challenge - a feat unlikely to one pulled off by civilians.

The syrians ain't stupid - they KNOW they're going to be under cyber-attack, and they're NOT going to leave contents of HD used for Gov't communications unencrypted. and that encrytpion won't be simply easy to hack just because you got in the front door of the server.

and if tere was a built-In back door used to do this, THAT too implies a State Actor - not a bunch of civilians

The thing about ANON that you fail to understand is that ANYONE can pull any stunt they like and then say 'ANONYMOUS did it" - it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever in real terms but in the minds of the public it is connected to past ANONYMOUS attacks such as the one I mentioned earlier - the ANONYMOUS of the VISA DDOS has absolutley no connection to the ANONYMOUS involved in this instance - for all anyone knows THIS ANONYMOUS could simply be the US Gov't pretending to be a bunch of ordinary civilian hackers- no one has any way of knowing oneway or the other

But what I do know, as I said earlier - cracking Mil-Grade encryption is IMPOSSIBLE without SERIOUS computing power - the sort of computing power which civilian hackers simply do not have access to, no matter how many of them band together

The most likely scenario is that the Us has cracked the syrian encryption and then passed the info off onto Wikileaks by claiming that they are ANONYMOUS (which technically they are, I spose)

so irrespective of RT's past reporting, the ANON Press release simply is not plausible, and RT have done their reputation a disservice in relying on a completely ANONYMOUS press release posted on the internet

YOu can rely on Rt all you like, but what they are reporting in this instance is dodgy in the extreme

Personally I think that in this instance Wikileaks has been duped into unwittingly acting as a conduit for a US Gov't/Military hacking operation

by Wiki Mon Jul 09, 2012 19:28

Not demanding that people shouldn't question RT. Just pointing out that RT have a record of covering Syria from an an anti-imperialist perspective. Its staffed by serious experienced journalists who weigh a story in the balance before publishing it. Also, no journalist worth their salt would reveal their confidential sources.

I'll accept RTs judgement on this rather than yours.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Mon Jul 09, 2012 14:22

"Their claims on Syria and related issues should be given some credibility"

Why?

I'm not talking about their overall Syria coverage - I'm talking about THIS instance only.

why should I not question RT in this instance - when all they are doing is a C&P of something found on the internet, posted by an ANONYMOUS individual/group

What right have you to demand that people not question RT in this instance?

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Mon Jul 09, 2012 14:19

"Its a dangerous road to go down to attack rt.com and Wikileaks because they publish something yo don't like"

All the info in the RT article above comes from an Anonymous (in EVERY sense of the wrod) Press Release on the internet

So you tell me - why should anyone pay any attention to an anonymous Press Release ( a rather amusing concept in itself)

"Its a dangerous road to go down to attack rt.com and Wikileaks because they publish something yo don't like"

All RT are doing is basically copy&pasting the content of an ANONYMOUS ( (in EVERY sense of the wrod) Press Release on the internet

I'm not 'attacking' RT as such, despite what you might choose to believe - I'm attacking that very notion that an ANONYMOUS ( (in EVERY sense of the wrod) Press Release on the internet is in any way a reliable form of 'News'

And this Idea that you put forward "Its a dangerous road to go down etc etc . . . . . . " is itself a VERY Dangerous road to go down.

Essentially you appear to be saying "Shut Up and don't ask awkward questions!" and IMHO there few things more dangerous than that.

by WIKI Mon Jul 09, 2012 14:12

RT is Russian Television, the Russian public broadcaster. Their claims on Syria and related issues should be given some credibility. At least the benefit of the doubt.

If you have conflicting evidence which blows their story out of the water then publish it.

Its a dangerous road to go down to attack rt.com and Wikileaks because they publish something yo don't like. Look at their record in a holistic manner.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Mon Jul 09, 2012 14:02

It turns out that back in February, Hacktivists from Anonymous Syria, AntiSec and the People’s Liberation Army worked day and night “to create a breach of multiple domains and dozens of servers inside Syria,” an Anonymous press release states. The operation was part of Anonymous’ anti-Assad Op Syria. Many hacktivists taking part in the operation were working inside Syria.

So how is RT know ANY of this?

well apparently there is some sort of "an Anonymous press release "

Now since Anonymous is a suppossedly decentralised group, or so it states, how could any "press release" from them be considered reliable - the whole point of anonymous is that no one knows who or what is behind it

One of the Strenghts of Anonymous is that no one knows anything about who is behind it - equally, something often ignored around here and elsewhere, is that one of the DANGERS of Anonymous is that no one knows anything about who is behind it

Besdies the very dubious notion of an Anonymous 'Press Release', what evidence does RT provide to back-up these bald assertions of there's? ~None that I can see and other awake readers might have noticed that RT offers a BIG FAT NOTHING in the way of evidence to back up her assertions -

So I'll ask a simple NEUTRAL question - since I was told quite recently by an Indymedia Editor that NEUTRAL question are just fine around here - (here's a test Indymedia Editors - Are NEUTRAL questions ALLOWED ariound here?)

Besides just taking the word of an 'Anonymous Press Release' (Geddit?) How can anyone check the veracity of ANY of RT claims about Anonymous and FLAME?

Well we can't cos "it's Anonymous", see?

So why should anyone grant RT claims any status higher than 'someone on the internet says . . . .?"

by Wiki Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:57

Wikiliance: Anonymous and Wikileaks collaborated on Syria Files

A man holds a "Free Assange - No Extradition" sign alongside a protester wearing a Guy Fawkes mask and holding a sign reading "I'm Julian" as they demonstrate outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, on June 23, 2012, where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum. (AFP Photo/Carl Court)

Anonymous and other hacktivists say they were the group that provided WikiLeaks with the more than two million e-mails released as part of the Syria files. This is not the first time that Anonymous and WikiLeaks have cooperated.

The statement comes days after WikiLeaks began releasing sensitive e-mails on a drop-by-drop basis, with new data published almost daily.

However, it has so far refrained from speaking about the sources of the information.

It turns out that back in February, Hacktivists from Anonymous Syria, AntiSec and the People’s Liberation Army worked day and night “to create a breach of multiple domains and dozens of servers inside Syria,” an Anonymous press release states. The operation was part of Anonymous’ anti-Assad Op Syria. Many hacktivists taking part in the operation were working inside Syria.

The amount of data turned out to be so massive that downloading it required several weeks. While Anonymous published some e-mails from the personal accounts of President Bashar Assad and his wife Asma back in March, most of the data were passed onto WikiLeaks, an organization that was “supremely well equipped to handle a disclosure of this magnitude.”

In the meantime, WikiLeaks has continued to publicize more compromising e-mail correspondences. One such correspondence reveals that Lord Kenilworth, a noted British landscape architect, worked on a new garden at the Assad family residence near the coastal Syrian town of Lattakia. The e-mails appear to indicate that Assad still owed Kenilworth money back in September, though the project had already been completed.

Another batch of e-mails shows that Assad provided money to a female aide, a doctorate student at the University of Durham.
E-mails released earlier also revealed that the PR firm Brown Lloyd James tried to help the regime polish up its image in order to win the media war, though it is unclear whether the Assad government had paid for the service.

The publication of the “Syria Files” is not the first time that Anonymous and WikiLeaks have collaborated. Last December, Anonymous hacked five million e-mails from private security firm Stratfor. It apparently relayed those e-mails to WikiLeaks, which published them in February.
http://www.rt.com/news/wikileaks-anonymous-syria-files-689/

by Mr. Bean - interceptor ® Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:52 misterbean at autistici dot org

https://calabria.indymedia.org/article/6636
https://london.indymedia.org/articles/12516
http://issuu.com/misterbean/docs/progetto_selex_tetrata...siria