They spin and distort
the information to conform to a left-wing, anti-military, anti-war view of the world.
The second of these is unnecessary.
They could have decided to be just a leaking organisation.
But they couldn't resist the temptation to editorialise.
Often the very information they are leaking
refutes the spin they try to put on it.
For example, in the 2007 Iraq airstrike video,
the US military is clearly telling the truth about what happened,
while Wikileaks is spinning it and
distorting it.
Assange seems entirely focused on damaging America and other counterjihad forces,
rather than damaging, say, the regimes of Iran and North Korea.
Other people agree that Assange is biased:
Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site, 1 Dec 2010.
"A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform
... The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US".
Victor Davis Hanson, 29 Oct 2010, says Wikileaks
"does not tend to uncover things about the Russian, Iranian, Cuban, or Chinese armed forces in any way commensurate with its fixation on the U.S. military. It either has no wish to, has no means to, or is very afraid of the consequences - in the fashion of the reaction to the Danish cartoons - should it choose to do so."
An early warning of Wikileaks' leftie bias came in 2008.
They agreed to host the controversial anti-jihad movie
Fitna.
But they insisted on bundling it
with an ignorant, pathetic Saudi Muslim reply called "Schism".
J.R. Dunn, 9 Dec 2010, nails the Wikileaks mentality.
These are comfortable, rich, western young people who - in contrast to young American and British soldiers
- are not willing to kill or die for their cause.
Instead, they have watched one Hollywood movie
too many,
and believe that a single unelected, unaccountable individual can (and should)
decide what the democratically elected governments of the West can do.
"These are not Red Guards or Khmer Rouge; these are the potential victims of Red Guards and Khmer Rouge - foolish, childish, spoiled, miseducated (and possibly ineducable), the dregs of millennial society. They exist in a dream reality, feeding on myths that any normal individual would reject half-heard: that the world is run by means of conspiracy. That capitalism is evil. That Marxism is about sharing. That 9/11 was an inside job. That Michael Moore and Joseph C. Wilson IV are heroic figures."
Iraqi jihadi terrorists in the
2007 airstrike video.
Wikileaks spun this as if it was an attack on civilians.
The US military, in contrast, was telling the truth.
The Wikileaks version is false.
Julian Assange is explicitly anti-war:
"There is a mood to end the war in Afghanistan. This information won't do it alone, but it will shift political will in a significant manner."
This leak is in a different category to the airstrike video.
I don't think the leaking of the airstrike video is a criminal act.
I think it is important and useful to see how operations like this are carried out.
The leaking of material that puts lives at risk, however, is a different matter.
Wikileaks endangers the lives of Afghan democrats:
The leaked Afghan papers name Afghans who have aided the allied forces.
Wikileaks is endangering the lives of them and their families.
Ed Morrissey
says Julian Assange
"will have blood on his hands, thanks to this despicable act. It's a publicity stunt for Assange, and a death sentence to people who helped us, and most likely their families as well. And for what? Just to learn what anyone reading Long War Journal already knew."
Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
says those who leaked classified documents to WikiLeaks
and those who decided to publish them may have blood on their hands:
"Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family".
Taliban 'hunting down informants', 30 July 2010.
"The Taliban has issued a warning to Afghans whose names might appear on the leaked Afghanistan war logs as informers for the Nato-led coalition.
...
a Taliban spokesman said they were studying and investigating the report, adding "If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.""
Afghan tribal elder
Khalifa Abdullah
is executed by the Taliban.
They threaten 70 others.
The Taliban love Wikileaks:
"The impact of this should be good for us and a slap in the face to those who are working with America.
America is not a good protector of spies.""The Taliban officer claimed that the group's English-language media department continues to actively examine the WikiLeaks material and intends to draw up lists of collaborators in each province, to add to the hit lists of local insurgent commanders."
I thought I would take a trip back in time to the innocent 1990s
and buy the Guardian,
a paper I have found unreadable since 11 Sept 2001.
I thought I would see what was the worst possible thing
the Guardian could find in these papers.
US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder
by Iraqi police and soldiers.
A US helicopter gunship killed Iraqi insurgents after they tried to surrender.
More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths.
Well that seems rather a fuss about nothing.
The obvious replies are:
The Guardian is desperate.
It can't find any abuses by US troops.
(Otherwise it would tell us about them.)
So it is forced to talk about abuses by Iraqi government forces.
Brave US forces kill insurgents.
What is the problem exactly?
If you read about the incident,
it is anything but a clear case of trying to "surrender".
95 percent of those civilians were killed by the Iraqi "resistance"
that Guardian writers have applauded.
The Guardian doesn't have the guts to tell us who
killed these civilians.
If that's the worst the Guardian can find,
it's pretty thin soup for the left.
The leak in fact supports the right:
In fact, one of the few new things in the leak supports what my side has been saying for years, that
Iran
and its proxy
Hizbullah
had a major role in helping the Iraqi "resistance"
and encouraging the slaughter.
Iran and Syria have been at war with America and Britain since 2004 or 2003.
But Bush and Blair could not openly recognise it.
The Jawa Report
is furious that Wikileaks gave the complete uncensored papers to Al Jazeera
(and hence no doubt to the jihad),
thus endangering the lives of western allies and informants.
It is notable that the lefties of Wikileaks - yet again - choose to target America
rather than, say, the bad guys in the world.
Oddly, I thought the
US diplomatic cables leak of Nov 2010 was on balance good for America and the West and its interests.
It was a nice dose of reality, which right-wing writers try to give,
while appeasing diplomats try to hide:
It showed that Bush's much-mocked "Axis of Evil" is real, as Obama is now discovering.
It showed that Iran, with North Korean help, is developing nuclear missiles that can hit Europe.
It showed that Iran is helping both the Iraqi resistance and the Taliban.
Bahrain's King Hamad "pointed to Iran as the source of much
of the trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan."
It showed that all the Arab countries want to stop Iran.
It showed that Iran's "charities" are terror organisations.
It showed that China is carrying out cyber-attacks on the West.
It showed that Russia is a mafia state.
It showed that Saudi Arabians are the chief financiers of Al-Qaeda.
It showed that Turkey is no friend but rather is
going Islamist.
All things the world needs to hear.
None of this is really new.
This is all stuff the right has been saying for years,
and the left denies.
Comment
expresses how I feel:
"What I have read until know pretty much confirms what we knew already.
The media are pumping up this story because the media have told idiot lies for years and now they are astonished to discover that their own lies were just lies."
Raymond Bonner, 29 Nov 2010, says the leaks help Israel, because they show the Arabs actually agree with Israel on Iran.
All the Arab states want to stop Iran:
"The cumulative impact of these cables is profound. ... This the same chilling language, which the American public is accustomed to hearing from hardline Israeli officials. Hearing it expressed by Muslim leaders in the Middle East might now have a profound effect on American public opinion."
Two Cheers For Wikileaks!, Barry Rubin, 29 Nov 2010, says the leaks support Israel's line on Iran,
and also Israel's line on Turkey:
"Up to now, the Western media has overwhelmingly whitewashed the Turkish regime as just a bunch of democratic-minded moderates. The leaks show that they are better understood to be Islamists".
Wikileaks tries to spin it to the left:
Wikileaks
showed their left-wing bias yet again
with their extremely biased commentary:
"The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.
This document release reveals the contradictions between the US's public persona and what it says behind closed doors".
This is nonsense. The documents show Americans bravely trying to protect all of us
in a world where almost no one else is helping.
Unredacted US embassy cables available online, September 2011.
Names released of human rights activists who contacted US embassies in oppressive countries,
putting their lives at risk.
Ethiopian journalist
Argaw Ashine
had to flee the country in Sept 2011 because Wikileaks named him in a US cable about Ethiopia's
harassment of the press.
Is Julian Assange proud?
Bradley Manning
- a gay atheist American soldier is one of the great modern traitors.
A bad day for gays and atheists.
Angry with the military,
he leaked a huge number of classified documents to
Wikileaks, which will now be used by America's Islamist enemies.
The
campaign in his defence
does not claim he is innocent.
Rather it says he was right to be a traitor!
Bradley Manning may be one of the greatest American traitors of all time.
It will take years to see how bad this was,
and how much damage it did to America around the world.
It is certainly very ironic to see a gay atheist giving such massive help to the jihad.
Calls for Manning - if found guilty - to be executed:
Former UN Ambassador
John Bolton
says Bradley Manning should be executed.
Former Governor of Arkansas and leading candidate for US President
Mike Huckabee
says Bradley Manning should be executed.
U.S. Congressman
Mike Rogers
says Bradley Manning should be executed.
Brad Thor
says Bradley Manning should be executed.
He won't be, of course.
No traitor has been executed since
1953.
O'Dwyer opposes the Afghan and Iraq wars,
and so thinks Manning is a hero, but more interestingly,
can't imagine anyone would feel different.
He compares Manning to
Daniel Ellsberg
who leaked the "Pentagon Papers"
in the Vietnam war.
(Ellsberg himself
agrees with the comparison.)
But what is interesting is how O'Dwyer can't imagine anyone not admiring Ellsberg:
"For those who believe that Manning is indeed a reckless criminal, consider for a moment the most obvious parallel to this case: that of Daniel Ellsberg and the leaking of the Pentagon papers to the New York Times in 1971. Is there anybody who doesn’t think Ellsberg is a hero?"
O'Dwyer needs to get out a bit more.
There are plenty of people who think
the Vietnam war was a noble struggle against genocidal and oppressive communism,
and the anti-war left that sabotaged the war
are not heroes but rather
have the blood of millions of Asians on their hands.
O'Dwyer is one of those curious types of left-wingers who don't even realise an alternative view
exists.
O'Dwyer calls the Vietnam war against genocidal communism
"a heinous war".
He calls the Afghan and Iraq wars
against genocidal Islamism
"these illegal wars".
(Even toppling the Taliban was wrong apparently!)
All his article says is that
if you oppose the war effort, you will support someone who sabotages the war effort.
Big deal.
If you support the war effort, O'Dwyer gives you no reason not to call for Manning's trial and execution.
Sarah Palin
says Assange:
"is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"
John Bolton
says the Wikileaks site
should be attacked by the US:
"Finally, the Pentagon's cyber-warriors need target practice in this new form of combat, and they could long ago have practised by obliterating WikiLeaks' electrons."
It would be interesting to see all-out cyber-war between the US military and Wikileaks.
It would be interesting to see how it would end.
"Some people are appalled by the idea of assassinating Julian Assange. But, why aren’t those same people appalled by the fact that Julian Assange released classified documents that he knew would lead to our Afghan informants and their families being marked for death by the Taliban?
... Is the idea supposed to be that they’re just poor, simple people from Afghanistan while Assange is a sophisticated Westerner? So his life is supposed to be worth something while their lives are meaningless? In my book, they risked their lives to help American soldiers, while Assange is an enemy of America. So, their lives are worth a lot, while the world would be better off without him in it."
I certainly do admire the brave Afghan informants.
And I do wonder if the shock at the suggestion of targeting Assange
is because he is a sophisticated white westerner.
If his name was Abdul Mohammed and he was doing the exact same leaking sitting at a computer in Somalia,
would anyone hesitate to send in the drones or the Navy Seals?
"Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow
or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data? Do you think there would be any more classified American information showing up on Wikileaks? That’s very doubtful. Do you think the next cyber punk who thinks it is a game to put classified information on the web would think twice? Yes, you bet."
It is true that America needs to deter such traitors,
but assassination of a westerner may be a step too far.
Kidnapping him for trial in the US as an enemy combatant might be reasonable though.
"If you’re a foreign government, how can you confidently work with the United States when anything you say may end up being revealed publicly by Julian Assange? If you’re Pakistan, how can you work with us on counter-terrorism? If you’re Saudi Arabia, how do you work with us behind the scenes to stop Iran’s nukes?
...
How do you do these things when what you say today may be in every major newspaper in the world in six months because somebody sent the information to Julian Assange? The first step towards convincing other nations that they can trust us again would be make this a better world by removing Julian Assange from it."
It is true that America needs foreign informants and allies to trust it,
but assassination of a westerner may be a step too far.
This analogy is perhaps the strongest argument:
"If we knew an Iranian spy had acquired the same information that Wikileaks has and he intended to hand it over to the Iranian government, the CIA wouldn’t hesitate to kill that spy if it was the only way to stop him. ... few Americans would protest if a CIA sniper killed that spy and retrieved the data before he could cross into Iranian territory."
And yet Assange has already provided that data to Iran!
I'm not sure what I think.
It is not clear that he is not an enemy fighter.
Apparently,
Assange is happy to see the death of Afghans who support the allies."A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.""
But, like Wikileaks, many of
their actions
target the good guys in favour of the bad guys.
It seems pretty random whether any Anonymous action will be in a worthy cause or not.
Anonymous threatens Israel in Nov 2011, for no reason other than that they take the Palestinian side in the Gaza dispute.
How is Anonymous here any different from jihadi hackers from Turkey, Pakistan and Iran?
This video, allegedly from Anonymous threatening Israel, was posted on 4 Feb 2012 on the
AnonymousSolution
channel, which was created on the same day.
It uses language about Israel similar to the language of the Iranian regime:
"You are unworthy to exist in your current form."
It seems likely
this is Iran, not Anonymous.
But Anonymous are such scum that it seemed alright to them, and they reposted it on the realTheAnonPress channel in Feb 2012, where many of their supporters approved of it.
Eventually they removed it.
Anonymous threatens Israel again, Mar 2012.
This is found on the main
TheAnonMessage
channel.
Scum.
The mask of the statist and the Israel hater
I don't know about you, but whenever I see those damn
V for Vendetta masks
now, I think
"collectivist", "statist", "fascist", "jihad-lover",
or at least, "traitor".
Unredacted US embassy cables available online, September 2011.
Names released of human rights activists who contacted US embassies in oppressive countries,
putting their lives at risk.
says Bradley Manning should be executed.
Since 1995.
