Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Julian Rebuttal

Julian Rebuttal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12|Likes:

More info:

Categories:Types, Speeches
Published by: Frank 'Felix' Salomon on Dec 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/08/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Come on guys, I get the feeling you don't even bother to actually *read* these articles and still make wild speculations like these?<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><a href="http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27473.msg977817#msg977817">Quote from: Peleus on <b>Today</b> at 17:01:32</a></div><div class="quote">Wasn't the American government given a similar choice to review theleak but decided to give em the finger so they wouldn't be creditable</div><br>Peleus, what do you mean "similar" ? You're just guessing/speculating here, nowhere in the Indymedia article does it say this alleged deal with Israel was of thesame nature of the US being offered to review the leaks<ul style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><li> before release.</li></ul><br>Even then, it wouldn't make sense, because no country except the US was made offer. Duh, because it was <i>their</i> diplomatic cables, after all. They didn't offer it to Russia, Iran, Germany or whoever either.<br><br>Additionally, the US refusal to use that offer was made public, I'm guessing that, in the unlikely event that the US wouldhad made use of the offer, this would also have been made public (not in specifics but something like "The US has assisted and advised Wikileaks in the censoring of certain names and events whose public release would have put lives in danger" or something similar).<br><br>So it seems weird to me that if Israel has been offered a similar deal, we hear nothing about it from Wikileaks themselves.<br><br>Also, in that case, the stakes are a lot lower for countries other than theUS, because their review and censoring would not carry the same type of publicendorsement, <i>because it's not their diplomatic cables that have been leaked in the first place.</i><br><br>[* I agree about your reasoning why the US refusedbtw, because doing so would make it seem they endorsed the rest of the leaks. Also, to be completely fair, that refusal is one of the few US moves re:Wikileaksthat seems quite reasonable and understandable to me. Of course, Wikileaks anticipating this US reaction went ahead and made the offer for the sake of better PR <img src="http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_lol.gif" alt="lol" border="0"> what a game ... ]<br><br><br><div class="quoteheader"><ahref="http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27473.msg977744#msg977744">Quote from: Requia ? on <b>Today</b> at 14:38:39</a></div><div class="quote">Israel is hardly the only country to be spared, it was only today that Austrailia got its first slam.</div><br>While you're probably right, this is not really a solid reason for me to discredit that article.<br><br>(better reason: only 1000 out of 260,000 documents have been released so any perceived pattern inreleases is meaningless)<br><br><br>However,<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><ahref="http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27473.msg977741#msg977741">Quote from: Lysergic on <b>Today</b> at 14:35:12</a></div><div class="quote">What do you guys think of this?<br><a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/12/470066.html" target="_blank">http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/12/470066.html</a></div><br>I find this hard to believe. Because if it's true, and itcame out (and Assange of all people should know that <i>everything</i> can be leaked and become public info), it would pretty much destroy Assange's [if not Wikileak's] credibility. Way worse than these rape charges, because everybody withhalf a brain knows they have to be a set-up [in some way or another], while thisthing would also make him lose a shitload of public support for him and his goals right now, it it came out. Because it pretty much goes right against what most people perceive to be his goals.<br><br>What I just said is, of course, circular reasoning: I find it hard to believe he would put his reputation at stake like this, because doing so would put his reputation at stake. <img src="http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_lol.gif" alt="lol" border="0"><br><br>That's why I say I find it hard to believe, not that it can't be true.But there's more.<br><br>If he would put his reputation at stake like this, thenobviously his goals aren't quite exactly what most people believe his [Assangeand/or Wikileaks] goals are (which afaik, would be something like the free dissemination of information, freedom of press and exposure of government corruptionand big corporate corruption).<br><br>I question his possible motives. If that is not his goal, then what is? <br><br>Doing it because he "had received money from semi-official Israeli sources"? That doesn't jive <i>at all</i> with his previous behaviour, let alone his current situation. Because right now he's fucked.
 
He made some really, really, <i>really</i> big enemies, and not just the US. Hemight get lucky and get out of this alive or life-sentenced or whatever, small chance, but only if selling out to Israel doesn't come out in public. And again,I think he knows that <i>everything</i> can get out in the public. I dunno, thatkind of grave risk seems to me to be something only a True Idealist would take.Not a sellout. Still leaves the possibility that he follows a twisted kind of Idealism that nobody [or none of his supporters] suspected thus far, but not "just for the money", not even if he intended to use this money for the good of Wikileaks. That would just be too stupid, to assume he can get away with the exact same kind of corrupt behaviour that he works so hard to expose.<br><br>Of course,it would hardly be the first time human stupidity surprises me. But it's quitean extraordinary claim, I think Assange is a clever guy, and if he'd done this,... that'd be really <i>interesting</i> -- But I'm going to need some proof first.<br><br>If not for the money, the other option is that he's been an Israeli sympathisant agent some sort of whatever all along, and does it for the sake of Israel, the money being a nice bonus, and a means to get away when the story ultimately comes out. I believe this is also unlikely. <br><br>[Reasoning skipped cause this post is getting too long and I want to get to the final, possible most important point]<br><br>Which are the sources.<br><br>The most controversial (IMO) parts of the story are the parts where Indymedia claims Assange has receives alarge sums of money:<br><br><div class="quoteheader">Quote from: Indymedia</div><div class="quote">According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2],Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a
secret, video-recorded agreement,
not to publish any document that may harmIsraeli security or diplomatic interests.</div><br>Unfortunately, reference [2]is from syriatruth.info, a website completely written in Arabic, which I cannotread. It does feature a picture of Assange and the Wikileaks logo, so it probably says *something* about the topic.<br><br>And later in the article once more:<br><br><div class="quoteheader">Quote from: Indymedia</div><div class="quote">According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering
a big amount of money
, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a 'war council' meeting between American, Israeli andLebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies.The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwardsand do not contain
anything of value,
the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.</div><br>Reference [8] is also from syriatruth.info, and therefore useless to me for fact-checking. BTW this wasn't immediatelyclear to me, but the "left-leaning Lebanese newspaper" is the later mentioned <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Akhbar_%28Lebanon%29" target="_blank">Al-Akhbar</a> (it literally means "The News", first I thought the phrase meant "Allah is great", which seemed kinda weird so I looked it up as my Arabian is kindalimited).<br><br>In addition to sources I can't read, there are a few other problems with the article:<br><br><div class="quoteheader">Quote from: Indymedia</div><div class="quote">According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to beleaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. <b>These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where <i>[sic]</i> removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only personwho knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.</b></div><br>The whole bit about Assange being the only one with "the password" (assuming they mean to say "key" or "passphrase" here, Wikileaks doesn't use passwords) able to open these documents, is really kind of weird. Because with the high-grade type of assymetric RSA encryption* Wikileaks most probably uses, this kindof thing becomes pretty damn hard. In fact, even if they used a symmetric cipherlike they did for the Insurance file, proper cryptographic procedure prescribesthat encryption really is as good as useless without validation. Meaning Assang

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->