If Gareth Porter and Ray McGovern do not convince you that Wikileaks and Assange are for real, probably nothing will.
Saker Message:
If Gareth Porter and Ray McGovern do not convince you that Wikileaks and Assange are for real, probably nothing will.
I enjoyed the program but if it was to convince me that Wikileaks is anything other than the modern day equivalent of the post WW2 Information Research Department (IRD) of the British Foreign Office it failed.
And McGovern statement of the mastermind Brzezinski being out of touch with Porter approving just shows how out of touch and detached seeing how we are playing by the strategy Brzezinski has lead out quite clearly who is not just a talking head but has been actively since 79 at the forefront and his associates steering US foreign policy.
McGovern like other commentator goes with the premise that US foreign policy is dictated by Israel and US financial interests.
He does not see the obvious connection/thread since 79 that these foreign wars and US foreign policy have a distinct geo-political strategy.
And the missile shield is merely for commercial interests? Please!
If that were the case why did the US object to a Russian proposal of moving the missile shield to Turkey and Azerbaijan away from Poland and Czech Rep?
It would be better suited to protect Israel and due to it’s location probably cheaper and easier to maintenance.
With respect Saker, please don’t try to define what arguments a doubter should or shouldn’t find convincing. There are real problems with the Wikileaks stuff that demand particular and specific answers, not general purpose apologetics based on meaningless sophistry, which is what McGovern and Porter are delivering here.
The fact is, a lot of the leaks are Zionist propaganda, some of it refuted by US government sources yet miraculously making a reappearance in these leaks. There is little or no criticism of Israel here at all, despite the near fanatical focus of US foreign policy in the Mideast on Israel. These are tremendous red flags and speak of an agenda. The handwaving and illogical dismissals of these facts by people like McGovern are entirely unconvincing.
Here we have a guy praising Netanyahu as peacemaker, and Rupert Murdoch as some kind of truthseeker, all while being financed by the Soros Foundation. He states flat out that he’s not anti-war, and that investigating 9-11 is a “distraction” from the “real” conspiracies out there, none of which he has revealed. Then when he releases his “leaks,” they are exactly what one would expect from someone who spouts nonsense like this while being glamorized and promoted by the media. Yet everyone is bedazzled by this subterfuge.
Mr Transparency couldn’t be more transparent if he wrapped himself in the Israeli flag.
@Sean:please don’t try to define what arguments a doubter should or shouldn’t find convincing
Why not? Do Wikileaks-doubters enjoy some kind of special immunity from critical comments, judgments or prognoses?
Besides, I don’t define, I express my opinion, that’s all. I stand by that opinion, by the way, i.e., that those who will not be convinced that McGovern’s and Porter’s arguments are probably going to remain Wikileaks-doubters forever.
BTW – If you show me a person who has not been convinced by Porter and McGovern but who will still come to the conclusion that Wikileaks is for real, I will gladly admit that my opinion was mistaken. Until such a specimen is pointed out to me, I will stand by my opinion.
Here we have a guy praising Netanyahu
…and he derides 9/11 Truthers too. And, for all I know, he might have another 10’000 opinions which I don’t share. Who care what Assange thinks? I sure don’t. I care about what he *does*, and even that is secondary to what Wikileaks does as a group. And even that is less important than what is really at stake here: the future of the Internet.
Assange’s opinions are just about the last thing I care about.
Why not? Do Wikileaks-doubters enjoy some kind of special immunity from critical comments, judgments or prognoses
No, and I don’t see where what I said suggested they did. Two people can look at the same set of evidence and come to different conclusions. What makes you right here and the opposing view wrong has yet to be established by either a convincing argument or indisputable fact.
As for what it would take to convince me or anyone else of anything, that is pure speculation on your part. To argue that anyone who hasn’t bought a particular line of reasoning is immune to being convinced is presumtious at best, insulting at worst, particularly given the poor quality of the arguments in the video you offered.
I will be convinced when I see solid evidence that Wikileaks is what everyone claims it is. Pretty simple, that.
Instead, all I’ve gotten anywhere is insults, ad-hom and even accusations of being a double agent because I’ve dared question the received wisdom on Wikileaks. If I am so wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate that.
I base my opinion on what Assange has done, and what he has done is cherry-pick “leaks” which, real or fake, serve the Zionist agenda. I can give dozens of examples.
I can’t see anybody seriously interested in justice releasing crap like that even if the leaks were “real,” amd I submit that no one has any way of knowing that at this point, but we do know that the opinions expressed in those Zio-friendly leaks are lies.
Assange has cheerleaded for some serious reprobates, and maybe that means nothing to you, but it certainly weakens his already strained credibility in my mind.
@Sean: I am not trying to convince you of anything, really. Posting this video I asked that Wikileaks-doubters watch it because I held out some hope that it would change their minds. If it’s not – fine. If you, or Jack, or anybody else thinks that Wikileaks is a Israeli, Zionist, US or any other disinformation campaign, or whatever else, it’s fine be me, really.
See you guys on Monday!
Fair enough, Saker. Have a good time.