by Scott Creighton
“If you can’t make a good case for your argument what you do is provide no links, misrepresent quotes, and throw around trollishly childish and demeaning insults. Then declare victory and leave in a huff” Trolls’ “How To” Guide for Winning Any Debate
Jason Ditz at AntiWar has just convinced me to remove AntiWar from my blog list. His write-up on the al Jazeera interview with Julian Assange sealed the deal.
“The paucity of information on Israel in the early WikiLeaks releases led to a flurry of speculations and conspiracy theories, insisting WikiLeaks may have made a secret deal with the Netanyahu government or that the lack of data proved the organization’s insincerity as a whistle-blower. After all, in a dump of 250,000+ classified documents from the US, surely Israel would figure pretty prominently.
And actually it does. Though the information has not been released there will be a considerable dump, according to reports…” Jason Ditz
Jason leaves out one important detail and that is, Julian Assange has stated that the Israel related files won’t be released… for 6 months.
“We will publish 3700 files and the source is the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Prime Minister Netanyahu was traveling to Paris to talk to the US ambassador there. You will see more information about that in six months.” Julian Assange
Assange also claims that they have some 3,700 files pertaining to this subject and some of them will be published in the next 6 months, depending on the sources.
“There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel. In the next six months we intend to publish more files depending on our sources,” Julian Assange
“Depending on our sources”?
What exactly does that mean? I thought Bradley Manning was their source (singular). Who are the “sources” that Assange says is in charge of the Israel-related “leaks” that they have and what do they have to do with Wikileaks’ release of those important documents?
Does Assange not know what the term “leak’ means?
Clearly Assange is not talking about releasing all of those documents at the same time, though that implication is made by Jason Ditz’ article.
When Jason says “there will be a considerable dump” that is the implication, but that is certainly not what Assange himself said. If Jason has another source, he should cite it.
But he doesn’t. In fact, he doesn’t give a link in his article to the original text of the interview put out by al Jazeera. Instead, Ditz only links to a small write-up on Mondoweiss as his source for his article.
This is an unusually poorly written article by Jason Ditz. Many readers here know I frequently post work by Jason on this site as that he is usually very well supported by links in all of his work over at AntiWar.
He not only insults honest researchers with the derogatory “conspiracy theory” label ( like any good neocon cheerleader did back in the day when we were all busy writing about how there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) but again like our old opposition, he fails to provide credible links for reference and misrepresents the text of that interview (to suit his needs apparently)
It seems this is nothing new for AntiWar these days.
One headline on their site seems to promote the idea that Wikileaks is spilling the beans on Israel with regard to a 2007 Israeli attack on a Syrian facility. Israel has never denied the attack. The only question has been what the facility really was. Well, according to the Wiki”leak”, that facility actually was a nuclear plant, made for aggressive purposes (not civilian), and made probably with the help of the North Koreans. All this, according to Wikileaks’ Condi Rice memo, which sites like AntiWar are actively helping to promote as “the truth”
This comes just at the time when the U.S. needs to help create a pretext for the invasion and regime change of North Korea.
Let me just sum that up: AntiWar is pushing Condi Rice’s old propaganda that North Korea helped Syria build a reactor for agressive purposes and so Israel was justified in blowing it up (an act of war)
And AntiWar is pushing this Condi Rice propaganda because Julian Assange is such a hero? And that is it?
AntiWar has been a favorite site of mine for a while. I have turned a blind eye to their recent Assange hero-worship and Justin Raimondo’s neoliberal/libertarian agenda. But after Jason’s poorly crafted and insulting article, I cannot in good conscience continue to do that.
There are many reasons that valid researchers have concluded that Wikileaks is a CIA front operation and just one of those reasons involves Assange’s reluctance to release anything that presents Israel’s zionist agenda in a negative light.
For Ditz to off-handedly reject valid concerns which should be obvious to any journalist at this time, with claims of “conspiracy theories”, is insulting, and sadly, quite telling about a man whose reputation as a meticulous researcher precedes him.
This kind of unsupported dogma is uncharacteristic of Ditz, and therefore the subject matter must surely be taken into consideration. It seems that diligent research is required for every subject at AntiWar, except when it comes to defending Wikileaks. Tragically this is becoming more and more common on dissent sites where Wikileaks and Assange is concerned.
Whatever the reason, AntiWar is off my blog-roll.