WikiLeaks: ISIS Tunnels Blown Up by MOAB Were Built by CIA | Hacker News Reader

WikiLeaks: ISIS Tunnels Blown Up by MOAB Were Built by CIA

mediaite.com

22 pointskyleblarson17 comments

WikiLeaks quotes a 2005 NYTimes article in a tweet that tunnels exist that were financed by the CIA and fabricates idea that the exact tunnels involved in the recent strike were directly built by the CIA. Nothing coming from an actual leak WikiLeaks is releasing.

Wikileaks has a 100% (one hundred percent) truth record. I trust them more than any other news source in the world. The truth is ugly and people need to face it.

Is this suppose to be /s? Because Wikileakes does not have 100% reliability and has proven to be biased.

Please link to WikiLeaks articles or releases that were untrue.

It is possible for something to be true, yet dishonest in its presentation or as a result of bias. Wikileaks is a political organization with political goals, most of them anti-American. While you probably can take what they reveal as fact, you cannot take their interpretations, their existence, or their stated goals as such.

Wikileaks is extremely pro-American, at least if your definition of American is civil liberties and not CIA.

That still doesn't change the initial point: that Wikileaks' releases are true.

Link to untrue leaks please. They're not 70% accurate, not 89% accurate, not 99.999% accurate - they're 100% accurate. Without this they are nothing.

How do they verify leaks to ensure no part of the leak is made up? If they can't, it's just a leak. Authenticity can only be confirmed by further leaks (unlikely) or newspapers and other organizations work in fact checking after release.

Were there any document dumps shown to be inauthentic?

I don't think it's in dispute that Wikileaks is biased; it has an overt anti-American military/foreign policy stature. This is informed from Assange's experiences and upbringing. Assange shouldn't be expected to release documents that contradict his narrative. We don't get mad at RT.com for failing to expose Russian corruption or Voice of America for failing to report on U.S. bombings of noncombatants.

I agree WL's press releases and Tweets are inaccurate and opportunistic.

I do get mad at those publications, though. I hate that people who claim moral/ethical authority act contradictory to those morals and explain it as either a means to justify some "greater" end (as if moral consistency wasn't hard enough for our species) or as some reason why their standards don't apply in their situation.

Yet Wikileaks seems to be in some weird guerilla moral territory that basically every corporation seems to occupy. They provide some necessary good, and because of it, many of us ignore the bad. I don't think we should though.

For anyone :/

Yes, none of the leaked docs on Wikileaks have been repudiated to my knowledge.

Their press releases and Twitter posts do not have the same track record; you can see refutation of Wikileaks Tweets in their replies.

This isn't a WikiLeaks release, though. They're just quoting an article and making up a connection. You should treat WikiLeaks as a source of information, same as any other, and shouldn't trust unsupported claims they make.

Was it a secret, (anytime recently), that the cia funded the muhajadeen's fight against the soniet invasion? What's the connection between the muhajadeen and isis? This leak is lame.

It's not even a leak, it's just a tweet from WikiLeaks quoting a public article from 2005.

Does WikiLeaks have a shred of credibility left at this point? I thought it had become very clear by now that Assange is in bed with Putin and that WikiLeaks is simply an arm of his propaganda machine.

They were built by the CIA in the 70's/80's... Pretty misleading title.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com