Activist Publishes 11,000 Private DMs Between Wikileaks and Its Supporters

>In 2014, the BBC and other news outlets reported on the cache, which revealed details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine. However, the information from that hack was less than half the data that later became available in 2016, when Assange turned it down.

So the source was trying to piggyback on the well earned publicity Wikileaks publications get to bring attention to an old leak by adding some uninteresting documents to it. I suspect if his addition had contained revelations, we would have heard about it, especially given the anti-Russia bias of the corporate media lately.

On the Syrian payment, why is Russia giving money to an ally something I should find questionable? How much money did the US give Israel that year alone?

The "verify against other sources, public info, etc." stuff is still entirely doable. In the case of Collateral Murder, info about the incident was already public, making the video something you could vet... and I'd imagine plenty else in Manning's leaked info was vettable.

Picking a dog whistle term that happens to sound like a reasonable position is a standard political tactic. Another example: "family values" which is a euphemism for theocracy. Who would actually oppose "the family"?

So it's safe to say you wouldn't have used them, surely? Especially when you're talking about a Jewish person - it would be an incredible coincidence to have done so.

Which of these two scenarios seems more likely:

- When referring to a Jewish person, the WikiLeaks account just spontaneously decided to surround text in parentheses, as opposed to literally any other way of communicating (why not just say "the Menorah issue"?)

- The WikiLeaks account knew of, and used, terminology common in alt-right circles?

Honestly a fresh account with low karma trying to push some conspiracy theory on this is also suspect as hell.

My point is thst even if you accept that implausible interpretation of the cluster of parentheses—that the “((()))) issue” phrase refers to some Menorah-related issue and not the controversy over a particular brand of online anti-Semitism—the pair of tweets is still clearly anti-Semitic (but also considerably more bizarre.)

Heck, it's still anti-Semitic if you remove the reference to an issue involving whatever it is that the parens signify so that the pair of tweets becomes just “He’s always ben a rat. But he’s jewish.”

It's not the parens that are the issue, though they do confirm the message of the rest of the text.

> [2016-08-23 04:46:27] <WikiLeaks> But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue.

then please provide a source to that other thing, who you are referring to with "he", and maybe a reason for not making what you are referring to more clear as well.

It's also very nice that because of the barrage of downvotes, or maybe moderator action, I can't respond 13 minutes after you posted your comment when I actually had finished this reply, but have to keep the tab open and submit later... so I'll respond to another comment here as well:

> Do you consider referring to racism to be the same as being racist?

No I don't, which was my point. Saying "$someone is Jewish and engaged with the ((())) issue" isn't using that dog whistle, but referring to it. Without context it's really hard to judge why the Jewishness is mentioned; I don't know what the ((())) issue refers to in that specific context, what "engaged with" means, nothing. Could easily be bad, could be benign, but the claim was they "used" ((())), and that's false. Even if they're actually antisemites, they did not use the brackets in that tweet from 2016-08-23 04:46:27. Fact.

I mean, calling him also a "rat" kind of makes it moot in a way, that's not good, antisemitism or not. But if they are antisemitic, I want more than hearsay and being sloppy about something like "referring to X" and "using X". This is not acceptable. For one because it would be important in light of WL, but even more importantly because of antisemitism.

Generally, that some antisemites might like WL would never surprise me. With almost anything that criticizes society and the powerful in it, you often can find antisemites who are superficially interested in the subject so they can re-route it to Jews being the root of all problems. So in a vacuum, tweets "at" WL that seem antisemitic are to be expected -- the question is how WL deals with them, and what they themselves put out. I do not consider that question settled, mind you, but those who raise it, and those who approach it, have no right to be this sloppy.

Remember when that Google guy was fired and people said he "posted a memo to the internet"? He posted a memo in an internal discussion group devoted to the issue he posted about, and others leaked it on the net. Yet the lie is still out there in people's heads. And that wouldn't be acceptable even if he was a total red pill chauvinist. When it was cool to be dishonest about Jews, to exclude them inevitably leading to violence against them, some people did that. Now it's cool to be dishonest about and violent to Jews in some milieus, sexists, racists or antisemites in others -- as if the methods don't matter at all, just who wins, as if using certain methods doesn't make you something, too. Or to put a very sharp point on it, as if putting racists into concentration camps would actually end once you killed all racists, as if it could.