WikiLeaks: U.S. invited attacks abroad

[Robb]

By KEVIN CIRILLI | 9/13/12 12:20 PM EDT

WikiLeaks is under fire for tweeting that the U.S. gave “tacit approval” for the attacks against U.S. missions in Libya and Egypt because it accepts a “siege” on the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has sought refuge.

The whistle-blower website tweeted Wednesday night, "By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorian embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world," according to The Guardian, which notes that the Twitter account is “generally presumed” to be run by Assange.

The tweet was immediately deleted and clarified:

"By the US accepting the UK threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies." — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 12, 2012

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81170.html#ixzz26NKFqjnB

[msanthrope]

1. I guess because Assange didn't repudiate that tweet, he owns it? That's the logic

Wikileaks seems to be using, no?

[frazzled]

2. That's interesting

If this is truly a tweet by Assange, it reveals a really narcissistic personality: it's always about him. Throw in more than the usual dose of paranoia into that diagnosis.

[struggle4progress]

4. ... the official WikiLeaks Twitter feed ... is generally presumed to be operated by Assange ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/13/wikileaks-benghazi-attack-julian-assange

[MNBrewer]

8. And you are generally presumed to be an anti-Assange propagandist

[struggle4progress]

9. I give a quote from the Guardian with link. You reply with a personal attack.

Stay classy

[struggle4progress]

3. WikiLeaks says US gave 'tacit approval' to embassy attacks (AFP)

Whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks declared on Wednesday that the United States had effectively given groups an opening to attack its embassies by supporting the siege of its founder Julian Assange ...

On Tuesday, the US embassy compound in Cairo was invaded by protesters angered by an online film they saw as offensive to Islam, while the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by armed militants.

Four US officials including the ambassador to Libya were killed, but WikiLeaks accused US authorities of undermining the safety of all diplomatic missions by not opposing Britain's police cordon around the London embassy ...

"By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadoran embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world," the group said, in a message posted on its main Twitter account ...

http://www.asianage.com/international/wikileaks-says-us-gave-tacit-approval-embassy-attacks-571

[randome]

5. Wait a minute. Did China weigh in on the U.K. blunder?

If not, then they have tacitly approved.

What about Jamaica? What's their position? Condemnation or tacit approval?

[ladjf]

6. His conclusion is beyond absurd. He might be losing his mind. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Ding! Ding! Ding! I've said this a number of times. There's something wrong with him, and if....

you've ever heard his shrill Mother on the air, then it becomes even more clear that there really is something wrong with this family.

[ladjf]

18. Up until now, I had been sympathetic with Assange. Now, I've decided that he might not be

as innocent as I had thought.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. There's something wrong with him. This seems more about attention seeking than the "noble"....

cause he and his supporters would like to portray. As to his followers, it simply boils down to a cult of personality, plain and simple.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. Wikileaks has jumped the shark...

Assange should say hello to the Fonz.

[redgreenandblue]

11. Yikes. Someone said something on twitter. We need eleven more threads about this NOW!!!11

[AntiFascist]

12. I recall a number of posters....

warning that the UK might setting a bad example by threatening to enter the embassy. This (example) isn't about Assange or Wikileaks. Ulimately, it's about the hubris of Western imperialism.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. What a clown.

[SidDithers]

14. "the Twitter account is “generally presumed” to be run by Assange"...

Now, that's kinda interesting, eh?

Sid

[Robb]

15. Actually, I'm beginning to agree with the conspiracy-minded on this.

Did you read the way they walked back that tweet?

By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorian embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world.

...became:

By the US accepting the UK threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies.

...which then became:

By the UK threatening to breach the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies, in general. It must retract.

...which was then "clarified":

We have deleted and rephrased a previous tweet with the word ‘tacit’ in it, since the word is rare and was being misinterpreted.

See, I'm reading this and I'm not reminded of the brilliant IT people who found themselves helming the most influential information clearinghouse on earth.

I'm reminded of the amateur hour that tends to describe what happens whenever the GOP fucks up online. This childish attempt to "revise and expand" doesn't sound like anyone who's ever used the internet before, frankly.

Which precludes Assange. Unless he's totally lost his mind, which is slightly less likely.

[backscatter712]

16. You know, Wikileaks might actually have a point.

I know, I'm espousing an unpopular position. Let me dress for the occasion...



Did the UK, Sweden and US twirl their moustaches and plot to kill the US ambassador in Libya through threatening the Equadorian embassy in London?

No, of course not.

But what did they do?

They weakened the norms that held embassies to be a place of safety where governments can represent themselves abroad, where their citizens can get help from their governments, and where people in general can seek aid in political disputes.

Whether or not Julian Assange is behaving like a douchebag, by threatening to forcibly raid the Equadorian embassy, the UK government (and Sweden's and the U.S.'s) weakened those norms a bit.

And that lent just a bit more legitimacy to the thugs in Benghazi that violated those norms and killed those people in the US consulate there.

Does that make the UK complicit in those murders? No. But they contributed, even if just a little, to the societal breakdown in which those murders occurred.

[girl gone mad]

17. Good points.

[Robb]

20. Decent analysis. And it's about where the last tweets ended up.

Not the same as "tacit approval," which is the sentiment that launched the teapot tempest here.