half true means worse than useless

What good is a half-truth? If you believe it's a whole truth, the half-truth is worse than nothing. It deepens deception.

A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.

The purpose and or consequence of a half truth is to make something that is really only a beliefknowledge, or a truthful statement to represent the whole truth, or possibly lead to a false conclusion. appear to be According to the justified true belief theory of knowledge, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe in the relevant true proposition, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. A half truth deceives the recipient by presenting something believable and using those aspects of the statement that can be shown to be true as good reason to believe the statement is true in its entirety, or that the statement represents the whole truth. A person deceived by a half truth considers the proposition to be knowledge and acts accordingly.

The essence of psyops.

Wikileaks, as a body of evidence, works exactly this way. Each individual document stands on its own. We can take them individually, no problem. Put together, the documents create a picture like a mosaic.

In the case of Wikileaks, we learn that certain documents were scrubbed in advance.

Meaning, no embarrassing or incriminating documents against Israel.

Hey, HOW LUCKY IS THAT, HUH?!?

Over to aangirfan:

Lia Abramovitch, an Israeli-born investigative journalist, reportedly writes for the Syriatruth website.

Reportedly, Abramovitch has found evidence that Julian Assange 'struck a deal with Israel.'

According to this alleged deal, Julian Assange agreed to withhold cables incriminating Israel.

Reportedly, Abramovitch cites former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg as her source.

Domscheit-Berg reportedly said that Assange received money from semi-official Israeli sources.

(Israel appears only in 77 Wikileaks docs. /

http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/ /

Rebuttal to Article Alleging a Deal with ...)

The rebuttal in particular -- interesting. By anonymous. Complaining bitterly about the lack of actual evidence that Assange made a deal with Israel.

Conclusion:

The Indybay article does not meet even the most elementary journalistic standards. Aside from being riddled with conditional adverbs like “appears” – it is basically a hack-job cobbled together by someone with vindictive and malicious motives. [EVIDENCE PLEASE? - ed.] The sources cited DO NOT corroborate the primary damaging allegations being made, i.e. that Julian Assange of Wikileaks arrived at an agreement with Israel to redact any damaging documents prior to release, let alone that he accepted secret payments from them or from the newspaper Al-Akhbar for special dispensation. The ONLY allegations that are sourced and corroorated relate to the statements of a dismissed and disgruntled Wikileaks employee who wished Wikileaks luck, and did not corroborate the damaging allegations in the Indybay article. Moreover, knowing full well that the readers who will read the Indybay article are prmarily English readers and speakers, the article links to non-English publications as sources, two in Arabic and one in German, attempting to provide legitimacy and the 'cover of ethical journalism' for its “news” reporting, DELIBERATELY further obscuring the truth.

The Anonymous Authors of this article should be very ashamed for what they have done. Whatever their motives, the ends do not justify the means.

Signed, ANONYMOUS. {Dramatic flourish.}

So yes, there's no evidence of the secret meeting or the secret tape or the secret Google Translate tool. There's only the fact that that there are no actual incriminating or embarrassing documents against Israel to consider.

"No classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks." 

~ Netanyahu

Going over to Gordon Duff at Veteran's Today (via mathaba.net):

Wikileaks are called “leaks.”  Julian Assange darts from country to country, hotel to TV studio, always ahead of the security forces hunting him down, a veritable “Nordic” bin Laden.    Newspapers are peppered with photographs of a boyish face in the uniform of the American army, identified as the potential “leaker.”  The 46,000 intelligence/counter-intelligence officers of the Department of Defense, supplemented by the FBI and 16 other agencies and 40 other departments, more “bodies” than currently serve in Afghanistan, we are told, are unable to rein in this “dangerous duo.”

Documents by the hundreds of thousands are leaked, upon qualified examination, showing careful screening with many documents edited and more selected out of series with careful gaps and omissions.  A single non-commissioned officer, watched 24 hours a day by tens of thousands of security officers and threatened with life in prison, is an unlikely suspect.  However, there has been no mention of any others nor has there been a mention of an investigation of any kind.  In fact, there seems to me no attempt whatsoever to curtail these current leaks.

What does this tell us?

...The difference between “leaking” and “spying” is semantics.  The goal is the same, destruction of the defense capabilities of the United States, except “spying” pays better.

The people responsible for each, particularly when they access the same systems and overcome the same roadblocks, all requiring the same physical access, are one in the same.  Those who “leak” perform an identical task to those who spy. Those who leak, those who have leaked appear to be, to any reasonable person, exactly the same people who are spying now and who were supporting Pollard.

The first place we look, before new Russian, Indian, Iranian or Chinese version of the F-35 take flight or our first F-35 meets a fiery end is Israel.  No Chinese or Pakistani’s or Iranians have gained by the F-35 espionage “clone” operations styled after “Wikileaks.”  Wikileaks has proven one thing, there is a major spy operation in the Pentagon with broad access.  It is immune to investigation.  Only political power can generate this kind of protection.

Assange is a recipient of information he likely believes is real.  Our investigations prove different.  The Pentagon leaks were carefully edited, thousands of reports were reconstructed and falsified and hundreds of thousands were removed as inconsistent with an unknown political agenda.  This requires full access to Pentagon computer systems, PROMIS software and hundreds of man hours.

It requires, in fact, a broad spy operation inside the Pentagon that enjoys its ability to operate with impunity.  Wikileaks carries an Israeli signature, the leaks damn only Israeli enemies, shield Israeli operations and are time to serve Israeli interests.  Hundreds of Israeli citizens work in the Pentagon.  None of this should be a surprise to anyone.

And in another piece, Duff unpacks the scripted martyrdom of Assange.

The same media that worked with Assange to censor and manipulate Wikileaks for the Netanyahu government in Israel is the same media, the same outlets, the same ownership, the same management that are now pouring out threats, demands for “hanging.”

And in the meanwhile, DISTRACTION CITY.

Congress votes to give more blood and blackmail money to Israel. The U.S. media seems to be ignoring this as just business as usual but the Israeli press is jumping for joy. AIPAC gives the story a headline, thanking the lackeys they buy for pennies on the dollar.

And who knows what else we might not be noticing while all this goes on, and on, and on...?