Author Topic: Question asked on twitter on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence  (Read 2048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Guest
Question asked on twitter on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence
« on: January 09, 2014, 11:44:41 AM »
I spent the last two days discussing on twitter with a blogger, Giovanni Esposito, who, after one of my tweets stating:

@EPJas2 7:
@ScaredyCat44 @wikileaks_forum @wikileaks Fact is the WLForum hasNOconnections with spy agencies. What happened with Siggi is between him/WL

has asked me:

@EPJas2 I don't imply, but how can you as mod only be sure WLForum had nothing to do with other agencies? @wikileaks_forum @wikileaks

The whole conversation that followed can be read here:

As this question has been at the center of a long debate, and I think, despite I've commented it there, twitter is absolutely not the right place to deeply discuss such questions (reason: one single tweet took outside context could be used against the forum itself instead of getting the issue in its whole complexity), I decided to post it here in the forum as an input for discussion.

@Eikonicopolis has repeatedly told his intentions were neutral, "agnostic", and the question was meant to be litteral without hinting anythingelse.

So I'm posting it here as I repute it interesting, potentially provocatory (= meant to provocate a reaction, not necessary bad) and it is a question that anyway others have asked me before.


So stright on to the point:

"how can you as mod only be sure WLForum had nothing to do with other agencies?"

How can I be sure? Because Nothing prooves the opposite.

The question "how can you proove that something Didn't happen" implies that you should scan the whole universe to prove that something Doesn't exist; in logics you have to check all the possible variables and find that that one isn't present.
It is impossible for a human, given our limitated knowledge, to be "sure" that something doesn't exist.

The question that can be answeared is: "Is there any proof that the forum cooperated with the Intelligence?"

And the answear is NO, Nothing ever demonstrated this.

So this is how I can state as a fact -till opposite proof- that this forum never cooperated with any intelligence.

The reason this forum has -in my opinion rightly- percived that question as a "troll" question is that that question, for how it is asked, has NO answear.
The only question that has answear, in logics, is if something did happen/ if you can proove that it happened.

And it didn't happen.

I'm happy to have had that input anyway so I can comment what pushes me to trust the forum a part from the obvious fact that there is nothing telling me I shouldn't...

Taking as real the fact the question is agnostic and neutral, this is my position:

1) as admin, not mod, as a person who has been cooperating for 3 years here I have never had any evidence this forum cooperated with any intelligenge.

2) the fact Siggi was here in 2011, added here on WikiLeaks will and knowledge, doesn't imply the forum old admin team had anything to do with the intelligence.

3) the fact Siggi cooperated with the FBI doesn't mean that this forum OR wikileaks can be accused of cooperating with the FBI.

4) I run other WL supporters projects and my ex cooperator was aware Siggi had been running them for a while till he went away in 2011; nobody was aware of his cooperation with the FBI; WL learned this before the forum, WL kept cooperating with us till summer 2012 and they did nothing to help us being aware of the potential risks of having had something to do with Siggi.

5) this is a forum and Siggi was admin but, like myself, has never had access to the forum database or else in specific.

6) several WL "supporters" accused this forum of being FBI addicted or they even accused the founder of embezzlment for the fact he had contact with Siggi (and WikiLeaks!) - such accusations are pure malicious supposition: they simply hint this because we are in contact.
(It is the same game plaied to accuse Assange of being antisemitic for being supported by right-wing based entities)

Offline Eikon

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question asked by @Eikonicopolis on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2014, 13:36:39 PM »
"The reason this forum has -in my opinion rightly- percived that question as a "troll" question is that that question, for how it is asked, has NO answear."

I respectfully disagree with the above.

Enrica stated as a "fact" that there was no connection. As facts don't exist without evidence, I wanted clarification on what that evidence was. I did not ask for a proof of whether the forum had connections with spies, but asked why Enrica felt there was proof that there wasn't? (It was Enrica who seemed to state there was proof of something by stating it as a fact, not myself. In which case, I believe the onus was on Enrica to show how she came to that strong conclusion.) That is clearly answerable. And Enrica did answer, comprehensively. 

I disagree that Enrica's proofs make it a "fact" that there are no potential spies associated with the forum, but credited Enrica (in the Twitter thread) with a compelling argument, which I believe likely, though, imo, not a fact.

However, if Enrica's proof showed evidence (such as a fact would require) that was more than subjective analysis (no idea how, but curious), then the basis for stating "fact" would stand proud. 

Yes, I am pedantic on the difference between facts and opinion. I find it important as it removes potential ambiguity. It seems, more than anything, this is what incited so much kerfuffle. I intended to ally any potential misunderstanding by prefacing my initial tweet: "I don't imply", but that seemed to be lost along the way. I wish it were not.

As the basis of considering my question "trolling" was that the question was unanswerable, and yet it was indeed answered, it seems a stretch to use the term trolling if it is to have any meaning of worth in this instance.

I accept the answers to my question were given sincerely b Enrica, yet I disagree those answers reach the absolute level of fact.

Again, to reiterate, I have not and do not now imply that this forum is (in fact, or in opinion) associated with spies. I simply do not know for certain (agnostic), but feel it is unlikely (based mostly in my having developed trust in Enrica, so actually more akin to faith than actual knowledge).



  • Guest
Re: Question asked on twitter on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2014, 13:59:08 PM »
Heya, welcome aboard and thanks for having accepted to discuss it here in deeper version.

As you are here I have modified the title of the thread in "Question asked on twitter on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence " instead of "asked by @Eikonicopolis " otherways each time we will retweet this via forum or other accounts it will directly adress to you and it could be quite boring XD + I think your question is very interesting and you aren't the first person asking me something like that so I really take it as an input for talking about the issue here.
It's gonna be very interesting and constructive.


I'm sorry that your question has initially been percived by us as a provocation. This is dued to the extreme quantity of questions like that we have previously recived hinting we may have cooperated with the FBI or sorta. It was an emotional perception.

I think this is the same kind of reaction WikiLeaks had with the forum when we criticized some of their tweets: they thought we were attacking them while we criticized just some of their points of view...


I have the impression the whole question is posed on the fact I used the word "fact" as if it were something absolutely sure.

I used it because I would put a hand in the fire risking my own reputation on this: I'm absolutely sure nobody of the actual forum team has ever passed people's data to the intelligence.

If they were the intelligence I would be a NSA target for strongly supporting and sharing whatever kind of leak -except from a part of the Syria Files-.

I think using a litteral language according to your expression code I should have said "It's my strong belief that this forum didn't cooperate with the intelligence" - The reality is I am absolutely sure this forum never cooperated with the intelligence so I stated it as a fact.

This expression may obviously face disagreement for it's based on trust.

So the expression can be changed in "I trust this forum never cooperated with the intelligence as I'm insider and I never saw anything showing me it did".


I wish others will comment.

I take this as a personal challenge to learn using terms litterally & becoming inattaccable by logics reasonments when stating things ---> me = at school now.

Offline richardcrowden

  • Basic Member
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Gender: Male
    • Blog
Re: Question asked on twitter on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2014, 14:14:47 PM »
I would like to point out some facts that I find quite amusing.

Firstly, this is a forum, forum means place for discussion and it is open to the general public at large to join.

The general public at large includes members of the intelligence community, I see no reason why they should

be excluded. It would be wrong to exclude members of the intelligence community from discussing wikileaks.

Now, hold on to your outrage and let me stop laughing and point out the most amusing facts here.

Wikileaks and it's business model was built by contributions from the intelligence community.

That's right, Bradley Manning, or Chelsea if you like, was a member of the intelligence community.

He was a uniformed Intelligence Analyst in the US Army. (I'll call him a her when he gets the operation,

I see gender defined by genitals)

Edward Snowden is a spook too, he worked for the CIA, apparently, after leaving the US Army, then he worked

for the NSA. 

So, tell me how you want to exclude the intelligence community from this scene.  Does that mean you will not

be reading any more of their offerings, nicely packaged in the form of mass leaks?

This is a public forum , a place for discussion and everyone is welcome, provided they abide by the forum rules, which are 

very reasonable and unrestrictive and only call for respect of others.

Offline Eikon

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question asked on twitter on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2014, 14:29:40 PM »
I took the statement by Enrica as having "no connections with spy agencies" in the context that nothing underhanded (that is; to the detriment of the membership and its administration, as per forum guidelines & mission statement) was occurring. Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with the points Richard makes.

Offline richardcrowden

  • Basic Member
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Gender: Male
    • Blog
Re: Question asked on twitter on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2014, 14:37:00 PM »
Thank you Eikon, the thing is that this forum does nothing but provide a place for free and open discussion, for any interested person.

Any opinion is welcome and open for debate.  In now way can this forum be considered a propaganda tool for anyone.

Propaganda is only one half of the tasking for the intelligence community, the other half is gathering secrets.

It is absurd to think that a free and open discussion community could be a venue to gather 'secrets' as people willingly

and openly publish their points of view here.  It's not a place where people come to have secrets, but to engage in free and

open discussion, publicly, for all the world to see, intelligence agencies included.


  • Guest
Re: Question asked on twitter on WLforum/Siggi/Intelligence
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2014, 15:12:30 PM »
I'm sure Eikon intended to mean about "no intelligence in the forum Staff".

The problem is that many have stated that staffers have been "harvesting emails" of the members for malicious intentions etc. etc. (it is also what put us on the alert psichological modality).

It happened that WikiLeaks asked the staffers of this forum to send them all the emails of the members.
As this forum was never directly associated to WL but an indipendent site, this would have been a legal violation of the privacy (one can't pass data to 3rd parties without expressed consense).
We always refused to pass whatever email to whatever 3rd party included WikiLeaks.

A few days after WikiLeaks twitter jumps out retweeting @marthagroup (at that time, jan 2013, the name of the account was Stjarna Franfalle), who had an accunt here too but wasn't logging in since days (!?) and never posted anything... where she was stating this forum was deliberatedly putting malware, that members were in danger.

[And here another thing that now scares me is that we are often accused of telling people to register to spy or gather their data etc. etc. - None of us did so or would ever do].

+ The original (now changed) WikiLeaks Supporters page stated they couldn't grant for this forum's security or content = it means the content could not coincide with WL main opinion nor the security of the forum was granted by WL expressed recognized typed statment.
But they told we are "anti-WL" for disagreeing with some of their leaks and WL injustly retweeted a false statment we have malware (it has been prooved and posted here that there are no viruses here - after I can add the link to these forum posts).

When the Siggi affair came out, as Siggi was ex admin Q, some again called this forum FBI-infiltrated as if myself and my collegues were using the data of the members for the FBI (False!) - this was said without any evidence (@emmy @martha show me my chat logs with the FBI pls!! *sarcasm*).

Some ex-forum staffer REALLY abused the privacy of the members of this forum to pass the emails to FoWL (recognized WL supporter project) and each member of this forum was spammed by a FoWL linked "archangel" email account asking every translator, every member (except from the staffers! I never recived such email!), "warning" them this forum is sort of infiltrated and if they want to support WL they should leave!

We Never Ever allowed anyone to harass or spam our members.
We Never Ever told people to stop supporting WL or to leave FoWL, WLPress or other supporter platforms that have people's registrations and emails too for their supportive projects falsely stating they are anti or infiltrated or sorta.
The person that abused the emails of this forum committed a reate and if these guys weren't using TOR to hide we could have legally sued them...

There is more and more to be written on why we jump on alert when we risk to be
associated to intelligence operations etc etc.

WikiLeaks itself asked this forum to do wrong things by passing them the emails of the members without their consense.
WikiLeaks retweteeted "matha/Stjarna's" tweet on presumed malware without any evidence.
WikiLeaks did nothing to stop people from harassing this forum, and this because we criticised some of their actions ...

There is more and more to be said.

I hope this explains some initial overreactions to your neutral question Eikon.
We are under continuous injust attacks by the organization itself.

I honestly tell you my big fear is now we have invited you to discuss here someonelse may tell we did it to "harvest" your email... :-(

I always feel as if I'm playing with the fire with new contacts (my own emotive status concerning these delicate issues), as if whatever we do or say may be turned against to hurt.


So ok, this kind of constructive criticism is actually helping to clear things & to me to learn what impressions people have.


@Richard agreed in full.