Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

WikiLeaks: Advancing an Israeli Agenda? Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Lol, not really as people still have read and discussing the subject.

    Regarding me changing my mind about wikileaks, well you do when you read more about the subject and Julian.


    I'll make a very good argument that Wikileaks is a CIA "Limited Hang-Out." You'll have to Google that term if you're unfamiliar with it. I don't want to explain it here.



    Here's my argument (people have very short memories)

    My 14 Step Program +Bonus to understanding Wikileaks:



    1. Wikileaks proves Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq. This should be a "Duh" moment but there's more, of course.



    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._found_in.html



    2. The last Wikileak Leak, which I downloaded (I downloaded this one too) had Osama bin Laden appearing in the first 10 pages (the American readers limit when given hundreds of pages of boring ****) and alive and in charge of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan even though he's very likely been dead for a long, long time.



    3. If Julian Assange were truly a rogue we ALL KNOW the mainstream media would black him out and they would NOT report anything about anything that he's revealed. Even more importantly, if these leaks were truly damaging to the US not ONE SINGLE media outlet would report them. Heck man, we can't even get these people to report Building Seven. Geraldo did 5 minutes on it 10 YEARS AFTER the event.



    4. Julian Assange accepts the official version of 911. If that isn't an enormous Red Flag then I don't know what is.



    5. The overly-emphasized “CIA is after Assange” story in the media rings false. The CIA does not advertise its own agendas and missions, and the media rarely intrudes on their discretion. But here we have something like Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. What’s wrong with this picture?



    6. The recent (last week) NYT profile of Assange was originally bylined by Eric Schmitt, then the names were changed. Assange has used Schmitt in the past to communicate. Schmitt is a senior writer on terrorism and national security for the NYT, and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.



    7. Wikileaks reveals that 15,000 more died in Iraq then the US government actually admitted. WTF? The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count reports 43,000; the Iraq Body Count reports 94,000; the Brookings Institute reports 113,000; the Associated Press reports 34,000 and the World Health Organization reports 151,000. Try close to ONE MILLION, per the Lancet several years back. Do I trust the Lancet or some CIA plant? Well, I don’t trust the Lancet either and believe it was well over 1 million; but, I’d trust them over this yackadoodle any day of the week.



    8. Puhleeze, these guys either aren't too smart or they're playing games because: The contact number on Wikileaks.org has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland. Intellus.com, a Web tracking service, connected the number to a ‘V.A. Reston.’ (give me a ****ing break!) Twenty miles from Adelphi is Reston, VA., home to iDefense Labs, whose web site says it is a "comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments." The Washington, DC telephone number is also on the same exchange as the newly created "Iraq Study Group" (2005) and the Afghanistan Embassy Of Washington. The Iraq Study Group was designed by the Public Relations Firm hired by the US government to promote the Iraq War to us in the media.



    9. The WikiLeaks document release reminds many of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Remember, Ellsberg worked for Internal Security Affairs. He was a spook. Ellsberg himself has recently come out to say he thinks the CIA may be targeting Assange. Oh, please.



    10. Instead of discussion about the revelations in the documents, and questions about why the media did not report this stuff years ago, the takeaway from the latest WikiLeaks release has been a) look, Iran was involved and b) Assange is an alleged rapist and he's a Bad Guy!



    11. The same people who would have us believe Osama Bin Laden is living in comfort in Pakistan ten years after undergoing dialysis in a Dubai hospital, now bring us globetrotting Julian Assange--- every bit as cartoonish as OBL. The bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it.



    12. Funny how Assange and Ellsberg gave a press conference last Saturday at a hotel located a stone's throw from MI6, where yesterday spy chief Sir John Sawyers gave the first public speech in MI6's 101-year history, defending secrecy in the war against terror. Both press conferences were written up in the NYT by John F. Burns. It's always interesting to learn a little about the guys who write these stories, right? Burns studied Russian at Harvard, Chinese at Cambridge, and later Islamic history at Cambridge. He served as bureau chief in Moscow 1981-84, and is currently London bureau chief. He is married to a woman who is currently the NYT Baghdad bureau chief.



    13. The CIA DID NOT arrest Assange at the Press Conference outlinesd above. Why not? (MI6 didn't arrest him either but these Keystone Kops are still looking for Osama. Right?).



    14. And the single most important factor is that Americans are rubes and if you tell a BIG lie often enough, even if it looks like, smells like and sounds like a lie, they WILL believe it. Think 911 here folks. This is a 21st Century Document Dump 911. A Controlled Demolition of your brain, no thermate necessary. No cell phones, no planes.



    Bonus: If it's too good to be true it's a lie.



    It REALLY pisses me off that people can believe this junk AFTER the events of 911.
    You must be a right weirdo in real life. What do you do? I bet you are a media student.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Of course it is. Assange - ironically - is so secretive and shady about his organisation, his contacts etc..etc.. He could very well keep back certain bits of information from publication.

    He has already explcitly stated that if he is snatched by the USA he will have a contact drop some real juicy revelations on the internet. Why hasn't he immediately published these if he is simply a nuetral channel for facts?
    Because if he has no insurance files, he'll just get shot, and in the future won't be able to release information.

    I don't see what's so terrible about keeping information back. So long as all the information given is true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Lol, not really as people still have read and discussing the subject.

    Regarding me changing my mind about wikileaks, well you do when you read more about the subject and Julian.


    I'll make a very good argument that Wikileaks is a CIA "Limited Hang-Out." You'll have to Google that term if you're unfamiliar with it. I don't want to explain it here.



    Here's my argument (people have very short memories)

    My 14 Step Program +Bonus to understanding Wikileaks:



    1. Wikileaks proves Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq. This should be a "Duh" moment but there's more, of course.



    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._found_in.html



    2. The last Wikileak Leak, which I downloaded (I downloaded this one too) had Osama bin Laden appearing in the first 10 pages (the American readers limit when given hundreds of pages of boring ****) and alive and in charge of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan even though he's very likely been dead for a long, long time.



    3. If Julian Assange were truly a rogue we ALL KNOW the mainstream media would black him out and they would NOT report anything about anything that he's revealed. Even more importantly, if these leaks were truly damaging to the US not ONE SINGLE media outlet would report them. Heck man, we can't even get these people to report Building Seven. Geraldo did 5 minutes on it 10 YEARS AFTER the event.



    4. Julian Assange accepts the official version of 911. If that isn't an enormous Red Flag then I don't know what is.



    5. The overly-emphasized “CIA is after Assange” story in the media rings false. The CIA does not advertise its own agendas and missions, and the media rarely intrudes on their discretion. But here we have something like Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. What’s wrong with this picture?



    6. The recent (last week) NYT profile of Assange was originally bylined by Eric Schmitt, then the names were changed. Assange has used Schmitt in the past to communicate. Schmitt is a senior writer on terrorism and national security for the NYT, and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.



    7. Wikileaks reveals that 15,000 more died in Iraq then the US government actually admitted. WTF? The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count reports 43,000; the Iraq Body Count reports 94,000; the Brookings Institute reports 113,000; the Associated Press reports 34,000 and the World Health Organization reports 151,000. Try close to ONE MILLION, per the Lancet several years back. Do I trust the Lancet or some CIA plant? Well, I don’t trust the Lancet either and believe it was well over 1 million; but, I’d trust them over this yackadoodle any day of the week.



    8. Puhleeze, these guys either aren't too smart or they're playing games because: The contact number on Wikileaks.org has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland. Intellus.com, a Web tracking service, connected the number to a ‘V.A. Reston.’ (give me a ****ing break!) Twenty miles from Adelphi is Reston, VA., home to iDefense Labs, whose web site says it is a "comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments." The Washington, DC telephone number is also on the same exchange as the newly created "Iraq Study Group" (2005) and the Afghanistan Embassy Of Washington. The Iraq Study Group was designed by the Public Relations Firm hired by the US government to promote the Iraq War to us in the media.



    9. The WikiLeaks document release reminds many of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Remember, Ellsberg worked for Internal Security Affairs. He was a spook. Ellsberg himself has recently come out to say he thinks the CIA may be targeting Assange. Oh, please.



    10. Instead of discussion about the revelations in the documents, and questions about why the media did not report this stuff years ago, the takeaway from the latest WikiLeaks release has been a) look, Iran was involved and b) Assange is an alleged rapist and he's a Bad Guy!



    11. The same people who would have us believe Osama Bin Laden is living in comfort in Pakistan ten years after undergoing dialysis in a Dubai hospital, now bring us globetrotting Julian Assange--- every bit as cartoonish as OBL. The bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it.



    12. Funny how Assange and Ellsberg gave a press conference last Saturday at a hotel located a stone's throw from MI6, where yesterday spy chief Sir John Sawyers gave the first public speech in MI6's 101-year history, defending secrecy in the war against terror. Both press conferences were written up in the NYT by John F. Burns. It's always interesting to learn a little about the guys who write these stories, right? Burns studied Russian at Harvard, Chinese at Cambridge, and later Islamic history at Cambridge. He served as bureau chief in Moscow 1981-84, and is currently London bureau chief. He is married to a woman who is currently the NYT Baghdad bureau chief.



    13. The CIA DID NOT arrest Assange at the Press Conference outlinesd above. Why not? (MI6 didn't arrest him either but these Keystone Kops are still looking for Osama. Right?).



    14. And the single most important factor is that Americans are rubes and if you tell a BIG lie often enough, even if it looks like, smells like and sounds like a lie, they WILL believe it. Think 911 here folks. This is a 21st Century Document Dump 911. A Controlled Demolition of your brain, no thermate necessary. No cell phones, no planes.



    Bonus: If it's too good to be true it's a lie.



    It REALLY pisses me off that people can believe this junk AFTER the events of 911.
    Cool story, I stopped reading after number 4.
    :rofl2: You copied & pasted?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    There is enough evil in the world without having to look under every rock to find more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyWorseThanInfidel)
    You must be a right weirdo in real life. What do you do? I bet you are a media student.
    Nope I'm going do Child nursing and then medicine to eventually become a pediatrician.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    Because if he has no insurance files, he'll just get shot, and in the future won't be able to release information.
    Oh please what a ridiculous argument. At least try and be objective in this. China can't shoot popular public figures who do things against the regime. So I seriously doubt that assange could be assasinated in a west dominated by a 24 hour media.

    I don't see what's so terrible about keeping information back. So long as all the information given is true.

    Because keeping information back distorts the information he can give out. This is glaringly obvious to me, how don't you see it? What if he released cables documenting US posturing on the Iran/Iraq border but didn't release the subsequent cables chronicling Iranian aggression towards US troops? (This was actually released but I'm just providing a hypothetical example)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Nope I'm going do Child nursing and then medicine to eventually become a pediatrician.
    Someone so full of hate to be working with children? No wonder why there are so many cases of child abuse by professionals in a position of trust - we let people like you become doctors. Think about it. If you do not yet realise yourself - you seem like a seriously horrible person. This is comming from me who has read many of your posts during this year. Grow up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Lol, not really as people still have read and discussing the subject.

    Regarding me changing my mind about wikileaks, well you do when you read more about the subject and Julian.


    I'll make a very good argument that Wikileaks is a CIA "Limited Hang-Out." You'll have to Google that term if you're unfamiliar with it. I don't want to explain it here.



    Here's my argument (people have very short memories)

    My 14 Step Program +Bonus to understanding Wikileaks:



    1. Wikileaks proves Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq. This should be a "Duh" moment but there's more, of course.



    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._found_in.html

    And? This isn't part of an argument at all!

    2. The last Wikileak Leak, which I downloaded (I downloaded this one too) had Osama bin Laden appearing in the first 10 pages (the American readers limit when given hundreds of pages of boring ****) and alive and in charge of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan even though he's very likely been dead for a long, long time.

    How would you know where Osama bin Laden is? If you do, I suggest you get on the phone to the US. Also, why do you think Osama crops up nice and early? Perhaps because the American military talks about him a lot? No... couldn't be.



    3. If Julian Assange were truly a rogue we ALL KNOW the mainstream media would black him out and they would NOT report anything about anything that he's revealed. Even more importantly, if these leaks were truly damaging to the US not ONE SINGLE media outlet would report them. Heck man, we can't even get these people to report Building Seven. Geraldo did 5 minutes on it 10 YEARS AFTER the event.

    Do we ALL KNOW this? No. If these leaks were 'truly damaging' to the US in terms of endangering life then no, the MSM wouldn't report it. But they're not. Would you like them to be?



    4. Julian Assange accepts the official version of 911. If that isn't an enormous Red Flag then I don't know what is.

    Feel free to let us know how it all happened. Your expertise as a prospective child carer into building demolitions and terrorism is welcome.



    5. The overly-emphasized “CIA is after Assange” story in the media rings false. The CIA does not advertise its own agendas and missions, and the media rarely intrudes on their discretion. But here we have something like Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. What’s wrong with this picture?

    I haven't heard anything about this.



    6. The recent (last week) NYT profile of Assange was originally bylined by Eric Schmitt, then the names were changed. Assange has used Schmitt in the past to communicate. Schmitt is a senior writer on terrorism and national security for the NYT, and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand?



    7. Wikileaks reveals that 15,000 more died in Iraq then the US government actually admitted. WTF? The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count reports 43,000; the Iraq Body Count reports 94,000; the Brookings Institute reports 113,000; the Associated Press reports 34,000 and the World Health Organization reports 151,000. Try close to ONE MILLION, per the Lancet several years back. Do I trust the Lancet or some CIA plant? Well, I don’t trust the Lancet either and believe it was well over 1 million; but, I’d trust them over this yackadoodle any day of the week.

    ....right. So you think every report is false, and that... Assange works for the CIA? I also presume you have some extraordinary evidence for that 'well over 1 million' claim's extraordinary assertion, right? No?

    Oh.



    8. Puhleeze, these guys either aren't too smart or they're playing games because: The contact number on Wikileaks.org has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland. Intellus.com, a Web tracking service, connected the number to a ‘V.A. Reston.’ (give me a ****ing break!) Twenty miles from Adelphi is Reston, VA., home to iDefense Labs, whose web site says it is a "comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments." The Washington, DC telephone number is also on the same exchange as the newly created "Iraq Study Group" (2005) and the Afghanistan Embassy Of Washington. The Iraq Study Group was designed by the Public Relations Firm hired by the US government to promote the Iraq War to us in the media.

    I don't know much about US mobile phones etc, so I'll have to leave this.



    9. The WikiLeaks document release reminds many of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Remember, Ellsberg worked for Internal Security Affairs. He was a spook. Ellsberg himself has recently come out to say he thinks the CIA may be targeting Assange. Oh, please.

    So, becase someone mentioned in these leaks has mentioned Assange... Assange is therefore working for the CIA? You make wild, ungraceful leaps from premise to conclusion with evidence that is circumstantial at best, missing at worst.



    10. Instead of discussion about the revelations in the documents, and questions about why the media did not report this stuff years ago, the takeaway from the latest WikiLeaks release has been a) look, Iran was involved and b) Assange is an alleged rapist and he's a Bad Guy!

    And this proves? Nothing apart from the fact that Assange is being targeted (as you deny)...



    11. The same people who would have us believe Osama Bin Laden is living in comfort in Pakistan ten years after undergoing dialysis in a Dubai hospital, now bring us globetrotting Julian Assange--- every bit as cartoonish as OBL. The bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it.

    So.... neither Osama nor Assange are real people?



    12. Funny how Assange and Ellsberg gave a press conference last Saturday at a hotel located a stone's throw from MI6, where yesterday spy chief Sir John Sawyers gave the first public speech in MI6's 101-year history, defending secrecy in the war against terror. Both press conferences were written up in the NYT by John F. Burns. It's always interesting to learn a little about the guys who write these stories, right? Burns studied Russian at Harvard, Chinese at Cambridge, and later Islamic history at Cambridge. He served as bureau chief in Moscow 1981-84, and is currently London bureau chief. He is married to a woman who is currently the NYT Baghdad bureau chief.

    So what? Two people in London speak near one another? IT'S CONNECTED. Some guy tried to sell me coke in Westminister once, that doesn't make him a politician.



    13. The CIA DID NOT arrest Assange at the Press Conference outlinesd above. Why not? (MI6 didn't arrest him either but these Keystone Kops are still looking for Osama. Right?).

    They need to justify not arresting him? For what?



    14. And the single most important factor is that Americans are rubes and if you tell a BIG lie often enough, even if it looks like, smells like and sounds like a lie, they WILL believe it. Think 911 here folks. This is a 21st Century Document Dump 911. A Controlled Demolition of your brain, no thermate necessary. No cell phones, no planes.

    THINK FOR YOURSELVES, MAAAAN. All this ****e is predicated on accepting already existing conspiracy theories. It isn't an argument. It's a list of barely circumstantial facts.


    Bonus: If it's too good to be true it's a lie.



    It REALLY pisses me off that people can believe this junk AFTER the events of 911.
    Yaaaawn.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The lack of information damaging to Israel in the cables released by WikiLeaks has provided fodder for conspiracy theorists.


    PARIS - It was only a matter of time before conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork to suggest that Israel is behind the publication of the WikiLeaks trove - and is manipulating the information coming out to help Israeli interests.

    "Where is the real dirt on Israel?" these conspiracy theorists - messaging back and forth in the blogosphere - are asking one another.

    "The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between WikiLeaks' ... Assange ... with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public," wrote Gordon Duff, an editor of the anti-war website Veterans Today, who frequently opines about what he believes is Israeli's secret influence over world events.

    Meanwhile, Al Haqiqa, an Arabic language webzine, citing disgruntled WikiLeaks volunteers, adds more details to the conspiracy, suggesting that this "secret agreement" between Assange and "the Mossad," which allegedly took place in Geneva, involved Assange's promise not to publish any document that "may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests."

    "The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively," adds an anonymous blogger on IndyMedia. "These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the American embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, were removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added."

    Remy Ourdon, who is in charge of the WikiLeaks project for Le Monde - one of the five international newspapers that were given advance copies of the cables by Assange - counters that it is incorrect to claim there are no cables of interest about Israel.

    "Not everything has come out yet," he tells Haaretz. "There are tens of thousands of cables and many surprises still coming. There is almost no country which does not have some cables emanating from it."


    Moreover, stresses Ourdon, contrary to the conspiracy theorists' charges, Assange is not in control of which cables WikiLeaks publishes - that is determined solely by what the person who obtained the cables was able to access and pass along.

    Other observers offer an alternative explanation for the lack - so far - of many insightful cables out of Israel. For example, Ed Abington, a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem (1993-1997 ) suggests, on facebook, that it might have something to do with the level of information being offered out of the country.

    "The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv has been so out of the loop for the last six years that their reporting is about what you read in the Israeli press (probably where they get most of their information ). .

    "There's a channel U.S. embassies use for very sensitive information and I don't think WikiLeaks has those cables. As for Tel Aviv, the last two ambassadors have not been risk-takers and have had a very low profile. I doubt they have been willing to rock the boat, and may not have had much, if any, inside information."

    What would be more interesting, Abington persists, is the reporting from the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem. "Where is that reporting?" he asks.

    "Stay tuned," says Ourdon.

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/bloggers-claim-wikileaks-struck-deal-with-israel-over-diplomatic-cables-leaks-1.331030


    In other words: Idiots.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyWorseThanInfidel)
    Someone so full of hate to be working with children? No wonder why there are so many cases of child abuse by professionals in a position of trust - we let people like you become doctors. Think about it. If you do not yet realise yourself - you seem like a seriously horrible person. This is comming from me who has read many of your posts during this year. Grow up.
    Lool your comment says more about you..
    Im anti-zionist and for peace and justice in the world and that makes me become a 'child abuser'???!!!
    Yuk don't know which planet you live in but it looks like a sad one to me!
    Im going be great and I'm lovely hence my name
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axes)
    The lack of information damaging to Israel in the cables released by WikiLeaks has provided fodder for conspiracy theorists.


    PARIS - It was only a matter of time before conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork to suggest that Israel is behind the publication of the WikiLeaks trove - and is manipulating the information coming out to help Israeli interests.

    "Where is the real dirt on Israel?" these conspiracy theorists - messaging back and forth in the blogosphere - are asking one another.

    "The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between WikiLeaks' ... Assange ... with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public," wrote Gordon Duff, an editor of the anti-war website Veterans Today, who frequently opines about what he believes is Israeli's secret influence over world events.

    Meanwhile, Al Haqiqa, an Arabic language webzine, citing disgruntled WikiLeaks volunteers, adds more details to the conspiracy, suggesting that this "secret agreement" between Assange and "the Mossad," which allegedly took place in Geneva, involved Assange's promise not to publish any document that "may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests."

    "The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively," adds an anonymous blogger on IndyMedia. "These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the American embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, were removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added."

    Remy Ourdon, who is in charge of the WikiLeaks project for Le Monde - one of the five international newspapers that were given advance copies of the cables by Assange - counters that it is incorrect to claim there are no cables of interest about Israel.

    "Not everything has come out yet," he tells Haaretz. "There are tens of thousands of cables and many surprises still coming. There is almost no country which does not have some cables emanating from it."


    Moreover, stresses Ourdon, contrary to the conspiracy theorists' charges, Assange is not in control of which cables WikiLeaks publishes - that is determined solely by what the person who obtained the cables was able to access and pass along.

    Other observers offer an alternative explanation for the lack - so far - of many insightful cables out of Israel. For example, Ed Abington, a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem (1993-1997 ) suggests, on facebook, that it might have something to do with the level of information being offered out of the country.

    "The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv has been so out of the loop for the last six years that their reporting is about what you read in the Israeli press (probably where they get most of their information ). .

    "There's a channel U.S. embassies use for very sensitive information and I don't think WikiLeaks has those cables. As for Tel Aviv, the last two ambassadors have not been risk-takers and have had a very low profile. I doubt they have been willing to rock the boat, and may not have had much, if any, inside information."

    What would be more interesting, Abington persists, is the reporting from the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem. "Where is that reporting?" he asks.

    "Stay tuned," says Ourdon.

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/bloggers-claim-wikileaks-struck-deal-with-israel-over-diplomatic-cables-leaks-1.331030


    In other words: Idiots.
    Thanks for the useful insight!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What will the Wikileaks debacle herald? You guessed it – the last bastion of freedom of information and expression, a free Internet, will topple. Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the “approved” list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get “on the net”. No biggie. Thanks Julian–job well done.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Lol, not really as people still have read and discussing the subject.

    Regarding me changing my mind about wikileaks, well you do when you read more about the subject and Julian.


    I'll make a very good argument that Wikileaks is a CIA "Limited Hang-Out." You'll have to Google that term if you're unfamiliar with it. I don't want to explain it here.



    Here's my argument (people have very short memories)

    My 14 Step Program +Bonus to understanding Wikileaks:



    1. Wikileaks proves Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq. This should be a "Duh" moment but there's more, of course.



    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._found_in.html



    2. The last Wikileak Leak, which I downloaded (I downloaded this one too) had Osama bin Laden appearing in the first 10 pages (the American readers limit when given hundreds of pages of boring ****) and alive and in charge of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan even though he's very likely been dead for a long, long time.



    3. If Julian Assange were truly a rogue we ALL KNOW the mainstream media would black him out and they would NOT report anything about anything that he's revealed. Even more importantly, if these leaks were truly damaging to the US not ONE SINGLE media outlet would report them. Heck man, we can't even get these people to report Building Seven. Geraldo did 5 minutes on it 10 YEARS AFTER the event.



    4. Julian Assange accepts the official version of 911. If that isn't an enormous Red Flag then I don't know what is.



    5. The overly-emphasized “CIA is after Assange” story in the media rings false. The CIA does not advertise its own agendas and missions, and the media rarely intrudes on their discretion. But here we have something like Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. What’s wrong with this picture?



    6. The recent (last week) NYT profile of Assange was originally bylined by Eric Schmitt, then the names were changed. Assange has used Schmitt in the past to communicate. Schmitt is a senior writer on terrorism and national security for the NYT, and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.



    7. Wikileaks reveals that 15,000 more died in Iraq then the US government actually admitted. WTF? The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count reports 43,000; the Iraq Body Count reports 94,000; the Brookings Institute reports 113,000; the Associated Press reports 34,000 and the World Health Organization reports 151,000. Try close to ONE MILLION, per the Lancet several years back. Do I trust the Lancet or some CIA plant? Well, I don’t trust the Lancet either and believe it was well over 1 million; but, I’d trust them over this yackadoodle any day of the week.



    8. Puhleeze, these guys either aren't too smart or they're playing games because: The contact number on Wikileaks.org has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland. Intellus.com, a Web tracking service, connected the number to a ‘V.A. Reston.’ (give me a ****ing break!) Twenty miles from Adelphi is Reston, VA., home to iDefense Labs, whose web site says it is a "comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments." The Washington, DC telephone number is also on the same exchange as the newly created "Iraq Study Group" (2005) and the Afghanistan Embassy Of Washington. The Iraq Study Group was designed by the Public Relations Firm hired by the US government to promote the Iraq War to us in the media.



    9. The WikiLeaks document release reminds many of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Remember, Ellsberg worked for Internal Security Affairs. He was a spook. Ellsberg himself has recently come out to say he thinks the CIA may be targeting Assange. Oh, please.



    10. Instead of discussion about the revelations in the documents, and questions about why the media did not report this stuff years ago, the takeaway from the latest WikiLeaks release has been a) look, Iran was involved and b) Assange is an alleged rapist and he's a Bad Guy!



    11. The same people who would have us believe Osama Bin Laden is living in comfort in Pakistan ten years after undergoing dialysis in a Dubai hospital, now bring us globetrotting Julian Assange--- every bit as cartoonish as OBL. The bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it.



    12. Funny how Assange and Ellsberg gave a press conference last Saturday at a hotel located a stone's throw from MI6, where yesterday spy chief Sir John Sawyers gave the first public speech in MI6's 101-year history, defending secrecy in the war against terror. Both press conferences were written up in the NYT by John F. Burns. It's always interesting to learn a little about the guys who write these stories, right? Burns studied Russian at Harvard, Chinese at Cambridge, and later Islamic history at Cambridge. He served as bureau chief in Moscow 1981-84, and is currently London bureau chief. He is married to a woman who is currently the NYT Baghdad bureau chief.



    13. The CIA DID NOT arrest Assange at the Press Conference outlinesd above. Why not? (MI6 didn't arrest him either but these Keystone Kops are still looking for Osama. Right?).



    14. And the single most important factor is that Americans are rubes and if you tell a BIG lie often enough, even if it looks like, smells like and sounds like a lie, they WILL believe it. Think 911 here folks. This is a 21st Century Document Dump 911. A Controlled Demolition of your brain, no thermate necessary. No cell phones, no planes.



    Bonus: If it's too good to be true it's a lie.



    It REALLY pisses me off that people can believe this junk AFTER the events of 911.
    I've just found what you copied and pasted! LINK BELOW!

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=129787393


    ahahahaha
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Op knows nothing about this subject Op is a big troll that copies and pastes other people's words. Here is the link that the Op troll copied and pasted from!

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=129787393
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I never said I did. These words are from well known activist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Instincts_2012)
    Op knows nothing about this subject Op is a big troll that copies and pastes other people's words. Here is the link that the Op troll copied and pasted from!

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=129787393
    Loool you pervert!

    This is Instincts messaged me private:

    (Original post by Instincts_2012)
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=129787393

    Idiot. Unless you wanna show me ur puussy, gtfo =)

    Disgusting pig!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why wasn't 911 enough for people to understand the power the elite exercise? Now we have 911-Part 2 and people are falling for it AGAIN! I suppose when the internet is altered considerably in, say, 10 years, and slowly at that, THEN people will say, damn! That Assange guy was 911-Part 2 without thermate!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Loool you pervert!

    This is Instincts messaged me private:




    Disgusting pig!
    Yes, it was meant to be a disgusting joke to get you annoyed, and the fact that you replied and even quoted it shows that you are annoyed about my personal message.

    Now have fun troll.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Loool you pervert!

    This is Instincts messaged me private:




    Disgusting pig!
    You sent me this private message first.
    (Original post by Lovely88)

    Erase ur messages from my thread plz, i want to troll longer...
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=129787393

    I'll c2c with you if u do it? x
    Pathetic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Instincts_2012)
    You sent me this private message first.


    Pathetic.
    You liar!
    I never sent that message, you just made that up. How sad after I exposed you.
    Im not annoyed just showing how disgusting you are.
    Im not a troll, if you dont like my threads dont read them, simple as!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.