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

WikiLeaks: Advancing an Israeli Agenda? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think so!

    http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/12...sraeli-agenda/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You seem to have taken a U-Turn regarding Wikileaks. First it's "oh yes expose those evil *******s" then it's "WAIT ISRAEL CONTROLS WIKILEAKS UR ALL BLIND FOOLS LOLOLOL". When will you stop posting so much anti-Israeli garbage?

    Most of the sites you link are from paranoid idiots circle jerking in comments about how they have been enlightened and how they see the true evils of this world (US/Israel).

    e: "opinion-maker.com" relevant URL for you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Stop making these pathetic threads - you aren't helping your cause, you're damaging it. Do you seriously not find it ridiculous that your mind is set that you went from "I <3 Wikileaks" to realising that the files so far reinforce what Israel has been saying and condemning? Rather than take this as further evidence that Israel is not the only who think they way they do, you use it as evidence of further Israeli control.

    As for the website you're using, here's another article that was posted up on there: "All Streicher did was tell the truth about Jews, and print political caricatures of them." If you don't know who Streicher is, I suggest you read this. The article goes on to say that: "To be big, tough Americans who let a bunch of creepy Jews run us like cattle? Right now, they’re the cowboys and we’re the cows. They make us commit war crimes against their enemies." I don't need to go into their contributors - two of them who work at the propaganda outlet PressTV.

    So, again, you are using plainly anti-Semitic sources.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    So, again, you are using plainly anti-Semitic sources.
    She's allowed to do that, because she's Jewish.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think you should just go to Israel and join Hamas.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I highly doubt America will be pleased if Israel was behind leaking it's secret documents. Angering america doesn't really help an 'Israeli Agenda'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
    I highly doubt America will be pleased if Israel was behind leaking it's secret documents. Angering america doesn't really help an 'Israeli Agenda'.
    She probably believes it's an America-Israel (CIA-MOSSAD) mission because what's in Israel interest is in America's (according to her).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The cables were leaked from the US government so it would be surprising and highly controversial if there was a lot of criticism of Israel going on there. There was some criticism of European allies but not anything really controversial.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I support the Palestinians and I support Wikileaks.

    Wikileaks can never have much of an agenda, except the one to spread information. That is because it only spreads information. How can you have an agenda if all you are doing is publishing facts?

    OP.. You are wrong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    LOL.

    It is advancing an Israeli Agenda because you expected to find lots of information on Israels massive influence over the US.

    Instead, you have the Arab leaders calling for America to bomb Iran.


    The funny thing is that you expected to find a treasure trove of information on American cover ups and their nefarious intentions for the middle east and yet you have nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your threads fail OP, get over the obsession.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skyhigh!)
    Your threads fail OP, get over the obsession.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    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.
    Can you start with acknowledging that all of this isn't your own work?

    Spoiler:
    Show
    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.
    Plagiarism isn't accepted in D&D. I was actually surprised you wrote more than one line but alas my suspicions had been confirmed. None of those points are legitimate and some of them are straight crackpot conspiracy theories.

    It REALLY pisses me off that people can believe this junk AFTER the events of 911.
    And where is your proof that 9/11 is an inside job? You're stating that like it's a universally accepted fact when it really isn't. You didn't even right this part. :lol:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    x
    Here's a source for the wall of text you copied and pasted
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    I support the Palestinians and I support Wikileaks.

    Wikileaks can never have much of an agenda, except the one to spread information. That is because it only spreads information. How can you have an agenda if all you are doing is publishing facts?
    .


    Because the distributor of the facts has an agenda?


    OP...:facepalm2: Though it is quite amusing that the die heard anti-Americans are becoming uneasy about Wikileaks now the reveleations expose their irrational diatribe as exactly that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think Julian Assange should of been Time magazines person of the year. Alright, he wasnt in the news every single month. But he's got courage and balls to do what he does, I think he deserves imo.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Because the distributor of the facts has an agenda?


    OP...:facepalm2: Though it is quite amusing that the die heard anti-Americans are becoming uneasy about Wikileaks now the reveleations expose their irrational diatribe as exactly that.
    If they do have an agenda, then it's okay if all they are doing is reporting facts. That would be like saying that science has a 'pro-evolution agenda' just because they are reporting facts. It's not an issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    If they do have an agenda, then it's okay if all they are doing is reporting facts. That would be like saying that science has a 'pro-evolution agenda' just because they are reporting facts. It's not an issue.

    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?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    if only paul the octopus was still alive.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.