Chris Floyd Skewers Wikileaks

By Michael Collins

"So once again, and for the last time, we ask the question: How does this alter the prevailing conventional wisdom about the war?" Chris Floyd, Leaky Vessels: Wikileaks "Revelations" Will Comfort Warmongers, Confirm Conventional Wisdom, Empire Burlesque, July 26, 27

Wikileaks head honcho Julian Assange may be annoyed with the 911 Truth movement and all those conspiracy theories. But he may be appalled when he reads that one of the leading authors and researchers on imperialism and the Iraq war, Chris Floyd, has taken him to task for making much ado about nothing.

Floyd makes his case early on in the article, with maximum effect:

"Is there anything in these breathless new recitations that we did not already know? For example, the NYT offers a few short vignettes from the leaked documents concerning botched raids and errant missiles that slaughter civilians. But in almost every case, these have already been extensively reported -- in the Times itself and other mainstream venues -- in much greater detail, with quotes and evidence from the victims and local eyewitnesses, and not just the self-interested, ass-covering perspective of official occupation reports. And the "revelation" that occupation forces are killing "an amazing number of people" who have "never proven to be a threat" at checkpoints was confirmed months ago by no less than Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the erstwhile commander of the whole shebang." Chris Floyd, July 26, 27

Floyd points out that regular readers of the three media outlets that received the leaks would know much of the material presented in the maze of documents touted as news. He makes a clear distinction between the Wikileaks data dump and previous national security leaks:

"These are not the Pentagon Papers or the Downing Street Memos; they do almost nothing to alter the public image of the war, and tell almost nothing that we don't already know." Floyd

Wikileaks quotes a US embassy cable from Kabul claiming that Iran is a key player in the Afghanistan opposition. Floyd's response shows the bias of the leaked material:

"Wow, that's heavy stuff, man. An apparatchik in the US embassy says that the political opposition to America's man in Kabul is just Iranian puppetry. Obviously, those Afghan ragheads couldn't possibly put together an opposition by themselves. (It's just like that Civil Rights stuff back in the day; it was all a Communist front. You know our docile darkies would never have tried to get above their raising if the Commies hadn't stirred them up.)" Floyd

After a comprehensive summary of the not-so-newness of the material release, Floyd concludes his devastating indictment with this judgment:

"I believe they will supply plenty of ammunition to those bent on further murder and plunder." Floyd

Some questions

Question: How do we know that the Wikileaks material is the only material being used by the New York Times?

George Friedman of Stratfor made an interesting point in his analysis of the Wikileaks materials:

"The Times reports that (former Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Hamid) Gul’s name appears all over the documents, yet very few documents have been released in the current batch, and it is very hard to imagine intelligence on Gul and his organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, being classified as only secret. So, this was either low-grade material hyped by the media, or there is material reviewed by the selected newspapers but not yet made public. Still, what was released and what the Times discussed is consistent with what most thought was happening in Afghanistan." George Friedman, Stratfor Global Intelligence, July 27

Friedman's points are of real interest. Was the government so careless as to mention a critical U.S. intelligence contact, Gul, in secret, as opposed to top secret communication? If that's not the case, how did material that would presumably be classified as top secret end up in the Wikileaks documents, which were supposedly classified secret?

Is the Times inserting other material from unspecified sources in the Wikileaks commentary?

Does the Times have yet another of its political agendas embedded in the handling of the leaks?

Who is watching the leakers?

Question: Why did Wikileaks choose the New York Times, of all papers, as the news and editorial source for the U.S. audience?
The Time is, after all, the newspaper that brought us Judith Miller's fantasies about weapons of mass destruction and withheld the illegal wiretapping story until well after the 2004 election. That made "the paper of record" complicit in the effort to lie us into an illegal Iraq invasion and perpetuate the Iraq occupation and war. By withholding the illegal wiretapping story until December 16, 2005, the hugely negative impact of Bush illegal wiretapping was assured to have no influence on the election. This helped Bush and Cheney to four more years to inflict their pain on the country and the world.

Question: Why did Wikileaks' Julian Assange make this gratuitous remark on July 19?

"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." Julian Assange, July 19
Isn't Assange aware that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees routinely go after 911 Truth and that the mainstream media is never far behind? Why is he piling on? Which conspiracy theories is he talking about? How does he know that any one of them is false? Has Assange read the entire body of evidence based research and theories on 9/11(or any of it)? Finally, why does Assange have such contempt for the consistently high percentage of U.S. citizens, particularly in New York City, who voice serious doubts about the truth of the 9/11 Commission and other pronouncements by the bipartisan rulers who do their best to make sure that nothing leaks out or gets investigated regarding 9/11?

Chris Floyd's analysis of the latest Wikileaks production is required reading for those interested in navigating The Matrix of modern media manipulation.

This article may be reproduced in part or whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

I never heard of this guy

I never heard of this guy before but will attempt to study what he says. He refers to info that we've all seen before...funny, but I was never aware that ISI was funding and advising Taliban attacks on Americans and American friendly Afghan forces, or that the civilian death toll was much higher than previously reported, or that the Taliban were making more successful surface to air missile strikes than previously reported. That Daniel Ellsberg has been poo pooed here is astonishing, given that his "leaks" were instrumental in ending the Viet Nam conflict. Mr Assange is characterized on these pages as being a dupe of the national security state...I still fail to see how the case can be substantiated. What we've seen on these pages are unsubstantiated attacks. No organization is perfect, not even here. In fact recently some very bitter in fighting has occurred in the ranks of some leading Truth groups. I've been calling on hackers for years to get political and do some good with their impressive talents. That Bradley Manning was exposed is an indicator of poor organizational unity. That the focus on the illegality and horrors of this war are made front and center again should be looked at a second time by Assange's detractors. Mr. Floyd, odd as it seems, echoes many of the comments made by the defense department , Senator Kerry and other supporters of the insane war. I'll read more when I get a chance. Glad this forum allows freedom of expression.

No Worries - Mate

Since we have had some back and forth on this, let me make a few things clear. Your comments on this subject seem sincere and honest to me, and in my book that's all you can really ask for in an open discussion. If everyone believed the same things in a lock-step fashion, that might be a little scary or boring.

I was reflecting on the discussion of this topic while out driving tonight. What struck me is how Assange hit the world stage in a similar way that Obama did. They both went from Zero to Sixty in the Political/Media scene in record time. They both say things you like and they both did not fit a traditional mode. Everyone is so starved for a Champion on things that are important - particularly War - that they're willing to see the good, overlook the not-so-good, and hope for the best. I think with Assange, like Obama, it's very easy to project one's own Perspective on this new personage.

I really am not proud of being such a quick cynic of another human being, but that's where my new understanding of this world has taken me. (I don't have this cynicism of people in general - but I do have it of political/media figures). When I saw all the trappings surrounding Obama, I could not help but be cynical. I did not take any enjoyment in pointing out the warning signs to those whose spirits were so lifted by him. Their response was much like yours. "Hey man - don't bum me out with all your negative waves -- can't you see the positive here?" (Do you remember the Oddball character in Kelley's Heroes? LOL)

And I do not want to pick on Ellsberg - that's not the point. I loved watching "The Most Dangerous Man in America." He seems like a decent guy. And decent people will often see the best in others. He admits that he supported Obama and was fooled in doing so. I am sure that we wants to think the best and believe the best of a guy who is being touted as following in his tradition. His legacy is probably getting more attention from this than from the Movie.

But when it comes to Obama or Assange ... eventually you learn to read the signs. Obama had what sounded like anti-war rhetoric but he became a War President. And you could really see this in advance. Assange's message is one of speaking Truth to Power and Transparency ... but look carefully at his Words and his Deeds. He ridicules a 9/11 Cover-up, he shrugs off the Bilderberg Group as an insignificant "Networking" organization, and he has been embraced as a Rock Star overnight by the MSM with an entry onto the World Stage with all the timing and planning of Madison Avenue. Then there's lots of other red flags and tells in what he says and how he says it and to whom, but I won't go into that detail again here. I understand and respect your perspective.

I am not proud of being a Cynic here ... but I have seen this Movie before.

You are an astute observer

with very keen evaluative skills. I'm with you on this and I am the eternal optimist and loath cynicism.

The parallel to Obama is kind of apt as well.

Something is fishy, not just with this leak, but also with that military video - can he not get his hands on anything REALLY SIGNIFICANT? He probably could, but he doesn't leak it, does he? No. He witholds that information, if it's too damaging. Maybe just to save his own skin perhaps..? Maybe. Maybe he's just finding the line, and then starting to push the envelope first..

ah the jury has to remain out over this guy. Time will tell..

I fully understant and see your points however. Thanks.

I agree. Very astute; and also very civil.

Here again we have the difficulty in peeling away the disinformation campaign, which appears as demoralizing cynicism to many.

In my opinion, John P. expresses a genuine, (well-intentioned) naivete here, an inability to see the layers of deception, when he defends the surface appearance of a "disclosure" which, when one looks closely, is actually an intentional leak intended to serve the empire, which the established 'left" swallows and regurgitates with unmitigated glee.

Let's look at this as a whole piece.

Let's ask the essential questions:
1) what part of this "disclosure" is likely to be picked up by the mainstream media and the various intelligence-operatives posing as journalists in the "alternative" media. Or to put it another way: what piece of this "disclosure" is going to be SUSTAINED OVER TIME in the public eye, such that it's the only thing remembered by the public?

2) What is the historical context of such "disclosures?"

3) In what way, if any, is the so-called "alternative" (Left) media being used to make the disinfo campaign seem more-legitimate?\

1) I'll bet my last Federal-Reserve-Note that what is ultimately retained through the MSM media spin is the supposition that PAKISTAN AND IRAN ARE HELPING THE INSURGENCY. If so, here is a "leak" designed to shift blame away from the military and onto the ISI, giving Amerika Inc. justification for more direct intervention.

We need to remember here how the mainstream media works: it doesn't matter if there's ONE piece of disinfo amidst 100 pieces of real information; if the MSM repeats the one bogus element enough, THAT's what will be retained in the public mind.

The mass American public today is so brainwashed and brutalized that they largely don't care that civilians are being tortured and murdered 3,000 miles away. The military strategists know this. We should too.

2) "The Left," Democracy Now (and John above) keep mentioning "The Pentagon Papers" for historical context.

Well, if you take a look more-closely, the same pattern of disinformation is there as well; namely, the PP's were INTENTIONALLY LEAKED to Daniel Ellsberg so as to fuel damage-control for a failing war in Vietnam; i.e. the "papers" dumped all the blame for the disaster onto the Pentagon while MAKING THE CIA LOOK GOOD. Charles Colson, CIA dirty-tricks specialist was part of the team which helped Ellsberg prepare the documents, (though D.E. does seem sincere, which of course makes the "leak" that much more impressive). Colson was also directly involved in the Watergate break-in: another set-up, designed to focus all the anger for the Vietnam war onto Nixon, a "scandal" which can be directly-linked back to the "Pentagon Papers." This eventually saw Nixon resign, and the anti-war movement thereafter dissipated like a dry fart.

It was the CIA, (the COVERT arm of the military-industrial-complex) which provoked and inflamed the war in Vietnam at every stage; and it's protection is key to the continuation of the state apparatus.

Here again, with "Wikileaks," NOTHING about the CIA is included.

Here again, the flippin' N.Y. Times regurgitates itself as a "responsible" newspaper. Here again, remember the basic rule: disinfo works best when it contains an ounce of truth.

3) So what does this say about the so-called "left," "alternative" "progressive" media?

They're looking very tired. Desperate for some kind of "disclosure" that's going to rouse the public to outraged action; when all they're doing is feeding the reservoir of more-of-the-same. They're livin' in the past, dreaming 'bout illusions of a "glory" more-imagined than real.

I don't doubt the sincerity of people like Amy Goodman. When she reports about the outrage being inflicted upon Haiti or the Gulf Coast, she's a valuable correspondent: courageous, compassionate; but like so many on "the left," she's playing it safe when it comes to the darker, more-disturbing questions of our time, such as 9-11, and the covert arm of the military-industrial-complex.

She and many others are making a fundamental error in judgement, a tactical mistake by avoiding certain issues; (as Wikilikeaks director repeats, "There's so many other issues to focus on" and we need to continue peeling back the layers of disinformation with constructive criticism and a civil approach to those who SINCERELY disagree with us, (as above).

I think we should take this "leak" more as a useful reflection of the weakness of "the left" than anything else; and a reminder that we who are prepared to dig deeper for the truth need to continue having confidence in ourselves: in our capacity to think, to dig beneath the layers of B.S., as we continue to (nicely, cordially) kick the support beams away from those who refuse to ask the tougher questions in EVERYTHING we do.

Nice post; and I personally find the wealth of intelligent responses to it... most gratifying indeed.

Now, the next question needs to be: what are we going to DO about it?

What to Do?

"Now, the next question needs to be: what are we going to DO about it?"

Well ... I think there are two primary things everyone can do.

First, use your own personal skills and follow your own personal interests. This is not a movement that lends itself to organization. It's like trying to herd a bunch of cats. If you can speak on the radio - great. If you can hand out DVDs and march - great. If you can write a book - great. If you can support others who do these or other things - great. There's no magic formula. It's gotta be what's right for you. If you want to try to organize others ..... good luck.

Second, work on convincing the people closest to you - and do it slowly, if needed. (Though if they're really not interested, my advice is don't impose yourself.) Try to speak to their issues. Turning one person can lead to geometric growth. I saw this happen with someone close to me, whom I finally figured out how to reach.

There's two primary ways the bad guys go down ... (1) A certain critical mass of people who see through them is achieved through efforts to educate, such that they are critically outed and exposed. (2) They just finally go too far .... such that the people cannot help but see what's what. Wall Street finally overstepped its bounds to the point where people are finally starting to see through them. Unfortunately, this latter process comes about due to things getting really bad. People need to stop following MSM, stop following the Dems and Reps and stop fighting over the false Liberal/Conservative paradigm. If you cannot educate directly on an issue like 9/11, you can spur people to reject these other sub-plots.

Final thing --- don't be afraid or spread a message of fear. They feed off of fear.

Huge red flag

Just as you have looked at the facts and find no reason to doubt Mr Assange's overall credibility, so others have also looked and find something very fishy about Wikileaks. No-one knows for sure, but surely there is a huge red flag for caution at least. Wikileaks may have been used in this latest release.

Why nothing really controversial or top-secret? Why mostly stuff we already know about? Why release it to the mainstream media outlets first, so they could put things in a certain light? Why the leak about Bin Laden being seen in 2006, when he is obviously dead? Why the leaks about ISI support for the Taliban (much of which is already common knowledge for followers of alternative media)? The possibility is there that this gives justification for deeper US involvement and interference in Pakistan. Why is Wikileaks funded by mainstream media and the same organisations that support left gatekeepers?

Surely we of 911 Truth are not in a position to hand out our sacred trust recklessly. That's how we can get hurt. People are justified in being very suspicious. Mr Assange's views on 911 Truth are a huge warning sign. At this point, my own level of trust in Wikileaks is very low, and getting lower by the day, the more I look at all the circumstances.

Why on earth should the readers of this website trust a guy who:

1) denies 911 truth
2) gives favourable access to mainstream media
3) takes funding from left gatekeeper organisations and is supported by the same mainstream media outlets which cover up 911 Truth?

Frankly, it's your position I don't understand. These are not attacks on Mr Assange, they are legitimate questions. They'll need to be answered before I would consider trusting Wikileaks.

You and I

often think in like minded ways. I am leaning this way as well now, now that more data is in.

WikiLeaks, ironically, covers up, by leaking. It's quite ingenious, I'll have to give him that. His original founding partner says not to trust him, and I do not.

And my oh my does he LOVE getting to play this game or what?
Perhaps he knows what he can and can not get away with leaking, and so he plays it safe - that's the ONLY benefit of the doubt that I can give him, that he's simply doing what he can do, without losing his skin in the process, quite literally.

John, take a look at this

John, Here is some information for you to consider.

You said that you never knoew that the "ISI was funding and advising Taliban," implying that the Wikileaks documents demonstrated this to be the case. A July 25th New York Times article implied this claiming, without showing original material, that the leaks indicated this to be the case.

Then the Times provided this information:

"Much of the information — raw intelligence and threat assessments gathered from the field in Afghanistan— cannot be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants. Some describe plots for attacks that do not appear to have taken place." New York Times, July 25

That totally subverts any "knowing" what Pakistan did and substitutes comments from the Afghan government (Karzai), which is hostile to Pakistan. There is no proof here at all.

Pakistan and Afghanistan each have a Taliban movement but they're separate. Pakistan is destroying its version of the Taliban. At the same time, as pointed out in the Friedma article so well, Pakistan is doing what our military tried to do a few months ago - make a deal with the Taliban to end hostilities. Afghanistan's stability is critical to Pakistan's ability to function. This is no surprise. Nevertheless, the Pakistanis have helped the United States against the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to Ambassador/General Eickenberry who has shown real integrity serving in Afghanistan.

Who is this guy? He's Chris Floyd, who has been writing about Iraq, Afghanistan, and the deterioration of our political system for years. He's not part of the corporate media, but he is widely read and well respected.

I wrote about Wikileaks on three occasions prior to this short piece o Floyd's analysis.

Army Intel ACORNing WikiLeaks? Web Publisher Under Attack, Mar. 30,
WikiLeaks Video - "Collateral Murder, Baghdad Apr. 5, &
WikiLeaks Video - The Greater Horror, Apr. 15

My skepticism built over time. It was sealed when I found out that the New York Times was to be the repository for Wikileaks material, the interpreter. The case of condemning Pakistan on the basis of a hostile governments low level intelligence is one example of Times distortion. The others are well known, as I mentioned.

I'm simply judging them by their works and by the fact that they're now part of the corporate media (and have been since corporate media outlets have paid their legal fees for several years).

MC, Assange said on Pacifica

MC, Assange said on Pacifica that he gets most of his donations from private individuals, so where's your proof that corporate media supports him by paying his legal fees? Ellsberg used the NY Times to publish the PP. The corporate media has been infiltrated by the defense establishment for a very long time, it's not 100% crap and publishing the PP was a good move. Assange picked them because of their reach and reputation, sullied by Miller and others though that be.

Here's a list of supporters from Wikileaks web site

As I pointed out, Wikileaks makes no secret about the support it receives from major media organizations. A partial list of their supporters is below, with major media featured. They list it on their official web site.
WikiLeaks would like to thank the following 18 steadfast supporters (unordered):
* The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE)
* The Associated Press
* The E.W Scripps Company
* Gannett Co. Inc
* The Hearst Corporation
* The Los Angeles Times
* National Newspaper Association (NNA) Wikileaks Help:Contents

I didn't take issue with this in the comment on Floyd's article. My questions were at giving the New York Times the U.S. exclusive on this.

The Afghan War Diary

was leaked to the New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the internet. I don't understand why the New York Times is portrayed as the sole recipient. Furthermore, plenty of material for History Commons is sourced from the mainstream media. In my experience, the problem doesn't lie solely in what the mainstream media do tell, but even more in what they do not.

A man called Intrepid

"Intrepid" was the codename for Canadian spymaster William Stephenson, head honcho for British Intelligence for the Western hemisphere during WWII and the inspiration for Flemming's James Bond character. I bring him up to cite a famous quote of his: "Nothing deceives like a document."

The implication is clear. "Leaked" or "lost" or "discovered" documents are naturally afforded more credibility than official pronouncements or blurbs by unnamed military sources. Thus the long history in spycraft of manufacturing documents outlining particular policies or "secret" plans which find their way into the hands of the enemy.

In the case of the Afghan documents, or at least their reportage, I'm struck by the constant referances to "Al-Qaeda", Bin Laden, Pakistan and Iran, as well as the absurdly low body count ("hundreds of civilians"). 52 civilians were killed in an airstrike two days ago. We're talking about a ten year campaign. The number of dead civilians probably number in the tens of thousands.

Even if Wikileaks and Assange are entirely sincere in their efforts, we should exercise the same caution in accepting their scoops that we apply to corporate and state media. Nothing deceives like a document, even if it is stamped with a date and comes straight from a file cabinet at CIA headquarters.

I agree. I am quicker to cynicism than most.

I respect you, John, for your tenacity in defending the benefit of the doubt. You are clearly a good person and have contributed a great deal to the movement. Don't let this difference of opinion be confused with anything personal. I have been wrong before and may be wrong this time. However, I believe I am as jaded as Top Gun. I guess it is like the Charlie Brown comic strip where Lucy holds the football and Charlie tries to kick it. Every time, she ends up pulling the football away at the last second and Charlie falls flat on his back. (good grief)
I think a level of cynicism after that kind of conditioning is healthier than the alternative.

The fact is, if Assange receives or has received whistleblower material on 9/11, he will either make in known or he won't. I don't think he would let my cynicism affect his decision. It isn't as if we have to handle this with kid gloves so as to not scare him away from our cause. Do you think he would withhold the info because we hurt his feelings? or because we didn't believe in him? I think he has already shown what he would do, and it has nothing to do with our comments. I would be elated if he proved me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.

Thanks for the kind words

Thanks for the kind words people. We need a viable institution to serve as a leak repository. I would like to believe that it could be wikileaks, but why stop there? There are other international groups with decent credentials like Doctors Without Borders. I think Ellsberg set up a foundation to support whistle blowers. If anything, this episode should point out the importance of the internet and internet security and the need for what I call a trustworthy and vital leak repository. The disclosure in the Bradley Manning case should be an example of what to avoid. Look at the price this guy is paying for having come forward...his family is in shambles, he's facing life altering jail time and the guy's in his early 20's....what a powerful warning shot that's sent across the bow of whistle blowers. And then look what's at stake... the very survival of our society and the safety of the global community. The economics of war is killing all of us as it kills the planet. As I've said before, what we're up against is much much more than 9/11. The Truth Movement needs to refocus its important goals, have a major strategy conference and decide which steps are the most effective to take right now. Until we do that, we're all doing our various actions without a unified game plan. Also, I believe that the mechanics of Truth unraveling will come from small steps aimed at the these evil 9/11 more leakers are compelled to advance the dominoes will fall all the quicker. So we must give the leakers, the whistle blowers a safe haven and all the support we can muster.

Depends which credentials . . .

>>There are other international groups with decent credentials like Doctors Without Borders.

I've been told by someone I know that Doctors w/o Borders is likely infiltrated by intelligence because of the areas of the world they gain access to. It seems like it's not that unusual for medical groups to be infiltrated because no one can turn them away and they are seen as a force for good.

For example, a couple of doctors were murdered in a bizarre ways (described as a suicide and unknown cause) in Berkeley and Oakland a few years back and the local independent paper did some digging and discovered they both worked for an intelligence front called Medicine International, according to this story:

Morrissey told Carter he had been an officer for the CIA and had been stationed in the Middle East. According to his resume, Morrissey had served as a foreign service office for the U.S. diplomatic corps from 1983 to 1991, conducting an analysis for “the Department of State and related agencies.” . . . Morrissey also served as chief information officer and administrator of Medicine International, a physician’s group which sent doctors to war zones around the world and which, according to its website, trained mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan in emergency medical care and which also provided surgery for injured Sandinistas during the Nicaraguan civil war, as well as treating firefighters in New York after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Hamid Gul says 9/11 was an Inside Job

"The Times reports that (former Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Hamid) Gul’s name appears all over the documents, yet very few documents have been released in the current batch, and it is very hard to imagine intelligence on Gul and his organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, being classified as only secret." George Friedman

Here's the former Pakistani ISI General on CNN (from 2008, I think):

The 9/11 Cover-up is EASY for anyone to see.

The 9/11 Cover-up is EASY for anyone to see if a person actually LOOKS and investigates (and has an IQ over 80)(and is not stuck in "denial").
Julian Assange is a smart guy and he knows that cover-ups exist.
Either he has not thoroughly LOOKED, or he is part of the dark side.


But there is a third possibility: the NY Times and the like will call anyone associated with Truth a nutcase. Thus, to get mainstream coverage, the savvy Assange made the statement he did. Sad, but possibly true.

I mean who could imagine all the media coverage that Assange seems to covet, with the guy being a 'Truther'?

Hadn't Considered That.

You could be right.

We will know (or not know) when?, and IF?, after establishing credibility?, Wilileaks drops a 9/11 BOMBSHELL.

We can be Optimistic (naive) and hope.

That makes sense

But Assange wasn't asked about 911 Truth. He initiated the comment on his own. That's why I see it as gratuitous. It's more like scoring points at the expense of those who think that the official conspiracy theory of 911 is less than satisfactory.

His position re 9/11 truth couldn't be plainer

Yes. Moreover, his remarks were not those of a non-truther, but of an anti-truther, denouncing our views as 'false.' That's more than simply 'playing it safe.'

If people want to see if some good comes out of these leaks, fine. But let's not have a recurrence of the tiresome tendency which I sometimes have seen on this blog of wishfully projecting our views onto those people who are getting the media spotlight and whom we would like to be on our side,--then proceeding quickly from wishing to believing and then to 'knowing' that they are really 'closet truthers' who are just being 'cagey' and 'savvy' when they diss us.

I too

am sick of people who toe the line to turn against 9/11 Truth. Assange is COWARDLY, at best.

That's why I wrote this short piece

Taking cheap shots is bad enough. Going after the 911 Truth movement is simply unacceptable for someone in Assange's position. We a 9/11 Truth leaker. Now that would be something.

Assange is a handled asset

He tows 'the agency's' line, but does not cross over, and thus he serves to create the illusion of transparency, when in truth all he offers is another layer of opaqueness, by vetting the information, which comes in to him like a bee to honey, and then very carefully and selectively, only making available that which does not undo the status quo, and it was the same thing with the military video, which, if anyone watches it closely, they can see that the group of men were merauding down the street and peering around buildings while carrying what appeared to be at least one RPG. So while it LOOKS like some sort of horrific leak, it too accomplishes very little. If anything his leaked information, not unlike the rantings of Alex Jones PREPARE people, like frogs in a builing pot, and condition them to RECIEVE - only what Assange allows through.

He also has a HUGE ego.

I don't trust him as far as I could throw him.

And I am not a cynic by nature, I am THE eternal optimist.

He makes my spidey senses tingle as well, and the scenario is NOT unlike the Obama phenomenon leading up to the last election.

Your intuition sounds like mine

The collateral damage video can now be seen for what it really was: a planned and deliberate credibility builder for Wikileaks. It achieved nothing in terms of results that matter. What it did do was to increase the exposure and level of trust among the general public (except for many readers of this site). And this was probably in preparation for this second 'leak', also deliberate.

If I might get a liitle cheeky:

Mr Assange is a very cute guy with a shock of blonde hair. He's hip, with hacker street-cred. In all liklihood, he thanks his lucky stars today, that someone in the UNameIt Intelligence Agency thought up Wikileaks and offerred him the assignment. So much better than an oh-so boring job in investment banking or software writing (not enough exposure) corporate management or stockbroking. Just a fantastic opportunity for a young, ambitious, clever intelligence asset. Oh, and the babes!

You're right Robert this guy reeks of ego and status driven motivation.You know, although I like to look at facts, I'm really an intuitive type. I never accept anything that doesn't get past my intuitive screener. And although Mr Assange is good looking, there's something wrong. I still don't trust him. He ain't putting his shoes under my bed.

Just a few other things. Mr Assange's family were lifelong dramatic artists. Therefore it is likely he knows and understands acting very, very well. It is likely that Mr Assange was spoken to by ASIO (Aussie Spook Agency) at some time much earlier in his career, before 2001, because hidden in the source code for his old personal website are the words, "Hello to all my friends in domestic intelligence". Thirdly Mr Assange, as a hacker, was probably known by the name "Mendax", which, as you probably know, derives from Latin and means "Liar".

Look, I could bring up more concrete stuff, but like I said, I'm an intuitive gal and my intuition works in strange ways. It's hardly ever wrong, and only when there's a good reason. And my intuition says, "This guy is not a straight down the line person. His motives are hidden. Be careful, do not give him your trust."

Intuition is important

I share your intuitions on this even though (in the absence of facts) I think it's better to suspend judgement.

Bottom line is we need to get a definitive statement from him about his views on the 9/11 truth movement - but I'm not holding my breath.

Three Cheers for Intuition

There's no substitute for it.

Sometimes it's truly a matter of sensing what is true and what is false.

And sometimes your brain just realizes the Answer before it's had time to formally piece all the logic together.

Both are at work with Assange. There is a distinct lack of authenticity and honesty about him. But there are also a lot of logical dots to connect that yield the same conclusion. But his carefully crafted persona does seem to run contrary to the Intuition of many.

Cyber terrorism

Max Keiser's show 'On The Edge' discusses internet related stuff with Alex Jones (part 1 of 2):

Part 2

Anyone worried about 'cyber security' in the MSM sense should read Webster Tarpley's article 'Virtual Flag Terrorism':

Here's Tarpley on the Alex Jones show discussing WikiLeaks / Assange / 911 / Sunstein etc. (part 1 of 5):

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5


What a credible source. I remember when he announced that I was a Chechen rebel and that had the "same values as al Qaeda". At first I didn't believe him, but I just had to... you know... look further down the rabbit hole.


Tarpley isn't credible because he's a documented purveyor of utter nonsense. He's also lied about people like myself, Cindy Sheehan and many other peace and truth activists. And when I see people posting him, I'll point it out.

WARNING to commenters- off topic comments, insults, etc.

The subject of this thread is the Collins article on Assange; if anyone wants to discuss Tarpley, leave a comment on one of the many threads where he's a subject, such as:

Additional off-topic comments will be removed.

And if anyone is unfamiliar with the rules, which require users to behave civilly to each other- and which everyone would do well to apply to current non-users, as the general public is reading these threads, too- here they are:

Caution and Suspicion are Advisable

There's not enough evidence yet to determine whether Assange is a filtered leak facilitator or an unfiltered leak facilitator. And there's not enough evidence yet to determine the true agenda of Assange. But his characterization of 911 as a "false conspiracy" shows he is not a truth seeker. And truth seeking lies at the heart of the 911 truth movement.

Everyone can change. Daniel Ellsberg changed over the course of his career in the military inner circle and in so doing, became a valued truth seeker. We don't see this yet in Assange. In no way has Assange shown true sacrifice or courage, as Ellsberg did. But there is always the possibility he will change in the future. Until that time, it's advisable to regard Assange with caution and suspicion.