Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job

[WyoSeeker]

The story on the surface makes for a script for a new Oliver Stone Hollywood thriller. A 39-year old Australian hacker holds the President of the United States and his State Department hostage to a gigantic cyber “leak,” unless the President leaves Julian Assange and his Wikileaks free to release hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive US Government memos. A closer look at the details, so far carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international media such as the New York Times, reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to Russia to North Korea. The Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Con Job which will likely be used to police the Internet.

It is almost too perfectly-scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled “computer geek,” sifts through classified information at Forward Operating Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manning then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the documents he had contained "incredible, awful things that belonged in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, DC." The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design their security systems.

Then the plot thickens. The 250,000 pages end up at the desk of Julian Assange, the 39-year-old Australian founder of a supposedly anti-establishment website with the cute name Wikileaks. Assange decides to selectively choose several of the world’s most ultra-establishment news media to exclusively handle the leaking job for him as he seems to be on the run from Interpol, not for leaking classified information, but for allegedly having consensual sex with two Swedish women who later decided it was rape.

He selects as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel. Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should be released. Very “anti-establishment” that. The New York Times even assigned one of its top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material. Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among others.

Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a normal meeting of people, a very establishment view.

Not so secret cables…

The latest sensational Wikileaks documents allegedly from the US State Department embassies around the world to Washington are definitely not as Hillary Clinton claimed "an attack on America's foreign policy interests that have endangered innocent people." And they do not amount to what the Italian foreign minister, called the "September 11 of world diplomacy." The British government calls them a threat to national security and an aide to Canada’s Prime Minister calls on the CIA to assassinate Assange, as does kooky would-be US Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin.

Most important, the 250,000 cables are not "top secret" as we might have thought. Between two and three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of "secret" document,[1] and some 500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. Siprnet is not recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret. Another 40% were the lowest level, "confidential", while the rest were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret.[2]

Most of the revelations so far have been unspectacular. In Germany the revelations led to the removal of a prominent young FDP politician close to Guido Westerwelle who apparently liked to talk too much to his counterpart at the US Embassy. The revelations about Russian politics, that a US Embassy official refers to Putin and Medvedev as “Batman and Robin,” tells more about the cultural level of current US State Department personnel than it does about internal Russian politics.

But for anyone who has studied the craft of intelligence and of disinformation, a clear pattern emerges in the Wikileaks drama. The focus is put on select US geopolitical targets, appearing as Hillary Clinton put it “to justify US sanctions against Iran.” They claim North Korea with China’s granting of free passage to Korean ships despite US State Department pleas, send dangerous missiles to Iran. Saudi Arabia’s ailing King Abdullah reportedly called Iran’s President a Hitler.

Excuse to police the Internet?

What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken.

The process of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009 Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773). It would give the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill "would allow the president to 'declare a cyber-security emergency' relating to 'non-governmental' computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat." We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in January.

The US Department of Homeland Security, an agency created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example at http://torrent-finder.com. Over 75 websites were seized and shut in a recent week. Right now, their focus is websites that they claim "violate copyrights," yet the torrent-finder.com website that was seized by DHS contained no copyrighted content whatsoever. It was merely a search engine website that linked to destinations where people could access copyrighted content. Step by careful step freedom of speech can be taken away. Then what?

Notes
1. BBCNews, Siprnet: Where the leaked cables came from, 29 November, 2010, accessed in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11863618

2. Ken Dilanian, Inside job: Stolen diplomatic cables show U.S. challenge of stopping authorized users, Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2010, accessed in http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1130-hackers-20101129,0,6716809.story

F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22357

[irishspirit]

Wyoseeker,

good post. However, I do not believe that the UD Governemtn is in on this. There is to much at stake. I think this is the real deal.

However, I can respect your views and give you a thankyou for this post. Always good to keep an open mind!

Be Safe my friend.

Irish

[truth will win out]

I agree irishspirit. I think we will get more evidence to validate JA.

[irishspirit]

truth,

I am hearing people say, why does the mainstream cover this so much?

The answer is simple! They have to! Reason why? When we look at it, the Internet is way ahead of the mainstream. The mainstream have to offer snips of it to please the sheep they still control. The internet is way ahead of the mainstream. I believe that it is call damage control?

Be safe friend.


Irish

[rosie]

I firmly believe Wikileaks motives are pure. The open can of worms is now squirming, and change requires action. Personally, these leaks have shown to me that the powers have shifted. It does not matter what the cables stirred up, what matters is that it has opened many eyes that have been shut for too long. I see it now all around me. People are open to trusting one another, not the governments and their promises. They are just big boys with big toys, along with way too many secret "meetings". Just watching them squirm through this has made my year! Oh, and the ones squirming are the ones that have everything to hide. I am sure they are having a very hard time falling asleep, wondering exactly how much of their dirt will be thrown back in their faces, in full public view.
:peep:
in love & light :wub:

[truth will win out]

During the Nixon Administration, my dad was a US Army intelligence analyst at the Pentagon and CIA. His take on this whole affair is the following as he forwarded in email to me(Got approval from him to repost):

1. That there is no way the Pentagon, CIA or U.S. government would sanction this. They have to little control over what goes out over the internet. Although, they are diligently working on methods to do effective back-tracking and monitor the entire web. They do conduct nefarious subterfuge through various methods of entrapment in order to lure people into committing acts that are prosecutable under a variety of draconian laws implemented after 9/11 and a few older laws like the Sedition Act that have been used for years to cower those who dare question authority into submission . Additionally, the items released in no way would represent the selective leak process so effectively utilized by the minions of deceit.

2. After contacting some of his former colleagues, some still active in the intelligence community, and others retired, they actually laughed out loud at the suggestion of Jullian Assange being a plant. It is apparent to all of them that stupidity does exist at all levels of the government hierarchy. However, they would never leak images or details that purposely makes them look like reprehensible buffoons. Iran is not a serious threat today, and probably not in the near future. It would take a first strike from Iran to really generate a military response from the USA. Iran knows they cannot win a conventional war with the USA, but, as Afghanistan has shown, they can and will wage an unending war of attrition if attacked by the USA. Even a militaristic empire like the USA knows that it cannot carry on three wars at the same time, and expect to come out on top in any of them. Barrack Obama has continued the American jingoistic empire building by prolonging wars which will all end in defeat for the USA, but he knows that a war with Iran would be highly counter-productive to USA foreign policy goals.

3. The key leak has nothing to do with the above. The leak on Shell oil is the most patently serious, as an attack on corporate power cannot and will not be tolerated in a nation dedicated to the complete domination of corporations across the globe.

[Wesly]

I use to get up at 4 in the morning to check a couple of web sites for sensitive material befor NSA would
contact the web mastor and warn him that he had 1 hour to remove it or they would burn his web site down.
This is another one of those look over here this is whats important, its just more bull droppings.

[Ahkenaten]

While I agree that this whole phenomenon could be used as an excuse to put the leather jack-boot on the neck of the internet - as I have said before severe restriction of the internet or substitution of "Web2" is a double-edged sword. TPTB would be cutting their own revenue conduit and there would be no guarantee people could all be herded like compliant sheep into Web 2. I do not agree that the entire thing is an elaborate fabrication of US "Intelligence" in collaboration with others. Even if elements of the story were/are related to another controlled demolition operation managed by the usual suspects - it has gotten entirely out of anyone's control now and that is what the high levels of hysteria and shrill and nasty rhetoric are about. Remember that of the 260K documents in the dump, less than 1,000 have been released to date. 1,000 down, 259,000 to go! As far as I know no human beings' motives are entirely pure and above reproach. I do think it telling that one of JA's accusers has left Sweden and is now 'working as a volunteer' in Palestine......helping the downtrodden Palestinians of course.

[irishspirit]

speaking of web 2

Anonymous Hitting Web 2.0

Web 2.0 has turned into a world of espionage with more twists and turns than a James Bond film. By now we all may have heard of a group called Anonymous, who has been hitting web 2.0 sites that have refused to do business with the controversial Wikileaks. Since last week their targets have been the Swiss bank that froze Julian Assange's assets and PayPal which stopped processing donations to Wikileaks. Anonymous is a loose-knit group of hacktivists. Coldblood, a member of Anonymous has stated, "Multiple things are being done. Websites that are bowing down to government pressure have become targets. As an organisation we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means. We feel that Wikileaks has become more than just about leaking of documents; it has become a war ground, the people vs. the government. The idea is to give the companies a wake-up call. Companies will notice the increase in traffic and an increase in traffic means increase in costs associated with running a website."

This tactic that Coldblood mentions is called denial-of-service attacks (DDoS) and swamps a web 2.0 site with so many requests that it becomes overwhelmed. DDoS attacks are illegal in many countries, including the UK. Anonymous is also helping to create hundreds of mirror sites for Wikileaks, after its US domain name provider withdrew its services and at the last count there were 507 mirrors of Wikileaks. Wikileaks has been hit by a series of denial-of-service attacks, following the release of a quarter of a million US embassy cables. It is unclear who is behind the attacks but it seems that Wikileaks is getting too hot to handle as many of the businesses that work with the site have distanced themselves from it.

http://www.justmeans.com/Anonymous-Hitting-Web-2-0/39737.html

¤=[Post Update]=¤


During the Nixon Administration, my dad was a US Army intelligence analyst at the Pentagon and CIA. His take on this whole affair is the following as he forwarded in email to me(Got approval from him to repost):

1. That there is no way the Pentagon, CIA or U.S. government would sanction this. They have to little control over what goes out over the internet. Although, they are diligently working on methods to do effective back-tracking and monitor the entire web. They do conduct nefarious subterfuge through various methods of entrapment in order to lure people into committing acts that are prosecutable under a variety of draconian laws implemented after 9/11 and a few older laws like the Sedition Act that have been used for years to cower those who dare question authority into submission . Additionally, the items released in no way would represent the selective leak process so effectively utilized by the minions of deceit.

2. After contacting some of his former colleagues, some still active in the intelligence community, and others retired, they actually laughed out loud at the suggestion of Jullian Assange being a plant. It is apparent to all of them that stupidity does exist at all levels of the government hierarchy. However, they would never leak images or details that purposely makes them look like reprehensible buffoons. Iran is not a serious threat today, and probably not in the near future. It would take a first strike from Iran to really generate a military response from the USA. Iran knows they cannot win a conventional war with the USA, but, as Afghanistan has shown, they can and will wage an unending war of attrition if attacked by the USA. Even a militaristic empire like the USA knows that it cannot carry on three wars at the same time, and expect to come out on top in any of them. Barrack Obama has continued the American jingoistic empire building by prolonging wars which will all end in defeat for the USA, but he knows that a war with Iran would be highly counter-productive to USA foreign policy goals.

3. The key leak has nothing to do with the above. The leak on Shell oil is the most patently serious, as an attack on corporate power cannot and will not be tolerated in a nation dedicated to the complete domination of corporations across the globe.

Thanks for that my friend. EXCELLENT post!

[Ahkenaten]

Irish Spirit to clarify I meant "Web 2" in the sense of an alternate, "controllable" substitution for what we use now. I did not know that some websites are known as web 2, and do not know what that means. Sorry if I misspoke.

[irishspirit]

Irish Spirit to clarify I meant "Web 2" in the sense of an alternate, "controllable" substitution for what we use now. I did not know that some websites are known as web 2, and do not know what that means. Sorry if I misspoke.

Sorry friend, but web two is already here.

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=web+2.0&aq=0&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5041473e231b710e

They are trying to kill it, and push the web onto their control grid.

[Zook]

Hello TWWO,


During the Nixon Administration, my dad was a US Army intelligence analyst at the Pentagon and CIA. His take on this whole affair is the following as he forwarded in email to me(Got approval from him to repost):
[...]


The lie is different at every level - Richard Hoagland

Will you grant the above? If so, that takes us back to square one, at least, the square before this post of yours. IMHO, decisions like Wikileaks are made at the highest levels in the intelligence agencies. I'm sure you'll agree that the CIA/Mossad/MI6 organization is a pyramidal command structure. So unless your father was high up on the pyramid, his knowledge of CIA innerworkings would be limited.

Anyways, carry on.

:typing:

[Victoria Tintagel]

-------------

Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear

Simon Lauder reported this story on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:14:00

ELEANOR HALL: As the leaks from the WikiLeaks website continue, the US government is again condemning what it calls the 'illegal' publication of state secrets.

But some Australian legal experts question whether the website's founder, Julian Assange, has broken any law. Lawyers for Mr Assange say that instead Australia’s Prime Minister may have behaved illegally by defaming their client.

Simon Lauder has our report.

SIMON LAUDER: The WikiLeaks cables have lifted the lid on a world of two faced diplomacy. The uncomfortable revelations are set to continue and rather than deny them the Australian and US governments have turned the focus on the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.

A member of Mr Assange's legal team, Jennifer Robinson, says the Prime Minister's assertion that the website's publication of the documents is illegal goes too far.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well her comments were made outside of Parliament so they're certainly not privileged and I think it was misguided to suggest that he had committed a crime in England and, indeed, defamatory. Though I think that Prime Minister Gillard's account will probably come at the ballot box.

SIMON LAUDER: US and Australian authorities are working to find any laws which may have been violated by WikiLeaks.

The President of Liberty Victoria, Spencer Zifcak, says the website doesn't seem to have done anything illegal.

SPENCER ZIFCAK: All WikiLeaks have done is publish documents that have been given to it. Now the interesting thing about that is WikiLeaks is publishing these documents in association with some of the great newspapers of the world.

So if WikiLeaks is to be charged with the disclosure of official information then presumably these major newspapers will also be in the guns. But I can't see the authorities, either in Australia or the United States, pursuing those newspapers.

SIMON LAUDER: Mr Zifcak has written to the Prime Minister to express his concern about her comments.

SPENCER ZIFCAK: There is no charge and there has been no trial and even given all of those things the Prime Minister had the confidence to say that Mr Assange was guilty of illegality. Now that seems to me to be completely inappropriate.

SIMON LAUDER: How serious is it to say that someone has done something illegal or could be arrested when there is no proof of that?

SPENCER ZIFCAK: Well I think it is, it is quite a serious thing. But it's made even more serious by the fact that the statement is made by the Prime Minister of the country. The effect of the statement is to pre-empt the outcome of any legal proceedings.

SIMON LAUDER: The latest publications by WikiLeaks have prompted more accusations of crime.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, says the release of a secret list of critical infrastructure is deeply distressing and the illegal publication of classified information poses real concerns and dangers.

The director of the Centre for International Law at the University of Sydney, Dr Ben Saul, says Mr Assange is the victim of an international smear campaign.

BEN SAUL: Julian Assange has become a target of a kind of global campaign to demonise him as a criminal, as a terrorist. I mean this is pretty serious stuff and the Australian Government hasn't said very much on the public record to suggest that they're looking out for his interests in any kind of serious way.

SIMON LAUDER: Dr Saul says the most likely avenue for prosecuting WikiLeaks is through the development of international laws which protect diplomatic correspondence, but even that would be problematic.

BEN SAUL: Now we know that some of the disclosures by WikiLeaks have genuinely been in the public interest. That is, disclosure has involved US war crimes, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disclosure that the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, ordered a campaign of espionage against the United Nations secretary general, I mean these are properly matters in the public interest.

So if the law on diplomatic inviolability is to be extended globally to all kinds of diplomatic information then there really needs to be a kind of exception or carve out for the disclosure of illegal conduct. It doesn't make sense to absolutely protect the inviolability of diplomatic information if that just becomes a shield for government lawlessness.

SIMON LAUDER: Do you think that the WikiLeaks scandal will lead to laws being tightened?

BEN SAUL: I'd say it's a fair estimate to suggest that a whole lot of other countries are going to be looking at their laws. Australia, no doubt, is doing that at the moment but it could be some time before those laws are changed.

But there's certainly great interest amongst governments to look at how they can tighten up the protection of classified information.

SIMON LAUDER: The only legal trouble the founder of WikiLeaks is in so far is an arrest warrant which is in the works, over allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

ELEANOR HALL: Simon Lauder reporting.

http://abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm

[zebowho]

If I may...Web 2.0 is nothing more than a buzz word. The thing that identifies a site as being "Web 2.0" is the large buttons, graphics, search bars etc. They still use popular programming languages that have been used for years...like "Ajax" its really the best of old technology but issued with a new buzz word....marketing really!

-z

[bluestflame]

ww3.com/

looks like someone's already making preperations

¤=[Post Update]=¤

yes it is a real site in development ( they seem hopeful)

[Humble Janitor]

This is the real deal.

I've spent a lot of time thinking and to me, THIS IS IT. Your mileage may vary.

[lisa]

When I first heard about Wikileaks I went to their website to see the leaked videos and documents. Unexpectedly, there were none.
If I want to leak info to the public, I would publish them immediately on my website rather than cherry pick a major media company to do the leak.
Most here would agree that the childish gossips between the politicians are intentional leaks by the PTB (with or without Wikileaks knowledge). Who would jeopardize his career/reputation/life to "leak" gossips?

Chipping in my 2 cents.

[Samothrace]

When I first heard about Wikileaks I went to their website to see the leaked videos and documents. Unexpectedly, there were none.
If I want to leak info to the public, I would publish them immediately on my website rather than cherry pick a major media company to do the leak.

That would assume the individual has his or her own website and was confident the information would get out to enough people before the site is taken down and the content is removed.



Most here would agree that the childish gossips between the politicians are intentional leaks by the PTB (with or without Wikileaks knowledge).

Err there is a bit more weight to the leaks than just "childish gossips". And I don't know where you are getting "most" from.



Who would jeopardize his career/reputation/life to "leak" gossips?


Well going off of a whistleblower like Peter Ross, they become disillusioned with the system they are in and attempt to provoke change by exposing what they find reprehensible about said system.

[jaybee]

I firmly believe Wikileaks motives are pure. The open can of worms is now squirming, and change requires action. Personally, these leaks have shown to me that the powers have shifted. It does not matter what the cables stirred up, what matters is that it has opened many eyes that have been shut for too long. I see it now all around me. People are open to trusting one another, not the governments and their promises. They are just big boys with big toys, along with way too many secret "meetings". Just watching them squirm through this has made my year! Oh, and the ones squirming are the ones that have everything to hide. I am sure they are having a very hard time falling asleep, wondering exactly how much of their dirt will be thrown back in their faces, in full public view.
:peep:
in love & light :wub:

:thumb:


with you all the way on what you've said, rosie

all those secrets clogging up the collective consciousness

they have been creating unhealthy paranoia

now it's THEIR turn to get paranoid....very paranoid

what goes around comes around, eh



online petition supporting Wikileaks

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/96.php


:typing:

[Lost Soul]

Wikileaks just scratched the surface. Can you imagine what the higher-ups have that they don't want released?

[3optic]

I sent this link to a friend who is a journalist and hosted an alternative public radio news broadcast in Los Angeles. His reply:

Of course I have heard this thesis -- that Wikileaks is actually a U.S. disinfo campaign -- but have yet to encounter a compelling argument making the case.

Engdahls arguments are weak:

1. That it is too good to be true.
2. That wikileaks use of establishment media show that they are not anti-establishment
3. That the leaks themselves are not secret, or uninteresting, or enable imperial justifications for targeting Iran, etc.
4. That it enables a crackdown on internet freedom.

These arguments are not compelling because:

1. Good things sometimes happen, and the narrative is not so unbelievable.
2. There is a coherent philosophy motivating the use of establishment media to disseminate the leaks, a philosophy which is articulated by Assange to the Frontline press club on the occasion of the release of the Iraq War Logs.
http://www.theworldsgotproblems.com/2010/07/the-leader-of-the-free-world/
In a nutshell, wikileaks promises leakers that it will seek the greatest impact for the leaks, and they do this by setting competitive establishment media in many countries against each other.
Furthermore, if you don't like the framing of the material by these establishment media outlets, you can access the leaks directly.
3. That the leaks are not secret or not interesting works against 1 & 2. He cannot have it both ways. In any case it is not true that the leaks are not secret or not interesting. For example, an additional 15 K civilian deaths were revealed by the Iraq war logs, and the diplomatic cables reveal, definitively, that the U.S. is conducting airstrikes in Yemen -- airstrikes that the Yemeni government have been taking credit for in order to hide the role of the U.S. This was not generally known until the leaks, and it is not uninteresting, and it does not make the U.S. look good. And as for the justifications for targeting Iran found in the Cables -- of course Imperial functionaries are going to spin what is in the cables this way or that. The cables reveal that many Arab dictators don't like Iran, and so they try to spin this into a justification for sanctions or worse. I don't see how that is supposed to show that the release of the leaks themselves is a disinfo campaign.
4. Of course the leaks will occasion an internet crackdown!! This is also anticipated by the philosophy motivating wikileaks, see this great summary:
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/
In an oversimplified nutshell, such a predictable crackdown inhibits the imperial machine from communicating, and thereby from articulating its goals. Also, bring on the hackers disrupting paypal, mastercard, etc....

[lisa]

Err there is a bit more weight to the leaks than just "childish gossips". And I don't know where you are getting "most" from.

Where is the weight in calling:

Putin and Medvedev “Batman and Robin,”
Kim Jong-il a "flabby old chap"
Angela Merkel "unimaginative"
David Cameron "lacking depth"
Prince Andrew "rude"
Amadinejad "crazy"
Hugo Chavez is "like Hitler"

:confused:

[Butangeld]

Quite true none of these points raised against wikileaks can logically undermine the idea that it is a genuine alt-media, digging-for-truth outlet. Trouble I have with Assange's story is that he does have all of the usual elements found in a faked hero. I have no doubt this man has been created as a false adversary created to fix, and prop-up, the official stories and conspiracies of officialdom everywhere. His story even has the sordid sexual elements to boot. And it is most likely that even he does not have a full picture of his role in his own story.
He wouldn't and won't touch the stories that really matter - 9/11, Palestine and the concerted effort to collapse the United States of America. I really don't have much with which to defend America these days, but when it goes so does the philosophy upon which it was meant to have been based. Then, it will be every man for himself, and if you believe the 'leaks' then it seems the very best course of action to take is to start world war 3 by attacking Iran/China/North Korea - now who would want that?
There is a non-too surprising lack of 'leaks' concerning the actions of Israel over the last decade.
Remember, our mission is not to spread hate but to find freedom through truth.
People are evil not nations/religions and I don't believe that Assange is either. He is a goof. Let them try and control the Internet - there are plenty of other more resilient networks springing up all over the garden :)

[ponda]

Where is the weight in calling:

Putin and Medvedev “Batman and Robin,”
Kim Jong-il a "flabby old chap"
Angela Merkel "unimaginative"
David Cameron "lacking depth"
Prince Andrew "rude"
Amadinejad "crazy"
Hugo Chavez is "like Hitler"

:confused:


Very true lisa but this is when it is up to us to try to filter out the unimportant details from the information

[bluestflame]

I believe JA's use of the particular media selected is to set the media up to PROVE how they manipulate the masses by ommission of important information

how they have been systematically manipulating public opinion for years

I think it was always planned to release the more complete leaks to show how much valid information was held back by the media without good cause

the information itself will verify this ~

¤=[Post Update]=¤

after the selected major media was given enough time , ...and enough rope

[dddanieljjjamesss]

And if it's all fake?

It doesn't really matter. Even if Assange is only being used to set the stage for further goals, the censors reveal themselves either way.

Freedom of information- truth- is already under attack, always has been. It doesn't matter that now the war for the mind is being staged on the internet, the goal is always the same.

Like his hair, Assange is in the gray. Good and bad things are riding on the whole thing. For one, I'm happy to know that what I have been saying about Shell and Nigeria is more evident. People are waking up even if they were only being programmed to start waking up... and some are one step ahead and congratulations to them, but for the people who are one behind, its still a step.

[The One]

Barely a day goes by when we do not hear of the term 'Wikileaks'.

If nothing else, it appears to have divided opinion.

In one corner - those that commend the whistleblowers.

In the other corner - Those (mainly right wing Americans), who want the man behind Wikileaks to be hunted down and declared a 'terrorist'.

One man offers an alternative view.

His name?

Frederick William Engdahl.

If you have never heard of him here is a little about the man on Wikipedia.

F. William Engdahl - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._William_Engdahl

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/




http://www.politic.co.uk/18423-wikileaks-big-dangerous-us-government-con-job.html#ixzz180R5XDxa

[3optic]

One man offers an alternative view.

His name?

Frederick William Engdahl.



We seem to be going in circles.

[The One]

Better to go round in circles than none at all

[Victoria Tintagel]

Hey Avalonean, I do hope you smile to yourself and place a monkey on your shoulder :) Here's an update I received in my mailbox, again, on Wikileaks.
Blessed be, Dutchess Tint.

Arianna Huffington Posted: December 15, 2010 09:19 PM The Media Gets It Wrong on WikiLeaks: It's About Broken Trust, Not Broken Condoms

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-media-gets-it-wrong-o_b_797436.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=121610&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily+Brief

I attend a lot of conferences on media and technology -- indeed, they might actually be the biggest growth sector of the media -- but the one I attended this past weekend was one of the most fascinating I've been to in quite a while. Entitled "A Symposium on WikiLeaks and Internet Freedom," the one-day event was sponsored by the Personal Democracy Forum and was moderated by the group's Micah Sifry and Andrew Rasiej. The WikiLeaks story is an ever-shifting one -- witness the latest twists of the Air Force blocking its personnel from accessing more than 25 news sites that have posted material released by WikiLeaks, and the shocking treatment of Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of being the source of the leaks. One of the problems with the WikiLeaks story is that there has been way too much conflating going on, as Katrin Verclas pointed out at the symposium. So some serious unconflating (disconflating?) is in order.

I see four main aspects to the story. The first important aspect of the revelations is... the revelations. Too much of the coverage has been meta -- focusing on questions about whether the leaks were justified, while too little has dealt with the details of what has actually been revealed and what those revelations say about the wisdom of our ongoing effort in Afghanistan. There's a reason why the administration is so upset about these leaks. True, there hasn't been one smoking-gun, bombshell revelation -- but that's certainly not to say the cables haven't been revealing. What there has been instead is more of the consistent drip, drip, drip of damning details we keep getting about the war. Details that belie the upbeat talk the administration wants us to believe. The effect is cumulative -- not unlike mercury poisoning.

It's notable that the latest leaks came out the same week President Obama went to Afghanistan for his surprise visit to the troops -- and made a speech about how we are "succeeding" and "making important progress" and bound to "prevail." The WikiLeaks cables present quite a different picture. What emerges is one reality (the real one) colliding with another (the official one). We see smart, good-faith diplomats and foreign service personnel trying to make the truth on the ground match up to the one the administration has proclaimed to the public. The cables show the widening disconnect. It's like a foreign policy Ponzi scheme -- this one fueled not by the public's money, but the public's acquiescence.

The cables show that the administration has been cooking the books. And what's scandalous is not the actions of the diplomats doing their best to minimize the damage from our policies, but the policies themselves. Of course, we've known about them, but the cables provide another opportunity to see the truth behind the spin -- so it's no wonder the administration has reacted so hysterically to them. The second aspect of the story -- the one that was the focus of the symposium -- is the changing relationship to government that technology has made possible. Back in the year 2007, B.W. (Before WikiLeaks), Barack Obama waxed lyrical about government and the internet: "We have to use technology to open up our democracy. It's no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in our history has favored special interest and pursued policy that could not stand up to the sunlight."

At that moment he was, of course, busy building an internet framework that would play an important part in his becoming the head of the next administration. Not long after the election, in announcing his "Transparency and Open Government" policy, the president proclaimed: "Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset." Cut to a few years later. Now that he's defending a reality that doesn't match up to, well, reality, he's suddenly not so keen on the people having a chance to access this "national asset."

Even more wikironic are the statements by his Secretary of State who, less than a year ago, was lecturing other nations about the value of an unfettered and free internet. Given her description of the WikiLeaks as "an attack on America's foreign policy interests" that have put in danger "innocent people," her comments take on a whole different light. Some highlights: In authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable... technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights... As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. Now "making government accountable" is, as White House spokesman Robert Gibbs put it, a "reckless and dangerous action."

And the government isn't stopping at shameless demagoguery, hypocrisy, and fear-mongering -- it's putting its words into action. According to The Hill, this week the House Judiciary Committee will open hearings into whether WikiLeaks has somehow violated the Espionage Act of 1917. What's more, ABC News reports that Assange's lawyers are hearing that U.S. indictments could be forthcoming: "The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that are, I believe, arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We have a very serious, active, ongoing investigation that is criminal in nature. I authorized just last week a number of things to be done so that we can hopefully get to the bottom of this and hold people accountable... as they should be."

For the Obama administration, it appears that accountability is a one-way street. When he had the chance to bring the principle of accountability to our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and investigate how we got into them, the president passed. As John Perry Barlow tweeted, "We have reached a point in our history where lies are protected speech and the truth is criminal."
Any process of real accountability, would, of course, also include the key role the press played in bringing us the war in Iraq. Jay Rosen, one of the participants in the symposium, wrote a brilliant essay entitled "From Judith Miller to Julian Assange." He writes: For the portion of the American press that still looks to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers for inspiration, and that considers itself a check on state power, the hour of its greatest humiliation can, I think, be located with some precision: it happened on Sunday, September 8, 2002.

That was when the New York Times published Judith Miller and Michael Gordon's breathless, spoon-fed -- and ultimately inaccurate -- account of Iraqi attempts to buy aluminum tubes to produce fuel for a nuclear bomb. Miller's after-the-facts-proved-wrong response, as quoted in a Michael Massing piece in the New York Review of Books, was: "My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
In other words, her job is to tell citizens what their government is saying, not, as Obama called for in his transparency initiative, what their government is doing. As Jay Rosen put it:
Today it is recognized at the Times and in the journalism world that Judy Miller was a bad actor who did a lot of damage and had to go. But it has never been recognized that secrecy was itself a bad actor in the events that led to the collapse, that it did a lot of damage, and parts of it might have to go. Our press has never come to terms with the ways in which it got itself on the wrong side of secrecy as the national security state swelled in size after September 11th.

And in the WikiLeaks case, much of media has again found itself on the wrong side of secrecy -- and so much of the reporting about WikiLeaks has served to obscure, to conflate, to mislead.
For instance, how many stories have you heard or read about all the cables being "dumped" in "indiscriminate" ways with no attempt to "vet" and "redact" the stories first. In truth, only just over 1,200 of the 250,000 cables have been released, and WikiLeaks is now publishing only those cables vetted and redacted by their media partners, which includes the New York Times here and the Guardian in England. The establishment media may be part of the media, but they're also part of the establishment. And they're circling the wagons. One method they're using, as Andrew Rasiej put it after the symposium, is to conflate the secrecy that governments use to operate and the secrecy that is used to hide the truth and allow governments to mislead us.

Nobody, including WikiLeaks, is promoting the idea that government should exist in total transparency, or that, for instance, all government meetings should be live-streamed and cameras placed around the White House like a DC-based spin-off of Big Brother. Assange himself would not disagree. "Secrecy is important for many things," he told Time's Richard Stengel. "We keep secret the identity of our sources, as an example, take great pains to do it." At the same time, however, secrecy "shouldn't be used to cover up abuses." But the government's legitimate need for secrecy is very different from the government's desire to get away with hiding the truth. Conflating the two is dangerously unhealthy for a democracy. And this is why it's especially important to look at what WikiLeaks is actually doing, as distinct from what its critics claim it's doing. And this is why it's also important to look at the fact that even though the cables are being published in mainstream outlets like the Times, the information first went to WikiLeaks. "You've heard of voting with your feet?" Rosen said during the symposium. "The sources are voting with their leaks. If they trusted the newspapers more, they would be going to the newspapers."

Our democracy's need for accountability transcends left and right divisions. Over at American Conservative magazine, Jack Hunter penned "The Conservative Case for WikiLeaks," writing:
Decentralizing government power, limiting it, and challenging it was the Founders' intent and these have always been core conservative principles. Conservatives should prefer an explosion of whistleblower groups like WikiLeaks to a federal government powerful enough to take them down. Government officials who now attack WikiLeaks don't fear national endangerment, they fear personal embarrassment. And while scores of conservatives have long promised to undermine or challenge the current monstrosity in Washington, D.C., it is now an organization not recognizably conservative that best undermines the political establishment and challenges its very foundations. It is not, as Simon Jenkins put it in the Guardian, the job of the media to protect the powerful from embarrassment. As I said at the symposium, its job is to play the role of the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes -- brave enough to point out what nobody else is willing to say.

When the press trades truth for access, it is WikiLeaks that acts like the little boy. "Power," wrote Jenkins, "loathes truth revealed. When the public interest is undermined by the lies and paranoia of power, it is disclosure that takes sanity by the scruff of its neck and sets it back on its feet." A final aspect of the story is Julian Assange himself. Is he a visionary? Is he an anarchist? Is he a jerk? This is fun speculation, but why does it have an impact on the value of the WikiLeaks revelations? Of course, it's not terribly surprising that those who are made uncomfortable by the discrepancy between what the leaked cables show and what our government claims would rather make this all about the psychological makeup of Assange. But doing so is a virtual admission that they have nothing tangible with which to counter the reality exposed by WikiLeaks. Maybe Assange "often acts without completely thinking through every repercussion of his actions," writes Slate's Jack Shafer. "But if you want to dismiss him just because he's a seething jerk, there are about 2,000 journalists I'd like you to meet."

Whether Assange is a world-class jerk or not, this is bigger than Assange -- and will continue whether or not he continues to be a central player in it. In fact, there is already an offshoot site soon to be launched, called Openleaks, which will be run by veterans of WikiLeaks. And I doubt this will be the only offshoot. So as interesting as the Assange saga is, and I'm sure there will be books and movies recounting Assange's personal tale, this is not about one man. Nor is it about one site, though the precedent of allowing the government to shut it down is very important.
It is about our future. For our democracy to survive, citizens have to be able to know what our government is really doing. We can't change course if we don't have accurate information about where we really are. Whether this comes from a website or a newspaper or both doesn't matter. But if our government is successful in its efforts to shut down this new avenue of accountability, it will have done our country far more damage than what it claims is being done by WikiLeaks.

[Ahkenaten]

Where is the weight in calling:

Putin and Medvedev “Batman and Robin,”
Kim Jong-il a "flabby old chap"
Angela Merkel "unimaginative"
David Cameron "lacking depth"
Prince Andrew "rude"
Amadinejad "crazy"
Hugo Chavez is "like Hitler"

:confused:

Lisa there is quite a bit of weight in revealing that the US government used airbases in the North of England to store cluster bombs in collaboration with the British Military, attempting to keep this information from Parliament - in violation of international treaties..............so is that trivial or merely gossip?

[lisa]

Ahkenaten, sorry my post wasn't clear. I did not mean that all info that come out of Wikileaks are gossips with no weight. I was only talking about the first batch of release from the sea of info given to New York Times. What context did these political gossips come within? Can they publish the complete emails and conversations rather than just the snippets?

[Ahkenaten]

Hi Lisa - I think you raise a very important issue, that is the degree of control the press has over what is actually released to the public. The way I understand it is that Wikileaks dumps data on its four press partners (NY Times, The Guardian, and I think Figaro in France and Spiegel in Germany - could be wrong about the last two!) Anyway then they go to work on the info deciding what to redact for security reasons and what to print. The weak point in the whole scheme seems to me to be the press partners who exercise total control over what actually is released if my understanding is correct. I also read that Wikileaks had asked the US Department of State to work with them on sorting through the documents for security purposes and they refused to be involved. Anyway one can clearly see that the press could easily cherry-pick information to suit whatever political biases the paper had.................and by printing skewed info, skew the entire project.

But that gets to us and our lack of time or laziness................as a practical matter where does the regular Joe Schmo have the time to read thousands of pages of legal documents to "get to the bottom of it" - we rely on the press to predigest this kind of information for us and they have not proven themselves to be as trustworthy and objective as one would wish, especially when it comes to the volatile world of international politics and relations.

But what are the alternatives? Remember we have about 1,200 documents dumped so far out of a total of about 260K!!!!

?????????????

[ponda]

Yeah the problem with having the msm involved is that it will still come down to business decisions that are based on selling newspapers and making money and also corporate ownership interests,hence the tabloid headlines and gossip comments that lisa pointed out previously.What we need is considered and unbiased analysis.I don't think we will get that from the msm in large amounts.

[chelmostef]

Hi Arkenaten, I think you have made the point quite well. 1,200 documents out of 260k, now that is a lot of info and the media cherry picking the info to suit their own agenda, trying to not sound sarcastic but who would have thought they would do that! The Guardian should have done better with the information and without retrospect should have been a good choice to release the information from in my opinion. I personally still have a little hope for some of the main stream medias not being completely corrupt and inept although this opinion changes from day to day, I think the fact the Daily Mail keeps running with the Dr David Kelly case high lights this quite nicely.

In summary until all the memo/information has been released and deciphered independently from the news outlets its impossible to draw a conclusion, we can only speculate over if they have some real goodies for us.

Over the last few years the media has never had so many stories to write about, one industry that is surely growing, they must love Wiki or should do... Maybe its promoting lazy journalism as they dont have to go out and search for the stories just sift though Wiki leaks.

[AlkaMyst]

I have posted the following on my blog "Wikileaks Founder: Bigger Bombshells On The Way"......check it here! (https://www.theavalonfiles.com/blog/?cat=9).

It was a recent interview done by Alex Jones with John Young where they talked about how "Julian Assange is greasing the skids for the cybersecurity agenda to regulate and censor the world wide web."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lTBJAkNyBk&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kzHRgJLgSm4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d7ve_ez3LL0

[chelmostef]

Hi AlkaMyst!
"Julian Assange is greasing the skids for the cybersecurity agenda to regulate and censor the world wide web."

This is the problem isn't it! Wikileaks being the internet 9-11 you can even hear the media calling him a terrorist. It just sucks! (Not just Wiki but all the nefarious organised campaigns against us)

But how do we fight this effectively?

Maybe just buying silver! Thats Max Keisers magic bullet!

[AlkaMyst]

This is the problem isn't it! Wikileaks being the internet 9-11 you can even hear the media calling him a terrorist. It just sucks! (Not just Wiki but all the nefarious organised campaigns against us)

But how do we fight this effectively?

Maybe just buying silver! Thats Max Keisers magic bullet!

Sadly but true, but maybe you should do some research onto who really finances WikiLeaks and if you listen to the interview above you'll find out that they are getting funds from George Soros....not only that but Julian Assange is one of the original Cypherpunk's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk) and a very skilled hacker!!!

And like Assange said before, "No one will be able to bring WikiLeaks down and to do so they will have to shutdown the internet" and I just don't see that happening....I do however see Legislation already being created here in the US to start banning and shutting down websites that support or have any kind of material like WikiLeaks, can you say "Internet Censorship".

I don't think this is something we can fight, this WikiLeaks Monster has taken a life of it's own and I think it's going to take us (the World) for a wild ride and we better hold on cause I don't see the brakes pedal on WikiLeaks release galore!!!

[chelmostef]

Hi AlkaMyst!

That is a very telling quote;

"No one will be able to bring WikiLeaks down and to do so they will have to shutdown the internet"

Although I still think the jury is still out on this one.(In the context that it puts Wiki into the dis-info/psy-ops)


If we really want to know all the government has in is secret vaults then we are going need something like wikileaks to push the envelope further.
How far can it be pushed is the question will it go our way or thiers?

Seems like its going to be one bumpy ride! :plane:

[AlkaMyst]

Although I still think the jury is still out on this one.(In the context that it puts Wiki into the dis-info/psy-ops)


If we really want to know all the government has in is secret vaults then we are going need something like wikileaks to push the envelope further.
How far can it be pushed is the question will it go our way or thiers?

Seems like its going to be one bumpy ride!

I couldn't have said it better!!!

[Zook]

Hi Chelmostef,


Hi AlkaMyst!
"Julian Assange is greasing the skids for the cybersecurity agenda to regulate and censor the world wide web."

This is the problem isn't it! Wikileaks being the internet 9-11 you can even hear the media calling him a terrorist. It just sucks! (Not just Wiki but all the nefarious organised campaigns against us)
But how do we fight this effectively?
Maybe just buying silver! Thats Max Keisers magic bullet!

That'll throw the wrench into the Rothschild gold-fixing monkeyworks! Of course, it's a good bet they also manipulate silver prices ... But I like Max's thinking outside the box solution.

:typing:

ps: JA and Osama bin Laden would share symmetry in respect of an internet 9/11/2001. If we're to villify one, we should not make a hero of the other. Humble opinions all around.

[chelmostef]

You might like this one Zookumar

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/sullivan/wikileaks-assanges-lawyer-has-connections-rothschilds

"It has emerged recently that Assange is in the UK since October which means that all those three successive and massive US documents "leaks" have been orchestrated by him from his secret residence in the UK.
So why is this done from the UK. The answer is because that is where he is the closest from his masters, the super powerful dynastic Rothschild banking and zionist family.
And now here comes the proof that this is indeed the case:
Assange's lawyer is the prominent Mark Stephens whose law firm Finers Stephens Innocent is legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust which is concerned with the "maintenance, improvement and payment of certain of the outgoings in respect of Waddesdon Manor (Rothschild's most prestigious property in the UK) in the Vale of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.""

Is this the Rockafella vs Rothschild fight with humanity stuck in the middle.

[The One]

Just an update

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Assange-WikiLeaks-Founder-Says-US-Espionage-Indictment-Being-Prepared-After-He-Is-Freed-On-Bail/Article/201012315857122?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15857122_Assange%3A_WikiLeaks_Founder_Says_US_Espionage_Indictment_Being_Prepared_After_ He_Is_Freed_On_Bail

[Ahkenaten]

Maybe some interested members of Project Avalon can seriously consider collectively applying their intellectual talents to a systematic analysis of the actual Wikileaks documents. Let's see - if 100 members got involved that would be about 260 documents each. If 200 members got involved that would be about 160 documents each - etc. Daunting but not impossible. And best of all that would be, for once, actually accomplishing something instead of playing keyboard warrior with no risks and very little to actually show for all the effort in the end. Just a humble thought.

P.S.

One major problem with what Alex Jones said in his video posted on this thread is the idea that the Wikileaks phenomenon will be used by the usual suspects to spy on users on the internet. Ridiculous.............obviously the entire internet with the notable exception of those who are able to use high-level cyber security tactics, should be considered to be transparent, i.e. one should assume as they type anything on their keyboard that there is an anonymous SOMEONE right on the other side of the screen observing what is being said, when and where and entering that info into your personal detailed dossier! Anyone who fails to understand that is frankly an idiot and not operating at full intellectual speed. The internet is set up to be an intelligence/spy/dossier-building tool...............and "they" have been spying on most of us since we started using it. Wikileaks will not, therefor cause the govt to use the internet as a spying mechanism - IT ALREADY IS AND HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS NOW!!! It could be used to drum up support for black DARPA-like projects, as if we need more of them!!! This is the kind of thing Alex Jones does (making these broad and ridiculous allegations) that I find to be really, really annoying and makes me very suspicious of his motives and his integrity.

[3optic]

You might like this one Zookumar

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/sullivan/wikileaks-assanges-lawyer-has-connections-rothschilds

"It has emerged recently that Assange is in the UK since October which means that all those three successive and massive US documents "leaks" have been orchestrated by him from his secret residence in the UK.
So why is this done from the UK. The answer is because that is where he is the closest from his masters, the super powerful dynastic Rothschild banking and zionist family.
And now here comes the proof that this is indeed the case:
Assange's lawyer is the prominent Mark Stephens whose law firm Finers Stephens Innocent is legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust which is concerned with the "maintenance, improvement and payment of certain of the outgoings in respect of Waddesdon Manor (Rothschild's most prestigious property in the UK) in the Vale of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.""

Is this the Rockafella vs Rothschild fight with humanity stuck in the middle.

Interesting but not "proof enough that Assange is a Rothschild puppet and that Wikileaks is a Rothschild operation" imo.

[Carmody]

I described it once, to a friend, like this:

Apparently...the Rockefeller "faction" will, try, and do kill -without blinking, without warning, and with no remorse. Just kill.

The Rothschild "faction"..it seems..is trying sit down at a table with you....and discuss with you the specifics of how you are going to die, and when. Then they carry that out.

The difference is seemingly there and it is seemingly minor.

His reply was that he'd prefer to sit down at the table rather than be suddenly eliminated from behind. That is, if he was forced to choose from such a pair of conditions.

[Zook]

Interesting but not "proof enough that Assange is a Rothschild puppet and that Wikileaks is a Rothschild operation" imo.

Not proof enough on its own, true ... but yet another piece in the preponderance of evidence.

:typing:

[Zook]

Hi Ahks,


Maybe some interested members of Project Avalon can seriously consider collectively applying their intellectual talents to a systematic analysis of the actual Wikileaks documents. Let's see - if 100 members got involved that would be about 260 documents each. If 200 members got involved that would be about 160 documents each - etc. Daunting but not impossible.


You forgot the more descriptive terms: wild, goose, and chase. :jester:



And best of all that would be, for once, actually accomplishing something instead of playing keyboard warrior with no risks and very little to actually show for all the effort in the end. Just a humble thought.
[...]


No risks? Hmm ... a curious perspective considering what you write farther below:

"i.e. one should assume as they type anything on their keyboard that there is an anonymous SOMEONE right on the other side of the screen observing what is being said, when and where and entering that info into your personal detailed dossier!" - Ahks

I think the argument can easily be made that those attacking TMastardsTB with their pens ... erm ... boardkeys ... have put themselves in the front-line of risk! What do you think?

Nothing to show? Again, a curious perspective. Why are we here if not to educate ourselves and hasten the awakening? What will be required before you believe that we have indeed something to show for our efforts? I've gained quite a bit from my fellow Avalonians in the short time I've been here, both knowledgewise and wisdomwise ... and I'd like to think it's been a reciprocal affair. Perhaps you're trying to drink the ocean in one gulp? My advice if you want it, Ahks ... just be. Don't worry about being (e.g. being heard or being seen). Just be. That's the reward in itself. The bonus is whatever the interconnecting ether delivers to others. If nothing: sweet. If something: sweeter. If something significant: you will experience a change in the surroundings.

:typing:

[Ahkenaten]

Hi Zook - merely being alive today is pretty risky, don't you think? I mean thinking alone has become pretty much a threat to certain forces! You and I do not agree on the whole Wikileaks thing, true - but I think we do agree on the importance of critical thinking and thorough objective analysis of information even if we arrive at different conclusions, do we not? And as for fellow Avalonians for whom I have great respect, I am getting frustrated with endless discussions and no real action....................action is where the rubber hits the proverbial road. Of course I love the discussions and debate on interesting and controversial subjects here, but I can't help but have the sinking feeling that time, a precious commodity, may be running out! But I appreciate your saying Let It Be..........................helps to temper my impatience. I have always been a warrior at heart! Thanks Mr. Zook, as always!! Ahk

[lisa]

Maybe some interested members of Project Avalon can seriously consider collectively applying their intellectual talents to a systematic analysis of the actual Wikileaks documents.
Hook us up, Ahkenaten. How do we get a hold of the Wikileaks documents?

[AlkaMyst]

If you guys want the whole shebang....everything that WikiLeaks has ever released, including their whole website so you can mirror it then I can provide that for you in the form of torrents.....I will upload them to the FTP account under WikiLeaks and all you guys have to do is go there and download the torrent file.....then just use your favorite torrent program to download whatever you need......NO BS, the whole thing....if you guys don't have access to the account then check my post here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9448-***The-FTP-Site-is-Back%C2%85.Just-for-Avalon-Forum-Members!!!***) and PM me for the login info :)

I'm starting my laptop right now and I should have it uploaded within the next 15-30 minutes.

Blessings,
AlkaMyst.

[Ahkenaten]

Lisa OK here is a link to the Guardian's website where it keeps all its Wikileaks documents online and available for download

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

This is for your perusal...............

of course if we Avalonians get cracking on this project - in order to avoid duplication of effort, we must coordinate........Banshee and I have been discussing doing a concrete project here on these threads and so has jcocks......................we started building a list of people who are interested in a project!

[AlkaMyst]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...bles-wikileaks

Don't mean to intrude in this, but this are not the real cables....it is just articles written about the released cables, you want the real deal then you have to download the torrents, it's that simple....even if you go to wikileaks themselves you have to download via torrent!!!

Just my 2 cents!!!

[Ahkenaten]

Thanks Alkamyst for the clarification! VERY helpful.

[AlkaMyst]

Not a problem my dear friend......I will send you the FTP info so you can get it from there, it's more secure cause it uses SSL encryption :)

[AlkaMyst]

By the way, I love you username (Ahkenaten)....I think that there's a lot of hidden knowledge yet to be discovered dealing with "Ahkenaten & Nephertitis".

If anybody is interested on some of their mysterious history check the videos below.....This is really GOOD STUFF in my opinion!!!

I also have them posted on my blog here (https://www.theavalonfiles.com/blog/?cat=7) fro easier viewing!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFMYCULm6-U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MO3bqC5X3s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLuVHIuc7fM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcZojqSSzeU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPjs3iCLtvU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DjqC-zOCpg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2QdnSy16c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVPrrxEdY8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dItO9eTE9Do&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRJLQ6nc1UI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzHqNsHKqM4&feature=related

[ponda]

Maybe some interested members of Project Avalon can seriously consider collectively applying their intellectual talents to a systematic analysis of the actual Wikileaks documents. Let's see - if 100 members got involved that would be about 260 documents each. If 200 members got involved that would be about 160 documents each - etc. Daunting but not impossible. And best of all that would be, for once, actually accomplishing something instead of playing keyboard warrior with no risks and very little to actually show for all the effort in the end. Just a humble thought.

P.S.

One major problem with what Alex Jones said in his video posted on this thread is the idea that the Wikileaks phenomenon will be used by the usual suspects to spy on users on the internet. Ridiculous.............obviously the entire internet with the notable exception of those who are able to use high-level cyber security tactics, should be considered to be transparent, i.e. one should assume as they type anything on their keyboard that there is an anonymous SOMEONE right on the other side of the screen observing what is being said, when and where and entering that info into your personal detailed dossier! Anyone who fails to understand that is frankly an idiot and not operating at full intellectual speed. The internet is set up to be an intelligence/spy/dossier-building tool...............and "they" have been spying on most of us since we started using it. Wikileaks will not, therefor cause the govt to use the internet as a spying mechanism - IT ALREADY IS AND HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS NOW!!! It could be used to drum up support for black DARPA-like projects, as if we need more of them!!! This is the kind of thing Alex Jones does (making these broad and ridiculous allegations) that I find to be really, really annoying and makes me very suspicious of his motives and his integrity.

Yes in the few video's that i've watched of Alex Jones he comes across as a bit of a panic merchant and a sensationalist but i feel that his intentions are pure and that his heart is in the right place.

Count me in if you want to start going through some of the cables etc

[AlkaMyst]

Just an Update....recently released on prisonplanet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/i-hear-us-mulling-spy-charges-full-video-of-julian-assange-1st-presser-after-jail.html)

‘I hear US mulling spy charges’: Full video of Julian Assange 1st presser after jail

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X2wdhVZpEr0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X2wdhVZpEr0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[AlkaMyst]

Update....I'm currently uploading the entire database of WikiLeaks materials released so far in torrent form....I tought that it was going to be up quick, but I'm affraid is going to take longer then I expected, but it's all being uploaded as we speak.....I will update when it's all done!!!

[ponda]

Here's a link to an archive of GlobalResearch.org's articles on WikiLeaks


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22443

[AlkaMyst]

Update.....for those interested the entire WikiLeaks docments (Every cable and other materials) has been uploaded to the FTP Account in the form of torrents, I'm hoping you guys know how to use these torrent files but if you don't PM me and I can help you out. ENJOY!!!

[Zook]

Good morning Avalonians, the Earth says hello!

Here's a brilliant expose of the Wikileaks psychological operation:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TheJPboU4c&feature=player_embedded

I wonder if Wikidrips will release any information pertaining to Israel's nuclear program and arsenal? I'm sure that a genuine informational leak (as opposed to a donated one - as Anthony Lawson elegantly phrases) ... would have exploded any Geiger counter in proximity to the newswire as it radiated with chatter about Mordechai Vanunu; Israel's secret nuclear program; the asymmetrical mandate of the IAEA to pursue countries that have limited access to nuclear technology and ignore a demonstrably renegade country that has filched one of the master keys; and general gossip-brand, Rothschild-brand, minion-brand behind-the-scenes natterings and/or expostulations about the absurdity of it all?

I wonder ... but I don't hold my breath.

:typing:

ps: It warms the cockles of my heart to know that there are still people on this planet functioning with full cognitive resonance. Kudos to Anthony Lawson!

[NoTingles]

msg deleted