Tweet
Anut, where in the leaked pager transcripts you've copied and pasted does it say Julian assange is working for or with the CIA? How does any of the information posted cover up anything? I'm sorry, I just don't get what your point is, or how it might relate to any bias either Julian Assange or Wikileaks has.
Here's some comments on where this whole "julian is a CIA stooly" comes from.
I also find it interesting that most of the people now saying wikileaks is a CIA front have directly competing alt/news websites, blogs, youtube channels and the like. Don't listen to Julian, listen to us, they say. Come read our website, Not Julian's, they tell me. Wikileaks real leaked documents bad, our brand of crazy conspiracy theory good, they claim.
But each to their own.
See, Like Julian, I too think the more wacky conspiracies and conspiracy nuts do a disservice to the truth, by making the whole truth movement look like it's full of crazy people with way out ideas. I bet if you asked him, Mr Assenge would probably agree 100% that 911 was a false flag attack. It's just he seems to think the world has bigger conspiracies to bring out into the open, ones about which we can actually do something. And I think that's a very fair and valid point.
Seems to me, what he's saying there is "don't be distracted by 911, look at the bigger picture, look at the worse things that are happening in the world today." All he's really doing is saying there are more, and far worse, conspiracies than 911, that are still happening, and it's a waste to ignore them to focus on 911, which was over almost ten years ago. And the conspiracies he would rather we focused our attention on, things that really do matter, that you CAN do something about, he's in the front line, risking his life and freedom to publish the truth about. I'm sorry if you can't respect that, but I do, and will continue to.
Here's some comments on where this whole "julian is a CIA stooly" comes from.
So how is it that Julian Assange has been transformed by 911-truthers from being a victim of plots to kill him and a fellow anti-establishment seeker into a, patsy, or a CIA agent, or an enemy of 9/11 skeptics?
Conspiracywatch says the answer is obvious. They claim that some of the documents revealed by or in the possession of Wikileaks contain embarrassing content for 911-truthers by lifting a corner of the cover protecting Hamid Gul, the ex-Head of the Pakistani Secret Services, who the truthers have always said they value as “a source.” These documents suggest that he may have secretly supported both the Taliban and AlQaida. Gul has often accused the CIA and Mossad of being behind the 9/11 attacks.
So the dilemma for 911-truthers, according to Conspiracy Watch, is how to reconcile the emerging evidence that Gal has always supported the Taliban and Al-Qaida in their war against the West with the dual fact that he has supported Truthers too, most of whom claim that 9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban and Al Qaida, but everything to do with George Bush?
And that dilemma, according to Conspiracy Watch, is partially due to the published content of Assange’s documents and that of documents to come.
Read more: 9/11 skeptics say Julian Assange being manipulated by the CIA
Conspiracywatch says the answer is obvious. They claim that some of the documents revealed by or in the possession of Wikileaks contain embarrassing content for 911-truthers by lifting a corner of the cover protecting Hamid Gul, the ex-Head of the Pakistani Secret Services, who the truthers have always said they value as “a source.” These documents suggest that he may have secretly supported both the Taliban and AlQaida. Gul has often accused the CIA and Mossad of being behind the 9/11 attacks.
So the dilemma for 911-truthers, according to Conspiracy Watch, is how to reconcile the emerging evidence that Gal has always supported the Taliban and Al-Qaida in their war against the West with the dual fact that he has supported Truthers too, most of whom claim that 9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban and Al Qaida, but everything to do with George Bush?
And that dilemma, according to Conspiracy Watch, is partially due to the published content of Assange’s documents and that of documents to come.
Read more: 9/11 skeptics say Julian Assange being manipulated by the CIA
But each to their own.
See, Like Julian, I too think the more wacky conspiracies and conspiracy nuts do a disservice to the truth, by making the whole truth movement look like it's full of crazy people with way out ideas. I bet if you asked him, Mr Assenge would probably agree 100% that 911 was a false flag attack. It's just he seems to think the world has bigger conspiracies to bring out into the open, ones about which we can actually do something. And I think that's a very fair and valid point.
"Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news. 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. What about the Bilderberg conference?"[/b]
J. Assange
J. Assange
Mainstream media have taken to using the term "wikileaks hackers" when talking about Anonymous. More misinformation. Anonymous have no affiliation with anyone. That's the whole point. But no, the media want us dummies to believe wikileaks is an evil terrorist organisation with their very own private army of hackers...
Comment