Monday, December 06, 2010


wikileaks_is_CIA left a comment on the post "GENERAL SAYS WIKILEAKS IS CIA AND MOSSAD":

This is directly from the Wikipedia November 2007, since erased:

"There have been many allegations that Wikileaks is a CIA front (eg. by cryptome)...

Arguments have centered around the location of Wikileaks-related matters and the source of its funding...

National Security Agency HQ Maryland.

"The contact number on has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland.

", a Web tracking service, connected the number to a 'Va Reston.'

CIA building in Reston

"Twenty miles down the road from Adelphi is Reston, Virginia, home to iDefense labs, whose Web site says it is 'a comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments.'

"The DC telephone number is also on the same telephone exchange as the newly created (2006) Iraq Study Group and the Afghanistan embassy of Washington."

Website for this image

At we read the following posts on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks: Genuine Rebel or the Next Fake ...

A. Assange fits all the specifications of a phony rebel, dished up to the public so that we eventually accept the silencing of whistleblowers and the closure of truth-related websites, all in the name of national security.

A few notes of my observations:

1) If Assange was truly rogue, the mainstream media would simply black him out.

2) Assange accepts the official version of the events of 9/11. Red flag.

3) The finances of WikiLeaks have been described as "opaque."

Website for this image

4) The overly-emphasized "CIA is after Assange" story in the media rings false.

The CIA does not advertise its own agendas and missions, and the media rarely intrudes on their discretion. But here we have something like Wile E Coyote and the Roadrunner. What's wrong with this picture?

5) The recent (last week) NYT profile of Assange was originally bylined by Eric Schmitt, then the names were changed.

Assange has used Schmitt in the past to communicate.

Schmitt is a senior writer on terrorism and national security for the NYT, and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations!

Red and Black - Satanic.

6) Assange dresses the part: black suit, red tie. C'mon.

7) The WikiLeaks document release reminds many of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Remember, Ellsberg worked for Internal Security Affairs.

He was a spook.

Ellsberg himself has recently come out to say he thinks the CIA may be targeting Assange. Oh, please.

8) The information that has come to light in the massive document release is not particularly groundbreaking, and as such, fits the description of a "limited hang-out."

The timing, too, scarcely a week before elections, is worth noting.

(I tried three times to post a one-paragraph comment on the NYT Assange profile, suggesting WikiLeaks was disinfo. The moderators turned it down twice, as the comments thread ballooned from 106 into the 400s, with everyone pro and con Assange but swallowing him whole as the real thing. After a direct appeal to the mods on my third attempt, they posted it shortly before locking the thread.)

Netanyahu says: “Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications. On the contrary, the documents showed support in many quarters for Israel’s assessments, especially on Iran.” Website for this image

B. He's as dirty as a they come.

I'll say it again: 15,000 more dead in Iraq than the U.S. admitted?

Try close to ONE MILLION, per the Lancet several years back.

Do I trust the Lancet or some CIA plant? Well, I don't trust the Lancet, either; but, I'd trust them over this yackdoodle any day of the week.

C. Well, well, well.......

Wikileaks Proves WMDs in Iraq

It gets really boring after awhile, doesn't it?

D. Funny how Assange and Ellsberg gave a press conference last Saturday at a hotel located "a stone's throw" from MI6, where yesterday spy chief Sir John Sawyers gave the first public speech in MI6's 101-year history, defending secrecy in the war against terror.

“Secrecy is not a dirty word,” he said. “Secrecy is not there as a cover-up. Secrecy plays a crucial part in keeping Britain safe and secure.”

Both press conferences were written up in the NYT by John F. Burns.

It's always interesting to learn a little about the guys who write these stories, right?

Burns studied Russian at Harvard, Chinese at Cambridge, and later Islamic history at Cambridge. He served as bureau chief in Moscow 1981-84, and is currently London bureau chief. He is married to a woman who is currently the NYT Baghdad bureau chief.

Foxes watching the henhouse, if you ask me.

E. For a wanted man he seems able to show up in public with ease.



"There wasn’t a single document about the Israeli training of the Taliban (3), the massive drug profiteering by the Mossad (4), the CIA (5) and the US-puppet Hamid Karzai and his brother (6), Karzai’s connections to Unocal and Zionist war criminal Henry Kissinger (7), the clandestine Israeli business operations set up to take control of the oil fields in neighboring Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan (8), or the Russian-Jewish mafia, fully protected by the Zionist entity, selling guns to US-backed Afghan warlords" (Julian Assange the WIKI Leaks News MY Sun)

"One out of seven news outlets have noticed, thus far, that Wikileaks seems to have a 'soft heart' when it comes to Israel and India.

"Zbigniew Brzezinski caught on, finally, declaring that Wikileaks is an 'intelligence operation' using 'pointed' information carefully 'seeded' into a combination of minor scandals and chickenfeed." (Why Wikileaks Doesn't Add Up)





Anonymous said...

These people blew Kennedy's head off in full view as a statement of their power forty years ago.

But they can't find this guy as he flies around giving interviews to their media.

Laughable, but for the fact it may lead to yet more slaughter.

aferrismoon said...

Seems like Assange might be filed under 'Lone....'

Will he utter the immortal words - 'Ich bin eine patsy'

Oddly WikiLeaks has moved its site to Switzerland while in Israel the fire just burnt down an area called Little Switzerland.


the Silverfish said...

As for Assange being a patsy, well I don't know. To me it seems to be a definitively on purpose sort of thing. The feeling that I got when the whole wiki thing started was that it smelled of something different.

The reason that I felt this way was that If I was pissing off as many powerful entities as Assange apparently is I know for a fact that I would be hiding under cover of forest with a bag of rice and some dehydrated meat coming out at night only to make sniping attacks and then disappearing
again like a fart in the wind.

Assange on the other hand seems to use a different play book. So called secrets get leaked and the C.I.A and MI5 scurry about muttering, a call goes out to INTERPOL to make an arrest and they just shrug and to top it off that SLC says "NO PROBLEM".
All the while Mr. Assange trips about from place to place in full view with seemingly little concern.

Like I said it smells of something
different, but I will wait and see. Of the one thing that I am sure, if a butcher were to offer me a package of meat that smelled of this I Would turn it down.

Caro said...

Well I don't know what to think about these rumors, but why should the CIA hurt itself by publishing Videos about the killing of innocent people in iraq?

Anonymous said...

Caro, google 'limited hangout' to learn about one of ways to do damage control. It can be used by corporate, government or military people. The CIA love it.

When real people stand up to the NWO the corporate media ignores it. Assange is getting more coverage than a 'gone missing all-American white girl' on CNN. Why?
1. much of the leaked material demonizes Iran, and actually helps make the case for war against Iran.
check for a good article on that.
2. virtually any future "terrorist" attack could be blamed on Assange or linked to him, to gain support for big time censorship of the internet, and politics sites like this one.

3. Assange is also contemptuous of the 911 truth movement and has stated unequivocally that he supports the 19 Arabs from caves George W Bush version of 911.
The need for 911 truth is a litmus test for me, Assange is with the spooks and Israel.
A litmus test for online news sources right now is whether they are looking at both sides of the wikileaks question.
Junk sites like Democracy Now, Huffpost, rawstory, afterdowningstreet, and the nation are in step with BBC, CNN et al.
I am not surprised.

Great work as usual from you aangirfan, thanks for all your great research and writing.

paul said...

I am very inclined to agree, especially as the afghan war logs bombshell seemed to be that iraqi murders went slightly above jolly jack straw's beloved metric, the iraq body count.
Even if JA is in earnest, he deals with enemy materials, if the source is managed, transparency is pretty irrelevant.

Richard said...

This is straight from Wikipedia (no relation!)
WikiLeaks has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award. In June 2009, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International’s UK Media Award (in the category “New Media”) for the 2008 publication of “Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances”, a report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.
The Wikileaks team have been publishing hidden crimes for several years now. Imagine the day when you might wish for a ‘Robin Hood’ who would expose the baddies who had caused ill to you or your loved ones.
Try thinking of Wikileaks as ‘a court of last appeal’ – where you are standing out on Main Street, crying for justice or pleading that the facts be heard.
I feel for all the brave ones fighting all over the world for what they believe is right and true. Try thinking of Assange and the Wikileaks team as fighting bravely in their own way, to bring truth out into the open – and thus give peace a chance.

Anonymous said...

Richard, with all due respect, winning an award from the economist is like getting a pat on the back from George Bush......your point?

For the past year and a half, I have generally been impressed with and supportive of wikileaks. But we should have all seen enough fakes, lefty gatekeepers, and fake peoples movements, by now that we have learned to be cautious. As truth seeking people we should all be receptive to new ideas and then take responsibility to check several sources, compare and decide, and to be big enough to change our views as things evolve.
The shine has gone of wikileaks for me based on the points I made above.

Try thinking OBJECTIVELY about the verifiable facts, instead of wishing for hero's to such an extent that you allow frauds to play on your desire for them. I too wish wiki was for real.

stefz said...

"Try thinking of Assange and the Wikileaks team as fighting bravely in their own way, to bring truth out into the open"

I just tried

To little avail

Then I then tried thinking of Assange and Wikileaks fighting bravely to avoid any mention of 9/11, the Mavi Marmara and the Occupied Territtories, and being given a big old boost by the mainstream media to help them on their way

That worked a whole lot better

Anonymous said...

It's interesting (and nothing short of an irony) that the daughter of Sir James Goldsmith (tory/ukip financier and voiciferous eurosceptic) was in court today offering securities for Assange's bail. All we need now is barrister Michael Shrimpton offering up a loony conspiracy story and it'll be like anarchists-reunited.

Just to really confuse your showcase anti semitism - Jemima Khan is a Jewish girl who converted to Islam!

(her father James was often opposed to Israel, accepting though he was of his jewry)

Her brother Zac Goldsmith is one to watch in all of this.

Anonymous said...

Carto asked:

"why should the CIA hurt itself by publishing Videos about the killing of innocent people in iraq?"

Well, I don't know whether its true in this particular instance, but it was fairly routine in Northern Ireland (and elsewhere) for the Security Services to feed fairly low grade information through a double agent in an effort to beef up the credibilty of the agent/plant. I suppose you might look at the release of silly diplomatic tittle-tattle cables as fairly low-grade intelligence with the more high impact disinformation/propaganda being released alongside it (Saudi Arabia and the whole world seeing Iran as a threat, WMDs really being found in Iraq, right-wing Israeli government being nice people really).

Something incendiary and convincing would be needed to guarantee the interests of the press and for the site to be seen as credible by all those habitually more sceptical online bloggers. Publishing videos about the killing of innocent people in iraq - would pretty much guarantee all that and more. It gave these people exactly what they wanted to hear. But a consequence of accepting all this means accepting the nonsense about Iran.

Its possbile the CIA and other member services have been deliberately setting up the boundaries of discussion. Control the discourse and you control how people react and think. To buy the stuff about innocent civilians and all the other joyfully liberalist guff, you have to buy the stuff about Iran.

A few years aho the CIA and FBI were accused of editing the single largest number of Wikipedia entries - so it makes sense for them to have hijacked Wikileaks in exactly the same way - but I'd probably stop short of saying the CIA are behind Wikileaks.

It might be the early leaks had more integrity than the latter, - that the site was sabotaged from within relatively recently. Afterall - its an open source medium. It relies on the contributions of members - as as such is vulnerable to abuse.

Anyway, there's are equally powerful lobbies and gremlins out there just as capable as infiltrating Wikileaks. It's these I would be looking at first.


stefz said...

"Just to really confuse your showcase anti semitism - Jemima Khan is a Jewish girl who converted to Islam!"

As it happens I'm not one of those people who blames 'The Jews' for everything but learning a little bit of history e.g.


...does kind of rebut your rebuttal

Anonymous said...

I'm not entirely sure how the above links rebut what I was saying?

From my perspective, there's a pronounced anti-semitism on this blog. It's no big deal. It's just another point of view. I've always made it pretty clear that I fear religious extremism and fundamentalism of any sort and that includes many of the zionist extremists that make up the current Israeli government. There's also every reason why people should be concerned about the influence of pro-Israel 'super-lobbies' but then there's equally every reason to fear the influence of the Saudi lobbies too (probably more so at the moment).

Anti-semitism may be wide of the mark (as I don't know you personally) but there is more than smattering of paranoia here all the same. And sadly it was this same paranoia that genuine anti-semitic groups like the Nazis were able to exploit in 1930s Germany - with horrific consequences.

I think this kind of paranoia has to be filed under the David Icke variety. That doesn't mean to say there isn't interesting and valid comment here, just that it is not entirely balanced.

I don't recall the Jews having the power and influence to stave-off the holocaust, so what's changed? Israel is as powerful and as dangerous as the UK and America want it to be. It's little more than a US satellite state. Just another expansionist attempt. Imperialism by any other name.


The Realist Report said...

Blackwatch, I think it's more accurate to say that Israel and her agents are in full control of the US and UK, not the other way around.

As for the Holocaust, you may want to reconsider what you've been spoon fed your entire life about that event...

The Realist Report said...

Blackwatch, I think it's more accurate to say that Israel and her agents are in full control of the US and UK, not the other way around.

As for the Holocaust, you may want to reconsider what you've been spoon fed your entire life about that event...

stef said...


The point I was making was that the apparent conversion of a Jewish girl to Islam does not 'really confuse' any 'showcase anti-semitism' at all

I tried to make myself clear by repeating the offending comment and then neatly pasting a couple of links which ilustrate why it doesn't fly

If I failed to make myself clear I apologise and hope that I have done so now

I could also have laboured the point by refering to the Book of Esther and the Festival of Purim but that struck me as overkill

And tempted as I am to respond to your follow up comment which, amongst other things, assumes that powerful Jewish interests actually wanted to prevent any Holocaust™ (do quotes like 'One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe' or the works of Lenni Brenner ring any bells?) this post is already buried under the relentless torrent of Aangirfan's output so I suggest we save it for another occasion

And just to repeat I am not one of those folks who believe that 'The Jews' are responsible for everything bad in this world but there is a case to be answered by Political Zionists who choose to cherry pick from and capitalise upon the worst of their heritage

Anonymous said...

A very well crafted, cleverly worded comment Blackwatch.
You are clearly intelligent and well read. Far too intelligent to utter the ridiculous laughable....

"There's also every reason why people should be concerned about the influence of pro-Israel 'super-lobbies' but then there's equally every reason to fear the influence of the Saudi lobbies too (probably more so at the moment)."

You overplayed your hand pal, you went for too much.
Next time, don't try to say too much, this time you got too greedy. That's not a stereotype, just a friendly critique of your tactics.

Your avoidance of all relevant issues such as 911 truth, his close ties with spooks and elitists, the corporate media obsession with him, and the possible use of him to censor the www are all things you avoid. So please address those factual topics before you attempt to trot out your antisemitsm conspiracy theories which you seem to pull out of thin air.

OK, try again?

Anonymous said...

@ Blackwatch:

Do your own research on the (very powerful) jews as they both covertly financed the war and benefited from the Holocaust.

From behind the scenes, the (mainly ashkenazi) jews, and their financiers friends from both sides of the pond, made staggering profits from the war and, in the end, literally got away with murder.

These jewish bankers were financing the nazis all along while supporting the persecution of jewish populations all over Europe.

They also obviously benefited from the victims' bank accounts and assets being confiscated and turned a blind eye to the fact that jewish lives were being terminated.

What mattered to them was that by the end of the war they had made obscene amounts of money and, more importantly, that their zionist dream had won.

With the very public victimization of the jews as a people and the World's combined feelings of outrage and shame, it had gained in legitimacy.

Unsurprisingly, the state of Israel was founded shortly after the end of the war...

Also, after WW2, laws have been protecting these vile creatures from any form of criticism, even if justified. They are definitely in control in the West, as well as untouchable.

PS: sorry for the late post.

Anonymous said...

Well, lets say its very simple: Jews have been slashing each other since their fake existence and then blame the countries they settled in. Typical... See the (German) Holohoax and the dark Inquisition times, just 2 examples out of the countless. If some of u havent realized that yet, worse for u...


Teutonsuet said...

The story about Assange meeting Israelis in Geneva has been debunked here.

Rebuttal to Article Alleging that Wikileaks CEO "Made a Deal with Israel" Over Cables
by anonymous

Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 12:37 AM

This article is a rebuttal to a anonymous piece that recently appeared in Indybay that specifically analyzes how this article is not only defamatory, but fails to meet even the most minimal journalistic standards. People are advised to use caution when reading articles that are self-published because although they MAY appear to be sourced, unless you check the footnotes, that may not in fact be the case - as was the case with this scurrilous piece of character assassination.
FACT FINDING RESULTS ON THE INDYBAY ARTICLE - Note: no author for this article is listed –the article appears under a section entitled “Palestine”

Link to Indybay article:

Anon said...

Dear Teutonsuet,

Many thanks for your information.

The indybay article about a deal with Israel does have its weaknesses.

- Aangirfan

Anonymous said...

i totally agree on what you published here and I suggest you to read these two articles:

Anonymous said...

Interesting article, but even today, six days later less than 1% of the 250,000 cables have been published and/or read. Wikileaks does not publish anything until one of the six newsapers does first and has redacted names, so it's hard to say what yet will be released.
I'd never say Assange does not have some unsavory connections although at this point I've not read of any and there are many governments not beholden to the US or Israel and their undercover thugs who've been trying to find out about connections but that he's doing this as part of a CIA or Mossad operation I do not believe. None of this is of any benefit to the US and also to remember is that he downloads only what he receives. Anything pertaining to 911 or Israel-US secrecy would undoubtedly by classified much higher than simply secret where it could be read by Privates working deskjobs in Intel.
I had been of two minds about Wikileaks until they released Collateral Murder. That in no way was of any benefit to the US or the elites in power anywhere or even as a setup to make people more likely to believe what follows. They're official government cables that nobody involved has denied are real, why show that to make people believe what is genuine?
The releases since haven't done anything to make me change my mind. The thing to remember is he gets what is uploaded to him and the things you list as being suspicious by their absence are probably absent because no cable is kept or is so highly classified hardly anyone has access to them. Hopefully these leaks are the first step to changing all that. The outrage over these obviously has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the security of the people in power and their self-given 'right' to lie to their citizens and order spying done on whoever they want or lean on any government they want to squash murder charges against rogue CIA agents and the like. And practice as a regular course of action the deceit that lands us in a quagmire each generation and set us up for their long held dream of perpetual war.
This is simply my opinion of course but I stand with Assange -- if the government is able to charge him, get him extradited and convict him, we wont have another chance at Lights On, Rats Out. I hope this does not become shown as just more government manipulation of us bovines.

Anonymous said...

Blackwatch does bring up a good point: WHO was behind the holocaust, and WHY.

Fact: it happened. I knew actor Dirk Bogarde, he was a Mil-Intel forward-recon officer in WWII, he actually found Bergen-Belsen, the first concentration camp to be found by the allies (though, officially, it is recorded as being the officer in command of the troops ordered to check-out Bogarde's insane claims over the radio, they arrived a couple of days after he had). I also knew Rolf Steiner, a Hitler Youth and later mercenary. Rolf made the mistake of being too sassy when captured outside Munich and the Yanks decided to give him a lesson by throwing him headfirst into an oven in Auschwitz , still occupied by a smoldering corpse.

As a wide-eyed lad I sat and listened to all this, plus many other horrors of the war from others who fought.

I had also sat and listened to talk of the black occult, the Illuminati, the masons, their sex-rituals, child-abuse, you name it.

Forget the Jews, as Blackwatch has suggested it's all about tribes, dynasties, not race or religions. To be fussy, we are ALL Jews (including the arabs, muslims!) The people ruling us are all related, if we were able to access their records we would see this. Black, White, Chinese, makes no difference. Problems do arise when someone gets into power who ISN'T, or is so far out of it they aren't under control.


As has been aired, Jews were likely behind the holocaust. Jews killed Jews. But they don't see it that way, but as one tribe getting one over on another, dog-eats-dog. The holocaust was just one line using the situation to cull the competition.

I was aware of 2 so-called Jewish lines that ruled the world, but then met a girl who told me she (a Jew herself, from a high-ranking family) had overheard things that indicated there was a 3rd line hiding behind the others, the top line, but, though visible, was overlooked as they were not Jewish, but Christian.

Via my contact I was to find out ALL the top people in GB spoke HEBREW. Even the ones not Jewish in the slightest.

Including the Royals.

For THEY are the top family.

But it was a language only used on special occasions, in private.

The official language of the Royals is still German. In private.

I knew for fact that when ladies-in-waiting at Buck House didn't want me or others to understand they nattered away in Hebrew. Only one was officially Jewish.

So there are things going-on behind the scenes that would surprise the public.

Via the www, via bloggers like aangirfan, we just might expose the buggers one day.

For we are paying for all this ...with our blood....

Anon said...

Anon commented:

"It's all about tribes, dynasties...

"One tribe getting one over on another, dog-eats-dog".

That would explain a lot about the various Holocausts.

- Aangirfan

Unknown said...

This satirical clip agrees the leaks are fake too:

Everything you need to know about Julian Assange in 47 Seconds:

Anonymous said...

Totally agree,
Wikileaks is fake.
It was an agent provocateur of the arab spring removing and killing the arab leaders, most importantly Kaddhafi who wanted to estabilish an african bank free of the IMF and World bank.

Site Meter