Wikileaks Exposed - The man behind the NWO Curtain

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by backinblack
That's simple Boon...There is ZERO proof that Assange was EVER caught hacking into the US military..
That's why McKinnon is in Jail and Assange is not...

Prove me wrong, and I do mean PROVE..!!!
No BS assumptions or concocted scenarios, real PROOF Boon...

Assange on video stating that he penetrated
US Military networks is a confession and therefore
proof in any court in the world.

And he is not in prison for that confession.
That is proof.

When Ted Bundy admitting killing people
on his video taped confession it was used
as evidence in his trial and he was convicted.

Why is Assange NOT in prison already ???
He already admitted to the crimes.

He's not in prison cuz he works for them.

Oh BS Boon...He wrote it in a book YEARS later even under a different name I might add...
Many people confess things in books and no, it is NOT always accepted as a confession.....

Bottom line is,
You have NO proof that Julian Assange was ever caught hacking into the US military....
At least admit the truth Boon...Make up theories all you like but you can't make up facts..

reply to post by backinblack

lmao

admit it black !!!

u and ur buddies have been pawned
in this thread

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by backinblack

 

lmao

admit it black !!!

u and ur buddies have been pawned
in this thread

lol, that's funny Boon...
Your whole thread is based on Assange being caught hacking into US military sites...
The ONLY proof of this event is a confession by Assange some 20 years later..
Actually, I wouldn't call it a confession, I'd call it bragging..

But anyways, you still have ZERO proof of your main point and you say I've been pawned???
Now that's funny mate...

Originally posted by backinblack

That's simple Boon...There is ZERO proof that Assange was EVER caught hacking into the US military..
That's why McKinnon is in Jail and Assange is not...

Prove me wrong, and I do mean PROVE..!!!
No BS assumptions or concocted scenarios, real PROOF Boon...

Boon might be mistaking his older hacks that he has admitted to and convicted for. He has said on video he had access to backdoor in US military systems and whatnot. He was tried and sentenced for that already. As for this case I see no proof whatsoever that he was actively spying on US.
Check out this SVT doc of wikileaks btw. This and many more interesting bits. goo.gl...

Originally posted by PsykoOps
He was tried and sentenced for that already.

Sentenced ???
u mean as in prison term ???

Please show me a link anywhere on
the web where Julian Assange was EVER
sent to a prison to serve a sentence for ANY
charge?

And I don't mean sitting in a jail cell in London
waiting for extradition, that is not prison. That
is a jail and there is no term that he has to
stay there. I'm referring to a real prison term
for a convicted crime. Thanks

I look forward to seeing that link

I searched the internet and couldn't find
one, maybe ur better at it than I am

Sentenced to pay a fine. You should probably check out that documentary. It has this issue and many others that might be interesting. Of course you could just google or check Wikipedia

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Sentenced to pay a fine.

lmao

lemme get this straight,
Assange hacks Nortel and US Military networks
and only gets a fine

and Gary McKinnon did the very same thing
and is still locked away after 9 years?

what is wrong with this picture ???

The only way Assange is a free man
is cuz he cut a deal to work for them.

Besides, nobody is addressing the other
hundred points of evidence in this thread.

First difference would be obvious that other is Australia and other UK. Then there's the fact that JA did this back in the 90's.
[Edit to add] I still haven't seen any of this evidence you claim btw.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
First difference would be obvious that other is Australia and other UK. Then there's the fact that JA did this back in the 90's.
[Edit to add] I still haven't seen any of this evidence you claim btw.

edit on 12/12/2010 by PsykoOps because: added

I bet it's that big glob of wikileaks covering your lens restricting your field of vision!!!

I like how this thread slowly is dying
this video is one of the milion proofs that Wikileaks is NOT that Boondock says and lies

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by PsykoOps
First difference would be obvious that other is Australia and other UK. Then there's the fact that JA did this back in the 90's.
[Edit to add] I still haven't seen any of this evidence you claim btw.

edit on 12/12/2010 by PsykoOps because: added

Julian Assange was NOT charged with hacking into any US military sites although he stated years later that his group did do it...
That's the entire base of Boon's argument and there is absolutely NO proof that the authorities Boon discusses were aware of Julian hacking into them in the 1990's...

reply to post by jaynkeel


Great informative addition to the debate mate..
Keep up the good work..

reply to post by backinblack


Goota say I like your new avie too. Sorry again for derailing the thread boon. I just couldn't resist the wiki glob thing no disrespect to him.

I didn't trust wikileaks from the get-go.

I'm glad you have seen the light boon.

I was wondering about you for a while there when you was joined into the wikileaks fanboy club..

I knew you were more intelligent..

Wikileaks has had psyop written aaaaaaall over it..

This is the nail that hit the hammer on the head..

These pawns would die for assange and wikileaks like a tool of war...

Someone being used like anon (half of the people disputing this downloaded loic with hivemind) and DDOS attacked certain websites..

The wikileaks fan boys will be shown the truth in time......

How this thread got 153 flags astounds me.

Originally posted by xavi1000
I like how this thread slowly is dying

this video is one of the milion proofs that Wikileaks is NOT that Boondock says and lies

www.youtube.com...

this thread is not dying at all.
It's sitting in a beach resort in Bermuda
sipping on a Pina Colada in the shade
whilst listening to a mariachi band play
America the Beautiful.

And there was an agenda by the CIA to
release the Collateral Murder video as well.

It was released to get US public apathy for
the occupation of Iraq by US Soldiers.
Once the US Soldiers took out the CIA's
competition, the soldiers were not needed
anymore.

The video basically got the soldiers to
return home and out of the way of CIA
Black Ops in Iraq. Can't have US Army Intel
Officers getting into the CIA's business.

April 4, 2010 - Collateral Murder video released

August 18, 2010 - Last US Combat Brigade leaves Iraq
6 months ahead of schedule

Looks like the CIA released video through wikileaks worked
like a charm.

There is ALWAYS an agenda

remember the CIA motto

NOTHING is ever what it appears to be !!!

reply to post by boondock-saint


This whole Soros/NWO nexus is purely a John Birch Society (as filtered through Murdoch/Beck fun-house mirrors) paranoid fantasy.

I went and followed your research and the amount of assumptions necessary to reach the conclusion you've reached is STAGGERING and not backed up by any evidence.

The New American is hard core right-wing pulpit, not a respected journal our magazine (it's the radical right-wing John Birch Society newsletter - nothing more). However, even if you do ACCEPT them as legitimate, they seem to SUPPORT wikileaks... so they're obviously, using your logic, pro-NWO... and as such, can't be trusted (your logic again).

So, if they can't be trusted, as they're part of the NWO, why do you??

Pro-Wikileaks articles on their site:
www.thenewamerican.com...
thenewamerican.com...
thenewamerican.com...

This whole concept is a nonsense.

reply to post by boondock-saint


As any Clancy fan can tell you the official motto of the CIA is “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

reply to post by boondock-saint


Heya boondock-saint!

You've definitely sparked a lively debate here . . of course this is a sensitive topic and people are bound to take things personally, especially if they have only discovered Wikileaks in the last year or two. I've seen the same behaviour when people refuse to question Alex Jones, Steven Greer et al.

'Alternative Thinkers' get very frustrated with the whole world seemingly turned against them . . to many people Wikileaks is the brightest light to have appeared in a long time. Obviously this can cloud people's ability to question the conception and administration of Wikileaks and the possibility that it has been co-opted or manipulated from without.

This possible scenario doesn't involve any character assassination of Julian Assange or other Wikileaks volunteers, so even Wikileaks fundamentalists should at least consider it :] External manipulation of Wikileaks would be a simple manner of controlling the document flow to Wikileaks. Given that the initial batch of documents that Wikileaks launched with were siphoned from a Tor exit node apparently unbeknownst to those sending the data, and the fact that Wikileaks weren't exactly being careful with their communication security before their launch (in fact they were being downright sloppy); it would not be hard to imagine an intelligence agency pushing their choice of documents through that particular exit node in order to manipulate the situation.

This could have also happened post-launch via the much simpler method of flooding Wikileaks with submissions chosen for a specific purpose . . whether to distract, dilute overall submission quality, to manipulate the thoughts and opinions of those using the site or simply to put a strain on Wikileaks' resources. In fact, I believe the unanticipated strain on resources was the reason put forth by Wikileaks when they converted from an actual Wiki like system to 'closed comments' document releases, a move which brought forth my first genuine suspicion of the group many years ago (if not an actual suspicion, an admission to myself that I must be suspicious or at least open to it if I were to remain objective).

I truly believe Wikileaks must shut down after 'cablegate', if only to prove their own credibility. Credibility is something they 'intercepted' off a Tor exit node, they're yet to recover from that action in my mind. Shut it down, release the whole cablegate archive at once instead of this slow media-frenzy-inducing drip, then disseminate ALL remaining data to Openleaks and any media agency (or anyone!) that will take it. Leak your own financial history and then freely disseminate ALL funding to Openleaks, the site you start up to replace Wikileaks and any other similar platform that already exists. Use money to start multiple new sites that run independently of one another . . . hell, give John Young over at Cryptome some money, he was the first person to leak Wikileaks wasn't he ;]

The concept is what's important isn't it? Let go of Wikileaks and de-centralise this thing. Only that way (in my opinion) can Wikileaks 'prove' itself . . and they should know more than anyone that they do have to prove themselves, they're not stupid . . whether they're fronting or not!

Personally I don't believe that Soros or the CIA is/were manipulating Wikileaks directly or internally, mainly because it's such an obvious tie and those people are muuuch smarter than that. Also, I believe it'd be much easier and more secure to do so from without rather than within the organisation. This also fits the pattern of subterfuge employed by intelligence agencies rather than the big, dumb obnoxious move that is presented in the OP.

I believe Wikileaks and Assange were trying to fleece the CIA for money . . I believe Soros acts as a channel through which the CIA distribute money to such groups. I'm also open to being wrong and constantly revise my opinion based upon information available at the time rather than any sort of misplaced 'allegiance' to an organisation I know little about.

I also don't believe anything has been proved in this thread (as of yet) . . the emails in the OP are either taken out of context or misunderstood. Also, emails are attributed to Julian Assange when there is no assertion that it's Assange sending them. I believe this page puts those emails in a context easier to understand . .