Wikileaks: Disinfo?

I'm quite sure I will get a lot of hate mail for this but, here I go.

I think we all might want to consider the validity of Wikileaks as a "wistleblower" outlet. There are some serious issues with the project.

The most glaring problem? The lack of security for it's informants. Both the source for the leaked documents and the massacre video were arrested after the leak. Both of these sources were outed by hackers. Wikileaks does a very poor job of protecting it's sources. Is this on purpose? There is little known on Assange, but it is known he was part of a computer hacker group know as the Chaos Computer Club back in the 80's according to Wayne Madsen and others.

www.csmonitor.com...

He has lied about his background continually. His degrees appear to come from diploma mills according to some sources. Are we looking at a CIA patsy (plant)? Think about it, the documents leaked really weren't that important. If you read the paper you pretty much knew everything contained in those documents. There is also the strange combo of papers, all with heavy ties to the government. As for this being some kind of surprise to the White House, well that doesn't make much sense as the New York Times indicates it ASKED if it was ok to publish the documents. There are also issues with authenticating all of the documents as there are no paper copies.

Then you have the spin on the stories themselves. They seem to single out Iran and Pakistan. It almost seems like this is perfectly timed to start pointing fingers at a new enemy at the tail end of the CFR faction saying the war in Afghanistan is a failure.

Which leads to the point: Maybe Wikileaks is simply a disinfo outlet. They give out small amounts of good info and then put out documents to attack who they are made to. Their board is populated with hackers who seem tied to the Soros/left wing faction. Interestingly, Soros got in a spat with a certain congressman who had all his campaign contributions published on Wikileaks shortly after the spat.

So, I ask: Is it possible we are all being duped by Wikileaks?

My opinion?

I can say with certianty that my research shows that it is 100% definately possible for them to be disinfo......

seriously though, Yes, I have had that gut feeling for a while. Either disinfo or a whistleblowers "venus flytrap."

Although my fear is we will have to wait and see how these leaks play out in the political arena and who they ultimately benifit to be sure, and then it is probably going to be too late to matter



~meathead

Yeah, I was thinking about this this morning when I saw an interview on CTV am. This Canadian father says his son was not killed by deadly fire, as the soldiers with his son at the time confirmed it happened in battle. Who knows?

www.ctv.ca...

It could be dis-info. But it could be info that people want to make people believe to be dis-info.

I saw on the "daily show" the host making fun of the guy who leaked the information. It's sad really.

I don't trust wikileaks at all. Something just doesn't seem right and my gut feeling is usually always correct. With that being said, it's not only my gut feeling. For instance, Assange shouldn't be that hard for officials to find and if American authorities were looking for him, as we were led to believe, they could easily just pick him as soon as he crossed a border somewhere. He could have been picked up when he went on Colbert.

In my opinion, he is just a propaganda tool for the CIA and maybe other western intelligence agancies. Something does right and the stench is coming from both Assange and wikileaks.

--airspoon

[edit on 28-7-2010 by airspoon]

I see not all folks have read my prior thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I just did a thread about this, but when I posted it my computer crashed, so I'm glad you made one.
John Young, who runs cryptome.org (a site older than wikileaks), has claimed that wikileaks is a CIA front. Wayne Madsen has also said he believes that wikileaks is a CIA front. The documents recently released from the Afghan war implicate pakistan is funding resistance, which plays nicely into a ramp up of military activity expanding our empire in the middle east, as first outlined by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 'the grand chessboard'. The first consequence of the leaks has been the administration threatening Pakistan, which doesn't make any logical sense at all.
1) Our intelligence agencies created most of these other agencies, and have very strong ties to the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence agency)
2) The military already had these documents, so why are we just now moving on Pakistan, unless these documents were released to stir up public support for a ramp up of military operations in Pakistan?

Also, Assange appears to be trained at engaging crowds, and recently on a talk show did some things I believe were planned. He takes off his jacket (reminiscent of what Obama did), and then his cell phone rings (planned?) a minute into the interview. While these things may be coincidental, they may not be. By the end he has the place giving a standing ovation.

Another factor leading me to believe wikileaks may not be as altruistic as they claim is their excessive fundraising. Cryptome is a similar site, and it costs just over $100 to keep that site running. Wikileaks fundraising goals were around 5 million.
None of these things mean absolutely that it is a front, but the evidence is mounting.
Here is an article covering some of these topics at redacted news:
Wikileaks: Truth serving lies?

reply to post by antonia

Are we looking at a CIA patsy (plant)???

Somewhat but on a larger level.

Actually you are looking at an entire COINTELPRO disinfo platform. Sure they arrest some folks here and there and call them army intel analysts that were either traitors or incompetent just to make it look legit.

Military Intelligence is truly an oxymoron

If it were that big of a deal they would have already made the website and its founders disappear.

Back to the whistle blowers on other forums- Some of what you see on Project Camelot are legit however, the content is so whacked out there in lala land no one ever takes it seriously regarding stargates, ets, super soldier programs etc. So they don't worry about this info because like I said..it is seen as utter nonsense even amongst those you would think were in the know.

Wikileaks is actually made for its intended purpose.

Wiki serves a purpose and the leaks are pretty much 100% controlled leaks.

My step sisters husband is an ex colonel in the marines thats an executive big wig for a very futuristic defense contractor. Either he is thoroughly convinced that these far out programs don't exist or the money is really good.

If I was getting paid a chunk I would probably play retarded if I knew the truth as well. Laugh at all the ET UFO people tell folks...that's just absurd.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by superluminal11]

[edit on 29-7-2010 by superluminal11]

I'll give them this. It's good that the documents were released, because we don't have any proper business in that war, and (according to NY Times story) the wikileaks info is making it hard to get support from Congress.

Based on the information I have, which is just whatever is public and whatever is obvious, the whole thing is sick. Why are we over there messing around in that country? They all hate us. The only reason we get anything done is because we bribe them, so they take our money and then asap go back to what they were doing before. If it took the wikileaks info to get Sen. Tom Harkin to say things are bad there, then it's good that it was released. I guess some things are less obvious to senators than there are to me out here on the interwebs, but even if they're slow learners, the important thing is that they learn. (Actually I like Harkin, he probably just needed an excuse to say what he knew anyway.)

Is it a CIA game against the administration? If so, then I like the CIA position and hope their game is successful, for the reasons given above.

None of this means that the site isn't compromised. There are significant red flags. Maybe it's a way to talk to the CIA. Maybe the CIA isn't all bad guys though.

Very disinfo...

These documents went to the white house first.

They discredit 9/11 conspiracies, yet still say Bin Laden is alive.

please...

If anyone reads this, here is what I would do if dropping the #storm on the internet.

Get yourself all the information ready to go on a flash file.

Go to an internet cafe somewhere and set up say 50 different accounts on different sites like ATS and other conspiracy sites. Remember to be in disguise. When leaving you have to go somewhere there is no camera and remove disguise and then go home.

Wait about a week go to a different location and dump all your information in those sites. Remember disguise, same as before. Do this again if it does not go viral, with a totally different location and site accounts. Also, if you are required an email account, of course use different accounts set up specifically for this on places like hotmail.

Good luck whistle-blowers. And whatever you do, do not at all believe the whistle-blower laws will protect you at all. The government is tied directly with the corporations so there is absolutely no protection.

Be safe, be secure, be smart.

reply to post by antonia

The most glaring problem? The lack of security for it's informants. Both the source for the leaked documents and the massacre video were arrested after the leak. Both of these sources were outed by hackers. Wikileaks does a very poor job of protecting it's sources. Is this on purpose?

John Young is one of Wikileaks’ early founders and one of the organization’s more prominent critics. Here is what he has to say about confidentiality of sources (I recommend the whole interview):

Wikileaks pledges to maintain the confidentiality of sources and stressed that in the presentation over the weekend. Do you offer your contributors the same guarantee?

Young: No. That’s just a pitch. You cannot provide any security over the Internet, much less any other form of communication. We actually post periodically warnings not to trust our site. Don’t believe us. We offer no protection. You’re strictly on your own. We also say don’t trust anyone who offers you protection, whether it’s the U.S. government or anybody else. That’s a story they put out. It’s repeated to people who are a little nervous. They think they can always find someone to protect them. No, you can’t. You’ve got to protect yourself. You know where I learned that? From the cypherpunks.

So Wikileaks cannot protect people. It’s so leaky. It’s unbelievable how leaky it is as far as security goes. But they do have a lot of smoke blowing on their site. Page after page after page about how they’re going to protect you. And I say, oh-oh. That’s over-promising. The very over-promising is an indication that it doesn’t work. And we know that from watching the field of intelligence and how governments operate. When they over-promise, you know they’re hiding something. People who are really trustworthy do not go around broadcasting how trustworthy I am.

alethonews.wordpress.com...

On 911blogger.com are two articles, which follow your line of thinking. I am likewise far from convinced, that Wikileaks is a genuine organization and Assange a trustworthy arbiter.

Latest Wikileaks serving military industrial complex
Chris Floyd skewers Wikileaks

Most of the commentators also are very suspicious of Wikileaks and Assange.

Here is one of the comments posted on that website:

The main stream (CIA controlled) media is giving this a lot of attention and in so doing propping up Wikileaks. Therefore you can be absolutely certain of two things:

1. Nothing that Wikileaks 'leaks' is or will be a threat to them.

2. They'll benefit from it somehow. If Wikileaks were a threat ,they certainly wouldn't draw attention to it! They'd ignore it like 911 Truth.

My guess is that it is sort of a sting operation designed to catch whistle blowers & to contain leaks. It's also a conduit through which they can release information they want released. I can't help but think that the 'P' in TAP (as in pipeline) stands for Pakistan. I could guess they're next. The question is do they come before or after Iran?

911blogger.com...

it wasn't disinfo, only recently have they been turned into a disinfo source. they hunted him, they caught him, they threatened to kill every single person he's ever known and so he decided to do what they say or die...along with everyone he's ever known.

then again, they wouldn't kill a perfectly good chance and kill the guy who we have come to trust. using assange would save them a lot of time in training one of theirs.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by DOADOA]

reply to post by DOADOA


If Assange is who we think he is, then it would be very tough to flip him. I would say that he was disinfo from the get-go, only that TPTB had build a little crediility, hence the releases up until now. Nothing ever released by wikileaks was that damaging or influential. There is no reason to believe that Assange was ever legit.

As I have said many times before in other threads, this could easily be the government purposefully leaking certain information, though that still doesn't account for Assange himself and why the US has not either detained, arrested or at the very least, have his own government rescend his passport.

--airspoon

[edit on 29-7-2010 by airspoon]

This latest release of info is totally out of character for WikiLeaks. First, it is purely digital info. Second, the info has no traceable source. Third, its way to much info. Fourth, it doesnt tell us anything we dont already know.

We already know the US is doing black ops in Pakistan and Iran. And we already know that black ops are killing civilians. And we already could guess that people in Pakistan are helping the Taliban. This is totally a diversion and distraction.

In actuallity, the Taliban closed down heroin production in 1999. A big reason for the War in Afghanistan as Tilman found out about the poppies and was executed. (3 american bullet holes to the forehead and no helmet) Now we are guarding the poppies. Russia wanted to burn the fields, but no, because the Anglo-British-Dutch alliance has been growning poppies in Afghanistan for centuries. 2 Opium wars were fought over it.

Books like the "Kite Runner" were propaganda to demonize the Taliban.

You don't think that the disinfo is to make you think that Wikileaks is disinfo ?

Personally, i'm following them from now 1,5 years and i don't buy it.

I don't say it's impossible or that they had not some close ties with some agencies at some time.
They are not perfect, they make mistakes, bad decisions, they are humans ...

Take a look at this article, it don't prove anything, but it's one of the best one writed on Wikileaks : 10K Words from MJ - Inside WikiLeaks’ Leak Factory

[edit on 29/7/10 by digit78]

Forgive me if someone has already said this, but me so tired and skimmed along trying to see if someone else said, "WHAT?! The NY Times asked if it was ok to publish this so called classified info, and obviously got some sort of 'sure, have at it' response from TPTB ('cause the story went to print!) This dangerous breach of security that could put lives in jeopardy, so dangerous that a young intelligence army kid is facing 52 years in prison because it got out???

Someone please explain the justification for the White House green-lighting the release of this sensitive, top secret material to MSM, knowing full well it would go viral all over tarnation.

How many feel this constitutes aiding and abetting Manning's crime of releasing it to the public and should toodle on down to the prison and be his cellmates? (As a show of mercy, we can let the Pres out for the Impeachment proceedings and again for the espionage charge.)

Originally posted by new_here
Someone please explain the justification for the White House green-lighting the release of this sensitive, top secret material to MSM, knowing full well it would go viral all over tarnation.

I think you missed part of what was said: Nothing revealed was unknown. Nor did it really put anyone at risk. You have to read the material. It you have been paying attention to news for the last two years then you know everything that was released in that material.

Now as to why it was released: You need to understand the White House doesn't truly want to stay in Afghanistan. They really want to bring the war to Pakistan or Iran. Note the number of stories being released claiming Afghanistan is a failure? Note how this info released is being used to target Iran and Pakistan. Note the new "Bin Laden" info. These may be forgeries, but they are being used in the media to justify more aggression in these countries.

Iran is reaching a breaking point. I think the attack will most likely be soon if at all, probably within the next 3 or 4 months. Why? Brzezinski's (long time NWO man) and Soro's attempt at a color revolution in Iran failed. Naturally the hawks are circling saying "See, we have to attack". No more soft glove tactics. You will remember an article poster here a week or so ago with a former CIA op saying we need to attack Iran? That's just one of several of the same ilk. I think we are in for some trouble.

The material itself may well be very real, so no, not disinfo per se.

How it got out there and who put it out there and for what reason is more in question. It's probably not as obvious as it might appear to be.

Originally posted by time91

...outlined by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 'the grand chessboard'. The first consequence of the leaks has been the administration threatening Pakistan, which doesn't make any logical sense at all.

It actually makes perfect sense, to me anyway lol. Obama being a CFR guy is in huge trouble in the ME...entangled with no apparent way out and with DIRE consequences to this nation if anything there escalates or starts. The CFRs opposing (on some not all levels) faction (PNAC/neocon/Zionist) created this mess. Pakistan is a way of deflecting the focus (already worked like a charm in regard to Iraq and it will with Afghanistan too, in due time) temporarily. It will then be "worked out" with them. The CFR wants the focus more on Asia. N, Korea is exactly this kind of deflection too.

[edit on 7/29/2010 by ~Lucidity]