Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Julian Assange

Julian Assange

A Time For Revolution

we live in a world controlled by a tiny handful of the wealthiest people. I once totally agreed with all that my government leaders said...and I went off to war as a Marine Corps rifleman; a 'grunt'. I survived, and have a duty to fight till the last breath for a better world. I believe that before we leave this planet we must have done something to make it a better place
Julian Assang is fighting against the truth of 9/11. What is Wiki?
Whatever the truth is about Wikileaks the facts will eventually make it clear if it is
genuine.

I have said before that I was 100% behind Wikileaks when it released the video 'Collateral Murder', and the other documents. But, now I come firmly down on the side of those who suspect and believe that Wikileaks is an operation run by an intelligence agency like the CIA, or Mossad, or more.

The leaks and all the information stemming from them make them appear to be the ultimate whistleblowers. A source of truth. And, Julian Assange the ultimate 'White
Knight' exposing evil and corruption.

But, think about this-when both the CIA and KGB were trying to infiltrate each other's agency they had many ways.

One was to pay for information from someone within the agency willing to do so for cash, or whatever.

Secondly, they could Blackmail someone through sex as the KGB did often.

They could also place a 'mole' within the agency. A 'mole' is say, someone within the CIA who works, for Russia, as did Aldrich Ames, or Mossad (Jonathan Pollard)
who worked for both the CIA and the US Navy.

By the way, the Russians and Mossad were/are much more effective at infiltrating American intelligence than the other way around.

But, when it comes to war governments need first and foremost propaganda, and also disinformation, and disruption of anti-war movements, and to sow distrust among groups
opposed to their policies.

Anyone who is shocked at the suggestion that Wikileaks could be part of such a campaign might well read about

The Office of Strategic Influence (OSI). Sourcewatch says this it 'was "established shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, (Oct. 30, 2001!!!) a response to concerns in the administration that the United States was losing public support overseas for its war on
terrorism, particularly in Islamic countries." public relations campaigns.'

And: 'OSI, headed by Air Force Brig. Gen. Simon P. Worden, began "circulating classified proposals calling for aggressive campaigns that use[d] not only the foreign media and the Internet, but also covert operations." Worden envisioned "a broad mission ranging from 'black' campaigns that use[d] disinformation and other covert activities to 'white' public affairs that rely on truthful news releases," according to Pentagon officials. "'It goes from the blackest of black programs to the whitest of white,' a senior
Pentagon official said."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Strategic_Influence

"rely on truthful news releases." like Wikileaks?

The OSI was allegedly going to shut down in 2002 according to
the BBC in it's online news of Tues, 26 Feb, 2002.
'US closes 'disinformation' unit'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1843201.stm

As early as 2001 the US felt the need to manipulate what was
told to it's own, and other peoples, especially Muslim peoples.
But, when you're being bombed disinformation doesn't work
quite well.

Some question to ask oneself is why did the Pentagon and
Bush administration feel the need for a disinformation campaign
October 2001?

Secondly, when they closed it due to heavy criticism do you think
that that was the end of it?

I doubt it. They may have closed it down in name only, or done so
while they came up with a new one. But one thing is for sure; they
couldn't make it public.

Consider this quote by former Director of the CIA:
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance
in the major media."

By the way, Colby was murdered by the CIA for revealing what some
former Directors considered too much truth during a Congressional
investigation. One former Director (DCIA) Richard M. Helms 1966–73
called Colby a 'traitor.'

So, there are some givens. First is that the US felt as early
as 2001 that they could not conduct these wars without some sort of
lying, disinformation, managing the media campaigns et al. The big
point is to manage what is being put out, and above all to make it
seem like the source is legitimate.

Also, to confuse, discredit, and through all of these things push
your-the administrations-own propaganda and agenda through media
outlets.

As for Wikileaks it has already turned like-minded people, that is
people opposed to these wars of aggressions against each other.

But, what will help to discern what Wikileaks is truely about will
be what Julian Assange, or any of their leaders say, or don't say, that
is what topics they avoid. Also, what they do, and what they don't do.

So far, Wikileaks has dumped loads of data onto the mainstream media
and let them sort it out and see what is appropriate to publish. That
is the same organs like the New York Times, a propaganda vehicle for the
war party.

What they don't do is to demand:
--the resignations of the guilty and exposed.
-- war crimes investigations.
--an immediate end to the war.

If Wikileaks can expose so many other things that will
most likely never, ever get prosecuted, then why does Assange
avoid the GREATEST LIE: that 9/11 was a conspiracy, and inside job
as more and more American military officers are recognizing.

The cover-up of 9/11 is the greatest evil in one sense, because 9/11
was used as the pretext for an aggressive foreign policy by the US.

On 9/11 the US air defenses were deliberately neutralized to prevent
command units and fighter jets from responding to hijacking of planes
as they did dozens upon dozens of times in the years before.

I do not believe that any civilian airplane hit the WTC, or
the Pentagon. they were drones most likely.

And, while Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice et al said that there was no way
that they could have imagined that someone would hijack planes and fly
them into buildings. Their intelligence reports said that it would happen.

But the worst is that while they said those things after 9/11...on
that day there were four secret military operations conducted
with the scenario of planes being hijacked and crashed into buildings.

Yet post 9/11 the political and military leaders said that no one could
have imagined that planes would be hijacked for that purpose.

NORTHERN VIGILANCE took place on 9/11
'The morning of 9/11 began with multiple training exercises of war
games and terror drills which Cheney, as mandated by the president,
was placed in charge of managing.

'War games & terror drills included live-fly exercises with military
aircraft posing as hijacked aircraft over the United States, as well
as simulated exercises that placed "false blips" (radar injects indicating
virtual planes) on FAA radar screens. One exercise titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE
pulled Air Force fighters up into Canada simulating a Russian air attack, so
there were very few fighters remaining on the east coast to respond. All of
this paralyzed Air Force response ensuring that fighter jocks couldn't
stop 9/11.

They had sent fighter jets from the East Coast to Canada before 9/11!!!

Operation 'VIGILANT WARRIOR' had sent military fighter jets from the
east coast to Alaska!!!

Operation VIGILANT GUARDIAN...', simulated hijacked planes'
http://www.911myths.com/html/operation_vigilant_guardian.html

Operation NORTHERN GUARDIAN 'involved deployment of aircraft
from Langley Air Force Base(Maryland) to Iceland.

All of these exercises were planned several months before 9/11.
They took fighter jets and sent them to Canadaq, Iceland, Alaska et al,
anywhere, but where the attacks of 9/11 would occur.

The cover-up of what actually happened on 9/11 was a grave crime...

So, my question to all who support Wikileaks despite Julian Assange
saying that he is annoyed with the 9/11 truth movement is this: don't
you find that a bit odd?

Secondly, whose interest does it serve?

It serves the interests of the criminals who planned, and
conducted 9/11, and then used it as a pretext to invade Afghanistan
and Iraq.

AND DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE MILITARY EXERCISES ON 9/11?

DICK CHENEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK

Oh, by the way the BBC reported this US 'planned attack on Taleban'
by mid July 2001!

No comments:

Post a Comment