Suspicions that Wikileaks is part of U.S. cyber-warfare

[mrbheem]

Suspicions abound that Wikileaks is part of U.S. cyber-warfare operations

WMR has learned from Asian intelligence sources that there is a strong belief in some Asian countries, particularly China and Thailand, that the website Wikileaks, which purports to publish classified and sensitive documents while guaranteeing anonymity to the providers, is linked to U.S. cyber-warfare and computer espionage operations, as well as to Mossad's own cyber-warfare activities.

Wikileaks claims to have decrypted video footage of a U.S. Predator air strike on civilians in Afghanistan and that covert U.S. State Department agents followed Wikileaks's editor from Iceland to Norway in a surveillance operation conducted jointly by the United States and Iceland. Iceland's financially-strapped government recently announced a policy of becoming a haven for websites that fear political oppression and censorship in their home countries. However, in the case of Wikileaks, countries like China and Thailand are suspicious of the websites' actual "ownership."

Wikileaks says it intends to show its video at an April 5 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC but that its presenters may be detained or arrested before that time. WMR's sources believe the Wikileaks "militancy" in the face of supposed surveillance appears fake.

Our Asian intelligence sources report the following: "Wikileaks is running a disinformation campaign, crying persecution by U.S. intelligence- when it is U.S. intelligence itself. Its [Wikileaks'] activities in Iceland are totally suspect." Wikileaks claims it is the victim of a new COINTELPRO [Counter Intelligence Program] operation directed by the Pentagon and various U.S. intelligence agencies. WMR's sources believe that it is Wikileaks that is part and parcel of a cyber-COINTELPRO campaign, such as that proposed by President Obama's "information czar," Dr. Cass Sunstein.

In January 2007, John Young, who runs cryptome.org, a site that publishes a wealth of sensitive and classified information, left Wikileaks, claiming the operation was a CIA front. Young also published some 150 email messages sent by Wikileaks activists on cryptome. They include a disparaging comment about this editor by Wikileaks co-founder Dr. Julian Assange of Australia. Assange lists as one of his professions "hacker." His German co-founder of Wikileaks uses a pseudonym, "Daniel Schmitt."

Wikileaks claims it is "a multi-jurisdictional organization to protect internal dissidents, whistleblowers, journalists and bloggers who face legal or other threats related to publishing" [whose] primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we are of assistance to people of all nations who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources."

In China, Wikileaks is suspected of having Mossad connections. It is pointed out that its first "leak" was from an Al Shabbab "insider" in Somalia. Al Shabbab is the Muslim insurgent group that the neocons have linked to "Al Qaeda."

Asian intelligence sources also point out that Assange's "PhD" is from Moffett University, an on-line diploma mill and that while he is said to hail from Nairobi, Kenya, he actually in from Australia where his exploits have included computer hacking and software piracy.

WMR has confirmed Young's contention that Wikileaks is a CIA front operation. Wikileaks is intimately involved in a $20 million CIA operation that U.S.-based Chinese dissidents that hack into computers in China. Some of the Chinese hackers route special hacking program through Chinese computers that then target U.S. government and military computer systems. After this hacking is accomplished, the U.S. government announces through friendly media outlets that U.S. computers have been subjected to a Chinese cyber-attack. The "threat" increases an already-bloated cyber-defense and offense budget and plays into the fears of the American public and businesses that heavily rely on information technology.

It is also pointed out that on Wikileaks advisory board is Ben Laurie, a one-time programmer and Internet security expert for Google, which recently signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and has been charged by China with being part of a U.S. cyber-espionage campaign against China. Other Wikileaks advisory members are leading Chinese dissidents, including Wan Dan, who won the 1998 National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Democracy Award; Wang Youcai, founder of the Chinese Democracy Party; Xiao Qiang, the director of the China Internet Project at the University of California at Berkeley, member of the advisory board of the International Campaign for Tibet, and commentator on the George Soros-affiliated Radio Free Asia; and Tibetan exile and activist Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang.

Our sources in Asia believe that Wikileaks ran afoul of their CIA paymasters after it was discovered that some of Wikileaks's "take" was being diverted to Mossad instead of to their benefactors at Langley. After a CIA cur-off in funding, "Daniel Schmitt" took over and moved the Wikileaks operation to Belgium and Sweden with hopes of making a more secure base in Iceland.

There are strong suspicions that Wikileaks is yet another Soros-funded "false flag" operation on the left side of the political spectrum. WMR has learned that after former Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) decided to oppose Soros's choice of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy Mark Malloch Brown as President of the World Bank, succedding the disgraced Paul Wolfowitz, Soros put the Wikileaks operation into high gear. "Daniel Schmitt" hacked into Coleman's supporters list, stealing credit card info, addresses, and publishing the "take" on Wikileaks. Democrat Al Franken, who was strongly backed by Soros, defeated Coleman in a legally-contested and very close election.

It is also believed by informed sources that Soros is behind the operation to move Wikileaks to Iceland. By becoming a power in Iceland, Soros can prevent Icelanders from paying back the British and Dutch investors in Icelandic online Ponzi scheme banking and continue his all-out war against British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has, in turn, targeted Soros for betting against pound sterling.

Iceland is classic prey for Soros. The Icelandic krona has been decimated as a currency and has no where to go but up in value, especially if the British pound and the euro depreciate. Soros is currently talking down the euro, planning its fall and shorting it, just like he did versus the pound in London in the 1980s. After the UK's and Europe's currencies are devalued, Soros will buy every euro note in sight, thus making trillions.

Soros and his Wikileaks friends have in Iceland a practically unregulated banking system desperate for an influx of capital -- money that will come from the exiled Russian tycoons in Israel, London and the United States. Israeli investors like Bank Leumi, and awash in siphoned-off Bernard Madoff cash, will do their bit for this smash-and-grab operation by Soros's Quantum-linked hedge funds.

With Wikileaks firmly ensconced in Iceland, the "brave" and much-heralded information leakers will run an international blackmail operation against Soros's foes and launch computer break-ins against Soros's business rivals and non-Quantum banks. Wikileaks will be used as the info-hitmen against President Obama's and Rahm Emanuel's enemies in the 2012 re-election campaign.

From Iceland, Soros will be well-positioned to gain control over the massive mineral resources under the melting ice sheet of Greenland. Under the ice are the only major rare-earth deposits outside of China and with such minerals at his disposal, Soros can control the world's electronics industries. This past week's volcanic activity in Iceland could, however, disrupt or destroy Soros's plans to establish and control a North American-European gateway in Iceland.

The following are some of the emails Young revealed in his exposure of Wikileaks's CIA connections (as well as to the Russian "phishing" Mafia, an operation run by Russian-Israeli Jews using Israel as a base) [Note: in the second email, "JYA" is a reference to John Young Associates]:
To: John Young
From: Wikileaks
Subject: martha stuart pgp
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:20:25 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: None

J. We are going to fuck them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a feint. Invention
abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere needed for protection. Hackers monitor
chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we.
Inxhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails a day. We're going to crack the world open and let it flower into something new. If fleecing the CIA will assist us, then fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedomhouse and other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 afghanistan. Almost all of india fed. Half
a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, worldbank,
apec, UN sections, trade groups, tibet and fulan dafa associations and... russian
phishing mafia who pull data everywhere. We're drowing. We don't even know a tenth
of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.
-------------------------------------------
From: Julian Assange
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:40:14 +0000
To: funtimesahead[a t]lists.riseup.net
Subject: [WL] cryptome disclosure

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]

No idea what JYA was saying!

It's clear to me however, that he was not trying to protect people's
identities with his xxxxx'ing, but rather trying to increase the
sexiness of the document. Perhaps he feels WL is a threat to the
central status mechanism in his life? I think he just likes the
controversy.

He may have done us a great favor. There's a lot of movement in that
document. It's a little anarchist, but I think it generally reads
well and sounds like people doing something they care about.

Btw, I suggest we be careful with Wayne Madsen too. He seems to be
another case of someone who was fantastic a few years ago, but
recently has started to see conspiracies everywhere. Both cases
possibly age related.

I am not spending any more thought on it. Next week is going to be
busy. The weeks earlier stories will be already done and that'll set
the agenda for the rest of the week, not jya's attention seeker.

I'm willing to handle calls for .au, although my background may make
S a better bet.
--------------------------

One of WMR's sources had the following thoughts about Assange's comments about this editor:
Careful: Madsen is up to no good concerning secrets concerning WikiLeaks.
Another Case of Someone: The writer has spent time in psychiatric institution.
Was Fantastic: Formerly On Our Side, Now becoming an Enemy.
Conspiracies Everywhere: the George Soros conspiracy in which WikiLeaks is a cog.
Both Cases: Here it is again, he's been in an institution.
Age Related: In 2007, the editor was 52 years old but with possible early senility setting in.

[Ry]

The fact that it was on the news at all lets you know that something is up.

[Muckraker33]

It's the oldest trick in the book to mix some truth with falsehood to peddle one's own spin on a subject and get people to support you. The timing is peculiar too, with Congress voting for more blood money on the same day "despite the leaks"

I think they are doing some damage control because they know that the true parts are pretty darn horrific, and people are getting pissed off. Then they are adding the phony crap so they can justify the former and so they don't have another "Iraq". They are desperate for coming up with a legitimate reason for killing so many people. So Hitler-esque....it is nauseating...

[Muckraker33]

The question is, is Bradley Manning in on it too? Could very well be, and then again, perhaps not.

I guess, like Ry said, if it is getting MSM coverage, it may not be true. (I would love to say that it just definitely isn't, but occasionally a true story slips through the cracks---or it used to)

[Drew J]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is 'annoyed' by 9/11 truth
Submitted by SnowCrash on Thu, 07/22/2010 - 6:22pm
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/w ... -911-truth

"Wanted by the CIA: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange"
Belfast Telegraph, July 19, 2010

In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about "conspiracy theories". Assange subsequently explains his position.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "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." What about 9/11? "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? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

Mr. Assange seems to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 may be, in a very concrete sense, a 'conspiracy for war', leading directly to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the permanent "War on Terror".

In November 2009, Wikileaks released "half a million US national text pager intercepts" covering a "24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington."[1] This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange's rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?

Perhaps it should be pointed out to Mr. Assange that former senator Bob Graham, who chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it performed its Joint Inquiry[2] into 9/11, gave an interview to the BBC in which Graham said the following:[3]

Bob Graham: "I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."

Narrator: "Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the administration."

Bob Graham: "I called the White House and talked with Ms. Rice and said: "Look, we've been told we're gonna get cooperation in this inquiry and she said she'd look into it and nothing happened."

Interviewer: "Was there any sort of sense of embarrassment or apology or...?"

Bob Graham: "No. Embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current White House."

Narrator: "So it was a conspiracy to cover-up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead up to 9/11?"

Bob Graham: "If by conspiracy you mean, more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person and there was some ... collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public's hands."

The BBC then concludes their documentary with a reassuring, paternalistic commentary explaining why this isn't something we should all be furious about. Furthermore, in 2009, 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said, in a candid dialogue with We Are Change LA:[4]

Bob Kerrey: "It's a problem... it's a 30-year-old conspiracy"

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: "No.. I'm talking about 9/11"

Bob Kerrey: "That's what I'm talking about"

Many interpretations could be given as to what sort of conspiracy these two former senators are referring to. The BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" was an obvious hit piece against 9/11 truth, in which the BBC went out of their way to handwave all abnormalities as 'blunders', 'failures', 'mistakes' and 'cock ups'. This angle is not new, in fact, it's part of a long BBC tradition of 'limited hangouts'. Nor is it any less outrageous if it were true that these 'blunders' and 'gaffes' were deliberately covered up, as the BBC and Bob Graham allege. A criminal cover-up alone warrants criminal prosecution of the conspirators involved, and most 9/11 researchers know this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Bob Kerrey's remark could be taken to mean the covert funding and training of the Mujahideen, initiated in 1979.[5]

Nobody is asking Mr. Assange to depart from his objective role, but now that he has spoken out, he deserves a reply. In both cases, clearly the terminology used is "conspiracy" or "cover-up". Bob Graham doesn't hold back and mentions "withholding of (..) secrets", chastising the Bush administration for being unapologetic, self-serving and obstructive. So it seems that Julian Assange, as the founder and director of an organization supposedly dedicated to supporting whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing, has his work cut out for him, unless he is determined to be part of the problem. The perception management and misguided credibility building Mr. Assange seems so concerned with conflict with the stated mission of Wikleaks:[6]

"WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public."

9/11 cover-up that "led to the heart of the administration" is worthy of Wikileaks' attention. Or is it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] "9/11 tragedy pager intercepts" — http://911.wikileaks.org/
[2] 9/11 Joint Inquiry — http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
[3] Relevant excerpt from the 2007 BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6QLnvvyIzg/
[4] We Are Change LA: "9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it's job"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45
[5] Operation Cyclone — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
[6] http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:About
[7] Documentary "Sibel Edmonds: Kill The Messenger" — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5569143497
[8] Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg together — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSbmRHqKL4

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/29 ... idnt-know/

LAME “LEAK” SITE NOTHING MORE THAN THIN COVER FOR “THE TEL AVIV TANGO”
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Now “Wiki-Leaks” is busy selling phony bin Laden stories, having the long dead Osama humiliating the CIA by running around villages in Afghanistan selling vacuum cleaners. What is our “leak” site really about? This is a dead news cycle. The World Cup is over, lots of people on holiday and no major stories. Only in a dead news period like this, as Oliver Stone pointed out, could the Israeli controlled media dump a pile of lame rumors mixed in with box loads of chickenfeed, passing it off as the story of the century.

Even the cover story, the mysterious Assange fleeing the murderous CIA, working to save the world is lame. WikiLeaks is lame. Please, everyone, go to the site and read everything there. I have seen more confidential information on a weather report. Assange is hardly a James Bond figure. Woody Allen is masculine in comparison.

Journalists all get leaks, and frankly, we don’t print most of them. Some we can’t trust. Some are just too dangerous. Some are simply illegal. Some are blatantly self serving Israeli propaganda coated with a veneer of anti-Americanism. This is “Wiki-leaks” material. What is important is what they don’t print. The only things that come out about Israel, the country most vulnerable to leaks, the country always up to the most skulduggery, is an occasional harmless story like their major leak on East Jerusalem settlements. It hit the New York Times first.

When you read Mr. Assange’s output, you are looking at one of the Mossad games, nothing more. They send some stories to Fox News, some to CNN, some to the Washington Post or London Times. They have their pick as their friends and co-workers own those outlets and so many more. The game today is using Wikileaks, given its 15 minutes of fame for trashing the US in Iraq with the helicopter video, to spread imaginary stories about Pakistan, the only nuclear power in the Middle East capable of standing up to Israel and the enemy of India.

India is what it is all really about. Israel is playing India for a fall, drawing them into their games they way they did with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. India will wake up with their government bought off, blackmailed, up to their neck in wars and insurgencies at home and fighting Israel’s enemies abroad. India is the next real target for rape, destruction, destabilization by Israel and our “Wiki-leak” is part of that game.

Another chosen victim, of course, is the United States, hated enemy of Israel, not for public consumption, however. Check the names of those who looted the American economy. In the top dresser drawer of 80% of those who took the US into bankruptcy, you will find an Israeli passport.

Did anyone ask why nothing was reported in 90,000 pages regarding the massive drug dealing in Afghanistan? With stories in the press around the world reporting that President Karzai and his brother are the biggest druglords in the world, why would this not be mentioned? Is it because Karzai is a good friend of the Indo-Israeli alliance that runs Wiki-leaks?

Classified Army documents are filled to the brim with reports that the CIA and their private contractors are involved in drug operations with Karzai but also other names are named including many prominent Americans, some members of congress. I won’t leak their names but I know they are in the documents. If Wiki got what they say they got, then most of their documents would have reported corruption, drug dealing, governments of a dozen countries would have been mentioned.

If real leaks were made public and we did something about it, first by arresting the gangsters and spies filling congress, the White House and every federal agency, we might balance our budget but who would be left to do the Sunday morning talk shows? If you want the names of those who would really be on leaked documents, check your TV listings. It isn’t a coincidence. Those chosen to lie on television are also being paid for other duties as well.

Israel would have been cited for laundering drug money for the Taliban. It is in the documents. I didn’t release them. That is illegal.

BG Asif Haroon Raja of Pakistan, former Attache to Egypt and respected intelligence analyst had the following to say about the Wiki barrage:

“Unsubstantiated and fabricated allegations against Pakistan and its premier institutions are so absurd and decayed that it gives nausea to the reader. Only ones who enjoy the stale jokes are its manufacturers or the game players. ISI-Taliban closeness has been drummed up in such a manner as if it is the biggest sin ever committed. Each time it is presented with a new flavor to make it look more breathtaking. This unholy practice has been going on systematically and incessantly for the last six years to condition the minds of the world audience and to convert falsehood into truth. Story of this nature is routinely published in western media every fortnightly.

In the last few months write ups on this subject have suddenly gained impetus. Previously, accusations were in the form of allegations made by newspapers and think tanks. Now top US civil and military officials have jumped into the arena with loins girded up and have started using high handed tactics openly without caring for diplomatic decorum. Propaganda assault together with verbal assaults by visiting officials and drone attacks have become a norm. They have become xenophobic and overbearing. This can be gauged from the mood of the three US visitors who visited Islamabad recently.

Prickly Hillary Clinton can see ghost of Osama sauntering in Pakistan each time she lands in Pakistan . Through her lens she sees ISI in cahoots with Taliban. She again reminded our harried rulers that any attack on US homeland with connection to Pakistan would have devastating consequences upon Pak-US relations. She conceitedly dangled few carrots to make them do more. Grim looking Holbrooke and tense ridden Adm. Mike Mullen harbored similar ideas. The trio wanted Pak Army to cut off its entire links with Taliban, consider Indians as friends and to promptly launch an operation in North Waziristan to chase out Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the two outfits most dreaded by USA . LeT has been put on the hit list to please India .

Wikileaks is a follow up of London Report and some of the objectives behind it are to keep Pakistan pressured and cornered, authenticate Indian allegations about ISI’s involvement in various acts of terror in Afghanistan, demonise LeT and defame ISI, exert pressure on Obama Administration to affect a change in its policy of softness towards Pakistan, reconciliation with Taliban and withdrawal of coalition forces. India together with Northern Alliance and pro-war American senior officials are possibly behind the Wikileaks scandal. This report is less harmful for Pakistan and more injurious for USA since source reports on Pakistan mostly provided by RAAM and RAW agents were never taken seriously by the receivers. Receiving officers have been noting their remarks on such reports as lacking in authenticity, biased and devoid of credibility. Moreover, such manipulated leakages would further widen rather than build trust gap between USA and Pakistan .”

When Joe Biden and General Petraeus both reported that Israel was endangering American troops, the classified portion of this involved Israeli operations in Afghanistan, which are extensive. Why would General Petraeus have gone to congress about Israel if he didn’t have documents? We couldn’t manage to leak those also? They are all over Washington, anyone could pick them up. They just don’t. Ask Oliver Stone why.

Hundreds of pages of reports of Israeli and Indian operatives in Pakistan’s region called Baluchistan were tossed out also. Their involvement in terrorism, not only against Iran but working directly with the Taliban in Pakistan was there but not included. So much wasn’t included.

Nothing involving drug flights being serviced by Israeli companies was released. It was in the files. If we really want to leak things, they are out there. It can get bloody.

Wikileaks leaves a trail of stench from Mr. Assange right to Tel Aviv. If anyone couldn’t see it, the corporate press or the Israeli press or the Zionist press or whatever the current buzz word is for the useless press, they put you on the path. They are the ones putting a spotlight on the disinformation and failing miserably to note how obviously the leaks have been edited to serve Israeli games.

Wikileaks is Israel. Assange works for them, I hope not unwittingly. I hate it when people are duped. I would rather he were paid or being blackmailed. I always want the useless to be rewarded in this life because, just in case their is another one after this, they know what they can expect there.

It won’t be pleasant.

I didn’t want to write this, add to the problem. Even negative publicity is publicity. Every time I am attacked, my readership goes up dramatically. It almost encourages one to be abrasive and unnecessarily controversial, like with Fox News.

Let’s cut this short. Wikileaks is simply another ploy by the ultra powerful Israel lobby, a cheap game meant to humiliate the United States, destroy Paksitan and build a reputation for a puppet. I suspect it will fail. I hope this effort is useful in that endeavor.

[mrbheem]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xvld2WEafEE&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xvld2WEafEE&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[Ry]

It's easy for the MSM to cherry pick from the 92k logs and make a case for invading Pakistan. Also people have already hit the site and combed through it to reveal many of their sources who were supposed to be anonymous. What a clever way to entrap honest soldiers, by allowing them to leak to a "safe source" who then leaks info on them too and cries accident.

Just the fact that the MSM made such a stink over it where as other reports on the same nonshocking revelations that we all know about, don't make the news at all.

[Ed]

Yes I have to admit i was suspicious when it started getting so much attention. When all the focus started shifting to things like the Taliban being supported by pakistan and so on.

Nonetheless, the feeling I get here in the UK at least is that this has not helped the case for the war in Afghanistan whatsoever. People are becoming increasingly fed up and just want to see an end to the whole thing or at least see some end in sight. Mind you, it doesn't matter a whole lot what people think here with regards to the wars. Our government is gonna keep tagging along with the US...

[Ry]

When they said Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2006 is when the bull shit really hit the fan.
Toss wikileaks in with wikipedia.

[neoConSlayer]

When they said Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2006 is when the bull shit really hit the fan.
Toss wikileaks in with wikipedia.

Bait and switch at its best, give us something trustworthy like that atrocious massacre drone videos, build some credibility, and it took wikileaks a bit of time to build this credibility. and its all flushed down the toilet in a few hours. it takes a lot less time to lose credibility than it does to gain it