It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wayne Madsen: Wikileaks is CIA Front Operation

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

"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.


arthurzbygniew.blogspot.com...

[edit on 1-4-2010 by atreides]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.



[edit on 1/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by atreides
 


I dont claim to know who they are either way, but I do certainly know that the best way to discredit a 'conspiracy theory' site or group is this exact tactic.

Whats a conspiracy theorists worst nightmare? That they are being led around by the very people they are attempting to call out.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
You can say that about anyone..

Somebody could say your post is a CIA front, established to discredit wikileaks...

Doesn't mean either charge isn't true, but it's basically impossible to disprove. And at a certain point you just have to put a little trust into one organisation or another, until they do something to break that trust.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
You can say that about anyone..

Somebody could say your post is a CIA front, established to discredit wikileaks...



Somebody could say that. Someone can say something; anyone can say anything.

To have several people with real names, established backgrounds and independently verified - and verifiable - connections to the group in question such as John Young and Deborah Natsios say it, however, meets a higher standard of credibility.

Which is not to say it's true or not true. Simply that it meets a higher standard of credibility.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Duh...

Unless of course, you think sites like that would just "be allowed" to exist.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Duh...

Unless of course, you think sites like that would just "be allowed" to exist.


Since my original post we have had replies from one of two viewpoints:

Reply 1: OBVIOUSLY they're a CIA front, what are you stupid?

Reply 2: It's STUPID to believe they're a CIA front - anyone can make a claim like that, moron!

I would like to take this opportunity to solicit thoughtful comments and contributions from the rational, sane and lucid center.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Yup, this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better ...

In the world of the internet, where everything could be anything subject to one's imagination, circular thinking and everyone accusing everyone of everything for whatever perceived and/or real reason to obfuscate the truth is part of the "game."

Trying to pit Cryptome against wikileaks is a sound diversionary tactic if that is one's ambition, but it could also be true.

All this shows us really is that someone somewhere is doing something right and IS releasing valid and valuable information, or there wouldn't be so much thrashing and will to distract.

Of course the value isn't always where we're being pointed towards ... so much time, effort, and critical thinking is required to glean it.

All and all this is a good thing, just keep the eyes on the lady, this is a hundred card Monte.

[edit on 1 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
All this shows us really is that someone somewhere is doing something right and IS releasing valid and valuable information, or there wouldn't be so much thrashing and will to distract.


kudos --- my bets are on cryptome ... wikileaks can suck it

[edit on 1-4-2010 by atreides]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
It comes down to how far are they willing to go? If wikileaks is a front then they will never release a document that destroys government, or any operation they are involved in.
I think of it like a game of cards: They might give away the jack to catch the ace, but they will never willingly show the ace(if they are a front).



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by atreides

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Duh...

Unless of course, you think sites like that would just "be allowed" to exist.


Since my original post we have had replies from one of two viewpoints:

Reply 1: OBVIOUSLY they're a CIA front, what are you stupid?

Reply 2: It's STUPID to believe they're a CIA front - anyone can make a claim like that, moron!

I would like to take this opportunity to solicit thoughtful comments and contributions from the rational, sane and lucid center.


Ok buddy... as you wish.

Research Hal Turner...see how he was an agent.

Consider if such a thing could be happening with many alternitive medias, or do you assume the CIA only used one radical radio-show-host and said "that's enough, we only need one world famous loud mouth to work for us".

If it is fact that the CIA uses people in this way, to be mouth-pieces to help them identify "radicals amongst us", then bet your "pants" that they are using more then one "agent".

So... accepting this is true (if you do), the reasonable next step would be to "try and identify who is working for them in alternative media".

Unless you think all their agents are imaginary or "just not good enough to infiltrate the subject you love (conspiracy), then it is reasonable to assume they got a few more "talking heads of conspiracy" on the pay roll.

You would assume that before Hal Turner was arrested and outed as a government provocateur, that a bunch of nazis would be pissed off if you told them Hal was working for the CIA...sadly for them, he was...and they were unaware.

So...who else is unaware of the fact that their "highly dangerous fringe class" is being watched, studied and controlled through "clever tactics"?

Hey...maybe Hal was the first and only big-name that they ever owned! Right?

Maybe they only had enough money to purchase Hal and couldn't afford Glenn, Alex, Dace, Steve and all the other pot stirring media stars who are so inclined to promote our little "conspiracy hobby" on every network (and radio) on earth.

Maybe all these media people "endlessly making reference to these subjects as of late" are just like us...just curious or concerned.

Yeah...just like Hal.

Ok...I elaborated...happy?

Sorry for the short post...I just think its a simple thing to consider.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Mr Mask]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
ould it just be a ploy to discredit his old employer now his competitor and encourage regular wikileaks vistors to migrate to his new site.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Could it just be a ploy to discredit his old employer now his competitor and encourage regular wikileaks vistors to migrate to his new site.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Could it just be a ploy to discredit his old employer now his competitor and encourage regular wikileaks vistors to migrate to his new site ?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by atreides

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Duh...

Unless of course, you think sites like that would just "be allowed" to exist.


Since my original post we have had replies from one of two viewpoints:

Reply 1: OBVIOUSLY they're a CIA front, what are you stupid?

Reply 2: It's STUPID to believe they're a CIA front - anyone can make a claim like that, moron!

I would like to take this opportunity to solicit thoughtful comments and contributions from the rational, sane and lucid center.


Ok buddy...as as you wish.

Research Hal Turner...see how he was an agent.

Consider if such a thing could be happening with many alternitive medias, or do you assume the CIA only used one radical radio-show-host and said "that's enough, we only need one world famous loud mouth to work for us".

If it is fact that the CIA uses people in this way, to be mouth-pieces to help them identify "radicals amongst us", then bet your "pants" that they are using more then one "agent".

So... accepting this is true (if you do), the reasonable next step would be to "try and identify who is working for them in alternative media".

Unless you think all their agents are imaginary or "just not good enough to infiltrate the subject you love (conspiracy), then it is reasonable to assume they got a few more "talking heads of conspiracy" on the pay roll.

You would assume that before Hal Turner was arrested and outed as a government provocateur, that a bunch of nazis would be pissed off if you told them Hal was working for the CIA...sadly for them, he was...and they were unaware.

So...who else is unaware of the fact that their "highly dangerous fringe class" is being watched, studied and controlled through "clever tactics"?

Hey...maybe Hal was the first and only big-name that they ever owned! Right?

Maybe they only had enough money to purchase Hal and couldn't afford Glenn, Alex, Dace, Steve and all the other pot stirring media stars who are so inclined to promote our little "conspiracy hobby" on every network (and radio) on earth.

Maybe all these media people "endlessly making reference to these subjects as of late" are just like us...just curious or concerned.

Yeah...just like Hal.

Ok...I elaborated...happy?

Sorry for the short post...I just think its a simple thing to consider.


oh God, here we go ...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ukWolf
Could it just be a ploy to discredit his old employer now his competitor and encourage regular wikileaks vistors to migrate to his new site ?



(1) He (Young) was not an "employee" of wikileaks (to the best of my knowledge they have no employees - just volunteers - as it would require less anonymity than they like in the way of payroll tax processing, etc.); he was an unpaid member of their advisory board,

(2) His site (cryptome) was founded in 1996; wikileaks was founded in 2005



[edit on 1-4-2010 by atreides]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   



oh God, here we go ...



Nice retort from the guy who was "complaining" about "short replies".

I see you are programed to simply disagree and complain.

Fact remains....the government INDEED does use provocateurs.

So if they exist, as Hal Turner did...who are the others?

Surly someone we know of...it wouldn't work just using people nobody "notices".

Never mind...I can tell by the word count of your posts that you do not consider many things I am interested in "considering".

Good luck out there.

PS= welcome to ATS...I urge you to research the subject of "provocateurs within the government". You will learn things and then have more to say on the subject then "here we go".

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Mr Mask]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask



oh God, here we go ...



Nice retort from the guy who was "complaining" about "short replies".

I see you are programed to simply disagree and complain.

Fact remains....the government INDEED does use provocateurs.

So if they exist, as Hal Turner did...who are the others?

Surly someone we know of...it wouldn't work just using people nobody "notices".

Never mind...I can tell by the word count of your posts that you do not consider many things I am interested in "considering".

Good luck out there.


Thanks, you too! Have a great day.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/1/10 by niteboy82]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Well that makes me feel better.

Jeesh and I thought someone had outsmarted the guys in white.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

PS= welcome to ATS...I urge you to research the subject of "provocateurs within the government". You will learn things and then have more to say on the subject then "here we go".



Thanks, not necessary, though.

My issue with your contribution was not its content but its style.

When your contribution to the first-time revelation of an insider at a major-newsmaker that it is a CIA front operation is limited to an erudite elocution such as "DUH!" [sic] that tends to have a chilling effect on conversation among those who would like to discuss this specific situation in a serious, mature, tempered way.

Sorry this thread wasn't a good fit for you, but I'm sure there are many that will meet your specific needs.

Have a great day!
- a



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by atreides
 


I can't help but notice that the original source of this material, hyperlinked right at the top of the page you link to, costs $7 to access.

From my perspective, they are fear-mongering for profit, just like the SPLC when they recently implied people join militias because they hate blacks, while their directors collect $300,000 a year while the people they "help" (the victims of hate crimes, or actually mild annoyances in most cases since the KKK has dwindled down from 2 million to 2,000 members) get peanuts.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join