Something Smells Funny and Its Not Wikileaks

Something Smells Funny and Its Not Wikileaks

beforeitsnews.com

I've become suspicious of these articles [Wikileaks/Manning news] due to the repetitious nature of their content, almost as if some were cut and paste jobs assembled from a media talking point. One in particular a resent article by Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter, published on Monday, June 7, 2010 by Wired.com, titled US Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe.

...Like I mentioned, flags were raised alter looking at the abundant internet posts. I strongly believe the recent Manning arrest is in fact the operation discussed in the mentioned Government report.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Ok here it is folks, I strongly recommend you read the linked article, but in case you don't have time, I'll present the argument below as its quite clear that the arrest of Manning is indeed an attempt to stifle the efforts of Wikileaks.

Btw, I found this through Wikileaks twitter where a recent post was made linking this article: www.twitter.com/wikileaks

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


Most of us remember back in 2008 when a document was released via Wikileaks which showed that U.S. intelligence was making plans in order to bring Wikileaks down.

http://__._/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18_Mar_2008

From news source:
In this document the creator reports possible ways to discredit and/or undermine the claims that those who post documents to the site do so with complete anonymity. It goes further to detail a brief court win resulting in a two week shut down of the site, that was later overturned.

The document is available above, here are some key extracts:

-The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot
be ruled out.

-Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.

It even specifically mentions "Assange and others"

-Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers developed and applied a specific methodology for examining and analyzing the leaked TOE information, a methodology they then placed online to assist others in conducting their own research. See Appendix B. They also provided links to associated online reference material. The methodology used by Assange and other authors for the
analysis of leaked tables of equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan both a SQLite database is described in Appendix B.

The following are the key sticking points that make me believe we are seeing a staged false flag operation in action. They are doing exactly what they outlined in the report, and are trying to make a public example out of Manning, to discourage others from following suit.

An intersting take and one that I believe to be true... here is what really rings as obvious:

-Have you ever herd of the FBI allowing any details to be released pertaining to current investigation? What ever happened to, “Im sorry, we cannot comment due to the ongoing investigation.”? Instead the FBI admits to seizing two hard drives belonging to Manning so then can be analyzed to determine if the leak took place, and to what extent the damages.

-The wired article also publishes the transcripts of the communications between Manning and Lamo, that are obviously edited so why post them at all? If you really had the need, just post the relevant portions? Again they risk the investigation.

-The article then reports
“Manning’s aunt, with whom he lived in the United States, had heard nothing about his arrest when first contacted by Wired.com last week; Debra Van Alstyne said she last saw Manning during his leave in January and they had discussed his plans to enroll in college when his four- year stint in the Army was set to end in October 2011.”


Read More www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/#ixzz0r0Yvx2rN


With this info in hand, I proceeded to run her name through several free online people finder type sites, and attempted to confirm that Brad lived with her. I found her and relatives but no mention of Brad. I even attempted to locate his father who is also quoted in the article but was also unable to verify that Brad was ever registered to live in Oklahoma with his father.

This whole stunt is looking just like one massive operation to discredit Wikileaks and to deter anyone from working with them. The editor of the piece sums it up nicely:

Adding everything up, one can clearly cast doubt on the legitimacy of this story. It looks more like an attempt to flush out Wikileak members, while trying to get the public to form a general dislike for whistle blowers. As for Manning, he may or may not be in on the plot, we cant tell since he is being held over seas. How convenient.

Deny Ignorance. We're being played.

beforeitsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 16/6/2010 by serbsta]

the whole thing is phony.

cia front organization gaining credit for itself by falsely going after itself.

easiest thing in the world to do, playing the bad guy and the good guy at the same time.

matter of fact isnt that like their signature move?

I like where you are taking this. If it was my operation though I would have made sure that the leak also contained some information that seem irrelevant, but the Military would then later show it gave away some troop or operationally sensitive info that cost some lives. Then there would be a good backlash. As it is people are ready to revolt due to waste, incompetence and general bad governance anyway.

I'm still 50/50 we will have to see what happens with this new massacre video.

Originally posted by LurkerMan
the whole thing is phony.

cia front organization gaining credit for itself by falsely going after itself.

easiest thing in the world to do, playing the bad guy and the good guy at the same time.

matter of fact isnt that like their signature move?

wikileaks and it's people are not phony/cia.
I'd put money on it [if I wasnt poor]. lol
get over it.
just because most of our reality is riddled with conspiracies..
doesnt mean everything is a conspiracy.



Good thread OP..
well done.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Ahmose]

its the perfect front to quell all future leaks. whistleblowing is their only real problem, and what better way to get a step ahead of the game than to make everybody think your the central hub.

it makes no sense to put all your eggs in 1 basket, so i dont understand what the motive is behind this push for setting up a "whistleblower hq" in iceland, other than "them" centralizing the situation to have more control, even if it means giving up a video or 2 for clout.

on top of that cryptome.org (who also has more clout) seems to think its a CIA front as well. now ask yourself why a whistleblower hub would accuse another hub of not being legit? specially when the one doing the accusing has no financial motive, and the accused is more or less begging for money. seems counter-productive for 2 groups with the same cause.

and the biggest give away (to me) is all the sensationalism behind it all. every time wikileaks is going to release a movie they tell us 2 weeks before like its some kind of debut premier...whats with all the hype? just release the sh!t, if thats what your all about. stop asking us for money, it doesnt take any money to leak a document, hackers have been doing it for free for decades, and with all the free (social) networking its even easier than before. last time they said they needed $$$ to buy "computers to decrypt the government videos super crazy encryption algorithm"....another red flag.

until they stop treating this like a made for tv movie, i remain skeptical.

this is not how a real hacker would do it, and exactly how the cia would.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by LurkerMan]

reply to post by LurkerMan


I disagree with your whole premise, Julian has a clean record and is certainly not one to team with the CIA... Further, if this were a CIA front it would be a lot of more systemic in its approach and not so 'take it as it comes' like Wikileaks.

....

Just a second note on the OP, those conversations between Manning and Lamo that were posted on Wired, how sure are we that those were 100% verbatim? The thing that gets me the most, and I want your guys opinion on this, is the whole deal with the supposed 260,000 documents which Manning apparently leaked to Wikileaks. Isn't making up a lie like this a pretty good way of showing how insecure Wikileaks could be?

In surmise, parts of, or that whole conversation could have easily been setup as part of this whole operation with Manning which is clearly showing signs of being a disinfo/smear/stain campaign.

reply to post by LurkerMan


Yes, I thought ironic that cryptome.org would accuse wikileaks of being a counter intelligence operation.

There is also another accuser, Wayne Madsen(ex-NSA).

In counter intelligence wars, one should observe all sides very closely.

In the USA, when one agency tries to breach another's supposed jurisdiction is already problematic, imagine that between all countries' agencies...

reply to post by serbsta


so i take it you know the guy? or just what the internet has told you?

exactly what clout can you provide me of this man? i see nothing that makes him automatically believable. and even if im wrong, wouldnt it be wise to find out before we all go playing right into this hand?

the effects of me being wrong are minimal.

the effects of me being right are catastrophic.

maybe they are relying on the blind faith of this seemingly just cause, to succeed?

all i know is in my book, wikileaks is nothing more than a copycat of cryptome....which has been around way longer than wikileaks and has never asked for money.

so dont act like my notion is baseless.

reply to post by LurkerMan


We know of his history through the news media where he appeared heavily in the 90's due to being involved in the Melbourne hacking syndicate. Further, a book which was published a decade ago, titled Underground, was co authored by Assange under his hacking alias where he talked about his childhood and 'digital interests'.

So no, I don't know the man personally, but there is a lot of information on him. Notice that from the above two sources, none are from the internet.

thats funny because this internet link said all the same stuff you did. in almost perfect summery.

en.wikipedia.org... .

reply to post by serbsta

 

Just a second note on the OP, those conversations between Manning and Lamo that were posted on Wired, how sure are we that those were 100% verbatim? The thing that gets me the most, and I want your guys opinion on this, is the whole deal with the supposed 260,000 documents which Manning apparently leaked to Wikileaks. Isn't making up a lie like this a pretty good way of showing how insecure Wikileaks could be?

Definitely.

The conversations went from a shady
"hacker" [Lamo] (who in many 'real' hackers minds.. is not a real hacker at all).

He changed some text on NY Times website! whoahh! look out!
and the rest of his script kiddie crap was pretty much the same.

anyway... the conversation logs went from him, [and manning]
to the U.S. crooks, and that is what we are supposed to accept as how it really went?

I am sorry, but anything that is in the hands of the US gubbermint before it gets released to the public.. (especially something of this magnitude)
should be looked at with cynical eyes.

Definitely smells like $*!t to me.

reply to post by LurkerMan


Ermm... I did not pull any information from Wikipedia, that was purely just my own understanding, either way, does that make it wrong? :s

I'm confused, whats the problem here? My older cousin distinctly remembers seeing Assange (he had long hair back then) on the news constantly for about 2 weeks due to his involvement with the hacking syndicate, I can pull up Australian news footage if you wish. I also have a digital copy of the book, Underground, which he co-authored where he talks about his childhood, etc. All of this happened many, many years before Wikileaks was even envisaged.

He did not appear 'out of nowhere', if that's what you're asking.

reply to post by serbsta


thanks for the info, i apologize for straying from the point.

basically what im saying is, why should we take the side of wikileaks (still up in the air) over the side of cryptome(who is far more credible, based on their own track record) just because wikileaks has seemingly juicier dirt?

i think everybody is just attracted to the controversial films that just so happen to play right into contemporary public doubt/resentment towards an unpopular government.

its a wise chess move on big brothers part, that has successfully muted the only voice we should be listening to (cryptome). or at least distracted us from paying attention to the accusations, which are a big issue if you ask me.l

::edit to add:: think CoIntelPro and front groups like white supremacists, anarchist, and militias. the FBI and CIA have a long track record of heading organizations such as these. why would whistleblowing be any different?

[edit on 16-6-2010 by LurkerMan]

hopefully we wont need wikileaks or cryptome anymore as iceland just voted to make their country a safe haven for journalists - www.abovetopsecret.com...

this could be the start of something world-changing if those in the know will use it wisely.

Wikileaks is compromised.

I encountered that funny smell some time ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is a full blown stench now, even worse than the smell of crude oil in the gulf.

Ownership, control, surveillance, manipulation, data mining and more are a dual, and mutual relation between overt and covert entities.

But, hey who really knows?