The Pentagon speculates that Wikileaks.org is supported by CIA.

NY Times - Pentagon adds Wikileaks.org to list of enemies threatening the security of the United States

-Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the Army’s report, to Mr. Assange, was its speculation that WikiLeaks is supported by the Central Intelligence Agency.. “I only wish they would step forward with a check if that’s the case,” he said.

So, our own military headquarters suspects that CIA has got something to do with Wikileaks…

Interestingly, the link to the Penatgon report (pdf file) as reported by The NY Times (file....__._/files/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf) doesn't work anymore. I guess the file was removed???

jhc. i roll my eyes at all the incessant claims of disinfo in this matter ... and others. however, it does seem whatever the case may be, there are certainly shenanigans going on in influencing how wikileaks is perceived, n'est-ce pas?

The magicians at the "pentagon" are now sitting down to talk to us. Wow it's tri-une psy-op of mass mind entanglement!

Originally posted by Hadrian
jhc. i roll my eyes at all the incessant claims of disinfo in this matter ... and others. however, it does seem whatever the case may be, there are certainly shenanigans going on in influencing how wikileaks is perceived, n'est-ce pas?

As you say: "the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle."

There's definitely something screwy going on, particularly if own military believes that CIA is assisting Wikileaks with obtaining info...

To me, those are the sounds of a Pentagon-CIA catfight over Afghanistan.

I have no first-hand knowledge, but I'd bet that the DOD and CIA are extremely pissed off at one another for reasons which are not public, but related to differences of opinion (and operational competence) regarding Afghanistan.

So the Pentagon thinks Wikileaks is being fronted by CIA (or supplied information) to make DOD look bad or ineffective, so that CIA can have its plans look better. Also the CIA station was bombed by Taliban killing quite a number, and maybe they thought it was Army screwups which led to it.

Remember that the beginning of the Afghan war in 2002 was CIA, not DOD (Rumsfeld held back DOD troops because he had already decided that they were going to invade Iraq), and for one month, it was very successful.

No doubt DOD thinks of CIA as privileged asshats who don't want to deal with the heavy lifting of logistics and dealing with the reality and cleaning up the messes made.

Notice how the Wikileaks shows apparently only Army documents?

Originally posted by Hadrian
jhc. i roll my eyes at all the incessant claims of disinfo in this matter ... and others. however, it does seem whatever the case may be, there are certainly shenanigans going on in influencing how wikileaks is perceived, n'est-ce pas?

In addition, I think what all of the accusations of "disinformation" have lacked is some credibility. It's all been bloggers opinions, etc.

This is a Pentagon report.

duh.
how *snip* stupid.

Of course the military is going to talk *snip* about wikileaks,
wikileaks is making them look worse than ever.

all it takes is a handful of people who are easily swayed,
(like some of you), to go and spread the BS around.



Sometimes I have hope for this world,
but not lately.

*snip*

Newsflash~ The CIA, the military, the government, the fbi, feds, etc etc etc, are all the same *snip* BS!

One "agency" says one thing, and you people automatically take it and run with it.

The US MILITARY~ the largest gang on Earth~ say something 'bad' about some folks who are showing everyone their true colors~ and you people accept it?

The CIA, Military, and all the rest of them....
are the same fn gang.

HELLO?
ATS?
You awake?

no?

Didnt think so...
jesus christ.



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Courtesy Is Mandatory - Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/29/2010 by maria_stardust]

reply to post by Ahmose


This is not the thread your looking for *does jedi mind trick hand*

I know what you're saying man, my point was though, that the co founder of wikileaks was kicked out for criticizing their amassing of funds among other things. It's just weird I think it's quite foolish to take sides of anything as populist as wikileaks. "hay guys just fightin the nwo, check their docs, later" yea it's got to be legit. you're a joke.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by depth om]

What bs is anyone spreading, you've effectively taken a crap in this thread for no real reason at all.





[edit on 29-7-2010 by depth om]

reply to post by Ahmose


i don't necessarily disagree with your intent, but the suggestion that all factions of the us federal government work in unison and are aware of each other's diabolical plots is, to me, absurd, and further out there than the average post on ats ... and we know that's saying a lot.

Or the pentagon wants people to stop paying attention to wikileaks so they try to make them out as disinfo.
No way to know for sure, not anymore atleast.

So, you don't deny what's pointed out here, but you do ridicule me, which is a poor tactic.

Wouldn't be the first time something like this happened.

The Pentagon's group ABLE DANGER was hot on the trail of 9/11 hijackers.

www.coreofcorruption.com...

So, either military intelligence, which has access to the most awesome and fearsome annual budget the world has EVER known, believes that Wikileaks has CIA cooperation, or it is engaging in disinformation/counterintelligence.

Which is it? The naysayers cannot have both.

reply to post by MarkusMaximus


I think it's all a circus, if it's on the news like this they are implanting this cluster of memes to make us do something, I don't know what.

I dont think Wikileaks was intentionally setup as a CIA front, that being said, the way Wikileaks operates leaves it vulnerable to infiltration through the transmission of manipulated and framed materials. The only relationship that could exist between CIA and WL is one that exists through the actual leaks being released, i.e. the recent 'war logs' could have been manipulated and intentionally released in its current format. Is there a secret agenda at work with Pakistan's allegiance being brought into question via the leak? I think those are the kind of details you have to look at in order to draw patterns and to see whether or not it really is a propaganda front... I don't think it is, but its plausible.

The Pentagon has to spin this to make it look like they're the victims of a smear campaign from on-high.

Simply put, the docs were leaked by some 22-year old, slighty ditzy kid who had access to them, preaching some half-thought out idealism, without considering the ramifications of what he was doing, leaking them to a web site that saw the potential for self-glorification basking in all the media attention they would be sure to gain, and without considering what they were doing either. Maybe the reasons they were leaked or the manner in which they were leaked weren't so noble, but that shouldn't detract from the possibility these docs may contain evidence of war crimes.

Blaming it on the CIA? That's just stage 1 of denial for the joint chiefs of staff.

edit to add: Like Serbsta says above, Wikileaks will publish whatever it's handed, meaning anyone could plant bogus material with them. They don't vet anything. But it's asking too much to accept they're a CIA front.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Blackmarketeer]

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The Pentagon has to spin this to make it look like they're the victims of a smear campaign from on-high.

Simply put, the docs were leaked by some 22-year old, slighty ditzy kid who had access to them, preaching some half-thought out idealism, without considering the ramifications of what he was doing, leaking them to a web site that saw the potential for self-glorification basking in all the media attention they would be sure to gain, and without considering what they were doing either. Maybe the reasons they were leaked or the manner in which they were leaked weren't so noble, but that shouldn't detract from the possibility these docs may contain evidence of war crimes.

Blaming it on the CIA? That's just stage 1 of denial for the joint chiefs of staff.

I reqlly like your point about the military heads scapegoating CIA. You mention as step one...Any thoughts what they might do if this escslates?

After the denials, we'll get the scapegoating, the handful of junior military personnel dragged out and prosecuted - no top brass, just underlings or enlisted (shades of Abu Ghraib anyone?). The Pentagon could obfuscate the affair by releasing additional documents contradicting what's already out there. Any witnesses that might exist capable of disputing the Pentagon's claim will simply disappear. Expect to see a spike in military suicide rates. Tapes, videos, paper trails, witnesses, all will start disappearing. I'm sure as we speak the shredder at the Pentagon is in high gear...

Also, when you have "actionable intelligence" you keep it close to the vest and act on it. You don't make a press release about it, tipping off that "you're on to them". Blurting something like this out will give the CIA chance to work on plausible deniability and cover stories - if it were true.

The only reason the Pentagon would have for making a statement like that is to SWAY PUBLIC OPINION.

I could still see Wikileaks as an intelligence front....Wouldn't any government like secretive information about other countires?? Why not set up a non-biased website so the snitches come to you??