It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Full Collection of Implicating Cables Against US / Israeli Interests to Show WikiLeaks is NOT CIA

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:11 PM
First off. No. I'm not a disinfo agent. If you want to delude yourself and believe so, then that is your prerogative, but what I am going to do is start a list of all the incriminating/implicating accusations that were uncovered by WikiLeaks in the Cable-Gate fiasco regarding the United States and her greatest allies.

My intention here is to build up a complete list (being updated as the cables are released) to show how it is not plausible that the WikiLeaks organization is directed by the CIA, seeing as these cables do nothing but hurt their interests. Assange has also recently released a statement claiming that Israel will be implicated by "sensitive cables" in the coming weeks/months. As of the date of this posting, I am aware there has not been a whole lot about Israel released so far, so please don't bash me for making that claim yet. Time will tell if the evidence shows that it doesn't make sense for them to be a Mossad psyop either, and I will add it to this thread as the information is released.

As far as I know, there is not an easy to read collection of the sensitive cables that hurt US interests so far. This is the goal of the thread. And for all the people that wish that the following information was never released, then who are you trying to protect?

• Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.
This intelligence campaign involves the collection of biometric data as well as personal information like credit card numbers to track diplomats and spy on them. This order was given by Hilliary Clinton herself and it has basically ruined her chances to ever run for president.

• Spain's El País focuses on repeated attempts by the US to curb court cases in Spain against American soldiers and politicians accused of involvement in Iraq war crimes or torture at Guantánamo. It highlights a series of cables relating to the possibility of Spain accepting former Guantánamo prisoners. Spain's political situation and public opinion made this "almost impossible", an official said.

In combination with this one about Germany: , it seems that the US government is desperately trying to pawn off Guantanamo bay detainees without any luck. Why would the CIA want you to know that?

• The US ambassador to Pakistan said the Pakistani army is covertly sponsoring four major militant groups, including the Afghan Taliban and the Mumbai attackers, Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT), and "no amount of money" will change the policy. Also, US diplomats discovered hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan earmarked for fighting Islamist militants was not used for that purpose.

Contrary to what some people think, saying that Pakistan is covertly helping the Taliban does NOT help the CIAs objectives. A war with Pakistan is not feasible (they are a nuclear power, btw, with a massively powerful military). All it does is prove that the Afghanistan war is NOT WINNABLE. Why would the CIA want you to know the war is an irreparable boondoggle? Oh wait, they wouldn't.

• The US praised former British Guantánamo detainee Moazzam Begg for his campaign to persuade European countries to take in remaining detainees from the prison camp.

Uh oh. More proof the US can't pawn off the detainees. It seems as though the rest of the world doesn't support the war on terror as much as the CIA would like to have you believe.

• The British government promised to protect US interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war.

Hmm. Do you think the CIA wants evidence of British cronyism revealed? I doubt it.

• The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has been sheltering the leader of the nationalist insurgency in Pakistan's Balochistan province for years.

I'm sure they want you to know that.

The paper has significant coverage of Pakistan, with a story that the Pakistani military and secret service are heavily involved in the country's politics and often work against US interests.

Like I said. The CIA doesn't want war with Pakistan. If you think that, you are insane. Just the opposite is true. They want you to believe that we are buddy buddy with Pakistan and that the war is going great. If the war is seen as not winnable then the public will want OUT. Can't have that, now can we?

• A subsidiary of the US private security firm Xe (then known as Blackwater) flouted German arms export law. It transported German helicopters to Afghanistan via Britain and Turkey without a permit because it was taking too long to get the German export papers.

Last time I checked, the US of A loves her some BlackWater. We try to coverup their wrong doings, not release them to world. Same goes for ALL the major corporations, as they use our intelligence / military machine as their own personal protectors, and the public as their personal ATMs.

• British and US officials colluded to manoeuvre around a proposed ban on cluster bombs, allowing the US to keep the munitions on British territory, regardless of whether a treaty forbidding their use was implemented. Parliament was kept in the dark about the secret agreement, approved by then-foreign secretary David Miliband.

Again. Why would they want you to know that? Actually, they wouldn't.

• Having helped to build up Georgia's military capabilities, the US made last-ditch diplomatic attempts to try to prevent it going to war with Russia in 2008. Washington's envoy to the Caucasus warned Georgia that war would "cost it valuable support in Washington and European capitals", while publicly George W Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, continued to give their unqualified support to Georgia.

This particular cable was highly underplayed. It shows that the US's standpoint on the Georgian war was a complete farse. They want us to believe that Russian invaded preemptively. This shows the opposite to be true. Georgia was armed and trained by Nato / Mossad. A diplomat tried to convince them NOT to wage ware on the Ossetians in an attempt to steal their land. This was all Cheney's idea to draw Russia into a war to give Mccain a boost (which it did, but was short lived because serious war was averted). Check this documentary for more info:

• One of the biggest objectives at the US embassy in Madrid over the past seven years has been trying to get the criminal case dropped against three US soldiers accused of the killing of a Spanish television cameraman in Baghdad. Telecinco cameraman José Couso was killed on 8 April 2003 during a tank shelling of the Hotel Palestine where he and other journalists were staying while they were covering the Iraq war. US diplomats held a host of meetings about the case with high-ranking members of the Spanish government.

Why would they want you to know that? Oh, wait.

•The British military was criticised for failing to establish security in Sangin by the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, and the US commander of Nato troops, according to diplomatic cables.

I thought the war was supposed to be going swimmingly? HUH?? It's not?

•The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, is erratic, emotional and prone to believing paranoid conspiracy theories, according to frustrated diplomats and foreign statesmen. He has also been accused by his own ministers of complicity in criminal activity, including ordering the physical intimidation of the top official in charge of leading negotiations with the Taliban.

I thought he was our MAN? Now he's a crazy old man who's not trustworthy? That bids will for the war in Afghanistan, don'tcha think? You really think the CIA wants you to know that? They want the war to go on forever. That was the plan from the start, anyway.

•A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan caused such panic that the interior minister begged the US embassy to try to "quash" the story, according a US embassy cable. The Afghan government feared the story, if published, would "endanger lives" and was particularly concerned that a video of the incident might be made public.

You think the CIA wants you to hate DynCorp? They get 95% of their revenue from the taxpayer. They are the contractors that are in charge of training the Afghan police, which are supposedly the ones that are supposed to win the war for us. Do you really think they want you to know about their scandals? Use your noggin'.

•The US military has been charging its allies a 15% handling fee on hundreds of millions of dollars being raised internationally to build up the Afghan army. Germany has threatened to cancel contributions, raising concerns that money is going to the US treasury.

•Berlin was irritated by a 15% administration fee the US sought to charge Germany on a €50m donation made to a trust fund set up to improve the Afghan army. A top German diplomat complained the fee would be a tough sell to taxpayers.

You think they want you to know that they are charging a 15% fee to steal money from that Germany "donates" to the war on terror? Hah.

•The US has lost faith in the Mexican army's ability to win the country's drugs war, branding it slow, clumsy and no match for "sophisticated" narco-traffickers.

You think they want you to know the drug war is not winnable either? Think again.

•The US is convinced that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan president's younger half-brother and a senior figure in Kandahar, is corrupt, according to embassy cables. He is described as dominating access to "economic resources, patronage and protection". Two of Hamid Karzai's brothers planned to ask for asylum in the US, while other family members stayed away and kept their money out of Afghanistan – so anxious were they that the Afghan president would lose last year's election.

How can we win a war when we can't even control the puppet president, or his family? It's humorous, really.

•Afghanistan emerges as a land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm. Describing the likely lineup of Afghanistan's new cabinet last January, the US embassy noted that the agriculture minister, Asif Rahimi, "appears to be the only minister that was confirmed about whom no allegations of bribery exist".

Sounds like a great region to try to win a war, don't it?

More to come. I'm only done with day 5 of the releases.

edit on 24-12-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:17 PM
Who said CIA?

Not me...

Wikileaks and assange are a front for NWO man George Soros.

We know wikileaks is not CIA..

We also know wikileaks has a hidden agenda to help bring in web censorship and laws against certain journalist.

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by thecinic
Who said CIA?

Not me...

Wikileaks and assange are a front for NWO man George Soros.

We know wikileaks is not CIA..

We also know wikileaks has a hidden agenda to help bring in web censorship and laws against certain journalist.

If that is your theory of why WikiLeaks is a false flag, then it falls flat on its face. If anything, the WikiLeaks fiasco is making the world stand up to defend their freedom of speech. It is analogous to Pearl Harbor. The US was attacked, and instead of making us weaker, it made everyone band together and join into the war. Journalists across the world feel attacked by the recent reactions, and have largely banded together to defend their freedoms in this same sort of way. Both Glenn beck and Keith Olberman have the same talking points regarding WikiLeaks in terms of freedom of speech. This should say something.

Or you could rely on paranoid delusions with no facts to back them up, and continue to disregard every bit of information released by the cables.

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:40 PM
Wow that was fast.

All they care about is seizing the internet, and in a global fashion. It is one step at a time for them at the moment. Then, while we are nickel and dimed to death for net connections as it morphs into the equivalent of your HD tv set, you know, 500 zionist channels, all trash and saying the same thing, and in various pay packages, they can get back to work on the politics of eliminating sovereignties. All that matters is how things are perceived.

It is, if you will, the turning of the crank that swings the cannon barrel back at our face. The net, used against us, imagine that, just as cell phone 'apps' are being bought (lapped up) so you can hands free tattle tale on anyone who flipped you off on your way to work. After all, only a cave man would be able to live w/o a cellular.

Of course they have to disseminate some truths about everything or the show wouldn't work. We already know that jews literally harvest organs, legally spy on our computers, our phones, and soon the energy grid. How can it get any worse for them?

It's a show. We are supposed to side with assange, the robin hood who brings us nothing, nothing but the loss of free speech, the right to communicate without persecution. Meantime, he releases what suits his needs, when it suits them. I don't want his scraps. Why not bust his ass like they did McKinnon? The whole thing is a crock, and I hope hannukah is ruined for tptb as they attempt to remake this charade in to something believable. Good luck with that. Didn't assange rape two women? lol

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by starless and bible black

"It's a show. We are supposed to side with assange, the robin hood who brings us nothing, nothing but the loss of free speech, the right to communicate without persecution"

a) What have you done for the world lately ?

b) Who brings us nothing ? Have you even checked out any of them ? Did you even read the ops links and quotes he had laid out ? Are you in in the same page ?

c) Robin hood ? again if he is robin hood what does that make you? the peasent he helps?

d) what do you know about free speech and its loss ? Its been happening long before any of this . The reason its losing is because of ignorance like yours.

e) This is a good op for the wiki leak haters . Maybe they can add a little basis to their hear say

new topics

top topics

log in