posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:21 AM
reply to post by smurfy
You misunderstand. The point I was making was that this issue, and many others, have been out there and discussed for years. It doesn't need
Wikileaks to give it any credibility, it had that all along, but the MSM chose to ignore it, like they do so many times with big issues that have a
national or perhaps even global impact.
I stand by my opinion that Wikileaks is nothing more than a controlled intel setup, especially given it's scope of information, which would not have
all been stored in the same location, or even on the same network system.
Investigations by some of the bloggers, alternative media journalists and even some of the very few remaining MSM journalists with an ounce of ethics
have put it out there, naming names, but have been ignored, ridiculed or even (in the case of one article on Monsanto) been sacked.
The ridiculing by the MSM always seems to include talk of "conspiracy theories", like it's something deserving of laughter and not at all credible.
Yes, some of it is a bit "out there" (and I am sure some of it is deliberatly planted to derail serious investigation), but so much over the years
that has been ridiculed and dismissed has turned out to be correct.