From the trilogy:

 

Have you ever wondered why Blair Howard and Bush have ALL written their "autobiography"?... One could suspect a collusion. And there is. It is a well orchestrated way to frame the debate about the Iraq war in a sea of other titillating subjects — including the foetus of George W Bush's unborn sibling his mother kept in a pickle jar or the sexual celebration of Blair's political victory, with Cherie. Like in a well tuned orchestra, Blair, Howard and Bush, all play an Iraq tune, with counterpoints and slightly different notes BUT IN HARMONY... The theme tune of the song is that "Saddam deserved to be taken out" and the WORLD IS BETTER FOR IT. Conspiracy? You bet.

They have the knack to absolved themselves from the most heinous crime: an illegal war... And the worst part is that the media at large is letting them get away with it...

So far I haven't seen any serious journalists  — even the small gang of renegades, Fisk, Loyd, Pilger, whose works are sharp but not penetrating the main media stream and even Gore Vidal — explain like I have done here that the way the US, the UK and Australia attacked Iraq indicates that the weapons of mass destruction was a crock. My major premise as mentioned several times on this site, is that one does not attack a country that one claims to have strong armament when one knows zip about the position of such strong armament... 

We also knew that Bush, Blair and Howard were lying before going to war against Iraq. The difficult part is to irrefutably prove this fact with proper DOCUMENTATION, and second, our debate "has been (still is)" framed by the mantra that Saddam was not a very nice fellow and that "we should be grateful" that Bush, Blair and Howard took him out. 

Bollocks. The act is a war crime.

This was a very serious act. Many people died. A country got destroyed. Many people got exiled. For no other main reason than "for the oil" and a "we did not like the guy" whim. Super crock. Bush, Blair and Howard should be in the gallows.

Iraq was a sovereign country. There are very strong rules and regulations in regard to the "legality" of war. In the eyes of the United Nations, the war against Iraq was illegal — and was NEVER SANCTIONED. The war was never approved as a UN operation, even if some countries were swayed by the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction supplied by the US. It was never sanctioned even if some Lord Whatisname in the UK gave a "legal" document to Blair who asked for one as he knew he was treading on very thin ice. The "facts" of weapons of mass destruction having been amassed by Saddam and the dangers these presented to the world did not stack up at any stage. There were never any facts, just conjecture and hear-say. On this alone, the war was illegal.

First, Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors could not find any weapons of mass destruction. Despite following the "detailed" CIA instructions as to where these where, the inspectors saw NOTHING, nothing even remotely like WMDs. Some of the CIA maps were deliberately badly drawn. The lack of success by Blix and his team was dismissed by the US with the explanation that Saddam kept moving the WMDs around or that they were very well hidden. Thus at any one time, the US "intelligence" had no idea where these weapons were — if these really existed. 

Saddam did not want war, thus he had released to the United nations a full dossier (10,000+ pages) on the elimination of his WMDs in 1991 and wanted Blix to carry on inspecting ANYWHERE Blix wanted to go and prove he, Saddam, did not have any weapons of mass destruction. Blix asked for an extra six months of inspection since Saddam had been more co-operative — a request which was denied by the US as the US wanted to attack Iraq before the summer kicked in, but in reality the US told Blix and his inspectors to get out of Iraq because the US did not want Blix to find "nothing anywhere" — because this would have proven that the US intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was a total crock. The US wanted war. 

The French and the Germans knew it was a crock. They knew Saddam had nothing for them to worry about. The reality too was that Bush, Blair and Howard knew Saddam had nothing for them to worry as well. But they had to make the story stick to frighten the masses of stupid people out there: us. THEY WANTED WAR. When Colin Powell did his PowerPoint presentation at the United Nations, the French (they were laughing) and the Germans had to guess that either Powell was stupid by not knowing he had been given bullshit evidence by his "intelligence" outfits or that he was in collusion with them by deliberately promoting bullshit as evidence. Any serious analyst of "deception" could have picked that what Powell was dishing out was bullshit. 

Blair's bluff got nearly unravelled with the David Kelly affair. David was about to expose (he had made some tentative noise about this but a journalist too eager for sensationalism exposed him too soon) that, in his field of expertise, Saddam DID NOT have any chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. David HAD THE PROOF. This proof was going against the "sexed-up dossier" that Blair was collecting against Saddam. So, David Kelly was "intimidated" (taken to court), "dismissed" (belittled as not knowing what he was talking about) then "eliminated" (even if David committed suicide, which is highly unlikely, he would have been subjected to very covert powerful psychological manipulations) so no proof against the "sexed-up" dossiers could be ever be considered properly. And Blair-the-liar could get away with saying that the dossier was not "sexed-up" in a very convincing manner only professional sociopath liars can get away with. (see double crossed)

Bush's bluff got nearly unravelled by the Valerie Plame affair. Her diplomat husband had discovered that documents used by the US government, to "prove" that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons, were fakes... She was exposed as a CIA agent by the said government as pay-back. That secondary event distracted the media away from the main game: in order to promote war, the US government was using fake documents — which the CIA and other spy agencies "had not found out they were fakes" — proving only three things: either the CIA and other agencies were STUPID OR they knew the documents were fakes but went along with them to promote the government's case OR they had created the fake documents in the first place. Either way, even before going to war, the "evidence" was that flimsy. 

In Australia, Andrew Wilkie, a senior analyst at the ONA, was less than impressed with the "evidence". A career officer, he could see that most if not all "evidence" showed not a bit of evidence and only relied on HEAR-SAY from Iraqi "defectors" who were being coaxed and paid into saying what the governments of the US, UK and Australia wanted to hear. Most of these "defectors" were in the network of Ahmed Challabi, an exiled Iraqi, who was PAID $US350,000 per MONTH by the CIA for his good work of providing "defectors" who would say "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, BUT PROVIDED NO real PROOFS, no hard evidence of the WMDs (some provided "plans" but a solid analysis of these plans would have proven they were crap, old or fabricated for deception)... Some of these "defectors" were offered as "exclusive interviews" to a "naive" — mostly eager for war — media, via CIA's "front-shops". Often the journalists would have been cherry picked, even chosen for their anti-war attitude (in a media generally eager for war), so that the message would crush (or seed doubts in) this possible opposition to war. All cleverly done. Andrew Wilkie resigned and spilled as much of the beans as he could — placing his life on the line — revelations to which the Howard government dismissed him as a second rate underling with no access to the FULL PICTURE of intelligence. See how it's done? Wilkie was belittled into the ground. Had he revealed anymore, he would have spend the rest of his days in a prison for treason under the official secrets act.

When the "weapons of mass destruction" mantra started to loose a bit of traction, the conspirators added the new mantra of "regime change". A bit more sauce on the pie so to speak... That in itself is a no-no in the United Nations charter. That is fully illegal under international law and is punishable with 'war crimes" offence.

So how all this fudge came to be acted upon?

With 14 intelligence agencies, 175 governmental spy satellites and 88 "privately operated" spy satellites (citation to come), the US alone had an intelligence gathering facility of enormous clout. How could thereafter the invasion of Iraq and discover there was no weapons of mass destruction there, the US government blame this enormous "intelligence" apparatus for the complete failure? How can we be led to believe this massive "failure"? Such failure is not believable. 

Any "intelligence" agency worth its salt is trained in the art of deception. That is the name of the game. Deception is their profession, whether in the analysis or the creation of. These agencies are geared to smell porkies 350 kilometres from above the earth. They are trained to flush a rat out of a sewer from 15,000 miles away. They have at least half a million of highly trained operatives with a skepticometer pushed to the max as not to be taken for fools... That one mistake is made is careless. That the "intelligence agencies" in three countries failed so miserably is a collusion of purpose. The brief from the US government was "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction — make it stick". They did, knowing well they were fudging beyond credibility.

One has to revisit these times in 2002, when standing on the ruins of the twin towers, Bush claimed with virulence that:"We will prove Saddam's guilt!". This of course was part of an orchestrated plot to claim that Saddam was involved in 9-11 — the destruction of the twin towers in New York and was friendly with Al Qaeda. Of course, while keeping a straight poker face, John Howard, tells us in his "memoirs" that Bush never claimed that Saddam was responsible for it. Bollocks! I have the front page of a reputable newspaper with the incriminating speech by Bush —also linking Saddam with Al Qaeda. Was Howard living on a different planet??? That is the kind of counterpoint that gives the other conspirators a bit of slack on the reality — all in order to sow doubt in our minds...

Nonetheless, the "anthrax affair" was also used by Bush to place more blame on Saddam while knowing within 24 hours that the strain of Anthrax came from US labs, not Saddam's labs. The investigation by the FBI led, several years later, to a lone weird guy who killed himself before the truth about the affair could come to light in court. How convenient. Although the FBI is nearly 90 per cent sure the fellow did it, there is no motive, nor reason for it to be done by him, especially in regard to provide an official tool for the government to link Saddam with 'evil" and terrorism... (seedouble crossed)

The last thing Saddam wanted was to promote terrorism on the US (or any other Western countries), as the US was his only safeguard against his "enemy" — Iran... 

More to come... Please visit also double crossed... harlot's intelligence... and any other relevant posts on this important site.

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

Note from double crossed:

A while after the beginning of the "war", Challabi was "tainted" by the CIA on false charges of fake currency dealing AND for "divulging sensitive information" to Iran (telling their codes had been broken by US intelligence —the Iranians knew that anyway but played along). In fact I believe the CIA was grooming him to become palatable in the eyes of the Shiite Iraqis so he could be elected to the Iraqi parliament and secretly carry on working for the US. The interesting factor here is that Challabi was tainted "TWICE" in order to reinforce his "liberation" from the exposed CIA clutches. To me it was a cheap trick. Sure, one needs more than one destructive aspect for a destructive attempt to be really successful. Striking from two directions at once, or in quick succession, is the way extinction works... Challabi's CIA's past was thus "erased"...

• By Gus Leonisky at 10 Nov 2010 - 1:29pm

 

 

Margaret Swieringa

 

Former prime minister John Howard's justification this week on why we went to war against Iraq in 2003 obfuscates some issues.

I was the secretary to the federal parliamentary intelligence committee from 2002 until 2007. It was then called the ASIO, ASIS and Defence Signals Directorate committee - which drafted the report Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Howard refers to this committee in his speech justifying our involvement in the war.

The reason there was so much argument about the existence of such weapons before the war in Iraq 10 years ago was that to go to war on any other pretext would have been a breach of international law. As Howard said at the time: ''I couldn't justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I've never advocated that. Central to the threat is Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons and its pursuit of nuclear capability."

So the question is what the government knew or was told about that capability and whether the government ''lied'' about the danger that Iraq posed. At the time, Howard and his ministers asserted that the threat to the world from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was both great and immediate.

On February 4, 2003, he said Saddam Hussein had an ''arsenal'' and a ''stockpile'' and the ''illegal importation of proscribed goods ha[s] increased dramatically in the past few years". ''Iraq had a massive program for developing offensive biological weapons - one of the largest and most advanced in the world.''

On March 18, 2003, foreign minister Alexander Downer told the House of Representatives: ''The strategy of containment [UN sanctions] simply has not worked and now poses an unacceptable risk.''

In his speeches at the time, Howard said: ''Iraq has a usable chemical and biological weapons capability which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents; Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons. All key aspects - research and development, production and weaponisation - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War in 1991.''

None of the government's arguments were supported by the intelligence presented to it by its own agencies. None of these arguments were true.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/howard-ignored-official-advice-on-iraqs-weapons-and-chose-war-20130411-2hogn.html#ixzz2QCvULvTI

 

In tonight's ABC Four Corners, at the end of the show from Panorama BBC, on the war on Iraq (2003) Curveball — asked if he lied to the Bundesnachrichtendienst (the German foreign intelligence), the CIA and MI6, about Saddam's weapons of Mass destruction — said he did lie and then smiled... I wonder why he is still alive after having caused so much grief... But did he? I suspect he might have been the trumpeter but there was someone writing the songbook.

 

The analysis of a lot of "intelligence" coming out of Iraq at the time showed to be either bogus or unreliable... if not manufactured. It said so in the reports. The person in charge of the first investigation, Lord Butler, into what "went wrong", was also a bit too cute in telling that despite the dossiers pointing out to a great uncertainty of information,  Blair misled himself that he was right, thus he "wasn't lying"... That is a lot of boloney.

 

Apparently, the dossier on the weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq were not "sexed up", but redacted down... The doubts were omitted all the way. Someone wanted war. Unreliable second-hand witnesses became primary sources of information and despite warnings from the CIA offices (possibly at the American Club?) in Paris that the intelligence was mostly bogus, Tony Blair, John Howard and Bush took it as gospel... Unforgivable... They lied. For them of course if you convince yourself that you are not lying while telling the biggest porkie in the world, then you are not lying... This is a pathetic lie...

In one of my article written 20 years and posted here on this site, I write about our amazing ability to lie to ourselves. We know we are doing it and in the context of dealing with a personal issue, there are times when lying to our self is the only way to hope...

 

But lying to our self and lying to millions of people in order to wage war with a flimsy excuse is unforgivable ...

 

The documentary bypassed a few issues, such as the David Kelly affair in the UK and the Anthrax affair in the US. As well there was no mention of Andrew Wilkie, who, after having seen the calibre of the intelligence, knew that it was totally unreliable at best and possibly bogus.. 

 

I stick by my comments that the war was a crock based on made up stories that could not pass spy school 101.

 

Blair, Bush and Howard wanted war. They only listened to what they wanted to hear... They lied about how to go to war. Their lies can be dissected lie by lie, especially along the tie line of events...

 

Meanwhile today:

 

 

At least 20 people have been killed and more than 100 others wounded in a series of early morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say.

Attacks were reported in Baghdad, as well as Tuz Khurmatu and Kirkuk in the north and Nasariyah in the south.

The co-ordinated attacks occurred during the morning rush hour and mainly involved car bombs.

The violence comes ahead of Iraq's provincial elections on 20 April, the first in the country since 2010.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

 

Poll: George W. Bush’s approval rating rising post-White House
By Meghashyam Mali - 04/23/13 07:53 AM ET

A new poll shows former President George W. Bush’s approval rating rising, four years after he left office and as he returns to the public spotlight for the opening of his presidential library.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Tuesday shows 47 percent approve of Bush, with 50 percent disapproving. When Bush left office in 2009 after his second term, his approval rating was 33 percent positive to 66 percent negative, one of the lowest figures among presidents.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295457-poll-george-w-bushs-approval-rating-rising-post-white-house

Obviously many people suffer from "publica tali hebetudine"... Memory deficiency and public idiocy...

 

Claims that the Moon landing was faked or that lizard people are taking over the world might seem harmless and even humorous, but philosopher Patrick Stokes argues that every conspiracy theory comes with a moral cost.

Earlier this year, the world marked the 30th anniversary of the Challenger space shuttle disaster and the loss of all seven crew. With the public captivated by the story of Christa McAuliffe, the first teacher in space, some 17 per cent of the entire American population watched in horror as Challenger exploded live on television.

Except it didn't really happen. The tragedy was faked. At least six of the astronauts are alive and well and hiding in plain sight. Why, they're even still using their real names, or variations thereof. Sharon Christa McAuliffe is now Sharon A. McAuliffe, an adjunct professor of law at Syracuse University. The public has been duped by a massive conspiracy for three decades, one finally exposed thanks to intrepid amateur sleuths scouring the internet for clues.

These claims are, needless to say, utter hogwash; the evidence offered is not merely flimsy, but laughable. (At least two of the people alleged to be Challenger survivors are actually siblings of Challenger crewmembers). And what sort of conspirators would fake their own deaths in front of millions of viewers but then keep their real names?

Even so, it's yet another illustration of the pervasiveness of conspiracy theory as a social practice—and the widespread desire to believe in them. If you think this all sounds like some fringe belief that nobody could buy into, consider this: for this theory to hold, NASA would have had to somehow keep a conspiracy involving thousands of people secret for three decades. Yet upwards of 6 per cent of Americans believe that NASA pulled off the far greater feat of faking the moon landings.

Read more: What are the odds of a moon landing conspiracy?

Conspiracy theories weren't invented by the internet. They go back at least as far as the elite reaction to the French Revolution, with a grand Illuminati-Masonic conspiracy theory taking hold on both sides of the Atlantic before the start of the 19th century. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories had tragic consequences during the last century, while today the Obama administration has had to contend with everything from demands for the president's birth certificate to state governments fuelling rumours of impending martial law. The consequences of conspiracy theories are, as they have always been, concrete and significant.

Most of us use the term 'conspiracy theory' to refer to beliefs we consider outlandish, paranoid, and almost certainly false. Yet strictly speaking this is unfair: on the simplest definition, a conspiracy theory is simply any explanation of observed events that posits two or more actors working in secret. Philosophers who have considered conspiracy theories as a class of explanation insist that there's nothing intrinsically irrational about conspiracy theory so defined. In fact, if we didn't accept the idea of a group of actors plotting in secret, we'd be unable to explain a host of historical events, from the assassination of Julius Caesar to Watergate. Conspiracies happen.

...

Perhaps the main challenge is to remember that conspiracy theories—if they're intended to have any purchase at all—are ultimately about real people, real events, real tragedies. Creating them is therefore an activity that takes place within the moral sphere, and is subject to ethical standards.

Seen in that light, it's not OK to accuse someone of fraud or worse simply because their very existence contradicts your favourite conspiracy narrative. The truth may well be out there, but the need for ethical care lies much closer to home. 

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/theminefield/the-ethics-of-conspiracy-theories-patrick-stokes/7251520

 

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

Patrick Stokes is an Australian philosopher, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Deakin University and a former Research Fellow in Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire. Wikipedia

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

 

Dear Patrick, your are treading on old boardwalk planks...

There are conspiracies and conspiracy theories... Both are difficult to detect but one is real. 

For example there was a major conspiracy in regard to going to war in Iraq in 2003.

The conspiracy was to produce enough fake information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction for the public to buy the war. This is not a theory. It's a fact. The conspiracy was set up by the Bush administration under the supervision of people from the Project for the New American Century, who included Wolfowitz, Cheney and the other mug called Rumsfeld. They succeeded brilliantly in selling us crap. I did not buy, I must say here and I did expose many of the tricks since 2002, but no-one would listen, especially our lying Rattus, John Howard who was on the conspiracy committee.

 

This was a conspiracy executed with the most pushy and sneaky skilled determination. Anyone in their right mind would have had to know that Saddam did not have anything as described by the Bush administration. Beyond this, the conspiracy was aided by a super-compliant media, which to say the least, the Bush administration would have known that the media (mediocre mass media de mierda) is nearly ALWAYS compliant when going to war. Wars sells papers, war sells weapons and needs ammunition replacement making war usually profitable for some people. War + media = profits. Conspiracy? of course. No question. Murdoch would have been one of the principal conspirator, though he would never admit to it.

It's always an easy target to debunk the concept of "conspiracy theory" by using the moon landing or such. Not new. It's old hat. Sorry, Patrick, you should have done better. This is lazy. Most (all) photographs and videos used by the conspiracy theorists have been explained even before the Mythbusters team got onto those theories. The harder theories to debunk are the one we really don't know about, including official economic fiddles designed to defraud us, the poor or average bourgeois, in favour of the super rich. These work a charm, including our governments saying they are going to do something about "tax haven"... Do you believe this crap? No.

Many conspiracies to defraud our perception of reality do exist and they often come from our governments massaging our media operators. The main one going on at the moment is the "conspiracy" about global warming. Here, I mean the conspiracy to destroy the real science with fake facts designed to "expose the conspiracy of global warming" and pushing easy lines such as "global warming is crap". Is there a conspiracy to make us disbelieve the science? Of course there is. It's organised disinformation. Even with Mr Greg Hunt telling porkies daily about Australia's CO2 emissions, by shifting the goal posts of measurement, while doing the opposite of what is necessary to do his job as required. Like letting new coal mining for example, with the "most stringent environmental controls" possible. If you believe this, you're dumb..

The main actors in this conspiracy are the fossil fuel producers and users, in bed with government — especially Liberal (CONservative) government. They use a lot of disinformation channels from all over the place, to disrupt what we should really know about scientific facts. The earth surface is warming. It's complicated to explain in a nutshell, but the reality is there. But they expect us to dither about it with their daily lies. Conspiracy. YES.

I have explained in the double-cross system what can be done to formulate deliberate lies, mostly by agencies and government to defraud us of the truth.

For example should we know about the art of warfare — which most morons, including those shooting nasties in video games don't know about — is that you do not attack anyone the strength of whom you don't know, nor do you attack them while not knowing where their "weapons of mass destruction" are. It is basic warfare. Lesson 101. This was a simple case of deception. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we don't know where they are but we're going to attack with foot soldiers after a volley of bombs on a Baghdad Restaurant. If this does not tell you that the whole thing was a crock from the start, then you are dumber than you look. Had Saddam got "hidden" or moveable WMDs, the US would have lost 50,000 men in the first week. The plan for war on Saddam was a conspiracy. A mega conspiracy, in which everyone was manipulated to play an unwitting secondary role by the main "conspirators", including Bush Junior, whose role was to sell the war.

Another conspiracy from governments is to blame Russia for the downing of MH17. No way. But the newspapers and their headlines create the hype that point us in the wrong direction, in favour of our foreign policy which is to bash Russia for everything, just in case. Conspiracy? May be, may be not, but at least it's a well orchestrated disinformation making sure all the instrument of government directive and mediatic spin are working together. Someone is greasy the spin and this very is close to a conspiracy.

Patrick Stokes lives in dreamland if he thinks conspiracies do not exist. I think he knows this. But he should be more careful in letting us know about the real conspiracies that underpins our governmental actions.

With these working to perfection, we become willing bunnies to accept the crap that is being told.

 

Read from top.

 

In the wake of the death on Wednesday of Iraq War veteran and computer security expert James Dolan, Sputnik decided to recall other whistleblowers that have passed away under rather vague circumstances.

1. James Dolan was a co-creator of the whistleblower submission system SecureDrop along with Aaron Swartz, who killed himself in 2013 following prosecution for an alleged criminal hacking incident. 36-year-old Dolan, who reportedly also took his own life, joined the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) after Swartz’s death. The circumstances of Dolan’s death are yet unknown, however the FPF reported that he had been suffering from PTSD since the Iraq War.

2. Serena Shim, a promising journalist working for Iran’s Press TV media outlet, was killed in a “suspicious” car crash in Turkey just days after she gathered information on Turkish support for Daesh (ISIS), claiming they were helping the terrorists commit heinous crimes. In 2014, Shim reported that she received explicit threats from Turkish intelligence services, and died a few days after confessing on camera that she was afraid of being arrested for “espionage.” Press TV has refused to consider her death an accident.

3. Michael Ruppert, former Los Angeles police officer, went public as a whistleblower when he exposed corruption within the police department and the CIA. He was found dead in 2014, reportedly dying from a gunshot wound, and was deemed a suicide. While he left a recorded suicide message, saying that he took his life so that the CIA couldn’t murder him, some still believe that he was actually killed.

4. In 2017, the German news journalist Dr. Udo Ulfkotte was found dead, ten months after he exposed collusion between the CIA and German Intelligence. Ulfkotte alleged that the intelligence agencies bribe journalists into writing pro-NATO articles. In his book, entitled “Bought Journalists,” Ulfkotte reveals the details of the US and NATO propaganda machine, claiming that those who refused to work for them could consider their careers ruined. He said most media journalists in the US and Europe were “so-called non-official cover,” implying that they worked for an intelligence agency. Among the fake news stories Ulfkotte claims the CIA ordered him to publish was one claiming that the late Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi was building poison gas factories in 2011. The 56-year-old journalist reportedly died of heart failure, however many believe that his bestselling book cost him his life.

5. David Kelly worked for the British Ministry of Defense as a biological weapons expert back in 2003, when the Iraq war started under a pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. When Kelly reported that no WMDs were found in Iraq, he was labeled a traitor by his colleagues, as well as by major politicians. Later in 2003, he was found dead with the initial report saying that he had overdosed on painkillers and cut his wrist. While some believe that he would not commit suicide, the government rejected any calls for an inquest into Kelly’s death.

 

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201801101060650388-whistleblowers-died-mys...

6. 7. 8. 9. n. These are only some of the whistleblowers known. Many have "not made it" as far or have been slienced without fanfare...

See also:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/34102

 

According to El Universo, the WikiLeaks founder has been given a citizenship card that corresponds to Ecuadorian province of Pichincha.

Per the outlet, Assange was given the passport on December 21, 2017. The report has yet to be confirmed by officials from Ecuador.

Incidentally, the Australian tweeted out an image of himself wearing Ecuador's national soccer jersey an hour before news regarding the passport broke Wednesday.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201801101060658881-assange-ecuador-passport/

 

See also:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/20269

http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/31389

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/26913

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/9586

The problem for both sides is that neither wants to lose face: Assange wants to be a symbol of resistance against an overreaching US state, and does not want to admit his asylum was about his personal actions and not those of WikiLeaks. Ecuador does not want to suggest it made a mistake in granting Assange asylum.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/julian-assange-ecu...

 

This rubbish is written by James Ball, a former Guardian special projects editor who worked with WikiLeaks for a few months in 2010 and 2011. 

 

As soon as Assange gets his nose outside the embassy, he will be treated like vermin by the UK authorities, arrested and deported to the USA on one of the CIA unmarked planes.

A confidential document found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop reveals that the United States Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden expressed concerns in 2010 that WikiLeaks would release classified US documents related to Sweden ahead of the September 19 Swedish election, tipping the vote towards the Pirate Party. The subject of the cable reads “Wikileaks: The Pirate Party’s White Horse Into Sweden’s Parliament?” 

On June 29, 2010 a US diplomat met with three members of the Pirate Party – which is described in the cable as a “mixture between communism and libertarianism,” yet whose members are “well-salaried professionals, independent from the party for income.” Two of the “pirates,” according to the report, were active in the “youth branch of the conservative party currently leading government.” 

The Embassy cable notes the “grim electoral outlook for Pirates” – as confirmed by a Pirate party member interviewed by the US diplomat…

“…Unless WikiLeaks Saves the Day…”

Two weeks after the cable was sent, an arrest warrant was issued for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on sexual assault allegations – which was dropped, then re-issued, then revoked again by Swedish authorities in August 2015 when they dropped their case against him.

read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/10/weiner-laptop-doc-assange-warrant-is...

 

WATCH: Robert Newman’s History of Oil

 

Read from top

 

 

WASHINGTON — Decades ago, the C.I.A. recruited and carefully cultivated a midlevel Russian official who began rapidly advancing through the governmental ranks. Eventually, American spies struck gold: The longtime source landed an influential position that came with access to the highest level of the Kremlin.

As American officials began to realize that Russia was trying to sabotage the 2016 presidential election, the informant became one of the C.I.A.’s most important — and highly protected — assets. 

 

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/cia-informant-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

A high-level US spy inside the Russian government was evacuated in 2017 due to fears he could be exposed by President Donald Trump, CNN claimed in a report the White House, Moscow and the CIA have all rejected as fake news.

US intelligence “successfully extracted from Russia one of its highest-level covert sources inside the Russian government” in mid-2017, the network reported citing anonymous sources described as “multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge” of the secret mission.

The operation was supposedly launched after the May 2017 visit to the White House of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, over concerns that Trump and his administration “repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy,” in CNN’s words.

During the meeting Trump reportedly shared with Lavrov and Kislyak “highly classified intelligence” about Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in Syria, provided by Israel. The CIA challenged that claim, however.

“CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false,” said Brittany Bramell, the CIA director of public affairs. “Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence—which he has access to each and every day—drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate.” 

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/468448-trump-kremlin-mole-cia-cnn/

 

All this is clear: Putin wanted Trump and... No. Let me rephrase this... Putin wanted... Err, where are we? Is this planet earth? 

"Eventually, American spies struck gold: The longtime source landed an influential position that came with access to the highest level of the Kremlin."

 

Are you joking? How does one source a spy in the ranks? Turn the bugger into a double-agent?... Exclusively feed him credible bullshit that resurfaces in the targeted country and bingo, you know where the leak is... Guess what? Had this fellow been a straightforward spy, he would not have lasted ten minutes in the Kremlin. Thus when the US discover they had been fed crap instead of gold, they had to "remove" him, because the Kremlin would have known all along and "played the game". Etc... etc.... 

 

 

Read from top.

 

 

Read also a lot of posts on this site about this subject.