WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
This is my direct reply to the following linked article by Deborah Dupre, Human Rights Examiner:
Look, the title of this article is, "Capt. Hanley's '911 Inside job-No Muslims' shows WikiLeaks Psyop." Now consider the following logic: Geraldo Rivera was anti-9/11 Truth for nearly a decade. Only within the last month has he even begun to entertain the idea that he was mistaken about 9/11. Was he therefore a Mossad asset all that time? It is not a logical conclusion based upon the premises. At the same time, it also doesn't prove he wasn't either; but the burden of proof rests with the accuser in this case. The same applies in this case of Julian Assange.
Now, Julian Assange is not omniscient. He is not infallible. He has not considered in great detail every last aspect of the 9/11-Truth endeavor. With good reason though, most people suspect that Julian Assange knows more about the inner-workings of the secret levels of governments and other organizations than does Geraldo Rivera. Such knowledge or awareness will not guarantee that his thinking will be right on every issue. Such mundane knowledge or awareness also always remains limited. That Dan Hanley has said what he has in no way shows that WikiLeaks is a Psyop.
Deborah Dupre's argument though rests upon what she might characterize as the preponderance of evidence. However, all of that "evidence" remains unsubstantiated and largely circumstantial. Her "facts" remain allegations.
To say that Julian Assange not having subscribed to the 9/11 Truth Movement raises suspicions is one thing, to say that the fact that the Cablegate cables released to date have shown little negative appraisal of Zionism gives rise to speculation as to why is one thing, but to chisel in granite that Julian Assange is therefore a proven Mossad agent is quite another thing and wholly illogical.
You will please note that the supposed smoking gun that was the Syria Truth interview with Daniel Domscheit-Berg has been left behind. Why is that? Well, I've been openly calling for an investigation into it and publicizing that call in addition to making a number of contacts with those directly involved and been met so far with a brick wall of silence. Why is that "Truth Movements" members?
Is that suspicious? I'm reserving judgment on it because people are so busy, myopic, fearful, and/or even unstable.
Yesterday, in another of Deborah's articles, I linked to some of my posts on this issue. The questions here need to be put to Daniel Domscheit-Berg. I'm asking Deborah to work to get right at the truth rather than using her considerable writing energy to beat around the periphery.
9/11 Truth has the collapse of Building 7 as its most striking fact. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is the strongest laser beam of the Movement. It's why Geraldo Rivera took a step back and considered. The fact that neoconservatives (aka Zionists) surrounded that whole event is the reason for a new, and this time thorough, investigation into events that leaves no neoconservative's cover left in place.
Our job is to get Julian Assange to see what Geraldo has caught a glimpse of. Assange has run in other circles than Alex Jones. Julian Assange could teach Alex Jones a thing or two and, obviously what with 9/11, vice versa.
If it turns out that Julian Assange is Mossad, then his credibility as an objective publisher of leaks will be shot. Let's find out whether or not he has been rather than just echo unsubstantiated claims that are now taken as proof positive.
Where's the mentality of due process in all of this? Deborah, you're the "Human Rights Examiner." It is a human right not to be guilty before being proven innocent beyond the shadow of doubt. Based upon unsubstantiated claims, are you ready to hand down a sentence against Assange? I'm not.
It strikes me that if a card carrying 9/11 Truther were in the exact same boat as Julian Assange handed the exact same leaks from Bradley Manning, he or she would be being mostly lauded by the "libertarians" and attacked by the "progressives," in a similar fashion as many are attacking Assange now.
Did anyone notice that Julian Assange in the TIME interview wanted to go on record for "States Rights"? It wasn't lost on me that he's not for a centralized government that strips regional, reasonable autonomy.
How can anyone pigeonhole him based upon such scant knowledge about his deepest ideological convictions and questions? Come on. We can do better than that.