Part 2: Refutation of Jonathan Azaziah's Article: "WIKILEAKS IS POISON II: DECONSTRUCTION OF THE MYTH"


WIKILEAKS SERIES Information


The link to Part 1 is at the bottom of this article. You might want to read it first.

The following is my reply to Jonathan Azaziah's reply comments to me that he left over on his blog post but didn't bother to cross link to my Part 1 in a comment on that post of mine.

I'll take your "points" one-by-one.

First, you don't make me uncomfortable. You make me laugh. I feel sorry for you; but, oh well.

You wrote, "In the opening of your piece, you labeled my article as 'long and lame.' This is a translucent proof that you didn't read it in its entirety, you simply skimmed through it."

Ah, yes, more of your lame proofs. Look, I read every single word whether you like it or not. You are so devoid of logic, it's really not for your benefit that I'm even responding here but for the sake of others who may come here and think (imagine) that you've supplied any proof whatsoever that Julian Assange is a Mossad Agent.

You wrote, "This is further evidenced by several mentions in your gobbledygook that I didn't provide sources/links for my information, though I most certainly did."

You supplied no links. Your "footnotes" are not links. What planet are you from? What you did supply are the names of articles many of which when read with any intelligence at all do not support your wacky assertions about what those articles support or don't support. In the area of providing support for your thesis, you flunked.

You are so weak that you can only attempt to handle three areas and even there you totally flunk?

This is you: "What kind of whistleblower organization takes money from Mossad." Here you are again: "It is already an established fact that Assange has been taking money from Mossad." Okay smart guy, who's your source in your article for that allegation? It's Leah. Check and mate, Jon. Give up. You can't win. Anybody who believes you is a dolt.

Here you are again: "Regarding Mark Stephens defending the torture of Palestinians, you wrote, 'Has Mark done that? Did you supply links to documents to support that claim against him? I didn't see any.' Yes, he has. And yes, I did. You should open your eyes before replying emotionally and foolishly."

You supplied zero links. Even in this comment of yours, you didn't supply links. You are now supplying text shortened URL's. Are you afraid of creating links or something?

As for the first you supplied (http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-so-innocent-index-on-censorship.html), it doesn't prove your allegation. He was hired in a potential libel case. If the allegations against his client are true, then a libel suit wouldn't stand up. So, take it to court and prove that the client did what is alleged; otherwise, shut up. Hey, that's how it is. I've read about how the libel laws in Britain stink. Ironically for you, Julian Assange has made a strong case for how they stink. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that Julian learned that from Mark Stephens.

In addition, a lawyer is not his client. Even if the client proves guilty, the lawyer defending that client is not thereby saying that the lawyer holds that the infraction was the right thing to do. You just do not understand the most fundamental principles of the legal system or logic.

As for the second (http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/2009/10/29/two-sides-of-the-argument/), it in no way shows that Mark Stephens defends the torture of Palestinians or anyone else. It may call into question his priorities and may give rise to questions that could be put directly to him, but it does not show what you've alleged as proof that he defends torture.

And for the third (http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/08/israel-medical-association-defends.html), we're back to Tony Greenstein. Okay, so what I'm looking for in this article is proof that Mark supports torture. Does it do that? Does it support your claim, as you've stated it? I'll read it word-for-word using pure logic, and then I'll answer that right here.

Now, I believe Palestinians who say they've been tortured by Israelis. I don't have proof that Israeli doctors have engaged in it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have. Maybe WikiLeaks, that you so despise, can obtain leaks from within Israel that really prove the allegations against the doctor in question, Yoram Blachar.

The piece itself admits what you don't, namely: "It goes without saying that this is an issue that generates very strong feelings, and is riven by claims and counterclaims that are very difficult to substantiate."

Do you see the word "substantiate" there? That's a concept you don't seem to understand.

It is not without some irony that the lead organization calling for investigation against the doctor includes Amnesty International that is funded by George Soros.

"It is already an established fact that Assange has been taking money from Mossad, CIA and Zionist George Soros...." That's your writing there.

All of that said, absolutely nowhere in that article is evidence given that Mark defends torture. It is not logically possible to conclude from any of the three articles or all three taken together that Mark defends torture. If anything, I can see why Mark might take the libel case.

Look, Saddam Hussein gassed people to death, but he had a lawyer named Ramsey Clark. Do you know anything about him? Would you say Ramsey defends gassing people? If so, you're a bigger idiot than anyone can say.

Did you even read the articles you cited? I'm beginning to wonder.

"These three links, which were under footnotes 219 and 220 of my article, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark Stephens defended an organization which horrifically tortured Palestinians." That's you in your comment to me. If that's your level of proof, don't go near a jury box.

You wrote, "Your diatribe about the Rothschilds not thinking of themselves as evil, some of them being sheltered and naive and the idea that they don't 'micro-manage' the Economist, in addition to Julian Assange not knowing of the connections of the group that presented him an award, was utterly moronic."

Actually, what I wrote verbatim is as follows: "'What kind of freedom fighter accepts an award from the Rothschild family?' Did he know of the connections? Do the Rothschilds really micromanage the Economist? I've seen articles in the Economist with which I agree. The Rothschilds fancy themselves at least some of the time as not particularly evil, you know. They really believe it. Not all of them may believe it, but they aren't all exactly likeminded. Of course, their money keeps most of them rather insulated, even sheltered and naive about the people. I'd have to know more about the situation at the Economist and what Julian knew before coming to the sweeping conclusion at which you've arrived about Assange."

That's a "diatribe" in your book? Try looking up the definition (bitter, abusive denunciation). So I bitterly and abusively denounced the Rothschilds. Then you should be happy! Yours is the diatribe, but you call me moronic. Yeah, right.

What I wrote about them wasn't flattering to them. Abe Foxman would probably call it anti-Semitic, but he's about as bright as you are — a little brighter actually. Have you ever read anything in The Economist with which you agree?

Now, let's see if you can backup your statement that "The Rothschild banking dynasty has 50% ownership of the Economist." Show us all right here how you came up with that figure. You also said, "...half of the profits from any Economist product goes into their pockets, which they then donate to the Zionist entity...." You have proof of this? You do not. You're talking out of your hat. There's an orifice I won't mention that's not your mouth and that many Americans wouldn't hesitate to name rather than claim it's your hat.

Look, I write about the Rothschilds. I've probably documented more about them than you have. You're missing the point, as usual. The point concerned Julian Assange's intimate knowledge of The Economist Group and who owns it and/or controls it. A controlling financial interest doesn't always translate directly into content control. That's the idea behind micromanaging. If the Rothschilds own a controlling interest and the people at The Economist have marching orders to be Zionist, then that's not good: No kidding. If they don't have a controlling interest or they don't tell The Economist what it can or cannot write or include by way of articles, then your point against Julian is stupid. On top of all that though, you really don't know what Julian knew or didn't know about The Economist.

This is like talking to a brick wall though, hence my earlier statement: "You are so devoid of logic, it's really not for your benefit that I'm even responding here but for the sake of others who may come here and think (imagine) that you've supplied any proof whatsoever that Julian Assange is a Mossad Agent."

You attribute to Julian Assange supernatural powers of omniscience and infallibility. You think he has had time to examine every entity that has lauded him. You're insane if you think that. He doesn't even remember to take his clothes out of the dryer. Sure, there's such a thing as an absent-minded professor who just has bigger issues on his mind that he doesn't worry about a pimple, but Julian could very easily accept an award for all sorts of reasons other than that he's a Zionist agent. Maybe he actually knows that The Economist really isn't controlled by the Rothschilds because contrary to your assertions, you have zero proof that it is. They have a stake in it. They have a stake in a lot of things, things you probably buy. Do you boycott all things Rothschild? Do you have zero Federal Reserve Notes or the bits in any computer representing the same? If so, by your non-logic you must be a Zionist agent.

Nobody knows all the Rothschilds' holdings, not even the Rothschilds.

Look goofball. Bradley Manning admitted that he was the source. Okay? He was the source. He's in prison for it. He's getting weaker. They're treating him worse than a bad dog. Manning isn't there for leaking fake cables.

As for contributing or not to Manning's defense, WikiLeaks gave the directive they said and somebody somewhere failed. Why are you so sure that it was Julian's failure? How do you know that it wasn't the CIA and banksters you so hate who stopped the flow of funds to Manning's defense? You don't know squat about it. WikiLeaks had to shutdown at one point for lack of funding. Now the US wants to decapitate WikiLeaks, so where's the money to go? I believe that Bradley Manning's defense will get that $50K. When it does, you can eat your words.

Of the cables, you wrote, "They are overloaded with the filthiest renditions of Zionist propaganda and are being forcefed to the public by the Zionist media as holy truth that cannot be questioned." Well, who's not questioning them? People are ripping the contents of the cables apart. Cables are constantly streaming out from WikiLeaks even as I write this. They are revealing all sorts of things.

How do you eat this one: http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=73150&s2=23 That's really beneficial to the Zionist Project, is it? If you think so, you're dumber than I thought.

How about this one on another important subject: http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html#ixzz192T9c6Yo

"There is an agenda behind this, and that agenda belongs to international Zionism. Even the deaf, dumb and blind could figure that out." Sure, sure, moron.

Hey, airhead, you're on the Internet. Who owns it? Who invented it? The Empire, jerk. Get a clue! G e t a c l u e!

Do you like all the name calling, all the rudeness? If you don't, just read your article and comments and weep. You're good at name calling and rudeness. It's mighty rude what you've claimed without a bit of proof about Julian Assange.

Fix your bio, Jon: "Jonathan Azaziah is a thoroughly confused Iraqi, Moroccan-Hebrew, Russian MC, poet, activist, and writer from Brooklyn, New York currently residing in Florida." Serpent. Dark side!

(Opens in a new tab/window so you can read it and then return here to comment, etc.) Part 1: Refutation of Jonathan Azaziah's Article: "WIKILEAKS IS POISON II: DECONSTRUCTION OF THE MYTH" as Posted by Gordon Duff on Veterans Today

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.