Michael Cosgrove Stereotypes Cause: 9/11 Truth vs Assange
Various 9/11 truthers are changing their previously positive opinion of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. He is now being disowned by this clique and even being regarded as a paid agent. …
Three major indicators have in their view discredited him according to an editorial on Re0pen911. They say that Assange, who they describe as “mysterious”, has never been a 9/11 conspiracy supporter and that he has even publicly criticized conspiracists. Also, he has never published anything which even remotely supports the truthers’ arguments. This is known to have rankled truther organizations. The final –and logical conclusion according to truthers – argument is that the fact that the US government has not taken robust steps to stop Wikipedia and that Assange is said to be being more careful about cleaning up proposed new documents before putting them online suggests that he is being manipulated. The manipulation is said to be that the documents originally given to him were leaked deliberately by the CIA in an effort to give him and other critics of US policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere the impression that they had a ‘scoop.’ But the theory goes that the documents contained nothing that was not already known. …
Re0pen911 claims that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are trying to discredit Assange by persuading him unconsciously to publish relatively worthless “leaked” documents in order that his future ‘scoops’ not be taken seriously. A second alleged benefit for the CIA is that the Wikileaks issue is deflecting attention from large-scale government-organised drug trafficking out of Afghanistan. The editorial also claims that Daniel Ellsberg, the CIA analyst at the origin of the ‘Pentagon Papers’ scandal in the 1970’s, has a list of confidential documents relative to 9/11, and which are purported to contain evidence of governments being aware of the imminence of the attacks, which he would like Wikipedia to publish, but they haven’t.
Another truther who has come out against Assange is Webster Tarpley, who in a one-hour interview given for the Alex Jones Channel even accused Assange of being a paid CIA agent. Tarpley claimed that the same thing was true, and for the same kind of reasons, for Ellsberg.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Recent Stories
Recent Comments
- Gawker: Chief of CIA’s Global Jihad Unit Revealed Online
- "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip" - A Participant's Perspective
- Identity of CIA Officer Behind 9/11 & Torture Cases Revealed
- "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip" - A Participant's Perspective
- "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip" - A Participant's Perspective
- Who Funded 9/11? Families & Insurers Still Want Answers
- Sibel Edmonds Interviews Paul Thompson
So the full title is “9/11 skeptics say Julian Assange being manipulated by the CIA.”
I’d be interested to hear why Michael Cosgrove thinks this is news. He appears to have done a google search for “Assange” and “9/11 truth”, found three examples of something that satisfied his opinion of the movement, and written about it like anyone should care to hear his opinion. Or should I call it gossip?
It’s news from the swamp. No thank you.
The basic question is, who do you look for if you have an honest question or interest in something? Do you look for the people who seem more or less reasonable? I’m guessing Cosgrove is not all that interested. He seems to have already made up his mind.
The CIA controlled (W Colby former CIA director) mainstream media is paying a lot of attention to Wikileaks its ‘leaks’. Propping up Wikileaks in the process. Therefore you can know with absolute certainty two things:
1. Nothing Wikileaks has leaked or will leak is or will be a threat to them. (ie they control what is leaked)
2. Somehow they’ll benefit from it.
You don’t draw attention to something you don’t want people to see! That’s logic and common sense. If Wikileaks were a threat, they’d ignore it like 9/11 truth! Wikileaks appears to be a CIA front designed to catch whistleblows; a conduit by which they can release information they want released (all of which will prop up the official story of 9/11 etc) Yet have their ‘hands off’ of it. Plausible deniablity.
I posted on truthaction.org:
It’s interesting how Webster Tarpley, who tried to drive a wedge between the truth movement and the peace movement with his Kennebunkport Warning nonsense is claiming that Julian Assange (who is very popular with the peace movement) is a “paid CIA agent”.
And from 911blogger:
“Tarpley… even accused Assange of being a paid CIA agent”
Webster Tarpley has a long history of making false accusations against people, including myself and Cindy Sheehan. I don’t know what’s up with Julian Assange, but Tarpley clearly has no solid evidence upon which to make this accusation. It’s helpful to remember that Tarpley is the guy who called Cindy Sheehan a “wretched individual”. Also see: Synthetic Error: The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley.
I’m not endorsing Assange, just pointing out the history of one of his attackers.
Interesting indeed. Not surprising.
Julian Assange has some very obvious reasons to steer clear of association with this movement. And yet, in fairness, I’d guess he wouldn’t work to suppress any documents he found that might help this movement. I think Wikileaks is an important asset and concept in general. I wouldn’t want the worst of this movement easily associated with it.
And that’s exactly what Cosgrove is doing by posting this article.
>>something that satisfied his opinion of the movement
Tarpley, Meyssan and Madsen. All attacking the left and professional nonsense advocates. How coincidental.
Tarpley being used a lot lately to smear everyone. This is why it’s important to expose him at every turn.
“Outrageously, Berlet categorizes progressive intellectuals such as Peter Dale Scott, Michael Parenti, David Ray Griffin, Michel Chossudovsky, and by innuendo the two of us, as dangerous conspiracists. He uses a straw person technique by positing former LaRouche analyst Webster Tarpley, and the Church of God Evangelistic Association founder David J. Smith in the same category as the progressive intellectuals listed above.” A Response to Chip Berlet