Assange: "Since 2013 The Intercept hid NSA docs showing Saudi ordering 'rebel' attacks on Damascus. Now released."
135 2017-10-28 by rockytimber
Is there any doubt now that Wikileaks way of releasing information is superior? you can't let people act as gatekeepers, even when they work with Glenn Greenwald. That alone should be enough to end this debate.
42 comments
1 kit8642 2017-10-28
Do you have a source? That's fucked up.
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/922897908256706561
1 MindlessChaos 2017-10-28
It should be well known Saudi was supporting ISIS. I talked to a couple people from over there and it has been well known for several years. (I heard about it about a year before the story really broke since there is more of a media black out of such things in the US) Saudi was also bringing ISIS oil to market... (This was implied, basically asking me in relation to the Saudi-ISIS relationship, "How do you think ISIS is selling oil?" )
1 kit8642 2017-10-28
Do you have a source on the Saudi's helping with their oil. I've questioned ISIS's ability to bring it to market for years.
1 AutoModerator 2017-10-28
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 MindlessChaos 2017-10-28
It's hard to give you the proof you need since I am getting it from a human source. He was/is well connected in Saudi Arabia. Let's say as far as independent knowledge concerned. (Independent from govts and such) He is very well connected on the grapevine... If you understood the geopolitical situation in Saudi (which you probably do) You would probably know there are certain factions which do not support the actions of the Saudi govt and the Saudi Royal family. Thus they gather much of this through their own networks... I believe thats where this information was obtained. Is that enough to appease your curiosity on the subject? Wish I could give more atm but I am not willing to give him more exposure than necessary.
1 kit8642 2017-10-28
Don't worry about it, I wouldn't put it pass them.
1 MindlessChaos 2017-10-28
Sorry. xD I can give you a few tidbits and leads with different stuff partially based on what he said and what I have seen if you want. His position was that the CIA was inbed with Saudi to the extent that Saudi was the CIA's "Dog". I originally strongly doubted they had this close of relationship but a couple things that made me reconsider is that 1. US was reluctant under Obama to attack the ISIS Oil lines... (There is an article about how we finally attacked the trucks) 2. USA obviously has a base or something to that effect in Saudi Arabia... (Trump actually accidentally leaked this in the campaign I think....... You would think that Trump accidentally leaking Classified info would be HUGE news right? but the media immediately dropped the story almost like they were told to move on... :p 3. Pretty clear USA-Saudi-Israel were working together to destabilize the middle east outside of the few countries allied with them. It's definitely no accident the whole apple cart outside of Syria and Iran were being upset for years... Israel has been trying to downplay their close ties with Saudi but its pretty obvious when you see Hannity bring it up with Netanyahu.... Anyway, just saw your older post about it. ISIS is not working alone. The Saudi Royal family is rather large and obviously wealthy. Apparently several different royals were sympathetic and funding/working with ISIS. I am also not sure if the Muslim Brotherhood has any ties directly with ISIS but they have a pretty expansive network. (Which the US govt under Obama seemed involved with as well... ) Either way, it's pretty clear ISIS was getting help from state actors whether it just be the sympathetic, uber wealthy Saudi Royals, or USA/Israel, Or (most likely) all 3... When you have that kind of $$ and power backing you a lot of different solutions to issues become available.
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
The US and Saudi's make no secret of their collaboration in decimating Yemen. The Saudis are well known for supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS. The US makes no secret of collaborating with Israel, Saudi, and Qatar to take out Syria. This is a damning release, but not a surprise.
1 [deleted] 2017-10-28
[removed]
1 kit8642 2017-10-28
WTF, Your comment was 8 hours ago and I jist received it.
1 deadmethods 2017-10-28
Oh so I actually have an explanation for that. Oddly, Mint Press News gets filtered by the spam bot so mods (on all of Reddit) have to manually approve post or comments that contain links to MPN.
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
assange, the master of telling us things that incriminate nobody
1 -Dirty-Shisno- 2017-10-28
Assange is dead bro, this is just CIA bullshit.
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
lol, that's almost my point, wether he died last year or he has always been what he is now
all he does is pacify the masses
1 gandalfsbastard 2017-10-28
Maybe. I have money down that he gets indicted in the “Russia probe” then Ecuador expels him and the feds extradite fir all to see.
Would be quite a show.
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
BS. The incriminations are piled high like a mountain of stench. No one important gets indicted because there is no rule of law that hasn't been thoroughly corrupted. Look who is in charge of "Justice", scum like Loretta Lynch and now Jeff Sessions, total scum.
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts
althe roman catholic that is in charge of the supreme court
politics is a stage, guys like sessions and lynch don't fuckin matter, we have bigger problems
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
The system of "checks and balances" is totally broken, with the fourth branch now being the corporations that own the system. The role of the supreme court is now much more critical for setting policy than it was, mostly because the Senate and Congress don't work.
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
your argument is entirely based on the corrupt system we have now
it all needs to be torn down
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
Look, we try to describe what is going on now. No system endures forever. What replaces this system? Who replaces this system? When?
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
our system has endured for 3000+ years, nothing has changed, they just produce new plays for us to watch
to answer your question 1 and 2
WE replce the system
and it needs to be now, we are in the scripted endtimes, a real democracy lets everyone vote on everything
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
No, read a book man. Our system has been in constant flux and the current one bears little resemblance to the one that existed 3000 years ago.
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
i am sad a closed mind isnt a myth
please source your reasons for thinking the world hasn't been owned for 3000 years
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
I don't need reasons, I just cite the history of humans over the last 3000 years. Most humans were still tribal and migratory 3000 years ago.
Sure, there was a point when more than 50% of the land was owned and controlled by people with police powers, but that is actually pretty recent.
Of course there have been certain places where most people had been living under feudal systems for thousands of years, no doubt, but even most of those systems have undergone massive transformation. The question you are posing, one of wealth inequality, just ask one question: If you confiscated the wealth of the top 1% of wealthy in the US, how many years could it fund the federal budget of the US? Do you know the answer?
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
as per your last paragraph, money is printed out of thin air backed by debt, your whole reply is useless because you argue on behalf of the current systen
1 AspiringOligarch 2017-10-28
So? About 25% of the US population identifies as Catholic.
What are the odds?
Meanwhile, four of the other 8 members of SCOTUS are Jewish. About 2% of the US population identifies as Jewish
And all SCOTUS votes count equally.
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
source your arguments
1 eastersealin 2017-10-28
nice name too, i don't take you seriously, but real people read this, so here we are
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/922897908256706561
I am going to look through here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/
for some more details. Its still kind of foggy, but there is also this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-28/shocking-viral-interview-qatar-confesses-secrets-behind-syrian-war
1 joculator 2017-10-28
I wonder what the Saudis do with all of the frequent flyer miles they earn transporting radicalized Muslims from London mosques to war zones around the world.
1 Ifuckinglovethequeen 2017-10-28
Tbh if they transport them out of london and keep them in shitholeistan I'm okay with it. It's the coming the other way I'm against
1 willief 2017-10-28
Did The Intercept exist in 2013?
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
It was founded in 2013 but launched in Feb of 2014 based on funding from E Bay multibillionaire, and "owning" the Snowden material from 2013 that it has still not released. Some say that it a cash cow for Omidyar who takes payoffs to NOT release information people pay to keep secret.
https://theintercept.com/2014/10/28/smuggling-snowden-secrets/
https://theintercept.com/2014/10/30/inside-story-matt-taibbis-departure-first-look-media/
The "first look" wasn't for you and me.
1 willief 2017-10-28
Wow time flies.
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
Yeah! :)
1 cholera_or_gonorrhea 2017-10-28
I fully believe this. The infuriating thing is, the NSA dump was massive. It's an insult that we've seen such a very small percent while the rest has been mysteriously withheld. It makes so much sense that it's being used as a payoff scheme for some billionaire.
1 hoipalloi52 2017-10-28
According to James Corbett, both Assange and Snowden are suspect/limited hangouts
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
I look to Assange 100 times more than to Snowden. Obviously, Snowden has not been complaining that Greenwald sold out to Omydar (that 90% of Snowden's material has never been released) and also anyone already knew the NSA was spying on everyone since the mid 199o's and already had proof of who did 9/11.
Julian on the other hand has been consistently releasing tons of material from multiple sources and has done more to threaten the deep state, and has paid a higher price for it. I don't fully trust Julian, but then I don't fully trust Corbett either.
See, these are alternative media outlets, Julian and Corbett, they are not sources. Snowden is a source. You rate sources one way, and you rate media outlets another way. Among media outlets, you should be comparing Wikileaks and Corbett to the MSM, or to other alternative media outlets like Alex Jones, in which case both Julian and Corbett shine in comparison.
I don't trust people who are overly critical of Wikileaks or Corbett.
1 hoipalloi52 2017-10-28
Corbett is hardly a media outlet, lol. He's one single dude in a tiny apartment in Japan with his wife and children.
That said, he's very careful and doesn't make wild claims without backing them up with detailed sources and a lot of research. I trust him more than just about any other "alternative media" source.
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
A media outlet like Corbett does his own research and reporting and presents content. Corbett is not a source like Snowden is.
There are big media outlets and small ones. Where would you rather go, Corbett or CNN? Lots of money doesn't mean you are better. LOL
1 hoipalloi52 2017-10-28
I'll go to Corbett every single time
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
Thought so
1 -Dirty-Shisno- 2017-10-28
Assange is dead bro, this is just CIA bullshit.
1 rockytimber 2017-10-28
BS. The incriminations are piled high like a mountain of stench. No one important gets indicted because there is no rule of law that hasn't been thoroughly corrupted. Look who is in charge of "Justice", scum like Loretta Lynch and now Jeff Sessions, total scum.