I'm surprised and disappointed by you for believing the Assange psyops stuff. I'll be making a long post disproving all these claims against assange soon. You should look out for it.
You did great solving that Tengri puzzle in such a short period of time btw.
I tailored my post for a younger audience and it was a gross oversimplification ignoring MANY other red flags. I got a plethora of evidence to suggest that Assange is a shill. You can try and debunk this shit but it just looks like damage control. Bring it on, pussy.
I look forward to seeing your post about Assange. As for the Assange possible PsyOp, I try not to get too into who is or who isn't controlled opposition, but rather on specific facts I can verify. But regardless of whether WikiLeaks is controlled or not, it is very important to be critical of their information because they have become a very influential tool. Basically a "leak", whether organically or passed off by the CIA, coming from WikiLeaks is viewed as more credible than coming from anywhere else. Also even if WikiLeaks is not "controlled", their credibility can be something to be exploited by Intel Agencies selectively leaking info to them. Hope this clarifies my position on them, instead of just assuming I "believe" or "disbelieve" in any PsyOp claims against them.
And thanks, I wanted to win the Tengri Spaceship Ride!
Plus it seems rather contradictory to post something that helps you search WL yet you say they are likely controlled opposition. I hope you can see this.
Yes maybe I should've worded that differently. My personal belief is that WikiLeaks is controlled opposition (mainly because their lack of "leaks" about 9/11). But besides making a statement like that, I don't usually go much further into it.
But controlled or not, they have some info worth looking at, and my image search tip is pretty helpful.
Nice nit-picking my quote out of context... My belief that WikiLeaks hasn't released any damning info about 9/11 doesn't require "inside knowledge". And Assange being quoted as saying 9/11 was a false conspiracy doesn't help his credibility either.
I'm not nit-picking. I'm working with what you provide me.
How do you know they have info on 9/11? I believe 9/11 was an inside job but I couldn't give anyone conclusive proof it was.
With much respect I hope you take a look into the time and context of that particular quote, properly. I'm not here to argue with you and I'm happy to explain why you are wrong if you are willing to listen. I've noticed one common thing with everyone who believes this Assange/psyop theory, you are all youtubers. Makes you think doesn't it.
Yes you are nit-picking, and until now ignoring the main argument: 9/11.
The towers turning to dust in mid-air is conclusive proof of the 9/11 conspiracy. (http://DrJudyWood.com)
Stop taking my quotes out of context and making straw man arguments. I'm not saying WikiLeaks "have" 9/11 info, but that I "believe" they should be posting about it (instead of Assange stating it is a "false conspiracy) if they want to help their credibility.
But regardless, you are arguing about my "belief". Why can't you accept people have different views than yourself? Makes you think...
PS: Post your "argument" on "YouTube" if you feel so confident.
It's controlled opposition that proves that intelligence agencies are warring among each other. If one of them decides to throw the other under the bus I'm still going to comb through the information just to see what little tidbits they are letting us know about.
Hmmm although I think WikiLeaks is controlled opposition I wouldn't necessarily say it "proves" intel agencies are "warring" with each other. My view is that they are all interconnected and working together.
Hi.
I'm surprised and disappointed by you for believing the Assange psyops stuff. I'll be making a long post disproving all these claims against assange soon. You should look out for it.
You did great solving that Tengri puzzle in such a short period of time btw.
Peace
@fortified
I tailored my post for a younger audience and it was a gross oversimplification ignoring MANY other red flags. I got a plethora of evidence to suggest that Assange is a shill. You can try and debunk this shit but it just looks like damage control. Bring it on, pussy.
Hi @Fortified,
I look forward to seeing your post about Assange. As for the Assange possible PsyOp, I try not to get too into who is or who isn't controlled opposition, but rather on specific facts I can verify. But regardless of whether WikiLeaks is controlled or not, it is very important to be critical of their information because they have become a very influential tool. Basically a "leak", whether organically or passed off by the CIA, coming from WikiLeaks is viewed as more credible than coming from anywhere else. Also even if WikiLeaks is not "controlled", their credibility can be something to be exploited by Intel Agencies selectively leaking info to them. Hope this clarifies my position on them, instead of just assuming I "believe" or "disbelieve" in any PsyOp claims against them.
And thanks, I wanted to win the Tengri Spaceship Ride!
Cheers!
These 2 statements seem conflicting.
Plus it seems rather contradictory to post something that helps you search WL yet you say they are likely controlled opposition. I hope you can see this.
Yes maybe I should've worded that differently. My personal belief is that WikiLeaks is controlled opposition (mainly because their lack of "leaks" about 9/11). But besides making a statement like that, I don't usually go much further into it.
But controlled or not, they have some info worth looking at, and my image search tip is pretty helpful.
Do you have inside knowledge of what information they are withholding? Because you surely you would need to have that to quantify this:
Nice nit-picking my quote out of context... My belief that WikiLeaks hasn't released any damning info about 9/11 doesn't require "inside knowledge". And Assange being quoted as saying 9/11 was a false conspiracy doesn't help his credibility either.
I'm not nit-picking. I'm working with what you provide me.
How do you know they have info on 9/11? I believe 9/11 was an inside job but I couldn't give anyone conclusive proof it was.
With much respect I hope you take a look into the time and context of that particular quote, properly. I'm not here to argue with you and I'm happy to explain why you are wrong if you are willing to listen. I've noticed one common thing with everyone who believes this Assange/psyop theory, you are all youtubers. Makes you think doesn't it.
Yes you are nit-picking, and until now ignoring the main argument: 9/11.
The towers turning to dust in mid-air is conclusive proof of the 9/11 conspiracy. (http://DrJudyWood.com)
Stop taking my quotes out of context and making straw man arguments. I'm not saying WikiLeaks "have" 9/11 info, but that I "believe" they should be posting about it (instead of Assange stating it is a "false conspiracy) if they want to help their credibility.
But regardless, you are arguing about my "belief". Why can't you accept people have different views than yourself? Makes you think...
PS: Post your "argument" on "YouTube" if you feel so confident.
https://steemit.com/politics/@psyopsx1000/the-curious-case-of-julian-assange
Yup, I think WikiLeaks is controlled info (more here: http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=240&part=1). Nonetheless, some of the info they release could be useful to connect further dots.
I just added a disclaimer to my post.
It's controlled opposition that proves that intelligence agencies are warring among each other. If one of them decides to throw the other under the bus I'm still going to comb through the information just to see what little tidbits they are letting us know about.
Hmmm although I think WikiLeaks is controlled opposition I wouldn't necessarily say it "proves" intel agencies are "warring" with each other. My view is that they are all interconnected and working together.
thanks for sharing