This from Democracy Now:

Reports have emerged in the last week that Assange’s two accusers bragged about their separate encounters with him and that prosecutors are targeting him for having consensual sex without a condom. One of the accusers has also been described as having ties to a right-wing Cuban exile group linked to the CIA. Assange meanwhile says he’s received hundreds of death threats, including some directed at his children.

please. assclown is a mossad frontman.

anything or anyone that is trumpeted from every lamestream media outlet is pure propaganda.

its not fucking rocket surgery.

CamusRebel said:

please. assclown is a mossad frontman.

Yes, of course. No evidence necessary, right? Everyone (myself included, naturally) is working for Mossad. Sigh...

Gift horse. Mouth.

Brad, with all due respect, your work on voting machines being crap is phenomenal. Maybe you should stick with what you do best.

Everyone needs to read "The Secret Team" by Fletcher Prouty @
www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST

He wrote some of the Pentagon Papers. He knows it was a CIA plant and Ellesberg was an operative.

Clearly assclown is a similar phony "leaker".

His denigrating and rudely dismissing 9/11 truth seekers is one clue. Google Gordon Duff Wikileaks for many others.

I would not speculate who you work for. I would like to believe it is for yourself and the good of humanity. I had always been under that impression.

assclown. wish I had of thought of that description.

CamusRebel said:

Brad, with all due respect, your work on voting machines being crap is phenomenal. Maybe you should stick with what you do best.

Well, thanks for the back-handed compliment. I'll take it! BTW, I apply the same criteria to all things that I cover. Namely, information reported must be backed up with independently verifiable evidence. Whether the topic is allegations about voting systems or foreign policy or anything else. So, with the same all due respect, I might suggest you reassess the standards, whatever they may be, which you apply to your beliefs. Rather than looking for opinions that support your pre-existing beliefs or wishes, you may consider seeking out actual independently verifiable *evidence* of the truth, whatever that truth may be, and whether it supports what you wish to see as the truth or not.

Clearly assclown is a similar phony "leaker".

His denigrating and rudely dismissing 9/11 truth seekers is one clue.

He doesn't agree with your pesonal theory, so he's an "assclown"? Again, please see above.

Google Gordon Duff Wikileaks for many others.

I know Gordon (personally) and am familiar with the articles you're referring to. I'll stand by my original position, and suggest again that you seek out actual evidence, rather than speculation based on one person's opinions which happen to support your own pre-conceived notions (or hopes).

I would not speculate who you work for. I would like to believe it is for yourself and the good of humanity.

Well, for "the good of humanity", anyway. As best as I can see it. It hasn't done much for me, but I hope the good it does for all of us proves to be worth it some day.

Peace.

Thanks for the measured and polite response.

I understand a desire for hard evidence. Rarely do the CIA or Mossad leave trails of hard evidence. War by deception and all that. Its what they do.

Hypotheticly, what would you consider evidence and where might one find this?

Is it not suspicious to you that this freakshow, who was busted as a young man for serious government hacking crimes but never did time, is plastered all over Fox, MSNBC,CNN,ABCNBCCBS, NYTimes, WaPo, and every single blog in the blogosphere?

It smells like a month old egg and cheese sandwich.

Is it "evidence"? To you, no, of course not. To people that have a finely tuned Bullshit detector the needle is red lining.

Are you saying your pal Gordon is full of shit?

Are you familiar with Prouty's demolishing of the whole Ellsberg farce?

What is your take on the five "dancing Israeli's" busted after filming the entire attack on the WTC from before the first plane hit, celebrating, getting busted with explosives in their van.
Very curious. Enquiring minds want to know.

CamusRebel: The Duff piece offers nothing but unsubstantiated opinion without a single fact to back it up.

I appreciate your reference to a book written by Col L. Fletcher Prouty, whose direct involvement with covert operations pre-dated the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but I'm not about to spend hours/days scouring an entire book in order to find out whether there is a single word that even remotely supports your effort to smear Dan Ellsberg.

Since the chapters are available on line, perhaps you can direct me to the chapter & page(s) that you actually believe support your suggestion that Ellsberg was acting on behalf of the CIA when he released the Pentagon Papers.

Absent that, I will continue to believe that yours is by far the dumbest and most absurd, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories I've ever come across.

Oh, CamusRebel, I see that Col. Prouty did include an index. He mentions Dan Ellsberg's name on two pages of his book.

The first time he says:

Doesn't all of this make it seem rather insincere and even hypocritical for some Americans to charge other Americans with security indiscretions when officials in the Government have been telling thousands of foreign people --- officials and peons --- that the United States has been playing the clandestine game to the hilt? How can anyone honestly charge Jack Anderson, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, Daniel Ellsberg, or anyone else with serious violations of security when some of these same sacrosanct individuals who point the finger have themselves approved of such things as the payment of tribute for our clandestine indiscretions and misdeeds all over the world?

Not a word there that supports your case.

The second time, Prouty states [emphasis added]:

We have been saying that the release of the Pentagon Papers by the former CIA agent and long-time associate of Edward G. Lansdale, Daniel Ellsberg, may have been the opening attack by the CIA to cover its disengagement not only from the physical conflict in Indochina, but also from the historical record of that disastrous event.

In law, the use of the word "may" reflects speculation, which is precisely what Prouty offers. Ellsberg's prior connection to the CIA does not negate that, in releasing the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg had engaged in an "unauthorized" release of previously "top secret" documents.

In fact, the classification of the documents Ellsberg release was far greater than anything WikiLeaks has released to date.

CamusRebel @ 7 asked:

Hypotheticly, what would you consider evidence and where might one find this?

We find evidence all the time of CIA duplicity and covert actions. Whistelblowers release documents, former CIA officials come forward to discuss what has and hasn't been done, they write books about them, etc. That is evidence. Not speculation. We report here. Speculation is rarely necessary, when it is, it's noted as such.

Is it not suspicious to you that this freakshow, who was busted as a young man for serious government hacking crimes but never did time, is plastered all over Fox, MSNBC,CNN,ABCNBCCBS, NYTimes, WaPo, and every single blog in the blogosphere?

Frankly, it's not suspicious even in the least. He has released tens of thousands of classified documents for chrissakes. Had you done that, you'd also be plastered over every news outlet and blog in the world. What's "suspicious" about that??

It smells like a month old egg and cheese sandwich.

Is it "evidence"? To you, no, of course not. To people that have a finely tuned Bullshit detector the needle is red lining.

It's not "evidence" to me, or "evidence" to anybody. It's not evidence. It's your self-described "finely tuned Bullshit detector" which seems to have absolutely no evidence in anything whatsoever other than what you think you are smelling. That's swell. But it has nothing to do with the truth.

Are you saying your pal Gordon is full of shit?

I didn't say he was my "pal". That said, I believe my comments speak for themself (I also responded to Mick in a different thread, I believe, on same). I find nothing either convincing or evidentiary in Duff's pieces on WikiLeaks. They are his opinion, and occasionally the woeful Madsen's, wherein like you, I guess, he believes "Bullshit detector" is a fine substitute for actual reporting. I don't. And I'd hope you'd be happy that's the case. Otherwise the work I do here, which you seem to admire, at least in regard to voting systems, wouldn't be credibile or useful or respected in any way. Nor should it be. Nor should anybody who calls themselves a journalist or reporter who doesn't bother to base their reporting on independently verifiable fact-based evidence.

Not sure why any of this is controversial to you.

Are you familiar with Prouty's demolishing of the whole Ellsberg farce?

I am not. But I just read Ernie's reply to you on that, and it, again, looks like you've substituted "finely tuned Bullshit detector" in lieu of actual, verifiable evidence. I'll wait for the latter, if you please. If you can offer same, I'm sure you will and I'll be happy to review it.

What is your take on the five "dancing Israeli's" busted after filming the entire attack on the WTC from before the first plane hit, celebrating, getting busted with explosives in their van.

a) That has nothing to do with this conversation to my knowledge. b) I haven't bothered to personally verify or investigate it, so c) I prefer to not offer opinions on things I don't know well, can't verify, and would instead have to rely on a "finely tuned Bullshit detector" to speak about, in lieu of actual verifiable, fact-based information.

or d) the last time we discussed the 5 mossad punks and I gave you their full names you could have been easily bothered to verify and investigate.

Google "Five Dancing Israeli's" I just got 49,400 results. They were busted w/explosives in their van, arrested, held for 70 days then released whereupon they scurried back to Jerusalem post haste.

Their van was from the company "Urban Moving Systems" whose owner, Dominick Suter, hightailed outta dodge to that same oasis in the desert on September 14.

It has EVERYTHING to do w/this conversation.

assclown/ellsberg/9-11/cia/mossad...the question is WHY don't you (supposedly) not know about this "well".

Ernie my good man, Prouty mentions Ellsberg several other times in his Author's note and several Prefaces. He knows all about the PPapers because he in fact wrote some of the sections himself. We are talking about one plugged in dude. He makes it very clear that the entire raison d'etre of the ppapers was to benefit "the company" at other agencies (mostly DoD and State's) expense.

You accept that Ellsberg was a cia agent in the 60's but by 1972 he was just another hippie, trying to stick it to the man?

CamusRebel said @ 11:

or d) the last time we discussed the 5 mossad punks and I gave you their full names you could have been easily bothered to verify and investigate.

You're right. I could have stopped whatever I was working on at the time, whenever that was, and instead taken time to investigate whatever it is that you wanted me to "easily" investigate. That, even in light of the fact that after years of investigations by both law enforcement officials and 9/11 Truth investigators there is very little evidence to back up the bulk of your claim to my knowledge. My apologies for not having dropped everything to do so for you. Had you sent me an airplane ticket to Israel, with accommodations, and cash to make up for the work I'd not have been able to do in the meantime so I could pay my rent around here while you had me on assignment, I might have actually even considered it. Alas, you didn't.

You seem to presume that I don't know about the story at all. Of course I do. And you'll pardon me if I haven't been particularly moved by it. And you'd thank me, I think, for not bothering to debunk so much of the unsubstantiated allegations you laid down here in the first place, in my original hopes of being considerate and keeping the discussion here on point. But, since it has "EVERYTHING to do w/this conversation" because you say that it does, your original question/claim @ 7 was:

What is your take on the five "dancing Israeli's" busted after filming the entire attack on the WTC from before the first plane hit, celebrating, getting busted with explosives in their van.

Where is your evidence that they were "filming the entire attack on the WTC from before the first plane hit"? From what I've seen, that's not supported by any actual evidence and, in fact, is contradicted by the documented facts. But feel free to share your evidence to the contrary. (No, just saying so doesn't amount to evidence.)

Where is your evidence that they were "busted with explosives in their van"? It should be easy for you to offer evidence for both claims because, as you then went on to say...

Google "Five Dancing Israeli's" I just got 49,400 results. They were busted w/explosives in their van, arrested, held for 70 days then released whereupon they scurried back to Jerusalem post haste.

So with all of those Google results, it should be simple to point us towards your evidence that the "Five Dancing Israeli's" were "busted w/explosives in their van", which would be a very serious concern. Please feel free to share that evidence here.

Evidence would include links to specific actual press reports or law enforcement documents or first hand accounts (not merely someone's opinions or general links to webpages or books with someone's opinions.) Hope that helps.

As to having "scurried back to Jerusalem post haste", I think you mean held for weeks on end by law enforcement without charges and then deported for immigration violations with no known evidence tying them to foreknowledge of 9/11 or involvement in it in any way. If you have any such independently verifiable evidence to demonstrate that's not the case, I'm sure you'll share it (see above explanation of the meaning of the word "evidence), since I don't have the time to go through those "49,400 results" as much as, apparently, you feel that I should. You, however, are free to do so and share your evidence here where, I should add, you have shared none --- except for evidence that you are more than happy to forward serious allegations that seem to have no evidence available to actually prove them.

But as you said previously, no evidence for these things is actually needed because you believe the CIA and/or Mossad was behind it? Just a reliance on a "finely tuned Bullshit detector"? Should I include that in my next article? "The BRAD BLOG has learned that pseudonymous blog commenter CamusRebel's finely tuned Bullshit detector believes [fill in the blank on anything, but rest assured it was the Israeli's who did it!], even as he admits he has no evidence at all with which to prove it." ??

If that's all ya got, with all due respect, since actual evidence suggests you are wrong in several of the allegations you've made about the "Five Dancing Israelis", I'd suggest there is something seriously malfunctioning in your "finely tuned Bullshit detector".

this is a link to the story. Actually there were two vans, the first only had traces of explosives detected by bomb dogs, the other was packed.

www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2006/12/6287.shtml

of course many mainstream media stories and youtube videos have been "scrubbed" most notably ABC and Fox.

CamusRebel @ 13:

No, that's a link to copied story of someone who wrote a story which linked to some other stories said to report NOT what you say it does. A 30 second Google (it's your friend, as you like to say), shows that the Bergen Record actually reported (if this reprint can be trusted, since original link is archived out, and I don't feel like paying for it) was:

The Bergen County Police bomb squad X-rayed packages found inside the van but did not find any explosives, authorities said.
...
Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything.

So, no, no evidence for "traces of explosives" either. And certainly no explosive in the van as you twice asserted previously.

As to another van you now suddenly mention, which has absolutely nothing to do with the "Five Dancing Israeli's" in any way, shape or form, to my knowledge, the same story you quote (here's the original version which includes the links) says:

The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed.

No indication that the van belong to your "Five Dancing Israeli's", and the only first hand report of them comes from a single source who saw just one van, which was later apprehended by police.

In short, you seem to have nothing to back up your original assertion, and only evidence to suggest your original assertion was completely wrong.

As to the "scrubbed" ABC story, if you mean the one that focused on the "Dancing Israeli's", you can read the entire transcript of the report right here (among other places). I don't know what Fox story you're referring to, but my guess is that it can be found via your friend Google if you actually wanted to do so.

Wanna try again? Or just take your "finely tuned Bullshit detector" in for a tune-up?

i am professional visual artist, any chance you would like to show some of my photographs? i guess it would be cool for your articles
totally enjoy your blog! write me a e-mail please in case you want to colaborate

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.