Julian Assange has responded to CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s accusation that WikiLeaks is a “non-state intelligence agency” by trolling the CIA over its own roles in producing “Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran and Pinochet.”
Called a "non-state intelligence service" today by the "state non-intelligence agency" which produced al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet.
Assange tweeted, “Called a ‘non-state intelligence service’ today by the ‘state non-intelligence agency’ which produced Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet.”
Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of siding with dictators and being a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event on Thursday. He called Assange and his associates “demons” and said “he and his ilk make common cause with dictators.”
BREAKING: #WikiLeaks is 'hostile intel' and #Assange & his followers are 'demons' - CIA chief Mike#Pompeohttps://t.co/DA5MmJIYWFpic.twitter.com/MjQ87lKJgR
Assange in turn accused the CIA of producing terrorist groups and dictators. He said the CIA produced Al-Qaeda, referring to the agency’s role in arming and training mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets during the 1970s, some of whom – including Osama Bin Laden – later evolved into Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Assange has previously stated that the CIA’s role in arming the mujahideen led to Al-Qaeda, which led to 9/11, the Iraq invasion and, later, the formation of ISIS.
The CIA admitted it was behind the 1953 coup in Iran which overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and reinstalled the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose 26 year rule led to the 1979 Islamic revolution.
#WikiLeaks releases more than 500k US diplomatic cables from 1979 https://t.co/9Ophyvp2zD
Assange's Pinochet reference alludes to the CIA’s “firm and continuing policy” to assist in the overthrowing of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973, and its support for dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Pompeo’s attack on WikiLeaks appears to be in response to an op-ed Assange wrote in the Washington Post on Tuesday which referenced President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech, in which he warned of the dangers of the influence of the military industrial complex. Assange said the speech is similar to WikiLeaks’ own mission statement.
RT: It is an opinion piece, so I guess it was bound to be quite edgy – what is your take on it?
Lionel: Well it wasn't necessarily bound to be edgy. It does not have to be edgy, but I read this. And I've never done this in my entire life but I’m going to do something for the first time: I want everybody in the world to read this.
And I want you to read specifically what this is, because if you had to describe the plot that has been suggested by a lot of folks who believe in – oh I don’t know what you are going to call it ‘crazy, conspiracy theory.' But there are people who believe in the world that ‘maybe, just maybe’ that ISIS and Syrian rebels are backed by other groups of people who caused them to destabilize Syria to remove Assad in a move that is called the 'tortuous gardens' where you have a group of three and you have one that pulls out and lets the others fight. There is more than three here, but the idea is to allow one party to sit back and let other people “bleed each other.”
When you read this, there were two points to this particular piece. One was ISIS – according to Mr. Friedman – pose a threat ideologically, internationally, and by going after them in Syria this would do nothing more than to enrage them. So I guess we should back off and let ISIS roam because we don't want to anger them because after all this type of activity in Syria, especially with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah fighting them would then just enrage them. And God forbid we should incur their wrath.
The second point was to use ISIS as the means of “bleeding,” “bleeding Assad,” “bleeding Russia, Iran.” It is very, very terrible... I understand the way it was used, but when you talk about bloodshed in the life it is a very poor use of words. But then what I'm doing... I wish I could meet Mr. Friedman, I wish perhaps maybe we can work out even a debate... and I'm going to say: “Mr. Friedman, do you know, are you aware, of what the Assad regime has done to stop ISIS from killing innocent civilians including Christians and others? And that when you attack airbases, specifically this one in particular, that what you do is disable theoretically Assad and Syrian forces to fight and repel and to prosecute individuals who threaten and kill innocent?”
I mean I can't believe what I’m reading. And also to show how out of clue or clueless I am – what is this regime change? What, what? By what authority? This is a million dollar question, and I know I'm coming late to the party here and I ask basic questions, but this is my basic nature: By what authority do you remove a sovereign leader of a country?
And more importantly, and this is the thing you would think you would learn from Iraq and Libya, in particular, is when you remove someone what is the replacement? Who replaces? When you have an area that is fraught with instability when you have somebody who for whatever reason he is their leader, and you are going to have the “regime change"... Just like the famous words of Dick Cheney who said, "democracy is messy...” And remember Friedman is an international expert, oh I mean he is the “brain trust of internationalism”, he works for the New York Times, he should know this... But as we say in law, for the foregoing reasons and averment sited: What is this man talking about?! Somebody at the New York Times who read this said: “Hey, Tom! This is good stuff! You are basically calling for complete and total catastrophe and calamity! You are supporting ISIS as some type of a weird, kind of an introduction of terrorism into the biosphere here?” Like I've said, I don't do this – but read this!
Here Gus will say that SHOULD THE US LET SYRIA ALONE, THE RUSSIANS WOULD WIN THE WAR FOR ASSAD IN ABOUT THREE WEEKS. And this is what the US does not want. It wants the war to drag on and on and on. What Friedman advocates HAS BEEN AND IS STILL THE US STRATEGY so far, unfortunately.
Last weekend, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster chided Russia for its “sponsorship” of Bashar al-Assad’s “murderous regime,” which he said ordered the recent chemical-weapons strike in Syria. “This is a great opportunity for the Russian leadership to reevaluate what they’re doing,” McMaster offered.
If the United States’ intent is to influence Russia to support more Washington-friendly policies, our policymakers must recognize and understand Moscow’s core interests—as Russians see them. Lecturing Moscow as a parent scolds a disobedient child is not likely to succeed.
Russia is not supporting the Syrian regime with considerable military power because they like Assad or his despicable policies.
Their objective is to enhance their ability to exert influence in the region, stabilize areas near their own borders that contain large Muslim populations, and ensure continued access to their Mediterranean port at Tartus.
Appealing to the moral high ground has no chance of influencing Putin.
According to the administration, the priority among American security objectives in the Middle East is the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS), which still has major holdings in the Iraqi and Syrian cities of Mosul and Raqqa. Washington doesn’t do itself any favors by mocking and deriding the world’s second-most-powerful military power, which, if engaged properly, has the ability to help with this primary security goal.
The U.S. response to the barbaric chemical strike has been, to date, marked by errors in judgment and evidence of inexperience operating in the international arena. In the 24 hours following the strike, President Trump was already claiming the Syrian regime was directly responsible and began laying the groundwork for an attack. In an emergency UN Security Council meeting, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley blasted her UN colleagues, claiming that if the world body was unable to take action, “There are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action.”
Meanwhile, Deputy UN Ambassador for Russia Petr Illichev cautioned patience, calling for a delay in any talk of a retaliatory strike until an investigation had identified the guilty party. According to Al Jazeera, a draft UN resolution called for “Syria to provide flight plans, flight logs, and other information on its military operations on the day of the assault … [as well as] the names of all commanders of helicopter squadrons to UN investigators and allow them to meet with generals and other high-ranking officials.”
Yet the Trump administration would not wait long enough to allow the UN time to weigh in on the matter, and likewise chose not to seek congressional authorization. Within 48 hours of the chemical attack, U.S. warships launched a cruise-missile strike against a Syrian airfield. In so doing, the U.S. virtually gave the Russians the upper hand.
Following the U.S.-led attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin was quick to accuse the U.S. of a “violation of international law under a far-fetched pretext.” On Tuesday, Putin said he still supports a UN-sponsored investigation into the allegations that the Assad regime ordered the attack. The Russian deputy ambassador and president both scored public-relations points by making statements that sound rational and proper. They did not defend Assad or deny he had ordered the attack, but rather urged the U.S. not to act too quickly and supported a full investigation to determine who was to blame.
analysis from the world expert...
“Don’t be afraid. Be brave. Be ready… to fight,” the whistleblower and privacy advocate told the audience when signing off.
American journalist and author Glenn Greenwald, Brazilian Politician Luciana Genro and privacy activist David Miranda are also due to speak at the Youth in Resistance conference.
On Thursday, Snowden claimed via his Twitter that the network of alleged ISIS tunnels that were reportedly destroyed in the $314 million MOAB attack by the United States were originally CIA-funded.
I wondered how the US knew about and where the tunnels were, bombed by the mother of all crap bomb (MOACB) (MOAB). Now we know:
.@thenib Those mujahedeen tunnel networks we're bombing in Afghanistan? We paid for them.#Blowbackhttps://t.co/xokL8VCQqk (via @GabiElenaDohm) pic.twitter.com/VDVsUYahiG
Assange responded in comprehensive fashion in the podcast, accusing Pompeo of attacking him "to get ahead of the publicity curve.”
"In fact, the reason Pompeo is launching this attack is because he understands we are exposing in this series all sorts of illegal actions by the CIA, so he’s trying to get ahead of the publicity curve and create a preemptive defense," Assange said.
This is the second time in less than a week that Assange has taken aim at Pompeo over the WikiLeaks remarks. On April 14, the WikiLeaks founder tweeted: “Called a ‘non-state intelligence service’ today by the ‘state non-intelligence agency’ which produced Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet.”
READ MORE: ‘Brought to you by agency which produced Al-Qaeda & ISIS' – Assange trolls CIA chief
The interview touched on a range of different topics including allegations that Assange had a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton and aggressively targeted her during the 2016 US presidential election. He refuted the claims and revealed that he has never met Hillary Clinton but speculated that he would have liked her personality if he did.
“I think I’d probably like her in person,” he said “Most good politicians are quite charismatic in person. In some ways she’s a bit like me, She’s a bit wonkish and a bit awkward. So maybe we’d get along.”
Assange was also questioned on the details surrounding the publication of internal Democratic Party emails from the account of Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta during the campaign. He reaffirmed the stance that he does not believe that WikiLeaks were given the documents by the Russian government and also said it would have published Republican National Committee emails if it had received them.
‘#WikiLeaks will give tech companies exclusive access to CIA hacking tools’ – Assange (LIVE)https://t.co/MM15WJRUHz">pic.twitter.com/BBCs8zIY07
“Just imagine if WikiLeaks had obtained information that it knew was true about the Democratic party and corruption of the primary process, and it decided that it was not going to publish that information, but suppress it, it would be completely unconscionable,” he said. “We specialize in really big scoops. You can’t go, ‘Oh, we have this massive scoop about corruption in the DNC. Now we need to balance this with a massive scoop about corruption in the RNC.’ These things come along once every few years.”
The move follows CIA Director Mike Pompeo's recent speech stating that First Amendment protections did not apply to Assange, and that WikiLeaks was a "non-state intelligence service." "Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms," Pompeo said.
According to the CNN report, prosecutors believe they have found a way to charge Assange without violating First Amendment protections. On Thursday, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Assange's detention was a "priority."
"We've already begun to step up our effort and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail," Sessions noted.
It's time for our government to stop this US madness, but what can we expect from Diswhater and Turd?... Nothing much but another bendover session... This prove with no doubts that the US was behind the Swedish "rape" cases... to flush Assange out. His supporters who lost their bail cash should congratulate themselves... They invested in one of the most noble cause on the planet: the TRUTH.
The opinions expressed in this site are those of the various authors and contributors and do not reflect those of the site, the site owners or hosting agencies.
Contributors please note that this site is archived in the National Library of Australia in perpetuity.