half true means worse than useless

What good is a half-truth? If you believe it's a whole truth, the half-truth is worse than nothing. It deepens deception.

A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.

The purpose and or consequence of a half truth is to make something that is really only a beliefknowledge, or a truthful statement to represent the whole truth, or possibly lead to a false conclusion. appear to be According to the justified true belief theory of knowledge, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe in the relevant true proposition, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. A half truth deceives the recipient by presenting something believable and using those aspects of the statement that can be shown to be true as good reason to believe the statement is true in its entirety, or that the statement represents the whole truth. A person deceived by a half truth considers the proposition to be knowledge and acts accordingly.

The essence of psyops.

Wikileaks, as a body of evidence, works exactly this way. Each individual document stands on its own. We can take them individually, no problem. Put together, the documents create a picture like a mosaic.

In the case of Wikileaks, we learn that certain documents were scrubbed in advance.

Meaning, no embarrassing or incriminating documents against Israel.


Over to aangirfan:

Lia Abramovitch, an Israeli-born investigative journalist, reportedly writes for the Syriatruth website.

Reportedly, Abramovitch has found evidence that Julian Assange 'struck a deal with Israel.'

According to this alleged deal, Julian Assange agreed to withhold cables incriminating Israel.

Reportedly, Abramovitch cites former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg as her source.

Domscheit-Berg reportedly said that Assange received money from semi-official Israeli sources.

(Israel appears only in 77 Wikileaks docs. /

http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/ /

Rebuttal to Article Alleging a Deal with ...)

The rebuttal in particular -- interesting. By anonymous. Complaining bitterly about the lack of actual evidence that Assange made a deal with Israel.


The Indybay article does not meet even the most elementary journalistic standards. Aside from being riddled with conditional adverbs like “appears” – it is basically a hack-job cobbled together by someone with vindictive and malicious motives. [EVIDENCE PLEASE? - ed.] The sources cited DO NOT corroborate the primary damaging allegations being made, i.e. that Julian Assange of Wikileaks arrived at an agreement with Israel to redact any damaging documents prior to release, let alone that he accepted secret payments from them or from the newspaper Al-Akhbar for special dispensation. The ONLY allegations that are sourced and corroorated relate to the statements of a dismissed and disgruntled Wikileaks employee who wished Wikileaks luck, and did not corroborate the damaging allegations in the Indybay article. Moreover, knowing full well that the readers who will read the Indybay article are prmarily English readers and speakers, the article links to non-English publications as sources, two in Arabic and one in German, attempting to provide legitimacy and the 'cover of ethical journalism' for its “news” reporting, DELIBERATELY further obscuring the truth.

The Anonymous Authors of this article should be very ashamed for what they have done. Whatever their motives, the ends do not justify the means.
Signed, ANONYMOUS. {Dramatic flourish.}

So yes, there's no evidence of the secret meeting or the secret tape or the secret Google Translate tool. There's only the fact that that there are no actual incriminating or embarrassing documents against Israel to consider.

"No classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks." 
~ Netanyahu

Going over to Gordon Duff at Veteran's Today (via mathaba.net):

Wikileaks are called “leaks.”  Julian Assange darts from country to country, hotel to TV studio, always ahead of the security forces hunting him down, a veritable “Nordic” bin Laden.    Newspapers are peppered with photographs of a boyish face in the uniform of the American army, identified as the potential “leaker.”  The 46,000 intelligence/counter-intelligence officers of the Department of Defense, supplemented by the FBI and 16 other agencies and 40 other departments, more “bodies” than currently serve in Afghanistan, we are told, are unable to rein in this “dangerous duo.”
Documents by the hundreds of thousands are leaked, upon qualified examination, showing careful screening with many documents edited and more selected out of series with careful gaps and omissions.  A single non-commissioned officer, watched 24 hours a day by tens of thousands of security officers and threatened with life in prison, is an unlikely suspect.  However, there has been no mention of any others nor has there been a mention of an investigation of any kind.  In fact, there seems to me no attempt whatsoever to curtail these current leaks.
What does this tell us?

...The difference between “leaking” and “spying” is semantics.  The goal is the same, destruction of the defense capabilities of the United States, except “spying” pays better.

The people responsible for each, particularly when they access the same systems and overcome the same roadblocks, all requiring the same physical access, are one in the same.  Those who “leak” perform an identical task to those who spy. Those who leak, those who have leaked appear to be, to any reasonable person, exactly the same people who are spying now and who were supporting Pollard.
The first place we look, before new Russian, Indian, Iranian or Chinese version of the F-35 take flight or our first F-35 meets a fiery end is Israel.  No Chinese or Pakistani’s or Iranians have gained by the F-35 espionage “clone” operations styled after “Wikileaks.”  Wikileaks has proven one thing, there is a major spy operation in the Pentagon with broad access.  It is immune to investigation.  Only political power can generate this kind of protection.
Assange is a recipient of information he likely believes is real.  Our investigations prove different.  The Pentagon leaks were carefully edited, thousands of reports were reconstructed and falsified and hundreds of thousands were removed as inconsistent with an unknown political agenda.  This requires full access to Pentagon computer systems, PROMIS software and hundreds of man hours.
It requires, in fact, a broad spy operation inside the Pentagon that enjoys its ability to operate with impunity.  Wikileaks carries an Israeli signature, the leaks damn only Israeli enemies, shield Israeli operations and are time to serve Israeli interests.  Hundreds of Israeli citizens work in the Pentagon.  None of this should be a surprise to anyone.

And in another piece, Duff unpacks the scripted martyrdom of Assange.

The same media that worked with Assange to censor and manipulate Wikileaks for the Netanyahu government in Israel is the same media, the same outlets, the same ownership, the same management that are now pouring out threats, demands for “hanging.”

And in the meanwhile, DISTRACTION CITY.
Congress votes to give more blood and blackmail money to Israel. The U.S. media seems to be ignoring this as just business as usual but the Israeli press is jumping for joy. AIPAC gives the story a headline, thanking the lackeys they buy for pennies on the dollar.

And who knows what else we might not be noticing while all this goes on, and on, and on...?


Anonymous said...


Too many people have been conned into supporting Assange.

- Aangirfan.

Anonymous said...

If he was in reality a potential threat to their plans (instead of a bit player in their plans) he would already be in an early grave.

Anyone engaged in diligent research into suppressed Facts (free of the propagandized and compromised media) could draw up a long list of names now six feet under due to convenient deaths.


A. Peasant said...

totally agreed. he's become quite the martyr, saint julian of assange.

Celt, check out "suspicious deaths" on the blogroll -- precisely the list you mention.

nobody said...

May I take a slightly different tack? If Ass-Song was really a threat they'd ignore him. Just like they did with Scott Ritter in the run-up to Iraq in 2003.

Mind you, they will whack him. He's only a mind control zombie after all and all this lionisation sure looks like the build-up to something. Hmm... here's a question: who will be the patsy for his death? A Muslim is too unlikely. Wait! What if it was a Russian? That'd work pretty well - blame it on Putin.

I wonder what odds Ladbrokes would give you for that?

A. Peasant said...

good point nobs. i suppose if he wandered too far off the reservation.

they had to ignore ritter because he was an establishment guy. he had the credibility that they always wave in everyone's faces, the dreaded military expert.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peasant
I think Nobody has this thing figured out. I like his thinking. Honestly I never paid much attention to Assange from the beginning.

A. Peasant said...

could be dubs. i haven't spent too much time on assange either but for pete's sake its gotten a bit ridiculous lately.

Davoh said...

Yup. The whole furore around Assange is a smoke screen.

Half truths? Bit like being 'half pregnant'. .. heh.

(PS, i didn't make this up .. the "word verification" for this comment is "fools". Ya think gruggle knows something or is playing with minds?)

Davoh said...

On the other hand - have been looking into the Assange saga. Bit early to make any coherent assessments about the whole thing..

(mm, 'word verification' is 'slyzaten' this time. Aten was always sly .. heh)

Anonymous said...

Suspicious Deaths is a very good link, Peasant. Thanks.

Here is a copy/paste from Suspicious Deaths; it is the story of a courageous woman who posed a great threat to them, and I believe they did not ignore her.

*** ***

Beverly Eckert

(May 29, 1951 – February 12, 2009)

Beverly Eckert, the 911 widow who refused to stop calling for an open investigation of 911 was permanently silenced in the Buffalo plane crash.

"In an official White House photo by Pete Souza, President Obama shakes hands with Beverly Eckert on Feb. 6, 2009, during a meeting in Washington, D.C., at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building..."

One week later she was dead. End of problem.

Just another of those "happy" coincidences for the psychopaths? Of course it was.

(submitted by reader)

R.I.P. Beverly Eckert said...

Further information on high profile 911 widow Beverly Eckert. Explains how she was about to create a huge problem for the 911 murderers.


Beverly Eckert (Wife of 9/11 WTC Victim and Earwitness to WTC Explosion, Refused hush money).

["I heard him say, ‘I love you,' then I heard a terrible explosion and a roaring sound," Eckert told The Stamford Advocate. "It sounded like Niagara Falls. I knew without seeing that he was gone."] . . . [The forensics recovery efforts were led by the same man who led the forensics recovery efforts for Flight 93 in Shanksville.]

My Silence Cannot Be Bought, by Beverly Eckert

"I've chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems... I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited."

"I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence."

"The victims fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by Congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the Sept. 11 fires still smoldered."

"If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?"

"So I say to Congress, big business and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private-sector failures: My husband's life was priceless, and I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought."

(Mrs. Eckert was killed today in the Buffalo air crash. In spite of the aircraft's three de-icing systems and the fact that neither the aircraft ahead of, nor the aircraft behind, the aircraft which crashed experienced icing, the Mainstream Media is programming viewers that ice on the wings led to the crash.)


This is the link to the above information, which also lists other post-911 "convenient" deaths.


A. Peasant said...

indeed Celt. and here was someone else on that flight who was a problem for the authories.

Beverly Eckert, a 9/11 widow, died on Flight 3407 (February 12, 2009). Also on that flight: Alison Des Forges of Buffalo, NY.

"Alison Des Forges of Buffalo, was senior adviser for Human Rights Watch's Africa division. Considered one of the world's leading experts on the genocide in Rwanda, Des Forges testified at 11 trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda as an expert witness. She was named a MacArthur Fellow in 1999. Des Forges was returning home to Buffalo after a trip to Europe, where she had briefed diplomats on the situation in Rwanda and Africa's Great Lakes region, said Emma Daly, spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch. She sent an e-mail to colleagues from the airport before boarding the plane." (CBS: Portraits of Victims of Flight 3407)

more here:

A. Peasant said...

i dunno Davo. sometimes those word verifications are suspicious.

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.