Nothing is ever simple when it comes to the support community surrounding WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that includes the story of Suzie Dawson and the Pursuance Project. Earlier we mentioned a 2017 campaign called #QuestionWikiLeaks that we believe tried to initiate honest discussions about the Australian publisher, making it less divisive and taboo to engage in them. Sort of.
The campaign was started by an offshoot of Anonymous called “AnonIntelGroup” or “IntelGroup” and it’s part of this story because during Dawson’s attacks on Pursuance, WikiLeaks support gatekeeper Emmy Butlin (@GreekEmmy) mentioned them in relation to the project. Before Dawson was kicked out, on December 9, 2017, Butlin stated that because IntelGroup was involved in Pursuance “perhaps questions need to be asked,” and it all stemmed from their #QuestionWikiLeaks campaign:
“There are some good people involved [in Pursuance] but isn’t the ‘founder of Intelgroup’ the person behind @ Questionwiki ? I see Intelgroup (who focused on families of imprisoned/victims inc many Courage beneficiaries) as a collective in Pursuance. Perhaps Questions need to be asked.”
“This is an interview with the founder of Intelgroup who also authored this: ? Didn’t @AnonScan publish a video about a Black PR? From the last link the image shared shows Intelgroup has joined Pursuance as a collective Ray here explains it is very much a family and how it works refers to the ‘founding father’.”
“The interview with Intelgroup founding father is live here: the article showing Intelgroup joining as a collective is live here: the Anonscan videos and Ray’s MNOO#10 Ray Johansen IntelGroup you can see on youtube, what’s missing…”
Eight months prior Butlin had added IntelGroup to a long list of “trolls” she keeps track of and then encourages everyone to block them. The list includes a myriad of Twitter accounts, groups like IntelGroup, and even writers who have questioned the transparency of the support community because if blacklisting or trying to de-platform journalists, reporters, independent writers (and today’s bloggers) was good enough for the head of Hitler’s Press Association, McCarthy, and today’s far-right and/or repressive governments like China, Bolivia, India, and the United States, it’s good enough for the WikiLeaks support community.
AnonIntelGroup appears to have been founded in early 2015 by James St. Patrick (88blackhatss) who described himself in a 2016 interview with hacktivist Ray Johansen and activist Kitty Hundal as a “person who not only wants change, but wants to be a part of the process that ultimately brings change.” The collective focused on the “steady flow of information” with an emphasis on access to information for everyone so that you can “decide for yourself what you should do.” According to an archived webpage of their now defunct website, a myriad of people were associated with it including Johansen who clarified that there was no actual “support team.”
Other members and/or affiliates of the group included Kitty Hundal and @An0nKn0wledge (now known as @An0nAKn0wledge) who we mentioned previously as a self-proclaimed member of Anonymous who not only likes to use the collective to threaten people online, he’s been an associate of Suzie Dawson’s since at least 2012.
AnonIntelGroup’s #QuestionWikiLeaks Campaign
On March 23, 2017, IntelGroup published a Medium article entitled “#QuestionWikiLeaks…Because No One is Above Questioning,” in which they made it clear that their goal was not to discredit WikiLeaks or their work but rather it was their belief that “no one man or group should be above questioning.”
“And well…we started asking questions
“We started using the hashtag #QuestionWikileaks, as a way to call into question some very odd things wikileaks has been doing lately.”
As we noted earlier, we applaud any efforts to build more trust, communication, and transparency within the support community which seemed to be the initial goal of the campaign. Again, sort of. The article’s feature photo was an illustration of Assange who looks like he’s churning out propaganda from the Vault 7 files which of course immediately gives off a “he sold out” anti-Assange vibe.
Some of the concerns laid out in the post included allegations that WikiLeaks had “selectively used information” to influence the 2016 U.S. election:
“Some thing’s don’t add up and we have reason to believe wikileaks which is the creation of Julian Assange , selectively used information to help persuade the American people of the United States Of America to vote Trump.”
They also questioned the slow leaking of the Podesta emails, the timing of the Access Hollywood video release, and the publication of Vault 7 which they described as helping Trump who was reportedly having problems with the U.S. Intelligence community at the time. According to the author(s), “We went from talking about Trump and Russia to the CIA hacking all of our shit.”
So first, the Access Hollywood tape vs. when the Podesta emails were released was debunked by Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi but her article was published over a year after AnonIntelGroup’s post. If anything, we’re surprised that no one noticed WikiLeaks started publishing on Putin’s birthday and we’re only saying that because we know the heads of people like Emmy Butlin will explode, not because we actually believe in Russiagate.
Second, it’s unclear why there was any concern about WikiLeaks “slow leaking” the Podesta emails when even Kitty Hundal said four months prior to the article that “WikiLeaks openly states that the timing of ANY release is for maximum impact. Standard practice in good journalism”—which it generally is.
As for Vault 7, a stunning cache of documents that exposed the full extent of the CIA’s hacking and malware arsenal including the ability to distort the fingerprints of who’s doing the hacking, IntelGroup’s article is the first time we’ve come across the theory that it was meant to help Trump. However, they weren’t the first to publish the idea.
The premise was undoubtedly spurned on by Glenn Greenwald’s January 2017 appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight during which he reported that there was “obvious open warfare between the intelligence community and President-elect Donald Trump,” and was later retweeted by WikiLeaks. Shortly before that, leaked WikiLeaks DMs show that Butlin, who was in direct contact with WikiLeaks and others, posted a news article about Trump’s “healthy sceptisism [sic]” towards the U.S. intelligence community.” And the illustration of Assange used for IntelGroup’s article appears to have originated from an article written by @VioletBlue and published two weeks prior. She wrote:
“This week’s poorly conceived distraction from Trump and Putin sittin’ in a tree was brought to us by WikiLeaks, which dumped 8,761 documents of the CIA’s hacking arsenal online for all to see. The leak factory didn’t even bother trying to play coy — it actually made the ‘Vault 7’ password an anti-CIA JFK quote about destroying the agency.”
Blue also linked to a Twitter user’s account who asked why WikiLeaks decided to publish Vault 7 when they did because “In the recent past they carefully timed releases for political effect,” something Hundal pointed out months before, only then it apparently didn’t raise any red flags like it did for IntelGroup after the Vault 7 publication.
What’s even more interesting is that again the Assange illustration appears to have originated with Violet Blue’s article (in Google search) and for those of you who don’t know, Blue accused Jacob Applebaum of “threatening her for not giving in to his sexual demands and of an attempt to rape a female friend on her verified Twitter account,” in 2016. So did someone want to make a statement by deliberately using the illustration (and the “Vault 7 is a distraction from Russiagate” argument) from Blue’s article or was it just a coincidence?
Questioning or Trolling?
After the IntelGroup published their article, Kitty Hundal posted a “thread proposal” on Twitter stating that “oversight and transparency are foundational concepts within WL” and that “WikiLeaks has an intimate understanding of the importance of these concepts and therefore excluding themselves from applying them would be wrong…that means questioning the power that be. All of them. Including WikiLeaks.” She went on to quote Lord Acton’s “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Ray Johansen retweeted her initial tweet in the thread stating to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange that “Transparency and Oversight must be our guiding light, even when its [sic] shines at us.”
At the time, IntelGroup had added the Twitter account @QuestionWiki to their own Twitter bio making it appear that they were in control of or at least promoting the account in conjunction with the #QuestionWikiLeaks campaign. When another support gatekeeper @BellaMagnani arrived on the Twitter scene they questioned who was running the @QuestionWiki account (ironic eh?) stating that they were basically trolling WikiLeaks rather than asking legitimate questions. The Twitter account is no longer available so we’re unable to report on the large majority of their tweets.
Although supporters were not keen about the campaign, Hundal argued that WikiLeaks and its supporters could “withstand honest questions that come about as a result of MSM confusion-mongering and rumors by detractors.” She added that they shouldn’t “isolate ourselves from honest support because that support is responding to things we know are false.”
She then clarified that she was only talking about the Medium article—the one that included the Assange illustration, not the @QuestionWiki Twitter account which she said she had no involvement with.
“Read their [AnonIntelGroup’s] paste with valid questions, completely void of silly baseless accusations: https://medium.com/@IntelGroup/questionwikileaks-because-no-one-is-above-questioning-32a42504c00e#.a2oa3pvm4…They are not malicious, they are the oversight we need. Let’s not attack those that support Oversight and Transparency, like #IntelGroup” — Kitty Hundal
As concerns grew, Johansen said he would try to find out who ran the Twitter account only to return a few days later and tell everyone that he had cleared some things up, some tweets had been deleted, and that the “aggression” against @QuestionWiki should be “dialed back” because they’re not “malicious actors.” The same exact thing that Kitty Hundal told everyone previously.
By the end of April 2017, the twitter account had posted a multitude of tweets that were considered questionable or offensive to supporters even though Johansen says he and Hundal tried to have tweets deleted whenever possible. According to Archive.org, @QuestionWiki retweeted things like “Here wikileaks has some absurd sexist commentary on Hillary’s clothing choices,” and “WikiLeaks is clinging to Putin’s skirt, rather than releasing documents on him that they promised they would in 2011,” and on occasion added the hashtag #QuestionWikiLeaks.
They also retweeted IntelGroup’s members/affiliates like An0nKn0wledge who stated that “Its a question that needs to be addressed no one is above questioning & there is more to it then just this still don’t think WL = Russia tho,” in response to a tweet about how WikiLeaks was allegedly using servers in Russia. As you’ve probably realized by now, when Emmy Butlin brought up IntelGroup to Dawson eight months later and the fact that some of its members and/or affiliates were involved with the Pursuance Project, she was trying to pile on to Dawson’s accusations that the people surrounding Barrett Brown were trying to “destroy the community.”
It was almost another month after @QuestionWiki’s retweets about Putin’s skirt et al before Johansen finally told the account that they were no longer credible after retweeting information from the “WikiLeaks Forum,” which is apparently “known to be an FBI op” and blacklisted on Butlin’s website. Although Johansen and Hundal’s interactions with the account carried on for months after that, the #QuestionWikiLeaks campaign appeared to be dead in the water.
(Correction: We incorrectly noted that during an interview Johansen had with the founder of AnonIntelGroup, there was no mention as to why they had supported/stopped supporting the #QuestionWikiLeaks/@QuestionWiki campaign. That interview took place before the campaign so we have removed it from the article.)
According to Johansen, there was only one person connected to IntelGroup who “felt joy working with Question Wikileaks” but as a whole IntelGroup did not. But this in no way explains why Hundal went so hard defending IntelGroup’s #QuestionWikiLeaks campaign or their Medium article; why both Johansen and Hundal told everyone that @QuestionWiki wasn’t malicious; or why Johansen said that attacks against @QuestionWiki should be “dialed back.” And one of the points that should be made here is that it also doesn’t appear that anyone affiliated with IntelGroup actually explained anything to supporters like the fact that allegedly only one person affiliated with the group basically liked trolling WikiLeaks.
Like everything else in the WikiLeaks support community, it seems that supporters who had watched these shenanigans in real time were forced to ignorantly decide what had happened, who to trust, whether or not the campaign had been infiltrated, or was it just a bad campaign to begin with? Ironically, this despite the fact that AnonIntelGroup’s whole schtick was that people should be informed so they can “make a decision for themselves.”
Worse, less than a year after Johansen’s interview with St. Patrick, @AnonScan published a video in which they named AnonIntelGroup as being a part of a Black PR campaign against Assange and how it remained unknown if it had been infiltrated by the government or trolls. They added:
“We have recently seen indication that looks like this group of individuals are popping up again, this time using the hashtag #questionanswr…just like the hashtag ‘QuestionWikiLeaks,’ the hashtag ‘questionanswer,’ those behind it or supporting it have an agenda. That agenda is a Black PR against WikiLeaks and Mr. Julian Assange. A campaign where we noted that a certain part of the collective of Anonymous and tiny trolls are participating but also Black Hats and individuals who are anti-WikiLeaks and supported by two government [unintelligable] are participating.”
Could all of this have been an op started directly after the Vault 7 publication in order to weed out government agents and anti-Assange trolls? Sure, anything’s possible. But again, in the meantime supporters were forced to sit through these shenanigans and then try to figure out later who, if anyone, that promoted the campaign were trolls or government agents.
The kicker in all of this? Kitty Hundal and An0nkn0wledge went on to become some of the strongest advocates for #Unity4J, if not two of its most well-known members and maybe even Suzie Dawson’s right-hand men, as they say. After ClassConscious.org published a 2018 article about Unity’s indisputable ties to the alt-right Dawson pulled out the “they’re feds” JTRIG card just like she did on Pursuance Project:
“These JTRIG assholes have already been told by their own parent organisation that they’re full of shit and to shut up and stop smearing Unity4J…What ClassConscious does it textbook JTRIG, straight out of the Snowden documents. The methodology employed is carbon copy of GCHQ disinfo ops. It’s nothing but a smear operation benefiting the very intelligence agencies and ‘hired demagogues’ who target Julian & WikiLeaks.”
And this is what they got in return from Hundal for “questioning” the Unity campaign:
“These ongoing attacks on Unity4J and Suzie are simply playing into the hands of the feds and opening the door for their snitches to drive wedges between all of us. They want to destroy this.”
This coming from a woman who a year prior was not only promoting but defending a campaign called #QuestionWikiLeaks and an article that accused Assange of working with Russia, purposely meddling in the U.S. election, being responsible for Trump’s victory, making fun of him for wanting his Twitter account verified, and included a featured illustration that originated with an article written by a woman who accused Applebaum of rape and depicted Assange manufacturing “imma help Trump” propaganda through a sausage maker. As if we need more, according to Dawson’s tweets, she was well aware of the #QuestionWikiLeaks campaign which started with the Medium article and yet she had no qualms working with Hundal a few months later at Pursuance Project.
Someone make it make sense.
Censorship and a Handbag of Activist Hypocrisy
To add to the shenanigans, at some point in the middle of the #QuestionWikiLeaks campaign and prior to joining #Unity4J, An0nKn0wledge allegedly bot reported AnonIntelGroup’s Twitter account resulting in Twitter shutting it down because “his ego got hurt.” Johansen said on Twitter that “He will never do it again. so chill…” and indeed, if anyone chilled it was An0nKn0wledge.
In the last two years it appears that he’s made an abrupt political turnaround (kind of) perhaps in an effort to appease the Anonymous gods and this might be the reason why: In February 2018, the largest Anonymous account on Twitter @YourAnonNews (YAN) brutally took down An0nKn0wledge for a myriad of things including bot reporting, a history of pushing a far-right agenda, and playing with the CIA. So grab your popcorn and a handbag of hypocrisy and take a historical ride with us…
The Far-Right and Bot Reporting
Back in 2016, An0nKn0wledge was writing for Luke Rudkowski’s WeAreChange.org, the same outlet where Cassandra Fairbanks was churning out Cernovich-sourced Pizzagate-Spirit Cooking articles that WikiLeaks for some god forsaken reason was retweeting. And even though he published articles on Assange and press freedom, he also used sources like Mike Cernovich and once wrote an article detailing how the “propaganda” media was smearing Steve Bannon for calling him a white nationalist.
An0nKn0wledge’s Twitter account is no longer available but despite that it appears he even made comments to the effect that it’s “anti-Freedom & Liberty” to speak out against racism and white supremacy to which one Twitter user replied, “Hoo boy, You drank the super special kool-aid.”
As recently as a few months ago, he was praising Fairbanks, this time for calling out former Ambassador Richard Grenell’s involvement in the arrest of Julian Assange while failing to question (like everyone else) her motives, inner circle, close associations with the Trump administration, or how she got involved with Grenell in the first place who has since become the acting director of U.S. National Intelligence.
So as early as 2016, Twitter users were already accusing An0nKn0wledge of “turning into an alt-right attention whore like Cassandra Fairbanks,” but it wasn’t until February 2018 when the shiz really hit the fan and it all started with this tweet:
More from @YourAnonNews to An0nKn0wledge:
“If you, as someone who shirks responsibility for their own acts, seeks pity parties, lies, and peddles comic book tabloid right-wing memes, represent ‘OG Anonymous’ and decided to leave, good riddance…It applies to all hacks like you. If we’re causing hack wannabes like you to jump ship, good.”
“Or maybe the act has simply gotten old? No, we’re not particularly interested in ‘solidarity’ with hacks that will jump on with right-wing authoritarianism for attention and/or pay. We’re certainly not down with derps who seriously believe in the ugliness.”
“LOL! A legend in your own mind. All that ‘research.’ Simply two bit retweets of copy pastas of right wing garbage. When you’re ready to be honest, you know how to reach us.”
There’s no doubt that An0nAkn0wledge has done a complete turnabout and now puts out a lot of anti-Trump tweets calling him a dictator and saying things like he believes the U.S. president actually wants to kill people (Covid-19). But in the next breathe he’s still retweeting articles about Steven Bannon’s take on Covid-19 and China because surely the white nationalist from Cambridge Analytica has never misled anyone before. As for YAN, they also called him out for bot reporting an account which might be in reference to him shutting down @AnonIntelGroup’s account the year before but we don’t know for sure:
“We know you bot reported someone. That’s on you. And it makes your dishonest ‘Kumbaya’ sophistry that much more transparent. Good luck with the right wing. They enjoy BS more than we do…”
“You reported an account with a bot flood because your ego was offended. Preach on.”
“Tiniest violin playing for you. Respond all you want. You’re a two bit poser hack. Rant about ‘free speech.’ Bury people in a bot net who disagree with you. A stale fart of Anonymous.”
“Citing one tweet is not proof that you didn’t delete others. Anyways, this isn’t something we need to prove. We saw it first hand. Hence, you made your bed. But, continue with your show for others. Let’s see how well that works out. Will it gain 10 followers w/o Swastikas?”
According to the YAN account, it appears that An0nKn0wledge admitted to the bot reporting but then locked down his account, deleted tweets, and tried to lie about it later.
If you thought the (alleged) lies, far-right agenda, abrupt political turnaround, and shutting down his own friends’ Twitter account over his ego was bad, there’s always the fact that An0nKn0wledge himself admitted to working with the CIA during the Anonymous operation #OpISIS. In late October 2016, one Twitter user said that An0nKn0wledge had “doxed himself to the CIA,” while another one asked, “a ‘handler’ told you that and you didn’t find it odd?” As we mentioned, his tweets from the An0nKn0wledge account are no longer available but @YourAnonNews was nice enough to drop a screenshot of what all the hubbub was about.
As one Twitter user put it, “Thanks for confirming that you voluntarily cooperated with the #CIA re #OpIsis,” and “You’ve been easily compromised,” remarked @YourAnonNews. An0nKn0wledge’s comments underneath YAN’s screenshot included: “I didn’t sign anything it was more of a threat help us fight ISIS or ur going to jail for past ‘Crimes,’” and, “They claimed theyd give me Diplomatic Immunity if I hunted ISIS for them. Not a spook not involved in that anymore.”
Diplomatic immunity, wut?
GhostSec vs. Ghost Security Group
In case you’re not familiar with #OpISIS, it was an Anonymous operation that started in 2014 when a “global community of internet hacktivists” came together to take down ISIS Twitter accounts and led by GhostSec, another offshoot of the collective. However, as early as July 2015, the media began reporting that GhostSec was sending information to the U.S. government via a third party. As the story allegedly goes, they came across intelligence that suggested an impending terrorist attack so they forwarded it to Michael Smith from the security firm, Kronos Advisory, who acted as a liaison between members of the collective and the U.S. government.
“A member of Ghost Security – or GhostSec – by the name of DigitaShadow revealed that information gathered from social media regarding potential attacks was sent to Smith, who evaluated each threat and forwarded those he believed to be credible to the relevant law-enforcement agencies. This led to the arrests of 17 suspects in Tunisia earlier this month.”
“…we began looking for events near areas that those nationalities visited…We collected all of the relevant intel and evidence and forwarded it to the FBI through our government contact…Two days later, we were debriefed that arrests had been made as a result of our intelligence.”
But this wasn’t a one time occurrence. GhostSec continued to funnel information to both the U.S. and British government although some Anonymous accounts argued that they weren’t “working with” the government, it was more a one-way street. Others disagreed. However members of GhostSec or Anonymous want to characterize it, the relationship between members of the collective and the government splintered GhostSec leaving behind the original collective (GhostSec) and giving birth to the non-profit organization Ghost Security Group (GSG) who distanced themselves entirely from Anonymous—these are the people that were working with the feds.
Ghost Security Group set up a new Twitter account in September 2015, although according to the ibtimes.co.uk, the split occurred as early as May 2015. They created two divisions within the organization: “Ghost Security” headed up by DigitaShadow, one of the original members of GhostSec; and “CtrlSec” run by a former member of Anonymous that focused on social media operations.
In late May 2015, @YourAnonNews was already tweeting about how #OpISIS had become a joke and that anons were being used as government stooges, and by November they flat-out said that they were not affiliated with it anymore. Aside from the dirty busy of liaising with federal officials, @YourAnonNews was concerned with censorship and the fact that innocent people were being targeted. Here’s part of their statement they released in December 2015:
“We think it’s great if people want to hack ISIS and publish their secrets. But engaging in social media censorship campaigns and dealing with intelligence contractors and government agents is deeply stupid. The former will contribute to legitimize the spread of internet censorship and will lead to the increased censorship for everyone, including Anonymous. Dealing with government agents et al will not only result in many more informers in Anonymous bu twill [sic] also damage its reputation as it will lead to a view that Anonymous is too close to US intelligence interests.”
“…They have always targeted Anonymous and other dissident groups as terrorists, and when they aren’t trying to discredit or imprison us, they are attempting to co-opt us – sometimes openly by attending conferences like DEFCON, seducing us with promises of money or calls for patriotic duty, other times covertly lurking around IRC channels attempting to steer us unwittingly into supporting their agenda.”
And while @YourAnonNews was making statements like that, a month prior An0nKn0wledge was apparently making statements like this one: “#GhostSec is Ran by Feds but its Alright shows #Anonymous and feds can play nice for a common goal Destroying ISIS.” It’s unknown if he was being sarcastic or not.
Any cozy relationship between members of Anonymous, intelligence contractors, and at least two Western governments—especially when members appear to be cheering it on—might be enough to make anyone queasy. Even more so when retired U.S. General and former head of the CIA Michael Hayden was praising the operations:
“[W]hen asked whether such agencies appreciate the activities of organizations such as Ghost Security Group, [Hayden] said: ‘Officially, no. But U.S. law and policy are so constraining, I am sure the folks currently in government take secret pleasure in it, as I do.’”
To make matters more…uncomfortable, it was reported that the original GhostSec (or at least members of it) merged with BlackOps Cyber in 2016—a security firm affiliated with BlackOps Partners. Here’s a list of their board of directors and advisors. Yikes.
We don’t presume to know all the details and drama that went on with the original GhostSec and it would be extremely disingenuous for us to lead anyone to believe that’s the case. With that said, based on An0nKn0wledge’s own words, the story appears to be much darker than simply funneling information to U.S. military contractors.
An0nKn0wledge has never been shy about telling his audience that he was part of the original GhostSec and in the last year he’s put out some interesting tweets about his alleged experiences within the collective:
“Digita [DigitaShadow] entrapped all of us in GhostSec orchestrating various attacks then overthrew the group, made it an OpISIS group, and threatened everyone with Michael Smith that we would ‘face repercussions for the previous “cyber crimes” he orchestrated.” (January 13, 2019)
“…Arab Spring had CIA involvement. How do I know? CIA handler confessed it when they were threatening me in #GhostSec the person claimed to help orchestrate Anon’s side of the operation. Was he lying? Who knows. It wouldn’t surprise me if he did.” (January 27, 2019)
What he’s talking about obviously goes back to the screenshot @YourAnonNews posted where An0nKn0wledge said he worked with the CIA and was given “diplomatic immunity” whatever that means in crazy land. But as you’ll notice, he added a lot more to the story later on: While he was part of GhostSec, DigitaShadow allegedly took over the group, started working with the CIA and Michael Smith from Kronos, and then entrapped everyone into working for the government because of previous attacks DigitaShadow had coordinated himself (and that apparently An0nKn0wledge just admitted he took part in).
Basically we’re wondering if every single member of GhostSec worked with the CIA because that’s exactly the picture he’s painting. In early 2020, he indicated again that members were entrapped into helping the government dox ISIS or else face charges (we’re assuming) for cyber crimes they had committed like DDoS-ing police departments. And yet, according to a 2015 interview AnonIntelGroup (yes, the same IntelGroup mentioned earlier) conducted with “Wauchula,” a former member of the original GhostSec, nowhere does he mention everyone being entrapped by DigitaShadow and threatened into working with the CIA:
“While DigitalShadow was in control he was dealing with the Gov. I also was involved due to the fact that I was the Co-Director. Now that the group has split, the original GhostSec does NOT work for the Gov.”
We’re not denying that these things may have happened it’s just the first time we’ve ever come across this version of events. Perhaps we missed the news cycle on it just like we apparently missed the headlines that GhostSec played a role in extrajudicial killings in the Middle East, at least according to An0nKn0wledge who reported that four months ago (under the account @An0nAKn0wledge):
“So Doemela was arrested 4 alleged affiliation w/ #YPG/#PKK. Let me remind everyone & feds especially CIA Mike Smith & friends were having #GhostSec d0x ISIS & hand info off PKK to have ISIS in ME assassinated. Doe was only sharing news & labeled PKK. #FreeDoemela#CgAn#FreeAnons” (February 7, 2020)
“Sharing mother fucking news about PKK & YPG isn’t criminal. Telling hackers to D0x people to have them killed or face your past crimes that you initiated (entrapment) having #GhostSec DDoS police depts yrs ago is. Take notes CIA & French intel. Ill fucking learn you.” (February 7, 2020)
If we’re not mistaken and perhaps we are and someone would like to clear these tweets up, An0nKn0wledge announced on Twitter that GhostSec (including himself) knew at some point that the information they were collecting on ISIS was being funneled to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (he makes it sound like they were the ones sending the information directly to PKK) so alleged members of ISIS could be assassinated.
“Mike Smith & friends were having #GhostSec d0x ISIS & hand info off PKK to have ISIS in ME assassinated…Telling hackers to D0x people to have them killed…”
So basically they were involved in the extrajudicial killings of alleged members of ISIS in the Middle East on behalf of the CIA? More to come…
Page 3: Coming soon
Disclaimer: Ten thousand more pages of disclaimers to follow.
If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.
If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.
If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.
That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at email@example.com with any questions or concerns.
I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.
If I described you as a fruit basket or even a mental patient it's because that is my opinion of you, it's not a diagnosis. I'm not a psychiatrist nor should anyone take my personal opinions as some sort of clinical assessment. Contact @BellaMagnani if you want a rundown on the psych profile she ran on you.
This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.
The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.
The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.