"Dispropaganda" - An independent and politically unbiased website which strives to tell historical, political and contemporary, unfashionable, hidden truths through the use of satire and black humor.

Please reload

Debunking Wikileaks.

April 7, 2016

 

Yesterday WikiLeaks went public stating that the US government was behind the Panama Papers "attack story" regarding Vladimir Putin's $2bln offshore money laundering operation.

The "evidence" that Wikileaks show to support their claims is the fact that ONE of the media outlets ("OCCRP") that published the leaks regarding Putin receives financial help from "US aid" and the "Soros foundation".

What Wikileaks chose to ignore is that the facts regarding Putin's $2 billion money laundering operation, came not just from OCCRP, but from MANY other independent media outlets across the world who had never received any sort of financial help from the US or the Soros foundation, and who had their own investigating journalists examine the documents regarding Putin in the Panama leak.

Furthermore, OCCRP published articles about EVERY major politician featured in the Panama Papers not just Putin. This included US government's long time friends and allies like David Cameron and Petro Poroshenko. So according to Wikileaks logic, the US government now funding "attack stories" on its friends an allies!

Wikileaks has been known in the past to be extremely pro-Putin biased, by never attacking him or by never releasing anything that might embarrass Russia or Putin, but these latest allegations are absurd even by their standards.

This should come as no surprise to anyone seeing how the founder and the man behind Wikileaks, Julian Assange, is a paid employ of the Kremlin who had his own show on Putin's propaganda channel, RT.

This article is not meant to denounce everything Wikileaks has ever published or revealed, some of it was extremely valuable and important information, but just to shine a light on Wikileaks and how people treat it as a "neutral and unbiased" source that can be trusted blindly, while the truth is that they are the exact opposite of the definition of a neutral and unbiased source.  


Sources: https://www.occrp.org/en/

https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/panama-papers-money-hidden-offshore





 

Please reload

FEATURED POSTS
Please reload

SEARCH BY SUBJECTS