Saturday, August 9, 2014


In mid-July 2014, Time attempted an antiviral intervention against the first Internet hoax involving NSA leaker Edward Snowden. "Why Iran Believes the Militant Group ISIS Is an American Plot" read the headline above a lead that began, "Conspiracy theories are nothing new in the Middle East…." This particular rumor, said Time, had "assumed truthlike proportions through multiple reposts and links." It postulated a secret U.S., British and Israeli op—codenamed "Hornet's Nest"—hatching the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) to attract terrorists worldwide to so vex the region that Israel's enemies would be in Biblical disarray. Time traced the hoax to Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), which Time accused of "concocting an obviously fictional fake Snowden interview to bolster the narrative." Six days later, IRNA reacted testily, complaining that Time (which it called "Times") had smeared IRNA's report as "fabricated" without once referring to its original source, billionaire Pierre Omidyar's online startup The Intercept.
The problem is that, between its February 10, 2014 launch and July 14, The Intercept had posted 258 pages of NSA documents leaked by Snowden and numerous articles based on those leaks, but hadn't said a word about Israel's national intelligence arm, the Mossad, grooming ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as chief stinger for the Hornet's Nest. In the 30-day run-up to July 6, when the story first surfaced, The Intercept published just four articles, none of which mentioned Mossad or al-Baghdadi. "Hornet's Nest" occurred twice on The Intercept's website, in comments posted by reader Kelly on July 21 and July 29—weeks after the hoax began—both in the context of Hamas being ill-advised to stir the metaphorical Israeli hornet's nest causing the "entire swarm" to attack; her comment had nothing to do with a secret U.S., British and Israeli op involving ISIS. It's also significant that in rebuttal to Time, IRNA neglects to include a single hyperlink to The Intercept or any of "several other news outlets" that IRNA claims "also published The Intercept story." As we shall see, this omission of links to sources is de rigueur for articles spreading the hoax.
Ironically, among those failing to link crucial documents is Time itself, which somehow forgets to point us to what it calls IRNA's "scoop" that supposedly started the fuss. Instead we're linked to the Tehran Times, where Time says an English translation of IRNA's scoop "recently" appeared—only to be confronted with the Tehran Times home page, not any specific article. Using the site's search function, we get 50 hits on the keyword "Snowden," but none more recent than April 2014 and none translating IRNA's scoop. To conclude that IRNA "concocted an obviously fictional fake Snowden interview," a reader must rely on the opinion of Time's Middle East Bureau Chief, Aryn Baker. That leaves rigorous debunkers unfulfilled.
Regrettably, not knowing the date of IRNA's scoop, or being able to view its text online, complicates investigation. The earliest available evidence of the Snowden Hoax is a July 6 post in Arabic with a title that roughly translates as "Snowden: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the result of a three-nation intelligence cooperation."
Its pseudonymous author is "shababek," which is also the name of the website where it is posted within a German domain, All of the elements of the nascent hoax are in place. Edward Snowden is said to have revealed that the NSA, together with Britain's secret intelligence service MI6 and Israel's Mossad, "paved the way for the emergence" of ISIS as part of "an old British plan known as the 'Hornet's Nest' for the protection of the Zionist entity." Al-Baghdadi underwent "intensive," year-long military training "at the hands of the Mossad." The source of Snowden's revelations is The Intercept. There are no hyperlinks.
Social media puts a face to "shababek." The Twitter account @shababekT is active but contains only three tweets, in Arabic, all from August 2012 and two containing busted links to the website The profile photo shows a well-groomed, black-haired man in his 40s with goatee, dressed in a conventional business suit with necktie, above the name Kareem Al baidani. The same photo adorns the Facebook page of Abosamir Albaidani, who posts in Arabic, most recently in October 2013, and self-identifies as a graduate engineer. Some of these posts too contain broken links to A different photo of the same man, taken later judging from his graying goatee, is on the Facebook page of Kareem Al-Baidani, who likewise posts in Arabic, mainly about Iraq and most recently in March 2014, and again with nonfunctional links to Without reading Arabic, one can glean from the Internet that Kareem Al-Baidani is an Iraqi Shiite writer based in Munich, Germany. His Facebook photo is copyright Irak Heute Programm, which is German for Iraq Today program. A TV show by that name—"Al-Iraq Alyom" (Iraq Today)—appears on Al-Alam, an Arabic news channel broadcasting from Iran by the state-owned media corporation Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.
These tenuous connections between an Iraqi Shiite writer and Iran's state-controlled media are at most suggestive. We cannot say definitively that Kareem Al-Baidani is Hoaxer Zero, whose three-part inventions about the NSA, MI6 and Mossad hornet's nest exposed by Edward Snowden found a ready audience, initially in the Middle East but soon around the world. Nevertheless, we can note that a day after he posted the hoax online, it was picked up—word for word—on the Arabic website Iraq Now, with an expanded title: "Snowden: Abu Bakral-Baghdadi, the result of a three-nation intelligence cooperation and trainedby the Israeli Mossad." The following day, the Arabic version of Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency (FNA) ran the story, again identical to Al-Baidani's original but with a snappier headline: "Snowden:Baghdadi underwent an intensive course at the hands of Mossad."
FNA was no stranger to Snowden-related stories of shady provenance. In January 2014 and in apparent seriousness, FNA published "Snowden Documents Proving "US-Alien-Hitler" Link Stun Russia" to the effect that space aliens run the U.S. government. (No jokes, please.) It linked to a piece posted the previous day at that relied on, but provided no link to, a "stunning" report from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). Neither of these articles linked to any Snowden docs. And more than a year before, Fars had republished as straight reporting a piece from The Onion's satirical website claiming that a Gallup poll found rural white Americans preferred Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then president of Iran, over U.S. President Obama. So it's entirely consistent for a propaganda arm of the Iranian government to disseminate disinformation by invoking that internationally recognized paragon of truthfulness, Edward Snowden. In this case, Fars would be especially motivated by a threat much closer to home than space aliens. About 90% of Iranians are Shia, which is the official state religion; only 9% are Sunni or Sufi. ISIS, by contrast, grew out of the Sunni insurgency and built its violent reputation by brutalizing Shia Muslims. Naturally Iran would strive to defame the hated and feared ISIS and al-Baghdadi through association with the demonic three-headed hydra U.S., Britain and Israel.
Citing FNA as an impeccable authority, the hoax next began to spread in languages other than Arabic. Just two days after Kareem Al-Baidani's brainchild emerged from its birth canal, Al-Manar—a Beirut-based Lebanese satellite TV station affiliated with the Shia Islamist terrorist organization Hezbollah—published the story in Spanish, titled "Snowden: el líder del EI fue formado por el Mossad israelí." Al-Manar added a decorative touch by illustrating its piece with a posed photo of NBC News anchorman Brian Williams and Edward Snowden taken to promote NBC's May 2014 exclusive interview with the leaker, televised 41 days before Al-Manar published this article that never mentions said interview. The picture of two men seated pensively in front of tasteful, well-stocked wooden bookcases just looks good, is all.
Finally, three days into the hoax, an article appeared that linked to a reputable news outlet. At last! Baghdad-based Iraqi satellite TV network Alsumaria's "Snowden: Al-Baghdadi is the product of three intelligence cooperation" identified its source with the familiar hyperlinked logo of Arabic CNN. Alas, this led merely to the homepage and no specific story. Good luck finding Alsumaria's source. The blog Going Global East Meets West soon followed suit by linking its story to the "original source" that turned out to be—you guessed it—Alsumaria's report relying on an unspecified post at Arabic CNN. The Snowden Hoax had now become circular and self-contained. Whereas earlier versions simply omitted sources outright and unashamedly, subsequent iterations would cite them as sources.
Five days in, the hoax transitioned to Persian with "Snowden: Abu Bakral-Baghdadi made in Britain, America and Mossad," published by Salam Times. The article cited the Iranian Students' News Agency, run by university students, but contained no links. That same day, the hoax debuted in French with Croah's "Snowden confirme que Al Baghdadi a été formé par le MOSSAD," linking to Al-Manar's day-old French translation of its two-day old Spanish report.
Croah, however, replaced the shot of Brian Williams and Snowden with side-by-side photos of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Snowden seemingly glancing at each other with mutual distrust. This would thereafter fortify other articles and tweets promoting the hoax, as if one picture proved a thousand falsehoods.
Indeed, the same contrived image gilded the hoax's first article in English, from Som Daily News, based in Somalia, East Africa. All of five sentences long, it was titled "Snowden confirms that Al Baghdadi was trained by MOSSAD" (web page has since expired Four days later, the Som Daily News story was picked up by Gulf Daily News, the self-proclaimed Voice of Bahrain, headlined "Baghdadi 'Mossad trained,'" and by a blog calling itself The Real Syrian Free Press Network, headlined "Strategy 'hornet's nest': Snowden confirms that Al Baghdadi was trained by Mossad." Just to be safe, The Muslim Times then named both Som Daily News and Gulf Daily News as sources for "Baghdadi 'Mossad trained': Edward Snowden."
Ten days in, the virus jumped the Atlantic. "ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi Trained by Israeli Mossad, NSA Documents Reveal" at the Canadian website Global Research cited as its source Gulf Daily News, which had cited as its source Som Daily News. Having spread geographically from Germany to Iraq to Iran to Lebanon to France to Somalia to Bahrain to Syria, and linguistically from Arabic to Spanish to French to Persian to English, the readily adaptable Snowden Hoax was ideally positioned to infect North America. As a bonus, foreign outlets could now point to an ostensibly authoritative Western source, as happened the next day. As its basis for "Former CIA Agent: 'The Isis Leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi Was Trained by the Israeli Mossad,'" The Moroccan Times cited the lofty-sounding, Montreal-based Centre for Research on Globalization, a self-described "major news source on the New World Order" that runs the Global Research website.
On July 19, scarcely two weeks after Kareem Al-Baidani cooked it up in Munich and the same day Time sought to discredit it, the Snowden Hoax arrived in America. InfoWars, the website of popular broadcaster Alex Jones, gave us "NSA Doc Reveals ISIS Leader al-Baghdadi is U.S., British and Israeli Intelligence Asset." It led off with an Editor's Note (never a good sign) stating that writer Kurt Nimmo's piece was based on "a document recently released by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden" (no link thereto), the validity of which "cannot be verified due to the exclusivity of the Snowden cache." So it was released (to whom?) but nevertheless remains secret. InfoWars said the cache was being kept by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, journalist Barton Gellman, filmmaker Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation and others, but didn't speculate as to why none of those privileged parties had breathed a word about the Mossad training al-Baghdadi. Those who had Snowden's ear and his stolen documents were strangely silent on this sensational story, whereas those covering it hadn't spoken to Snowden and were denied access to the documents about which they were reporting. Welcome to the upside-down, inside-out world of the Snowden Hoax.
As it happened, on August 6, Glenn Greenwald—principal keeper of the Snowden cache—did belatedly weigh in on the story. Starting more than three weeks before, 10 people had tweeted intermittently to Greenwald (renowned for his intense daily engagement on Twitter) alerting him to the hoax, providing links to false reports, and respectfully asking him to refute the fraud. Finally, London-based freelance journalist Sunny Hundal tweeted: "@ggreenwald Just to confirm, did Snowden ever say the ISIS chief al-Baghdadi was trained by Mossad? Hearing it all over FB [Facebook]." Greenwald replied immediately: "I've never heard him say any such thing, nor have I ever heard any credible source quoting him saying anything like that." On August 10, Greenwald reiterated: "I've never seen anywhere where he said that, nor any documents that suggest it." At exactly the same time, down to the minute, Snowden's ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner coincidentally concurred in a single-word tweet: "Hoax."
A few days after The Moroccan Times published "Former CIA agent: 'The ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi was trained by the Israeli Mossad,'" it appended its own EDITOR'S NOTE, going InfoWars one better by using ALL CAPS: "Time Magazine has released on July 19, 2014 an article arguing that this story, which was reported by many Iranian sources including Iran News Agency, is a conspiracy theory from Iran and that it is not true. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that though the piece of news went viral on the net, Snowden did not refute the claims of the Iranian News Agency." In the quaint intellectual discipline of logic, asserting that a proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false is called argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). Since The Moroccan Times intrepidly elevates this informal fallacy to the level of an EDITOR'S NOTE, it's doubtful they'd be much impressed by Greenwald's or Wizner's tweets. After all, it wasn't Snowden himself refuting the hoax. So it must be true.
Two days after Greenwald spoke out, his rival WikiLeaks chimed in, tweeting: "#Snowden docs reveal #ISIS trained by Mossad—falsely claims #Bahrain gov affiliated newspaper Gulf Daily News." A link was provided thereto. "It is," WikiLeaks resumed in a follow-on tweet, "intentional fabrication by or accepted by the Bahraini government affiliated news site Gulf Daily News." WikiLeaks seemed unaware that Gulf Daily News almost word-for-word plagiarized the Som Daily News story published four days before. Over an hour later, WikiLeaks tried again, tweeting: "Ground zero for false 'Snowden docs show ISIS leader trained by Mossad' story goes back to last month in Algeria." This time the link was to Algé's "Snowden: « Le chef de l’EIIL, Al Baghdadi, a été formé par le Mossad » [Snowden: 'The head of EIIL, Al Baghdadi, was trained by Mossad']." The Algerian article was dated July 11—three days after Iran's Fars News Agency ran the story. Hardly ground zero, Julian.
In any case, Twitter's role in spreading the Snowden Hoax was instrumental. To measure its effect, a search was conducted to find tweets containing all three names "Mossad al-Baghdadi Snowden" within the 30-day range July 8–August 7, 2014. The results were entered into a database, omitting only tweets where the sender questioned the rumor's authenticity. The goal was to capture tweets promoting the hoax, not doubting or disputing it.

A total of 1219 tweets was compiled from 1016 unique senders. Nearly 89% (903) of senders tweeted just once, accounting for 74% of the database. Among the 11% who tweeted twice or more (113 senders for a combined 316 tweets), only two hit double digits: @kelpo1002 (27), who tweeted in French to more than 1K followers, and @AnonOperations2 (11), who tweeted in English to 560+ followers. Based on this analysis and on a visual review of every tweet collected, it seems unlikely any were generated by automated methods such as bots. These have the look and feel of genuine tweets from real people.
Spikes on July 10 and July 14 correspond to publication of, respectively: "Snowden confirms that Al Baghdadi was trained by MOSSAD" [expired]

In conclusion, more than 30 days after its initial outbreak, the Snowden Hoax continues unchecked. Any notion that WikiLeaks might halt the spread was quickly dispelled, due mainly to their clumsily worded tweet: "#Snowden docs reveal #ISIS trained by Mossad—falsely claims #Bahrain gov affiliated newspaper Gulf Daily News." Some readers missed or misunderstood the throwaway "falsely claims" and took it as confirmation of the hoax by WikiLeaks, the organization Snowden himself had praised to the sky: "They are absolutely fearless in putting principles above politics. Their efforts to build a transnational culture of transparency and source protection are extraordinary. They run towards the risks everyone else runs away from."
No surprise, then, that among the replies posted directly were these:
Sheba ‏@sahi_100: "I could well believe this."
Naheed R ‏@naheedR: "Doesn't surprise one bit. They all look like bad actors."
Abdul Rahman @Engr_AR: "Agree, shame on Mossad."
nu2twitr ‏@4in4mation: "Filthy Zionist Jews are Behind ISIS Terror Group."
Within 24 hours of posting, WikiLeaks's tweet had been retweeted 465 times by readers to their followers, and marked as a favorite 155 times. (In contrast, Greenwald's by then three-day-old tweet still hadn't made it out of single digits for either RTs or favorites.) Abandoning the orphaned "falsely," some readers extracted the first clause as a standalone, unqualified endorsement, attributing to WikiLeaks the very untruth that WikiLeaks had sought to expose.
the hermawans ‏@KerjaInterior: "RT @wikileaks: #Snowden docs reveal #ISIS trained by Mossad."
Riswandha Risang ‏@r_risang: "Snowden docs reveal that ISIS trained by Mossad – Wikileaks."
David Plater ‏@PlaterDavid: "'@wikileaks: #Snowden docs reveal #ISIS trained by Mossad.' So @foreignoffice @StateDept What does yr intel say?"
Hell, David, at this point, after the feverish onslaught of a month-long infection by the Snowden Hoax, it might be a relief to see a tweet from the verified U.S. Department of State @StateDept account conceding, once and for all, that Snowden's phantom NSA documents and imaginary interviews do indeed prove that Mossad trained al-Baghdadi and that Operation Hornet's Nest is real. Maybe then these loonies on the Internet will give it a rest.
Nah. Who am I kidding? They're like the alien seed pods in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They're here already! You're next! You're next!


  1. In back-to-back tweets on 10 Aug 2014, author Jeremy Duns ‏@jeremyduns calls this post a "Great forensic look at chronology and impact of the Snowden-says-Mossad/CIA-are-behind-IS hoax."
    "It's highly instructive on how conspiracy theories spread online. Worth reading and thinking about."
    Thanks, Jeremy!

    1. Great investigative piece, man! Big kudos from an aspiring journalist!

      I'm a libertarian, I truly HATE government. I have no desire to make excuses for Mossad IF this were true, but that's the point! It's not credible, sourced, information, shouldn't be spreading it just because we dislike Mossad. I'm constsntly chiding "Truther" types for taking BS and running with it.

      You know, if we really wanna inform people about corruption, or war, or whatever YOUR issue is, we should begin by making damn sure our sources are legit. This isn't always that difficult, but it does become so when you're trying to make some huge, scandalous, sensational claim. This is the absolute trademark of sites like Infowars. I admire the anti-state sentiment, but it ultimately hurts all of us when false information is repeated as truth

      Again, I respect this work. You did a great job showing how these kinds of claims circulate, escalate, etc.

  2. Jeremy,

    Thanks for this brilliant piece of work. In fact, this not only illustrates how a false story goes viral; it also describes how MOST news stories get disseminated. I am not sure MSM any longer employ "fact checkers" to verify stories. No time for verifying in the instant internet age.

    In the summer of 2009 I had a similar experience regarding the incorrect posting of a FaceBook photo for for Neda Agha-Soltan, an Iranian student shot dead in Tehran demonstrations after the presidential elections were reputedly stolen. The living Neda Soltani had her FaceBook profile photo lifted and it went viral within 4 hours. By morning it was too late to put the story out.

    I spent three months working with Neda to put the false story out. Once something goes viral, it is virtually impossible to put it out. It spreads like wildfire with those who pass it along saying nonsense like "How can CNN be wrong?" Two years after every main stream media outlet worldwide published the wrong photo of Neda, FoxTV was still shamefully displaying it.

    Search for "Amy Beam Neda" to find nearly 30,000 matches. I posted this within hours of the false story: .

    To compound this Neda saga, when the living Neda later published her semi-fiction "true" autobiography after receiving refugee status in Germany, she gave an interview to BBC in Europe stating she did not know who I was (after meeting her and taking her to a safe house in Greece). Her book editors successfully took down my video of her and me in Greece. I assume this was so that Neda Soltani could pull off some of her own deceipts like saying she had to leave her fiancee behind in Iran without a goodbye and that he never again contacted her. You could just cry crocodile tears for such a heart-wrenching story. However, this so-called fiancee, Neda told me, was a fellow instructor whom she had had a few conversations with in the university teacher's lounge. She was interested in him, but that doesn't make as good a story.

    For more on this story about the wrong Neda phot go to this interview with me at minute 9:45 at this youtube video about the twitter revolution:

    By the time one wades through all the false stories and deceipts it feels like reading a comedy . . . except the consequences are so dire. Wars are started over lies. Readers must be very careful not to believe everything they read. The Wikileaks formula of publishing source documents is indeed a necessary solution for determining truth. Governments must be forced to practice transparency. . . . an unlikely scenario.

  3. Correction: Thank you Alan (not Jeremy... the previous commenter)


  5. fact is that the USA supported the rebels in syria, who are now forming the islamic state....

    1. Anonymous is an example of the type who will hold on to a myth in the teeth of all possible evidence.

      "The USA support the rebels in Syria."

      First, with what? It's generally agreed that the existing evidence shows it supported its allies in the opposition with precious little.

      But second, and this is the point, it makes no sense to talk about USA support to the rebels in general. This is particularly the case since ISIS in particular, up until very recently, has been in a shooting war not with the Assad crime family but with its rivals in the Syrian opposition. (,,,, etc., etc.)
      Indeed, there are indications that the Assad crime family released the extremists who would go on to form ISIS precisely to divide and discredit the Syrian opposition (, for example).

      I don't particularly believe that ISIS is a creature of the Assad crime family. Rather, it has been in an alliance of convenience with it up until last month (July), when it turned its guns on territory under the control of the central Syrian government. In this sense, it's rather like the early alliance between the Israeli government and the cadres who would go on to form HAMAS.

    2. I like the skeptic-trolls here ;D
      First, you start with the "Assad crime family"... totally unbiased? That's what the west propagandizes.. Assad evil regime, Assad dictator, etc.. I personally have not enough justifiable information to state something like that. And don't give me reference from news articles... So to start with, you are on the "western-mainstream" opinion of the situation. I disrespect that. I would always look at ALL sides of the story.
      Second, I would like to share with you this site - This is just as an example of HOW EASILY "usa" or more like agencies/organisations can support/interfere with international affairs. So to arrogantly deny any support (like the way you do) is as senseless as accusation of support... And while some say Isis is supported by USA, you deny it, but basically both of you are on the same level in terms of reference and justification. There are so many private InternationaL military organisations nowadays, that you cannot simply know who supported who, everything is classified, and all you do is just speculate... And sometimes you get a leak, but most of the time, all you can do with this leak is speculate more...
      And as an end, I would say, what's the purpose of all this here? To debunk some conspiracy theories? This is so low-level... It's like the politicians'job. To try to make the people believe that the power is in the government, not in the one who is funding it (and funding their political parties)... So you will debunk a bunch of extremely-emotional state "conspiracy theorists" people, but you cannot debunk the fact that there's so much secrecy in governments, in organisations, in funding, in international relationships and planning. You cannot even find the City of London Corporation's financial sources, how much assets they got, in what they invest, and this is just a small example of an organisation/corporation that has extreme amount of power, yet its not transparent.
      So both, conspiracy theorists and skeptics, stop wasting your life. Concentrate on something more meaningful, gather as much as information as possible, from every possible source. Even from the sources that bring an emotional disbelieving state giving you the desire to ignore it/overlook it. Don't fight between each other on what's right or what's wrong, cause most of the times all of you are wrong. The more unbiased information you gather, the more close you can get to the real truth.

    3. First of all, I have to call you out. At the end of your comment you tell everyone to stop saying what's right or wrong, yet your entire comment involves telling everyone why they're wrong...Reminds me of the hyper-skeptics who say there's no such thing as truth. It's like, well ok, but I wonder if you consider THAT STATEMENT a truth-claim. If not, why bother saying it?

      Second, I think it's silly when people say government doesn't have power. If government didn't have power, why the hell are corporations throwing millions/billions of dollars at it? What are they trying to purchase, if not power? That's precisely what government has for sale. The fact thay corporations participate in that power doesn't mean it doesn't have a source.

      "Private" military contractors might as well be adjuncts of the state, with all the contracts and subsidies they receive. The entire global empire requires institutions of government, genuinely private actors couldn't possibly pull it off.

      It's like Gabriel Kolko's book, "The Triumph of Conservatism," where he demonstrates how the Progressive Era was really driven by industry-heads. Corporations FAILED in their attempt to cartelize and monopolize industry privately or voluntarily, so they had to turn to the federal government to do it for them.

      So I'm obviously not saying that corporations aren't a part of all this madness, but government is absolutely essential for them. Corporations alone can't levy taxation or conscription. Money isn't power, money is INFLUENCE. Insofar as there's a giant apparatus of state-power to be influenced with money, money can buy power. But let's not mix up where this comes from.

  6. Also check for a better refuatation :

  7. A nice piece - thanks for that.
    Reminder to everyone to apply a bit of skepticism before believing such stuff.
    Clarity and truth is important, spreading nonsense and ridiculous propaganda should be avoided - plenty of others willing to do that...

  8. The whole 'Snowden' affair is a hoax. 'Edward Snowden' is clearly a CIA fraud, who never 'stole' anything, as detailed in the Moscow intel agency report on him ... and the Snowden fraud is endangering lives of real dissidents who may be killed after being duped into contacting the lying CIA-tied 'Snowden journalists' such as Glenn Greenwald. CIA feeds the alleged 'Snowden docs' directly to Greenwald etc.

    How is it that Snowden's first recipient for his 'stolen NSA documents', was Dick Cheney's CIA-tied friend and biographer at the CIA-tied Washington Post, anti-9-11-truth Bart Gellman, a man who was never brave about anything, and who was mentored by CIA fake 'brave journalists' from 40 years ago? Who except a CIA 'fake dissident' and liar like this fraud Snowden, would 'trust' Dick Cheney's pal like this?

    The report in Moscow at Russia's SVR and FSB security agencies, makes clear Snowden is a fake, beyond any doubt - 'Russia gov FSB SVR report, Snowden Greenwald are CIA frauds pt1'

    How is it that Snowden's US lawyer, Plato Cacheris, has been involved in CIA projects for over 40 years ... and is 'negotiating to bring Snowden home'? ... Vladimir Putin knows Snowden is a CIA agent, liar and fraud, eager to get back to the CIA ... Putin will trade Snowden back to his bosses at the appropriate time.

    How is it that Snowden's 2nd and now 'main' journalist, is Glenn Greenwald ... Greenwald who is an ex-pornographer like Jimmy Wales 'founder' of the CIA's Wikipedia ... Greenwald who has now worked for 3 billionaire families, richest in USA (Gates) richest in world (Rothschilds) and now CIA-tied Omidyar ... Greenwald who also was never 'brave' about anything ... who now has 50 million dollars to do 'great brave journalism' and yet produces almost zero aside from his CIA-fed 'revelations' ... ?

    Why is it that EVERYONE in the Snowden - Assange gang, their journalists and lawyers, is hostile and even insulting to truth about 11 Sep 2001?

    How is it that Snowden is tied to America's leading CIA-advisor for 40 years, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Snowden working with Zbig's son Ian, and being promoted by his media daughter Mika? ... How is that Snowden's 'brave media' - NY Times, WashPost, UK Guardian - are all known as CIA 'Operation Mockingbird' media, who ignore most real dissidents, with the NY Times & UK Guardian having criminal charges registered against them in Europe for helping the CIA to defame EU citizens, and supporting EU internet censorship by CIA-Google? How is it that Snowden doesn't even seem to know what he 'stole', deferring it to his fake 'brave journalists'? How is it that Snowden spends his spare time giving oily praise for CIA-tied media liars, and undermining 11 Sep 01 truth?

    Purpose of 'Operation Fake Dissident Snowden? - As the Moscow report says, there are multiple purposes, including: To terrorise the world ... to pump up CIA-tied mainstream media like NY Times & Guardian & WashPost ... to help destroy 9-11 truth ... and likely also to entrap real whistleblowers, who get turned over to US gov after contacting the shill 'Snowden journalists' like Greenwald or the Guardian.

  9. Excellent post. Don't let the kooks get under your skin. Peace

  10. This page is unreadable.

    Glenn Greenwald suggested I read it, and I bet it's a terrific page and you spent a lot of time on it.

    But the page is unreadable

  11. If Snowden did leak this and the two went against him Snowden would have commented on that. It's opinion based on ignorance. Just like the evil zionist plot has been proven and admitted to be a hoax since the '90s but kept alive from the exact same cornor which have clear statements in their koran on jews, historical evidence proves this for over 100 years and thus they have motive. Not the other wau around.

  12. Here's a rebuttal to both Alan Kurtz and the establisment media's attempt to discredit the America's and Israel's terror links to ISIS:

    Establishment Media Moves to Debunk ISIS CIA Asset Story – Dismissed as “Snowden Hoax”

  13. I find that all the lying, and disinfo is indeed mind boggling. My true feelings are that soon all will be clear. All the evil done in darkness for the sake of fame, fortune and the Evil One will soon be in the spotlight. The innocent/downtrodden/persecuted must keep their eyes on the Creator and show light to those who need Salvation. If everyone would return to reading the Bible and take special note to Eph. 6 they would realize that this is all Spiritual Warfare, Heaven or Hell. Be Strong and Stay Strong in His Holy Name. HE is your only refuge!

  14. I am leaning more and more to the fact that Al-Baghdadi is DEFINITELY an asset of USA, Israel, or Jordan.

    The fact that his prison records were declassified yesterday, but ominously his "Civilian Employer" was redacted for "National Secuirty" Also his Family Members, and even his birthday were also redacted.

    This clearly shows that he is an asset on the job, which gives more credibility to the Snowden docs being real also.

    1. Thanks for the link. Now please provide a link to any reputable Snowden interview, speech, or leaked NSA doc claiming that Al-Baghdadi is an asset of USA, Israel, or Jordan. Thank you.

  15. UPDATE: On March 4, 2015, the nonprofit, nongovernmental organization Canadian Journalists for Free Expression launched a searchable online Snowden Surveillance Archive at this URL:
    The Archive is a complete collection of all documents that Snowden leaked in June 2013 to journalists Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill, and subsequently were published by news media worldwide.

    Interested readers may now verify for themselves that nowhere in the published NSA files leaked by Snowden is there any mention of Operation Hornet's Nest, ISIS, or its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    Moreover, in the seven months since I posted this blog, no proof has emerged of an actual interview, video address, or other verified statement by Edward Snowden that mentions Operation Hornet's Nest, ISIS, or its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    And as recently as February 2, 2015, Glenn Greenwald, the journalist closest to Snowden, has continued to refute this "fraud."

    1. Well if snowdon is a fraud then why would he release documents that could incriminate his masters??
      Innocent until proven guilty?
      Or never believe anything until its been officially denied.

  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Everyone is welcome to comment here, but please refrain from abusive language. Thank you.

  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Removed off-topic comment. You are invited to respond to the subject of this blog or to other replies on this thread. Thank you.

  18. It's just common sense, does anybdy really believe that the Assange or Snowden stories and updates would have been aired very often on both BBC and ITV uk television channels if there was even the slightest chance that they were really exposing state secrets? They wouldn't get a chance they would be ignored at best and 'disappeared' very quickly. The whole scenario is unbelievable to the extreme and is laughable. Just imagine Assange sauntering across london to the embassy and asking to be let in..pathetic, both Snowden and Assange are very obviously CIA assets .

  19. Snowden and the others did not reveal anything special anyway. The one big thing was the "revealing" of the NSA activities. Let's be honest, everybody with a functioning brain should know that NSA and its counterparts from other countries spy on almost everybody. Most of the revealed documents are boring and contain nothing valuable. If they did media would have been threatened if the documents did contain something special. They would never be allowed to glorify Snowden. So, he is nobody who brought the US in trouble. Snowden is a fake story to make an example of what happens when you f*** with the US government, just like the Iraq war is meant to deliver the oil-rich countries a clear message.

  20. It doesn't matter what anyone believes about the government. if you dance with the devil, the outcome is always the same. If you play pool with a crook, you always lose. The only way to end the problems is to stop feeding the rich who cause them. As far as I am concerned, people who go off the grid and live like the old days. Void of commercialism and money are the ones who truly know how to short circuit worldly troubles. Because without the support of the human cattle they call consumers, the rich trouble makers money would because worthless.

  21. I like to tell you why i dont beleive its hoax. Several years ago i read an article about GCHQ(Government Communications Headquarters) trying to eavsdrop on isis but they said isis is so good in computers,due to their youngness(members growing up in computerized socitey) that they made all their important i.e. general to liutenent appear from tel aviv!!!!!


  22. Would Snowden come out in public if that hoax story wasn't released, what do you think?

    1. I have no idea what you're asking, but thanks for reading my blog.

  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

  24. Did this Kareem Al Baidaini even cite any sources for his claim? Since I can't read Arabic, would someone tell me if he provided at least one reference for his claim?

    I have a hard time believing that he had the imagination to make up such a story from thin air.

    Also, has Snowden himself commented on this issue, and if so, what did he have to say about it?

  25. I want to write a follow up, what do you think?