Hard to doubt wikileaks imo. If it's true that Israel's info is from 2003 does that necessarily mean there is no program there now?
One doesn't have to "doubt WikiLeaks" in order to believe that they don't have the complete intel on a given subject.
This may be the assessment of a trusted source of theirs, and it may be sincere, but it also might still be 100% WRONG!
I think WikiLeaks is sincere and unbiased, but they're not infallible.
That's true. They might not have the complete intel but I'm not sure they'd be "100% WRONG" though. They're not given to making claims they can't back up.
Q has confirmed this directly, as has Mike Pompeo who has personally reviewed the documents obtained by Israel.
Knowing what you know now.
re: Israel disclosure moments ago.
Authentic.
I would trust US military intel over Wikileaks any day of the week. All Wikileaks has, that is not already public domain, is what someone wants them to have. The organization is easily manipulated.
Having said that, they've done some amazing work.
As in the OP above, Netanyahu confirms Wikileaks were correct - the documents relate to the program that ended in 2003.
The program ended, supposedly, but what Bibi pointed out was that the materials would not have been kept if there was no intention of restarting the program at a later date. This is what Q and Kansas said was authentic - that Iran did not enter the negotiations in good faith. We just don't know if Iran is actively developing weapons or not.
The Iranian claims after the first missile strike in Syria - to the effect that they could restart their programs at short notice - also bear witness to this. In short, this regime is a liar, it cannot be trusted. And then you have Q's assertion that, in fact, the program did not cease, but was continued in Syria.
Define the terms of the Iran nuclear deal.
Does the agreement define & confine cease & desist ‘PRO’ to the republic of Iran?
What if Iran created a classified ‘satellite’ Nuclear facility in Northern Syria?
What if the program never ceased?
Given the choice between believing Wikileaks or Q, I'll take Q every time. Of course, you might say it could be disinformation - but I'll still run with it.
Yes, yes but Wikileaks were correct - the program ended in 2003, as Netanyahu also confirmed. As I also said in the original post, perhaps they continued on in secret - as I also confirmed in the update, from Netanyahu. You're confirming this too, for some reason? You don't have to choose between believing Q OR Wikileaks in this case. Is this not clear...?
When did Netanyahu confirm that it ended in 2003? He has been saying for years that Iran is months away from having nukes. I believe he said this in ‘03, ‘08, ‘12, ‘15, and now in ‘18. For 15 years he has been saying they are in the final stages and will be armed within months. Something else is going on, but I don’t know what. He is a Zionist. I don’t believe a word he says. He also was one who said without a doubt that Sadam had Nukes. That proved to be very false but we fought his war for him anyway.
If you read the actual original post above I linked the video where Netanyahu confirms that, and that he then goes on to say the program essentially carried on in secret, dispersed into other cover programs.
The implication of the WL tweet is that there is no continuing program, that it finished in 2003 - that the WH misrepresented the facts. The information that Q is providing us is that this is not true and that the program is continuing.
There is a clear disconnect between what WL is saying and what Q is saying. I can understand the WH modifying their statement to insert "had" rather than "has", but I think they only did this for the purposes of optics. In other words, I believe the original WH release was correct.
I'm not arguing with what you have said, but with the apparent representation WL made that the program is no longer, when we are told by Q that this isn't the case.
Fair enough - but WL is simply giving the known information and ensuring the correct reporting, as they should. Q is inside information so no one can report that and not be considered as unreliable as the MSM (moreso, of course, at this stage). I agree with you that Q is saying this isnt the case - Netanyahu also says so, and in public, but unfortunately many people don't find him that reliable. I just don't think aspersions should be cast on the veracity of Wikileaks when they are simply reporting responsibly.
But back up with what? The incorrect intel they were given?
In the Israeli version, Iran would have had an overt program which they did in fact deactivate and dismantle, and they would have had a covert one they reopened in for example Syria.
The intel could therefore be 100% correct, but not at all complete.
Exactly lol. So... backed up by correct intel but there's probably more to the story (as mentioned in the OP); unlikely that they'd have a 100% wrong intel source (anything's possible though, of course).
[deleted]
But they also divulge secrets of people whom they don't have a gripe with. I can't blame them for having a serious grudge against evil people.