La Fleur Productions Profile picture
Aug 12, 2019 22 tweets 9 min read Read on X
THREAD - Did Julian Assange REALLY say that?

This thread examines the evidence for the often repeated statement that Julian Assange is purported to have made related to informants who might be named or identified by publication of the Afghan War Logs (25 July 2010).
The original publication of this statement appears to be in the book "Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy" by David Leigh & Luke Harding (Guardian Books/Hachette, 8 Feb 2011).…
According to that book, the "discussion" took place at Moro restaurant in London, in the "bunker" phase prior to the publication of the Afghan War Logs. The conversation is between David Leigh & Julian Assange, but narrated in the book by Declan Walsh (also of the Guardian).
The words attributed to Julian Assange by the authors (via Declan Walsh) are:

"Well, they're informants. So if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

Variations of this report (which @wikileaks calls slander) have now been repeated thousands of times.
They were repeated, exactly, more than 6 months later in the Guardian by Nick Cohen in: "Opinion: The treachery of Julian Assange" (18 Sept 2011).…
Nick Cohen hated Julian, and had scathing things to say about Correa.

In 6 Sept 2015, again in the Guardian, he wrote: "Opinion: Oppressive states such as Ecuador crush the web’s power."…
However, Cohen's opinions about Assange are not the point here. What is more interesting is that the Guardian did not point out to him that, prior to the date of his 18 Sept 2011 opinion piece, they had changed their minds about with WHOM the "discussion" had taken place & WHERE.
By 7 July 2011, Nick Davies (in a Google video) had moved the location of the "discussion" to Stockholm & he was the person involved.

"[Julian] said a most extraordinary thing: 'If an Afghan civilian helps the coalition forces, then he deserves to die.'"

There won't have been TWO discussions in almost exactly the same words with Assange. So why change the location & person?

Did David Leigh "remember" the "error" in his book? If so, why didn't Declan Walsh (who purportedly narrated the London conversation) say something earlier?
Or could it be that there were witnesses to the London dinner - people who were not happy about the way the conversation had been reported?

The new ("Stockholm") location might remove that problem.

As it happens, there WERE people - not from the Guardian - at the London dinner.
This is even mentioned in the book: the "German reporters."

In August 2011, one of them - John Goetz from Der Spiegel - was asked about the dinner, eventually signing a statement saying that the conversation reported in the book DID NOT take place.…
But Nick Davies appropriated the "discussion" and changed the location weeks BEFORE Goetz was questioned. Why would that be?

Reading the Goetz statement closely, it is apparent that the director of the film for which he was to be interviewed, Patrick Forbes, was fact checking.
In fact, Patrick Forbes had been preparing his documentary ("Wikileaks: Secrets & Lies", aired UK Nov 2011) for some time, having been introduced to the topic via his existing connections at the Guardian.

So the key players at the Guardian would have been aware of at least some of Forbes' questions before Goetz was approached.

Despite his (admirable) efforts at fact checking, the extent of Forbes' embedding in the Guardian world view is apparent here:

While a Stockholm meeting isn't mentioned in the video (now often known as "the Guardian documentary), an initial meeting between Nick Davies and Julian Assange in Brussels is highlighted."

In that segment, Nick Davies takes credit for 'masterminding' the multiple media (Guardian, NYT) approach to the forthcoming publications, Wikileaks later pointed out that they had been involved in many multiple media publications previously.…
David Leigh makes his feelings about Assange very clear:

"Julian brought with him a rather strange charismatic quality. He carried himself as though he was a cult leader. We started making jokes ... about people around Julian drinking the Kool-Aid."

The redaction issue is addressed as "an unexpected issue" occurring after 10 July 2010.

This is odd, because both Wikileaks AND the Guardian staff claim (elsewhere, and in different ways) that redaction issues had been thought through earlier.

And then the London Moro "discussion" is presented on screen.

David Leigh repeats his "informant" story:

"Well, they're American informants. They deserve to die." (Wording differs slightly from the book).

Leigh: "This stuck in everyone's minds."

This documentary was screened in Nov 2011.

Nick Davies had already appropriated this story and changed its setting ("Stockholm") - although no evidence has ever been produced that he met Assange there.

And John Goetz had told the film producer the conversation didn't happen.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks have strenuously denied this allegation by Guardian staff, and say that it is slander.

The Guardian contingent present a story (that they treat as a movable feast) which has been repeated - as fact - thousands of times.

And all of that is before we listen to Mark Davis, an Australian investigative reporter, who has now recounted his view (as at 8 Aug 2019) of the events of the same period:…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with La Fleur Productions

La Fleur Productions Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LaFleurDelSur

Apr 1, 2021
Legal action against the designers and perpetrators of coercive COVID policies (lockdowns, mask mandates and pressure to get vaxed) is now underway in various countries.

Here is the NZ version. Watch this space.

Sue Grey is also interviewed here:…
The text of Sue Grey's open letter to the NZ PM (and others) is now available:…
Read 22 tweets
Jan 4, 2021

Quick view of some of the speeches outside the court (from livestreams). Clips will no doubt follow.

#FreeJulianAssangeNow #PardonAssangeNOW
Speech from @JohnWRees:

"I would say 95% of this judge's judgment was to uphold the prosecution's case for extradition.

She refused extradition at the last moment ... because [putting him] under SAMs in the US would be an oppressive act."

Speech from @CraigMurrayOrg:

"We heard arguments today from the judge that are deeply concerning ...

[He list a number of them.]

But all of that is for tomorrow. Today, we are swept away by our joy that he will shortly be with us."

Read 4 tweets
Oct 5, 2020

Extradition Hearing #JulianAssange Phase 2:
7 Sept to 1 Oct 2020

(in the order present in court or read into the record):
DAY 1 (7 Sept 2020)

Witness #1: Mark Feldstein

"The administration has already won a partial victory. Even if the espionage charges against Assange are ultimately dismissed, this politicized prosecution will still produce dividends ..."

Full PDF:…
DAY 2 (8 Sept 2020)

Witness #2: Clive Stafford Smith

"WikiLeaks cables have contributed to court findings that US drone strikes are criminal offences & that criminal
proceedings should be initiated against senior US officials ..."

Full PDF:…
Read 22 tweets
Sep 5, 2020
Get your reading glasses out. Here it comes:


(1) Briefing Paper for Phase 2 of the UK Hearing of the US Request to Extradite #JulianAssange (starts 7 Sept 2020) from @DEAcampaign…

Note: Phase 1 Briefing Paper here:… Image
(2) "Julian Assange's Extradition Case: Previewing A Major Three-Week Hearing" from @kgosztola of @shadowproofcom.

This analysis lists key legal issues and likely defence witnesses for each point.…
(3) The new (2nd) superseding indictment from the US DOJ - issued 24 June 2020 (but not yet before the UK court).

DOJ Statement:…
DOJ Indictment:…

DOJ 1st superseding indictment (23 May 2019):…
Read 12 tweets
Sep 3, 2020
This article addresses the recent (19 Aug 2020) #Facebook policy change:

"An Update to How We Address Movements and Organizations Tied to Violence"…
On the face of things, most people would agree that it is better not to allow the glorification &/or encouragement of violence.

But where does the real celebration - nay glorification - of violence come from?

[HINT: think Hollywood, online "games", the military ... ] Image
Then there is the issue of why violence is shown at all on our screens.

To CELEBRATE violence - almost as art form?

Or to EXPOSE the violence of states (& those they employ) - done in our names?

Here is a Case Study from another social media platform:…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!