It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks may not be what you think it is...

page: 8
54
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


What do i think the possibilities here are?

Hmmm...well, i don't know, and i'm speculating here you understand..

You have been a member for what...a little over three weeks...about the time when the story broke here, you place a thread designed to cast doubt about the validity of a website that has caused INTERNATIONAL controversy and reporting on an issue the US government would rather keep quiet...it's a long shot, and pure speculation, but i think you could be a dis-info agent trying to muddy the waters and discredit Wikileaks.

That's what I think.

Edit to add;

I posted before i read any other posts here, but having skimmed a few, it doesn't look like i'm alone.





[edit on 7/4/2010 by spikey]




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
While I have no problem with someone blowing a whistle to bring light to nefarious things going on, I do have a concern with the problems of security with Wikileaks.

Namely say if there was classified information about military or defense systems and bc of Wikileaks enemies were to expose this and take advantage then there would be major problems.

Also like the Op says, what better way for the governments to keep tabs on whistleblowers. I wonder how many posters to Wikileaks have ended up missing or worse because of the info they have shared.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Think about it... this website, or any website like it ever made (if there are any others) have to be secretive. The only way we can trust these websites is to blindly do so - which is a very hard thing to do considering that it's about sensitive information.

I can't tell you to trust them or not too, but so far they have shown some good information and always have made good on their promises. They seem to genuinely need people to donate to stay alive - but once again that could all be a front you're right.

I have done research on wikileaks, I made a thread that got a lot of attention awhile back when paypal froze their account. You can find it in my profile if you wish to see the information I put together and the responses people made. They were all positive, so take that as you will.

I am not going to ask you to share your information with us unless you feel comfortable doing so, or can find a safe way in doing it. I would suggest an alternative persona or have someone else that you can fully trust send the information in to someplace you can also fully trust.

I wish you the best of luck and hope all works out for you. This world needs people who are willing to show the masses the truth, without people like that we would be left in the ruts the government leaves us in.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
To the posters like SDog, Jdog (funny how names are so similar, as are their viewpoints), and D Rain.

Your blind devotion to something you know nothing of is quite telling to your "open mindedness".

See you have ignored and pretended that there is NO EVIDENCE, which there IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

This EVIDENCE is ADMISSIBLE in a COURT of LAW.

It is called "EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY", and one of the original members of WikiLeaks, by the name of Young, has been explaining in depth why there is a good chance they are a front.

Many posters have come in and suggested that Young has a far better record with his leak conduit, cryptome, yet this has been ignored by the thread haters.

There is already a mountain of sources to work with here, but the fact you PRETEND it doesn't exist is TELLING as to your INTENTIONS in this thread.

Another 2 points.

WikiLeaks released a video of a helicopter blasting civvies so what, plausible deniability. If you knew ANYTHING about the Iraq war, you would have seen the countless videos of people shooting AKs from the back of cars an random ppl, soldiers beating the hell out of prisoners including kids, soldiers killing farm animals, dead bodies of women and children, etc.
Hell did you forget the prison scandals too??

This video of a helicopter shooting 15 people is NOTHING and CHANGES NOTHING. We have seen videos 100x worse than this, like the one where they drop a JDAM on a street full of protesters (at least 30-40 died).
What about the fuel truck that got hit and over 200 innocent civvies died???

Point is Wikileaks is NOT releasing anything "BIG" like you claim. They are releasing the mundane, and hyping it up with drama.

And also who are WikiLeaks financial supporters? Oh yeah, people we don't trust all over again.

Calling to have this thread removed or put somewhere else, you should be ashamed of yourselves. You refuse to acknowledge legitimate evidence, then turn around and demand the thread be removed? SHAMEFUL.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jdawg9909

Also like the Op says, what better way for the governments to keep tabs on whistleblowers. I wonder how many posters to Wikileaks have ended up missing or worse because of the info they have shared.


Ok, this rational keeps resurfacing ...

Although on the surface it seems reasonable, I for one cannot see the logic in it.

Let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation, or even some three letter agency ...

Are you (not you personally Jd, I'm asking in general) telling me that you are willing to accept the consequences of a whistleblower disclosing something damaging to your organization in order to identify the whistleblower?

Seems to me that the identification of someone who might betray the organization is only crucial BEFORE the horse is out of the proverbial barn. Once the scandal/corruption has been exposed identification is at best an exercise in retribution and discovery of the "mole" so to speak to prevent further leaks ... important to be sure from an organizational pov, but hardly worth the price of being exposed as corrupt.

Now one can make the argument that a company or three letter agency will bait a whistleblower with fake info in order to out him, but that only works if the information is false to begin with (so that it can be refuted later). Considering the fact that to date most if not all documents released via WL have been proven legitimate, the above mentioned reasoning to assign suspicion to WL seems, at least to me, flawed.

Just thinking out loud ...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
To the posters like SDog, Jdog (funny how names are so similar, as are their viewpoints)


lol, once again you astonish us with your sound reasoning!

Of course never mind that Jd and I disagree, but still right?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog


Here is the problem with your logic.

You think a whistle blower needs anonymity.

And this is WRONG, anonymity just means they can kill you and no one will ever find out what happened.

This is why whistle blowers must always be out in the public.

Address this?

Oh and Address the fact that eyewitness testimony is available evidence in the record. People have gone to death row on less than eyewitness testimony. It's legitimate evidence for the record.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by muzzleflash
To the posters like SDog, Jdog (funny how names are so similar, as are their viewpoints)


lol, once again you astonish us with your sound reasoning!

Of course never mind that Jd and I disagree, but still right?


Great job addressing the issues I posted.

Two thumbs up for effort.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash


It is called "EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY", and one of the original members of WikiLeaks, by the name of Young, has been explaining in depth why there is a good chance they are a front.

Many posters have come in and suggested that Young has a far better record with his leak conduit, cryptome, yet this has been ignored by the thread haters.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]


It sounds like Young may have a bit of conflicted interest in denouncing wikileaks if he is also running a similar site. Why blindly trust cryptome?

I say use discretion with any of these sites and come to your own conclusions with the material they release.

I do wholeheartedly agree that anonymity can be just as dangerous as beneficial. I like that you pointed that out.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Raustin]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
A very entertaining thread.

This thread reminds me of a Mobius Strip. Around and around we go.

WikiLeaks has proof it is under investigation by the Army Counterintelligence Center through the PDF (linked) in its possession. The document references attempts to discredit WikiLeaks by accusations of its being a front for the CIA.


Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and
organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows
the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front
organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). See page four of the pdf.


The Document includes the following "Key Judgements":

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence,
OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.
(S//NF) Recent unauthorized release of DoD sensitive and classified documents provide
FISS, foreign terrorist groups, insurgents, and other foreign adversaries with potentially
actionable information for targeting US forces.
(S//NF) The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the
US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out. The claim made by Wikileaks.org that former US government employees
leaked sensitive and classified information is highly suspect, however, since
Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity of the whistleblowers or leakers is one of its
primary goals.
(U//FOUO) The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,
misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception
management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to
specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.
(U//FOUO) Several countries have blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site and
claim the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers
or to block access to or remove false, sensitive, or classified government information,
propaganda, or other malicious content from the Internet.
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org most likely has other DoD sensitive and classified information
in its possession and will continue to post the information to the Wikileaks.org Web site.
(U//FOUO) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org use trust as a center of gravity by protecting
the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers. The identification,
exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current
or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this
center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the
Wikileaks.org Web site.


Clearly US Intelligence is concerned over WikiLeaks and perhaps rightly so. An organization like that is clearly a double edged sword.

On one hand, they do a public service by giving people a venue to make public wrongdoings by governments or corporations, on the other they could do great damage if not careful about what leaked information they make available to the public. Lives could literally be lost if they were to obtain and release National Security related documents.

Now we are faced with another issue here. Is this thread an honest concern over the infallibility of WikiLeaks, or is it as suggested in the document an attempt "to discredit WikiLeaks by accusations of its being a front for the CIA"?

Truth be told, how would we know one way or the other?

It would seem this is something each person considering providing information must make a personal decision about, based on faith or a gut feeling. Unless of course evidence surfaces proving WikiLeaks to be a front for some nefarious plot.

Just planting the seed of doubt could harm this group greatly, but not considering it may be a front would be foolish. Without further evidence we are back where started in the mobius strip.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by angrymomma
I can totally see how this would be possible. What could be a better way to find whistleblowers in your own government agencies? Have you tried sending this info again from another computer, say at your local library? The crash may be coincidence, you never know. If it happens the second time, well, I'm on your side haha.


This is a great idea.


I don't think you are paranoid in the least. Our ability to think critically saves us sometimes.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I am not a disinfo agent. I have been around ATS for a long time (lurking). I am not seeking to discredit Wikileaks.

I am not seeking attention here or anywhere. Nor am I seeking to discredit wikileaks. I really wanted to use them to store files and to go public with it.

I simply wanted to share my concerns here and what happened, and apparently I am not the only one who has had this problem.

Anyone can test this wiki upload and draw their own conclusions.

I opened the post with a disclaimer, and made it clear that I was speculating based on my own personal experience.

I have a rather simple choice and I have to make it tonight. Either I can run, or call the authorities and turn myself in, though I have broken no laws. I will have to tell them everything, and give them evidence to back it up.

It's me, or them... and so far I can't trust anyone... So yes maybe I am very paranoid... And if you were me, and been through what I have you would probably feel exactly the same way.

I wish I had more time to investigate wikileaks, to find that they are what they claim to be, but it isn't going to happen. No time.

ATS upload while good, is not going to work for me (I'll keep those reasons to myself). I had my material stored on a private server that belonged to someone I know and that has been eliminated.

Going public may not be an option now, going to state law enforcement for me may be the only option I have.

Either way, I'm in deep #.

Believe what you want here, think of me what you will. I am whatever you want to believe I am.

Trust, no, one.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Maybe Wikileaks is Feds but why would you post on ATS about posting on wiki?

Just post it here before its to late, You could get hit by a truck tomorrow

Post it everywhere and make it go viral is the way forward in this InfoWar

Just sayin..


P.s I never use wikileaks anyway most of the interesting info get posted on here



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
paranoia will destroy ya.

i really don't attach all that much significance to issues like this. what if wikileaks is a cia front or whatever other nefarious concept we can muster?

as with all relationships one enters into, whether it be with institutions or individuals, one should use precaution. in the instance of wikileaks, the op took what seems to me like pretty good precautions. as a consequence, he has not lost the information he says he has and doesn't appear to run the risk of having been identified (assuming that was a likely prospect).

if wikileaks is legit, stuff will be posted. if it's not, you still have your info, anonymity and can go elsewhere. seems to me there's plenty of places to distribute info on the internet for people that truly have something worthy of distribution.

ats, as so many people have pondered, could be a front. i don't think there's a chance it is and, if it is, it's inconsequential to me because, as it is, it serves my purposes.

if it gets to the point where ats posters or wikileak leakers are systematically rubbed out, then we don't have a chance anyhow and might as well let it be.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


I think we, for the most part understand you are not here to do WikiLeaks any harm. Your not approaching it like you are.

I share your frustration in how would we ever know one way or the other?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

Originally posted by angrymomma
I can totally see how this would be possible. What could be a better way to find whistleblowers in your own government agencies? Have you tried sending this info again from another computer, say at your local library? The crash may be coincidence, you never know. If it happens the second time, well, I'm on your side haha.


This is a great idea.


I don't think you are paranoid in the least. Our ability to think critically saves us sometimes.


You are affiliated with the Masons, are you not.

Please be honest in your answer



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


It seems like if you have to turn yourself in, then you must have done something otherwise there is nothing to turn yourself in for. If you are worried about what would happen after, why not just go public with what you have? If you are going to show the authorities, why not show everyone?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeeker8300
no the government is not monitoring what you watch on your pc. Don't be so paranoid and controlled by fear. If any thing, being paranoid and fearful is what your enemies would want, and you're giving it to them! LOL

[edit on 7-4-2010 by TruthSeeker8300]


You are either extremely naive or dangerously uneducated. Pick your poison ...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Hey all I am trying to say is safety first. I have a deep respect and admiration for those who speak out when needed to. A conscience is rare now a days and the truth is even rarer. If someone has the guts to speak out and to expose wrong or corruption , that is great - just consider the ramifications before doing so because this is all much more than some movie or game. Stay safe is all I am saying.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Maybe this info has been posted maybe not but here it is. Nothing to fancy but does give some brief technical info. If any of this has already been posted I apoligize in advance.

Later!

__._
__._ has address 88.80.13.160
__._ has address 88.80.28.193

Interesting ports on mail.__._ (88.80.13.160):
Not shown: 1673 filtered ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
25/tcp open smtp
80/tcp open http
443/tcp open https
465/tcp open smtps
995/tcp open pop3s
6667/tcp open irc (Intresting) - Internet Relay Chat? Really?
9999/tcp open abyss (FYI) - This port is usually associated with a virus, and or Trojan.


% This is the RIPE Database query service.
% The objects are in RPSL format.
%
% The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions.
% See www.ripe.net...

% Note: This output has been filtered.
% To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.

% Information related to '88.80.12.0 - 88.80.13.255'

inetnum: 88.80.12.0 - 88.80.13.255
netname: PRQ-NET-INT
descr: prq Inet - Access
descr: Customer / link addresses
country: SE
admin-c: pIN7-RIPE
tech-c: pIN7-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: MNT-PRQ
source: RIPE # Filtered

role: prq Inet NOC
address: PRQ AB
address: Box 1206
address: SE 11479 Stockholm
address: Sweden
remarks: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
remarks: !! Abuse reports should ONLY be sent to abuse@prq.se !!
remarks: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
abuse-mailbox: abuse@prq.se
admin-c: PW1115-RIPE
tech-c: PW1115-RIPE
nic-hdl: PIN7-RIPE
mnt-by: MNT-PRQ
source: RIPE # Filtered



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join