reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
Information can be gleaned from almost anything.
Julian Assange deals in classified documents through the online world.
I find open-source intelligence and use it for debunking the conspiracies.
Going To Your Public Library, Gathering Open Source Intelligence, and Surviving
The difference between Julian and my actions?
His actions are illegal because they are giving away actual classified information.
My information is merely non-classified information supplied through a legal means.
While I respect Julian Assange's intent
, it is his method of obtaining it that I question.
Committing an illegal action, whether someone agrees with the action they are uncovering, or not, is not necessarily the right thing to do, two wrongs
do not make a right.
And he is literally going to war with the Pentagon and America through his actions.
No matter what I say and or do in regards to those conspiracy theories
I speak of I know that I can speak on the actual foreign and or domestic
If he was not literally breaking the laws I would see him as a good guy instead of a criminal.
I will give an example of speaking of the politics behind what Julian Assange could have spoken about, instead of breaking the law, and he would have
been a lesser target.
The Project for the New American Century
is who lied us into the Iraq War.
Quote from : Wikipedia : Project for the New American Century
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006.
It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan.
The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."
Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite
policy of military strength and moral clarity."
The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush
Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.
It is both the P.N.A.C., a policy think-tank, and their Statement of Principles
and their unsavory List of Signatories
which is the proof in the
Quote from : Wikipedia : Statement of Principles
Statement of Principles
PNAC's first public act was releasing a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997, which was signed by both its members and a variety of other
notable conservative politicians and journalists (see Signatories to Statement of Principles).
The statement began by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power.
Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the
achievements of past decades?
Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following
"four consequences" for America in 1997:
* we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the
* we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
* we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
* we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our
prosperity, and our principles.
While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "it
is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the
Instead of taking the easy route, and supplying leaked information, meaning Julian Assange supplied information which can potentially cause soldiers
to die because of the sensitive nature of the information in an already hostile environment, he could actually take the honorable means to speak of
The above stated quote from Wikipedia is the political groundwork, laying the foundation to sell the lies behind the attack of 9/11 and using it to go
As well as getting American embroiled into the Iraq War and Afghanistan.
By looking at that information and as well the signatories, we see Dick Cheney
, Donald Rumsfeld
, media mogul Steve Forbes
former Vice-President Dan Quayle
(J. Danforth Quayle) and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
So, if Julian Assange did not rely on classified information, videos, etc, the Pentagon would have had less to go after him about, because he's
inflamed the situation.
Instead of educating people by pointing out a foreign policy which can be interpreted.
The reference to the "New Pearl Harbor"
is evidence enough if you know more
specific details about F.D.R.'s complicit actions in ignoring warnings about Pearl Harbor.
Quote from : Wikipedia : New Pearl Harbor
"New Pearl Harbor"
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela
and journalist Mark Danner, investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman, and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner,
in CounterPunch, all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to
"capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.
PNAC-member John Lehman was part of the official 9/11 commission.
His most famous quote according to NNDB:
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
So, which is better, relying on information provided via leaks, hackers/crackers, and stolen and often illegal information, or finding the open-source
intelligence and deciphering it and teaching others how to decipher it?
There's a right and wrong way to expose those "conspiracy theories"
Julian Assange has done it the wrong way and now he is a criminal because of it.
This is why I like ATS and the actions of the majority of the people on this site.
We know how to Deny Ignorance
and the terms and conditions are set up to keep illegal actions negated, and through them, this website also
reply to post by canuckster
To those within the counter-culture, Assage may be a hero, to others he is a terrorist.
Remember, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and perception is everything.
Those people in power see themselves as untouchable and acting responsibly.
Which is why I walk a fine balance between acting responsibly and the counter-culture.
Rise above those actions which define someone as a criminal and teach instead of subvert.
Julian Assange's actions are doing nothing but subverting America, whether you agree with America or Assange, it is America who has a seat at the
Not Julian Assange.
If he had provable and reliable information he could have taken it to the U.N.
Instead of distributing it throughout the Internet and thereby causing more people to die.
It is the information released, which will get people on the ground killed, because it is within an active theater of operations, a place where
bullets, R.P.G's, and people are literally all over the place, and where one piece of information to the enemy can get good soldiers, who are
following orders, killed for nothing.
While I may have my thoughts on our Government I would never betray the grunts on the ground.
They do not make policy, Washington D.C. and the United Nations does, not us.
Which is why I posted the above lengthy explanation to the above poster and anyone else.
If you know policy, attack the policy, and those who wrote it, do not attack those fighting through actions of the policy, otherwise you're just as
guilty as the man pulling the trigger on the gun in the desert blowing away very honorable mean who protect us.
Assange is literally the "Deep Throat"
of the online world and the Pentagon is pissed off.
[edit on 11-6-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]