Pentagon Manhunt

page: 2
103
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Hopefully the Pentagon isn't as lack-luster in manhunt capabilities as BP is with Oil Spill cleanup..... JULIAN ASSANGE is in Las Vegas....Or atleast...he's supposed to be...

linked from WikiLeaks to this site.





# Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:37:12 wikileaks: Super panel tonight in Vegas with Julian Assange, Valerie Plame & Scott Risen | IRE10 (link tracking not allowed)/dwcjxI


[edit on 6/11/10 by ElijahWan]




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by IandEye
 


Man I wish I was tech savvy. I suspect he will be caught eventually and that it heartbreaking.
If there was something I would engage in civil disobedience for it would be informing the public of my governments transgressions.
Not to stir anger but to stir awareness.
What will happen if and when the internet is controlled? If anything, the world needs a thousand men and women likes this so that when it does happen, their may be channels through which to view info.
Good luck wikileaks. Peaceful resistance is the most admirable and courageous thing one can do in my oppinion.

Cheers



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 



The Pentagon does not mess around and they will just send Covert Operators after him.


Agreed. How long till someone finds him dead? Or Suicided?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I hope they catch him



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 



The Pentagon does not mess around and they will just send Covert Operators after him.


Agreed. How long till someone finds him dead? Or Suicided?


That all depends on whether he has been communicating with online hackers.

Or whether he disappeared underground through the circuitous route of going off the grid.

Knowing the Pentagon they are working in tandem with A.S.I.O.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is the principal Federal domestic internal intelligence, counter-intelligence and security agency of Australia which is responsible for the national security of Australia and the protection of the country and its citizens from espionage, sabotage, acts of foreign interference, politically-motivated violence, attacks on the Australian defence system, serious and major crime, and terrorism.

ASIO is comparable to the United Kingdom Security Service (MI5).

As with MI5 officers, ASIO officers have no police powers of arrest and are not armed.

ASIO operations requiring police powers are co-ordinated with the Australian Federal Police or with State and Territory police forces.

ASIO Central Office is in Canberra, with a local office being located in each mainland state and territory capital.


Julian Assange of WikiLeaks - Oslo Freedom Forum 2010


I had predicted this would happen where "hackers" and or "crackers" would be labeled as "terrorists", and this is just the beginning of what I see.

Research Project On New Terrorist Labeling

I did the above thread in 2008 in the Research Forum.

Just a heads up, unless you have Scholar status, you cannot reply to it.

I will quote a small portion here.


Quote from : Research Project On New Terrorist Labeling (2008)

I remember seeing a news story on TV similar to this one of online terrorism, which in the shorter vernacular of wording and definition means to Me that the governments of the world are worried about online terrorism, being simply defined in My interpretation of the facts, as "hackers" or "crackers."

A "hacker" is someone who involves themselves in the online community through the exploitation of system deficiencies in order to manipulate and or otherwise disrupt one person and or many person's computer. In simple terms, an online bully who uses a "trojan" virus to gain entry to a computer and or backdoor.

A "cracker" or more aptly referred to "black-hat" is symbolically referred to as a criminal hacker, "cracker"/"cr" + "hacker" = "cracker" would be a malicious hacker that does not only attempt to disrupt and or confuse someone's computer but intends to manipulate and or destroy or steal from that computer, access to other computers, online indentities, or even access to online interfaces with banking ATM's and other contact points to gain monetary reward.


Considering the War on Terror is the Pentagon's baby and Australia follows America in everything politically and or "terrorism" related, I can see he will be labled as a "terrorist" soon enough, considering he has classified information.

If he's good he can keep them hunting for him for decades by bouncing all over Australia.

This is of course if he did not already have a fall back position with equipment in place.

And as well a hoard of online identities to hide behind knowing those he circulates within.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Excellent video. Thank you for posting it, and I hope everyone spends the 18 minutes of their life to watch is, along with enough time to contemplate and absorb it.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
OK,

here is what I don't understand.


what information could our government possibly possess that makes it necessary to arrest anyone who might obtain it.

what possible secrets in the world could possibly be necessary to keep under wraps from other people or nations?

What is it about our information that makes it so special and top secret that it would be necessary to arrest citizens that obtain it?

if we are a nation of honesty and truth and our actions are all honorable and above board why is there ANY information that would ever need to be suppressed?

what notions of national security could possibly be necessary in a peaceful world to suppress knowledge and limit free will?

Isn't all technology and all actions within each country paid for on the back of the taxpayers?? why would the people who paid for everything be denied anything? If I hired someone to work on my home and they told me that something they did was top secret and I didn't need to know, guess what, they would be fired instantly. The same should be true of politicians.

The world needs to wake up. Your money funds these people, funds these weapons, funds these secret meetings and these bankers luncheons.

Assange is a Goddamn hero for releasing this so called top secret info to the public and he's being chased like a dog. I only wish that in my lifetime I could say I accomplished half of what this man is attempting to.

I only wish more people had the balls Assange does and stood up for liberty and freedom because its being nudged away from you people one increment at a time.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
I am stoked that this dude from Wikileaks is fighting the good fight.


The wars not over and they will offer him money to put it back in the box and have already more or less said so.

Just shows how we can not trust the goverment to get anything right.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by canuckster

The world needs to wake up. Your money funds these people, funds these weapons, funds these secret meetings and these bankers luncheons.




Everything you said is very true. I would add to that that we not only give them the money to oppress us, but we also supply the manpower to do it as well.

Its one of those things that make you go "hmmmmm."

We, in essence, are the ones oppressing, and pillaging, our own countries. Not consciously, perhaps, but that ties into your call for the world to "wake up."

This brutal little game is funded by us, enacted by us, and enforced by us. And it doesnt even benefit us. Thats something to be aware of, isnt it?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


No problem.

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 policy.

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 pudding.


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 future;

* 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 next."


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 policy.

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 after Hussein.

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 and 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" we follow.

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 protects us.

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 United Nations.

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]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DOADOA
he's already dead and his clone is what you'll see representing his former self. the information will still be released but has been altered to look like a joke, tarnishing his image before he fade from our memory and existence.

---
Time traveler aliens (TTAs) from the future have kidnapped him & taken him to the past. However, these TTAs are loyal to the government & they are going to return him to the future, just before Algore's predicted 30' sea rise occurs, but after the current oil-spill ignites, destroying everything along the Gulf Coast. The sea-level rise extinguishes the oil fires, but drowns him because he has been staked to the ground by the TTAs. Since the coast has long since been vacated, there's no one around to help him escape his slow doom. The TTA's then go back to the past, fix the drill platform before the explosion happens, and then the oil fires & Algore's sea-rise never happen, turning the whole episode into what eventually becomes known as a "time baffle."



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas


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.


While I certainly understand your point, the only reservation I have to agreeing with it is this;

The people who are concealing information from us also make the laws.

Which means, they can, and have, and do, write one set of rules for themselves, and another for us. (Remember the little clause that the Bushies put in that they couldnt be tried for war crimes?)

If there were any legal way to get these documents and facts, I would say "yes, stealing them is wrong." But because the people who want to hide them will never pass laws allowing us to have legal access to them, and there is little we can do about that the way our electoral system is currently rigged, I personally overlook the "illegality" of the methods of acquisition.

Laws are good, when they support the best interests of a people. Laws made to subvert the best interests of the people are bad laws, and their legitimacy is doubtful.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Julian Assange is probably already dead, and they're setting up a witch hunt knowing they'll never find him.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Certainly.

I do realize the duplicity of those in power and in writing laws but believing themselves above them, which I do not agree with, it makes them hypocrites completely.

This is why I do not support the idea and or actions of Secret Societies.

The "old boys club" in places like Skull and Bones, otherwise known as "The Order" is one of those places where secrets are made and kept, upon threat of death.

Right and Left : A Control Mechanism of the Skull and Bones Society, the Order of Chaos

It is merely a place where people retain secrets to blackmail those people they put into power.

In other words, attaching strings, to keep people in check, to keep committing heinous actions.

Those corporate raiders can be defeated though without committing criminal actions.

Blackmail : Keep Your Friends Close, Keep Your Enemies Closer, The Threat of Subversion Through Fear

It is merely a matter of perception and using your brain and rising above those criminals in power, and doing something they cannot stop, acting contrary to what they can control, and not making it easier for them in any way whatsoever.

Julian Assange made it easy for the Pentagon to come after him.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Yes, but Noam Chomsky has been following your preferred methods for decades. He is brilliant at it, as, I am sure, are yourself.

One of the problems is, that you also have to become know, to have a following, to figure out a way to get the message out, and out broadly. And unfortunately, the media is closed to both you and Noam. You will not get an interview ever in a public media outlet unless they are certain that they can make you look like a nut.

Chomsky is very well regarded, and he is all but blacklisted in the MSM.

The nice thing about the intrigue and excitement something like wikileaks provides is that the fact that these are furtive, secret, often stolen documents draws the attention of many, and then, among the many, some of the people who can actually help circumvent the media blackout.

I do understand your point. And I myself care greatly about the law. I am a rule follower like few others. I dont pick and choose between laws and only follow those that serve MY purposes either. However, I do bear in mind that laws are intended to benefit society. That is their function. The purpose of laws are to modify individual behaviors in ways that are beneficial considering the whole of society. If laws are created which do not serve this actual purpose, if they do NOT serve society in general, but instead only serve a few at the expense of society in general, then they are laws in name only, at the highest level of truth. I can have an apple and tell you it is a law, but clearly it is not. Anyone would know that. The big difference in these examples is that everyone knows what an apple is, and what it is not. But not everyone has considered what a law is and is not.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Yes, but Noam Chomsky has been following your preferred methods for decades. He is brilliant at it, as, I am sure, are yourself.


Yes, but in certain circles, Noam Chomsky is seen as a dis-information agent.

Controlled, and spewing forth lies, to confound the information out there.

There is always the potential for those people being compromised.

Even with Julian Assange, if they capture him, and he is released, guarantee he will have a slightly different message, which might be dis-information.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
One of the problems is, that you also have to become know, to have a following, to figure out a way to get the message out, and out broadly. And unfortunately, the media is closed to both you and Noam. You will not get an interview ever in a public media outlet unless they are certain that they can make you look like a nut.


Yes, to become known, is the usual route, to get a message out.

The media is only closed to those who know nothing about the media.

I cannot speak of Chomsky's avenues towards the media.

I know how to get the message out in ways unimaginable to most.

And they can only make you look like a nut if you act like a nut.

Or play their idiotic games and fall for the baited traps.

If Assange were to go on O'Reilly, Larry King, or Glenn Beck, he would be portrayed as a nut, sure, but not if he knows how their game is played.

I know how to beat those idiots with my hands tied behind my back.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Chomsky is very well regarded, and he is all but blacklisted in the MSM.


Is he "blacklisted" or is he a dis-information agent portrayed as "blacklisted"?

There is a subtle difference.

Like Alex Jones, he's a dis-information agent, fear-mongering to stir up trouble.

The more who act upon his words are those who are easily taken out.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The nice thing about the intrigue and excitement something like wikileaks provides is that the fact that these are furtive, secret, often stolen documents draws the attention of many, and then, among the many, some of the people who can actually help circumvent the media blackout.


I can understand your point, like I said, Assange's intent, is well-meaning.

However, his intent and motive might be pure, he is lowering himself.

Instead of rising above those he condemns he is just like them, commiting criminal actions, to expose criminal actions, while semantics might come into play, there is a far better avenue to do what he's doing.

If you have ever read any of my threads, I post books, to let other people draw their own conclusions, supplying information they can legally gain.

It is for them to decide their own perceptions.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I do understand your point. And I myself care greatly about the law. I am a rule follower like few others. I dont pick and choose between laws and only follow those that serve MY purposes either. However, I do bear in mind that laws are intended to benefit society. That is their function. The purpose of laws are to modify individual behaviors in ways that are beneficial considering the whole of society. If laws are created which do not serve this actual purpose, if they do NOT serve society in general, but instead only serve a few at the expense of society in general, then they are laws in name only, at the highest level of truth. I can have an apple and tell you it is a law, but clearly it is not. Anyone would know that. The big difference in these examples is that everyone knows what an apple is, and what it is not. But not everyone has considered what a law is and is not.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]


I knew you did understand where I was coming from and this has been an enjoyable conversation, something I find few and far between, especially when it comes to the semantics and hair-splitting of "conspiracy theories", because most people see only one side of the coin.

I can see you see both sides like I do.

But do not forget, there is a third side of the coin, the sharp and serrated edge.

That serrated edge, is like a knife, it can slit your throat, and it is the line I speak of about walking in the shoes I do, and not those of Julian Assange.

Assange slit his own throat and he has no one to blame but himself.

And when there is blood in shark-infested waters you either survive.

Or you don't.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 



Even with Julian Assange, if they capture him, and he is released, guarantee he will have a slightly different message, which might be dis-information.


I'd think the pentagon wouldn't let him go if they take him alive after all that is going on.

Edited to add: BTW thanks for all that information above it was a good read.



[edit on 11-6-2010 by theability]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 



Even with Julian Assange, if they capture him, and he is released, guarantee he will have a slightly different message, which might be dis-information.


I'd think the pentagon wouldn't let him go if they take him alive after all that is going on.

Edited to add: BTW thanks for all that information above it was a good read.



[edit on 11-6-2010 by theability]


Of course, I do not believe he would be let go, unless he was flipped.

Meaning, flipped as a double-agent, or if Australia put political pressure on America.

Something I highly doubt our Aussie friends will do to help Assange.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
yep
Assange is a Hero
so is Brad, the leaker

I wish them well
however, I am worried about
their health from here on out.

thank you Julian and Brad and
all the wikileaks folks



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Well if they really wanted him he is speaking in Vegas right now this moment, sooo....


data.nicar.org...

edit to add: do any of you check their twitter?

[edit on 11-6-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]





new topics

top topics



 
103
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join