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.

 

Without hesitation: Wikileaks is CIA and so is Wikipedia

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Well maybe the CIA's plan to disrupt Wikileaks, posted on Wikileaks, is working... or, maybe the CIA's plan to disrupt Wikileaks, posted on Wikileaks, was put there to make us believe that the CIA was after Wikileaks to give them credibility with people... either way, it's psy-ops at work.

I honestly don't know which is the truth, probably a little of both.

Wikileaks is just the latest new face in a very old game.




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


How do we know that ATS isnt sweetening our conspiracy news - answer is have no way of knowing for sure. At some point you need to go to yourself for answers.. do you trust the site enough? Can you do any of your own research to indicate what is being told is truth. These are questions we all must ask ourselves.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


ATS is user generated content, wikileaks is questionable generated content.

Why doesn't wikileaks have a live leaks forum where anyone from anywhere can post anything?

Oh, that would be impossible to 'control' wouldn't it?

Though a live leak forum could be easy to set up, and to gain the ability to post there one should first meet certain criteria. Once in, no one controls any of the information posted, it is there for general consumption without edits or comments.

wikileaks can't and wont do that because they have to control the information and the agenda.... Which is why everything they have done and will do is highly suspect to say the least.

ATS doesn't really make the news here, the members provide the content and discussions.

Big difference.

In the end everyone is free to believe what they want, but never take anything at face value without exploring the source and the host.

Wikilleaks is in control of what it releases, it edits their releases, it has an agenda, motive, and has caused problems for "unnamed" contributors. With them it isn't always what they realese, it's what they don't that matters.

Take it for what it is worth.

Just my 2 cents.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Fractured.Facade]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
This is what I love about this place. Anytime anything does not support ones belief then the CIA did it. Or Obama, Bush, the UN, FEMA, NWO, etc. did it. Its brilliant really nothing can ever prove anyones theory wrong here because any evidence to contrary is simply fake. Its really interesting to see the way this all works. Now I undestand the mind set.


It's not the mindset... it's the psychology. It's how they attempt to own our opinions. This place is filled with disinfo and angents of propaganda. Stand firm in your beliefs and over-evaluate everything you read. If it smells bad - it's probabaly bad! They think they're clever, I thing they're sloppy!



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
That is one hell of a reading comprehension fail there...

lol



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





Any Conspiracy Theorist worth their own salt will not trust WikiLeaks with a 100 foot stick.Text


Yeah, I've never had a good feeling about them. It's a little too convenient that they are able to bring forth "leaked" government documents on a whim. Likewise, Wikipedia also seems to have an agenda, especially when it comes to topics where conspiracy theories are involved. There's always a condescending tone to their information that never favors the side of the conspiracy theorists. Who knows if the CIA has anything to do with it. It would hardly be shocking if they did.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I think I said this on one of the other threads. If you are a whistleblower, what ever you do, do not just post to one site.

Anonymously at a internet cafe or library WHERE they supply the computers, in disguise, post the information to like 50 different conspiracy sites.

Leave, on the way out, go some where you cannot be observed and remove your disguise. Take it with you.

That is the only way to do it right. Do not go to wikileaks and give them info from your computer.

Especially with them saying they are behind proxies or countries like Sweden.

What a joke.

Last thread I did not give my opinion, but after I have watched some more vids and what he was saying about the proxies and the countries, that convinced me.

It did not sound like he was saying for his protection but almost like he was trying to convince the whistleblowers.

My 2 dollars, 2 cents gets you nowhere nowadays.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
I been publicly agreeing with this thread since WL released the 911 text messages.

If you also think wikileaks is an authority-ran front...well, good luck convincing those who rather trust that "some superhero with a backpack and a labtop can get away with leaking government/military secrets" and remain free.

I mean...people either do not know that Julian is being reported as a "magic homeless man of shadows who can't be captured or stopped, traveling under a cloak of mystery"

Or they DO know that, and actually BELIEVE someone can get away with that.

I dunno...if you want to accept that "someone else" is solving the world's problems so you can remain safe at home and doing nothing- then rest assured Assange is here to SAVE YOUR DAY!

But if you want to see the truth...

Well...

Look at the government's statements late last year, that they were ready to "take control of conspiracy" and all that noise...

Look at the government's history of doing this sort of thing.

Look at Hal Turner...

Just look at Wikileaks saying Osama is alive and operating evil acts, that 911 is a false conspiracy, and that Bradly Manning (if he exists at all) is captured and detained ready to be charged if he hasn't been already (been missing the boards for two days).

Yeah...Wikileaks...sure.

If you are STILL in the position where you need a "leak" to help you decide that the governments of this world are out of control and breaking the rules/laws of not only all nations but "humanity as a whole", then you will do fine with Julian Assange and his happy guild of "Johnny come latelys" or better yet- "Johnny hardly come at alls".

Me?

I don't need wikileaks...nor do I trust them.

It is too comic book for me...

And convenient.


PS- add to all that- I do not support stealing American documents...that is terrorism at its finest.









[edit on 30-7-2010 by Mr Mask]


I myself have one eyebrow raised at wikileaks. I mean the government caught one hacker trying to find UFO evidence, but they couldn't catch the hacker that stole important video information? either the hacker was really good or this hacker was just a place holder for the false story. Maybe the government is trying to find a way to make a plot that all conspiracy theorists are dangerous and they will use this as evidence. Then conspiracy sites will be banned and shut up for good.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





Any Conspiracy Theorist worth their own salt will not trust WikiLeaks with a 100 foot stick.Text


Yeah, I've never had a good feeling about them. It's a little too convenient that they are able to bring forth "leaked" government documents on a whim. Likewise, Wikipedia also seems to have an agenda, especially when it comes to topics where conspiracy theories are involved. There's always a condescending tone to their information that never favors the side of the conspiracy theorists. Who knows if the CIA has anything to do with it. It would hardly be shocking if they did.



Yeah, I noticed that as well. Anything dealing with conspiracy they seem to shun at. But one conspiracy they don't shun at was the RMS lusitania.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
A question if I may?

If wikileaks is CIA run.

Then, why do we see videos of American choppers shooting down civilians?

Where's the videos of Iranian choppers shooting down civilians?

Or the North Korean Documents showing that it does in fact have nuclear weapon capabilities?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Compartmentalization.

What would a honeypot post things like that?

That would be counter-intuitive.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Counter-intuitive?

How so?

Are you saying that the CIA, who would no doubt have documents incriminating just about every country in the world, chooses to only "leak" documents incriminating the USA?

THAT is counter-intuitive, particularly when people are throwing around the disinfo label for wikileaks too.

I'm talking big, juicy stuff here btw, like the recent Apache video.

So, I ask, where's the 'disinfo' being leaked about Iran or North Korea or China?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Well, what everyone is saying is that the wikileaks is using it as a honeypot.

An operation where they release information that is not really too incriminating, or they can at least spin it to make it seem to be innocuous. This way they get people to submit items that could be really incriminating. Those they do not release and those that submitted them get arrested or just gitmoed.

That is what I meant by counter intuitive.

It is also a variation of the canary trap operation I think. Let me do a little google. en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, just a variation of that. You purposefully release information through varying channels and each one is different. Thereby being able to find a double agent. But in this variant, you release info that is not really too damaging to lure in possible doubles or in these instances whistle blowers.


edit to add-the reason you do not release info you want released against enemies, that would make it possibly appear that it is a front.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Ok, I follow now.

Hadn't heard of the term honeypot before, so thanks for edumacating me!




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I use to read a lot of Clancy novels and spy novels.

I am amazed on how many things he wrote about that have come true.

Later.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I don't understand why people think it needs to even be a front or run by the CIA, pretty sure an agency like that with vast resources available doesn't need the website.

Pretty sure they could simply pull anything off it if they wanted, quite easily wait sniffing away for any lines of communication or getting hold of the sources and traffic as they so wish.

I'm pretty sure if I created a website asking people to come and reveal truths that someone, somewhere would eventually say I have an agenda or I'm working for someone elses interests even though I just want everyone to get along together and walk in to the future together.

It seems to me nobody can reveal any truth, theres too much information coming from too many sources, agencies, departments etc for anyone to even know, and then probably another agency ensuring that connecting any A to any C with a 1,2,3 x i,ii,iii is impossible.

P.S my views of wikileaks are neutral - it's a website that shows certain things, and like most say there is no way anything ever damning to the point of a resolution will ever come from it except keeping the chatter going.

Seems in some ways the people who heavily relied on it for information in the past are feeling betrayed, I'm probably wrong.

Regards,

Panda



[edit on 31-7-2010 by bluepanda]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
A little paranoia never hurt anyone.



Flagpole Sitta should be the new ATS theme song.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
If reading faces and body language is your thing, Judge Napolitano's full interview with Assange (shown in part here) is sometime this weekend, isn't it?

If Raimondo (see below) talks about WikiLeaks too, this would be two people talking about it on Fox this weekend. What would we make of that? lol

Justin Raimondo, of AntiWar.com will appear on Fox Business Channel, Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano airs four times this weekend:.

Based on his latest two articles, which you may be interested anyway, He MAY discuss WikiLeaks. Not sure if he did this morning because I missed it. Anyone see it?

Saturday 7/31 10 a.m. ET
Saturday 7/31 8 p.m. ET
Sunday 8/1 7 p.m. ET
Sunday 8/1 11 p.m. ET

Here are two of Justin's latest articles:

Why We Need WikiLeaks

Bradley Manning's Gift



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Pocky
 


What you have to remember is that information is power and that is what TPTB are trying to control! For the lasses this is a problem as they are believe the news CNN,FOX etc and then when they hear of a leak they buy it.

The people here however know that information is being corrupted. The military and intelligence community are manipulating everything, especially wikipedia s people use it as to get info that is peer reviewed and seems legit. However, this info is often WRONG and supports their control mechanisms.

Those that use conspiracy website do so knowing they are probably run by the DOD but knowing what info they are trying to get you to believe is just as important as finding the truth



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by theregonnakillme
 

Everyone seems to be thinking too simplistically here. Maybe some are forgetting that there is a VERY good possibility that TPTB are comprised of various subfactions.

This could very well be a case where they are warring against each other.

Example: The CFR might want the information released to get us OUT of Iraq, Afghanistan and keep us out of Iran, but the PNAC/neocon/Zionist factions what to keep us IN.

Look at which media outlets are reporting the story and HOW they are reporting it for a clue to this. Some clearly are bigger supporters of one subfaction over another.


[edit on 7/31/2010 by ~Lucidity]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join