It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


wikileaks releases CIA paper

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by ATLien
S&F but....Booo, that paper wasn't what it was hyped up to be, seems like it should of been released with a couple thousand other documents, not by itself with a countdown like it contains something "unknown" to the people.

The truly crushing documents are being held in lieu of them
trying to pull another fake rape case to capture Julian.

This was a warning reminder, and little more.

If they imprison Julian and haul him off to camp bondsteel
or some other place like it then the heavy hitters are coming out.

Sibel Edmonds put out more damning information than this and
it barely got any air play so to speak.

I think her information on 911 is very telling.

Also what John P. O'neill went thru.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:58 PM
I'm beginning to think that all of this wikileak stuff is simply for publicity. To cash in at all cost. For example we all saw the video of the helicopter that shot the people with ak-47's, cameras, lil kids, what ever you perceived.
The fact is, the video was inconclusive. Though the video was compelling, it still was unclear, (ie : names, faces etc) to positively conclude anything.
I think this is yet another blatant attempt for fame, fortune, and notoriety.
But I could be wrong, but there are just to many questions with no answers.
Whom is the informant ( if any) what is the name? Without these pieces of the puzzle, its hard to take this information seriously. Granted Im sure they dont want to release their "informant", but thats just it, always an excuse, a justification to hold back true evidence.
Hmmm.....we may never really know?

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I think you are on to something here. I just heard on my local news station that the Pentagon has come out today and announced that terrorists have used a thumb drive to export classified documents from government computers last year. Even the news caster was somewhat dumbfounded as the rationale for releasing this hacked information to the public today. Apparently she doesn't know about the whole Wikileaks saga playing out behind the scenes.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:13 PM
It appears wls is achieving it main objective provoking world wide debate on freedom and govermental transparancy it also appears to be a divided issue one is either for freedom and transparancy or one is not

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:14 PM
To those people who think that no "secret" information is released, I believe you are right.

However, there are somethings that we can deduce from the paper.

-Al-Qaeda is real and is a threat to the US regime.
-Technology works in favor of "terrorists."
-The CIA sees Americans as a possible source of threats.

OR this is a disinformation paper.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by SurefireII
I'm beginning to think that all of this wikileak stuff is simply for publicity. To cash in at all cost.

Could you please provide evidence that Wikileaks "cashes in" on "stuff?"

Not saying they're not, just saying I have yet to see them advertise a single thing on their site, they are a non-profit org. In fact their site was down for several months over the winter for lack of funds. As far as publicity, that's the whole point no?

[edit on 25 Aug 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:30 PM
if the rape alagations were an attack this release is a we do have some stuff to leak from cia sources

the content is unimportant its the source and the dont F$%* with us leak that is intended to show a level of document as a warning along these lines

we have some very daming stuff from alphabet agencies
up to this level

glad they didnt release the insurance file just yet as this is about to get nasty and i think they will need the insurance latter on


posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

Speaking of insurance file. Do you think the news of the Cyber attack by terrorists in 2008 announced today has anything to do with the insurance file being from that cyber attack?

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:39 PM
Wiki either has damning evidence/information, or they don't.

Their charter commands that they will release pertinent info in a way that does not put lives at risk. So they will not release info that implicates people (not on purpose). But all other information is meant for one thing only: release.

If they do not release all pertinent info, then they are no better than those they leak against. They become "keepers of secrets", just like those that they want to point out.

If they are posturing by releasing this info as a "warning", then it would make everything they do suspect. Why would they keep the "good stuff" under lock and key? Are they really doing what they say they are going to do?

I am suspicious of them. But that is my nature.

edit to add: i am watching a news program (well, my wife is...i am online). But as i hit "Reply" i saw a lady from Tennessee holding a protest sign on camera, saying "It's not about religion. Its about stopping homegrown terrorists".

It seems like we are getting a media blitz on the same topic. Wonder if Wikileaks being tied to the topic and the timelyness of it is a smoking gun, or a red herring?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You make a reasonable complaint on Wikileaks as to their stated objective. There is only one reason I can come up with in defense of them, and that is survival. They are under attack for what they do. I agree that release the information and the documents will speak for themselves. I am not in their shoes though and if they think withholding the documents guarantees their survival then maybe that is reason enough. In the end, if that insurance file isn't released within a year and the storm around them clams down then I will actively support your position.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:45 PM
Some important questions that I would like to raise would be, why did 'JA' release this document alone? So much attention to a few pages, with the main topic being terrorism and United States citizens?

Is it to show that the perspective held within the CIA is one that the American Citizens are 'enemies'? Enemies of who? And why is that entity to be protected over American Citizens?

Is this stand alone document's only purpose to confirm the motive of the CIA? Sure we've arrived at the conclusion that the American govenment and the CIA are against our freedoms and want to do everything that they can to limit them.. But we've arrived at this conclusion through pure observation.

Assuming that Wikileaks had NOT been taken over by the CIA, is the purpose of this document to provide concrete straight evidence that isolates the beasts motives?

Now what if Wikileaks had been taken over by the CIA, or was with them from the start? Could this release be propaganda by the CIA leaked to what we have began to perceive as a trusted source in order to regain the illusive stronghold on the public? So that our only conclusion would be 'wow this was from the CIA and it was secret, so does this mean that we really are terrorists?' Of course such a conclusion that would be drawn can be controlled by being selective in what document are leaked as well as what methods had to be used to get the information. If the CIA controls both groups (CIA and Wikileaks) couldn't they just create documents, and leak them, simply for the purpose of manipulation? Even if the CIA does not control Wikileaks, whats stopping them from leaking false misleading information to Wikileaks? It would be official information regardless. And plus, they could even stage a false flag like putting a CIA worker on trial for 'leaking those documents' or 'assisting terrorists'. Which would make us assume that those leaks were vital and true.

At this point in time, it's extremely difficult to tell which of the two realities this situation is closer to.. But this does bring up a valid revelation. That just because the document is 'secret' and coming from the CIA, this does not make the document truthful.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by BlubberyConspiracy]

[edit on 25-8-2010 by BlubberyConspiracy]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

I don't have a position yet.

But I am a suspicious mind. I just took a personality test for work. I bottomed out on vigilance. They joked that I was a paranoid personality. Of course, I am not. I am just mindful. I have no problem trusting others....but will only truly expose myself to maybe 2 people on this planet.

This makes me suspicious, but not willing to conclude anything other than that I need to remain suspicious.

But seeing the news program discussing "homegrown terrorists" while I was reading this thread really made my spidey senses tingle.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:53 PM
Do keep in mind that even a media that never lies can lead you to false conclusions.

Your perception on the truth can be skewed and twisted based on what is and isn't told. Even though all that was told was truthful.

Am I saying that Wikileaks is a CIA front? Not exactly.
Am I saying that Wikileaks should not be trusted? Yes I am.

What they are providing us is more information. Do not let JA's stated motives or even emotions get in the way. Information is information. Regardless if it is the president making a speech, written by the CIA, or a leaked document from the CIA posted on Wikileaks. In this case the source would be the same.

I will be looking forward to those 15,000 documents, as there may be a chance that some of those documents were not made to be public.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by BlubberyConspiracy]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by kyle43
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I'm sure they have many actual documented cases of US exported terrorism and US funded terrorism.

"They" being..........??????

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Yes, I agree this release is a show of force.

I don't entirely agree with many of those who say there is nothing important in it. Some thoughts:

First of all, I don't trust them at all, and I don't trust the MSM who are reporting on it and saying it has little significance.

Hence I take with a pinch of doubt the official description of what Red Cell is, and its purpose.

Re the classification 'secret'/noforn. 'Secret' isn't such a high a classification, but noforn does mean it's not meant to be seen by a foreign national.

I think there are some things in the report which are 'embarrassing' for US in terms of its relations with its allies. For example, it openly admits rendition, as opposed to extradition, (a very sensitive subject) and the co-operation of other countries in it.

The document admits that US has blackmailed/coerced other countries into agreeing to immunity for US citizens. This is pretty damning. It's one thing to suspect it is happening, it's another to see hard evidence in the form of an admission.

It admits that US has used the leverage of 'recent' terrorist attacks within US to persuade other countries to release suspects into US custody (aka rendition) but also admits it doesn't want to reciprocate.

As such it expresses an awareness of, and a wish to protect, a degree of US dishonesty and double standards in International dealings.

These may well be why it was classified NOFORN.

Given the level of 'secret', I do not believe this document confirms the existence of Al-Qaeda. Many believe, including myself, that AQ is a CIA fiction. At 'secret' level, this would not be disclosed. I see this document as 'playing the game' as far as AQ is concerned. AQ's fictitious nature would only ever be acknowledged at the very highest levels of secrecy - and probably in veiled terms at that. It would never be alluded to in a document which merely has 'secret' classification.

I do see this as a CIA 'request' or 'support' for either more surveillance of the internet or more repression of the internet (under the pretext of protection against terrorism/AQ). So, I think it's signalling that it is supports the Cabal's wish to suppress/survey the Internet more and more, is willing to play the game and is providing ammunition for that.

The same applies to more restrictions on travellers - perhaps providing the Cabal with an argument to support something like the implementation of iris scanning of all travellers - ostensibly to protect against (fictitious) terrorism, but expressing a willingness to support the Cabal's agenda to control more and more.

As such it could be construed as a 'psychops' document, to prep the those who have lower level clearance and engage their support in such measures.

It could even be a veiled threat - by hinting at its knowlege of US double standards in International relations and at the same time pointing out that the internet risk re 'terrorism' - ie. justifying more illegal surveillance of citizens.

Diplomats/bureaucrats/politicians all have a language of their own, full of veiled references and subtle references. It would take someone in the know to really point out the significance of the document, but I think there may well be more to it than meets the eye, and those who are 'in the know' will be able to decipher it more accurately and will definitely understand its full implications.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by wcitizen]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:10 PM
It has started.

This looks like it is just the start of a disclosure.

I think a lot of people will get very angry when the full extent of this is revealed. I can see what is coming a mile away and it is confirming suspicions a lot of people would have had already.

People need to read this over and over.

Everything is fake.

It has all been phoney. It is all fake.


posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by BlubberyConspiracy

Yes - and it could even be the CIA using Wikileaks to release documents which, to the initiated, might be a veiled threat to other parts of the Administration....

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by JohnySeagull

Can you say more about what you are finding in the document - re everything is fake and phony? I'm intrigued!

I agree with you that it needs to be read several times..

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:35 PM
This document is not fake, it is not controlled leak. I believe this document offers a glimpse into the discussions going on between the higher ups.

Do American freedoms put the U.S. in danger?

It's a legitimate question, as long as you're willing to completely toss out the ideals of what it means to be a free American.

The fact is, our freedoms could be seen as a legitimate threat, that U.S. based terror groups do pose a threat to how the international community views America. But that's not to say there isn't another side of it, and that our double standards regarding International Law isn't a greater threat to America.

I think this document makes controversial suggestions similar to how the PNAC made controversial suggestions that a new Pearl Harbor was needed to gain support for multiple wars to increase defense spending. A lot of people signed on to that argument, and I'm sure there are many people in our government signing on to this argument.

There are people in government who truly believe in the Red, White, and Blue, freedom and democracy, and the beacon of promise and hope and multi-cultural unity that America stands for. I believe this document may be intended for those people, to persuade people in powerful positions to think a different way, to push the perception that American freedom is dangerous for America.

That is what the war on terrorism has always been about. It's a never ending war, where the face of the enemy is always changing, always providing a new target to direct focus on, all while encouraging fearful citizens to relinquish their own power and freedom in the name of national security.

And the PNAC was right... it did take a New Pearl Harbor for us to let them do all this to us.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by spiritualzombie]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:39 PM
So, I'm trying to understand this paper. Basically it seems to be based on a hypothesis, "What if we traded terrorists with other countries"? Right? is that it? But it uses the term, export, so that makes me think of things like Bay of Pigs or when we used terrorism to overthrow other countries....

What I think is that the paper is talking about making money off of trading terrorist suspects and secrets....but I'm not sure I could have completely got it wrong. The U.S. is not a part of the international crime court because there are too many criminals in the government? Or we're just too good for that??

then the part about how American Freedoms could be used to aid Terrorism, well isn't that true for ANY country? Most people have basic freedoms, it's not limited to the U.S. So why the use of "American" in context of freedom? If not, the idea that American freedom should be limited?

The idea of terrorism doesn't make sense to me. It's like a witch thrown into a river and expected to drown to prove she's a witch. The more they try to rationalize the idea of torture, interrogation, and murder the more it does seem like they're exporting terrorism. I mean look at all the countries that have prisoners of conscience. That's slightly overlooked, too, isn't it?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in