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 Exposed - The man behind the NWO Curtain

page: 15
203
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Your research looks pretty strong. Its obvious Wikileaks is pushing some Agenda. For example, why is Israel never hung out to dry? I don't recall seeing anything in these releases that shows Israel in a negative light at all. Somebody is filtering these releases. And if you notice, they ALWAYS are pushing to go attack Iran and how much a "BIG" threat they are to world peace when Iran hasn't attacked anybody since the 17th Century! LOL It's a sick nwo joke.

Soros is pure nwo evil but he's only a very high level puppet. He must be working for the Rothschilds or Rockefellers or somebody with REAL money who make Soros look like a relative Pauper. Last I looked they showed Soros has a net worth of $26 billion or so and the Rothschilds have an estimated worth of over $900 Trillion! Of course that is estimated because they have it spread around thousands of corporations. Billionaires aren't running ANYTHING!




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
So, BD Saint-Do you also think the Pentagon Papers, which likely brought an end to the illegal Vietnam War, were part of the NWO plot, too?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 




How does Soros get total control?
By making war between countries
to make them financially weak.


Total control? Soros? Please. The guy is connected. The guy is intelligent. The guy has money. But he's 80 years old. If he was 40, one might see his personal goals as guiding his motivations.

At his age, I think he is who he is.



Victor Niederhoffer said of Soros: "Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest."
Soros Wikipage

Soros wants to see a global gov't because he understand that today's world requires one. The alternative is this continued overemphasis on sub-cultures known as "nations." That has no place in the future. Believe me. Soros understands this because he's a smart guy, and a true philosopher.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlennCanady
Your research looks pretty strong. Its obvious Wikileaks is pushing some Agenda. For example, why is Israel never hung out to dry? I don't recall seeing anything in these releases that shows Israel in a negative light at all. Somebody is filtering these releases. And if you notice, they ALWAYS are pushing to go attack Iran and how much a "BIG" threat they are to world peace when Iran hasn't attacked anybody since the 17th Century! LOL It's a sick nwo joke.

Soros is pure nwo evil but he's only a very high level puppet. He must be working for the Rothschilds or Rockefellers or somebody with REAL money who make Soros look like a relative Pauper. Last I looked they showed Soros has a net worth of $26 billion or so and the Rothschilds have an estimated worth of over $900 Trillion! Of course that is estimated because they have it spread around thousands of corporations. Billionaires aren't running ANYTHING!


Have you read the released cables, or are you relying on the MSM to tell you what is in them? Have you looked at the other threads which are posting stuff from the cables which is NOT included in the MSM? If so, you will see some things about Israel which are not too complimentary as well. Also, not ever 25% of the info has been released yet - but you are making statements about what they do and don't contain. Since you, like everyone else, has NO idea what is in the rest of the info, you're comments are baseless unless you qualify them with 'So far......'



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
It would clean up this site a lot to not let people call blog posts from Glen Beck a 'source'.

Those aren't 'sources', they are pundits.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Well the op must be doing something right as this thread is at 100 flags now. So I guess all us people who agree and flagged are just mentally deficient? Attention staff there seems to be room for one more emoticon in the bottom right, consider this a request for one that has a middle finger. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
It would clean up this site a lot to not let people call blog posts from Glen Beck a 'source'.

Those aren't 'sources', they are pundits.


I see your new here so welcome to ATS. And by the way you can start a new thread to discuss off topic stuff once you meet the post criteria. Most members appreciate people staying on topic and not trolling with comments that add nothing to the discussion at hand. But hey Welcome to ATS.
Just my opinion, nothing else



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I'm not disagreeing with this analysis.


What your thread makes clear, is that Wikileaks will not uncover the greatest conspiracy....


It will BECOME the GREATEST conspiracy....



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by lbndhr
reply to post by fredcall
 


As I stated to in my original post( my views my thoughts i share as you do) perhaps this is wikis intent to start riots-revolutions to gain control over the populations, to begin the NWO to which anyone with common sense knows is factual and eventual.( NWO that is) but to actually do as I was accused and to think i would have many sideded to me oh no no for there are far tooo many chicken turds as shown already... They shall allow their freedoms and fears to flow threw there veins through their very last freeee days....peace to us all


Can Wikileaks predict the coming Revolution in America?

Probably not.

If there was to be a shooting revolution in America, I'd already be shooting at a lot of Utopian Liberals. Alas, there isn't any revolution on the horizon. The first shot fired and the Utopian Liberals would be cowering underneath their beds dialing up Rachel Maddow on MSNBC to beg for sympathy.

That's hardly a revolution. This is one big reason why we conservatives aren't all that worried about the minority called the Utopian Liberals. Even Obama has no respect for them.

This would be a more perfect world if it were a Jacksonian enterprise where dueling to the death was legal and acceptable. In the interim we just laugh at the MSNBC crowd. What else can you do?

Though there can come a change should a great cataclysm, economic depression envelope America. I have no doubts that should such an event happen, there will be a lot of shooting. The police and the army will not be capable of answering every 9 1 1 call for help. Hell, already the Los Angeles police won't answer a 9 1 1 call from the barrios of South Central Los Angeles. The Detroit police pretty much let the inner city ghettos take care of their own drive-by shooting incidents. The list of urban conflicts goes on and on. With an economic depression, the ghetto dwellers will come out of their ghettos in search of food. It's up to the patriotic citizen to proetect their family's food.

By the way, do you have a 'Neighborhood Crime Watch' amongst your neighbors. Where you have agreed upon a demarcated field of fire for each neighborhood denizen. To ensure innocent citizens don't get hit by errant crossfire.

Anyway, short of a massive economic depression or some other cataclyxmic event (like a terrorist nuclear attack on a major seaport....which will create an economic depression) nobody is allowed to fire as freely as they sometimes wish. That means there isn't going to be a revolution in America without aforementioned big CHANGE.

And will Wikileaks be able to tell us how the firefighting actually began?

Naw. By that time we'll all be too busy to care about conspiracy theories.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
It would clean up this site a lot to not let people call blog posts from Glen Beck a 'source'.

Those aren't 'sources', they are pundits.


I see your new here so welcome to ATS. And by the way you can start a new thread to discuss off topic stuff once you meet the post criteria. Most members appreciate people staying on topic and not trolling with comments that add nothing to the discussion at hand. But hey Welcome to ATS.
Just my opinion, nothing else


Actually, my comment was related directly to the OP, as the OP claims to have relevant information that he sources from a Glen Beck website.

Your post, on the other hand, relates in no way to the topic at all, but is instead engaging in some back-seat moderation that I suspect is discouraged by the TOS.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Don't feel bad - he fooled a lot of people. Even I was hoping this last release would do more good than harm. However, the obvious agenda was a clear disappointment. The real freedom fighters exposed climate gate - this bozo tried to take credit for that. So sad ...



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I have yet to read or hear anything from Wikileaks that wasn't already known.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jaynkeel

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
It would clean up this site a lot to not let people call blog posts from Glen Beck a 'source'.

Those aren't 'sources', they are pundits.


I see your new here so welcome to ATS. And by the way you can start a new thread to discuss off topic stuff once you meet the post criteria. Most members appreciate people staying on topic and not trolling with comments that add nothing to the discussion at hand. But hey Welcome to ATS.
Just my opinion, nothing else


Actually, my comment was related directly to the OP, as the OP claims to have relevant information that he sources from a Glen Beck website.

Your post, on the other hand, relates in no way to the topic at all, but is instead engaging in some back-seat moderation that I suspect is discouraged by the TOS.


I was simply trying to be polite without having to notify the mods of your post seeming to deliberately want to derail the thread into a discussion of why Glenn Beck should be removed from the site. And in the same breath I was trying to extend some courtesy your way and welcome you to ATS. Sorry no backseat modding here, I don't work for free...



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlennCanady
Your research looks pretty strong. Its obvious Wikileaks is pushing some Agenda.


How is his "research" strong? He cite's two links both which are obvious propaganda material hellbent on the US Agenda. It's how the opposition is reacting.

The only Agenda Wikileaks has is the truth. I admit their handling of this is somewhat dangerous and radical, but part of me beleives it might be the only real way to affect global change. I support his fight for truth, I do not support breaking laws to do it...however sometimes the greater good requires it.

Imagine if in a court of law, a witness on the stand is considered bad for being a rat. If your criminal, it makes sense to label them a rat. If your prosecuting the criminal the witness is a well respected informant.
If you have any sense, you will see how this applies to Wikileaks and all the countries it's "informing" us on. Don't shoot the messenger as they say...

Funny though, the USA ramps up its rhetoric, ramps up the propoganda and buries the most important cables on the MSM and everyone turns traitor on Wikileaks overnight.

There is no loyalty, there is no real truth, there are only strong opinions and armchair politicians.
edit on 2-12-2010 by CanuckCoder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jaynkeel

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
It would clean up this site a lot to not let people call blog posts from Glen Beck a 'source'.

Those aren't 'sources', they are pundits.


I see your new here so welcome to ATS. And by the way you can start a new thread to discuss off topic stuff once you meet the post criteria. Most members appreciate people staying on topic and not trolling with comments that add nothing to the discussion at hand. But hey Welcome to ATS.
Just my opinion, nothing else


Actually, my comment was related directly to the OP, as the OP claims to have relevant information that he sources from a Glen Beck website.

Your post, on the other hand, relates in no way to the topic at all, but is instead engaging in some back-seat moderation that I suspect is discouraged by the TOS.


I was simply trying to be polite without having to notify the mods of your post seeming to deliberately want to derail the thread into a discussion of why Glenn Beck should be removed from the site. And in the same breath I was trying to extend some courtesy your way and welcome you to ATS. Sorry no backseat modding here, I don't work for free...


LOL big misunderstanding here ey? I understood incrediblousminds post quite clearly jaynkeel.

His post was ON topic.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Well the op must be doing something right as this thread is at 100 flags now. So I guess all us people who agree and flagged are just mentally deficient? Attention staff there seems to be room for one more emoticon in the bottom right, consider this a request for one that has a middle finger. Thanks.


So a lot of people agreeing with something is the litmus test for accuracy now?

Last I checked, a lot of people agreed with Obama on election day

And the invasion of Afghanistan...

shall i continue?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
It would clean up this site a lot to not let people call blog posts from Glen Beck a 'source'.

Those aren't 'sources', they are pundits.


I see your new here so welcome to ATS. And by the way you can start a new thread to discuss off topic stuff once you meet the post criteria. Most members appreciate people staying on topic and not trolling with comments that add nothing to the discussion at hand. But hey Welcome to ATS.
Just my opinion, nothing else


So source criticism is off topic?

Just wondering..... If so there are a LOT of posts out there that needs to be deleted.......



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Well the op must be doing something right as this thread is at 100 flags now. So I guess all us people who agree and flagged are just mentally deficient? Attention staff there seems to be room for one more emoticon in the bottom right, consider this a request for one that has a middle finger. Thanks.


I hope you're aware the argument you just used can be used to suggest that Lady Gaga is a good musician, or that Avatar is a good movie.

Then again, you're a blind sheep. So I mean, what else can I expect than something stupid?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by galactictuan
 


What ever I'm not going to fight about it, which is why I put "Just my opinion" at the bottom of it. I just see this reminder at the top of my comments section stating that "You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter." Figured I'd interject my 2 pesos.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


I was referring to this portion:




It would clean up this site a lot to not let people call blog posts from Glen Beck a 'source'.


I personally feel that we don't need to be censored as to what the "source" is.



new topics

top topics



 
203
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join