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: 21
203
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Figures that once someone comes out that is actually trying to produce some transparency everyone on ats turns on him and thinks he is NWO. I honestly believe that most of you, like Christians, really want the end of the world to happen. You are just dissatisfied with your own life and dream up the craziest stuff hoping life is more exciting then it is.

A lot of the stuff people post is interesting and actually makes sense. And then others come out with this BS with weak newslinks and just yell that everyone and anyone besides themselves is NWO.

Honestly, here is a conspiracy theory for you. Everyone who says someone else is NWO, that person is NWO, trying to make other people look NWO to slander their name and make the conspiracy theorists go against them.

Assange seems to be a normal guy who is just convicted about transparency, and why attack any other country besides the USA? It would just be wasted effort.




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrazyChinchilla
Assange seems to be a normal guy who is just convicted about transparency, and why attack any other country besides the USA? It would just be wasted effort.


Welcome to ATS. Nice to have you aboard.
Now, about that transparency thing you mentioned. Can you answer me this? Why, if Wikileaks is all about transparency, and openess did it set up an elaborate set of Foundations to channel its funding through?


the site has established a complex system for collecting and disbursing its donations to obscure their origin and use, Mr. Assange said.
online.wsj.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Cause anyone who funds it will become the target of the same people who are targeting Assange. It makes people more likely to donate if they don't think that he's gonna sell them out to the government or that the government will put them or the companies on some kind of watchlist/blacklist.

If anything it disproves what you are trying to suggest, because he would expose all the people and corporations who donate and let the media tear them apart. If the government was donating to him, you still would have no idea even if they "released" the details cause they could just hide that part.

edit: for grammar
edit on 2-12-2010 by CrazyChinchilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CrazyChinchilla
 


Well thats a nice sounding theory. But the same defense could be used by the Federal Reserve, and it is.
They have ripped off untold trillions from this country, all under the guise of "we know best".

So just because Assange asserts he is "doing what is right" he is granted a shroud of secrecy?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


bacck on the clock there burn the ships??

2nd



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


The federal reserve is all about money though. They should be more transparent about it because that is their soul purpose. If you argued that maybe he should be more transparent about everything he acquires and what the group themselves censor or cut out then yes I agree. But we don't live in a perfect world, not even close. We all know about the amount of disinfo people try to spread, imagine if you ran a website all about leaks, people would be coming out of the woodworks trying to make money.

The fact of the matter is, he has everyone scrambling. I've never seen any such ridiculous government lockdown such as this, over anything posted on ats. Though that may change very soon thanks to Assange.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CrazyChinchilla
 


So, you as a trusting person just take Wikileaks word for it that they need to have complete secrecy about all of the funding they receive becasue they are "the good guys"?

Thats really going out on a limb, and handing them the means to operate as a covert channel for any
operation they wish to be. And what, if ever could they do that could cause you to question that?



edit on 3-12-2010 by burntheships because: ClAssIfIEd



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by burntheships
 


bacck on the clock there burn the ships??

2nd


You must like my avatar, or be in love with me. You have been commenting on all of my posts on the board.
Sweet of you. Or maybe your learning from my posts about Soros?
edit on 3-12-2010 by burntheships because: Classified



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


no, just noticing that you are doing a great job for boon, seeing that he stepped out again..

how very nice of you.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


If they are being funded by who you are suggesting they are, it doesn't matter if they release their funding, it will still be hidden. Hell, if they DID release who funded them then I might be on your side because that wouldn't make sense for a organization that is under such scrutiny.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


Well thank you.

I will take that as a compliment. You know, ATS is a nice community. We get to know each other around here.
Your rather new, and I would like to welcome you to ATS, formally. Its nice to have you here.

I have taken up interest in Wikileaks after Mr. Assange called for Hillary Clintons resignation.
To my knowledge, she is the only person he has ever called on to resign a political post.
What are your thoughts on the matter?

I personally see that as an agenda, made obvious as Assange is under great pressure, and from the pattern displayed previously, he gets rather sharp under pressure. So, is he just being a male chauvinist, or did he snap under pressure,
or did he reveal an agenda?

And I am no fan of Hillary.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Thanks for that link.


I will certainly have a look into it.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by CrazyChinchilla
 


So, you as a trusting person just take Wikileaks word for it that they need to have complete secrecy about all of the funding they receive becasue they are "the good guys"?

Thats really going out on a limb, and handing them the means to operate as a covert channel for any
operation they wish to be. And what, if ever could they do that could cause you to question that?



edit on 3-12-2010 by burntheships because: ClAssIfIEd



WikiLeaks isn't a public institution or agency. The latter are accountable to the people whom they theoretically serve even though they may think the people are little more than their human inventory to do to and with as they please.

Private businesses and entities are not subject to the transparency requirements that apply to governments.

Wikileaks should never reveal its funding sources in the current world political climate, where people who are on some government agency's wrong side are so lightly tagged for elimination. To reveal the sources would certainly harm them, WikiLeaks, and the good work WikiLeaks is doing. But, of course, you know that already.
edit on 12/3/2010 by dubiousone because: Spelling and grammar and to remove personal snipe.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Yea I saw that and thought it was weird for him to call out just one person, especially one who has been in office for a very short time, when the majority of these wires are before that.

One way I could think of it would be that maybe he doesn't think that the matter is making enough of a public stir. If he calls for the resignation of someone, maybe people will start taking it more seriously.

Another thing I thought of was maybe he has the same feelings about a lot of people involved. Obviously some are no longer in office and I guess that means a trial by world court? That would definitely make the organization look radical, which I'm sure they try to stay away from (radical is equivalent to terrorist in most peoples minds).

Also his words seemed chosen very graciously, like he wanted to put the idea into other peoples mind rather then tell them himself. I believe the words he said "She should resign, if it can be shown she is responsible for ordering US diplomatic figures to engage in espionage activities in violation of international..." Basically the way I took it was, the burden of making those decisions should be on you, I have just provided the reasoning and proof.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by CrazyChinchilla
 


I am not so understanding. Mr Assange is surely up to speed on all of the worlds terrible evil people
and yet he only has words for Hillary Clinton.

I am not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has been in the business for years. Surely somewhere, somplace there must have been one man, just any one of the big bad men out there that was more deserving of his chastisement. And again, I am no fan of Hillary.

reply to post by dubiousone
 


Ah...well I was not saying that Wikileaks should be held to the same standard as ...say the Federal Reserve.
I suggested that since Wikileaks is all about "transparency, and openess" then that they should take the lead.
edit on 3-12-2010 by burntheships because: classified



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by fredcall
 


so, you 2 guys are taking over from, BURN THE SHIPS and JAYNKEEL??


lmao

pretty slick though...........I noticed you both left boons original quote off of your posts??
edit on 2-12-2010 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)


Just what is your deal? You seem to be bouncing between threads and stalking us? I made a simple comment to Boon about how yesterday him and I exchanged words in a post and I was surprised to see he changed his mind, as I usually don't have that effect on people. Just to make it clear for you as you seem to be on some mission here, the above is my opinion not Burntheships or Boons. Because the next thing I can hear from you is why I am talking for them to which I am not.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   


yeah and u sure didnt get it from faux news...
shame on u lol

turn off faux...



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


Well thank you.

I will take that as a compliment. You know, ATS is a nice community. We get to know each other around here.
Your rather new, and I would like to welcome you to ATS, formally. Its nice to have you here.

I have taken up interest in Wikileaks after Mr. Assange called for Hillary Clintons resignation.
To my knowledge, she is the only person he has ever called on to resign a political post.
What are your thoughts on the matter?

I personally see that as an agenda, made obvious as Assange is under great pressure, and from the pattern displayed previously, he gets rather sharp under pressure. So, is he just being a male chauvinist, or did he snap under pressure,
or did he reveal an agenda?

And I am no fan of Hillary.






you and I ..... same page on that one.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


hey Boone have a looky here....think this might be part of the end game????
www.thedailybell.com...

Can this idea be connected to your villian in any way?
I keep thinking that 9/11 was not only the pearl harbour that the neo cons needed so badly, but it was also the biggest robbery and cover up that we have ever seen....
The gold, the short sales, the insurance, the enron documents and records in building 7, the 2 trillion dollar pentagon boondoggle records and accountants hit by the missle, etc etc...
Now if we were to apply this princpile to the whole Wikileaks phenomena...
what assorted results will we get?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Why is Soros such a danger to the country?
He promotes drugs, so what?

He is opposed to Fox, Bush, Iraq war.
The guys that are picking on him are christians, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck.
Is there any serious evidence that points out he's a bad guy?




top topics



 
203
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join