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: 40
203
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


So what are you saying then that all the threads on Ats should be moved to hoax forum?
And what evidence from the other side of the coin?
Please let me see it.
Just because something has not been proven does not meen it could not be possible.
In regards to you asking the OP for a statement in him saying that it is his belief, thats between you and him.
All I have seen on this thread is people bashing the thread but no one is putting up any evidence to counter the thread.
So really, if you dont like the thread, you dont have to be here.
If you want to make us see that this is not real, why not do the research and let us all see it, because I for one am very interested.
I thought there might be something fishy with Wikileaks before I read this thread, thats why I posted on here.
Why do I believe that? Just my opinion dude and what I believe ATM.
Tomorow I might see things differently, thats not a problem, I hope so.
Today this is how I view it, just like the OP.




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
All I have seen on this thread is people bashing the thread but no one is putting up any evidence to counter the thread.

here here
cheers

I'll toast a sip of coffee
to that statement

bash the messenger seems to be
the order of the day.

most keep asking for evidence
over and over when there is over 30 pages
of it already, like it doesn't exist.

evidence is only evidence if you choose
to accept it. Once you close your mind
off from deductive reasoning from an
opposing viewpoint, then the evidence
becomes nothing more than your own bias.
Deny ignorance.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Just take a look at the sources, one of them is the tea party, I think that qualifies as being bias.

and that quote you mention from the Tea Party
was corroborated by a Time Magazine article
in the same post and by the wikileaks website
with a screengrab by jaynkeel.

So is Time Magazine biased too ???



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Yep, you said it, 'Deny Ignorance', which is what most people seem to be not doing.
Niceone for the additional info you presented earlier.
Assange has been arrested and lets see what happens now.
Because in order for him to release the security cable he would have to get arrested...
Sounds like its all been planned.
Now hes been arrested they will try to charge him and I think thats when the security cable code will be released.
There must be something big in the security cable, something that could flame some civil unrest and then they will end the internet as we know it, who knows maybe war.
One thing is for certain, if the NWO regime wants to control and lie to absolutley everyone when they implement a NWO new system, they have to control the internet. They cant let us all discuss things on the net, no way, they will only want us to get our info from them.
So if a takeover by the NWO regime in the US lets say for example begins, us over here in Spain will not know the truth because internet dont exist. All we will get from the news is "Trouble on the streets as rioters smash windows" or something like that and the reality would be different, like all the undesirebles (according to them) will be taken to camps, whilst the others who sit at home will be watching the news with the same scenario happening in Spain.
This seems logical to me, maybe not, maybe im wrong.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
There must be something big in the security cable, something that could flame some civil unrest and then they will end the internet as we know it, who knows maybe war.


or maybe there is nothing but gibberish
in the insurance file and it is just the
perception of it being huge that plays
into their scenario for killing the internet
and ending free speech.

2 ways to look at it



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Yeah but it was still a guy from the tea party that said it and I am pretty sure that it doesn’t say at any point in time magazine that wikileaks is part of the NWO, I would bet good money that you won’t find any source as reliable as time magazine that does agree with you. The problem is that this is just your belief it is not absolute fact, and it seems you have trouble understanding that very basic concept that I have already tried to explain to you.

I also want to emphasize that so far you have not actually addressed any of the points I have made.

The burden on providing such evidence is on you not me, you are the one who has declared that wikileaks is in cahoots with the NWO yet you have not provided evidence that convinces me of that. As such is it perfectly acceptable for me to inform you that you are wrong, in my opinion, but also that the general consensus in the media as well as many on ATS is that wikileaks is legitimate and as such my opinion holds more weight than yours.

All I ask is that you accept that it is only your opinion and not a fact that wikileaks is a subdivision of the NWO.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Cosma
 


If every thread on ATS was to be moved to the hoax forum then ATS would no longer exist. I don’t want that. Rather i would like it if ATS would recognise that not everything is a conspiracy, the OP is looking at a conspiracy behind a conspiracy, that is counterproductive for what we are trying to achieve on ATS without any real evidence, as such I think this thread should be moved to the hoax forum.

As i have already pointed out to the OP, the burden of evidence is on him and not me as he is the one who instigated this thread. However if one looks at the general consensus not only in the media but the conspiracy community, wikileaks is legitimate and is providing real information. Further to this wikileaks is not providing the information to boost the power of any elite groups such as the NWO.

I always laugh at the line “if you don’t like this thread or you don’t agree then leave”. ATS needs people like me who are able to critique a thread and point out that the entire context of a thread is full of falsehoods. Without people like me and others who are sceptical or debunk conspiracy theories then anything would go on ATS, the site would be overrun with claims that the world is going to end based on a Simpson’s episode or that phones are taking pictures of them self’s and every ufo story is true and the federation of light are about to rain down on us. Worse that this however, without us everybody on ATS would end up believing this rubbish. So no just because i disagree and don’t like the thread I will not leave.

It is interesting that you have acknowledged that it is only in your opinion that wikileaks is part of the nwo. That means you don’t know it to be true but rather you have faith that it is true in the same way as a religious person has faith God exists. I can say based on a balance of the evidence that because such a high percentage of the evidence indicates that wikileaks is legitimate and not part of the NWO that i therefore know with near absolute certainty that Wikileaks is not connected to the NWO in any meaningful way.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Any way you can start pulling this apart and providing evidence that everything that has been discussed on this thread is false? I can see that you repeatedly like to state your opinion which is great but the hard work goes both ways, if you are claiming that the thread is completely bogus and nothing but theory please take the time to back up your statements. Thanks. Oh and as per your discretions please refrain from using blog posts and the like as it seems those don't hold a lot of water in this thread.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


You have not debunked anything here though, so what are you talking about?
You can be a critique, yes you can criticize, 100 pages if you really wish, but thats not debunking anything, its ranting.
I dont want to enter into an argument on this because really thats not the point here.
Nothing will come off that.
If you think that the OP is incorrect then counter research, show us the evidence and if its there I will look at it.
I dont for one moment think that the OP is deliberatley trying to deceive you or any of us here.
What will you achieve by reading 'it is my belief' from the OP?
What then, will you leave and not critique anymore?
You know what I meen?
It is clear that anybody presenting their work clearly believes in it, that dont meen that tomorow it could be wrong.
As everyone knows, no one is perfect.
You are talking about evidence, the OP has given you it and all you say it is biased.
What do you want, a pic of Assange bending down before Soros whilst he bends down before another one eyed snake?
You are asking for too much.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Yep could very well be nothing but gibberish.
All in all used for the same agenda.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
I dont for one moment think that the OP is deliberatley trying to deceive you or any of us here.
What will you achieve by reading 'it is my belief' from the OP?
What then, will you leave and not critique anymore?

absolutely correct Cosma

and remember I use to to be on
the opposing viewpoint of this
argument at the beginning, then my
research led me to what I have
posted in this thread.

I am NOT trying to deceive or hoax anyone.
I am just sharing evidence as I see it relating
to the events at hand.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
more evidence this is a gov op

Carne Ross admits on BBC that he clears wiki
cables info with US Gov before publication.
So how can this be total disclosure of secrets then
if it's gotta be cleared by the US Gov ???
They release ONLY what is authorized
to be released.


... and to remove other data as requested by the US Gov.


watch from about 1:00 to 1:15 in this video



edited for retraction:
It was Bill Keller who said this
not Carne Ross.
edit on 12/8/2010 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Hey! If you're gonna pull stuff from other posts, credit it!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And it was Bill Keller, Editor of the New York Times that said it, not Carne Ross.
edit on 12/8/2010 by dethduck because: Addendum



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dethduck
Hey! If you're gonna pull stuff from other posts, credit it!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And it was Bill Keller, Editor of the New York Times that said it, not Carne Ross

oops sorry,
retraction

it WAS Bill Keller who said it
not Carne Ross.

my bad


and yes, the other thread corroborates
this thread. Credit given

thanks



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Can anyone assist me here....I've fingered a few of the cables on wikileaks, but it just seems to be a lot of political jargon. I haven't been able to make out anything , like " US screwed this country " in plain black and white. Is there a decryption I'm missing or is it in the fine print of the cable?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
still don't believe the NWO and George Soros
is behind wikileaks??

Here's you more proof.

Datacell is prompting this lawsuit against VISA
who stopped banking services for wikileaks.


The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is supporting wider penetration of internet services in Azerbaijan with a $4 million equity investment in Datacell JSC, a wireless broadband service that already serves the capital, Baku.


www.skyscrapercity.com...

Now guess who owned 53% of the stock of EBRD in 2005 ???

George Soros !!!


George Soros is known to have lost $2 billion in the 1998 Russian financial crisis. In his Crisis of Global Capitalism published afterwards George Soros writes: “We should no longer take Russia into account.” However, he suddenly came back to this country in 1999. Soros Development Fund bought a 42 percent stake of the Russian Corporate and Project Finance Bank (RPFB) from eight Russian companies and banks – Gazexport, Aeroflot, Agrokhimexport, Exportles, Nafta Moscow, Tokobank, Agroprombank and Delovaya Russia Bank. A control stock (53 percent) then pertained to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Later the shareholding of Soros Fund and the EBRD went down to 36,8 percent due to the new share-holders that appeared


www.kommersant.com...

so basically it boils down to a George Soros backed company
is suing a company who is trying to stop a Soros funded CIA
Operation like wikileaks.

Know the players
and you can read the map



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed
www.abovetopsecret.com...

what a coincidence, George Soros' name comes up again.


Aug. 15, 2008
George Soros Buys Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.Petrobras, ConocoPhillips, Hess Corp., Sells International Business Machines Corp, Apple Inc., Pfizer Inc


www.gurufocus.com...

Soros is linked to Petrobras, Conoco & Hess oil companies.

Petrobras has a Ni gerian Division

PETROLEO BRASILEIRO NIGERIA LTD. - PETROBRAS
www.ni geria-oil-gas.com/petroleo_brasileiro_ni geria_ltd._-_petrobras-170-1-2-art.html

please close up the 2 spaces above so the url works.
it's filtered in posting.

Guess who is in direct competition with Shell
for Nigerian Oil Contracts? Petrobras & Soros !

wikileaks releases evidence of corruption of
Soros' competition Shell. When they are outed,
Soros gets those lucrative oil contracts.

congratulations Julian Assange,
you just made Soros another
billion dollars

edit on 12/8/2010 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Boon what do you mean by filtered in posting? Remember I'm slow,lmao!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Boon what do you mean by filtered in posting? Remember I'm slow,lmao!!!


the ats filter takes out the n word and replaces
it with a substitute and messes up the url.
I had to post it with spaces in the url
so the filters didn't overwrite
parts of the link.

just copy the url and paste it in a browser
and remove the 2 spaces and it should work



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Gotcha
2nd



new topics

top topics



 
203
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join