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 Exposed - The man behind the NWO Curtain

page: 41
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by jaynkeel

where did all the nay-saying minions go??
You know, the ones who were wanting
evidence? Not a peep outta those guys


it's kinda hard to justify their stance
when there is a Soros connection
to every single cable release

That's MOTIVE !!!!

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

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:42 PM
I wanted to bring that up earlier but figured they were still compiling their data and haven't had the chance to reply yet? Maybe they have to wait for their orders in the am from their boss? You know Creepy dude!!!!

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by boondock-saint

This fits like a glove with Assange's own statements as to the why of the need for mainstream media attention.

It is really uncanny of them, incredibly smart.

Assange has a game plan, it seems.

Conspiracy as Governance
me @ (Julian Assange)
December 3, 2006

The best party is but a kind of conspiracy against the rest
of the nation. (Lord Halifax) (As quoted by Julian Assange)
edit on 8-12-2010 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Conspiracies are cognitive devices. They are able to out
think the same group of individuals acting alone

Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate (the conspiratorial
environment), pass it around the conspirators and then act on the
result. We can see conspiracies as a type of device that has inputs (information
about the environment) and outputs (actions intending to change or maintain
the environment).

What does a conspiracy compute?
It computes the next action of the conspiracy
Now I we ask the question: how effective is this device? Can we compare it to
itself at different times? Is the conspiracy growing stronger or weakening? This
is a question that asks us to compare two values.

Can we find a value that describes the power of a conspiracy?
We could count the number of conspirators, but that would not capture the
difference between a conspiracy and the individuals which comprise it. How do
they differ? Individuals in a conspiracy conspire. Isolated individuals do not.
We can capture that difference by adding up all the important communication

That admission on the Part of The Times is damning. extra DIV

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:21 PM
2 more things to note that I read today.

1) Assange's lawyer states that it may take a year
to fight the extradition to Sweden. Will he be
locked up that long or will he be allowed bail ?

2) Wikileaks is in chaos since Julian's arrest

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

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:35 PM
Another piece of political blackmail
comes to light.

Remember, wikileaks saying it's next big dump
was gonna be about a big American Bank.
Most thought it was going to be BOA.
This next article might prove that it was

Dec. 8, 2010
Attorneys general from 20 states reached an agreement that will require Bank of America to pay $137.3 million for its part in a bid-rigging scheme, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The financial institution is accused of defrauding state agencies, municipalities, schools districts, hospitals and other non-profit organizations by rigging bids on municipal bond contracts

coincidence or not that the same day BOA paid out this settlement,
now wikileaks has recanted on the next big leak being a bank
but now it is the Gitmo Detainee scandal.

Gitmo may be WikiLeaks’ next target - Dec. 8, 2010
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has reportedly told media contacts that he has a large cache of files on the US's detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

Reuters quotes an unnamed "contact" who says Assange has "got the personal files of every prisoner in Gitmo."

now why do you suppose that wikileaks changed
their next big scoop from BOA to Gitmo after BOA
paid off that settlement ???

Political Blackmail - MOTIVE

oh and 1 last thing:
How can Julian tell the media this
on Dec. 8, 2010 when he has been
in jail for 24 hrs ???

being led by the media folks.
the dog and pony show

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

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:15 AM

Originally posted by boondock-saint
coincidence or not that the same day BOA paid out this settlement,
now wikileaks has recanted on the next big leak being a bank
but now it is the Gitmo Detainee scandal.

Gitmo may be WikiLeaks’ next target - Dec. 8, 2010
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has reportedly told media contacts that he has a large cache of files on the US's detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

Nowhere in that article was the release of bank documents recanted. Do you not think it's possible to have more than one type of document at a time?
edit on 12/9/2010 by NoArmsJames because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:31 AM
reply to post by NoArmsJames

Hmm, Boon just won't give it up..
So many flimsy ties and opinions from bloggers..

All I can say is,

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:03 AM
This thread still haven't died ?
second line

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:15 AM

Originally posted by xavi1000
This thread still haven't died ?
second line

It up and died days ago - just the stench left now - sure seems to have attracted a lot of blowflies tho - predictable enough, only the cremation left and then the wake - I hope they serve drinks! ;o)


posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:12 AM
Seeing as everyone on here likes to repeat the same things over and over, here we go again with the challenge from yesterday.

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, 9 2010 @ 10:00 AM
Anyone watch Glenn Beck last night? He was firing back at Soros.Other then that i don't really watch the MSM news anymore since a lot of people mentioning that they don't really report on real news. And ever since that whoever said that was right. Im just trying to understand what the hell is going on and who is the good/bad guy?

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:33 AM

i don't really watch the MSM news anymore since a lot of people mentioning that they don't really report on real news. And ever since that whoever said that was right. Im just trying to understand what the hell is going on and who is the good/bad guy?

your 110% right about that brother!

Its purely because the MSM news stopped reporting "news" and started feeding us trash & infomercials disguised as news & absolutely NO investigative journalism pieces, that so many have abandoned the medium entirely and gone to "todays version of the CB radio" - the internet - to talk with other citizens of the world, about whats really happening and just who the black hats and the white hats really are.

And in that vein i'm reminded of a joke about the Zebra that died and went too heaven.

And he sees St Pete at the pearly gates on his way into heaven and St Pete asks him if he is good to go..and the ol zebra - he's got just this one burning question that's been haunting him all his life, that needs answering before he goes thru the gates and accepts his angel wings for eternity.

"And just what question would that be lil zebra" asks St Pete?

"Well" says the zebra in his best Dr Ed the talkin' horse impersonation, "all of my life, I've been a wondering, am I a black horse with white stripes or am I a white horse with black stripes?"

Ol St Pete rubs the whiskers on his chin, and thinks/ponders deeply for a good while, beore finally responding..."well lil Zebra ain't that just the howdy doody question of the day - I've no idea of the right answer - this is somehting that ONLY God who created you can address. Since he's sitting just over there on the porch a rocking in his chair, why don't you trot along over there, and ask him?".

So Zebra trots over to God and after exchanging the pleasantries, puts his question to God who responds with an answer.

Zebrs back in line at the pearly gates, and his turn comes round again, and again St Pete speaks with him - "well lil Zebra - how did you get on with your question of God - what did he say, and are you finaly clear about the answer, now?"

"Well St Pete, I am honestly still a little unclear, to be perfectly honest" replies Zebra.

"How so Zebra" - says St Pete, "what did God answer to your question"?

Zebra says "Well St Pete, he said to me, a famous quotation from his holy work the Bible, he said:-

you are what you are

"Ohh well thats easey" says St Pete, "your a White Horse with Black stripes then!"

"Just how do you figure that St Pete?" asks the Zebra!

"Well" says St Pete "if you were a Black Horse, the good Lord our God would have said:-

"Yo Izz, what yo Izz!"

waits for thelaughter to die down..

CQ CQ got your ears on out there lil fat buddy?

10 four, over n out!

Looks like we got us... a convoy!


posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:46 AM
Seeing how the OP chooses to ignore important questions to the discussion, and rather participate in a proverbial academic maturbation circle, i do not see any point in further comments other than that I hope that you some day might come out of the Glen Beck/Tea Party infused paranoid delusion you seem to be suffering from.

Get well soon.

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:48 AM
The OP states that Wikileaks and its founder are part of the NWO because of a link to George Soros, everything else is just a distraction. I will go through the OP point by point and show that this thread is utter rubbish for the benefit for those who lack the intellectual ability to understand by very basic points made thus far that firstly this is only the OP’s believe and not a absolute fact and secondly that the majority of his sources are bias or just don’t back up what he’s saying.

The op’s first point is that wikileaks is linked to the billionaire George Soros, to back this up he has gave us two links. The first ling is a YouTube video, barley talks about wikileaks other than in the introduction, rather the video goes on about Obama planning a attack as big as 9/11 at some point between September and November this year. As we all know there has been no such attack and as such this source has no credibility. Further to this, the first link has no links that can be used to corroborate anything that the narrator has said, he could have said “pigs can fly” and the OP would have believed him.

The second link used by the OP to back up his claims about Soros being connected to wikileaks isn’t really much better than the first, it does contain some sources but they don’t really provide any useful information. This link does not explicitly say at any point wikileaks is funded by Soros rather that the wikileaks founder, Julian Assange negotiated for funding to set up the website however it does not say that Assange secured the funding. After that the article goes on to explain that the link is not between wikileaks and Soros directly but a human rights organisation funded in partly by Soros who published a report by wikileaks. And also that apparently wikileaks once had Soros as a advisor, it’s probably more likely that it was only one of his many companies that was advising wikileaks however there is no source to explore this further or even confirm anything pointing to a connection. It’s probably worth nothing that Soros has a active interest in human rights in Africa, and this publication and possibly any advice that Soros gave to wikileaks appears to be a natural action, Soros is also behind the biggest organisation seeking regime change in Zimbabwe. Just because wikileaks and Soros have a mutual interest in African human rights does not mean Soros is manipulating wikileaks in anyway. By the OP’s logic that would make every organisation campaigning for African human rights is part of the NWO because they have this very loose connection with Soros. By lose connection i mean a publishing company or human right think tank endorsing one of their publications. By far the biggest problem with this source is its obvious bias, the article assumes from the outset that Assange is a one of the elites who is attempting to bring about anarchy, yet does not explain adequately how it came to this outstanding conclusion. The article also states the reason Soros has supposedly helped out wikileaks is to steel state secrets by tricking the whistleblowers but there is nothing that proves any of this in the article.

So the orgional two links that are the cornerstone of the OP’s argument are very shaky, neither of them explicitly agrees with the OP that Soros is pulling the strings at wikileaks. The rubbish the OP wrote about “how the wikileaks scheme works” doesn’t have any link to back up anything the OP has said same goes for a whole bunch of his other headings. So if you believe what the OP is telling you then you are only believing in his little fantasy that he has cracked open and exposed the new world order. He hasn’t.

Finally the OP’s last link the only one that backs up what he says (sort of because its not got the NWO bit in it). Just one problem with it, there is absolutely nothing in it to back up anything claimed in the article other that some e-mails, which are really so easy to be faked there isn’t really much point in talking about it. I mean really how foolish to you have to be to think that the CIA would be behind wikileaks, they have this information themselves and they would have no interest in it becoming public.

This thread has so many problems it is laughable, the OP has to prove that the NWO exists, Soros is part of it, Soros is directly responsible for wikileaks, Soros’s motivation for this, The NWO can cover this scandal up. The list really does go on the op has failed to answer any of these questions or any of the other points i and others have raised. All he does is give us a obscure web link that means nothing and a few lines.

I have said it before and i will say it again. There is no weakness only strength in admitting that you’ve got this wrong.

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by Dr Cosma

You don’t get this do you?

The point is that I don’t need any evidence because the OP’s evidence is completely useless, the burden of evidence is on him not me. Why should I provide counter research when to when his own research and hypothesis is so weak?

What I want is a logical theory using real evidence, official documents, announcements, real news articles, real history that proves what the OP is saying might be even remotely possible. I also want some balance, not more of this paradoxical ideal the OP has that his believe can constitute a fact despite an overwhelming lack of evidence what about the other side of the coin, what about the fact that none else really agrees with the OP.

He is wrong, by believing him so are you. Sorry you have picked the losing

edit on 9-12-2010 by kevinunknown because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by kevinunknown
You don’t get this do you?

No, u don't get this.

u choose 2 lil links in the first post on this thread to respond to
and completely ignore the other 40 pages of evidence.
If u were my attorney. U would be fired

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:09 PM

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
Nowhere in that article was the release of bank documents recanted. Do you not think it's possible to have more than one type of document at a time?

or maybe u missed the point
that there can be only 1 "NEXT" story.
And that NEXT story of the bank leak
was changed to Gitmo as NEXT.

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by boondock-saint

There you go again, every time someone rips your thread to bits you respond to a single line with a statement that is so short its only shows how week your debating sills really are.

Your OP should be the cornerstone of your argument, that is what we are debating, i have looked over the other stuff you have posted and its weaker than the OP. If you cant make all your main points in you OP then don’t write the OP

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:22 PM
and here is a lil post that needs re-visiting
from page 36. You have Obama's Czar
Cass Sunstein talking about implementing
the same format as wikileaks through the
CIA. And Cass Sunstein had 85 visits with
George Soros at the WH in 2009. What were
they doing, smoking pot and drinking Brandy?

And since Obama has already been elected,
why would Soros need to visit the WH. He had already
donated heavily to Obama's campaign. Soros
also created the Shadow Party so Ops like
this could be implemented by the elite.
Soros does NOT hold a position in the Obama
administration, yet he visits the WH more than
some of Obama's Cabinet members. These type
of illegal plans have to be done in person since
writing them in an e-mail would leave a paper trail
on the WH e-mail servers.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
Some real meat and potatoes for all
you nay-sayers out there.

First of all, to make this diagram work
we need to show the link between Cass
Sunstein, Barack Obama and the CIA.
So without further ado.

CIA Interpedia Project

A Brave New World
By Cass R. Sunstein
Saturday, February 24, 2007

The Central Intelligence Agency disclosed the existence of its top-secret Intellipedia project, based on Wikipedia software (and now containing more than 28,000 pages), in late October. The agency hopes to use dispersed information to reduce the risk of intelligence failures. NASA officials have adopted a wiki site to program NASA software, allowing many participants to make improvements.

In the private domain, businesses are adopting wikis to compile information about products, profits and new developments. The Autism Wiki, produced mostly by adults with autism and Asperger's syndrome, contains material on autism and related conditions., founded by dissidents in China and other nations, plans to post secret government documents and to protect them from censorship with coded software.

In this article, Sunstein is adoring the wikileaks platform
as a model for the CIA version of the Intellipedia Project.

How does Julian Assange get recruited by the CIA?
He was facing 10 yrs in prison for hacking Nortel.
So he cut a deal to work for the CIA instead.

Digging a bit into the past of Julian Assange we find in his 20’s he is arrested for hacking the central server of the Canadian telecom company Nortel. Facing 10 years in prison he pleads guilty to 25 charges and yet he gets off with a fine. Hacker turned fed?

In 1991, at the age of 20, Assange and some fellow hackers broke into the master terminal of Nortel, the Canadian telecom company. He was caught and pleaded guilty to 25 charges; six other charges were dropped. Citing Assange's "intelligent inquisitiveness," the judge sentenced him only to pay the Australian state a small sum in damages.

The CIA then does a takeover of wikileaks from the
chinese hackers and inserts Assange in the lead role
as it's founder.

As you can see from the diagram Soros and Sunstein are connected
by 85 White House visits during 2009 and also through the Obama
Presidential Campaign contributions. Sunstein poses the Intellipedia
CIA Op to Obama and Obama gives him a position in the White House
as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. So he is directly connected to Obama. Obama and Sunstein
needs illegal funding to pull off this Op and recruits Soros as the
money man and the fall guy should they be discovered. It wipes
blame from the White House. They pitch the Op to Soros who is
onboard since the object is to target Free Speech on the internet
and eliminate Obama's competition in the next election which is
Hilary Clinton. Soros states in public that only Billionaires
should have free speech.

So the connection goes:

Wikileaks to CIA
CIA to Obama and Sunstein
Obama and Sunstein to Soros Funding through per the diagram
Soros to the Rothschild House

So how does this connect wikileaks to the NWO?
Through Soros ambitions prior to wikileaks origins.

Soros creates The Shadow Party, which is a replacement
for the Democratic Party. There are 3 parts to this article
linking Soros to the Shadow Party. The Shadow Party
is an elite bunch whose intent is taking over all government
and financial institutions in America. Basically a NWO.
There is too much content to post from 3 pages so I
will post all 3 links so you can read for yourself.

Shadow Party: Part 1
Shadow Party: Part 2
Shadow Party: Part 3

And since Soros has now been implicated and proved
to part of this wikileaks conspiracy, let's link him
to the Rothschild House which is the Bildeberg Group.

Soros has been identified as a front man of the Anglo-French Rothschild banking group. Understandably neither he nor the Rothschilds want this important fact to be public, so the tight links to his friends in the London "City", in the British foreign ministry, in the state of Israel and to his mighty friends in the American establishment would stay concealed."

And this my friends is how you can have a
hacker totally defeat the US Government's
efforts to stop him. The CIA is assisting
and Soros is funding, all with Obama's approval.

Great scheme !!!
until now

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Your OP should be the cornerstone of your argument, that is what we are debating,

as with any investigation,
more evidence keeps accumulating
over time. That also needs debate
as well. Ignoring the subsequent evidence
is downright ignorant. And we are taught here
to deny ignorance.

top topics

<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in