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.

 

Give Me Hard Proof Wikileaks or Assange Is NWO, please!

page: 9
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


Sorry if I misinterpreted, but I think I made my point clear anyhow.

It is my belief that the mainstream media simply wouldn't cover wikileaks if it were truly damaging to the government's overall agenda. If it were, the files and the people who leaked them would simply be wiped from existence and not a word would be spoken about it on the mainstream news. As far as I can tell, the media ONLY addresses issues that are unimportant OR that further the agenda of TPTB - a NWO fascist state.

In my opinion, when it comes to the news, you only get to hear what they want you to hear and see the sides of the issue they want you to see.
edit on 6-12-2010 by smokinsinger because: add




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 


How am I beeing "contrary"?
lol did you not see the winki after that.
Consider it a poke in the ribs. lol A not serious one at that. Good grief lol



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokinsinger
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


Sorry if I misinterpreted, but I think I made my point clear anyhow.

It is my belief that the mainstream media simply wouldn't cover wikileaks if it were truly damaging to the government's overall agenda. If it were, the files and the people who leaked them would simply be wiped from existence and not a word would be spoken about it on the mainstream news. As far as I can tell, the media ONLY addresses issues that are unimportant OR that further the agenda of TPTB - a NWO fascist state.

In my opinion, when it comes to the news, you only get to hear what they want you to hear and see the sides of the issue they want you to see.
edit on 6-12-2010 by smokinsinger because: add
That might be believable if their coverage was in praise of wikileaks. lol But they vilify them and paint the "wikileaks=evil" portrait. They certainly aren't discussing the dirty deeds done cheap by our officials. NO. In fact they portray them and the country as being harmed by WL.
edit on 12/6/1010 by NoAngel2u because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Unless wikileaks comes out with something absolutely huge like the well documented government affiliation with alien / extradimensional entities or at the very least the full truth about 9/11 (my personal prediction about the contents of the 'insurance' files if the situation is genuine), I will have a hard time believing that it isn't a manufactured issue. It just fits too well into the formula for manipulation.

At the very least, if it is a genuine situation, they are going to use it to further their agenda.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 


Yes, and if anything makes it look valid it is exactly that, but remember that they also painted the same picture of "Muslims = terrorists = evil," and surely we can all see behind that facade.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Everything on Wikileaks everyone already knew. Its just many were in denial. You don't need empirical proof to know something exists, you have rational evidence.

Edit:

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if they built up Wikileaks 'credibility' of leaking very accurate information and than releasing documents saying North korea, Iran, Pakistan and every other enemy of the Zionists, Bankers, Western complex, etc orchestrated 911 or something else ridiculous like that.

I am supporting wikileaks, but I am just saying becareful, your/our enemies are very close.
edit on 6-12-2010 by lawlb0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lawlb0t
You don't need empirical proof to know something exists, you have rational evidence.
You don't need empirical proof to suspect something exists, but you do need empirical proof to prove it exists and do something about it.
edit on 12/6/1010 by NoAngel2u because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I've been suspicious ever since I read their Red Cell "leak" outlining how the U.S. could possibly have homegrown terrorists (I know! Shocking!) I started looking into Wikileaks, and this so-called neutral , unbiased site that touts transparency is shrouded in secrecy. Where does it get its several million dollars of funding? Why don't they release EVERYTHING they receive as quickly as possible instead of withholding information? Ever since, it seems more and more like they are agenda-based, playing (or collaborating closely with) the media to make sure that they have a monopoly over the leak scene. Ask yourself this:

1) Who benefits from being the main recognizable "source" and destination for future leaks?
2) What geopolitical agendas do these leaks meet or help, mainly for the U.S.?
3) What is the best way to manipulate the opinions of societies who base their information on picking and choosing tidbits of info off the net?
4) Who would benefit from concealing the full truth by selectively releasing information that is difficult to authenticate by the general public?

In light of other questionable "news" that allows TPTB in the U.S. to fulfill security contracts and justify war and fear mongering (for example, the TSA mess in response to the jump in airline "bombs", many of which were overhyped and not explosive), it would be best to set the psychological stage to get popular support for certain agendas. Think military intervention and expansion in the Middle East, or the sudden rise in calls for censoring the internet and hardening security of sensitive information, the "important" Wikileak gossip dominating the news during a global economic crisis and a decade-long unpopular war (let alone the Haitian health crisis). How about the COICA bill that's been flying through Congress, and the recent takedown of over 80 sites by the U.S. Gov.? What better way to up security and legitimize security spending than by fabricating a scapegoat that is able to globally manipulate public opinion.

td;dr:
Information Operations Roadmap
BBC Report on the IOR

Here's an interesting (yet highly censored) DoD paper, signed personally by Donny Rumsfeld, which calls for heavy funding for PSYOPs campaigns from 2003-2009 - and specifically mentions the creation of a website that controls and disseminates doctored information. The timeline near the end says that by October 2006, 4 new online PSYOP companies will be put into effect. Enter the highly-secretive Wikileaks in December 2006. Think about many of the questions that anti-Wikileaks theories ask in light of reading this document.

Don't buy into everything the media feeds you - remember the past, question power, don't be afraid to go against popular opinion.
edit on 6-12-2010 by pforkp because: fixed a dodgy sentence

edit on 6-12-2010 by pforkp because: added link to BBC article on the IOR



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by pforkp
 


Coincidence??
Like how many new members have joined up recently and attack wikileaks?
I guess tha's a coincidence also..



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by smokinsinger
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


Sorry if I misinterpreted, but I think I made my point clear anyhow.

It is my belief that the mainstream media simply wouldn't cover wikileaks if it were truly damaging to the government's overall agenda. If it were, the files and the people who leaked them would simply be wiped from existence and not a word would be spoken about it on the mainstream news. As far as I can tell, the media ONLY addresses issues that are unimportant OR that further the agenda of TPTB - a NWO fascist state.

In my opinion, when it comes to the news, you only get to hear what they want you to hear and see the sides of the issue they want you to see.
edit on 6-12-2010 by smokinsinger because: add


That's excactly what wikileaks is preventing by letting the public get the files in realtime with the media, it makes it impossible to bury anything and makes it impossible for the media or TPTB to wipe out either wikileaks or its supporters.

If however all the cables came in one lump, it would be in the media for 2-3 weeks and then forgotten and distorted no matter what info was revealed.

Now we have the oportunity the see for ourselves and fact check every single thing fed to us by the media mfrom the leaks.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by smokinsinger
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Unless wikileaks comes out with something absolutely huge like the well documented government affiliation with alien / extradimensional entities or at the very least the full truth about 9/11 (my personal prediction about the contents of the 'insurance' files if the situation is genuine), I will have a hard time believing that it isn't a manufactured issue. It just fits too well into the formula for manipulation.

At the very least, if it is a genuine situation, they are going to use it to further their agenda.


So unless wikileaks doesn't support your, IMO, kind of far out believes of government affiliation with alien / extradimensional entities they have to be false?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by lawlb0t
Everything on Wikileaks everyone already knew. Its just many were in denial. You don't need empirical proof to know something exists, you have rational evidence.

Edit:

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if they built up Wikileaks 'credibility' of leaking very accurate information and than releasing documents saying North korea, Iran, Pakistan and every other enemy of the Zionists, Bankers, Western complex, etc orchestrated 911 or something else ridiculous like that.

I am supporting wikileaks, but I am just saying becareful, your/our enemies are very close.
edit on 6-12-2010 by lawlb0t because: (no reason given)


Wow, there are some very informed individuals out there.
I mean good for you and all, but I'm happy that this info comes out to me also. If everone knew then I guess I'm the one looking a bit stupid right now....



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pforkp
 


Thanks for that very interesting link. I will read up on it a bit and comment later.

However, when I skimmed trough it I got the impression that they were trying to prepare and prevent something like WL to ever happen, and if it happens they should be able to shut it down.
They did not however remember to think that there are a lot of people on the net that loves freedom of information and the hundreds of mirrors and temp sites popping up.

But like I said, let me read up on it, by far the most interesting link in this thread except the links in my signature



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 
In this information war anything is possible. It's perefectly possible that whoever is trying so desperately to increase the credibility of WL, would also arrange for a multitude of people to join this website with the appearance of only trying to discredit WL, when in reality its nothing more than false flag activity. Far fetched? Certainly from a conventional viewpoint, but I didn't end up here because of my conventional viewpoint.

I'll ignore all the bluff and double bluff possibilities in this information war and use my instinct about this: without coverage from the MSM, nobody would have heard of them; if WL is all about the big truths, tell us some.

Secrets have been leaked and available since well before WL was created, so what's so special about them?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Vash
 
Calibri (Hoofdtekst)
I do not agree when you give power from 1 point the control of all will be huge on the people otherwise they have no overview.. I think you can better split the world up in different parts with a certain lifestyle that all people can choose in what sort of culture the feel happy something like that... You always see that all people are attracted to different people in the Netherlands we would say "soort zoekt soort"!!!




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


Stephen Hawking is crippled and unless you also have some sort of sick fetish I don't know where your going with that. I'm being absolutely 100% serious, that to me Assange looks as if he could be a pedophile. Clearly you have some ungodly obsession with this guy I mean your logo, this thread... etc. This is my personal opinion, this is what ATS was made for right? To give opinions? No matter how biased? So like I said once and I'll say again Assange to me looks like a pedophile, my opinion which has at this time no truth to the statement whatsoever. Sorry for insulting your demigod.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


Wow, I don't hold this guy on a pedestal, and in fact believe he's probably not the good guy most people seem to think he is.

Still, I find your comment to be rather disturbing! You think he "looks" like a pedophile? That's a really serious judgment of someone's character. How you could possibly get this from someone's look is entirely beyond my comprehension. You seem to be heavily brainwashed by the media.
edit on 7-12-2010 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


Stephen Hawking is crippled and unless you also have some sort of sick fetish I don't know where your going with that. I'm being absolutely 100% serious, that to me Assange looks as if he could be a pedophile. Clearly you have some ungodly obsession with this guy I mean your logo, this thread... etc. This is my personal opinion, this is what ATS was made for right? To give opinions? No matter how biased? So like I said once and I'll say again Assange to me looks like a pedophile, my opinion which has at this time no truth to the statement whatsoever. Sorry for insulting your demigod.


Please don't feed the Troll, it's just a shot at derailing the thread and make a mockery of ATS.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Um he looks like a 10 year old girl? Would you rather I say he looks like a homosexual? Appearance is also everything this day and age, like I said it's an opinion why get your panties in such a ruffle?

2nd line.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


Well you just proved everything in my post other then the pedophile comment to be true... This thread isn't worth anything especially when someone puts Assange and Hawking in the same thought... their not even on the same planet. You clearly have Assange on a very high plane in your mind, I find something wrong with anyone who would revere someone so. Again it's an opinion, and again sorry for insulting your demigod.




top topics



 
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join