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 Is Not A CIA Psy-Ops

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 


As someone who works with multiple intelligence agencies on a daily basis, I can say that, from the U.S. perspective........you are all wet.

Right now Wikileaks and Julian Assange is not the topic du jour. The hot item is the "insider threat" and how to detect and deter.

Israel and their intelligence agencies have nothing to do with this. It is, however, common knowledge that the Israeli government is currently engaged in a massive, world-wide media blitz of "We told you so"!




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 


Israel having nothing to do with this would be an absolute first. I'm not going to ask you how you are involved with various intelligence agencies, or in which capacity, as I would be unable to verify your answer.

I will however add this: if I start with the cables, run through then one by one, and next to each write down who benefits, the answer is invariably the same: Israel.

What a fortunate coincidence! Must be because of their 'choseness' - blessed beyond all odds.

I have grown up in the gambling industry: I understand percentages and probability. The odds Israel is not involved are low enough to be ignored in my opinion. And I do not believe in coincidences, or in 'leaks' which confirm lies...



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 


This post is entirely incorrect. The motives you choose by the 'muslims' are false.
You clearly have an agenda of which is not your own.
"I" Am .....

Peace wherever you may find it.
I'm not your foe.
Never was.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Perseus Apex
 


How can I not ignore you? You cannot decry the inexactitude of that entire post, as there is verifiable fact along with speculative conclusions. So you need to be more specific.

And I have a perplexity: what does this statement mean,

"The motives you choose by the 'muslims' are false."

Are you foreign by any chance, or using google translate? I don't understand most of what you say, and I'm not being funny here, you just don't make any sense.

Do you speak any other language you could be more clear in?
edit on 7-12-2010 by D377MC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 


ProFiled.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Perseus Apex
 


Well I hope the information is useful to you.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by Perseus Apex


Are you foreign by any chance, or using google translate? I don't understand most of what you say, and I'm not being funny here, you just don't make any sense.


Perhaps you should private message the individual before asking questions such as, " are you foreign" , that simply is the most productive way in isolating a potential well thought out interaction with individuals who strive for intelligent interaction rather than regional stereotype assumptions.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


where is the validity of your argument? what has he given us? as far as I'm concerned until the heads of very important corrupt leaders roll, then it is all a farce.. oh and when it doesn't fall right into America's wonderful soap opera story line they've had going on since 9/11 (much earlier but this would have to be the climax)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Might i suggest and with the utmost respect to Memory, perhaps we could all interact via ats show and with an adequate time frame for members and non members to tune an actually interact as this topic obviously has the minority up in a storm as the majority are completely oblivious to what is at hand.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
In a society that was psychic/telepathic, there would be no lies. There would be complete transparency. People would immediately know if you found them attractive or repulsive. People would know if you were lying, and, in fact, you wouldn't lie because you couldn't lie ---they would know you were trying to decieve them. Open deception would be very hard to pull off because people would see into your thoughts, into your emotions.

Have you ever seen a Twilight Zone episode or any other movie/program where this idea is explored? What usually ends up happening is a lot of hurt feelings and all-out war/conflict.

We humans need our secrecy, as individuals. When your lover asks if he/she looks fat in something, some of us might be inclined to tell a "white lie" in order to preserve that person's happiness. Imagine that you told your best friend about the incident in a text/email. Imagine, then, some hacker gets that memo and presents it to your wife. And then she is sad. You didn't call her a big fat cow in that memo, but you might have referred to her as needing to work-out, or saying that she might look prettier if she lost 25 pounds. Seeing that would hurt her feelings. I'm only using this as a loose example, illustrating how/why we might need to employ secrets on a personal basis. Complete transparency isn't always a good thing.

Now, how, if at all, does this apply to the international situation? Similarly, a bit. Relations between nations can be strained if true "opinions" are released. Granted, the position of the US towards Russia is not boiled down to memos, as national policy speaks for itself, but certain statements, released, can cause awkwardness. Some information, especially classified, can be downright harmful when people get hurt or killed because of its release. Right after 9-11, Bush gave classified briefings to Congress, with the mindset of everyone there being a patriot and would not reveal any undo information. In one of those briefings, he revealed that the US could track Bin Laden via the man's cell phone. Someone released that to the press. Naturally, it was printed in a newspaper article and reported on news channels. Bin Laden saw this information and stopped using his cell phone. All of this because of a leak of classified information. That ability to track him was lost because of an informational leak --from Congress.

Imagine what capabilities will be (and have already been) lost since the release of this information. Some secrets are NECESSARY, and who is "Assange" to think that it is up to him to release it? Personally, most of the information that was been leaked so far has really HELPED the US, in showing that other countries around the world are deceitful and two-faced. For example, Fox News reported that one memo from Saudi Arabia encouraged the US to invade Iran. Wow. Now, Saudi Arabia is like the wife reading the memo about being fat.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


Maybe you should just mind your own business.Categorizing a simple question as a 'regional stereotype', well that is idiotic on your part, pure and simple. I figured I'd live to see the day where the word 'foreign' would be considered by a certain type of individual as 'politically incorrect' ...

I'm fluent in a number of languages and can tell you that in view of his grammar and sentence construction it was a reasonable question. And lets define foreign, so you can keep your pants on; for the purpose of this discussion, when I say foreign I mean the same thing the Merriam-Webster dictionary does, namely

' born in, belonging to, or characteristic of some place or country other than the one under consideration'

How awfully rude - thank God you were there to correct me....



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
" Its pro terrorist"

...people contemplate the who and why,,,!




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by tristar
 


Maybe you should just mind your own business.Categorizing a simple question as a 'regional stereotype', well that is idiotic on your part, pure and simple. I figured I'd live to see the day where the word 'foreign' would be considered by a certain type of individual as 'politically incorrect' ...

I'm fluent in a number of languages and can tell you that in view of his grammar and sentence construction it was a reasonable question. And lets define foreign, so you can keep your pants on; for the purpose of this discussion, when I say foreign I mean the same thing the Merriam-Webster dictionary does, namely

' born in, belonging to, or characteristic of some place or country other than the one under consideration'

How awfully rude - thank God you were there to correct me....


Just so there is no wrong interpretation, i am who i am and do support who i support and i take no hostages.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


You are basically saying, who is 'Assange' to dare hold our governement accountable. I have trouble understanding that mentality, really I do. Where governement is concerned, the more transparency the better. Don't expect people to subscribe to the 'those who govern us act in our best interests, know best, and don't have to explain their actions to us' bandwagon - that kind of reasoning is as ridiculous as they come.

Secrecy is best, necessary, and not the concern of the common man.... Really? That's absurd. Besides, in the hypothesis that the guy is an intelligence asset and the 'leaks' are fairy-tales, then your line of reasoning is wrong and irrelevant.

I'm still trying to see what harm has been done by their lies and misdirection, and I'm sure I won't have an answer to that until they railroad a bill through the house restricting our Internet access to whatever suits them.
edit on 7-12-2010 by D377MC because: spelling



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


True. You are also under no obligation to make any sense, despite the fact that it would be nice if you did. If there are any other words you feel should only be used in PM's make sure you mention it....



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 



So stupid that this thread saying CIA is not a psy-ops is still up while the other accusing it of being a psy-op is closed... Guess that's how ATS rolls, biased.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by tristar
 


True. You are also under no obligation to make any sense, despite the fact that it would be nice if you did. If there are any other words you feel should only be used in PM's make sure you mention it....


Ask what you feel comfortable with, i hold no reservations when interacting with social web sites. In short , the ball is in your court, unless your questions are directly in conflict with my conduct of interest...


edit on 7-12-2010 by tristar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TSAisaSCAM
 


Kind of cute isn't it?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I would love to live in a world where the press is still free, and the government isn't omnipotent and all knowing. Sadly, only the naive believe this to be true these days. We've uncovered stuff here on ATS that basically supports the following notions. These notions create a sort of logical fallacy when you consider the entity known as wikileaks to be what its made out to be:

1) The government controls the press, we've seen time and time again how the media diverts attention away from one MAJOR story by sensationalizing some other far more irrelevant and unimportant topic. We should all know by now that any interview that takes place has been painstakingly mapped out to every last letter. Everything is scripted and approved by TPTB. Another good example is the BP oil spill, it was everywhere on every media outlet imaginable. Obama placed a gag order, banned any reporters or camera men from the beaches, and magically we stopped hearing about it.

2) Are we so naive to believe that the worlds governments (not just the US) lack the resources and the capability to take down some guy who supposedly threatens to "expose" information that is deemed a breach of national security? Ive said time and time again, if this guy was truly a threat, a well task force would have taken him down LONG before he became the media darling he is today



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by TSAisaSCAM
 


Kind of cute isn't it?


'So your full blown objective and bias't opinion is ?> or are we the less blessed so called humans in cable of interaction.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join