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' Assange: 2,000 Sites Now Have All Documents!

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
From my understanding the way Assange explained awhile back

The Insurance File contains: ALL the RAW DATA submitted to Wikileaks Organisation/Website since the official launched

Recent times...

Wikileaks Organisation/Website only produces/uploads RAW DATA on its website only AFTER affiliated newspapers ( The Guardian | El Pais | Le Monde | New York Times | Der Spiegel ) have written the article/s

Wikileaks Organisation/Website does not release first

Affiliated newspapers ( The Guardian | El Pais | Le Monde | New York Times | Der Spiegel ) release the information first

In this case with the cables..
It takes time for the affiliated newspapers ( The Guardian | El Pais | Le Monde | Der Spiegel ) to go over the cables, read them, find something of interest, trace the background story, redact names and do the write up for the general public

Mind boggling, daunting when you think about it ....

The affiliated newspapers ( The Guardian | El Pais | Le Monde | Der Spiegel ) with only a small section (inhouse & outsource) dedicated have; 250,000+ cables to read, trace, research, redact names, double check, triple check, write up individual articles, upload the associated cable to Wikileaks Organisation/Website..even then they double check and triple check everything again

The affiliated newspapers ( The Guardian | El Pais | Le Monde | Der Spiegel ) all up release 60 - 80 articles per day

When do they sleep? lol

NB: New York Times was not part of the 250,000+ cable reading, tracing, researching, redacting names etc process




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


I thought I already read that US was trying to assassinate him...do I think our government is corrupt? yes...do I think they are raving lunatics? no..



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


great minds think alike friend



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
How hard is it to assassinate someone, especially with unlimited and high tech resources. He's also in plain view, he's a civilian, and not very popular. I don't think the U.S. has tried to assassinate Assange, or the surely would have by now.
The piece of metal he bit down on in his peas soup surely wasn't an assassination attempt. I think somebody in the kitchen was just freaking around with him.
I don't sympathize with Julian because he's directly aiming his campaign at the U.S. There are many other countries and entities our there FAR WORSE, then anything the U.S has done. I diagnose a personal vendetta here, and also one of fame, trek lightly, because fame can easily become infamy



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Well, I would say it's a safe bet that this information and documents are not going to go away easily or quietly, if he is telling the truth here, no matter how much the figureheads around the world want to put a lid on this.

If 2,000 seperate sites have access to ALL the intel and docs, I wonder how much longer till one clever hacker figures out that password and dumps them all into the public arena?

With that many sites involved, something may give somewhere...My guess is that WL is branching out and networking vast amounts of whistleblower sites due to possible threats?

www.mcclatchydc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 1-1-2011 by DimensionalDetective because: typo


Not very likely if the encryption is AES 256 CTR as claimed.

-rrr



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Revenant
"Give me my cookies now Mommy or I'm going to get angry and write nasty things about you on the internet!"

Well, thank you for the warning! Or are you saying that I am acting like you now? Seriously? Okay.

Originally posted by The Revenant
Yes, that's what you sound like.

In your opinion
You forgot that part.

Originally posted by The Revenant
You do understand that the 'drip-feed' effect is highly necessary right?

You do understand that I am ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE INSURANCE FILE RIGHT? You did read my position before responding, right? I mean that is what a properly informed side would have done...

Originally posted by The Revenant
Please stop whining like a child that you can't have what you want and grow up. It infuriates me when people like you have NO IDEA of how the world works make posts like the one quoted - and what's worse, the other idiots star it!!!

Wait, so I can not act like you are acting? What the hell?

Oh, and did you want to talk about my position? Or just your skewed version of it? (Check my posts before posting to me. And don't respond just because I have alot of stars, I didn't star my post.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
I ask again..

You want the insurance file, which is believed to be unedited copies of the files being released, to be released in its entirety. This brings up some moral questions.

I will say again:
No fair putting documents in the unknown file, to help your "he is being safe" position.
We DO NOT KNOW what is in the files, and THAT IS THE POINT. He is using that information for self gain. I have established this. Which is why people keep trying to change my position.


Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
How do you morally justify outing informants, or other information that destroys personal - arguably innocent - lives?

You seem to be misunderstanding what I want , with this "Maybe it has all the data in the file"
ALL I WANT IS THE INSURANCE FILE
Why is this avoided, why do you guys try to make it look like I want "everything"?
Kinda odd behavior, not listening to something I have typed MANY MANY times now.
If you respond to this post, I expect an answer to this:
You do realize I am ONLY talking about how Assange is using the Insurance file for personal benefit?

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
I see you don't think one man's life is important enough to keep the files hidden while personally identifying information is redacted, but what about 20 lives? 100 lives? How many people's lives being at risk would it take for you to accept that it is best for the files to be released over time in a responsible way?

Blah blah, This is a logical fallacy
Just because something could happen, does not mean it will happen.
Oh, and there you go "knowing" what is in that insurance file. What the heck? How did we get all these mediums?
edit on 1/2/2011 by adigregorio because: (forgot a few words in a sentence) You seem to be (to) You seem to be misunderstanding what I want


EDIT-
Speculation is fun, but how dare you play with my life over speculation. It was bad enough when they were playing using facts, but now "Well it might be bad, so it needs to stay secret."

LOL The human race deserves the people that control it. (My personal opinion, and why I stay out of these threads. Like talking to a brick wall, a brick wall that changes what you say!)
edit on 1/2/2011 by adigregorio because: Afterthought



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mastermook
 


Come on. Diagnose? Just under 2000 of more than 250,000 cables have been released. How many times does this have to be repeated? You have no clue how this will unfold. Plus, the cables are from the US. What did you expect? Did WL begin this campaign with the US in it's sights? Not sure. Any firm conclusion at this point is seriously premature.

Name a situation where a nation is doing far worse right now. One situation where the US doesn't have a hand in it.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Cablespider because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


It is a fair assumption that if key informants currently residing in the middle east are outed - which they certainly would if the files are released unedited - that they will face retribution. In addition to endangering presumably innocent lives, it would discourage further cooperation from informants. That is not a logical fallacy, that is logic.

It has been stated by wikileaks that the insurance file contains the unredacted versions of files they plan on releasing - the insurance file simply ensures that if SHTF the information will not be lost.

Please point out where I "changed" what you said. That type of tactic is a pet peeve of mine and I would never intentionally do such a thing.

edit: I still don't see how this insurance file personally benefits Assange, other than ensuring disclosure if the intended method of release fails.
edit on 2-1-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Cablespider
 


Exactly, none of the information is worthwile

let alone "WORLD CHANGING"..

I;m glad some people are seeing the light.

wikileaks let 2,000 sites have all the encrypted files

Wow what a headliner...

Now how about the password to that crypt file..

Some people call it CRAP OR GET OFF THE TOILET!!



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 



Origninally posted by adigregorio
If you respond to this post, I expect an answer to this:
You do realize I am ONLY talking about how Assange is using the Insurance file for personal benefit?


And it is a "pet peeve" because you are doing it. Still!

You do not know what is in the file, no one does exepct Assange (And a choice few). And he/they is/are keeping that secret FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT! (Funny how we keep coming back to MY WHOLE POINT.)

Anyway, yeah:


Origninally posted by adigregorio
If you respond to this post, I expect an answer to this:
You do realize I am ONLY talking about how Assange is using the Insurance file for personal benefit?


Why do you avoid this question?
edit on 1/2/2011 by adigregorio because: Add (And a choice few) /// he (to) he/they /// is (to) is/are



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


I did respond, I don't see how he personally benefits. Please, inform me. Speak slowly and precisely to me as the imbecile I obviously am.

edit: Again, where did I change what you said?
edit on 2-1-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Maybe i missed it but where are the files i wanna skip to the ufo part



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


So you are saying that keeping the file secret does not personally benefit Assange?

Please, type out:

"Assange does not benefit from the insurance file being kept secret"

Type that out if it is your position!

I have typed out mine, straight forward, from the begining.

Assange is using this file for personal protecion, self preservation, PERSONAL GAIN/BENEFIT. You know this, and I will stick to my guns.

My only point: Assange is using this file for personal gain.

Until you can prove that wrong, my stance is solid.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


I can't prove an opinion wrong dude.

My speculation though, is that he is not holding the insurance file secret SOLELY for his own benefit. It is for the greater good as innocent lives will be put in harms way if they recklessly release these files.

To me, a benefit is something gained. Using the insurance file to not lose something is not a benefit in my opinion. Nothing gained - no benefiting.
edit on 2-1-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)


So with that... Assange does not benefit from the insurance file.
There I said it.

edit: I did not mean to vastly change this post while you were responding/already responded.
edit on 2-1-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


Sure thing "dude"

Nice to see that you see it my way, the one liners say it all.

Thank you for avoiding my question again! Take note readers, my position has remained the same. While the otherside waffles, when they realize they should have read all my posts and not just the one with the sparkly stars.

Which is why I am getting flak, isn't it. Because others think what I say is right! Classic, well the subsequent posts should make you guys feel better. You get all the stars there, with the insulting behavior. You do realize that is why I got all the stars in my first post right? The penis comment?

(Of course you do, these responses are all about popularity. None of you care about the topic, you just care that I had stars.
I thought we were discussing.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Where did I change what you said?

How is that for a one liner.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


I am not going to play the run around, it is obvious you were saying that I wanted him to release

"All documents"

When it was apparent I wasn't calling for that, you tried to make the insurance file "all document".

That is all I will say in regards to this, I don't have the time or need to pull out every PARAGRAPH you had explaining how a "slow leek" was needed. And now with the sneeky Pete behavior, I swear this is too surreal!

(I can see why others think that people are paid for their actions, not that I do.)

Anyway, my stance STILL stands:

Assange is using the insurance file for personal gain, and well that is the same as my government keeping the seceret for their personal gain.

Run around, all you give me is run around
--Blues Travellers
edit on 1/2/2011 by adigregorio because: I can see what others (to) I can see why others

edit on 1/2/2011 by adigregorio because: think that peole a paid (to) think that people are paid



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mastermook

The piece of metal he bit down on in his peas soup surely wasn't an assassination attempt. I think somebody in the kitchen was just freaking around with him.


It is a common practice, albeit unscrupulous, for bean counters to add small pebbles to the contents to make the bags weigh more and stretch the product. I doubt that this was anything deliberate. You should not be surprised that many silent food additives are allowable. I doubt that prison food is gourmet or that any extra care is taken in the preparation.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Alethea because: typo



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cablespider
 


A list of the the world's most corrupt governments, and i don't see the U.S anywhere on that list.
www.nationmaster.com...

If it pertains to human right violations.
China, Somalia, Thailand,Sudan,Indonesia,Iraq,Uganda,Chechnya, Nigeria, the list goes on.

There's been genocide of Albanians in the Serbian, and Yugoslavian area 15 years ago.
I dont think the U.S was involved in any of that except to stop it.

I'm not saying the U.S hasn't had their hands in certain things. And not saying that it's always right in what it does, That's obvious with what the settlers did to Native Americans when they came to this country. I also think the U.S. should take more responsibility for what happened with Afghanistan during the cold war funding the Taliban to wage war against Soviet Russia then abandoning them.

So if Assange was that hard up to help people why isn't he putting his resources to any other corrupt countries, instead of demonizing America? His whole personality is that of "he's better than" even his own co workers said that. He is preoccupied with himself more then anything.




top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join