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: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimistPrime
 


This is the full part that quote is from, so folks can see it in context.


Originally posted by adigregorio
...
EDIT--Disclaimer
I said I would not respond unless directly spoken to, I just was pointing out that this piece of information (I asked for a long time ago) would have done well to "show me" the facts.

So I eagerly await the source (seriously) I would love to be wrong about this, that would mean Assange is not being a hypocrite.

NOTE The insurance file can ONLY contain the un-edited information. Nothing "New" and "Unseen".
...


As you can see, I am not that incorrect. Since when put in context, the sentence changes.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


So in other words no one really knows what is in the insurance files. You just proved the one posters claim and denounced yours.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


All of these still say that we DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS IN THE FILE.

That is what I asked you to source, you said:


Originally posted by Ellen15
The Insurance File contains all the raw data, Assange has even said this!


Where is that part of those sources?

I didn't see it, could you bold it for me, or tell me which specific link it is on? (I didn't see it on the first site.)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Ever stop to think that releasing everything all at once would be too much for the public to handle?

Maybe too much information to go through, to the point where some important issues may be missed while people comb through it all trying to make heads and tails of it.

Also the possibility that some of the stuff in there could start a war or cause a genocide somewhere, as governments try to cover their asses?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
. . . . . Point of Interest

Some ATM Members feel some how their personal life is at stake/threatened with this Insurance File, while in the comfort of their own homes behind their glaring computer monitors . . . .

Democray Now Interview with Julian Assange on August 03, 2010,Julian Assange Responds to Increasing US Government Attacks on WikiLeaks which you can watch

Transcript Snippet



AMY GOODMAN: That was the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen.


We’re joined on the phone now from Britain by Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. Why don’t you start off by responding to this charge that you have blood on your hands, Julian?


JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, we’ve got to be careful, Amy. Mullen actually was quite crafty in his words. He said "might already have" blood on my hands. But the media has gone and turned that into a concrete definition. There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that.

Now, some names may have crept into others and may be unfortunate, may not be. But you must understand that we contacted the White House about that issue and asked for their assistance in vetting to see whether there would be any exposure of innocents and to identify those names accordingly. Of course, we would never accept any other kind of veto, but in relation to that matter, we requested their assistance via the New York Times, who the four media partners involved—us, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the Times—agreed would be the conduit to the White House so we wouldn’t step on each other’s toes.

Now, the White House issued a flat denial that that had ever happened. And we see, however, that in an interview with CBS News, Eric Schmidt, who was our contact for that, quoted from the email that I had relayed to the White House, and that quote is precisely what I had been saying all along and completely contradicts the White House statement.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange, you’re correct that even when Admiral Mike Mullen was on Meet the Press this week and was challenged about the statement about blood on the hands, that he said "could"—you’re right—or "might." But he also pointed out, as Newsweek did, they said that the Taliban has begun to threaten Afghans listed in the document as aiding American troops. What is your response to that?


JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, we have to be careful again. I reviewed the statement of someone that a London paper claimed to be speaking for some part of the Taliban. Remember, the Taliban is actually not a homogenous group. And the statement, as far as such things go, was fairly reasonable, which is that they would not trust these documents; they would use their own intelligence organization’s investigations to understand whether those people were defectors or collaborators, and if so, after their investigations, then they would receive appropriate punishment. Now, of course, that is—you know, that image is disturbing, but that is what happens in war, that spies or traitors are investigated.

Now, these statements, all together, are designed to distract from the big picture. And it’s really quite fantastic that Gates and Mullen, Gates being the former head of the CIA during Iran-Contra and the overseer of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Mullen being the military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan—I’m not sure what his further background is—who have ordered assassinations every day, are trying to bring people on board to look at a speculative understanding of whether we might have blood on our hands.

These two men arguably are wading in the blood from those wars.

According to the statistics we pulled out of the Afghan War Diary, those reports covering six years, we see in the internal reporting itself, just of the regular US Army and not the top-secret operations, that 20,000 people have been killed.

And similarly, we know from Iraq Body Count that there’s 108,000 people, where there’s media reports and other evidence to show, that have died in Iraq. The hypocrisy in these statements is extraordinary.


edit on 3-1-2011 by Ellen15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


Okay, do not back up your claims.

EDIT-Adding claim

Originally posted by Ellen15
The Insurance File contains all the raw data, Assange has even said this!

/EDIT

I don't know what else to add, no one can disprove this is not hypocricy.

Assange keeps the secrets to stay safe, just like the government kept the secrets to stay safe.
edit on 1/3/2011 by adigregorio because: Claim jumping



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweetmothermusicton
reply to post by Ellen15
 


So in other words no one really knows what is in the insurance files. You just proved the one posters claim and denounced yours.


Please try and comprehend what was posted in the quotes I provided



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


Wow

That totally proves you were wrong.

Because one DOES NOT KNOW what is in the insurance file.

Those claims are false lies.

All those quotes and links DOES NOT MAKE one
anymore correct.

That is garbled rubbish..

Just admit when one is wrong....

Until the insurance is released
(which Assange uses ONLY FOR HIS ADVANTAGE)
(Withholding information from us JUST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT)
No one knows....
WIKILEAKS EPIC FAIL YOU ARE JUST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT!!

Saying "The Insurance File contains all the raw data, Assange has even said this!"

Leaves that interpretation WAY open... ALL THE RAW DATA could be anything..

Where is the PROOF?
Please stop posting blatant, ignorant, propaganda, lies.

edit on 3-1-2011 by thecinic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


A hypocrite is a person who claims to hold specific values, but whose actions go against said values. I contend that these files are in the process of being released. The only way Assange can become a hypocrite is by not ever releasing these documents.

edit: Actually, releasing these files un-redacted would make Assange a hypocrite because he claims he does not want to unnecessarily jeopardize people's lives. This is why he asked for cooperation from the goverment with redaction.
edit on 3-1-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


Please point out where:


Originally posted by Ellen15
The Insurance File contains all the raw data, Assange has even said this!


Point that out. I will keep asking until you either say you were lying, (IE Assange never said this) or you post the quote.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


We must agree to disagree


I say acting the same exact way the government is acting makes him a hypocrite.

What if the government releases the files first? (Not likely, but not impossible)

Does that make them better than Assange?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
This strategy of the slow leak makes the perps very very nervous. They are getting paid back for all the evil they have done to others. It would appear the suspense is what is really killing them. I approve of the way Assange is pulling the wings off the flies first.





This piecemeal release of classified cables has troubled U.S. officials.

Former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin says officials do not like surprises, and they are getting new ones every day.

"The fact that this is dribbling out, if you're in government now you have to wonder, 'What's next, and what am I going to have to cope with?' And it's likely to come at a bad time when you already have your hands full," said McLaughlin.

www.voanews.com...




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


We must agree to disagree


I say acting the same exact way the government is acting makes him a hypocrite.

What if the government releases the files first? (Not likely, but not impossible)

Does that make them better than Assange?


I say he is not acting the same exact way as the government, because he is releasing files to the public.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
I say he is not acting the same exact way as the government, because he is releasing files to the public.


Except for the ones that personally benefit him!

Just like the government, please I don't want to start on page one again.

He keeps the secrets to stay safe, right?

The government kept the secrets to stay safe from persecution as well.

Just like Assange

Like I said, agree do disagree. Or we can get into the semantics of "hypocrite", dictionaries are at their ready!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
adigregorio,

Its not my fault you have comprehension problems with the quotes I provided

The Insurance File is the raw data!

The Insurance File is too big just to have the "Afghan & Iraq War logs"
The Insurance File is too big just to have "The Cables"
The insurance File is too big just to have the "Collateral Murder Video"

The Insurance File includes all the raw data before it was sent to the affiliated newspapers

Assange points out:

" one could imagine in a similar situation that it might be worth ensuring that important parts of history do not disappear. "

......

" The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form.

If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically.

Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. "


edit on 3-1-2011 by Ellen15 because: add on



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Wouldn't stating


NOTE The insurance file can ONLY contain the un-edited information. Nothing "New" and "Unseen".

before


So I eagerly await the source (seriously) I would love to be wrong about this, that would mean Assange is not being a hypocrite.

put this into better context? This way it would be clear that your statement about "nothing new and unseen" is based on your current knowledge on the subject and that you "would love to be wrong about this". Or am I still misunderstanding you?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


It is your fault for saying:


Originally posted by Ellen15
The Insurance File contains all the raw data, Assange has even said this!


WHERE DOES HE SAY THIS?

Comprehension is not needed, nor are insults.

Where does Assange say"


Originally posted by Ellen15
The Insurance File contains all the raw data, Assange has even said this!


Give me the quote, if it is real then it shouldn't be hard to produce! I can't seem to find it, and I have been searching since you made the claim.

Source please?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


That is JUST YOUR SPECULATION/made up false lie.

Stop making things up....

Where is the proof???



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimistPrime
 


I don't want to go over my posting style.

I posted it that way, and I stand by it.

If you can show how Assange is not being a hypocrite, I welcome it.

But, as it stands, he is keeping information secret for personal gain. Just like the government keeps the secrets for their personal gain.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Im not criticizing your posting style, Im merely trying to understand what you meant. Im sure there are other readers that may not have fully understood you. As I was pointing out in one of my earlier posts that there were, in fact new, and unseen documents yet to be released. As for appealing to emotion, I do apologize, its times like these I wish I were Vulcan.
Now your view of Assange as a hypocrite is your opinion and it is a synonym for sentiment which is defined as


a tendency to be influenced by emotion rather than reason or fact

dictionary.reference.com...
Semantics. Now you want me to prove your opinion?
edit on 3-1-2011 by OptimistPrime because: added more content



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join