Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Wikileaks nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by backinblack
 


Okay, maybe lie is the wrong word.

Manipulated and misguided would be better words to use. It's full of disinfo. There are definitely selective truths used only to support his agenda, though.

Edit: But lied to in the sense that his "only agenda" is "government transparency" when it's plainly obvious he has agendas that reach further than that.
edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)


That's better..
But smart people will decide what is worth listening to..
If it trully was a front then I'd expect LIES..
That's why I'm still on the fence with wiki..
BTW, Wiki has released far more information than MSM cares to print..
Maybe It's MSM that's the disinfo guys selecting what to tell..



Unfortunately, especially in America, the dumb sheep far out number the people who are smart, research, and can put the pieces all together for themselves and come to their own conclusions instead of taking things exactly as they're presented to them. I wouldn't expect lies because that would then make it extremely easy to see his agenda. But selective truths for that matter, well...they're still truths...but just what he wants you to see.

MSM are very much disinfo as well, but you have to realize that this:

BTW, Wiki has released far more information than MSM cares to print..


is exactly what his agenda is going for. It definitely makes him look credible, right? The media, Julian Assange, the government, all controlled by the same people.
edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Unfortunately having to question everything make getting down to the bottom of things pretty tough.
We are on ATS because we do just that, but we cant get lazy... even in ATS there are disinfo agents and mindless followers that unwilling repeat disinfo just because they want to believe too much.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SalemRaven
 


If "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," is the criteria, then Assange is NOT a disinfo agent.

His information is too boring to hold the attention of the average American at all. Tons of Americans still to this day do not know who he is, or what he does. Some disinfo campaign. Compare that to the disinfo campaign leading up to the war in Iraq. Yeah, I know, no comparison.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Finally, someone on ATS that doesn't think Wikileaks is the holy grail. Thank you, I guess you researched and came to a logical conclusion. So did I.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SalemRaven
 


You are right, there are disinfo agents on ATS. And I usually spot them by the recent join date and their passionate love for only one topic.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 



MSM are very much disinfo as well, but you have to realize that this:

BTW, Wiki has released far more information than MSM cares to print..


is exactly what his agenda is going for. It definitely makes him look credible, right?


No, you or I can go to a wiki site and see ALL the leaks..
Allowing MSM to show just the ones they want might be Julians way of exposing the MSM...
I haven't seen any REAL proof wiki is disinfo yet..
Rumours and opinions abound but NO hard facts..



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
And I like how everyone is trying to nit-pick but isn't defending Julian's "coincidental" ties with the world's most powerful zionist neo-cons....
edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)


Thats because I havent seen any evidence of a tie between Assange and powerful Zionist neo-cons. I looked at your links and I saw..................................zero evidence. I saw vague grasping at staw attempts at links, (the Economist) and I saw absolutely nothing in your other piece that showed that that fund had contributed anything to Assange.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I think by "too good to be true" he means that there's this guy who *somehow* gets access to all these *secret* documents that no one's ever seen before. Why haven't there been more people to do what Julian is supposedly doing then? What makes Assange so special in that sense? Get what I'm saying?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
The Noble Peace prize has been nothing more than a joke for some time.

Seeing that they are one of the nominees makes me distrust them even more. Look at some of the more recent recipients of the parlor favor.

Raist



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Dont let those be your only guide lines, because you will end up believing in the grand illusion.
Im obviously new to ATS posting although Ive visited this website in the past a lot.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I suggest you dig a little deeper. I'm not here to research for you. I'm here to tell the summary I've concluded by researching myself. Don't expect everything to be handed to you, that was not my intention. My intention was to get some spark in people to start asking questions instead of just accepting what they see all the time.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


I do. And here is what makes Assange so special. His system for receiving the leaks. Thats why no one else did what he did. He designed a way for people to leak anonymously. He still has never had a source revealed by the fact that they leaked.

Manning outed himself discussing it to someone else.

Not everyone has his knowledge of hacking, and encryption, and the balls to use it. Many of the people with his skill set sell out for cash. Its a very rare person who is truly motivated by principle. But everything about his past says that if anyone IS motivated by principle, it would be him. He has a life long record of acting according to his conscience, right or wrong, and not being financially motivated.

Edit in response to your other post above mine.

I have done research on my own. And you present your claims as if you had evidence. I took the initiative and looked at your claims. They are fluff. There is nothing there. You arent here to deal with people like me. Who WILL look up your "evidence," you are here to spout off fantastic claims of evidence for those who will be too lazy to actually look at what you present.

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



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


It has not even been proven that he siphons information through SIPRNet. In fact, there's even been some speculation that he actively seeks out information through P2P programs himself. There's nothing to prove that he has any magical government hacking powers at all.

And no, I'm here to get people to do research. You've been on this thread for maybe an hour, that's not nearly the amount of weeks I've spent digging into the subject. The amount of work you put into something is the amount you get in return. And obviously you've gotten "fluff," so that tells me your work is "fluff" as well.
edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Excellent! Consise, to the point.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Youve been on this board for less than a month, dont assume that my one hour on this thread is the only time I have spent looking into claims that Assange is a disinfo agent. We always get a flood of people making that claim before he leaks something.

The "evidence" you provide isnt. Your fund info with the Rothschild name is........................what? It has nothing in it at all linking to Assange. You dont need to be a genius or spend much time to see that. And the fact that the Economist awarded him something? What does that show? You claim it shows he is in their camp. Why couldnt it equally show that they are trying to portray themselves and their magazine as more objective and less evil than it is?

Your claims are just poorly presented, and demonstrate sloppy logic. The fact that you have some fans here says nothing about the quality of your evidence. Popular doesnt not equal true.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: Edit, I had the reply to the wrong post. So I corrected it.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I've been silent on the Wikileaks for awhile now, seeing where it goes and basically following what I can.

Nobel Peace nomination is an encouraging development.

Keep in mind, detractors, that Bradley Manning is being held under conspiratorial suspicion for leaking the U.S. government info.

Now, is Manning part of Julian's agenda? There's no concrete evidence on Bradley's involvement (he's been held many months in solitary confinement with no official charges--compliments of military justice), and for many concerned (or not, as it were) there's no proof Bradley isn't the face of a military psy-ops campaign.

Any conspiratorial-NWO agendas involving Wikileaks are, at this point, due to the fact that, at bottom, we're all in this together.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
If it ends up happening, id be surprised



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by StlSteve
 


Youve been on this board for less than a month, dont assume that my one hour on this thread is the only time I have spent looking into claims that Assange is a disinfo agent. We always get a flood of people making that claim before he leaks something.

The "evidence" you provide isnt. Your fund info with the Rothschild name is........................what? It has nothing in it at all linking to Assange. You dont need to be a genius or spend much time to see that. And the fact that the Economist awarded him something? What does that show? You claim it shows he is in their camp. Why couldnt it equally show that they are trying to portray themselves and their magazine as more objective and less evil than it is?

Your claims are just poorly presented, and demonstrate sloppy logic. The fact that you have some fans here says nothing about the quality of your evidence. Popular doesnt not equal true.


What does my time registered on this forum have to do with anything at all in this conversation? Does that somehow mean I've never heard of Julian Assange before coming here? Are you somehow trying to elude to some extraordinary claim that anyone outside of ATS has no idea what goes on in this world? Because I think my time registered here is completely irrelevant. Let's try to stay on topic now.



the law firm, Finers Stephens Innocent, which represents Julian Assange and set up the Julian Assange Defense Fund is also legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust


I gave the link that proves that there is a direct link between Assange and Rothschild. How much more blatant can I be about this?

Look, this site is about denying ignorance. You can only deny ignorance by looking into something yourself. Believing what I, or what Julian Assange says, are both ignorant. The truth is out there. I've found it, and I'm sticking to what I'm saying. If you choose to stick to what you're saying, fine. But that doesn't change the fact of what the truth really is.

It seems that your view of evidence is skewed. You seem to want some piece of paper signed by everyone admitting that this is all a shill. You're not going to get that. You're going to get bits and pieces. I've put the whole picture together, it's up to you if you want to finish your puzzle.

No use trying to converse with a wall. Your arguments seem to be based only on emotion and your devotion to Mr. Assange. I've said all I can say. Peace.
edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Hmm, so if I use the same law firm then I am implicated also??
Exactly how many clients in how many locations does this law firm have?

Obviously they are ALL in with the Rothschilds..



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Oh come on, you know that's not what I'm saying. I quoted that from my post on the first page where it links everything else together.

I'm not trying to argue anymore. I just hope that I've at least got someone reading this thread to start looking into this themselves and doing their OWN research. That was my only goal
Whatever conclusion they come to, is the conclusion they come to. Peace
edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join