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, Proven Fraud in Protecting The OS of 911!

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


You are the only one attempting to move a goal post.

Initally I presented in this thread the facts the prove Assange does indeed
censor the information Wiki is given.

Further, the censored information it releases is then censored by the White House,
and then the Media.

Being a Wikileaks/Assange sympathizer, you attempted to defend Assange
with the cover of journaliism, painting his agenda in his censorship as ethical journalism.

I countered, saying NO Assange has censored information according to his agenda, not accoding to
a jouralistic code of ethics.

In my opinion; and that of many other professional journalists, Assange is not a journalist.
Wilileaks is not journalism.


WikiLeaks also failed to remember that ethical and moral responsibilities are the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. Thousands of journalists every year sign on to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. Although voluntary, these basic journalistic principles separate true journalists, who act in the interest of their readers, and political advocates, who only want to be activists.

We all need to take Wiki-Leaks for what it is, which is a website dedicated to exposing its version of the truth with no context or thought of the ramifications of its actions. It is not journalism or the future of journalism

www.washingtontimes.com...

newhampshire.watchdog.org...

www.usnews.com...

cryptome.org...

fullcomment.nationalpost.com...

Assange wishes to be labeled as a journalist, self procalimed he is...then he would need to be held to journalistic standards.

In the course of work for Wikileaks, Julian Assange accepted stolen classified information, owned by the United States government, then published it on the internet.

Assange said in the video I posted that he personally investigates the information before it is releaseed, and he makes the decisions.


Originally posted by burntheships

 

Please, spare me your ignorance on the matter. Surely you would not consider Assange to possess
good ethics.

In my view, Assange violates everything I know to be journalistically ethical....

SPJ Code of ethics....


— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that .lines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

www.spj.org...


In reality, Asasnge is not a journalist, and therefore should not be afforded any type of protection
from his actions.

In my opinion, and many others, Assange is an operative, a political activist.

edit on 6-2-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by PeacefulGuerilla
 


Could be that JA backed off from attacking the US government on issues that matter?!? Or he's not the one who hates america and is a phony pretending to be honest ? He do not need MSM to be out to the public !



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar
You havent done much research?
they left the door open for who?


I've read the theories and looked at the evidence that has been presented, on both sides. Been a member of this site for quite a while longer than most on here. With fires, explosions, gas lines, etc. there are lots of chaotic variables, and people want to try and put them all in a neat little box and use that as their evidence. You can believe it was done by our government all you want, that's your choice, I don't. I believe it was done for our government. Doesn't mean the blood isn't on our government's hands, I just believe it was carried out by religious extremists that could have been stopped if some high up in our government wanted it to be.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I would say more ; people like to go around topics when they don't want or can't use reason (for reasons not know) !



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Wow , it by itself should shut up lot people



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Huh ?!? I tried to post a comment at the vid and it say " error, try again " could be because I say : "This guy is a fraud, he got the trust of people for only one purpose : to bend the true when it is needed . Ask him what he think's of 9/11 !"



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 




Initally I presented in this thread the facts the prove Assange does indeed
censor the information Wiki is given.



To make sure no one gets hurt or killed because of the released information. So far they had a perfect track record when it comes to doing this...but you keep on ignoring this.



Further, the censored information it releases is then censored by the White House,
and then the Media.


First of all, you can't censor the same data twice...and secondly, WL has ZERO power over what other media outlets or the white house does. Again, you completely ignore this so you can continue to spread your paranoia fail-train message...





Cenk is 100% correct, and anyone for free speech should support his actions.

Either way, if anyone had a strong case against him, he'd be in court by now...the fact that he isn't in court because of espionage or similar crimes clearly shows that he isn't doing anything legally wrong.


edit on 6-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Why this entire thread is hogwash!

Not even the base premise of this thread has any bearing in reality...nothing but a paranoia fail-train disinformation campaign



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

9/11 skeptics say Julian Assange being manipulated by the CIA


Various 9/11 truthers are changing their previously positive opinion of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. He is now being disowned by this clique and even being regarded as a paid agent.

But the love affair may now be over if one is to listen to recent Internet buzz on 9/11 truther sites and interviews given by 9/11 skeptics, says conspiracywatch.info, a French source of information for those seeking to debunk 9/11 and other conspiracy groups. The site says that the Truth Movement is now disowning Assange on the grounds that he has been compromised by the CIA and taken for a ride by American government disinformation.

Three major indicators have in their view discredited him according to an editorial on ReOpen911. They say that Assange, who they describe as "mysterious", has never been a 9/11 conspiracy supporter and that he has even publicly criticized conspiracists. Also, he has never published anything which even remotely supports the truthers’ arguments. This is known to have rankled truther organizations. The final –and logical conclusion according to truthers – argument is that the fact that the US government has not taken robust steps to stop Wikipedia and that Assange is said to be being more careful about cleaning up proposed new documents before putting them online suggests that he is being manipulated. [color=gold]The manipulation is said to be that the documents originally given to him were leaked deliberately by the CIA in an effort to give him and other critics of US policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere the impression that they had a ‘scoop.’ But the theory goes that the documents contained nothing that was not already known.

www.digitaljournal.com...

This is not disinformation and if anyone can prove it is then I would like to see the evidence?

Apparently there are a few in here who worship the ground that Julian Assange walks on.
For those of you that do, I like to remind you that we are in here to “deny” ignorance, not to embrace it.
Some of your circular logic of twisting the OP into nonsense because it upsets a few posters beliefs system.

The claims made against the OP are false and the few posters making these claims have failed miserably to back their allegation against the OP with any credible sources, and because of their behavior I will not respond to their cyber bullying tactic.


Not even the base premise of this thread has any bearing in reality...nothing but a paranoia fail-train disinformation campaign


Many posters in here have done a lot of research and have given you plenty of evidence including me, if you choose to ignore the research material that is your problem. However, those few in here who enjoy creating fallacies and name calling, this will never make the truth go away. Do some real research.




edit on 6-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

9/11 skeptics say Julian Assange being manipulated by the CIA
Three major indicators have in their view discredited him according to an editorial on ReOpen911. They say that Assange, who they describe as "mysterious", has never been a 9/11 conspiracy supporter and that he has even publicly criticized conspiracists. Also, he has never published anything which even remotely supports the truthers’ arguments. This is known to have rankled truther organizations. The final –and logical conclusion according to truthers – argument is that the fact that the US government has not taken robust steps to stop Wikipedia and that Assange is said to be being more careful about cleaning up proposed new documents before putting them online suggests that he is being manipulated. The manipulation is said to be that the documents originally given to him were leaked deliberately by the CIA in an effort to give him and other critics of US policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere the impression that they had a ‘scoop.’ But the theory goes that the documents contained nothing that was not already known.

www.digitaljournal.com...


Research
There has been tons and tons of scoops from this latest leak already. Whoever wrote this might want to actually follow the leaks before writing such.
edit on 6/2/2011 by PsykoOps because: removed bolding

edit on 6/2/2011 by PsykoOps because: and added color for clarity




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





Many posters in here have done a lot of research and have given you plenty of evidence including me, if you choose to ignore the research material that is your problem.


What you and others have provided evidence, it's pure speculation. You should really look up the definition of evidence!

Your mate posted something the NYT did, and then blamed it on Assange even though he clearly had no hand in it. You are doing exactly the same thing!

Even IF the CIA planted false information, how is that Wikileak's fault???

Look, it's pretty clear by now that they released a few very crucial documents, and I'm not just talking about those pointing out wrongdoings of the US...so why anyone would seriously demand they stop is beyond me. You must really hate free speech!

And for crying out loud, at least do some proper research before reposting some right-wing blog article! They came out with 911 relevant leaks, so you might wanna update your viewpoint

edit on 6-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships


Initally I presented in this thread the facts the prove Assange does indeed
censor the information Wiki is given.

OMG! Breaking news!
Under the SPJ code you presented as the terms of ethics for professional journalists can you point out where this is wrong, unethical, illegal, dishonest or evidence of Wiki being fraudulent.
Just point it out.


Further, the censored information it releases is then censored by the White House,
and then the Media.

Fail.
Epic Fail.
Wiki release the material other outlets use and EDIT that material in accordance with their OWN publications.
It is called FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
Once again, the very fact that you cannot differentiate between organizations is rather telling.
Wiki release the material, others use that material and edit the content as they please. As if the NYT, or Washington Post are going to print 200,000 cables in their entirety.
Your point is so absurd that it beggars belief.


Being a Wikileaks/Assange sympathizer, you attempted to defend Assange
with the cover of journalism, painting his agenda in his censorship as ethical journalism.

Please, your personal attacks are as pathetic as your rationale and cognitive abilities.
Once again, simply point out, using the SPJ code you have provided in your last post where Wiki fails to comply with the Code.
Put up or shut up.
It is that simple. I have asked you many times to simply provide ATS with an example of Wiki failing to comply to the code and you have failed.



I countered, saying NO Assange has censored information according to his agenda, not accoding to
a jouralistic code of ethics.
Do you mean like the OP's source who censored material, or like YOU edited material in order to make out that Assange, The NYT and Speigel some how conspired to edit material even thougth in reality the material you edited clearly points out that Assange and these two publications had simply made a Joint Publication agreement!
Is that what you mean by doing things according to an agenda?
I'll have to take your word on it, as you seem to be the expert at editing to an agenda.

What is even more amusing is that Censoring material is done by the very publications you source to attack Assange. Your hypocracy is astounding.
You will use publications that censor material in order to attack Assange for censoring material.



In my opinion; and that of many other professional journalists, Assange is not a journalist.
Wilileaks is not journalism.


The fact you have to launch an appeal to popular opinion in order to prove your argument is another detail that should highlight your inability to simply prove your accusations. Ad populum arguments are logical fallcies. The fact you have now relegated you argument to fallacy is not unexpected or surprising.

It is interesting that you have used this logical fallacy because it is a trait of the MSM, and these are sources you use below to atack Assange.
In other words, you appear to merely puppet the thoughts of your MSM masters rather then endeavor to involve your own self in original thought.



We all need to take Wiki-Leaks for what it is, which is a website dedicated to exposing its version of the truth with no context or thought of the ramifications of its actions. It is not journalism or the future of journalism

Can you explain to me how the material leaked by Wiki has different versions of truth.
Use the Callateral Murder Video for example.
Point out how the Iraq Diaries are Wiki's version of the War when they are simply communications detailing the activities of the US military.
Please point out how the Diplomatic cables are simply Wiki's version of US diplomatic cables.
Just point it out.

The truth is, Wiki released the material, you can read it yourself and make your own mind up about it, and the truth relative to it. There is no editiorial, no leading statements or generalizations. You just read it yourself and make your own mind up.
It is that simple.

But I guess making your own mind up, and deciding for yourself is probably not your cup of tea.

Oh, look! Here we go, right on cue, you appealing to other peoples opinions in order to to support your argument.



www.washingtontimes.com...

newhampshire.watchdog.org...
OMG The Newhampshire Watchdog!

www.usnews.com...
cryptome.org...
fullcomment.nationalpost.com...


Blogs and opEds. Yeah right, journalism, sure!


Assange wishes to be labeled as a journalist, self procalimed he is...then he would need to be held to journalistic standards.

Point out where Wiki leaks releases have failed to meet the code. Point it out.


In the course of work for Wikileaks, Julian Assange accepted stolen classified information, owned by the United States government, then published it on the internet.

Assange recieved unsolicited material from a source.
There is precendence in the United States relevant to this matter. Instead of reading MSM to spoon feed your opinion, I suggest you study the legal precedent surrounding other leaked intelligence in relation to Media releases of that material.
In '71 the NYT released secret papers relating to a war in Asia( Sound Familiar yet, secrets and war!), these papers detailed government lies and coverups and failures.
The Supreme Court ruled that the press could run the stories after the Government tried to suppress the freedom of the Press. (Sound familiar? That would be you and suppression of freedom of the press).

You seem to be in favour of the Government suppressing information regarding the lies, coverups and failures of the US administration in relation to Wars and Corruption.
Good for you.



Assange said in the video I posted that he personally investigates the information before it is releaseed, and he makes the decisions.

OMG! He is involved in his organizations. Earth shattering news. No, really. Ground breaking. Whats next, are you going to tell us that you personally investigate all your own posts and you decide what will be in them before they are released on ATS!
OMG!


SPJ Code of ethics....


— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that .lines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

www.spj.org...

I'll ask you again. Link one Wiki release that fails to comply. Just one.
You claim Assange is unethical, just link one example using the criteria you have presented.



In reality, Asasnge is not a journalist, and therefore should not be afforded any type of protection
from his actions.

So tell me then, as you are now using another logical fallacy by appealing to authority(that of the "journalist"), what is a journalist?
This is a rather significant marker of your indoctrination as you seem to invalidate Assange by assigning a value from the flawed system that feeds and qualifies your opinion, it is this flawed MSM system that has created a need for Assange in the first place. The irony is probably lost on you, but it rather amusing none the less.


In my opinion, and many others, Assange is an operative, a political activist.


Off course he is!
The truth is political 100% of the time.
Anyone active in finding the truth or sharing it when it exposes the lies of governments, corporations and militaries and media outlets will be and is politically active simply by nature because Governments, Corporations and Militaries and the MSM rarely tell us the truth yet dominate political philosophy and rhetoric within society.

Activism is the act of bringing about social, political, economic and even environmental change.
Do you think we need change in any of these or even all of them. Because I do.
If you do nothing about that, you are not active.
But if you engage yourself in your society in order to change the things you think are wrong. Then you are politically active.
It is not a crime you know. Its called being a Concerned Citizen.

Your last comment about Assange being a political activist has to the the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen on ATS my entire time as a member, and I spend a lot of time in skunk works.

Calling Assange a political activist for his work, and making it like some kind of revelation is like posting comments on the Pope and his activity and claiming " I and others think the Pope is religious".



edit on 7-2-2011 by alien because: ...needless personal comment removed...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

In the course of work for Wikileaks, Julian Assange accepted stolen classified information, owned by the United States government, then published it on the internet.


Did Wikileaks do this before or after the 'partner newspapers' published articles discussing the individual cable?

In some cases, some of the newspapers also gave background information to the cable, historial accounts - original stories our governments said to us (on a particular date) contridicting to what was mentioned in the cable
edit on 7-2-2011 by Ellen15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
burntheships,

I really dont think you understand the process that went on with "The War Logs" (Afghanstan and Iraq) and The Cables, and if you do know, you are purposely demonstrating ignorance and further centralising disinformation deliberately



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
Its highly relevant as in the "tea party" Assange has with The Economist,


So the Economist has a segment which offers tea instead of coffee for a casual chit chat and this is somehow bad ?

laughable really

Are you trying to somehow tie the tea offered on economist segment with "The Tea Party in the USA"?

Even Funnier

NB: Brits and Australians are known to prefer tea over coffee

Personally I like my coffee first thing in the morning and a good cuppa pick me up in the afternoon

However, I would never refuse an earl grey if offered or a cup of herbal tea..... NEVER.. refreshing stuff

edit on 7-2-2011 by Ellen15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

The fact is I haven’t seen any government officials arrested or jailed from any of the leaks.


Bradley Manning is in jail right now for supposedly obtaining the information



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
atlasastro,

In relation to New York Times and The Cables

New York Times didnt recieve those Cables directly from Wikileaks

New York Times worked with The Guardian...The Guardian released some Cables (of US Interest) to New York Times

New York Times then published articles about those particular cables (after their own vetting/redacting procedures)

Before The cables were even published in the Partner Newspapers (late November/December)
Wikileaks Organisation and its Legal Team intitially contacted the White House asking them to help with the process of redaction, White House refused to comply

Thats when Wikileaks and Partner Newspapers stepped up their efforts having to increase the man power from 'certain groups', Data Journalists, Investigative Journalists and Human Right Oorganisation personnell to help vet/redact individual Cables before they were published by the Partner Newspapers - Articles

I couldnt believe when so many in ATS complained about the "drip drip drip" feed and threw suspicion not having them ALL released at once... Madness!

SHEESH



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by burntheships
 


Assange has ties to Australian Intelligence: MSNBC

Assange has denied the charges, which a lower official had withdrawn two weeks ago, and said he has been warned by Australian intelligence that he could face a campaign to discredit him after leaking the documents.


Thats right, just like Australian Intelligence would have talked to any other Australian Citizen in trouble overseas

That is PART of their JOB to look after Australian Citizens aboard when in Legal Trouble


He was not really punished when caught hacking by Australian authorities


Right he wasnt convicted

The Judge recognised no crime was committed and recognised all Assange did (cuz security was not there) was poke around, have a sticky beck, he didnt steal anything, didnt change anything, didnt stop operations in any way
edit on 7-2-2011 by Ellen15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


Thanks for the info.
I think I actually mentioned that Wiki released all the material independently but had Joint MSM partners for a release.

Some poster here need to think about the fact that Wiki would apply some standards and ethics(censoring certain information) to hundreds of thousands of cables, that this would take time and money and some people think it is an evil agenda!

I second your Sheesh!

Thank you for the reply and the details you included, cheers.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Ellen15
 


Thanks for the info.
I think I actually mentioned that Wiki released all the material independently but had Joint MSM partners for a release.

Some poster here need to think about the fact that Wiki would apply some standards and ethics(censoring certain information) to hundreds of thousands of cables, that this would take time and money and some people think it is an evil agenda!

I second your Sheesh!

Thank you for the reply and the details you included, cheers.



No worries atlasastro


Not one cable was released on Wikileaks Organisation.org until one of the Partner Newspapers wrote the supporting article intitially

I know a couple of our Australian Newspapers ended up printing many of the cables as raw data (with vetting)
It just got too much for them to write up individual articles for each one before Christmas

We were originally told The Cables related to Australia wouldnt come around till early 2011
Appparently aussies were hungry for information and wanted information earlier, or maybe these newspapers wanted to be part of the media information/news cycle lol

As we got closer to Christmas we saw many other newspapers from all over the world releasing articles related to Cables to their own country... these newspapers becoming part/extention of the Intitial Partner Group

As more and more newspapers from around the world came on board and along with Norway's Newspaper, I noticed they started to release many of The Cables as 'raw data' (with vetting) and at other times had supporting articles then linking the article to the raw data (cable) to one of the many mirror sites

Wikileaks released the raw data (vetted) as the crisis in Egypt started to unfold, the week of the internet crack down, I had read people were faxing the cables to land lines as quickly as possible, so the people of Egypt had the information.. Alot that information questionable.. The Vice President and/or Prime Minister and/or New Interiors Minister were mentioned with approved suggestion by American Diplomats back in 2005

There is another Cable (2008 I think) which was shared in one of the threads on ATS

Reading the Cable
The American Diplmoat in Cairo reports back to the US talking about one of the activists, Member of the Youth Movement April 6 informing them of/about a revolution plan, demonstrations they were working on... corruption within the Egyptian Government and off shore accounts set up by many inside Government

The Cable shows the US dismissing most of the information relied to them by this activist (ie wouldnt happen, couldnt happen, NUTS, they didnt have the power)

There is no question in my mind that any of this (protests) took the WEST, especially US by surprise

They would have been watching, had their people on the ground, thats what CIA and other intelligence stationed overseas does

Keep up the good work atlasastro

edit on 7-2-2011 by Ellen15 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join