It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Julian Assange

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 12:56 PM
People complaining that Wikileaks is hacking everybody and can't be trusted. Have you ever paid attention to our own government?I will give you a example that might make you think twice about who is the one you should be worried about.

My example of tracking a leak and where it went and who was behind it.

Hacker Exposes Parts of Florida's Voting Database

I made a thread on this but it was tore apart by mods.

So who did this? Jaded security a contractor for DHS who was hired to test the websites of the voter database. He must have been drunk and posted it on twitter being proud of his accomplishment. Except it was seen by more than just his personal buddies and went out over the internet.

So who was behind this at Jaded Security? Boris Sverdlik. See he is a CISSP and when he did this he made the people up stairs mad. So ISC2 wrote him up on ethics charges. So he protested and burned his certificate and put the picture on the internet.

Here is the website for Jaded Security.

His ethics violation also listed this video "hacking the interview" where he tells the audience at a government sponsored hacking event to lie about everything. Lie to your boss the government what every it takes.

His response to this ethics violation is he pulled up his UN hacking certificate and said everything he has done is legal under his international hacking certificates. See he is Israeli. He came to the US around 2001 as a hacker and he became a dual citizen I think it was 2006. And he still has Israeli citizenship and International hacking certificates through the UN. And when it comes to the UN free and fair elections and foreign countries hacking them and exposing the information on the internet I guess is legal with the right certificate. Those same laws the US use against countries all over the world to interfere with elections was used against the US by this guy to defend his job and his hacking certificates.

He still works for DHS. He is running for ISC2 Board Member every time he gets the chance so he can be the boss.

posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by voyger2

look, I have had defended him, in this very own thread... but I also have and had, sometime ago, a very deep feeling of false and deception around this guy... I don't know... Is not easy to explain.

There will be a time, when evil will look good and the opposite...

Sometimes, you must follow your gut instinct and what it tells you; and that, no words can explain those feelings, mainly, because there's no proofs anymore of what's evil and good.
In those cases, the choice is to follow what the world says, or what your gut instinct tells you, and this, only you can decide which you want to follow; and this is only done by research, thinking and experience.

posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

If you could turn back the clock...and change would you have rather for wikileaks and Assange never to have existed at all ? After much poorer and in the dark would we have been ?

Wikileaks did a great job in the beginning, when Domscheit-Berg was there to review and edit the files so that no harm was done.
But I would have gladly wished that Wikileaks would have never released all those 400 000 un-edited files against the US. Already that the media and "loose" organisations were starting to promote revolution, it was really not a good idea to dump all those files in the minds of people already starting to hate the government.

And the problem with Wikileaks and it's philosophy of not reviewing the files, is thay anybody can decide to leak propaganda, and Wikileaks will let it be published. Project INFEKTION can start all over again.

Before Manning's files, we weren't that much in the dark. It was already known that the US did stupid things (even if most of them were encouraged by exterior groups who had alot of interest in the US dissolving); I think we could have bypassed those 400 000 new proof if it would have meant that a doomed revolution wasn't on the verge to happen soon.

posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by RedCairo

So one of your primary gripes with WikiLeaks is the behavior of a loose assortment of unrelated individuals that nobody in the world can control, let alone them.

So "loose" and "unrelated" Anonymous is, that it successfully persuaded 2 millions peoples to protest at the White House a couple of months ago.

Everyone who shares secret info "helps" WikiLeaks which makes secrets public if submitted. Including more altruistic sources. Blaming WikiLeaks for only certain arbitrary sources you don't personally happen to like, let alone for the later individual opinions of some of the unrelated people in those sources, is:

Oh, so we shouldn't care if Wikileaks leaks, as Swanne pointed out, a propaganda file from a pro-Maoist or a Neo-Nazi, or, even from the US Communist Party? So what you're saying is that it's alright that Wikileaks let that file get released, no matter who was the agent, and what effect it will do on the population, and Wikileaks shouldn't get any blame?

Somehow in your logic it seems the "crux" of the problem isn't corrupt governments or companies, the problem isn't people sharing the info of their own corrupt governments or companies, the problem isn't the reaction of bystanders or peripheral victims reacting to the corruption -- no, the real crux of the problem is the source that enabled these people to see each other in the first place. That really is displacement of responsibility on a major scale.

Hezbollah received 2512 TOWs missiles, plus 18 Hawks anti-aircraft missiles, plus 240 and more Hawks parts (with which you can create more Hawks missiles) from the US during the 80s. The US had no idea that all those weapons they sold was later used by Hezbollah. Yet, the US is to be blamed for not having followed closely where the weapons went to. Following your logic, Reagan wasn't to blame during the Irangate, because it was a "loose" organisation that made deadly use of it afterwards, right?

Exactly like what is happening with Wikileaks. It release files, which Anonymous uses to ignite a deadly revolution; but Wikileaks shouldn't be blamed, and it should be allowed to continue releasing those files. Again, according to your own logic, the US should continue to sell weapons to unstable countries such as Iran, no matter what the latter does with it, right?

Yes, everything is a matter of learning from experience. There was no predecessor to WikiLeaks to have learned such hard lessons from. So they are the ones that had to trip over it. They learned, they changed.

They learned and changed?? If they know as much as us what their files created as effect (and they should; if we're capable of seeing it, they can see it) they would have revised a bit better what to release or not.
You didn't saw the US or any other countries selling weapons to Iran after what they saw happen with Hezbollah, even if it "wasn't their fault".

So a 'someone' should have magically 'known' 'which' of 400,000 submitted documents 'might' have been 'appropriate' to share versus not.

They did so before Domscheit-Berg left Wikileaks. Hundreds of very dangerous files were witheld from the public. And it still exposed pertinent files, and nobody thought about revolting. Then, when Domscheit-Berg left, suddenly, no files are witheld, no names blackouted, and ALL files are released, no matter what the result would end up.

Part of the element of being non-biased is literally BEING non-biased which means not having some "internal filter" who sits around deciding what should be exposed and what shouldn't because all such decisions are arbitrary.

If Wikileaks was so un-biased, why was the leaked files associated only with big governments and corporations? And mostly, why most of the latest files were always against US while I'm pretty sure there was countless other world scandals happening?

Also, there can never be absolute non-biasing. That is why there's usually a big team, with each giving opinions. That is why a study (in normal curcumstances) is always presented to multiple different peoples. Absolute non-biasing is like saying you can be totally honest to everyone. It is literally impossible.
That is why when exposed to dangerous files, one must consider if releasing it will provoke more harm than good. In Wikileaks's case, since Domscheit-Berg, with seemingly no one to review the files, it caused much more harm than good.

People who are not WikiLeaks.

Neither was Hezbollah's actions related to the US's motives. The US was still wrong in doing so without checking up to whom the weapons was given, such as Wikileaks is wrong for not wanting to realise what the files created as a result.
At least, the US and the other countries rectified the situation. Wikileaks didn't.

However, what one might call "politically non-dominational" global groups have no reason to have loyalty to and protection for any given government.

That is true. But there's also the power balance to consider. Africans regimes don't have nuclear bombs and lighting bolt weapons. The US and other big countries does. If the population or good allies takes down the African dictactor, no biggie happens there. If the population of the US or China revolt, now that's a biggie. Because whoever ends up winning (and with the super-power that these countries have, it will be the bad guys), it,s the bad guys that end ups with all this big technology, and now, there'll be really nothing to stop them from using this super-power.
That's not the case with Africans dictactors. If ever a bad guy replace the dictactor, he found himself with the same level of power than his predecessor... none.

So, outlets still have to consider the power of whom they're leaking dangerous files, and how people will react towards that powerful country. You are to blame if you leaked a file that counseled people to protest in Hiroshima while you know there was going to be a bomb there (an exemple, don't take it literally; to quote a friend of mine, my analogy circurtry was closed for maintenance).


posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by RedCairo

Now, had this publication made the government of a small African peoples look like the villains they are, you'd be happy for that as you indicate. You're distressed there isn't more of that submitted.

But as it made the government of a huge American peoples look like the villains they are, you're not happy about that. You're distressed it might upset the Americans who will behave stupidly in response.

A): The US government (and 3/4 of the European government) aren't that evil. It did stupid things, yes; and 3/4 of the stupid things they did was because someone else higher than them forced them to do so (example: Margareth Thatcher who forced Bush to attack Iraq). And even with the 1/4 stupid things they did by themselves, they still aren't that evil, when you compare them with Russia, China, and then, with all the dictators, such as those who rules Africa, Middle-East, and half of Asia. US and most Europe are still free countries, where everything is still free.
In China, they put you in a rehabilitation center (a jail) when you pass more than two or three hours on the Internet. In Middle-East, Africa and half of Asia, they still either kill or imprison gays. Where do you see Europe (except Communist countries) and US do such things?
In Middle-East and Africa, they still imprison you or, in the worst place, kill you, if you're believing in anything else than Islam. You don't see that happening in Europe or US (proof, even Satanism is allowed as religion as far as in the military).
Forums such as this one are still forbidden in Russia and Middle-East. In Russia, you can still be imprisoned for talking about the government the way ATS does.
I don't think you want to know what the Middle-East and African government legally let the husband do to their wifes if the latter don't behave like the husbands want to; one thing is sure, you don't see that permitted in Europe, US, and even, Asia.
In Middle-East and Africa, rape is legally accepted, or if not officially accepted, the law enforcment still let it go unpunished. Good luck is you find that ostrich-attitude in European and American countries.
In entire villages, such as the Syrian ones, and in Myanmar, the population is banned from leaving. Tell me if you see that happening in Europe and US.
People in Middle-East, Africa, Communist countries, and half of Asia have almost no health care, in majority, barely earns enough money to eat and afford rent. In European and American countries, that represent a minority, not a majority. Most people here makes at least 8$/hour. There, they make, if they're lucky, 2$/hour.

So frankly speaking, I don't see the US as the big baddy like most Americans seems to do. Must I remember to you guys that Obama was on the verge to bring all soldiers home and end all Middle-East wars, and what stopped him was the Senate (to which he's forced to obey, for the Senate represent "the people")? Must I remember you guys that not two months ago, Obama had no plan to attack Syria, until the Senate forced him to do so? It was only with the intervention of the UN and Poutin that the Senate agreed to Obama's diplomatic plan. And you're telling me that the US is THE
baddy, even before Europe (where all the big banks and international corporations are)??

B): We'll pretend, for the sake of your argument, that the US is really that big a villain. It deserves all the hundreds of thousands files.
Unlike dictactorial despots whose only army is a couple of guys loyal to the despot armed with decades old guns and maximun a couples of tanks, and who can be disposed very easily, the US, Europe and China are super-powers. Which means, they have the army and weapons that comes with it.
In the 30s, when there was no bombs, no shielded tanks, no drones, Stalin and Zedong still succeeded at enslaving their entire citizens, and caused 60-90 millions deaths in total.
What do you think it's gonna happen when the population will revolt? What do you think it's gonna happen during the aftermath, when the new government is gonna strenghten his position?

What I deplore is that A): the US isn't even THE baddy, and yet, all released files are against it, and B): that pretending the US is the baddy, Wikileaks will still release files that ignites people's stupidity, with no regard to what it will do. Because whoever takes over US at the end of the day will be someone a hundred fold worst than Obama; and it will possess the biggest weaponry ever. It will be Cold War all over again; but with one side only.

Your definition of harm given your OP is "unfortunate chaos in the USA resulting from the people getting fed up with government misdeeds." That is likely because you are an American who doesn't want chaos and/or the government being even meaner to us. That makes sense, as an individual.

However, WikiLeaks is not an American organization, and as such has no reason to define "harm" the way you define harm. I suspect tens or hundreds of millions of people actually would define harm more like "letting sources such as the US Govt get away with crap without providing an outlet where even their own people can reveal it."

Between two harms, you choose the less harmful. People know for decades that governments are corrupt. Releasing more proof is more than fine, it's noble, but not when it could leads to the fall of the US super-power in the hand of pro-Communist leaders.
I live in Canada; this with Mexico will be the first place that the US could conquer if it falls under the wrong leader. Nobody seems to realize that in all the bad presidents Americans had, none was tyrants. Even the Bush family made less damage than any Communist or neonazis would have done, holding this much power. Why? The Constitution is still holding, and presidents must abide by it... until there's a revolution.
That is why not knowing about a bad deed is better than releasing it and creating a long-awaiting revolution.


posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by RedCairo

Make people dumbed-down enough to over-govern and miserable enough through mercenary mistreatment of their economic and other environments, and they may react like the livestock you've made them, that's always a risk for governments. But this problem, timeless and global, though perhaps iterating locally at the moment, is not WikiLeaks'.

Miserable and livestock? Geez. The US government is not the best, but it's certainly not even the tenth worst. You've got thing such as carriers, which there's still half of the world that aren't allowed simple carreers such as doctors or mayors. You've got all the education centers from primary school to universities and college, private schools, specialized schools. Half of the world doesn't even have primary school. And when you can't afford higher schools, you got hundreds of libraries, and Internet. Half of the world still don't. And when they do, they gotta be careful not be TOO intellectual.
Even in the worst case of scenario, you still have commune houses, shelter houses, charities. They don't.
No offense, but I wouldn't call the US government "bad to the point of overthrowing it". It's not perfect, their concerns for economics and envirronment are not perfect, but they're really not a bad government.
And would I be an outlet, I would be careful to not damage it. So yes, it's the outlet's concern too to not damage a good government just because there's some misdeeds done.

Governments, like people, have life spans. If the sheer incompetence and/or corruption of a government leads to the dissolution or devolution of its form in the response of its people, this is not something that can or should be blamed on unrelated sources.

When I look at the US government, I don't see "sheer corruption". If yes, ATS wouldn't exist, nor would we ever hear from some of its members. I don't see a 10 millions death toll. I don't see freedom of religion being banned, nor freedom of expression. Till this day, I have seen nothing that makes the US deserving of violent dissolution. Rather, I see people like Martin Luther King Jr., who, with only peaceful speeches and thoughts, have made the government accept black people as our own.
I see a president who, although he's constantly forced by the Senate and the Shadow towards the wrong direction, tries to keep the US from becoming tyrannic. Just recently, he re-instated the bill to take everyone out of Afghanistan. The Senate said no. A couple of months ago, when it was made clear that rich were getting richer, and poor were getting poorer, he tried to pass the bill that those who earned more than 100,000$ per year should be giving some of their money to the poor. The Senate refused. Obama himself decided to turn down the annual presidential bonus, and to pay taxes. In an attempt to solve the 6 trillions debts, he cut more than half the funding to the military (to which the Senate was mad, arguing that the US didn't had "enough" weapons). He has only 3 more years to go, and who knows who will take over after him? Unlike most Americans, I'm willing to let him try while he still can, and I'm willing to permit three more years of non-slavery. I'm not willing to needlessly start a revolution, just because some cloudy organisation tells so. Not only would the winning government be much much worse than before, hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians would die in just the ATTEMPT to fight the US military. And would I be an outlet, I would see this too. I don't get how Wikileaks can't see what damage his files created, and not feel responsible.

But I understand your point of view, and I can't force you to stop believing. I can only warn.

I hope I wasn't harsh with you.


posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 10:45 PM
Well, I think you managed to imply that I was saying all the things your OP argued against (which you could then argue against again), none of which I actually said nor meant, and several of which I stated clearly I didn't support in my initial post. I suppose this makes debates more consistent, but you're not really debating me, in that case. :-)

As I said in my first post, I am not advocating revolution. There is no point to that. We are too large.

Nor would I ever make the USA out to be impossibly horrid, though it is on a clear track to replicating mistakes from history likely to not end well for any of us.

It is your contention from OP that people are ranting about revolution and its the fault of WikiLeaks.

I merely point out that to whatever degree people may be doing so, causation/fault rests at home. WikiLeaks is not responsible for the well being of any company or government. That literally contradicts the entire point of being unbiased and international. If governments do not want dirty secrets becoming public they should cease to do dirty things.

In terms of the dynamics of it -- e.g. my reference to economic hardship making people miserable, or poor education causing the mass populace to not clearly see the likely end-result of their (revolutionary) actions -- by this I mean to imply that we (the USA today) are part of a spectrum of a repeating pattern throughout history; most of this is not new. Are we as poor, dumbed-down or miserable as we can and probably will be? As 3rd world countries often are? Of course not. Does that matter to revolution? Probably not.

The French revolution was, by my fuzzy recall, not caused by the poorest people in the worst situations, although it is their backbone that supports the fight when there is nothing left to lose. Middle class people, lower to upper, when forced into situations (economically) they feel are injust to their expectations, are the ones most likely to throw a revolutionary fit about it. You might say that lifetime poverty becomes habit, but sudden even 'comparative' poverty in those not raised that way becomes rage looking for an outlet.

For example in the recent revolutions in the East, it was not new that there was poverty. Lots of their countries had tons of people in poverty since 'forever' pretty much. It was when the middle class were suddenly thrown into poverty by the economic situation that things blew up.

I find revolution unlikely to occur here, because the gov't has such a lock on mass media, because most people aren't miserable enough yet, and because I trust the gov't to work hard to get guns and ammo out of many more hands, and continue to create social bias against anyone supporting the freedoms previously considered a given, before they really do something likely to catalyze country-wide reaction. Won't really matter at that point.

So, no worries about how the peasants are going to revolt and upset the USA and why it's WikiLeaks' fault; it's not WikiLeaks' fault, but the chance that the peasants would succeed in anything more than getting a lot of themselves imprisoned and killed and getting yet more oppressive laws is unlikely anyway. Since revolution is a big bloody mess, I suppose that's probably a good thing.


posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 05:20 AM
reply to post by starheart

Wikileaks did a great job in the beginning, when Domscheit-Berg was there to review and edit the files so that no harm was done.
But I would have gladly wished that Wikileaks would have never released all those 400 000 un-edited files against the US. Already that the media and "loose" organisations were starting to promote revolution, it was really not a good idea to dump all those files in the minds of people already starting to hate the government.

I hear guys like you all the time...and I just don't get it. If truth hurts you...than you're doing something wrong. Period.

You seem to care more for the US to conceal the lying the cheating the killing...just so the people don't hate the Gov. How very noble of you.

In the end...when you protect these things that have are only protecting higher financial are not protecting the American people.

I really don't understand human beings who feel that interests, politics and economics come before the truth. If innocent people have been hurt by exposing Govt deceit and lies...than I'm sorry my friend...but it's not Assange's's the fault of those who deceived and lied. Everything has a price...especially lies.

It eventually comes back to bite you in the ass.

"In a time of pervasive lying, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 09:09 AM

swanne It is hardly a neutral party if we can't know who's feeding the information.

Well, but that does not make WikiLeaks non-neutral, it makes the sources suspect as having their own bias. That is always the case. Nobody submits secret information about their company or country or military without having a reason, or in short, a bias.

That some biases are more noble, or at least more personal, versus mercenary and political, is probably a given, but this would go for everything across the board, not just US government stuff.

If you follow your logic to its conclusion however, what you see is basically: "It isn't fair that our enemies' people aren't submitting as much of their evil as our own people are submitting."

I'm sure this is a lot funnier for people who aren't Americans...

I admit this is unfortunate for the USA's good name (if it had one), but what cause/blame exists for that seems injust to attribute to WikiLeaks. It exists. Certain dynamics and issues will come about merely because it exists. How our country handles those, and whether we are affected by it because we can't quit doing evil it seems and our people (or anonymous) can't quit submitting it, is up to us.

Since the smaller party cannot use force without triggering a war which it would lose, the smaller party leaks "truth" about the greater party, thus providing a leverage to influence the greater party. Perhaps to influence the US government towards a more Left-ist direction?

Given the current issues in national politics in the USA, I really don't think we should be so worried about people attempting to further coup the founding intent from outside. Really, our own politicians are doing more than enough destruction from the inside. Which isn't to say destruction cannot be aided from all directions, I suppose.

To show the US that Wikileaks won't hesitate to leak if the US makes a mistake, Wikileaks periodically leaks "truth" about the government.

Well hang on, that is where you suddenly went out on an unsupported limb by reframing reality there. WikiLeaks publishes what people submit. We can attribute all the bad-intent we want to the sources of submission. But implying that WikiLeaks is itself operating as a Machiavellian manipulator of big-bad-us does not seem supportable to me. I see no indicators that they are refraining from publishing submitted material of other parties; or publishing only certain material regarding the USA; in fact this is kind of the point of simply publishing everything they get, like 400,000 pages. Because if they didn't, it would mean someone was arbitrarily, from within WL, filtering, and it seems clear they are pointedly making an effort NOT to do that.

This tactic, know for ages, is called "blackmail". Where the blackmailer uses truth as a weapon. Sure, truth in itself may appear noble and just, but this is only a mean to achieve something far more darker.

By that logic, if I tell my next-door neighbor, "If I see you breaking into the house across the street again, I'm going to report you," then I am 'blackmailing' him. Blackmail is a different thing than threatening to tattle on someone's bad behavior. Can it be used as leverage, sure that's the point of warning them, but that's still not blackmail. In order for your analogy to truly qualify as blackmail, the USA itself would have to do or not-do something at the demand of WikiLeaks or be at risk of some other harm. But since the only implication seems to be that the US govt should not-do things illegal and unethical even by their own laws, and since the only way such things go public is if they fail to keep it a secret in one way or another, I find it difficult to be sympathetic.

Now, who would want to blackmail the US government, or, at least, direct its media and people to a more left-ist direction? Well, what about an old communist or national-socialist party? Perhaps the Russians realized that a physical MAD (mutually assured destruction) was a very real threat during the Cold War. Perhaps they also realized that by steering the masses of the Western democratic, they could actually turn most North-Americans into extreme Left, or Communist, sympathizers (Operation Infektion). Perhaps China realized this. Perhaps the remainders of Nazi Germany realized this (Operation Paperclip). All of these dogmas would have a very strong motive in conveniently exposing "shocking truth" about the Western world.

You are late to this party. It's all true and all old news and WikiLeaks isn't responsible for any of that.

And it's already done. There's just a few strong roots still holding that big tree's momentum from where it was undermined and is tipping.

Now, from where does Wikileaks receives its shocking informations? That's the point: nobody can know.

I think a better point is that it doesn't matter, because if the US is going to do stupid evil crap that gets exposed, then the US is responsible for doing stupid evil crap. The bad guys are not the guys exposing it, even if it IS our enemies (though I am happy to call them bad guys in general merely for being our enemies, the reality is, if we'd quit doing stupid evil crap, they would have nothing to expose us for).

We can't just discard the possibility that perhaps alot of "shocking truths" are dug up by Anonymous member having tie to communists, neonazis, or even mafia organizations, in an attempt to re-structure the Western world according to their conveniences and

Oh sure -- this is a certainty. It's already a given. Many if not most of the best hackers in the world probably live in countries that range from a different political system (e.g. Sweden) to a radically different political system (e.g. China). Of course, we are now talking about Anonymous and not about WikiLeaks.

Here we are blaming WikiLeaks for existing, because "an outlet for truth" allows "some people to use the truth to their advantage, by reporting some truths and not others." Yep, it's true. Yep, it sucks. One assumes our country is attempting to hack well enough to find inconvenient secrets of our enemies and submit them to WikiLeaks through third parties, that is when we're not busy trying to kill off WikiLeaks' founder. This same dynamic has been going on since the movable press was invented.

I don't disagree that it is bad for the USA in several respects. I simply feel, as a human with integrity, that the responsibility lies with the USA, and not with the rest of the world to keep silent to spare us discomfort.

Truth... are the new kind of bombs. Bombs which no armour can shield against.

Truth about who is doing what stupid evil crap. I still find the perpetrators of such to be the guilty parties, not those tattling on them to the world.


posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by RedCairo

I merely point out that to whatever degree people may be doing so, causation/fault rests at home. WikiLeaks is not responsible for the well being of any company or government. That literally contradicts the entire point of being unbiased and international. If governments do not want dirty secrets becoming public they should cease to do dirty things. ....

..... So, no worries about how the peasants are going to revolt and upset the USA and why it's WikiLeaks' fault; it's not WikiLeaks' fault, but the chance that the peasants would succeed in anything more than getting a lot of themselves imprisoned and killed and getting yet more oppressive laws is unlikely anyway. Since revolution is a big bloody mess, I suppose that's probably a good thing.


If that is your final opinion, I will then gladly withdraw from the debate between us. Both of our opinions has an equal chance of being right or wrong; only time will tell.

So, Happy Halloween, and I hope there's no hard feelings between the two of us.

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 06:02 AM
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

You seem to care more for the US to conceal the lying the cheating the killing...just so the people don't hate the Gov. How very noble of you.

In the end...when you protect these things that have are only protecting higher financial are not protecting the American people.

I really don't understand human beings who feel that interests, politics and economics come before the truth.

You seem to believe that I'm a high Elite celebrity.

I can assure you, I'm only a little blip in Canada who actually sees history repeat itself.

I have no higher financial interests to protect when I'm suggesting that Assange kickstarted a great deal of pro-revolutionary thoughts amongst the population; I have the said population's survival in mind.

As for you, you don't seem to understand that lives of millions is worthier to save than expose 750 000 documents about one deed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this, without even one certainty to the authencity of these documents.

All the attention of the people has been drawn to the US, and to how corrupt the US has become.
Nobody thought of looking in Europe and Asia, where all the big banks and corporations actually running the US are headquartered.
If the population overthrow the US government, they overthrow the puppet, not the puppeteer. And the puppeteer will start another show somewhere else.
All the attention has been drawn for the last 3 years to the puppet; nobody seems to realise that the puppeteer is not from the US.

Just saying.

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 06:08 AM
I think it all started out with good intentions. They released that helicopter gun ship massacare, so the you es could see where they're tax dollars are going to kill innocent civilians. But then I think it all got coopted by the system. They got to Julian, coopted him, and same with the webiste. They leave it up, but only allow marginally alternative leaks, but nothing all that more shcoking than what you can get from the freedom of information act. Nothing highly Top Sec. Just very basic stuff that you could find on a lot of other regular 6oclock news shows. So it's been raigned in by tptb if you ask me.

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by starheart

Hopefully whatever comes to pass will turn out well enough to surprise us all. :-)

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 05:32 PM
IMO, Assange (and all like him) are what our dear government likes to refer to as "cognitive infiltration". It would really be nice to believe the world is big enough to hide from TPTB or that there's anything they wouldn't do to stop him if he was for real but please think about this for a minute.

I take everything I see in the media under consideration but it's just too hard to believe any of it.

I think he is there to make us believe someone is spilling the beans so we won't think there are any more really dark secrets.
edit on 3-11-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in